HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Prospects (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Kane...Who is the real shrimp? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=370514)

fan mao rong 04-15-2007 05:33 PM

Kane...Who is the real shrimp?
 
It has been seeen that some on here view Patrick Kane as vastly undersized, I think not.

Now we know the disclaimer, many times listed weights for young players are not recorded by those with the dedication of medeival monks, who will studiously transcribe height and weight with utmost attention to accuracy and currentness. In fact information may be old as from a preseason camp or whatnot.. Nevertheless I think listed weight can be useful as a ballpark figure.

Listed weights of 3 prospects most widely regarded as 1st overall material.

Patrick Kane---5'10---170

Kyle Turris --6'1---165

Jacob Voracek...6'2---185

I have heard those on here describe alternately some of these guys as noticably thin in pictures, up close, etc. So I believe they carry very little fat. If so , the body weight would be mostly muscle and bone. A measurement which may prove useful would the old simple formula of pound per inch.

Pounds per inch for these players; Voracek came out in front in my calcuations, but not by much. Voracek- an even 2.5 LBS per inch. Kane came in slightly behind at Kane 2.42 + LBSper inch. So that is the big difference- Voracek over Kane by eight hundreths of a pound per inch. Turris was somewhat less than these Turris 2.26 Pounds per inch. So Turris may need to build up a bit.
So I don't think the difference between Kane and Voracek is all that great on a size scale, alone . The effect of height? I think that is somewhat debateable . You be the judge.

rt 04-15-2007 05:41 PM

The Phoenix Coyotes had a behind the scenes draft special last summer. While discussing who they should pick, one of the scouts said something to the effect of "the other guy is bigger" to Wayne Gretzky who replied "I don't care about size. It's not about that anymore. Get me someone who can skate".

I don't believe that being undersized is nearly the detriment it once was for draft elibable prospects.

VanW27 04-15-2007 05:51 PM

certainly the emphasis on size is much less then it was, but there is indeed a big difference between 6-2 and 5-10.

monster_bertuzzi 04-15-2007 06:02 PM

Kane is not a smidge over 5'9''.

Osprey 04-15-2007 07:28 PM

Weight can be gained at will... height cannot. Turris and Voracek can add 20-30 pounds a whole lot more easily than Kane can add 2 or 3 inches. I'm not concerned about weight nearly as much as height.

WhiskeyYourTheDevils 04-15-2007 07:31 PM

voracek isnt 6-2 no way jose

Form and Substance 04-15-2007 08:19 PM

Why anyone should be concerned about height if skating isn't an issue is beyond me at this point. I guess we need a few more 6'4 duds to hammer it home.

Redwingsfan 04-15-2007 08:24 PM

this whole size thing is complete nonsense imo. it doesnt matter if kane is small. he will be a very good nhl'er. the scouts wouldnt rank him #1 if they didnt think so. as long as you dont have an entire team full of undersized player it doesnt matter at all. every team in the NHL has room for a couple of small players as long as they are good enough.

XX 04-15-2007 08:30 PM

None of these guys are part of dedicated training programs yet, and will put on more weight and get leaner/stronger. It should be a non issue. I don't care if Kane can't bowl someone over. He can probably just deke around him. Voracek is probably going to be a lot meaner, because he can afford it with his size.

All things being as they are, Vorecek is going to be the hardest to knock off the puck physically. Thats life. I'm sure that doesn't detract from Kane or Turris level of skill. At least not in the eyes of scouts, because size doesnt matter anymore.

kostybros 04-15-2007 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redwingsfan (Post 8940379)
this whole size thing is complete nonsense imo. it doesnt matter if kane is small. he will be a very good nhl'er. the scouts wouldnt rank him #1 if they didnt think so. as long as you dont have an entire team full of undersized player it doesnt matter at all. every team in the NHL has room for a couple of small players as long as they are good enough.

I think the size thing won't change much down the road in the 5 or 10 years, but the fact that Kane is 5'9 160lbs means he won't play an NHL game in in the 2 or 3 years or he'll get killed. Brulé was a lot stronger even if he was small and he got injured after 10 games the first time and he still hasn't ajusted to the NHL game. The concern about Brassard last year was his size, got hurt for 6 months...
Kane will be a good one but i woudn't play him until he's 21 years old when he'll be more like 5'9 and 180lbs.

SpaceGhost79 04-15-2007 08:55 PM

According to the NHL Central Scouting profiles, they did their own measurements on the players you listed. They got Kane at 5' 9.5" and 160 pounds (a "smidge" over 5'9 :p:). Turris is 6' 0.5" and 170 pounds (a bit above the listed weight). And Jacob Voracek at 6' 1.25" and 187 pounds (very close to the listed weight).

Kaktus* 04-16-2007 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpaceGhost79 (Post 8940830)
According to the NHL Central Scouting profiles, they did their own measurements on the players you listed. They got Kane at 5' 9.5" and 160 pounds (a "smidge" over 5'9 :p:). Turris is 6' 0.5" and 170 pounds (a bit above the listed weight). And Jacob Voracek at 6' 1.25" and 187 pounds (very close to the listed weight).

This is correct. Kane is between 160-165

PhoPhan 04-16-2007 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perezhogy (Post 8940521)
I think the size thing won't change much down the road in the 5 or 10 years, but the fact that Kane is 5'9 160lbs means he won't play an NHL game in in the 2 or 3 years or he'll get killed. Brulé was a lot stronger even if he was small and he got injured after 10 games the first time and he still hasn't ajusted to the NHL game. The concern about Brassard last year was his size, got hurt for 6 months...
Kane will be a good one but i woudn't play him until he's 21 years old when he'll be more like 5'9 and 180lbs.

If it takes Kane three full years to add 20 lbs., he's in the wrong training program.

Redwingsfan 04-16-2007 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhoPhan (Post 8945280)
If it takes Kane three full years to add 20 lbs., he's in the wrong training program.

yeah. i was thinking the same thing.

LaLaLaprise 04-16-2007 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhoPhan (Post 8945280)
If it takes Kane three full years to add 20 lbs., he's in the wrong training program.

Some guys just cant add weight. No matter how hard some players work they dont add muscle. Its more common than a lot of people think.

Adding pounds is often thought of as a foregone conclusion for a lot of players. But for some its a struggle.

slade 04-16-2007 02:49 PM

people look way too much into the numbers.

a haircut can give you an extra inch or two. a week of binge eating/water guzzle can easily add 5-6 lbs.

malkin is 6'2 or 6'3 and crosby is barely 5'11...and malkin is waay easier to knock off of the puck.

kane may be light by the numbers- but he rarely gets knocked off of the puck. that is what matters.

Erika 04-16-2007 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slade (Post 8949008)
people look way too much into the numbers.

a haircut can give you an extra inch or two. a week of binge eating/water guzzle can easily add 5-6 lbs.

malkin is 6'2 or 6'3 and crosby is barely 5'11...and malkin is waay easier to knock off of the puck.

kane may be light by the numbers- but he rarely gets knocked off of the puck. that is what matters.

Thats because he plays againts Teenagers !! In Junior league, you can still own everybody just with your talent.

If Kane is in the NHL at 160 lbs, he will get crush not matter how good his balance on skate is !! He better start training soon if he wants to be effective in the PRO

Yann 04-16-2007 05:33 PM

Malkin is friggin skinny, did you ever see a picture of him without his equipement? no wonder hes easy to knock of the puck, and Crosby is exceptional, he has a drive so strong, he wants to be the best and works harder tham Malkin for sure...

As for Kane and Voracek, you cant compare by just stats, Voracek is more complete and plays at both ends...

40oz 04-16-2007 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yann (Post 8951049)
Malkin is friggin skinny, did you ever see a picture of him without his equipement? no wonder hes easy to knock of the puck, and Crosby is exceptional, he has a drive so strong, he wants to be the best and works harder tham Malkin for sure...

As for Kane and Voracek, you cant compare by just stats, Voracek is more complete and plays at both ends...

crosby has a very strong base, tree trunks legs thats how he can be effective along the boards and not be knocked off the puck. hemsky is like that aswell

SeasonTicket 04-17-2007 02:01 PM

It will be interesting what the press says about Kane at the NHL Combine. Last year they made a big deal about how strong Eric Johnson was for an 18 yearold.

I think the testing results will be interesting.

monster_bertuzzi 04-18-2007 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vampiro (Post 8949692)
If Kane is in the NHL at 160 lbs, he will get crush not matter how good his balance on skate is !! He better start training soon if he wants to be effective in the PRO


Strength and weight are two different things. Petr Prucha only stands 5'10'' and weighs 170 soaking wet, and he has no problems getting pushed around in the bigs. Kane definitely has to bulk up though.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:29 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.