It's basically trading armor for flexibility. They had very inflexible torsos but were less vulnerable to penetrating gut wounds, a death sentence in pre-tech times. The ribs hover very low over the hips, almost no waist.
They're also geared for crushing power rather than speed. The bone attachments are geared short rather than tall. Furthermore, the lower arms and lower legs are very short compared to the upper limbs in each case.
They could ram a thrusting spear deep, deep into a big animal, but they had a lousy fastball. They couldn't get much of a whip onto a throwing spear. The inflexible torso didn't help with that, either.
They lived hard, died young, and had skeletons like old rodeo cowboys. Lots of healed breaks. They took care of their wounded and buried their dead.
I wonder if the muscle attachments from bone to muscle were anchored in different locations compared to modren humans. Muscle to bone leverage could account for a lot of their increased strength.
Maybe call it:
Neanderthal Nobility
One Tough and Chivalrous Hombre
I'm thinking big bones supporting big muscles requiring big lungs supplying adequate oxygen. Kinda upends the humandoid-as-bumpercar theory. This skeletal interpolation of the fossil record and the tacit "proof" of an evolutionary basis for bell-shaped rib cages denies Occam his whetstone.