Stop Running Protocols. Start Playing Chess.
What 4th-grade chess class taught me about programming ACL rehab — and why two athletes from the same team needed two completely different plans.
I remember learning how to play chess in my 4th grade class with Mr. Kraft.
We’d practice every day for a couple of months, then have little matches at the end of the week. And although I wasn’t the best — the strategy really got me. I remember going home and playing with my grandpa when he’d come over, trying to learn more.
The strategy of the game hooked me.
It’s why I love baseball and football so much. It’s more than just picking random plays or throwing random pitches. It’s about the strategy. How each pitch you throw, or each play you call, is setting up a play two or three plays from now — or even setting up something for later in the game.
That thought process becomes addicting. You become enamored with chasing the next big play or the next big pitch. Looking for the perfect combination.
That’s how it feels when I write a program for my ACL rehab athletes.
I’m not picking drills or lifts just because they fit the goal of that day, or because well, this is what we’ve always done at this stage of rehab. That way of thinking doesn’t account for the individual athlete.
How are they feeling? How are they progressing? What are their needs? What’s their injury history beyond this ACL — was there a previous ACL? A history of other surgeries or injuries? And what exactly are they trying to get back to? A sport like gymnastics is less running, more plyos. Soccer is more long-distance running. Football and lacrosse are lateral movement with hard cuts and change of direction.
These are the things I want to think about. How can we program specifically for these needs?
Even two athletes playing the same sport, at the same level, can go through two completely different programs — based on what THEY need specifically.
A real example.
Last summer I had two college lacrosse athletes. They were actually high school teammates.
One of them I’d trained in the past. She tore her first ACL in high school, returned, won an all-county award, then tore her second ACL mid-freshman campaign trying to play through another injury (a full article on that one is coming).
She recommended her former teammate come work with me to get ready for her first season at the school she was transferring to.
We had a lot to consider.
First — timing.
Athlete 1 was only home for about 5 weeks before going back to school. Athlete 2 was staying home through the fall before leaving.
For Athlete 1, we had to prioritize mechanics and maximize every day — that way when she was back at school, she could survive with minimal contact from me.
Athlete 2 we could slow-cook. Which helped because of the next thing we had to consider.
Second — background.
Athlete 1 had been with me for some time, so a lot of the drills and coaching cues she had already heard. She also had a lot of the physical qualities I look for intact. The stiffness. The positioning. The stability. So a lot of what we had to do was more like a refresher than anything else.
Her experience also led to a fearlessness and a willingness to move fast. From a coaching perspective: she’s strong, she has stiff ground contact, she can maintain her position, she can hold good posture as intensity goes up. All good signs to progress accordingly.
Athlete 2 was different. She lacked stiffness, stability, and positioning. We needed to take a different approach. More stability-based prep work — because she would get fatigued early and lose position when she ran. A ton of foot and ankle stiffness work so she could have a better interaction with the ground. When it came to the running itself, we added more breaks for higher-quality reps.
That trend held throughout rehab. Athlete 1 progressed at school. Athlete 2 stayed home and progressed with me — and back home we were able to give more attention to the things that mattered to her, not to a protocol.
We also knew things might take a little longer to come back. That was OK. It didn’t mean anything was a failure or that anyone was behind. It just meant our expectations were guided by her lack of a pre-running phase, and the strength, stiffness, motor control, and stability she still needed.
By the time both girls were ready for the return-to-sport phase, the timing was perfect. It was winter break. They both matched up — ready to start cutting and dodging together.
If the roles had been reversed, I don’t think we would have had the same success.
Sure — Athlete 1 would have been fine either way. We probably would have started rotational accelerations earlier. Her experience and athletic ability gave us the freedom to breathe easy when she was away.
But Athlete 2? If she’d gone to school for her rehab, she would have been just another number. Just another ACL. They would have run her long and slow. Never addressed the stiffness. Never let her sprint and cut. Never built the positioning and patterning she actually needed to run.
I’m happy to say that not only did both girls return successfully — they both helped their team make a run into the NCAA playoffs.
I can’t help but think: if she’d gone to school for that rehab, she would have been lost.
That’s why I created the Close the Gap Cohort this summer.
These athletes deserve a shot to return on their terms. Not a protocol’s terms. Not an overbooked, understaffed athletic training room’s terms.
These kids sacrifice too much time and work too hard to be given the same ACL program from 10 years ago.
If you want to learn how to take your athletic department’s ACL rehab to the next level, join the Close the Gap Cohort today.