Strength and Conditioning Practices of National Football ...football1.ir/attachments/article/115/1.pdf · of strength and conditioning variables such as strength training, program

48

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2001, 15(1), 48–58q 2001 National Strength & Conditioning Association

Strength and Conditioning Practices of NationalFootball League Strength and ConditioningCoaches

WILLIAM P. EBBEN1 AND DOUGLAS O. BLACKARD2

1Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201; 2Georgetown Therapy Center, Georgetown, Texas 78626.

ABSTRACT

This article describes the results of a survey of the practicesof National Football League strength and conditioning (NFLS&C) coaches. The response rate was 87% (26 of 30). Thissurvey examines survey participant (a) background infor-mation, (b) physical testing, (c) flexibility development, (d)speed development, (e) plyometrics, (f) strength/power de-velopment, (g) unique aspects, and (h) comments. Resultsreveal that 18 of 26 (69%) NFL S&C coaches follow a peri-odization model (PM). Of these coaches, 14 of 16 (88%) whoresponded to the question reported their athletes used Olym-pic-style lifts, and 17 of 18 coaches (94%) employed plyome-tric exercises. Coaches who reported following a PM testedan average of 9.8 variables of fitness, which is an average of3.55 times per year. Seven of 26 (27%) NFL S&C coaches didnot follow a PM (NPM). Five of 7 (71%) of these coachesreported following ‘‘high-intensity training’’ (HIT) princi-ples. None of these coaches reported using Olympic-stylelifts. Two of 7 (29%) reported using plyometrics. NFL S&Ccoaches who follow an NPM reported testing an average of2.12 variables of fitness, which is an average of 2 times peryear. A variety of other strength and conditioning practiceswere examined.

Key Words: National Football League, strength andconditioning, survey, physical testing, flexibility de-velopment, speed development, plyometrics, strength/power development

Reference Data: Ebben, W.P., and D.O. Blackard.Strength and conditioning practices of National Foot-ball League strength and conditioning coaches. J.Strength Cond. Res. 15(1):48–58. 2001.

Introduction

Researchers have examined the effectiveness of col-lege football conditioning programs (1, 9, 10) or

have used college football athletes to assess the effec-tiveness of training methods (2, 16). Researchers alsohave examined the physical changes of professionalfootball players during training (8) and the physical

characteristics of professional football players by po-sition (17). Surveyors have examined college strengthand conditioning programs (7), strength and condi-tioning administrative variables and policies (11),weight room injuries (18), and the use of core exercises(4). Pullo (15) examined demographic characteristics,educational background, experience levels, and dutiesof Division I-A strength and conditioning coaches.

Sutherland and Wiley (15) surveyed strength andconditioning services for professional athletes in 4sports including football. Forti (7) examined a varietyof strength and conditioning variables such as strengthtraining, program design, flexibility training, runningtraining, and physical testing. The Forti (7) survey islimited to 16 fixed-choice questions and focused oncollege strength and conditioning practices that oc-curred more than 15 years ago.

Cohen et al. (3) conducted a survey of NationalFootball League (NFL) athletic trainers to assess a va-riety of nutrition, strength training, and rehabilitationpractices approximately 13 years ago. Strength andconditioning practices have evolved significantly since1985. More recently, Ebben and Blackard (6) describedspeed development strategies employed by NFLstrength and conditioning (NFL S&C) coaches.

The National Strength and Conditioning Associa-tion 1988 Role Delineation Study (12) identified severalcategories of responsibilities of strength and condition-ing coaches. These responsibilities included programdesign, exercise technique, organization and adminis-tration, testing and evaluation, exercise science knowl-edge, and nutrition.

The present survey examines a variety of condi-tioning responsibilities and the collective knowledgeof NFL S&C coaches. The purpose of this article is todescribe the common, as well as unique, strength andconditioning practices employed by NFL S&C coaches.

MethodsSurveyThe survey, ‘‘Strength and Conditioning Practices ofNational Football League Strength and Conditioning

Practices of National Football League Coaches 49

Table 1. NFL strength and conditioning coaches re-sponses to survey.

Survey inquiry

Numberof teamsrespond-

ing

Totalresponse

rate

First mailed surveySecond mailed survey

810

27% (8 of 30)60% (18 of 30)

Telephone contact/thirdmailed survey 5 77% (23 of 30)

Telephone interview 3 87% (26 of 30)

Figure 1. Times when variables of athlete fitness are for-mally measured.

Coaches,’’ was created by the authors and pilot testedwith an informal advisory group of strength and con-ditioning coaches and exercise physiologists. Surveydata were collected from June 1997–January 1998. Thesurvey was divided into 8 sections: (a) background in-formation, (b) physical testing, (c) flexibility develop-ment, (d) speed development, (e) plyometrics, (f)strength/power development, (g) unique aspects, and(h) comments.

Data CollectionAn introductory letter describing the project was sentto all NFL S&C coaches. Within 1 month, a survey andcover letter were mailed. The purpose of the cover let-ter was to again explain the purpose of the survey, theexpected time commitment, confidentiality of infor-mation, and the researchers’ motivation for conductingthe survey. All surveys were sent with a self-ad-dressed, stamped envelope. A second letter and anoth-er copy of the survey were sent to NFL S&C coacheswho did not respond to the first mailing. Several at-tempts were made to contact NFL S&C coaches whodid not respond to the mailed surveys. These NFLS&C coaches either returned the surveys, granted atelephone interview, declined to participate in the sur-vey, or did not respond to the mailing or telephonemessages. Within 1 month after completion of datacollection, a report was mailed to all NFL S&C coachesparticipating in the survey. No coach or team namewas associated with any responses.

Data AnalysisThe survey contained fixed responses and open-endedquestions. Answers to open-ended questions asked inthe ‘‘strength/power development,’’ ‘‘unique aspectsof your program,’’ and ‘‘comments’’ sections werecontent analyzed according to methods described byPatton (13). Each researcher generated raw data andhigher-order themes via independent, inductive con-tent analysis and compared independently generatedthemes until consensus was reached at each level ofanalysis. At the point of development of higher-orderthemes, deductive analysis was used to confirm thatall raw data themes were represented. Both researcherswere trained and experienced with qualitative meth-ods sports science research and content analysis.

ResultsBackground InformationThe first question was asked in order to track whichteams responded to the survey. Twenty-six of 30 (87%)NFL S&C coaches responded to the survey. Only 1NFL S&C coach directly expressed a desire not to par-ticipate. Three other NFL S&C coaches did not re-spond to the mailed surveys or telephone messages.Table 1 presents responses to the first mailing, the sec-

ond mailing, telephone contact/third mailing, andtelephone interviews.

The second and third question asked NFL S&Ccoaches to list members of its strength and condition-ing staff. Twenty-six coaches reported their names andtenure in the NFL, resulting in a mean average of 6.52(66.25) years. Nineteen coaches were listed as assis-tants.

The final question of this section revealed 19 coach-es did not have additional responsibilities, 4 coacheshad additional responsibilities such as coaching a po-sition, and 3 coaches did not respond to the question.Additional responsibilities included coaching specialteams, assistant with special teams, and defensivequality control coach.

Physical TestingThe second section of the survey assessed variables ofphysical testing; data are presented in Figure 1. Six of8 NFL S&C coaches who responded ‘‘other’’ providedadditional information about the frequency of physicaltesting. Two reported that physical fitness was nevertested, 1 coach each reported testing at the start of theoff-season, before camp, at the end of the season, andthat a ‘‘pretest of the veterans occurred during the off-season in March with pretest of the rookies duringminicamp and a posttest of all athletes in June.’’

The second question in this section assessed whichvariables of physical fitness were measured (Figure 2)and what specific tests were used. Twenty NFL S&C

50 Ebben and Blackard

Figure 2. Variables of athlete fitness tested by NFLstrength and conditioning coaches.

coaches reported measuring body composition. Ninecoaches reported measuring body composition withskin calipers or skin-fold testing, 3 used hydro-mea-surements, 2 reported using a ‘‘skyndex,’’ and 1 coacheach reported using the ‘‘3-site Schmidt-Pollock ta-bles,’’ ‘‘Jackson-Pollock,’’ ‘‘3-site skin folds using Jack-son-Pollock equations with measurements at the chest,abdomen, and thigh,’’ electrical impedance, underwa-ter weighing of 3–5 players a year, and a 3-point bodyfat measurement. Additional comments included thatseveral types of measurements were employed andthat measuring body composition is ‘‘... a waste oftime, some (athletes) are overweight and can stillplay.’’

Thirteen NFL S&C coaches reported measuringmuscular strength. Methods include a ‘‘bench-maxtest’’ reported by 7 coaches, a ‘‘squat-max test’’ re-ported by 5 coaches, an ‘‘incline-max test’’ reported by2 coaches, and a ‘‘battery of weight room tests includ-ing a 1RM test, a 225-lb repetition test, etc.’’ by ‘‘chart-ing the progression on work-out cards,’’ a bench pressrepetition test, an estimated maximum for bench andleg press, and maximal tests during the year each re-ported by 1 coach.

Eleven NFL S&C coaches reported measuring car-diovascular endurance. Methods used included a 12-minute run reported by 2 coaches, a 1-mile run re-ported by 2 coaches, and a 300 to 400–m monitoredrun, a V̇O2 max, 3 gasser tests of 200 yd (1:30 rest), 16110-yd dashes, a 300-yd shuttle, and an 800-yd runeach reported by 1 coach. One coach did not specifyhow cardiovascular endurance was measured.

Nine NFL S&C coaches reported measuring agility.Tests included a 20-yd shuttle reported by 4 coachesand a 5-10-5 lateral test and cone drills, a short shuttle,a 60-yd shuttle, a 3 cone drill, and a T-test each re-ported by 1 coach.

Nine NFL S&C coaches reported testing for anaer-obic capacity. Methods of testing anaerobic capacityincluded a 300-yd shuttle reported by 2 coaches andconsecutive 300-200-100–m drills, a shuttle, 16 110-ydsprints and a long shuttle of 300 yd, positional-specific

metabolic workouts, and 14 40-yd sprints within a per-centage of the athlete’s best 40-yd dash time each re-ported by 1 coach. Two NFL S&C coaches reportedmeasuring anaerobic fitness, but did not specify themethod.

Nine NFL S&C coaches reported measuring mus-cular power. Eight reported using the vertical jump.Additional methods of measuring muscular power in-cluded power cleans reported by 2 coaches, and ver-tical standing long jump, a ‘‘battery of weight-roomtests including a 1RM test and a 225-lb repetition test,etc.,’’ and core lifts such as the bench press, squat, andpower cleans each reported by 1 coach.

Nine NFL S&C coaches reported testing for speed.Methods included 20- and 40-yd dashes reported by 4coaches, 40-yd dashes reported by 3 coaches, 10-20-40–yd dashes reported by 2 coaches, and a line doing 20-yd dashes and the rest (of the team) doing 40-yd dash-es each reported by 1 coach.

Eight NFL S&C coaches reported measuring flexi-bility. Methods included a sit-and-reach test reportedby 5 coaches, a stand-and-reach test reported by 2coaches, and a hand-shoulder test and a hip and grointest each reported by 1 coach. One coach reported uti-lizing both the sit-and-reach test as well as the hand-shoulder test.

Six NFL S&C coaches reported measuring accel-eration using tests such as a 40-yd dash as reportedby 2 coaches, and a 10-, 20-, and 40-yd progression, a20-yd dash, a 300-yd shuttle, and 0 to 10–, 10 to 20–,20 to 30–, 30 to 40–yd splits each reported by 1 coach.

Six NFL S&C coaches reported measuring othervariables of physical fitness. These variables includedanaerobic endurance such as 3 gassers, a vertical jump,a short shuttle, anaerobic endurance through playdrives, and height and weight. One coach reportedthat every lift is monitored and recorded and that ev-ery lifting and training session is viewed as a test.

Five NFL S&C coaches reported taking anthropo-metric measurements on their athletes. Two of the 5coaches reported measuring height and weight. Ad-ditional anthropometric measurements included armspan, trainer’s measure, and circumference measure-ments.

Five NFL S&C coaches reported measuring mus-cular endurance. Methods of measuring muscular en-durance included a 225-lb bench repetition test re-ported by 2 coaches and a ‘‘battery of weight-roomtests including 1RM, 225-lb repetition test, etc.,’’ a‘‘bench press for repetitions test,’’ and ‘‘dips’’ each re-ported by 1 coach.

Flexibility Development

Twenty-two NFL S&C coaches reported that theirteams performed static flexibility exercises. Eighteencoaches reported they used PNF exercises, 14 coachesemployed dynamic exercises, and 8 coaches reported


Figure 3. Times when NFL athletes are encouraged/re-quired to perform flexibility exercises.

Figure 4. Length (minutes) of NFL strength and condi-tioning coaches’ normal prepractice flexibility session.

Figure 5. Amount of time (seconds) NFL strength andconditioning coaches encourage their athletes to hold astatic stretch.

Figure 6. Types of speed-development exercises used byNFL strength and conditioning coaches.

their athletes used ballistic exercises. Additional com-ments included that in the ‘‘off-season [we] stretch be-fore running ... individual and remedial ... and beforepractice,’’ ‘‘a combination of all,’’ and ‘‘static toe touch-es.’’

The next three questions of the flexibility develop-ment section determined how frequently athletes wereencouraged/required to perform flexibility exercises,the duration of the normal prepractice flexibility ses-sion, and the duration that athletes were encouragedto hold a static stretch. Results from these questionsare presented in Figures 3–5. One coach commentedthat his athletes were encouraged or required to per-form flexibility development exercises before practicebut ‘‘after warm-up.’’ The mean average duration ofan NFL prepractice flexibility session was 12.4 6 3.2minutes. The mean average duration an NFL athlete

was encouraged or required to hold a static stretch was18.0 6 5.1 seconds.

Speed DevelopmentEvery coach who responded to the survey reportedincorporating some type of a speed development ex-ercise into his program (Figure 6). Twenty-one coachesreported using speed endurance, with 1 coach com-menting that speed endurance was ‘‘longer in [the] off-season, 100 and 200s down to 40s and under.’’

Twenty coaches reported using form running todevelop speed. Seventeen coaches indicated they usedresistance running. Two coaches reported using hillresistance as a form of resistance running, and 1 coachreported using ‘‘sleds with a partner’’ as their resis-tance running. One coach reported he did ‘‘not usehill-resisted running for speed but for functionalstrength.’’

Seventeen coaches reported using plyometrics fordeveloping speed. Fifteen coaches reported using ov-erspeed running. Comments to this question included‘‘some’’ and ‘‘assisted’’ overspeed running.

Seven coaches reported using other activities forspeed development. Comments included ‘‘power is aforce application over time, and we develop force ...strength ... potentials in the weight room. Our coachesdevelop force application on the field,’’ ‘‘1-legged 30to 40–yd runs,’’ ‘‘positional-specific speed workouts,’’‘‘the best way to develop speed is to do speed work.Running fast, running 40s, 20s, and 10s is the best wayto develop speed,’’ ‘‘minihurdle drills, quick foot lad-der drills, and cone drills,’’ ‘‘sprint work,’’ ‘‘stridelength and stride speed drills,’’ and ‘‘upper-body me-chanics training.’’

PlyometricsNineteen of 26 NFL S&C coaches reported using ply-ometrics. One coach did not respond to this question.Comments to this question included ‘‘bag running ...no skipping, hopping ... caution reinjury to athlete ...safe, effective, efficient,’’ ‘‘limited,’’ and ‘‘some ply-ometrics during the season.’’

The second question focused on the purpose of ply-ometric training (Figure 7). Sixteen coaches reportedthey used plyometric training for speed development.


Figure 7. Reported uses of plyometric training by NFLstrength and conditioning coaches.

Figure 8. The stage/cycle/phase of training in whichNFL strength and conditioning coaches incorporate ply-ometric training.

Figure 9. Method of integration for plyometric trainingand weight training.

Figure 10. Plyometric exercises regularly employed byNFL strength and conditioning coaches.

Thirteen coaches reported they used plyometric train-ing for lower-body power. Twelve coaches reportedthey used plyometric training for total-body training.Eleven coaches reported they used plyometric trainingfor upper-body power. One coach reported he usedplyometric training for ‘‘shoulder stabilization/medi-cine balls.’’

The third question investigated the stage/cycle/phase during which plyometric training was incorpo-rated into the athletes’ program (Figure 8). Sevencoaches reported they incorporated plyometric train-ing during the preseason. Six coaches reported theyincorporated plyometric training during the postsea-son. Five coaches reported they incorporated plyome-tric training during the pretraining camp. Four coachesreported they incorporated plyometric training yearround. Three coaches reported they incorporated ply-ometric training during the in-season. One coach re-ported he incorporated plyometric training during thetraining camp. Comments made by NFL S&C coachesconcerning the stage/cycle/phase of plyometric train-ing incorporation included off-season reported by 2coaches, during ‘‘off-season training ... much is doneon the field,’’ ‘‘during the off-season [from] March toJune,’’ ‘‘little,’’ and ‘‘during many rehabilitation pro-grams.’’

The fourth question determined how NFL S&Ccoaches integrated plyometric training into the weight-training program (Figure 9). Nine coaches respondedthat they performed plyometric training prior to

weight training on the same day. Seven coaches per-formed complex training with plyometric training andweight training combined in the same workout. Sixcoaches performed plyometric training after weighttraining on the same day. Four coaches responded theyintegrated plyometrics by conducting plyometric train-ing and weight-training workouts on separate days.Three coaches used some other method of combiningplyometric and weight training. These other methodsincluded ‘‘speed days’’ when athletes had some formof plyometric training, conducting plyometric trainingwhile they ‘‘perform agility drills,’’ and performing acombination of ‘‘‘separate days,’ ‘after weight train-ing,’ and ‘complex training.’’’

The fifth question in this section asked the coachesto identify the types of plyometric exercises regularlyused in their program (Figure 10). Seventeen coachesused bounding activities. Seventeen coaches reportedthey performed multiple hops or jumps. Fifteen coach-es used box drills. Twelve coaches employed standingjumps, upper-body plyometrics, and jumps in place.Seven coaches used depth jumps, with 1 coach men-tioning that in the depth jumps he uses ‘‘fewer depthjumps with the larger guys.’’ Five coaches reportedthey used some other form of plyometric training.These other forms of plyometric training include ‘‘1-legged 30 to 40–yd runs,’’ ‘‘minihurdles, quick footladder,’’ ‘‘plyometric push-ups,’’ ‘‘weighted plyome-trics such as ‘log training,’ bounds, hops, split jumps,etc., with a log on your shoulders,’’ and ‘‘cord-resistedjumps to free jumps; this would include dumbbelljumps to free jumps.’’


Figure 11. Average length of NFL strength and condition-ing coaches’ in-season lifting workouts.

Figure 12. Terms used by NFL strength and conditioningcoaches to conceptualize weightlifting exercises.

Figure 13. Machine brands used by NFL strength andconditioning coaches.

Strength/Power DevelopmentThe first question in this section was asked to deter-mine the number of days per week that athletes par-ticipated in an in-season strength/power developmentprogram. Twelve coaches responded 2 days per weekand 3 days per week. Seven coaches responded 4 daysper week. One coach responded 1 day per week. Themean average days per week of in-season strength/power workouts was 2.8 6 0.8 days.

The second question determined the specific daysof the week that were used for strength/power devel-opment. Twenty-five coaches scheduled workouts onMondays. Twenty-three coaches scheduled workoutson Wednesdays. Twenty-two coaches reported sched-uling workouts on Thursdays. Eleven coaches reportedscheduling workout training on Fridays. Seven coachesscheduled workouts on Tuesdays. One coach reportedthat on Mondays he schedules ‘‘total-body workouts.’’Another coach reported ‘‘legs, backs, and biceps’’ wererestricted to Wednesdays. One coach reported hescheduled ‘‘chest, shoulders, and triceps [exercises]’’on Thursdays. One coach reported that his athletesperformed ‘‘dumbbells, cleans, and presses on Fri-days.’’

The third question in the strength/power devel-opment section of the survey asked the NFL S&Ccoach to determine the average length of their weight-lifting workouts (Figure 11). The mean average dura-tion of an NFL athletes’ in-season strength/powerworkout was 48.5 6 13.2 minutes.

The fourth question in this section asked NFL S&Ccoaches how many days of the week their athletes par-ticipated in off-season strength/power developmentactivities. Nineteen coaches reported 4 days per week.Seven coaches reported 3 days per week. Two coachesreported 5 days per week. One coach reported 1 dayper week. One coach reported 2 days per week. Com-ments to this question included ‘‘30 stay and workout;3 development camps; minicamps,’’ ‘‘will vary withthe different phases,’’ ‘‘varies as the off-season pro-gresses,’’ and ‘‘Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Fri-day.’’ The mean average days per week an NFL athleteparticipates in a strength/power workout during theoff-season was 2.0 6 2.9.

The fifth question in the strength/power section ofthe survey asked NFL S&C coaches how they concep-tualized weightlifting exercises (Figure 12). Twentycoaches conceptualized weightlifting exercises as mul-tijoint. Fifteen coaches conceptualized weightliftingexercises as core lifts. Fourteen coaches conceptualizedweightlifting exercises as supplemental exercises. Thir-teen coaches conceptualized weightlifting exercises asauxiliary exercises. Eleven coaches conceptualizedweightlifting exercises as total body. Other conceptu-alizations of weightlifting exercises included ‘‘freeweights only,’’ ‘‘special by position or rehabilitation orto develop special qualities such as starting strength,’’‘‘rehabilitation needs,’’ ‘‘isolation,’’ and ‘‘equal empha-sis is placed on all exercises, all exercises are concep-tualized as being equally important to the comprehen-sive strength-training prescription since all muscularstructures are exposed to risk of injury.’’

Question six in the strength/power section of thesurvey determined the manufacturer of machines usedto train athletes. NFL S&C coaches reported using avariety of machines; this is depicted in Figure 13.

The seventh question in the strength/power devel-opment asked NFL S&C coaches to identify in orderof importance the 5 weightlifting exercises that aremost important in their program (Table 2). Five re-sponses could not be categorized in Table 2. These re-sponses were content analyzed into 3 categories,which included (a) ‘‘all exercises are important’’ (4coaches), (b) ‘‘emphasis on multiple-joint structures


Table 2. Strength and conditioning coach rank order ofthe 5 most important exercises for competition in the NFL.

Order ofimpor-tance Exercises (number of coaches responding)

1 Squat (08)Neck (07)Cleans (06)Box squat, step-ups, trunk work (01)

2 Cleans (07)Shoulders, reverse leg press/leg press, squat

(03)Bench (02)Push press, lower-body explosives, groin,

snatch (01)

3 Bench (08)Squat (03)Military press, incline press (02)Legs, sled dragging, dumbbell incline, lum-

bar extension, posterior delt, cleans, lowback (01)

4 Bench, shoulder press (02)Pulling/pressing movements, midsection ab-

dominal, incline, upper-body explosives,close grip lat, dorsiflexors, snatch, lateralraise, lunges, push press, dead lift, supple-mental work, lat row/pulldown (01)

5 Medicine ball training, leg press/extension,upright row/row, neck (02) body core ab/back, dead lift, hamstring curl, jerk, lowback, knee, bench press/incline, any pull-ing exercise (01)

Table 3. Conceptualization of training.

Higher-orderthemes

Number ofresponses

Select raw data representing responsesto this question

Periodization 18 We use periodization models year round. Off-season: high vol-ume (reps 15–2 with 2–3 sets) per exercise. As we move closerto the in-season, the volume drops while the intensity of theexercise increases. The same holds true for our running pro-gram. We move from high volume to low volume with in-crease in intensity as we approach the season.

Nonperiodization 7 Not really, start conservative, gradually increase intensity, allowadequate recovery. Weight training in football is different thanany other sport. When you have them healthy, train them.

Other 1 Did not respond to the question.

susceptible to injury’’ (1 coach), and (c) ‘‘several ex-ercises listed’’ (1 coach).

The eighth question in this section assessed theNFL S&C coaches’ conceptualization of training, spe-cifically inquiring about the use of a periodizationmodel, training phases, and cycles. Responses were

content analyzed into 3 categories including (a) peri-odization model (PM); (b) did not follow a PM (NPM);and (c) other. Eighteen NFL S&C coaches reportedconceptualizing training according to a PM, 7 re-sponded they did not, and 1 did not answer the ques-tion. Table 3 presents higher-order themes, number ofresponse, and select raw data representing responsesto the conceptualization of training.

Question nine in this section inquired how coachesdetermined training load. Responses were content an-alyzed into 5 categories including (a) formula, (b) pre-scribed by coach (nonspecific), (c) failure, (d) combi-nation of coach and athlete, and (e) determined by aprevious workout. Table 4 depicts these higher-orderthemes, total number of coaches whose responsesmade up the theme, and select raw data within eachhigher-order theme.

The tenth question in the strength/power devel-opment section of the survey examined the number ofsets and repetitions used during the NFL S&C coach’soff-season program. Content analysis resulted in re-sponses organized into 6 higher-order themes, includ-ing (a) range of sets and reps specified, (b) high-inten-sity concepts, (c) sets/repetitions specified in trainingphases/periodization, (d) too much to list/variable, (e)confidential, and (f) miscellaneous. Table 5 depictshigher-order themes, total number of coaches respons-es comprising each theme, and select raw data that arerepresentative of responses to this question.

The eleventh question in the strength/power de-velopment section of the survey inquired about thenumber of sets and repetitions used during the NFLS&C coach’s in-season program. Content analysis re-sulted in the formation of 5 higher-order themes, in-cluding (a) specified range of sets and repetitions, (b)high-intensity concepts, (c) training cycles/periodiza-tion, (d) sets and percent of 1RM, and (e) miscella-neous. Table 6 depicts higher-order themes, total num-ber of coaches whose responses make up the theme,and select representative raw data supporting eachhigher-order theme.


Table 4. Determination of training loads.

Higher-orderthemes

Number ofresponses


Formula 11 3% rule.Percentage of repetition maximum

Prescribed by coach 7 Training load is determined by the coachFailure 5 High-intensity training, 1 set to failureCombination of coach and ath-

lete2 In some exercises I determine and in some they (ath-

lete) determineDetermined by previous work-

out1 We adjust training load from the previous workout

Table 5. Sets and repetitions used during off-season programs.

Higher-orderthemes

Number ofresponses


Range of sets and repetitionsspecified

11 Range of sets 1–3, range of repetitions 5–50.4–7 sets, 1–8 repetitions.Core movements will have 5–6 sets and repetitions from

10–12.Strength lifts range from 10–3. Olympic lifts range from 5–

2. Supplemental lifts have 3 sets of 10–6 repetitions.High-intensity concepts 5 1 set to fail, repetitions vary somewhat randomly; 8–100

legs, 8–20 upper body.High intensity.

Sets/repetitions specified intraining phases/periodization

4 Progressive cycling and periodization:wk 1–3 3–4 sets 12, 10, 8 repetitionswk 4–6 4–5 sets 8, 6, 4 repetitionswk 7–12 4–5 sets 4, 3, 2, 1 repetitions.

Too much to list (variable) 3 Use too many different combinations for different exercisesand players to list. Varies.

Confidential 2 No, I am not going to give that away.Miscellaneous 1 . . . because of the added fatigue with practices, the athletes

ability to tolerate and adapt to exercise is diminished. Weutilize a variety of overload protocols (single-set systemsas well as multiple-set systems). Regardless of which sys-tem is prescribed it is not important. What is most im-portant is the athletes effort and the level of training in-tensity.

Unique Aspects of the ProgramContent analysis revealed 5 higher-order themes gen-erated from the coaches’ responses to this question.Responses were analyzed into themes such as (a) spe-cific training strategies, (b) unaware of other pro-grams, (c) external support, (d) conditioning environ-ment, and (e) other. Table 7 lists these higher-orderthemes, total number of coaches whose responsesmake up each theme, and select representative rawdata supporting each higher-order theme.

The second question of this section inquired whatcoaches would like to do differently with theirstrength and conditioning programs. Responses werecontent analyzed and resulted in the creation of 5

higher-order themes, including (a) specific trainingchanges, (b) facility/staff improvement, (c) personaldevelopment, (d) nothing, and (e) other. Table 8 liststhe higher-order themes, total number of coacheswhose responses make up the theme, and represen-tative raw data within each higher-order theme.CommentsThe final section of the survey allowed NFL S&Ccoaches the opportunity to provide additional data ormake specific comments regarding the survey. Re-sponses to this section were content analyzed into 3higher-order themes: (a) comments of clarification, (b)comments of appreciation and closure, and (c) com-ments offering suggestions.


Table 6. Sets and repetitions used during in-season programs.

Higher-orderthemes

Number ofresponses


Specified range of sets and rep-etitions

12 Major lifts; 3–5 sets, 8–3 repetitions . . . auxiliary lifts 2–3sets, 8–5 repetitions.

3–4 sets, 5–10 repetitions.High-intensity concepts 5 1 set to failure, about 22 sets.

We employ high-intensity concepts; most routines are singleset times 10 repetitions.

Training cycles/periodization 4 In-season we cycle our routines not only weekly but withineach week. Monday, higher volumes; Wednesday, Thurs-day, Friday, lower volumes but higher intensity.

Sets and percent 1RM 3 Percentage of 1RM; 3 basic loads: 70% 3 10, 80% 3 5–6,and 90–95% 3 2–3.

Miscellaneous 2 Too much to list.

Table 7. Unique aspect of each NFL strength and conditioning program.

Higher-orderthemes

Number ofresponses


Specific training strategies 18 Single-leg training.Grip strength.Combination of Olympic-style training and high-intensity

training.Runs based on V̇O2max.

Unaware of other programs 7 I am unaware of what other coaches are doing.External support 3 We have tremendous support for our program from upper

management and the head coach.Conditioning environment 3 Make it fun.

One-on-one attention.Other 1 There are no secrets.

Table 8. How NFL strength and conditioning coaches would change their programs.

Higher-orderthemes

Number ofresponses

Select raw data representingresponses to this question

Specific training changes 5 More medicine-ball activities.More speed development.

Facility/staff improvement 4 Hire 2 assistants and 4 graduate students.Bigger weight room.

Personal development 3 Continue to learn, adapt when necessary, improve whenev-er possible.

Nothing 3 I would not do anything different.Other 3 Too early in my tenure to know.

The higher-order theme of comments of clarifica-tion consisted of raw-data comments from NFL S&Ccoaches who wished to clarify their methods. Exam-ples include comments such as ‘‘a lot of guys get hungup on definitions ... high-intensity training (HIT) ...Olympic ... I believe everything works ... overload ...progression,’’ ‘‘... [we] are 85% a free-weight team withwork in flexibility, speed, agility, power, and strength

making up the core of our program,’’ and ‘‘we don’tlike to emphasize any one exercise, they are all equallyimportant.’’

Comments of appreciation and closure were shortcomments that thanked the researchers for conductingthe survey. Comments included raw-data themes suchas ‘‘good luck’’ and ‘‘I want to thank you for includingus in your survey.’’


Comments offering suggestions provide future re-searchers with information that NFL S&C coaches con-sider important. Comments included ‘‘I wish youwould have included a section on supplementation,’’‘‘what is important is not the individual programs, butrather the individual in the program,’’ and ‘‘the keyto any program in the NFL is to work for a head coachthat believes what you are doing is important and re-lays that to your players.’’

Discussion

The survey response rate (26 of 30) suggests NFL S&Ccoaches are willing to share information regardingtheir programs and beliefs. Additionally, multiplemailings and telephone contacts most likely resultedin a greater response rate than typical for surveys.

All of the NFL teams that participated in the sur-vey have strength and conditioning coaches. Surveyresults reveal 73% (19 of 26) of the teams surveyed hadassistant strength and conditioning coaches. Only 4coaches had additional position coach responsibilities.The NFL experience of NFL S&C head coaches rangedfrom 1–20 years. However, 42% (11 of 26) of NFL S&Ccoaches had 3 or less years of experience in the NFL.

Survey results revealed areas of substantial consis-tency, as well as great variation, among NFL S&Ccoaches. All NFL teams perform flexibility exercises,speed development exercises, and in-season and off-season strength/power development exercises such asweightlifting. All but 2 NFL S&C coaches reportedtesting variables of athlete fitness. Additionally, all but2 coaches reported using machines to train athletes.Finally, 69% (18 of 26) of NFL S&C coaches describeda specific, unique training strategy (i.e., grip strength).

Results revealed that 18 of 26 (69%) of NFL S&Ccoaches follow a PM. Of these coaches, 14 of 16 (88%)who responded to the question reported they usedOlympic-style lifts in their programs, and 17 of 18(94%) employed plyometric exercises. NFL S&C coach-es who reported following a PM tested an average of9.8 variables of physical fitness an average of 3.55times per year.

Seven of 26 (27%) NFL S&C coaches followed anNPM. Five of 7 of these coaches indicated that theyfollowed HIT principles, although the survey did notspecifically ask about HIT principles. They reportedusing a single set per exercise, training athletes to fail-ure, and expressed the belief that all exercises were ofequal importance. None of these coaches reported us-ing Olympic-style lifts. Two of 8 (25%) coaches whofollow an NPM reported using plyometrics. NFL S&Ccoaches who follow an NPM reported testing an av-erage of 2.12 variables of physical fitness an averageof 2 times per year.

The data demonstrated that substantial variationexists among NFL S&C practices in the following ar-

eas: (a) variables, frequency, and time of year for fit-ness testing; (b) type of flexibility exercises used; (c)type and frequency of plyometric training; (d) fre-quency and length of weightlifting workouts; (e)weightlifting exercises that are most important; (f)method of determining training loads; (g) number ofsets and repetitions used; and (h) unique aspects ofeach coach’s program.

Surprisingly, speed endurance is the most fre-quently trained component of speed development(85%, 22 of 26), yet anaerobic capacity was tested byonly 35% (9 of 26) of the NFL S&C coaches who re-sponded to the survey. Additionally, cardiovascularendurance was tested more frequently (46%, 12 of 26)than anaerobic capacity (35%, 9 of 26) despite the like-lihood that anaerobic capacity is bioenergetically moreimportant for football (5). Although most coaches re-ported training athletes for power, speed, speed en-durance, strength, and flexibility, many reported nottesting these variables.

Practical ApplicationsThis article describes the practices of NFL S&C coach-es. Survey information examined a variety of strengthand conditioning issues including physical testing,flexibility development, speed development, plyome-trics, strength/power program design, and unique as-pects of each coach’s program. Strength and condi-tioning coaches now have a source of data describingfootball strength and conditioning practices as they areconducted at the sport’s highest talent level, the NFL.Football strength and conditioning coaches can usethis data as a review of strength and conditioningpractices and a possible source of new ideas. Futuresurveys should examine specific aspects of strengthand conditioning (i.e., speed development) and the useof nutritional supplements in greater detail.

References1. BRYANT, C.X. Effect of Varied Frequencies of Strength Training on

Strength Retention. Eugene, OR: Microform Publications, 1985.2. CHRISTIAN, V.K., AND J. SEYMOUR. Specific power adaptations

relative to strength: Power training. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc.J. 7(1):32–34. 1985.

3. COHEN, A., M. O’SHEA, AND J. BEHRENS. Is exercise physiologyreaching football? Athletic Training 19(3):185–188. 1984.

4. CRAFT, J. Football core exercises of selected universities. Natl.Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 14(5):13–16. 1992.

5. EBBEN, W.P. A review of football fitness testing and evaluation.Strength Cond. 20(2):42–47. 1998.

6. EBBEN, W.P. AND D.O. BLACKARD. Speed development strategiesof NFL strength and conditioning coaches. Coach Athletic Dir.September:30–33. 1998.

7. FORTI, D.S. The Study of Off-Season Football Strength and Condi-tioning Programs at Selected Major Colleges. Eugene, OR: Micro-form Publications, 1984.

8. GETTMAN, L.R., T.W. STORER, AND R.D. WARD. Fitness changesin professional football players during preseason training. Phys.Sports Med. 15(9):92–101. 1987.


9. HEDRICK, A. Strength and power training for football at theU.S. Air Force Academy. Strength Cond. 18(1):7–12. 1996.

10. KROLL, W.A. Physical Conditioning for Football. Dubuque, IA:William C. Brown Publishers, 1983.

11. MCCLELLAN, T., AND W.J. STONE. A survey of football strengthand conditioning programs for division I NCAA universities.Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. 8(2):34–36. 1986.

12. National Strength and Conditioning Association. NationalStrength and Conditioning Association 1988 role delineationstudy. Raleigh, NC: Columbia Assessment Services, Inc., 1988.

13. PATTON, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. New-bury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1990.

14. PULLO, F.M. A profile of NCAA division I strength and con-ditioning coaches. J. Appl. Sport Sci. Res. 6(1):55–62. 1992.

15. SUTHERLAND, T.M., AND J.P. WILEY. Survey of strength and con-ditioning services for professional athletes in four sports. J.Strength Cond. Res. 11(4):266–268. 1997.

16. WATHEN, D., AND M. SHUTES. A comparison of the effects ofselected isotonic and isokinetic exercises, modalities, and pro-grams on the acquisition of strength and power in collegiatefootball players. Natl. Strength Cond. Assoc. J. February/March:40–42. 1982.

17. WILMORE, J.H., R.B. PARR, W.L. HASKELL, D.L. COSTILL, L.J.MILBURN, AND R.K. KERLAN. Football pros strengths—and CVweaknesses—charted. Phys. Sports Med. October:45–54. 1976.

18. ZEMPER, E.D. Four-year study of weight room injuries in a na-tional sample of college football teams. Natl. Strength Cond. As-soc. J. 12(3):32–34. 1990.

Documents

Strength and Conditioning Practices of National Football ...football1.ir/attachments/article/115/1.pdf · of strength and conditioning variables such as strength training, program