Preprint Article Version 1 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Morphological and Performance Biomechanics Profiles of Draft Prep American Style Football Players

G. Monique Mokha
* ORCID logo ,
Maria Berrocales
,
Aidan Rohman
,
Andrew Schafer
,
Jack Stensland
,
Joseph Petruzzelli
,
Ahmad Nasri
,
Talia Thompson
,
Easa Taha
,
Pete Bommarito
Version 1 : Received: 19 September 2024 / Approved: 20 September 2024 / Online: 20 September 2024 (16:45:54 CEST)

How to cite: Mokha, G. M.; Berrocales, M.; Rohman, A.; Schafer, A.; Stensland, J.; Petruzzelli, J.; Nasri, A.; Thompson, T.; Taha, E.; Bommarito, P. Morphological and Performance Biomechanics Profiles of Draft Prep American Style Football Players. Preprints 2024, 2024091657. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.1657.v1 Mokha, G. M.; Berrocales, M.; Rohman, A.; Schafer, A.; Stensland, J.; Petruzzelli, J.; Nasri, A.; Thompson, T.; Taha, E.; Bommarito, P. Morphological and Performance Biomechanics Profiles of Draft Prep American Style Football Players. Preprints 2024, 2024091657. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202409.1657.v1

Abstract

This study profiled morphological and laboratory-derived performance biomechanics by position of American style football players training for the National Football League draft. Fifty-five players were categorized into Big (e.g., lineman; n=17), Big-skill (e.g., tight end; n=11), and Skill (e.g., receiver; n=27) groups. Body fat (BF%), lean body mass (LBM), total body mass, running force and ground contact time (GCT), countermovement jump height (CMJ-JH), CMJ normalized peak power (CMJ-NPP), and reactive strength were measured in a laboratory. Asymmetry was calculated for running force, GCT, and CMJ eccentric and concentric impulse (IMP). MANOVA determined between-group differences, and radar plots for morphological and performance characteristics were created using Z-scores. There was a significant between-group difference, F(26,80)=5.70, p<0.001;Wilk’s Λ=0.123, partial η2=0.649. Fisher’s least squares difference post-hocs showed Skill had greater JH, CMJ-NPP, reactive strength, and running force versus Big but not Big-skill, p<0.05. Big had greater BF%, LBM, total body mass, and GCT than Skill and Big-Skill, p<0.05. Big-skill had greater GCT asymmetry than Skill and Big, p<0.05. Asymmetries in running forces, and CMJ eccentric and concentric IMP were not different, p>0.05. Morphological and performance biomechanics differences are pronounced between Skill and Big. Big-skill possess characteristics from both groups. Laboratory-derived results provide specialized profiles of draft trainees.

Keywords

body composition; running kinetics; jumping kinetics; countermovement jump; asymmetry; motion capture; lower-body power

Subject

Biology and Life Sciences, Life Sciences

Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download PDF

Comments (0)

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our Diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
* All users must log in before leaving a comment
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 0
Get PDF Cite Share 0
Bookmark BibSonomy Mendeley Reddit Delicious
×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.