I know it is conventional wisdom to attribute injuries to the random vagaries of (bad) luck, but the Packers have been beset with so many injuries the past few years that I can't help but wondering about the strength and conditioning staff. A lot of the trendy, newfangled methods of athletic training are gradually being shown not to be as effective at preparing bodies to be resilient to the rigors of contact sports as the more old-fashioned emphasis on raw strength, power and agility. I remember the Packers brought in a new strength coach a few years ago (can't remember his name) who was known for his supposedly innovative training modalities, which de-emphasized strength and concentrated more on high reps, and then the team had a spate of hamstring injuries the following two seasons. That coach is no longer with the team. I'd be curious to see what kind of training program the Packers have been on the past couple of seasons. People like Clay Matthews sure do seem to have some muscular imbalances in their legs.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

Yes, I believe that was the man. Look how effective his techniques have been for the Rams.

Football players need to be strong, fast, and tough. Flexibility is also a plus (see: Ryan, Matt). Endurance is of far lower importance in the game of football, but that was the primary focus of Gullickson's training style.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

No, I was saying that Gullickson seems to leave a trail of broken bodies wherever he goes. In my opinion, his methods are counterproductive and dangerous.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

There is an awful lot of bullshit out there in the physical training field these days. People find the oldies-but-goodies boring, especially since they are damn hard work, so they tend to go for all the latest fads. Plus it's a lot more lucrative to charge for some new exercise variant you've invented yourself, which is why we have so many glitzy trickets and programs out there these days. (The ShakeWeight? Squats on a medicine ball . . . WTF?)

My university has perhaps the oldest exercise physiology program in the country, so a lot of exercise research takes place here. Interestingly, they keep finding out that the old techniques are the best. The old strongmen of the late 19th and early 20th centuries knew what they were doing. There is just no substitute for the compound lifts -- squats, deadlifts, presses, rows, dips, etc. -- for building strong, durable human beings.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel