PE Strength and Conditioning classes

tincup1215 wrote: "So basically we should never practice, never lift, and only show up if we are going to win".

#FeedTheCats

That was exactly my response to him lol

Bighitter11 wrote:I am all about being open to new Ideas and Ways to get the most out of athletes but good lord I think I have had my fill with Tony Holler on twitter.  You would think he died on the cross for all of us.

https://twitter.com/pntrack/status/1098202945999511552

I don't know the context of why he said that. But I do agree, to a certain extent.

I see kids who "work hard" in the weight room. They spend most of their time in the weight room doing burpees and ladder drills and low weight, high rep movements and running laps in the hallway. When those kids are done, they are often a sweaty mess. So while they have "worked hard", I don't really think they have improved themselves athletically.

tincup1215 wrote:Coach Holler can be a little much, he is a self described "heretic".  

But his kid did win the 100 (new state record), 200, and 4x100 won (new state record), and 4x200.

I have watched several of Coach Holler's videos and read lots of stuff he has written. His reputation as a T&F coach is beyond reproach. He has won way too much and has had too many successful kids perform at high levels for it be a fluke or just really good genetics in Plainfield. Any school would be very lucky to have him as a T&F coach.

The problem I have is that T&F IS NOT football. When a kid is running the 100, the other kids aren't trying to tackle him. So, that is the disconnect for me. In high school football, the team with the bigger, stronger guys usually wins because they can physically impose their will on weaker and smaller teams (kind of like what happened in the 1a title game this past season).

I have NEVER walked away after being blown out in a football game saying, "man...those guys were just too fast for us" but I have walked away after a blowout saying, "man, those guys absolutely kicked our ass".

And the other thing is that teams that have really strong kids are also going to have really fast kids. Being strong DOES NOT mean being slow, despite what the TFC true believers espouse. It's not zero sum. You can be strong, explosive, and fast.

I think that is what the TFC guys are missing.

Head Idiot wrote:

Bighitter11 wrote:I am all about being open to new Ideas and Ways to get the most out of athletes but good lord I think I have had my fill with Tony Holler on twitter.  You would think he died on the cross for all of us.

https://twitter.com/pntrack/status/1098202945999511552

When you're constantly surrounded by people that act as if you walk on water, maybe he does think that.

I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but looking at his school's athletic results, it's not like they've set the world ablaze with their astounding athletic success.  Their best sport is baseball which is probably the sport he is least associated with.

But hey, what do I know?

PS- Coaching Twitter is a revolting exercise in dick comparison.

I have had this conversation with a few buddies.

Holler is an assistant football coach, right? And the football team has embraced the TFC philosophy? Other than 2016 when PN was runner-up to a state title, the football program has been...ok. Nothing spectacular. 1 double-digit win season in school history. Lots of seasons in which they are one-and-done in the playoffs. Have made it to the 2nd round a handful of times.

Now...I'm not saying that the TFC approach has hindered PN's success. I certainly don't know anything about the dynamics of south suburban football. But, I think it is fair to ask why Holler's approach has produced such astounding results in T&F but only ho-hum results in football.

19delta wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

Bighitter11 wrote:I am all about being open to new Ideas and Ways to get the most out of athletes but good lord I think I have had my fill with Tony Holler on twitter.  You would think he died on the cross for all of us.

https://twitter.com/pntrack/status/1098202945999511552

When you're constantly surrounded by people that act as if you walk on water, maybe he does think that.

I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but looking at his school's athletic results, it's not like they've set the world ablaze with their astounding athletic success.  Their best sport is baseball which is probably the sport he is least associated with.

But hey, what do I know?

PS- Coaching Twitter is a revolting exercise in dick comparison.

I have had this conversation with a few buddies.

Holler is an assistant football coach, right? And the football team has embraced the TFC philosophy? Other than 2016 when PN was runner-up to a state title, the football program has been...ok. Nothing spectacular. 1 double-digit win season in school history. Lots of seasons in which they are one-and-done in the playoffs.  Have made it to the 2nd round a handful of times.

Now...I'm not saying that the TFC approach has hindered PN's success. I certainly don't know anything about the dynamics of south suburban football. But, I think it is fair to ask why Holler's approach has produced such astounding results in T&F but only ho-hum results in football.

He routinely went after the varsity football program while he was a Frosh coach on how they practiced too much and too long. He said by the end of the season kids were worn down and just wanted it to end.

Sounds like a great assistant coach to have around....

He doesn't coach football anymore...retired from that a year or two ago. He was the head frosh coach and varsity db's coach I believe.

Ill take a Dog over a Cat anyday

Bighitter11 wrote:Ill take a Dog over a Cat anyday

Guys that are cat people have always seemed a little odd to me.

I'm a cat person and I totally agree with that!

I saw on Twitter that Plainfield North has a really good high hurdler who couldn't compete at sectionals due to a hip flexor injury. Did he not do enough RPR? I thought that was the magic bullet?

So, last night I fell into the Twitter rabbit hole and ended up looking at some pages I don't normally peruse and saw a Tweet that talked about how the 1/2A finalists all were represented at the state track meet.  And then said- Coincidence?

The HC of one of those teams then implied that their success was a direct result of track.

The issue I have?  That team was VERY successful in football before they even had a track program.  Like, two state championships successful. I mean, no track at all.  For close to 20 years.

Head Idiot wrote:So, last night I fell into the Twitter rabbit hole and ended up looking at some pages I don't normally peruse and saw a Tweet that talked about how the 1/2A finalists all were represented at the state track meet.  And then said- Coincidence?

The HC of one of those teams then implied that their success was a direct result of track.

The issue I have?  That team was VERY successful in football before they even had a track program.  Like, two state championships successful.  I mean, no track at all.  For close to 20 years.

Saw something similar on Twitter. It is more of a matter of getting your fast kids out for track.

See how the "speed first" thing plays out over time with football. Some programs will sustain success with it over a period of years. Others will have a year or two of success and then look back and realize they were going to be good those years no matter what.

It is not a magic bullet. Even Plainfield North had a rough track season. Got 8th as a team in their sectional and did not qualify many people. Stud hurdler tripped and stud sprinter is nursing a hamstring. He will still win but won't break any records this year.

Those things are still a factor in success.

When it’s all said and done, Center hits it on the head. You can believe or not believe in whatever you want. If kids buy in and your best show up, you’ll probably have a shot.

Is it more beneficial to the track program to get good football players out for track or is it more beneficial to the football team to get good track athletes out for football? My opinion is that football is far more beneficial to track than track is to football.

Having said that, I think for a lot of football players, they would be WAY better off doing track in the spring than baseball. Or even not doing ANY sports in the spring and just concentrate on the weight room (except, of course, for kids who are REALLY good baseball players).

center wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:So, last night I fell into the Twitter rabbit hole and ended up looking at some pages I don't normally peruse and saw a Tweet that talked about how the 1/2A finalists all were represented at the state track meet.  And then said- Coincidence?

The HC of one of those teams then implied that their success was a direct result of track.

The issue I have?  That team was VERY successful in football before they even had a track program.  Like, two state championships successful.  I mean, no track at all.  For close to 20 years.

Saw something similar on Twitter.  It is more of a matter of getting your fast kids out for track.

See how the "speed first" thing plays out over time with football.  Some programs will sustain success with it over a period of years.  Others will have a year or two of success and then look back and realize they were going to be good those years no matter what.

It is not a magic bullet. Even Plainfield North had a rough track season.  Got 8th as a team in their sectional and did not qualify many people.  Stud hurdler tripped and stud sprinter is nursing a hamstring.  He will still win but won't break any records this year.  

Those things are still a factor in success.

I can't believe that is true. They do RPR at Plainfield North.

19delta wrote:Is it more beneficial to the track program to get good football players out for track or is it more beneficial to the football team to get good track athletes out for football? My opinion is that football is far more beneficial to track than track is to football.

Having said that, I think for a lot of football players, they would be WAY better off doing track in the spring than baseball. Or even not doing ANY sports in the spring and just concentrate on the weight room (except, of course, for kids who are REALLY good baseball players).

I'd rather have talented athletes. Our weight program was a joke in high school and we lost 3 games in 4 years.

mc140 wrote:

19delta wrote:Is it more beneficial to the track program to get good football players out for track or is it more beneficial to the football team to get good track athletes out for football? My opinion is that football is far more beneficial to track than track is to football.

Having said that, I think for a lot of football players, they would be WAY better off doing track in the spring than baseball. Or even not doing ANY sports in the spring and just concentrate on the weight room (except, of course, for kids who are REALLY good baseball players).

I'd rather have talented athletes. Our weight program was a joke in high school and we lost 3 games in 4 years.

I like talent

mc140 wrote:

19delta wrote:Is it more beneficial to the track program to get good football players out for track or is it more beneficial to the football team to get good track athletes out for football? My opinion is that football is far more beneficial to track than track is to football.

Having said that, I think for a lot of football players, they would be WAY better off doing track in the spring than baseball. Or even not doing ANY sports in the spring and just concentrate on the weight room (except, of course, for kids who are REALLY good baseball players).

I'd rather have talented athletes. Our weight program was a joke in high school and we lost 3 games in 4 years.

I have been involved with good and bad off-season weight programs. My biggest complaint with off-season lifting is easier than track and kids use it as an excuse. Te Schoo that I sub at, does not push their football players into track by telling them that they will get them bigger and faster. Then I watch them do sprint drills all wrong and never sprint them. Another coach(very successful), I used to work for, has done a complete 180 and pushes his kids to track. I feel that you can count on multi-sport athletes in the clutch because they experience more pressure situations/know how to compete than guys who just play football and lift. I would rather have talented athletes but I feel talent is important but dependability is critical.

19delta wrote:

center wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:So, last night I fell into the Twitter rabbit hole and ended up looking at some pages I don't normally peruse and saw a Tweet that talked about how the 1/2A finalists all were represented at the state track meet.  And then said- Coincidence?

The HC of one of those teams then implied that their success was a direct result of track.

The issue I have?  That team was VERY successful in football before they even had a track program.  Like, two state championships successful.  I mean, no track at all.  For close to 20 years.

Saw something similar on Twitter.  It is more of a matter of getting your fast kids out for track.

See how the "speed first" thing plays out over time with football.  Some programs will sustain success with it over a period of years.  Others will have a year or two of success and then look back and realize they were going to be good those years no matter what.

It is not a magic bullet. Even Plainfield North had a rough track season.  Got 8th as a team in their sectional and did not qualify many people.  Stud hurdler tripped and stud sprinter is nursing a hamstring.  He will still win but won't break any records this year.  

Those things are still a factor in success.

I can't believe that is true. They do RPR at Plainfield North.  

I am super intrigued that he feels the need to put on his coaching Twitter that he's a democratic socialist.

stud sprinter is nursing a hamstring.

He ran a 10.46 today in prelims. Hamstring must be better.

center wrote:stud sprinter is nursing a hamstring.

He ran a 10.46 today in prelims. Hamstring must be better.

They fed him MeowMix before the race.

mc140 wrote:

19delta wrote:Is it more beneficial to the track program to get good football players out for track or is it more beneficial to the football team to get good track athletes out for football? My opinion is that football is far more beneficial to track than track is to football.

Having said that, I think for a lot of football players, they would be WAY better off doing track in the spring than baseball. Or even not doing ANY sports in the spring and just concentrate on the weight room (except, of course, for kids who are REALLY good baseball players).

I'd rather have talented athletes. Our weight program was a joke in high school and we lost 3 games in 4 years.

But that is not the question I asked.

center wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:So, last night I fell into the Twitter rabbit hole and ended up looking at some pages I don't normally peruse and saw a Tweet that talked about how the 1/2A finalists all were represented at the state track meet.  And then said- Coincidence?

The HC of one of those teams then implied that their success was a direct result of track.

The issue I have?  That team was VERY successful in football before they even had a track program.  Like, two state championships successful.  I mean, no track at all.  For close to 20 years.

Saw something similar on Twitter.  It is more of a matter of getting your fast kids out for track.

See how the "speed first" thing plays out over time with football.  Some programs will sustain success with it over a period of years.  Others will have a year or two of success and then look back and realize they were going to be good those years no matter what.

It is not a magic bullet. Even Plainfield North had a rough track season.  Got 8th as a team in their sectional and did not qualify many people.  Stud hurdler tripped and stud sprinter is nursing a hamstring.  He will still win but won't break any records this year.  

Those things are still a factor in success.

A lot of the "Feed the Cats" guys keep saying that after a certain point, getting stronger does not translate into getting faster. Now, that may or may not be true. However, it seems to be that a double BW squat is "strong enough"...a magic number,so to speak.

Well, no sh1t! A double bodyweight squat is very impressive for ANYONE, especially a high school kid! So they are putting the cart WAY before the horse. For me, the simple message is that if you don't have many kids who can squat double body weight, your focus should be on strength, not speed (at least in regards to football).

Having multiple kids on your team who can squat double bodyweight is a luxury most high school coaches will never get to enjoy.