{"id":1768,"date":"2014-04-11T11:04:30","date_gmt":"2014-04-11T16:04:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/?p=1768"},"modified":"2014-05-07T14:04:41","modified_gmt":"2014-05-07T19:04:41","slug":"position-specific-task-strength-and-performance-comparisons-between-ncaa-division-i-offensive-and-defensive-linemen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/position-specific-task-strength-and-performance-comparisons-between-ncaa-division-i-offensive-and-defensive-linemen\/","title":{"rendered":"Position-Specific Task, Strength, and Performance Comparisons between NCAA Division I Offensive and Defensive Linemen"},"content":{"rendered":"

Submitted by\u00a0Garrett M. Hester, Bert H. Jacobson, Ty B. Palmer, Doug B. Smith and Matthew S. O\u2019Brien<\/p>\n

ABSTRACT
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

The ultimate goal of strength and conditioning practitioners is to improve performance on the field.\u00a0 To date, little data exist that provides evidence of strong relationships between selected exercises and sport-specific tasks.\u00a0 PURPOSE:<\/b> The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of a position-specific task on the MAXX Football Sled Device (MX) between NCAA Division I offensive (OL) and defensive linemen (DL) and to determine the associations among selected strength and performance variables with results on the MX. \u00a0METHODS:<\/b> Offensive (n = 12) and defensive linemen (n = 14) (age 20.11 \u00b11.49 yrs) performed 10 \u201cfire-off-and-drive\u201d repetitions on the MX from a three-point stance. \u00a0Data relative to force (N) and movement time (MT) was collected for each repetition on the MX. \u00a0The duration between each repetition was automatically randomized between 6 to 10 sec.\u00a0 Strength and performance data including 1 RM of the squat, bench press, and power clean, along with vertical jump, 10 yd sprint, 40 yd sprint, and body fat percentage were gathered as part of seasonal standard assessment.\u00a0 RESULTS: <\/b>Results yielded significant differences in body weight, sprint performances, 1 RM squat, and a near significant difference in MT (p = 0.052) between OL and DL. \u00a0With respect to performance on the MX, there were no significant associations among selected strength and performance measures and MT on the MX.\u00a0 Although insignificant, force on the MX was found to have moderate associations with the 10 yd sprint (r = .457) and 1 RM power clean (r = .463). \u00a0CONCLUSIONS:<\/b> Primarily, these results point out that little carry over exists between the standard exercises performed and the task performed on the MX.\u00a0 Further research for the purpose of finding exercises that correlate with a position-specific task in these athletes is warranted.\u00a0 APPLICATION IN SPORT:<\/b> A priority among practitioners is to remain cognizant of the positional role differences and distinct physical characteristics between OL and DL. \u00a0The OL and DL positions should be categorized separately so that specific evaluative and training needs can be met for each position.
\n<\/p>\n

INTRODUCTION
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

American football is a game largely dependent on strength and power. \u00a0Due to the physical demands of the game, a great deal of time and effort is spent on the development and implementation of strength and conditioning programs designed to optimize athletic development. \u00a0The primary focus for most collegiate strength and conditioning programs is directed at improving physical performance characteristics such as strength, power, and speed, therefore maximizing the ability of each athlete to contribute to the success of the team (8).\u00a0 Comparatively, the roles of the offensive (OL) and defensive linemen (DL) are considerably different than the roles associated with the \u2018skill\u2019 positions.\u00a0 Consequently, strength and conditioning professionals have access to an evaluative tool that provides a practical, position-specific assessment of playing ability in collegiate linemen so that focused exercises can be prescribed for the enhancement of speed and power.<\/p>\n

Previous efforts have sought to analyze relationships between selected physical attributes and specific game performance (11<\/a>). \u00a0Typically, strength is assessed as one repetition maximum (1 RM) using free weights while speed and power are determined by the 40 yd sprint and vertical jump (VJ), respectively.\u00a0 Although 1 RM strength, speed, and power tests are not direct measures of football ability, these assessments reflect physical performance characteristics representative of football playing potential (7<\/a>). \u00a0Many studies have investigated relationships between 1 RM performance and various field tests inclusive of speed and power.\u00a0 However, many of these commonly used field tests are limited to movements that generally occur through a single plane of motion, involve isolated musculature, or do not challenge the proprioception or kinesthetics necessary for the football environment (13). \u00a0Therefore, the existence is unclear of a known field test that provides strength and conditioning professionals with a practical, position-specific assessment of playing ability in collegiate linemen.<\/p>\n

Strength and conditioning professionals are required to effectively evaluate playing ability in collegiate football players on an individual basis. \u00a0Currently, many of the techniques used for evaluating playing ability in collegiate linemen are poor indicators of skill in these athletes due to a lack of specificity in these tests.\u00a0 Specific to linemen, the development of an explosive start is essential since these athletes are lined up so close to each (3<\/a>).\u00a0 A position-specific tool that evaluates these characteristics in OL and DL has yet to be established in the literature. \u00a0Many of the techniques used for evaluating playing ability in collegiate OL and DL provide a poor assessment since these tests lack mechanical specificity with respect to these positions. \u00a0For instance, the backward overhead medicine ball (BOMB) throw has been proposed as an effective field test for the evaluation of total body explosive power (13). \u00a0Mayhew et al. (10) studied the relationship between the BOMB throw, the 1 RM hang clean, and power production in college football players. \u00a0The BOMB throw was only found to be moderately related to either peak or average jump power (p = 0.59 and p = 0.63, respectively). \u00a0Furthermore, neither of these correlations accounted for more than 40% of the common variance between the two measures. \u00a0The correlation between the hang clean and the BOMB throw was not significant (r = 0.33). \u00a0The hang clean when combined with the best BOMB throw to predict average power \u00a0accounted for only 7% of the common variance. \u00a0Currently, there is no position-specific tool in the literature that serves the purpose of evaluating playing ability in OL and DL. \u00a0A more accurate assessment of OL and DL playing ability could be gained through a position-specific evaluation that involves a task specific to these positions. \u00a0Therefore, the two-fold purpose of the study was to compare the performance of a position-specific task between NCAA Division I offensive and defensive linemen and to determine the association among selected strength and performance variables.<\/p>\n

METHODS<\/b><\/p>\n

Subjects
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

This study utilized a convenience sample of Division 1 offensive (n=12, Wt = 137.51 \u00b19.09 kg Ht = 193.52 \u00b1 3.48 cm) and defensive (n=14, Wt = 125.08 \u00b1 12.82 kg Ht = 189.38 \u00b1 3.51 cm) linemen between the ages of 18 and 22 with an overall mean Wt of 131.6 \u00b1 5.2 kg and Ht of 191.0 \u00b1 5.3 cm. \u00a0IRB approval and permission from the Athletic Department were obtained prior to any volunteer participation in this study. \u00a0An informational meeting in which consent was obtained from all volunteers of the study was held prior to any testing. \u00a0All subjects completed a medical history questionnaire and physical examination prior to testing by a licensed physician as part of requirements for participation on the university football team. \u00a0Medical history showed that none of the subjects had suffered or been affected by any musculoskeletal injuries within the past 6 months.<\/p>\n

Procedures
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

The MAXX Football Sled Device (MX) (Shoot-A-Way, Upper Sandusky, Ohio) was used to assess force (N) and movement time (MT) through a \u201cfire-off\u201d, punch maneuver performed on the contact dummy component of the device. \u00a0This maneuver is very similar to the game-like action observed for both OL and DL in the game of football. \u00a0Familiarization for this task was unnecessary since the subjects in the study frequently use the MX as a part of training. \u00a0The MX measures time from auditory\/visual stimulus to contact and displays this value in milliseconds along with the force rating on an integrated display\/control panel. \u00a0For the purpose of analysis the force data were converted to Newtons. \u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

Test-retest reliability of the MX was assessed using 10 randomly selected OL and DL of the football team. \u00a0Subjects performed the testing protocol for two sessions separated by 48 hours. \u00a0Results of this analysis demonstrated strong reliability with the device for both force (ICC = .813; SEM = 93.4) and MT (ICC = .828; SEM = .022).<\/p>\n

1 RM assessments for the bench press, squat, and power clean were performed using an olympic-style barbell. \u00a0VJ height was assessed using a Vertec (Perform Better, Cranston, RI), and 40 yd sprints were electronically timed on an artificial turf surface. \u00a0The proper testing protocols for 1 RM testing and VJ testing using the have been previously published (1<\/a>). \u00a0Body fat percentage was analyzed using the BOD POD (COSMED, Chicago, IL). <\/i><\/p>\n

All testing on the MX occurred at the University Strength and Conditioning facility. \u00a0To assure similar training conditions the study included two testing sessions, with the OL testing on a Wednesday and the DL testing exactly one week later at the same time of day.\u00a0 Each group performed a 5 minute dynamic warm-up conducted by the team strength and conditioning staff prior to testing. \u00a0The dynamic warm-up focused on major muscles of the legs, hips, and back. \u00a0The dynamic stretches performed included high knees, butt kicks, leg swing, and inch worms. \u00a0Prior to testing, each subject performed two \u00be speed \u201cfire-offs\u201d into the MX. \u00a0Testing on the MX began by having the subject positioned in a standard three-point football stance at a distance of 12\u201d from the device, as measured from contact dummy to hand. \u00a0A simultaneous auditory and visual signal delivered by the device served as the initiation of the test. \u00a0Upon these signals, the subject explosively accelerated out of the three-point stance to make contact with the dummy located on the front of the device. \u00a0The subject contacted and punched the breast plate region of the dummy, similar to the maneuver observed in the game of football. \u00a0Each subject was instructed to perform this action as explosively and forcefully as possible.\u00a0 Once the subject completed the punch maneuver the subject disengaged the dummy and repositioned to the original starting position in preparation for the next repetition. \u00a0The device randomly varied the time between each repetition giving each subject approximately 6 to 10 seconds between repetitions. \u00a0Each subject performed 10 consecutive repetitions.<\/p>\n

Data Analyses
\n<\/i><\/p>\n

Data were analyzed using separate t-tests (position x trial) with Bonferroni adjustments using SPSS version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) for Windows. \u00a0Pearson Correlation Coefficients were used to determine any relationships associated with all assessments (MX data, body mass, percent fat, VJ, 10 and 40 yd sprint, bench press, squat, and power clean). \u00a0An alpha level of p < 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance for all analyses.<\/p>\n

RESULTS
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

Analysis of physical characteristics revealed that OL were significantly heavier (p = 0.02) and taller (p = 0.01) than DL, but no significant difference was found for body fat percentage (p = 0.21). \u00a0With respect to selected strength and performance measures, DL were significantly (p = 0.02) stronger in the 1-RM squat and faster in the 40 yd sprint (p = 0.02) and simultaneous 20 yd and 10 yd segments than OL. \u00a0No significant differences were found between the groups for any of the remaining strength and performance variables (Table 1). \u00a0Results of the MX field-related \u201cfire-off\u201d technique yielded a near significant difference (p = 0.052) in the average MT, stimulus to dummy contact, between DL and OL. \u00a0The average MT for DL and OL were 0.430 sec and 0.465 sec, respectively. There were no significant differences in force output on the MX between the two groups.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 1. Comparisons of selected variables between Division I offensive and defensive linemen
\n\"Screen<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 2. Correlations of selected variables for Division I offensive and defensive linemen<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Screen<\/a><\/p>\n

Pearson Correlation Coefficients determined a significant relationship between body mass and body fat percentage. \u00a0Also, VJ, 10 yd, 20 yd, and 40 yd sprint performances were found to have a significant inverse relationship with body fat percentage. \u00a0There were no \u00a0strong associations among selected strength and performance measures and MT on the MX. \u00a0Although non-significant, force on the MX was found to have moderate positive associations with the 10 yd sprint (r = .457) and 1 RM power clean (r = .463), suggesting that few of the tested variables are related to the on-field technique of \u201cfiring off\u201d the line. \u00a0Additionally, analysis revealed that body mass and VJ demonstrated a \u00a0non-significant (p > 0.05) moderate relationship with the 1 RM power clean and VJ (r = .448 and r = .472, respectively), while the 1 RM back squat had a slightly stronger (r = .589), but significant (p < 0.05) relationship with the 1 RM power clean.<\/p>\n

DISCUSSION
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

OL and DL positions are unique in comparison to \u2018skill\u2019 positions; however, dissimilarities exist between the OL and DL positions and the roles carried out by these two positions. \u00a0Previous research has indicated that OL are typically more massive (4, 5, 11) and, although contrary to the present data, likely to possess more adipose tissue (4, 11) when compared to DL. \u00a0The distinct positional role differences between these two positions most likely play a key role in this regard. \u00a0Generally, OL must either screen the DL from the ball carrier or quarterback, or attempt to drive the DL away from the running lane. \u00a0Contrastingly, DL must attempt to outmaneuver OL in an effort to avoid being screened or blocked, thus the need for speed at the DL position comes at the cost of body mass. \u00a0Present data reflect these positional role differences with the OL being found significantly more massive and, although insignificant, slightly slower than DL on average with regard to MT performance. \u00a0Additionally, as would be expected, DL performed significantly better than OL in the 40 yd, 20 yd, and 10 yd sprint. \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

The aim of University strength and conditioning programs is to determine the best possible exercises in the weight room to enhance play on the field.\u00a0 Finding exercises that have the strongest association with techniques required on the field involves extensive testing of those exercises. \u00a0However, little has been done in the way of quantifying a field-related technique and assessing the relationship with exercises assumed to be related to activity on the playing field. \u00a0According to Fry et al., (7) strength, speed, and power tests are indirect measures of football ability.\u00a0 However, strength and performance measures are critical for a better understanding of which measures reflect the physical performance characteristics representative of football playing potential. \u00a0There have been only a few studies that have examined associations between select strength and performance and a practical field-based evaluation.\u00a0 Furthermore, to the knowledge of the authors this is the first study to evaluate the performance of a task specific to the OL and DL positions. \u00a0The present study failed to find any strong evidence of relationships between selected strength and performance measures and a position-specific task on the MX. \u00a0Previously, Davis et al. (6) found a weak relationship between the 1 RM power clean and VJ performance in collegiate football players. \u00a0Additionally, Mayhew et al. (10) examined the relationship between VJ, 1 RM power clean, and performance on a practical, total body BOMB throw assessment in collegiate football players. \u00a0The authors reported the 1 RM power clean to be a weak predictor (r = 0.33) of the best BOMB throw performance due to a lack of specificity between the movements. \u00a0Although a diverse group of selected strength and performance measures were used for comparison in the present study, the VJ and PC require dynamic, total body explosiveness much like the performance on the MX. \u00a0However, none of the strength and performance measures strongly correlated with MT on the MX, while force on the MX only had a modest relationship with the 1 RM power clean (r = .463). \u00a0Thus, this finding parallels those of Mayhew et al. (10) and are indicative of the weak relationship between the 1 RM power clean and the performance of a dynamic, total body field test. \u00a0Not surprisingly, VJ performance had a weak relationship with force on the MX. \u00a0This could be expected as VJ performance is concerned with the ability to explosively move the body vertically, while the MX performance examined absolute force.<\/p>\n

In the present study, DL demonstrated significantly faster sprint means and near significantly faster MT means during a position-specific performance on the MX. \u00a0There was no difference in performance on the MX in regards to force between OL and DL. \u00a0The OL were found to be significantly more massive than DL, thus slower acceleration produced by the OL may minimize meaningful difference in force. \u00a0Data indicated that none of the strength and performance measures correlated with performance measures on the MX, thereby adding to the conundrum that few exercises carry strong correlations to the basic movement and strength of OL and DL as expressed through an on-the-field technique. \u00a0The task performed on the MX may be too complex to have a high degree of association with selected strength and performance measures (10). \u00a0Thus, although the MX provides an evaluation of a position-specific task, the degree of complexity of the task may make increase the difficulty of high levels of associations with selected strength and performance measures.<\/p>\n

CONCLUSION
\n<\/b>To our knowledge, the present study was the first to use a device for evaluative purposes specific to the nature of the linemen position in the game of football.\u00a0 There were no significant differences found in MT and force measures between OL and DL when a position-specific task was performed on the MX. Additionally, there were no strong associations found among selected strength and performance measures and performance on the MX.\u00a0 Future research is warranted for the purpose of identifying exercises that provide a strong relationship to position-specific activity in OL and DL.\u00a0 Although, the MX was found to be reliable, it would be worthwhile for future research to include other tools that provide a more sensitive assessment of a position-specific task.<\/p>\n

APPLICATION IN SPORT
\n<\/b><\/p>\n

Cognition of the differences in the positional roles and distinct physical characteristics between OL and DL is important. \u00a0These two positions should not be categorized as one group so that training and evaluation can be specifically tailored to benefit both positions. \u00a0In regards to training, tradition and observation are many times factors that dictate the exercises performed in the weight room. \u00a0Although more research is needed for the purpose of finding exercises that carry strong relationships with position-specific activity in these athletes.\u00a0 Practitioners should keep an open mind in regards to exercise selection and keep in mind the specific needs of each position.<\/p>\n

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS<\/b><\/p>\n

None<\/p>\n

REFRENCES<\/b><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Baechle, T. R., & Earle, R. W. (2008). Essentials of strength training and conditioning<\/i>. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics Publishers.<\/li>\n
  2. Barker, M., Wyatt, T. J., Johnson, R. L., Stone, M. H., O’Bryant, H. S., Poe, C., & Kent, M. (1993). Performance factors, psychological assessment, physical characteristics, and football playing ability. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 7<\/i>(4), 224-233.<\/li>\n
  3. Bass, T. (2004). Football skills & drills<\/i>. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics Publishers.<\/li>\n
  4. Berg, K., Latin, R. W., & Baechle, T. (1990). Physical and performance characteristics of NCAA Division I football players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 61<\/i>(4), 395-401.<\/li>\n
  5. Carbuhn, A. F., Womack, J. W., Green, J. S., Morgan, K., Miller, G. S., & Crouse, S. F. (2008). Performance and blood pressure characteristics of first-year national collegiate athletic association division I football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 22<\/i>(4), 1347-1354.<\/li>\n
  6. Davis, D. S., Barnette, B. J., Kiger, J. T., Mirasola, J. J., & Young, S. M. (2004). Physical characteristics that predict functional performance in Division I college football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 18<\/i>(1), 115-120.<\/li>\n
  7. Fry, A. C., & Kraemer, W. J. (1991). Physical performance characteristics of american collegiate football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 5<\/i>(3).<\/li>\n
  8. Hoffman, J. R., Ratamess, N. A., & Kang, J. (2011). Performance Changes During a College Playing Career in NCAA Division III Football Athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 25<\/i>(9), 2351-2357 .<\/li>\n
  9. Jacobson, B.H. <\/b>(2012). Cross-sectional anthropometric historical comparisons of selected college football player positions and potential health implications. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.<\/i> 26<\/i>(12), 3358-3364<\/li>\n
  10. Mayhew, J. L., Bird, M., Cole, M. L., Koch, A. J., Jacques, J. A., Ware, J. S., . . . Fletcher, K. M. (2005). Comparison of the backward overhead medicine ball throw to power production in college football players. [Comparative Study]. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research<\/i>, 19<\/i>(3), 514-518.<\/li>\n
  11. Miller, T. A., White, E. D., Kinley, K. A., Congleton, J. J., & Clark, M. J. (2002). The effects of training history, player position, and body composition on exercise performance in collegiate football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Allen Press Publishing Services Inc.), 16<\/i>(1), 44-49.<\/li>\n
  12. Secora, C. A., Latin, R. W., Berg, K. E., & Noble, J. M. (2004). Comparison of physical and performance characteristics of NCAA Division I football players: 1987 and 2000. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Allen Press Publishing Services Inc.), 18<\/i>(2), 286-291.<\/li>\n
  13. Stockbrugger, B. A., & Haennel, R. G. (2003). Contributing factors to performance of a medicine ball explosive power test: a comparison between jump and nonjump athletes. [Comparative Study]. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 17<\/i>(4), 768-774.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Submitted by\u00a0Garrett M. Hester, Bert H. Jacobson, Ty B. Palmer, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"Position-Specific Comparisons between NCAA Offensive and Defensive Linemen #NCAA #college #sports #studies","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,292],"tags":[473,477,476,249,475,474],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-sw","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":8541,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/obesity-on-the-line-an-analysis-of-high-school-linemen-recruited-to-play-for-power-five-schools\/","url_meta":{"origin":1768,"position":0},"title":"Obesity on the Line! An Analysis of High School Linemen Recruited to Play for “Power Five” Schools","date":"May 5, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Jeffrey J. Fountain1, Peter S. Finley2, and Thomas Wuerzer3 1Department of Management at Nova Southeastern University 2Department of Management at Nova Southeastern University 3Department of Public Administration & Real Estate Development at Nova Southeastern University Correspondence: Jeffrey J. FountainCarl DeSantis Building3301 College AvenueFort Lauderdale, FL, 33314-7796jeffjf@nova.edu954-262-8129 Jeffrey Fountain, Ph.D.,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/Fountain-Table-1-2023.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":494,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/an-analysis-of-weight-management-and-motivation-of-former-and-present-high-school-and-college-football-players\/","url_meta":{"origin":1768,"position":1},"title":"An Analysis of Weight Management and Motivation of Former and Present High School and College Football Players","date":"May 16, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Mark Still, Ed.D ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to analyze the weight management practices and motivational orientation for participating in the sport of football from former and present high school and college aged football players. The study included an in-depth analysis of the practices of offensive and defensive\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":8453,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/predictive-validity-of-the-physical-skills-test-of-the-40-yard-dash-and-draft-placement-in-the-nfl-draft\/","url_meta":{"origin":1768,"position":2},"title":"Predictive Validity of the Physical Skills Test of the 40-yard Dash and Draft Placement in the NFL Draft","date":"January 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Raymond Tucker and Willie Black Department of Kinesiology, University of Houston Victoria, Victoria, TX, USA. Correspondence: College of Education and Health Professions Kinesiology Department University of Houston Victoria, USA.University of Houston at Victoria3007 N. Ben WilsonVictoria, Texas 77901Phone: (361)-570-4381Tuckerr1@uhv.edu Raymond Tucker, D.S.M., CFSC, CSCS * D, EXOS - XPS,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/Tucker-table-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":8044,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-national-football-league-combine-do-performance-measures-predict-draft-status-among-nfl-draftees\/","url_meta":{"origin":1768,"position":3},"title":"The National Football League Combine: Do Performance Measures Predict Draft Status Among NFL Draftees","date":"November 5, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Raymond Tucker, Jr. 1,Willie J. Black, Jr.2 1Department of Kinesiology, University of Houston Victoria, Victoria, TX, USA.2Department of Kinesiology, University of Houston Victoria, Victoria, TX, USA. Corresponding Author:Willie J. Black, Jr.University of Houston at Victoria3007 N. Ben WilsonVictoria, Texas 77901Blackw@uhv.eduPhone: (361) 570-4298 Raymond Tucker, D.S.M., CFSC, CSCS * D,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Figure1-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":7721,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/testing-the-predictive-validity-of-combine-tests-among-junior-elite-football-players-an-8-yr-follow-up\/","url_meta":{"origin":1768,"position":4},"title":"Testing the predictive validity of combine tests among junior elite football players: an 8-yr follow-up","date":"December 8, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Pierre-Luc Yao1, Vincent Huard Pelletier1, and Jean Lemoyne1 1 Department of Human Kinetics, Universit\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec \u00e0 Trois-Rivi\u00e8res, Trois-Rivi\u00e8res, QC, CanadaCorresponding Author:Pierre-Luc Yao, PhD3351 Boulevard des ForgesTrois-Rivi\u00e8res, QC, Canada, G8Z 4M3Pierre-Luc.Yao@uqtr.ca819 376-5011, ext. 3793 Pierre-Luc Yao, PhD a lecturer and internship coordinator in the Department of Human Kinetics at\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/11\/Figure-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":193,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/intelligence-and-football-testing-for-differentials-in-collegiate-quarterback-passing-performance-and-nfl-compensation\/","url_meta":{"origin":1768,"position":5},"title":"Intelligence and Football: Testing for Differentials in Collegiate Quarterback Passing Performance and NFL Compensation","date":"March 5, 2005","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: McDonald P. Mirabile Abstract This article presents an empirical analysis of the relationships between intelligence and both passing performance in college and compensation in the National Football League (NFL). A group of 84 drafted and signed quarterbacks from 1989 to 2004 was selected for the study. The author\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1768"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1768"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1768\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1869,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1768\/revisions\/1869"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}