Early combine results
Early RB results from yesterday:
De'Veon Smith - 22 reps on BP
Dalvin Cook - 22 reps
Fournette - DNP (say's he'll lift at LSU Pro day)
Perine - 30 reps
McCaffrey - 10 reps (so much for skipping the bowl to prepare for combine)
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2017/3/2/14796202/2017-nfl-combine-results-…
Ben Braden - 25 reps / 5.04 40
Man, McCaffrey at 10 reps is really really really POOR. Almost unbelievable, especially with how McCaffrey looks physically. I was a college soccer player and could do 225 ten times by the end of my Senior Year.
Darren Sproles did like 23 back in the day....
Jake Long and his 37 reps disagree.
They're just trying to make sure he can get them in the NFL.
Dude Cmon!!! I could introduce you to 5 guys at my gymn that would tell you how much you bench should give you all your self worth and define you as a human being. You obviously don't know what your talking about. /S
I see McCaffrey as a slot receiver in the NFL, and maybe a return man. Maybe he could be used to catch out of the backfield. But I think his versatility is his strength. Not necessarily his skills at one position. But then again maybe he is just a bust. He had one spectacular season in 2015 and last year he was good. I'm surprised he decided to leave early to be honest.
Running backs are the one position group where in almost every case, it makes sense to leave early. They have easily the shortest average shelf life of any position in the league. If you've showcased good talent, which McCaffery has, you might as well try cashing in now.
Running backs take a pounding on every play, and one more year in college means one more year he doesn't get paid, and one year closer to him having to hang the pads up. I definitely see why some guys opt to come back. Nothing wrong with that decision either. But running backs, more than any other position, need to strike while the iron is hot.
I understand that point if you are a traditional running back getting hit by linebackers every carry, which McCaffrey is not IMO. He fits more of a danny woodhead role. McCaffrey is 6' 200 lbs. He is 15 pounds lighter and 2 inches taller than a typical NFL back. Maybe he is the next Chad Johnson but I doubt it. Either way that terrible bench press is going to hurt him. Your average senior high school football player can hit 10 reps at 225.
If he really is the kind of back you're talking about, then his real value is in hitting the second contract that is not subject to rookie restrictions. In that case, the combine performance if it drops him from the first round to the second round isn't really going to hurt him in the long term.
Gotta make it to that second contract though.
Pro sports is so cutthroat that isn't always a gurantee.
I'm sure he will stand out in the other drills and people will forget this bench press number.
James Conner 3'1
I'm gonna say that might be to short to play in the NFL...
I'm not saying it matters in the long run, but how the hell do you only get 10 reps?
The player card for James Conner of Pitt at that link lists him at 3'1" and 233 pounds. Redefining a bowling ball running back I guess. Good luck young man!
We haven't seen that kind of height-weight ratio since Ron Dayne!
that guy needs to play baseball.
I am still baffled by why we use the bench press as a strength measure for football players. If anyone can tell my why the bench press is a good assessment of a running backs ability I'd love to know. I know it sounds cool, we all love to bench, and a set of big pecs looks great, but it's not a great indicator of football playing ability.
Stiff arm? Also, RBs take abuse and muscle mass helps to absorb some of those collisions. Other than that, I got nothing.
I'd ask some follow up questions to yours. Regarding stiff arms...how much of a RBs ability to be good at their position is based upon having a good stiff arm? Further, is horizontal pushing strength in a standing position while moving such as in a stiff arm biomechanically similar to a bench press (laying down & stationary)? Another way of saying this is are those with good stiff arms also good bench pressers and vice versa?
Regarding muscle mass, does more muscle mass equate to being a better RB? Are the most muscular guys typically the best RBs? Is the muscle mass built around the shoulder joint (pectorals, deltoids, biceps, triceps, etc.) that the bench press would assist in building indicative of the sort of muscle mass that is desirable for a RB or would mass in another that could be tested differently be better, such as the mass in the quads & glutes as measured by a back squat?
Stiff arm can be beneficial, though I was not beuing serious when I threw that out. As far as pectorals, when you take a shot to the chest, shoulder pads only take the sharpness of the blow away, you are still getting a massive amount of energy transferred and the more muscle mass you have covering your rib cage, the better. Backs also take shots to upper arms and shoulders under the pads so the mass is beneficial and leads to longevity, I would guess.
You are the professional in this area and I understand what you are saying, that the test itself is not measuring a skill that is translated on the field. I would imagine that upper body mass is beneficial for a running back's ability to take the collective number of shots they are exposed to.
Sure, upper body strength is a positive adaptation to most sports, but is that the best strength for a RB? Would it be better than say a back squat? Are the best blocking backs also typically the best RBs? Is upper body strength in a standing movement like blocking even biomechanically similar to a bench press which is laying on your back stationary?
I never played football, but I was a good thrower on the track team. I had strong legs/back and below average upper body strength. My high school coach, who doubled as a football couch, once told me that bench press was one of the worst indicators of athletic ability there is. Not to say it doesn't carry any importance, but all power is generated from the ground up, through your legs. Squats, power cleans, and other leg/total body/explosive exercises are a much better indicator of strength and explosion.
If a running back, who is a beast at the bench press, doesn't have proper balance and technique to transfer power from his lower to upper body, it won't matter how much he can bench.
Agreed, which is one the reasons the best bench performers at the Combine typically don’t have the most NFL career success.
What is going to differentiate you from the rest?
Umm watching you play football. I’d agree that you can’t start benching 135 for 20 reps and likely be able to do 225 for 20 reps in just a few months of training. However, all of these kids have been in formal S&C programs for at least 3 full years and some 5 years. But, the same can be said of squatting which I believe would correlate much better to football success as well as be a better measure of strength, blocking ability, durability, etc. that others are mentioning. But, even that wouldn’t be a great indicator of football ability, nor would any other weight lifting exercise, and why I think the Combine overall is not that good at telling us if these guys are any good at football.
If watching kids play football was everything then there wouldn't be a combine. It has already been established that these guys are good at football. You don't play college ball at this level without being head and shoulders above 99% of the population. Before today teams had done approximately 90% of their evaluation and are in the process of seeing which players they want on their draft board. As you can see from my previous response I think they are trying to see long term results not 3-5 years. I agree squats would be a great, but the majority of my freshman high school team hadn't ever done a squat. Almost everyone had done reps on a bench press.
If we already know their ability to play football based on watching them at the college level and we establish that a bench press is neither a good indicator of being a good football player nor a good indicator of the likelihood of future NFL success than IMO it’s just a glorified showcase and doesn’t have a ton of value beyond entertainment.
If they just want to talk to the guys, see them in person, ask them questions, see what their physiques look like in shorts and t-shirts (or shirtless sometimes), watch them run around and lift, and see what their overall athleticism is, that’s cool. It’s fun. I personally enjoy seeing these guys lift, run, etc. Let’s just not pretend that it has much success of predicting of a guy’s ability to play football.
If I was an NFL scout would I want it?...hard to say. Sometimes I think the results of the combine muddy the waters of what really matters, watching them play football. There are dozens of players that test great with athleticism at The Combine that aren't great NFL football players and vice versa. Sometimes I think it tricks us into valuing the wrong things or as you say differentiating between two similar players when it shouldn’t.
I think I'd prefer to focus on the important stuff of watching them play. This is kinda like the idea of the movie Moneyball where scouts over value guys with big arms, have power, are tall, hit the ball a long way, are fast, etc. And, they forget about the more important stuff like can they use those attributes to actually be successful at baseball by getting on base and scoring runs. We get seduced by a jacked guy with a big bench, great 40 time, and great measurables that gets outplayed on the field by a better football player that is smaller, slower, and not as strong, but is better at playing the game. But, we’re supposed to be evaluating football & not general athleticism and the difference between the two is significant.
I think size is probably more important in football than baseball so I do like the idea of getting official height/weights because schools are notorious for over-listing heights particularly. And, I like the idea of the interviews. But, the athleticism drills like a 40 yard dash, 3-cone drill, vertical jump, bench press, etc. are pretty worthless for scouting.
How do you know I’m not?
There are many variables involved in blocking, but yes, the bench press does translate onto the field, expecially in a drive block situation where you are engaged with quads and glutes with your hands to the chest not extended and in somewhat of a stalemate..... the bench press can give you the burst and push you need to get the defender moving backward. This is why having the inside hand placement as an OL is crucial.
Blocking is a dynamic total body standing movement that involves many variables as you mentioned including horizontal pressing. Bench pressing is an upper body stationary supine (on your back) exercise which has the sole goal of horizontal pressing and will use predominately the shoulders, pecs, and arms. Some powerlifters or benchers may use hips, a back arch, etc. which we can go further into those biomechanics if you wish, but that will muddy the waters furter. There is nothing to suggest being good at one will correlate well to being good at the other.
In 2007, Coach Juan Carlos Santana and Dr. Stuart McGill conducted a study "A kinetic and electromyographic comparison of the standing cable press and bench press." that compared the single arm standing cable press and the traditional bench press to better understand the biomechanical limitations of pushing from a standing position.
2 findings from the study that are relevant:
-
Pushing forces from a standing position under ideal mechanical conditions are limited to 40.8% of the subject's body weight.
-
EMG findings show that standing cable press performance is limited by the activation and neuromuscular coordination of torso muscles, not maximal muscle activation of the chest and shoulder muscles.
First, the principles of biomechanics, physics, & math make it impossible for anyone to come close to matching the bench press type of pushing force from a standing position, regardless of the stance the exercise is performed in.
Secondly, the limiting factor when pushing from a standing position is the stiffness of the torso muscles to maintain body position and to coordinate the hips and shoulders, while stabilizing the forces that the extremities (arms and legs) create.
In other words, the standing pushing action is more of a total body exercise, whereas the bench press is more of an upper-body exercise. There is no evidence to suggest that bench pressing tests would be a good indicator of effectiveness of a standing, dynamic movement like blocking. That’s not even to mention the fact that having longer arms is typically beneficial in most positions of football, including blocking, yet detrimental to bench pressing.
I can't remember where I heard or read it, but supposedly one of the reasons they still use it is to have the players show that they've continued to hit the gym hard between the end of season and the combine. Considering it more of an endurance exercise vs a show of power.
I could see that, but why the bench? It seems there are other tests that are better suited. Plus with all the other stuff they already test is adding the bench really proving that?
I’d say that bench pressing for most of these guys in the 15-25 rep range would be a test of muscular endurance. Typically if one just says endurance most think of cardiovascular endurance, which isn’t really tested at The Combine.
Power is generally done in a faster/more explosive movement. The bench press is not a test of power, it’s meant to be a strength test, which as you noted it isn’t really for these guys, maybe a HS kid or if they did a 1-5 repetition maximum. The Combine doesn’t do an upper body power test, but it does a lower body one (vertical jump).
This is from the NFL combine website. It seems NFL scouts want to see your endurance.
Bench press
The bench press is a test of strength -- 225 pounds, as many reps as the athlete can get. What the NFL scouts are also looking for is endurance. Anybody can do a max one time, but what the bench press tells the pro scouts is how often the athlete frequented his college weight room for the last 3-5 years.
what the bench press tells the pro scouts is how often the athlete frequented his college weight room for the last 3-5 years.
I’m not sure how doing the bench on one day tells you how often you went to the college weight room. Wouldn’t you need a pretest, a period of training, then a post test to tell that? Plus, I’m pretty sure they're required to attend S&C workouts the same amount for every player on the team unless they’re injured. It just doesn’t make much sense.
I think the bench press is one of only weight lifting movements that can be done by all football players and which can be done safely until exhaustion and not require perfect form. Doing something like deadlifts would emphasize technique more than raw strength. Those technique focused lifts also increase the chances of injury as the players are going all out to get maximum reps/weight.
It also acts as a surrogate for overall strength. There aren't many strong guys that can't put up a decent number of bench reps or weak guys that can put up a high number.
Might also be a way to suss out otherwise hidden upper body injuries as the 40 will tell teams if a lower body injury might be there, but there isn't anything that could raise red flags for upper body issues. McCaffrey either raised some injury red flags, dedication flags, or overall strength flags.
You bring up a number of interesting points. Regarding doing bench pressing and injury rates I don’t have any real data off hand, which I can go back and look for some, but anecdotally speaking I find that bench press is generally a common exercise where pec and shoulder injuries occur. Although those tend to be more of overuse injuries. Once in awhile a guy will tear a pec on a single rep, but usually they have rotator cuff injuries from too much bench pressing. But, that’s purely anecdotal based on my experience and observations.
Regarding tests of raw strength, I’m not sure there is a raw strength test out there for guys at this level that can be done with low risk. The same thing would occur with the squat, deadlift, hang clean, etc. Although personally I’d rather see them do reps on a squat than a bench press. I think the movement pattern and the muscles of the squat are more likely to be correlated to playing success than the bench would, it would also have a risk of injury.
Regarding the correlation between max strength and muscular endurance I’m not sure that’s accurate. If we’re talking about an untrained person or even a moderately trained person, then yeah I’d probably saw those with more max strength in an exercise can also likely do more reps than someone with less strength. But, in highly trained athletes, I’d disagree. If you train for max strength, you’ll likely have a higher max. If you train for reps you’ll likely be able to do more reps. If you train for a blend of both you’ll likely be pretty good at both albeit not as good as someone that focuses on one...ie Wolfe’s Law. The adaptation is specific to the training stimulus.
Bench press is not a metric of the RB's overall "ability". It it were, than why would they do the other tests? It's a metric of upper body strength. It's one (of many) aspects of a RB's ability as it indicates capability potential for blocking, stiff arms, ability to absorb contact, strength to hold onto the ball etc. It's a single data point. All else equal between two RB's you probably take the stronger one. No scouting director or GM only looks at bench press. Combine results are one input, along with statistical production, watching scouting tape and interviews, which go into a decision to draft a player.
It's one (of many) aspects of a RB's ability as it indicates capability potential for blocking, stiff arms, ability to absorb contact, strength to hold onto the ball etc.
Do you have any evidence this is true or does it just make sense in your head?
GO BLUE!!
Very impressive with De'Veon. He's not the fastest guy by any stretch, but my god is that man strong. Hope to hear his name called in a few months.
As for McCaffery, that's incredibly underwhelming for a guy of his talent level. I of course am not a scout, but on the surface that says that says to me there was a glaring lack of preparation on his part. The biggest interview of your life, you're trying to push yourself into the first round, and all you can do is 10 reps?
For a guy as high profile as he's supposed to be, that's just not very impressive.