Ball State perspective on new S&C Coach

Submitted by michgoblue on

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?

trussll12

January 21st, 2011 at 4:43 PM ^

I heard that UM changed the weight room and took out the food station.  (Chocolate milk dispensing machine?  More?  I don't know.)  Any idea why the new guy didn't want that around?

Zone Left

January 21st, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^

IMO, the most important quality S&C coaches is their ability to motivate players to push themselves to new physical limits.  The actual program itself is secondary.  Philosophy is great, but the work is what makes players really improve.

ultra-violent

January 21st, 2011 at 5:28 PM ^

"

In Rocky Long, San Diego State football coach Brady Hoke hired a defensive coordinator who for 11 years as head coach at New Mexico made Mountain West Conference offenses as edgy as a parakeet at an alley cat convention.

In Al Borges, Hoke hired an offensive coordinator capable of turning a play drawn up in the dirt into one that turns up in the playbooks of his peers, a man who could find an end zone in midtown Manhattan."

 

Holy hell did Fred jackson write this?

TESOE

January 21st, 2011 at 5:37 PM ^

...there are as many theories of S&C as there are facilities to train.  That is not to say that there isn't a right and wrong in every action...just a lot of room for debate.  One of the reasons I wear earbuds is to prevent the casual meta S&C blab that can take away from actually working out.  

Has any S&C coach ever won a national championship under different head coaches or at different schools for that matter?  We've discussed this before and I don't think anyone came up with one.

Off season workouts also bond the team together.  Barwis is to be credited with doing that very well.  It sounds like Wellman is capable of doing the same.  Hopefully all the concern with method doesn't transcend the team building quality that probably correlates more to winning than anything else.