[quote]mertdawg wrote:
You know, thinking about it I’d almost not want a football player who could do too many reps in the bench press. Too much slow twitch muscle fiber. [/quote]
True.
I also wouldnt want a football player who could do too many reps in the bench press with 700lbs. Too much slow twitch muscle fiber.
lol
Barry Sanders didn’t have the velocity that Bo Jackson did at that time on hitting the hole and running people over, but awesome cutting ability and lateral quickness. He had no O-line protecting him during his time at Detroit, and how many rushing yards he got? Barry WAS the team, and the opposing team knew he was always going to get the ball. He got the ball and made players look silly as he would swerve and cut around them.
Makes you wonder what Barry’s career would have been like if he played for Dallas or San Francisco.
[quote]elars21 wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
when it comes down to it, the guy with more reps is the guy with the higher max. this is not a platz/hatfield sitiation. this is guys who play the same sport the same way.
im training myself for the combines and when thinking of the different ways i can get 30 reps it always means i’ll have a hyooge max.
The first paragraph is not true. For example there are relatively explosive lineman and there are slow lineman, usually from HIT schools. They may play the same sport, but there training and genetics can be quite different.
Where do you play? Please make sense of that 2nd paragraph.[/quote]
you addressed a different point than i did. i was addressing the difference between Platz and Hatfield. they trained very differently, and it showed. football players dont. they train and play pretty much the same way (for power and power endurance). because of this the guy who can bench 225 more will also be stronger (give or take a few reps because of fiber makeup, lactate threshold, leverage, stength/power endurance, etc.)
c’mon, does anybody actually think that a football player could rep 225 30 times with only a 315 max? it may be possible if one trained like Platz (actually it is categorically impossible), but that person would be a terrible footballer that he wouldn’t even be playing.
very few people actually know what they’re talking about concerning fiber makeup (and those who do, im sure, realize that they know so little). for all practical purposes it is 100% cowshit.
i dont play anywhere. injury took me away from sports during my teens, but if you got the gift you got the gift. i’ve got it and im gonna make it happen.
my second paragraph addressed the fact that i could put 135 on and rep for 30 then try and build to 225, put 225 on and rep out until im able to get 30 in one set, keep reps low and add weight to the bar while supplementing higher rep stuff, etc. each one of these scenarios would up my max because of the simple fact that power expression during each concentric would be MAXIMAL EFFORT. and last time i checked, a maximal effort medicine ball throws are very high intensity.
[quote]ConorM wrote:
But when 225 is so little to some players it doesn’t mean much. I mean the guy with higher reps is strongest? They want to test the strength of NFL candidates yes? To know who is the strongest, well surely a 225 rep bench test is an extremely poor way to do this? Even a keg tossing contest would be preferable at least then they would have some idea of explosiveness.[/quote]
225 is not little to anybody. rep that shit out as fast as possible and you’ll realize. granted that addresses strength endurance quite a bit, but it doesn’t mean it’s bad for football players. football is not PL or OL. pure power lacking power endurance will get you very little in football.
the 225 test may not be the greatest test, but how easy is it to bitch about it (not nesecelery you, but everybody) instead of actually getting good at it? the only reason to not get good at it if you play football would be if it were deleterious to your game. newsflash: it’s not.
putting 225 on the bar, lying on your back, repping as fast as possible to failure is in no way, shape, or form a slow twitch exercise.
Makes you wonder what Barry’s career would have been like if he played for Dallas or San Francisco. [/quote]
or Buffalo 1989 - 1994
Dude I know most don’t get caught. You just reminded me of a couple of cool times people stuck with it and ran someone down.
I never knew that about Sanders. I also heard another stat that he lost more yards than anyone else in NFL history. Not hard to believe when you look at his style, but kind of makes the fact he gained so many yards more impressive. He’s good to say what if. What if he didn’t retire. What if he played for a good team. What if he had wanted big stats.
[quote]BIGERIC wrote:
Makes you wonder what Barry’s career would have been like if he played for Dallas or San Francisco.
or Buffalo 1989 - 1994[/quote]
I highly doubt Barry would lose his helmet on the bench in the Super Bowl.
The most impressive come-from-behind instance of speed I think I ever saw in high school, college, or pro was the Sugar Bowl when Miami and Alabama played for the NC. George Teague, I think it was, blew his assignment, chased down the receiver, and ripped the ball from the dude and ran 40 yards the other way with it.
Teague(?) was so badly beaten at the beginning that it look like an automatic Miami touchdown.
[quote]JuniorVarsity wrote:
The most impressive come-from-behind instance of speed I think I ever saw in high school, college, or pro was the Sugar Bowl when Miami and Alabama played for the NC. George Teague, I think it was, blew his assignment, chased down the receiver, and ripped the ball from the dude and ran 40 yards the other way with it.
Teague(?) was so badly beaten at the beginning that it look like an automatic Miami touchdown. [/quote]
I remember that play! The one I remember most though is when Darrel Green of the Redskins chased down Tony Dorsett after being about 10 yards behind him and on the other side of the field. Dorsett could not believe he’d been caught.
[quote]strongFB wrote:
Having a BIG three means absolutely nothing. NFL players are born with something different, whether you like it or not, they are special ball players. Yes a 5 works their tales off, but just the same fact there is a % that doesnt.
SP[/quote]
???
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I think that since the players all know they’ll be doing 225 for reps, it gives some gauge as to whether the player has worked hard or not in the weight room. And it does have some corrrelations, mostly that the guys wo can do too many reps often have problems (but arm length is a big factor).
Anyway, I read that Arnold benched
225 x 57, and 315 x 34 and he was clearly the dominant football player of our generation.[/quote]
You have to realise that most of what bodybuilders say/is said about them is absolute horseshit. Especially a mythic figure like Arnold. Did you hear how he expanded his ribcage with pullovers?
[quote]JuniorVarsity wrote:
Barry Sanders didn’t have the velocity that Bo Jackson did at that time on hitting the hole and running people over, but awesome cutting ability and lateral quickness. He had no O-line protecting him during his time at Detroit, and how many rushing yards he got? Barry WAS the team, and the opposing team knew he was always going to get the ball. He got the ball and made players look silly as he would swerve and cut around them.
Makes you wonder what Barry’s career would have been like if he played for Dallas or San Francisco. [/quote]
That’s an interesting question. In some ways his bad line almost set him up because there were so many defensive players in the backfield-seriously. I remember reading a couple of coaches who said that they thought Barry was not valuable because he lost yards on 30% of his runs, and gained less than 2 yards on another 35 %-by FAR the worst percentage of runs for legitimate gains in league history.
You look at his yards run-by-run for most games and it would be something like 0, 1, -1, 14, 0, 1, 23…
The most important purpose of a running game is to get 3+ yards on first down as often as possible because it gives you so many more options to get a first down in the next 2 plays. Get 1 yard on first down and your options get cut in half.
Also, depite all the yards, Barry had very few TDs in his career.
Now, for me, Barry Sanders is probably my favorite running back of all time, and had talents that no other running back ever had, but I’m just saying that it would have been real interesting to see how he adapted his game if he HAD been on a team with a line and other threats. I remember that early in his career he was known for being a very powerful endzone runner, but again, running that way for a career could have beat him up a lot more.
Also, don’t forget, he played in a division that always stressed run-defense and I guess considering that, he did what he had to do with his running style to beat them.
Oh yea, and Bo Jackson. Only player with 3 89+ yard runs. Had the longest career ending run in history (36 yards) and only played what 36 games!
You guys can keep your Barry Sanders. I’m 40+ and the best running back of my era was ,without doubt, #34 Walter Payton.
Except for 2 or 3 yrs., heplayed on terible teams. he always moved forward and NEVER went out of bounds. Now that was a T-Man.
RIP sir Walter.
where was barry’s fullback? oh yeah, they left him back at the university. you know, the one where barry made defenses look peewee.
detroit shoulda hung the lions coach for that stoopid run n shoot.
barry was the best and nobody can argue otherwise;) put him where emmitt smith was with dallas and every other NFL team would’ve resigned.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
where was barry’s fullback? oh yeah, they left him back at the university. you know, the one where barry made defenses look peewee.
detroit shoulda hung the lions coach for that stoopid run n shoot.
barry was the best and nobody can argue otherwise;) put him where emmitt smith was with dallas and every other NFL team would’ve resigned.[/quote]
I’m not trying to argue here, but some say that offense was actually suited better to Barry’s style than would a traditional format. Take that for what it’s worth.
Dallas was awesome in the 90’s. Certainly a large part of Emmit’s success. But E.Smith was top notch in my book as well. And a true professional.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
I’m not trying to argue here, but some say that offense was actually suited better to Barry’s style than would a traditional format. Take that for what it’s worth.
[/quote]
ive heard that before, but i think it’s pretty much bunk when you see that barry tore up in college and had a fullback.
also, it’s said that he couldn’t run down the middle or make contact easily. i disagree. his line never gave him holes cuz they sucked so he had to adapt to making his own holes.
if you watch his college or especially high school stuff you see him tear it up so much that if he was self-centered he’d have broken every NFL running back record in existence.
[quote]wufwugy wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I’m not trying to argue here, but some say that offense was actually suited better to Barry’s style than would a traditional format. Take that for what it’s worth.
ive heard that before, but i think it’s pretty much bunk when you see that barry tore up in college and had a fullback.
also, it’s said that he couldn’t run down the middle or make contact easily. i disagree. his line never gave him holes cuz they sucked so he had to adapt to making his own holes.
if you watch his college or especially high school stuff you see him tear it up so much that if he was self-centered he’d have broken every NFL running back record in existence.[/quote]
Oh I gotta disagree. Barry Sanders was a great, great back, but his style was to bounce around in the backfield because he just was not a north/south runner. I’ve heard a lot of people saying with the Dallas O-line, what could he have done? Really? About the same. He consistenly led the league in rushes for loss because of that style (which also at times allowed him to rip off those 25,50,75 yard beauties as well). Emmitt Smith was not fast, but had great vision and hit the holes the O-lined opened for him. It’s not like everyone can do that (and quite frankly, his first few big season, the O-line was decent, but not spectacular and he made them look better than they were).
So, while I like Barry, I agree with whoever wrote that the run game is all about consistently getting 3, 4 and 5 yards. Barry could not even be used in goal line situations because of his running style.
And as you can all well tell by now… I’m a VERY biased Emmitt Smith fan. LOL
Kuz
[quote]Kuz wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I’m not trying to argue here, but some say that offense was actually suited better to Barry’s style than would a traditional format. Take that for what it’s worth.
ive heard that before, but i think it’s pretty much bunk when you see that barry tore up in college and had a fullback.
also, it’s said that he couldn’t run down the middle or make contact easily. i disagree. his line never gave him holes cuz they sucked so he had to adapt to making his own holes.
if you watch his college or especially high school stuff you see him tear it up so much that if he was self-centered he’d have broken every NFL running back record in existence.
Oh I gotta disagree. Barry Sanders was a great, great back, but his style was to bounce around in the backfield because he just was not a north/south runner. I’ve heard a lot of people saying with the Dallas O-line, what could he have done? Really? About the same. He consistenly led the league in rushes for loss because of that style (which also at times allowed him to rip off those 25,50,75 yard beauties as well). Emmitt Smith was not fast, but had great vision and hit the holes the O-lined opened for him. It’s not like everyone can do that (and quite frankly, his first few big season, the O-line was decent, but not spectacular and he made them look better than they were).
So, while I like Barry, I agree with whoever wrote that the run game is all about consistently getting 3, 4 and 5 yards. Barry could not even be used in goal line situations because of his running style.
And as you can all well tell by now… I’m a VERY biased Emmitt Smith fan. LOL
Kuz[/quote]
how bout the fact that his line couldn’t give him a hole if their lives depended on it? i likes to think that barry lost yards cuz he had to make his own holes.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
I think that since the players all know they’ll be doing 225 for reps, it gives some gauge as to whether the player has worked hard or not in the weight room. And it does have some corrrelations, mostly that the guys wo can do too many reps often have problems (but arm length is a big factor).
Anyway, I read that Arnold benched
225 x 57, and 315 x 34 and he was clearly the dominant football player of our generation.[/quote]
Sorry but Arnold was a great bodybuilder but 225 for 57, NO WAY! My curent trainer who is 59 and happened to go to a few gyms back in the day said on a good day 315 maybe for a triple
[quote]JuniorVarsity wrote:
BIGERIC wrote:
Makes you wonder what Barry’s career would have been like if he played for Dallas or San Francisco.
or Buffalo 1989 - 1994
I highly doubt Barry would lose his helmet on the bench in the Super Bowl.[/quote]
I was at that game. We couldn’t figure out Why Thurman didn’t start the game.