HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > NHL Draft - Prospects
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

NHL Draft - Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

Ryan Nugent-Hopkins - Edmonton Oilers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-28-2011, 03:51 PM
  #51
Curtinho
Spero Meliora
 
Curtinho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponder View Post
Exactly, and that's bodybuilders on steroids, focusing only on weight gain and not cardio/explosiveness/on ice hockey skills. As you said they might gain 6 lbs a month of total weight, but more like 3 lbs a month of lean muscle.

Sure if you're still growing height wise you can put on weight faster, but most 18 year olds have been at their max height for some time. For an ectomorph like RNH, who is trying to bulk while also improving his cardio, explosiveness, skills, etc., without steroids, averaging 2 lbs a month of lean muscle gain over a summer would be a great result.
And would also mean he probably has the best genetics in the world, as most studies show that, naturally, you can't put on more than 1 - 1.5 lbs of lean muscle a month. 2 is top end.

Curtinho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 04:27 PM
  #52
ponder
Registered User
 
ponder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenixM View Post
And would also mean he probably has the best genetics in the world, as most studies show that, naturally, you can't put on more than 1 - 1.5 lbs of lean muscle a month. 2 is top end.
I'm not sure if I would go quite that far, for young men with insane genetics I wouldn't be surprised if around 5 lbs per month of lean muscle was possible to sustain for a couple months, but these would be the absolute outliers. I've talked about this before with friends who are personal trainers who have obviously trained a lot of athletes, and they seem to think that sustained gains of about 2 lbs/month of lean muscle (and more like 4 lbs/month of total weight, with this all being truthful to yourself, not lying to yourself by taking the extreme low/high weight days based on fluctuations in water/carb storage, or about how much fat you've put on) is a good upper end goal for an average guy on a heavy bulking program/diet, but one that most guys (even with very hard work, eating tonnes of calories/protein) will not be able to consistently achieve. But RNH wouldn't be just bulking, he's a hockey player, not a body builder, so he's gonna be focusing just as much on speed/quickness/explosiveness, cardio, on ice skills, etc. Plus he seems like an ectomorph too, who would be on the low, not the high end of favourable genetics for gaining muscle.

I think this is a good little writeup:
Quote:
What constitutes a "challenging but realistic" goal when it comes to building muscle?

You might not like what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway. The fact is that some people have very favorable "muscle building" genetics and will see impressive results after only a few months of lifting weights. Others will build muscle more slowly. And that's just the way it is.

Yes, I know there are plenty of people running around trying to persuade you that they have "the key", be it a super-secret training program or exotic supplement- to putting on 50 pounds of muscle in [INSERT COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC TIME FRAME HERE].

Truth is, if you're just starting out lifting weights, you're doing extremely well to be gaining about 2 pounds of muscle each month, or 24 pounds over the course of a year.

Even Arnold Schwarzenegger, who combined extremely favorable genetics with an almost super-human work ethic, was very happy to out on 25 pounds in WEIGHT (not just muscle) over the course of a year. Here's what he wrote in his autobiography Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder...

"Many people regret having to serve in the Army. But it was not a waste of time for me. When I came out I weighed 225 pounds. I'd gone from 200 to 225. Up to that time, this was the biggest change I'd ever made in a single year."


So if Arnold says that 25 pounds was as much as he'd ever gained in one year (and not all of this was muscle), you'll be doing well just to match it, let alone beat it.
From: http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/...g-muscle-fast/


So if 2 lbs per moth was great gains for a young Arnold Schwarzenegger, you have to think that 4 lbs a month of lean muscle mass for an ectomorph like RNH would be pretty nuts.


Last edited by ponder: 05-28-2011 at 04:38 PM.
ponder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 04:29 PM
  #53
Vincent_TheGreat
Registered User
 
Vincent_TheGreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,128
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Vincent_TheGreat
Quote:
Originally Posted by RStar View Post
I work and hang out with guys on juice as well. You guys seem to be misunderstanding initial muscle gain with muscle gain of a guy who has already packed on a ton of muscle.

I honestly don't understand why everyone is choosing to have reading comprehension today, because I've stated it fairly clearly. Hopkins INITIAL muscle gain will be easy for him. Once he reaches his ideal weight, putting on extra muscle will be hard.
There is no magical initial muscle gain for an athlete at 18... Your being ridiculous. I'm doubting that you even train yourself. He isn't just starting to work out now

Vincent_TheGreat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 04:31 PM
  #54
Vincent_TheGreat
Registered User
 
Vincent_TheGreat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,128
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Vincent_TheGreat
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenixM View Post
And would also mean he probably has the best genetics in the world, as most studies show that, naturally, you can't put on more than 1 - 1.5 lbs of lean muscle a month. 2 is top end.
Not necessarily. Just means right amount of nutrition at the right time, with the right amount of sleep, recovery aid and proper training regieme. Their are clear cut physical limits for 99.9% of the population, and RNH is not one of those .1%

Vincent_TheGreat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 04:36 PM
  #55
Curtinho
Spero Meliora
 
Curtinho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent_TheGreat View Post
Not necessarily. Just means right amount of nutrition at the right time, with the right amount of sleep, recovery aid and proper training regieme. Their are clear cut physical limits for 99.9% of the population, and RNH is not one of those .1%
This was used in the study done where the highest amount of lean muscle gained was 18 lbs iirc. Sleep, training, supplements but all natural. We aren't talking about people that weren't working out enough, or getting the proper nutrition. This is a scientist supervised study group. Now I'm sure there are people that fall outside of that range (1.5 lbs/month) of lean muscle, but for the most part everything indicates that 1 - 2 lbs of lean muscle a month is the low to top end of the vast majority of the population.

Curtinho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 06:35 PM
  #56
Lottery Oilers*
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,326
vCash: 500
RNH probably will never get past 185 pounds but that doesn't mean he can't add a lot, and I mean a TON of strength.

Someone who trains in MMA, like the poster in this thread, should surely know the difference between adding useless muscle and functional strength.



Bruce Lee was pretty "slight" as well

Lottery Oilers* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 06:53 PM
  #57
GetThePuckOut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,408
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by RStar View Post
I work and hang out with guys on juice as well. You guys seem to be misunderstanding initial muscle gain with muscle gain of a guy who has already packed on a ton of muscle.

I honestly don't understand why everyone is choosing to have reading comprehension today, because I've stated it fairly clearly. Hopkins INITIAL muscle gain will be easy for him. Once he reaches his ideal weight, putting on extra muscle will be hard.
This is true. Another way to look at it is the law of diminishing returns; 80% of returns will come from the first 20% of effort.

Initial gains can come remarkably easy, but once that first part is over, it slows down massively and becomes the 1-2lb/mo rule.

GetThePuckOut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 06:56 PM
  #58
GetThePuckOut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,408
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreasyGrinder View Post
RNH probably will never get past 185 pounds but that doesn't mean he can't add a lot, and I mean a TON of strength.

Someone who trains in MMA, like the poster in this thread, should surely know the difference between adding useless muscle and functional strength.



Bruce Lee was pretty "slight" as well
It's good to be strong but it's also good to be heavy. When you're crashing the net or throwing a hit, it's speed x mass, and the heavier guy will be more effective.

So the weight in general is effective, making it not useless muscle.

All that said, RNH can easily get to 190lbs in a matter of 2 years, and I predict he will.

GetThePuckOut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 07:11 PM
  #59
RStar*
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Red Deer
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,021
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBlazer View Post
This is true. Another way to look at it is the law of diminishing returns; 80% of returns will come from the first 20% of effort.

Initial gains can come remarkably easy, but once that first part is over, it slows down massively and becomes the 1-2lb/mo rule.
Im glad at least someone knows what they're talking about. Everyone else seems to want to compare Hopkins initial weight gain to what a 30 year old NHL vet could get spending the same amount of time in the gym.

RStar* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 07:41 PM
  #60
NeedMoreJam
Bachelors of Tanking
 
NeedMoreJam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 231
vCash: 500
I think we all need to stop analyzing hopkins genetics and chances at beefing up in order to be ready for next season. The guy plays a skilled game and is exceptional at avoiding hits. If he was a power forward then these debates would hold a lot more water (pun intended).

In the fall rnh will prove whether or not he belongs. He will either adapt quickly to the speed of the nhl and his hockey iq will carry him, or he won't and will get sent back down. I think people are putting to much "weight" (baha im on a roll) into his body build when it simply isn't his game.

NeedMoreJam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2011, 08:34 PM
  #61
40oz
..........
 
40oz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,704
vCash: 500
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins is the next Bruce Lee

40oz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2011, 10:53 AM
  #62
Fourier
Registered User
 
Fourier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Waterloo Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBlazer View Post
It's good to be strong but it's also good to be heavy. When you're crashing the net or throwing a hit, it's speed x mass, and the heavier guy will be more effective.

So the weight in general is effective, making it not useless muscle.

All that said, RNH can easily get to 190lbs in a matter of 2 years, and I predict he will.
If the Oilers draft RNH to crash the net or throw hits they are crazy. Strength will help him in things he needs to do to compement his skill set far more than mass.

Fourier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2011, 04:26 PM
  #63
Lay Z Boy GM
Registered User
 
Lay Z Boy GM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: West coast
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,515
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40oz View Post
Ryan Nugent-Hopkins is the next Bruce Lee
Bruce Lee was the last Ryan Nugent-Hopkins.

Lay Z Boy GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-29-2011, 04:40 PM
  #64
bsmith14
Registered User
 
bsmith14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,036
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPhoenixM View Post
And would also mean he probably has the best genetics in the world, as most studies show that, naturally, you can't put on more than 1 - 1.5 lbs of lean muscle a month. 2 is top end.
nice to see someone who understands how muscle gains work. I got in an argument on the oiler boards with some guy who thought Sam Gagner could gain 25lbs of muscle in a summer lol

bsmith14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2011, 03:59 PM
  #65
JawandaPuck
Moderator
Lost Art of Dynasty
 
JawandaPuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Vancouver BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,481
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freudian View Post
There seems to be some blanket assumption that every prospect will pack on 20 or more pounds from when they are drafted. In the same way it is assumed that weak skaters will get power skating lessons and not be weak skaters anymore.

To me, RNH seems to have a very slender frame. I'd be very surprised if he passes 190 pounds at any point.




JawandaPuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 04:46 PM
  #66
Wheatking
Registered User
 
Wheatking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,614
vCash: 500
Why Do Some People Think RNH Has High Bust Potential?

Title says it all. Very few players are a slam dunk but why do people think he could be a bust? You didn't hear that about Stamkos, Tavares or Hall.

I'll leave it at that because I don't want to influence people's responses. What are the major weaknesses in his game?

Wheatking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 04:49 PM
  #67
Brewsky
King Of The Ice Mugs
 
Brewsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: King County
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Brewsky Send a message via AIM to Brewsky Send a message via MSN to Brewsky Send a message via Yahoo to Brewsky Send a message via Skype™ to Brewsky
His name is too long.

Plus he's got a long stick.

Brewsky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 04:51 PM
  #68
Brian Boyle
ZibaneFAM
 
Brian Boyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Playing video games
Country: United States
Posts: 61,965
vCash: 50
Most likely, size.

__________________
Brian Boyle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 04:55 PM
  #69
Freudian
Clearly deranged
 
Freudian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Country: Sweden
Posts: 38,053
vCash: 50
I don't think he is more likely to bust than any other of the top eight.

But I would guess the main concerns are probably his weight (and possibly problems of putting on muscle, given how he is built) and that 55% of his points came on the PP, which is very high compared to the other top forwards.

Then again, teams don't draft because they assume junior production transfers to the NHL. They draft because they see enough of the tools that enables someone to be a good NHL player in their prime.

Freudian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 05:04 PM
  #70
BluechipBulletin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
Being as light as he is at his height and given that his skating speed and agility are nothing special, he's going to be relatively easy to knock off the puck. That, the fact that most of his points came on the PP, and the fact that he is ineffective in traffic are all good reasons why people think RNH has high bust potential.

BluechipBulletin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 05:08 PM
  #71
arsmaster*
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 25,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluechipBulletin View Post
Being as light as he is at his height and given that his skating speed and agility are nothing special, he's going to be relatively easy to knock off the puck. That, the fact that most of his points came on the PP, and the fact that he is ineffective in traffic are all good reasons why people think RNH has high bust potential.
I've seen you write this a few times now.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?

Thanks.

arsmaster* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 05:08 PM
  #72
Joey Moss
5-14-6-1
 
Joey Moss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: McDavid
Posts: 26,549
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Boyle View Post
Most likely, size.
Which is ridiculous because when he fills out he'll be about 6'1 185.

I think it's more his PP numbers compared to ES numbers. It's not a problem for me though, RNH is far and away the best player in this draft and should absolutely light it up with Hall and Ebs.

Joey Moss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 05:16 PM
  #73
Variant
Registered User
 
Variant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluechipBulletin View Post
Being as light as he is at his height and given that his skating speed and agility are nothing special, he's going to be relatively easy to knock off the puck. That, the fact that most of his points came on the PP, and the fact that he is ineffective in traffic are all good reasons why people think RNH has high bust potential.

Agreed, what concerns me about Hopkins putting about the majority of his points on the PP is that it doesn't translate well to the NHL. Patrick Kane's power play production went from 54.4% in his draft year to 50% in 2008-09 to 32.9% last season.

Last year, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins scored at a clip of 0.97 ppg. This year he scored at 1.53 ppg in the regular season. It's not uncommon for junior players to have such a jump in offensive production from year to year. In fact, it's exactly the kind of progression you would want to see, but the fact that it's being largely fueled by power play production in the case of RNH would make me nervous.

Another concern with Hopkins is the fact that he is rail thin. It's very possible that he will fill out, but it's also possible that he doesn't.

Variant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 05:38 PM
  #74
Gobo
Stop looking Gare
 
Gobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluechipBulletin View Post
Being as light as he is at his height and given that his skating speed and agility are nothing special, he's going to be relatively easy to knock off the puck. That, the fact that most of his points came on the PP, and the fact that he is ineffective in traffic are all good reasons why people think RNH has high bust potential.
Come again?

He's pretty agile and quick from what ive seen.

Gobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2011, 05:52 PM
  #75
BluechipBulletin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I've seen you write this a few times now.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
He's very effective when he has time and space. He's not effective when he's got guys on him. His release is very slow, so his shot is completely ineffective if he doesn't have the time to settle the puck on his stick. That makes it very easy for goalies to react. For someone with the dangles that he has, you'd expect him to be good at altering his release point, but he doesn't do that very well either.

When there's traffic, he tends to avoid it. That'll cause him to be a perimeter players in the NHL, because there will always be traffic and he won't have the time and space that he needs to be effective at the NHL level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Variant View Post
Another concern with Hopkins is the fact that he is rail thin. It's very possible that he will fill out, but it's also possible that he doesn't.
People love to talk about frame, but he doesn't have a frame that will be able to pack on much more weight. He's naturally skinny. And even if he were able to pack on some weight, it would cost him in terms of his skating speed and agility, things that aren't strengths as it is.

Given that there are reasons to believe that he won't pack on much more weight, you have to ask yourself whether you'd rather have a 6'1" 170lb guy or a 5'8" 170lb guy. All else being equal, you obviously take the shorter guy because his center of gravity is lower and he'll be harder to knock off the puck.

You have to wonder how RNH's confidence will be when he's making highlight reels not for his offense but because he's getting decimated by 6'3" 225lb D.

BluechipBulletin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:42 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.