2011 Draft Combine Thread

[FlyingPenguin]

There isn't enough scouts to scout every player extensively. There comes a time where you have to make a decision if a players worth your time or not and focus on players that the team thinks are worth their time.

I can't see Boston heavily scouting Kitchener (Which they did do) but not have any interest in the player that they had a chance to get on that team. (Murphy)

You can't see why an NHL team with a draft pick projected to be in the top 10 of the draft would heavily scout a junior team with two players considered consensus top-10 picks?

Teams scout players because that's how they're going to decide who they're interested in drafting. The scouting comes first.

 

[PeterTheGreat]

You can't see why an NHL team with a draft pick projected to be in the top 10 of the draft would heavily scout a junior team with two players considered consensus top-10 picks?

Teams scout players because that's how they're going to decide who they're interested in drafting. The scouting comes first.

Your reading comprehension is a bit off.

He said he can't see them scouting Kitchener and NOT having interest in Murphy.

 

[the q]

I used to cycle a lot when I was younger and that windgate test doesnt look that tough. Not sure what they are talking about. If they think that is tough, they should try cycling up steep hills in the mountains.

something that you maybe dont know, is that during the test the have zero pause between all the test... I personnaly know people that where there and with 150 lbs at the bench they usally do around 25 rep but its soo hard without pause

 

[JoeIsAStud]

Your reading comprehension is a bit off.

He said he can't see them scouting Kitchener and NOT having interest in Murphy.

I have no doubt the Bruins scouted Murphy heavily. He is a top 10 type of player, and certainly someone a team might give every opportunity to prove that he is progressing in his areas of weakness.

Honestly it seems to me that if you are repeatedly scouting a guy, you have interest, and also you have questions. There is definitely something you like about the player, but at the same time you keep going back because there must be something you don't like as well

In terms of a Bruins scout at every game? Did someone take attendence? I know the Bruins have both Adam Creighton and Jack Higgins in the general area, but no idea exactly where either guy lives now. . Not sure which guy is supposedly watching every game

It is certainly possible that a team is very interested in a player during the scouiting process, and then after watching some number of games they make the decision that he isn't their guy.

 

[magic school bus]

no matter how ripped you are... it isn't healthy to be that low. he'll be injured in no time.

yea. i'm still waiting for that Douglas Murray kid to go down, but nice try though.

 

[His Beardliness*]

yea. i'm still waiting for that Douglas Murray kid to go down, but nice try though.

what?

Crankshaft is a fatso.

 

[Bryanbryoil]

Is there anywhere where we can get the actual heights/weights at the combine? There have been some conflicting reports with RNH being anywhere between 172.5 and 177lbs.

 

[Trotzig]

what?

Crankshaft is a fatso.

After some googling I found Murray reported at 5% body fat. Personally, I can't tell from a few pictures, but he certainly isn't a "fatso".

 

[40oz]

How do you know it's just a scout who lives here? There is no proof of that. Last year there wasn't a Boston scout every game.

I think you're reading into this way too much.

 

[Jussi]

After some googling I found Murray reported at 5% body fat. Personally, I can't tell from a few pictures, but he certainly isn't a "fatso".

He ugly. Close enough to fat.

 

[Jevo]

no matter how ripped you are... it isn't healthy to be that low. he'll be injured in no time.

It isn't healthy to be under 10% no matter what, but athletes need to be in that low. But please enlighten me, what does body fat have to do with injuries, cause I really don't know what it has to do with each other? A lot of fat ain't gonna save you from a broken bone, muscles and resistant bones are? This study say the opposite of what you are saying, "No difference in overall injury rates between higher and lower fat groups was seen at any body fat level."
But 3.6 is very low, maybe even so low that it could have negative effects on his performance, but every organism is different, some don't experience negative effects by such a low fat percentage. Many pro cyclists have a fat percentage between 3 and 4% when in topform, the lowest I've heard is one supposedly having only 2%.

 

[Jevo]

After some googling I found Murray reported at 5% body fat. Personally, I can't tell from a few pictures, but he certainly isn't a "fatso".

He looks very lean to me, he has almost no fat on his ribs, they are slightly noticeable in that picture. Also look at his neck, might be easier to see in other pictures, but it's very lean, no additional fat or skin there, same with his cheeks, despite his broad face they are not big. He is a giant, but he is in no way fat, rather the opposite, wouldn't be surprised if the 5% is true.

 

[windflare]

Every year we have wannabe internet tough guys on here flaunting their e-peen on bench pressing and even the V02 test without really knowing the experience.

When will people ever learn.

 

[His Beardliness*]

He looks very lean to me, he has almost no fat on his ribs, they are slightly noticeable in that picture. Also look at his neck, might be easier to see in other pictures, but it's very lean, no additional fat or skin there, same with his cheeks, despite his broad face they are not big. He is a giant, but he is in no way fat, rather the opposite, wouldn't be surprised if the 5% is true.

I always thought he looked like he carried a couple of extra pounds. Probably because of his face.

 

[OilerOlli*]

Who invites the Players to the combine and says who are the 102 best prospects?

I foudn the answer here already, they go just with the css rankings.

 

[bassassin]

It isn't healthy to be under 10% no matter what, but athletes need to be in that low. But please enlighten me, what does body fat have to do with injuries, cause I really don't know what it has to do with each other? A lot of fat ain't gonna save you from a broken bone, muscles and resistant bones are? This study say the opposite of what you are saying, "No difference in overall injury rates between higher and lower fat groups was seen at any body fat level."
But 3.6 is very low, maybe even so low that it could have negative effects on his performance, but every organism is different, some don't experience negative effects by such a low fat percentage. Many pro cyclists have a fat percentage between 3 and 4% when in topform, the lowest I've heard is one supposedly having only 2%.

4% is ridiculous, the only people you will ever see with body fat % anywhere near that low is pro bodybuilders, even then they will be ill. On oxygen and stuff offstage etc.

I doubt Murray has a 5% body fat as well. Anything below about Tesink and Grimaldis levels of 6.8% verges on rather unhealthy although it does vary person to person.

 

[Monk]

It's really not that weird for a teenager to have below 5% body fat.

 

[Freudian]

Will they release the official height and weight measurements from the combine? I notice that the ones on the site are old ones.

 

[bassassin]

It's really not that weird for a teenager to have below 5% body fat.

Essential fat is around 5% so yes it is very weird, unless they are either bodybuilders about to compete (most of whom wouldn't be under 5% anyway) or extreme anorexics.

 

[Pulkkinen]

If i'm not wrong, in the Combine they only measure the percentage of adipose tissue for subcutaneous fat, but they don't count the fat around the organs, that's why exists differences around 5-10% with their real percentage of total body fat. It's obvious that a 4% of body fat is completely unreal, even for an athlete.

 

[bassassin]

If i'm not wrong, in the Combine they only measure the percentage of adipose tissue for subcutaneous fat, but they don't count the fat around the organs, that's why exists differences around 5-10% with their real percentage of total body fat. It's obvious that a 4% of body fat is completely unreal, even for an athlete.

That would make a lot more sense, thank you.

 

[Grinder2222]

bf%

If i'm not wrong, in the Combine they only measure the percentage of adipose tissue for subcutaneous fat, but they don't count the fat around the organs, that's why exists differences around 5-10% with their real percentage of total body fat. It's obvious that a 4% of body fat is completely unreal, even for an athlete.

That's correct. Everyone carries around 3-5% (it varies possibly even more than that in some cases) around their organs. The body fat test at the combine is simply a skin caliper test so any fat around the organs is not measured. General rule of thumb is to add 4% to their score to get a more accurate score. But most teams don't care about fat around the organs. They simply want to see how hard the kid works and their commitment to fitness.

I just got back from the combine. For the most the part the kids represented themselves well. You could tell which guys just finished playing and which guys have been working out for a month or two.

 

[leoleo3535]

Will they release the official height and weight measurements from the combine? I notice that the ones on the site are old ones.

That would be nice as they have dropped the ball on this all year long.
One of the easier things to do but they don't bother.

 

[Grinder2222]

wingate

I used to cycle a lot when I was younger and that windgate test doesnt look that tough. Not sure what they are talking about. If they think that is tough, they should try cycling up steep hills in the mountains.

And please, if you've never done a wingate don't try to compare it to biking up a hill. That's absolutely ridiculous. The wingate is a max effort test with a workload that would bury most people. It tests anaerobic alactic power not aerobic endurance. The most important number is the max power output in the first 5 seconds of the test. In no way does it resemble biking on a road bike.

I'm not trying to be rude but please think before you speak.

 

[cheesed-off*]

And please, if you've never done a wingate don't try to compare it to biking up a hill. That's absolutely ridiculous. The wingate is a max effort test with a workload that would bury most people. It tests anaerobic alactic power not aerobic endurance. The most important number is the max power output in the first 5 seconds of the test. In no way does it resemble biking on a road bike.

I'm not trying to be rude but please think before you speak.

And the X-Wingate tests intergalactic anaerobic powers.