Expectations for Strength & Conditioning this off season

[ramblin_man]

After a impressive year of gains for so many individual players I am interested to see what the plans are for them this winter/off season. I saw where CGC wants every player (average out) to gain 10 lbs. across the board. Of course you want that to be good weight gain and not just fat to achieve that gain.
Which position group needs it the most? I also believe that I read that CGC wants even bigger weight gains on the lines OL/DL alike.
Where do you all see the biggest gains coming this winter/offseason? Maybe CGC will high light some more of the players who have benefited the most from the new S&C coach.

 

[ibeattetris]

I think in the UGA game the announcers said CGC was going to have an offseason program to try to get the entire roster to gain ten pounds per player. I am not sure what the time line is, but with a surplus of 500 calories a day the players would gain a pound a week. Each position group will want to maintain certain body fat ratios so some may have to go longer and then cut body fat.

I’m looking forward to some more transformations in the off season.

 

[ramblin_man]

It’s been impressive. I hope his bond with GCG keeps him a GT for a long time!

 

[takethepoints]

I'm not as sure about this as the rest of you. What I would concentrate on in the off season conditioning program is … conditioning. Our guys put on a considerable amount of weight in the off season and you could look at what happened in the early weeks of the season: they all slowed down considerably and lost flexibility. You can expect this from quick weight gains. By the end of the season this wasn't as much in evidence, probably because the guys lost weight as the season progressed. What I'd concentrate on is not to try to transform 310 guy to a 325 guy, but to get the 310 guy really used to his weight and able to move it effectively at the start of the season. We actually have plenty of size coming back, but those people need to solidify their guts and strengthen their legs.

This is not the case for some of our lineman; there's no general rule here. I'd keep Hansen where he is (315) and see if I could get Clark (295) to gain the 10 pounds. But I think our lines on both sides would benefit from more conditioning and less bulking up.

 

[bos]

CGC won't just take every player on the roster and make them 10 lbs heavier. They will look at it from an individual players perspective. So for the 3 guys who weigh 310 +, and guys like Tariq Carpenter and Jalen Camp the focus will be more on mobility. For most of the roster, weight gain is a must for this team to be competitive.

 

[ibeattetris]

CGC won't just take every player on the roster and make them 10 lbs heavier. They will look at it from an individual players perspective. So for the 3 guys who weigh 310 +, and guys like Tariq Carpenter and Jalen Camp the focus will be more on mobility. For most of the roster, weight gain is a must for this team to be competitive.

I was just commenting on what was said by the announcers. I’d love to hear what CGC’s plans are.

I'm not as sure about this as the rest of you. What I would concentrate on in the off season conditioning program is … conditioning. Our guys put on a considerable amount of weight in the off season and you could look at what happened in the early weeks of the season: they all slowed down considerably and lost flexibility. You can expect this from quick weight gains. By the end of the season this wasn't as much in evidence, probably because the guys lost weight as the season progressed. What I'd concentrate on is not to try to transform 310 guy to a 325 guy, but to get the 310 guy really used to his weight and able to move it effectively at the start of the season. We actually have plenty of size coming back, but those people need to solidify their guts and strengthen their legs.

This is not the case for some of our lineman; there's no general rule here. I'd keep Hansen where he is (315) and see if I could get Clark (295) to gain the 10 pounds. But I think our lines on both sides would benefit from more conditioning and less bulking up.

Considering we use technology that tracks our players performance, there is no reason to think we couldn’t leverage that to detect how the weight gain is impacting performance. Gaining 10 pounds over 9 months while maintaining performance (if not improving it) should only be an issue if the player is already at their body’s max (which is hard to believe for players this young.

 

[Ramblinwreck6887]

We need to work on getting more sideline to sideline speed if you watch most of your teams in the top 10 they have linebackers and d-lineman chasing down rbs

 

[Lavoisier]

I think it depends on where they see some of these guys' futures. TK is a perfect size for the 3-tech right now, but he needs to get bigger if they see him as a 0.

 

[33jacket]

Ajc story says we are so small as a team we rank 115 in fbs in team size. Not sure what determines this metric.

But potentially the munchkin notion of tech under the old recruiting style is true.

Unfortunately in some cases this cant be remedied with working out. Its recruiting.

Gonna take time.

 

[TheFlyest]

The linebackers hell the entire front seven definitely need an extra 10lbs. The issue for me is will that limit their lateral quickness and speed?

The OLine needs 10lbs of good muscle mass. The secondary is fine but maybe Tre. If anything the secondary may need to increase speed.

 

[Jacketsfan99]

After a impressive year of gains for so many individual players I am interested to see what the plans are for them this winter/off season. I saw where CGC wants every player (average out) to gain 10 lbs. across the board. Of course you want that to be good weight gain and not just fat to achieve that gain.
Which position group needs it the most? I also believe that I read that CGC wants even bigger weight gains on the lines OL/DL alike.
Where do you all see the biggest gains coming this winter/offseason? Maybe CGC will high light some more of the players who have benefited the most from the new S&C coach.

I think the line on both sides needs to be bigger and stronger but I’d start with the offensive line — we were getting little, if any, push against UGA and pass blocking was inconsistent all season

 

[Jacketsfan99]

I'm not as sure about this as the rest of you. What I would concentrate on in the off season conditioning program is … conditioning. Our guys put on a considerable amount of weight in the off season and you could look at what happened in the early weeks of the season: they all slowed down considerably and lost flexibility. You can expect this from quick weight gains. By the end of the season this wasn't as much in evidence, probably because the guys lost weight as the season progressed. What I'd concentrate on is not to try to transform 310 guy to a 325 guy, but to get the 310 guy really used to his weight and able to move it effectively at the start of the season. We actually have plenty of size coming back, but those people need to solidify their guts and strengthen their legs.

This is not the case for some of our lineman; there's no general rule here. I'd keep Hansen where he is (315) and see if I could get Clark (295) to gain the 10 pounds. But I think our lines on both sides would benefit from more conditioning and less bulking up.

We’re competing against bigger, stronger players so our guys need to be bigger and stronger

 

[takethepoints]

We’re competing against bigger, stronger players so our guys need to be bigger and stronger

This is a fetish around here. Actually, our OL was almost always bigger then the DLs we went up against. And usually the opposing DLs were about the same size as ours. This is the way it usually goes. I had a little time on my hands so I looked at the starting lineups for Tech and our opponents. Here's a selection that includes our usual starting lineup (it's the one for UNC) before injuries on DL really hit us and those of our Coastal opponents, OL first then DL:

Tech| 295, 314, 305 (Lay), 305, 310 / 275, 285, 302, 258 (that's with Dawson and Owens)

Duke| 295, 315, 305, 315, 305 / 265, 285, 305, 255

da U| 285, 345, 301, 310, 300 / 256, 306, 290, 260

Pitt| 320, 310, 305, 315, 320 / 260, 290, 295, 265

UVA| 285, 315, 305, 305, 300 / 225, 300, 295 (they use a 3 man front)

VT| 311, 316, 305, 305, 300 / 239, 290, 288, 245

NCSU| 308, 300, 305, 323, 290 / 289, 315, 291, 256

Now, let's look at Clempson and Ugag:

Tiggers| 345, 330 310, 325, 315 / 249, 295, 295, 265

Ugag| 320, 335, 330, 318, 340 / 300, 304, 274

I think the problem here is that everybody is predicating how big our lineman should be based on two outlier cases: Clemson and Ugag. Those outfits have bigger then normal OLs and DLs. And, yes, it would be nice to have linemen like they do. But … so far, despite heroic efforts and finding some top grade linemen on both sides of the ball, Tech hasn't been able to recruit them regularly. Compared to our Coastal opponents (btw, I had to leave out UNC; no data), we stack up ok in terms of size though some outfits (Pitt, especially) have more size in depth then Tech does. And some of those players do need to beef up and probably will. Overall, however, the complaints about line sizes simply don't hold up when the data is considered.*

* One caveat: the sizes given for linemen by programs are notoriously inaccurate. The best that can be said is that the weights given are probably what the players are carrying when the season started. It's not unusual for that figure to fluctuate down, sometimes by as much as 15 pounds. No way to tell, of course.
Source: https://ramblinwreck.com/2019-football-game-notes-depth-charts/

 

[bobongo]

We’re competing against bigger, stronger players so our guys need to be bigger and stronger

Mainly stronger. It's easy to put on 10 pounds. It's a lot harder to put it on in the right places, and maintain speed and flexibility. It's a good thing that we're recruiting bigger frames, but players who can't carry the weight without compromising their conditioning should stay where they are.

Some of them just need to move the weight from the gut to the upper body and thighs, and I'm thinking of one 315 pound OL in particular.

 

[GTRambler]

Look for our team to continue lifting dumb bells in pregame warmups next season.

 

[YJMD]

This is a fetish around here. Actually, our OL was almost always bigger then the DLs we went up against. And usually the opposing DLs were about the same size as ours. This is the way it usually goes. I had a little time on my hands so I looked at the starting lineups for Tech and our opponents. Here's a selection that includes our usual starting lineup (it's the one for UNC) before injuries on DL really hit us and those of our Coastal opponents, OL first then DL:

Tech| 295, 314, 305 (Lay), 305, 310 / 275, 285, 302, 258 (that's with Dawson and Owens)

Duke| 295, 315, 305, 315, 305 / 265, 285, 305, 255

da U| 285, 345, 301, 310, 300 / 256, 306, 290, 260

Pitt| 320, 310, 305, 315, 320 / 260, 290, 295, 265

UVA| 285, 315, 305, 305, 300 / 225, 300, 295 (they use a 3 man front)

VT| 311, 316, 305, 305, 300 / 239, 290, 288, 245

NCSU| 308, 300, 305, 323, 290 / 289, 315, 291, 256

Now, let's look at Clempson and Ugag:

Tiggers| 345, 330 310, 325, 315 / 249, 295, 295, 265

Ugag| 320, 335, 330, 318, 340 / 300, 304, 274

I think the problem here is that everybody is predicating how big our lineman should be based on two outlier cases: Clemson and Ugag. Those outfits have bigger then normal OLs and DLs. And, yes, it would be nice to have linemen like they do. But … so far, despite heroic efforts and finding some top grade linemen on both sides of the ball, Tech hasn't been able to recruit them regularly. Compared to our Coastal opponents (btw, I had to leave out UNC; no data), we stack up ok in terms of size though some outfits (Pitt, especially) have more size in depth then Tech does. And some of those players do need to beef up and probably will. Overall, however, the complaints about line sizes simply don't hold up when the data is considered.*

* One caveat: the sizes given for linemen by programs are notoriously inaccurate. The best that can be said is that the weights given are probably what the players are carrying when the season started. It's not unusual for that figure to fluctuate down, sometimes by as much as 15 pounds. No way to tell, of course.
Source: https://ramblinwreck.com/2019-football-game-notes-depth-charts/

We're still relatively undersized, but not by much. I think the difference also relates to depth. Aside from that, weight itself doesn't tell a complete story. Certainly for the kind of blocking we are trying to do on the line, length is very important, and not simply height although there's an obvious correlation. Results clearly show we're lacking on both fronts, although not why.

As far as gains go, I'm not looking for something in particular to measure more then engagement and success at whatever specific goals are being selected to measure. It seems our staff understands that playing shape isn't explained by a single or narrow set of metrics. Are they balancing them right? I don't know and wouldn't know better, so I'll focus on what I can measure which is in our interest.

 

[takethepoints]

We're still relatively undersized, but not by much. I think the difference also relates to depth. Aside from that, weight itself doesn't tell a complete story. Certainly for the kind of blocking we are trying to do on the line, length is very important, and not simply height although there's an obvious correlation. Results clearly show we're lacking on both fronts, although not why.

As far as gains go, I'm not looking for something in particular to measure more then engagement and success at whatever specific goals are being selected to measure. It seems our staff understands that playing shape isn't explained by a single or narrow set of metrics. Are they balancing them right? I don't know and wouldn't know better, so I'll focus on what I can measure which is in our interest.

I didn't put down the heights of the players, but Tech stacks up pretty much the same there as well. Lay and Hansen are 6'2", but a lot of the opposing OLs are 6'2 or 3" as well, you can look at the source I provided. The exception among our Coastal opponents is, again, Pitt; they've got 6'5" height two deep everywhere, though it didn't help them much this year. Further, when you look down our depth chart, we actually have more "length" sitting down then in the starting lineup. When all the data is considered here, I don't see anything indicating that "Results clearly show we're lacking on both fronts …". Quite the contrary, in fact. Unless, of course, you think average differences of 1 - 3 pounds or so are significant. Here's the comparison in round numbers of average OL weights; there's no point in doing it for the DLs, as you can see:

Tech| 306, Puke| 307, da U| 308, Pitt| 314, UVA| 302, VT| 307 and, just for good measure, NCSU| 305

Again, except for Pitt, most differences are around 1 - 2 pounds. In short, I think this is a red herring. Our problems on the OL had more to do with nagging injuries to key players, learning new blocking techniques, and getting game experience with a new O then any gross physical or talent differences. And, of course, Clemson and Ugag are tough matchups for everybody.

I agree, however, that some players will need to carry more weight next year (you guys know who you are) and some will have to get in better condition (ditto). We will need that; the incoming frosh OLs and DLs will need a year in the weight room before they are ready for prime time. (There is one exception, I think, but he's on the light side compared to our present lineups.) Our easiest solution would be to move Defoor back to OT and either keep Lay at center and move Cooper to guard or keep Cooper at center (yay!) and let one of the others (Minihan, Clark, Smith, or, if he recovers, Maye) move in at guard. But this will be determined this spring and by who leaves, if any do. We'll see some results of the program then.

 

[YJMD]

When all the data is considered here, I don't see anything indicating that "Results clearly show we're lacking on both fronts …".

By lacking I mean in performance, not necessarily measurables.

I also think your post is a little misleading. Perhaps you should take the average height and weight of the next 5 linemen on either side and compare them to our peers. Picking just one attribute for bench OL or weight of 2 DTs but not the whole position group and line seeing playing time seems like cherry picking to me. But then again I haven't actually collected the data. And I don't care enough to make that effort. We certainly aren't anywhere where we want to be performance-wise on either line, and the staff is looking for bigger bodies to be the future.

 

[bobongo]

Our problems on the OL had more to do with nagging injuries to key players, learning new blocking techniques, and getting game experience with a new O then any gross physical or talent differences. And, of course, Clemson and Ugag are tough matchups for everybody.

Well, they did get better as the year went on.

 

[takethepoints]

[QUOTE="YJMD, post: 670294, member: 1929"But then again I haven't actually collected the data. And I don't care enough to make that effort.[/QUOTE]
You are wrong. Now you're course is clear. Go to the source and refute the numbers. You will. find, btw, that the reserves at other schools - again excluding Pitt - are actually quite comparable to ours. I looked at that before I posted the figures above.