The following article appeared on TheWolverine.com. Most of it is just fluff about a current Ball State player who is positive and Hoke and Kecklinski (WR Coach).
The part that I found interesting was the last 2 paragraphs:
Orsbon also shared a little scoop on strength and conditioning coach Aaron Wellman while noting that BSU's current strength coach, Mark Naylor, is leaving his current position to join Wellman at Michigan.
"He's not a huge Olympic lifts coach," Orsbon said. "They stress squats and bench press but it's a lot of controlled lifts and heavy sets. They want to get you bigger, stronger, tougher and more explosive to help with your speed."
What I find interesting about this (but only because I am a weight lifter) was that Wellman is not all that into the Oylmpic lifts. This seems to be diametrically opposed to the Barwis philosophy, in which Olympic lifts were the focus. Both Wellman and Barwis are highly respected, but they appear to employ very different styles. My own personal opinion is that both styles have their merits.
My personal opinion (and while I am pretty into this stuff, nobody is lining up to pay me $250,000 a year to do run their S&C program) is that the Olympic lifts work best for O and D linemen. Why? These position players primarily rely on an initial burst of speed/power. This is most directly mirrored by the Olympic style of lifting.
Wide receivers, RBs and defensive backs, on the other hand, require a more sustained burst which certainly benefits from Olympic lifting, but also benefits from controlled, heavy sets. I could go into a discussion of type A / type b muscle fibers, but it would inspire a round of "tl/dr" replies.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?