The DB's did the bench
Jeremy Clark did 20 reps.
Jordan Lewis did 15 reps.
Channing Stribling did 5 reps.
Delano Hill did 17 Lano lifting :
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-combine/0ap3000000790498/Delano-Hill-puts…
Jabril running the 40 mash up with Ha Ha / Honeybadger / Earl Thomas:
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-combine/0ap3000000790439/Simulcam-Peppers…
Regardless, 5 reps is still not a good showing by Stribling
It's not a good number, but (a) cornerbacks have less of an emphasis on it, and (b) he still has the Pro day if he wants to give it another shot.
Your bench press isn't going to improve significantly in the span of 19 days.
Guys also have off/bad days
Yeah...it sucks when your off day is perhaps the biggest day of your life up to this point.
Also, in my experience, off days don't really translate to lifting. I mean, if I'm tired or didn't eat well, that's one thing. But if I'm well rested and I've been eating well, my squat is my squat. My bench is my bench. It's not going to vary wildly.
But sure, maybe tomorrow he could do 6 reps.
Or maybe today was his good day, and tomorrow he'll do 4.
Probably true. And this is where you can all tune out with "cool story brah", but I do remember in law school (back when I sort of put effort into stuff like benching), I could put up 185 5 times (at around 155-160) consistently, then one day I just knocked out 10 at 185 and probably could have done 1 or 2 more. Next day, back to 5-6. So like you mentioned, you could have a good/bad day and it can be timing/nerves/whatever. Of course, this could have been his high point and he'd struggle to get the bar up, so who knows.
Yeah bronx and that day you did 10 you were like:
You could have an off day. You hear about guys knocking a .1 off their 40 time at the pro day, and who's to say that Stribling couldn't put up, 8-9 at 225 with a better day. Again, raw strength is going to be an issue for him, but closer to 10 and I don't think anyone would have been that taken aback by it.
to workout. Unless he went to UM for school.
....indeed, well at least Christian McCaffrey doesn't feel so bad.
McCaffrey had a hell of a combine so he probably doesn't give a fuck.
I did see it. All I was getting at was that he did so well in every other area (including one of the best cone drills ever) that it prompted many scouts to say he dominated the combine overall from the running back position. In fact, Charley Casserly tweeted out that he worked out with the WRs and looked like a 1st round pick there as well. From all of the chatter on here about his 10 reps on bench you would think he would go undrafted. It couldn't be further from the truth.
Another reason why I dislike this test for football players. Having long arms is a desirable trait for almost every position in football, yet it’s detrimental for the bench press.
Yeah, I mean the 40-yard dash doesn't matter for a nose tackle. The vertical jump doesn't matter for an offensive guard. They're single measurements that are thrown into a whole raft of data about these players. If a coach/GM doesn't think the bench matters for a CB, then it will be thrown out of that team's equation.
In another thread I posted some points about why I don’t like the bench press of how different biomechanically pushing strength is and what muscle groups are most important during a standing dynamic movement like blocking or coming off the line and pushing a guy versus that of a stationary lying supine position as in a bench press.
I don’t think it has any validity for any position personally and if that’s the case why not replace with something more useful? I’m a little baffled why so many seem to want to argue in favor of it.
These are two slightly different subjects.
1. Is the bench press important for having success while playing football? Eh, maybe not, for the reasons you're discussing.
2. Is the bench press important for your job interview in order to make a living playing football? Apparently the answer is yes.
Just like in the discussion of McCaffrey, if you know your job interview is going to require you to bench press, then you should be good at it. If I go in for a job interview, I'm putting on a tie. Do I need to wear a tie every day for my job? No. But employers expect me to or they'll think I'm not serious, so I'm going to show up wearing a tie for my interview. Do I need a portfolio for my job on a daily basis? No. But I sure as hell better have one for my interview.
What it boils down to, in large part, is an inability or a lack of desire to prepare correctly for the job interview. And again, when strength is one of your known weaknesses, you're not doing much to change people's minds when you show your...lack of strength.
Is the bench press important for your job interview in order to make a living playing football? Apparently the answer is yes.
That does not give any validity to the test itself as it’s presented by the NFL nor provide any rationale for people to argue in favor of using it (over other tests or ommitting it).
What it boils down to, in large part, is an inability or a lack of desire to prepare correctly for the job interview.
If the BP is not valid (test what it’s intended to test) then it should be replaced or removed. Couldn't the NFL evaluate preperation in a way that in a more useful way (I’d prefer a back squat) or wouldn’t the other tests do that while simply omitting the BP?
It's one thing to put in a random test just to see how people respond & prepare. It's quite another to put in a test that being successful at leads people into a false understanding/belief of what being successful at the job requires.
That's fine if it doesn't give any validity to that. You're missing the point.
If you know ahead of time that wearing clown shoes and singing "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" is a part of the job interview for the NFL, then you better prepare for that thing.
Go ahead and replace it. Remove it. I don't care. But right now, players have to prepare for that aspect of the Combine.
So, if I’m understanding you right (and correct me if I’m wrong), your counter to my point that the test is not valid (and even counterproductive) and shouldn’t be included or should be replaced with another test is that regardless it’s still something to prepare for and not doing so or doing so poorly is in some way indicative of how one might prepare to play football?
Well, OK I guess, but I’m not sure what that has to do with my point. It seems like we are “arguing” different things.
I’m not arguing in favor of nothing, just a different more useful model, or a more limited set of tests that have more application to the job.
He also has 30 pounds on him, per mgoblue fall roster, so I'd say that's an unfair comparison
I don't think anyone was trying to downplay Clark (or Lewis for that matter). It's clear based on this that Clark is the stronger of the two comparable cornerbacks, but that doesn't mean that the arm length of stribling doesn't have an effect on his performance. Just because someone with longer arms performs better in the bench press doesn't mean it isn't a disadvantage. I know it is nitpicking, but this is one of my biggest pet peeves. Someone uses reasoning to try and explain an event, and then someone contradicts that by giving one example in the contrary and that isnt't regarded as anm exception but rather the rule.
The point is that arm length can be overcome. Stribling isn't the tallest/longest corner. He's 6'1" with 31.5" arms.
Marlon Humphrey has longer arms and did 10 reps. Teez Tabor does, too, and did 9 reps. In fact, I looked up half a dozen corners' results, and all of them had longer arms than Channing Stribling except Sojourn Shelton...and yet Stribling did the fewest reps of anyone, and it wasn't close. He did 5, and the next weakest guy did 9.
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to say that Stribling should be regarded as much stronger than his results show, I just hate the "here is one example against what you are saying, so I am right" perspective of so many people.
a) The comment is about arm length, not body size.
b) One of the knocks on Stribling during his whole career has been an inability to put on size. The dude is finishing his fourth year of a college strength and conditioning program, and he's still only 175 lbs. This is the culmination of an issue that has been lingering since 2013 and before.
What does suck is I'm sure he's tried to put on the weight. It's not like he's refusing to eat or anything, but there are just some guys who can't seem to add bulk regardless of what they do.
I don't really buy this. Adding weight is a science. An inexact science, but a science nonetheless. Eating more calories than your body burns is a surefire way to add weight. There's a science to adding muscle, too. Unless a disease is involved of some sort, Stribling should be able to add weight if he wants. If he's eating 4,000 calories a day and it's not working, then he needs to make it 4,500. At the same time, if you're eating 2,500 calories a day and you're not losing weight like you want, then dropping it to 2,300 or 2,000 calories is the next step.
IMO, the only realistic conclusions in this case are a) nobody ever told him he needed to add weight so he didn't try or b) he didn't commit to doing what's necessary to add weight when he was told.
People just assume that all athletes live in the gym and are totally committed all offseason. This simply isn't true. Plenty of guys just breeze through the off season and get by on natural talent. When a guy has that much trouble gaining weight, I question how hard they are really trying. Doesn't make him a bad guy or a bad player. It's not easy to be 100% focused all the time.
You don't make the improvements that Stribling made from his Freshmen year to where he is now without working hard. Maybe he workd at different things besides core strength (Agility, footwork, film study, etc.) But to accuse someone of their work ethic being poor based on one statistical meausre is asinine.
I don't think this is happening here, but it's also possible that he personally couldn't be as effective as a CB at the higher weight and that was his main goal. David Boston in the pros as one example.
Adding weight is a science. An inexact science, but a science nonetheless. Eating more calories than your body burns is a surefire way to add weight. There's a science to adding muscle, too.
When it comes down to understanding mechanistic factors in an applied science such as exercise is that it’s extremely difficult to tease out the variables so you can draw cause/effect conclusions. There are a few things we should clarify that seem to be thrown around right now. One is weight gain, another is hypertrophy, and a third is how college football S&C programs are designed.
The topic of hypertrophy (building lean mass as an adaptation to resistance training) is much more complex than some are making it out to be. First, if one cares enough to pay attention and track their macronutrients & calories, one can fairly easily within several weeks figure out what their maintenance calories are (how much they can eat based on their current activity levels without gaining or losing weight) and then either add or subtract calories to gain or lose weight. There are all kinds of apps these days that let you do this fairly easily by simply scanning in the food you eat into a database. However, the theory of eating to a plan is simple. Carrying out the plan in real life, especially for college kids is difficult. This means you have to track everything you eat and drink (except water). This takes quite a time commitment. Trying to get 18-22 year olds in a college environment to eat a structured nutrition plan is near impossible even for motivated athletes due to the nature of being in college and the kind of social/cultural things that happen there.
Second, hypertrophy, is not the same as weight gain and there is no guarantee that simply adding calories over maintenance while participating in strength training regimen will produce gains in lean mass. The ability to hypertrophy is just as much of a genetic predisposition as naturally being muscular is. Some people got it and some don't. And, to even further muddy the waters those with a high natural amount of muscle without ever weight training also don't necessarily correlate to the ability to grow more muscle as a response to weight training. The discrepancy between high responders to weight training and low/no responders is significant. There is even evidence of folks that lose muscle mass despite being in a caloric surplus while resistance training.
My hunch is guys like Stribling or Terry Richardson are low responders and will likely always struggle to build muscle in response to resistance training unlike guys like Peppers or Frank Clark. Now, does that mean they can't grow? Only a research study which controls for other variables could tell us that. It’s not fair to judge a guy’s effort based purely on results because some could get better results with less effort and/or less adherence to a plan and just be a high responder while a low responder could potentially working their tail off and just not have the genetics for it.
Lastly, a college football S&C program doesn't really focus on hypertrophy. The way an athlete trains and a bodybuilder trains for example are quite different. Things like joint balance, core stability, agility, coordination, explosiveness, etc. are important to any athlete or football player. So, a football player has to spend a small amount of time working on improving a lot of different athletic traits. Hypertrophy training, the way a bodybuilder trains, is solely focused on building lean mass. They don't necessarily have to waste time doing all the other stuff. So, to make a long story short, while most athletes will add lean mass over the course of their college S&C training careers, they aren't training specifically for that alone and could likely put on way more if that's all they had to worry about. So, a guy that doesn’t put on much lean mass over his career may or may not be working hard & eating right (and the environment he’s in is not ideal for doing so). We don’t know.
Clark being 30 pounds heavier than Stribling, that doesn't surprise me. Lewis, though, putting up 15 is really damn impressive given the fact he's only 188lbs.