Grading Aaron Curry
We left off on a bit of a cliffhanger and with good reason(s).
No one player can turn around a team (though the rebounds by Atlanta, Miami, Tennessee and to a lesser extent Baltimore argue that adding a competent quarterback sure helps). Sometimes a marquee talent at a marquee position falls to you at four, but not too often. So you either reach for position and draft B.J. Raji or Eugene Monroe and know the talent isn't that special and you might be drafting the next Johnathan Sullivan, or you take the best guy out there and figure out position later. Seattle did the latter. Seattle did not need Aaron Curry, especially did not need Curry if it had kept Julian Peterson, and shouldn't expect Curry to be the player that makes this defense. No one player can turn around a team.
It's tough to swallow that, because when good teams go bad and they get that first top five pick in whoknowshowlong, everyone wants that pick to be so damn special it makes 12 losses seem worth it. Like that first night with strange isn't going to make the divorce worth it but you better get over it anyhow or else you're going to be forever lonely and bitter. Like Aaron Curry isn't going to be Lawrence Taylor -- who, incidentally, played for some pretty rotten teams but was Lawrence Taylor anyway -- but is seriously badass and more than a little fun to watch.
The next three plays went
- (Right) Hit, swim, does not factor.
- (Right) Short zone, does not factor.
- (Left) Throw away, does not factor.
And those three plays pretty much defined BC's second half offense. So, you can see why I'd cut this game short, start tomorrow with Deon Butler and rejoin Curry against a team with an offense. But there's a grade to be given.
Curry is fast. Curry is rare fast for a linebacker, but the thing that pops for Curry, the thing that makes him special among the special is power. Pure, athletic power. They say you can't teach speed, but truth is you can't teach power either. Yeah, I could bulk up and pound the iron like a pneumatic piston, but on my hulkingest, veiniest, roidingest, most shriveled testicle day, I could not stand with an NFL player. That's because muscle fibers don't increase and you can only max them out so much. That's because the power to slowly lift heavy objects is mostly useful for slowly lifting heavy objects. That's because 6'2"/250 guys that can rattle 6'5"/260 guys that could rattle the fillings from my teeth are unique. Curry is hugely powerful. He will abuse opposing tight ends and force opponents to audible them off the line. He will drive lead blockers into backs and in through the out hole. Curry will add power to a linebacker corps without great power, and size and muscle to a defense built on technique and speed.
Of course, Curry is fast. Curry is rare powerful for a linebacker, but the guys he pops, the players he overpowers looks stuck in quicksand beside him. He gets going fast, has a real nice speed curve, and is effective through the hole, in long pursuit, or running back an interception or fumble. Curry has a way of appearing in places he really shouldn't be like Hasidic Bat Mitzvahs or 25 yards down and across the field four inches into Chris Crane's shoulder socket.
Size, strength, it sounds like athleticism, but it's not. Control is athleticism and Curry is no dancer, but he's nimble. He can move both through and around offensive linemen. He can redirect well and has terrific feet. He moves a little stiff at times, but there's basic inertia at play here, and I don't think it's so much a lack of agility as that it's hard to move a big body at high speeds. So that, if Curry can learn when to burn and learn when to inch in, I think he's physically capable of the kind of sudden redirect and lateral pursuit of the best linebackers. He's a special athlete, but doesn't look consistently so, and unlike almost any great Ruskell prospect before him, there's currently more talent than skill, but a Saint John's Cathedral ceiling.
A lot of skill though and little skill buds that make ya think "this guy's skilled, but there's room for him to be a true technician." He has the pre-rec preternatural awareness. The kind of head-on-a-swivel, everywhere-the-ball's-gonna-be kind of vigilance that looked so promising in Lawrence Jackson before his hand-fighting skills never materialized and he started quitting on plays. Curry has the hand fighting. The push, the rip, the swim that tosses aside lead blockers. He has the buffet of skills of a great pass rusher. He looks a little stiff to terrorize right now, but let's not count him out. There's a little Teddy K in this guy. A little lunatic pass rusher waiting for the right crusade.
You're gonna see this guy and you're gonna love him. He won't fix this defense, but after a game of detailed scouting, there's not many guys I'd rather watch and watch and watch. He could make the Pro Bowl his first year, but the Seahawks themselves might stop that. Should it mean anything, he'll make Sportscenter most Sunday nights. He'll make Seattle's defense better. Better than it was with Julian Peterson, even if it means finding pass rush from other players and better schemes. He will bust through blockers Colin Cole lets through and pretty much stop another Brandon Jacobs debacle from happening. He's going to make his name known around the league awful fast, and in between the flash he's going to be a great teammate and contribute to others' big plays. No, he's not going to make this defense, but everything I've seen says Seattle picked right on Curry. Let's start him with an "A" and see if he can top that.
1 recs |
71 comments
|
Comments
"Let's start him with an "A" and see if he can top that."
That’s deep.
by SPENCEMAN on Jun 4, 2009 3:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"Like that first night with strange"
Very poetic, but not exactly what I think you meant.
by djafrot on Jun 4, 2009 4:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Never heard that one before, sorry!
Guess I’m not as “urban” as I thought I was.
by djafrot on Jun 4, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's alright
I was curious that maybe I was wrong, but yeah, the above is how I meant it.
by John Morgan on Jun 4, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
dangit John...
I have been spending excessive time here lately to FORGET about the ex and how much it hurts, and you have to go and make a reference to remind me exactly how much I miss her…
Definitely bitter… definitely presently alone, and not all that believing in it not ending in “forever lonely”… sigh.
And the strange I’ve gotten has been a poor substitute.
/real life
Please, for the LOVE OF GOD, stop suggesting next year's 1st round pick (or picks) be used for Taylor Mays and or a QB of the future. Let's just let the season unfold, people, and evaluate much deeper in the process!!!
by whiskey chainsaw on Jun 4, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"people are strange when your a stranger."
I ’m guessing everyday is your most shriveled testicle day, I give him an A in June. Lets see if he can come close to Patrick Willis type production in his first year.
"Superhero like even"
by censor1979 on Jun 5, 2009 7:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What doesn't kill you
makes you stranger
by B.B.Finnegan on Jun 5, 2009 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Expectations
Many of us were so high on the defense prior to the 2008 season, I think we’re reticent to get excited about this year. But, dammit, I’m excited about watching this defense. Anyone else looking forward to that first collision between Aaron Curry and Steven Jackson? Boom.
by jeager on Jun 4, 2009 4:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very good point
I think we’re a little gunshy. Maybe we weren’t quite realistic before, though. I am definitely excited about the defense, I think big things can happen.
by jacobstevens on Jun 4, 2009 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm hoping Jackson doesn't make it through the line.... ;)
but if he does, I want to see Curry lay the freakin’ bricks. Dreads and mouthpiece flying.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200
by Misfit74 on Jun 4, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
marquis talent at marquis positions doesn't often fall to four
I dunno bout that. That analysis sounds a little too exceptional. Past few years, the top pass rusher, top RB, top tackle, have fallen to four. Define Marquis, I guess. If you mean only the top guy at the top position, then QB, and yeah it’s rare. Semantics, that’s not what marquis means to me, but it would be the only way I agree that anything doesn’t often drop to four.
But that’s inconsequential and I don’t want to let it get in the way of my very positive feelings on the piece. It’s very encouraging.
by jacobstevens on Jun 4, 2009 5:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
A "marquis" is a French nobleman. A "marquee" is what you see on the front of the theater.
… but maybe Curry is a nobleman, what do I know.
by Mr Fish on Jun 4, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
hahahahahahaahha
rec’d
The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.
by Nick Andron on Jun 5, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Running back isn't, so no McFadden
Gaines Adams wasn’t a top talent, being both too old and clearly not a top talent. D’Brickashaw counts, though it would seem concerns about his mean streak are real. Benson…Rivers counts…I think when you’re talking top of the top, like either able to be the very best at his position or able to be top five at say tackle, wide receiver, quarterback, defensive end or cornerback, it’s pretty rare.
by John Morgan on Jun 4, 2009 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You really think RB is not marqui--
Marquee? You think RB is fungible? Productive replacement level RBs are fungible. Doesn’t mean the position isn’t marquee. They touch the ball more than anyone but QB. And a standout talent at RB is more of a game changer than practically every pass rusher, tackle & CB that ever played the game. LT being the obvious exception.
I understand, a great line can make a back good. Productive. The way John Madden always put it was, a great back can make a line great, but not the other way around. A great line can make a big difference, it’s true, and can make a back much better than he is. But not great. Not without the back himself being great.
by jacobstevens on Jun 5, 2009 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Given the overall importance of the running game to the passing game
and the way not just productive, but top rushers come in and go in mere seasons, I do not consider it a particularly important position.
by John Morgan on Jun 5, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And guys go below four, too
Walter Jones, Moss/TO, Roethlisberger, Jared Allen/Tuck/Merriman/Ware, all the top CBs. Adrian Peterson, Tomlinson, McFadden (since I count that position). Without pointing to league-wide misses like Brady, there’s probably about as many guys below four, in the top half of the 1st round, near the top of their position as there are Fitzgeralds/Mannings plus all the top tackles the past few years, in the top three, near the top. Don’t really care to bust your balls about it, but content and good contentious discussion has been a little thin lately, so why not.
by jacobstevens on Jun 5, 2009 11:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last I saw the sky there wasn't a cloud to be found
by Nate Dogg on Jun 4, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Windstorm, too, in Vancouver (WA)
Thunder, Lightning. Power stay on so I can watch the Finals while dabbling in football. :)
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200
by Misfit74 on Jun 4, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Portland area was getting hit, but then it fizzled.
by John Morgan on Jun 4, 2009 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curious how draft day could of gone...
…if we hadn’t traded JP and the draft played out as it did. I never thought that Detroit would of select Curry, not with the holes they had. I bet we could of received more in trade value, possibly an early third rounder.
by PoolNinja on Jun 4, 2009 6:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Curry may be a fantastic non-rush OLB.
But in the end, he’s still a non-rush OLB, and that seems like a bit of a reach at 4. Yes, I know about how he looks like has the tools to be a competent pass rusher, but as of now and his entire college career, he hasn’t gained a reputation as one.
His coverage and tackling may be fantastic, but I don’t see what makes him such a better pick than someone like James Leonidas (I’ll never get his name right) in the second round, who seems to possess similar skills, minus the absurd athleticism.
He’s not going to make a tremendous impact due to the nature of his position; even less so on a team already equipped with 2 fantastic linebackers. If our defense someone has a major turnaround next season, I’d wager it being due to Colin Cole/Cory Redding working out or something.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 4, 2009 8:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, if Curry really does have the skills described above...
Then he should turn into mincemeat many of these guys (weeks 1-17, rookies excluded):
Randy McMichael
Vernon Davis
Greg Olsen, Desmond Clark
Dallas Clark
Mercedes Lewis
Leonard Pope, Ben Patrick
Bye
Jason Witten, Martellus Bennett
Brandon Pettigrew
Leonard Pope, Ben Patrick
Visanthe Shiancoe, Visanthe’s Penis
Randy McMichael
Vernon Davis
Owen Daniels
Kellen Winslow, Jeramy Stevens
Donald Lee, Jermichael Finley
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jun 4, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shank-dog is a stretch.
His penis, absolutely not. No one can compete against the likes of that. I wouldn’t give him much of a chance to stand up to the Bye either, I hear it’s undefeated.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 4, 2009 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it was absoluty brutal that one season when they had to play the Bye twice
players were even going to revolt but they were too demoralized from those losses to even manage that, which is why the NFL immediately went back to only once a season.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jun 4, 2009 10:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shank's shank
Rumor has it that Ruskell and the front office are trying to sign Jenna Jameson to a one-week contract. Curry can contain Shiancoe and Jameson can….nevermind.
by thebyron on Jun 5, 2009 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tonight, we dine in Columbus!
/James Leonidas
by Airborne Hawk Guy on Jun 4, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brian Russell posseses similar skills to Troy Polamalu
minus the absurd athleticism. Your argument basically reads that ignoring his biggest strengths and barring against any kind of progression as a football player he’s just very good.
by Nate Dogg on Jun 4, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
This is an absurd comparison,
and I’m sure you know that.
Troy Polomalu was a superstar at one of the nation’s largest schools, known for churning out top-notch NFL prospects routinely. Brian Russell couldn’t even cut it as a starter at a small school and turned to safety to salvage his career. It’s a miracle he made it at all in the NFL, let alone becoming a starter for one of the NFC’s better teams.
Likewise, Leonidas starred for a big football school against good competition, and also excelled. He was pegged as a 1st round (most likely top 15) before you or I knew who Aaron Curry was. Now, I could be completely off the mark here, but the big deal about Curry was not some amazing progression as a football player he’s bound to soon make, but his ‘safeness’ as a prospect that has a very low chance to bust because of his overall well-rounded skillset. With a position as unimportant in building a defense as OLB, was a top 5 pick necessary on a position that wasn’t much of a need and could arguably have been filled with someone like Leonidas in the second?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 7, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're being unreasonable for the sake of being unreasonable
by Nate Dogg on Jun 7, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's unfortunate if I am, because that certainly is not my intention.
I guess the gist of my point is that is an upgrade in athleticism worth drafting nearly 30 picks earlier than another very good and somewhat safe prospect at a non-premium position like OLB?
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 8, 2009 2:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's hyperbole lampooning this
His coverage and tackling may be fantastic, but I don’t see what makes him such a better pick than someone like James Leonidas (I’ll never get his name right) in the second round, who seems to possess similar skills, minus the absurd athleticism.
Minus the absurd athleticism is a pretty tremendous minus.
by John Morgan on Jun 8, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not as much as some seem to think.
It’s not like “Laurinaitis” is Brian Russell.
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Jun 8, 2009 2:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure,
but said athleticism could be the difference between a Kevin Bentley and a Derrick Brooks.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevon Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer
by Misfit74 on Jun 9, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think part of the point here
is that he’s not currently a rush OLB because he still has things to learn, not because he doesn’t have the physical talent. “So that, if Curry can learn when to burn and learn when to inch in, I think he’s physically capable of the kind of sudden redirect and lateral pursuit of the best linebackers” — and that’s what he’s currently missing to be really dangerous rushing the passer.
by The Ancient Mariner on Jun 5, 2009 6:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great piece, John
Your voice has really developed over the past year and you consistently provide good insight.
Keep it up man.
by dlinsley on Jun 4, 2009 8:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You talk about some things that I thought about him.
Probably because I am ultimately an glass-half-full type of person, so this is no “I told you so” type of reaction. I absolutely loved the write-up, I wish I could analyze or write as well as you, maybe someday I can reach your level at one of those skills.
1. I am guessing you meant to say “Hasidic Bar Mitzvahs”
2. Loving to watch a player is a huge positive. I watched the final years of the Sonics in Seattle simply because Ray Allen was so good at what he did that I wanted to see it night after night. In fact, in a losing effort, you see more of his game, you see what he does to try and find a new trick to win. Really loving to watch a player play is something that I really hope is a Curry attribute, as you say it will be. He sure seems like it.
3. Inertia – I was hoping you would say that actually, because him actually lacking agility I thought would have showed up in the drills that he completely smashed.
4. “Curry will add power to a linebacker corps without great power, and size and muscle to a defense built on technique and speed.” This is the biggest point that I have been telling friends. The bulk that he adds is something we would be talking about more if he wasn’t so fast. If he was a 250 lb hitter that was a bit slow, we would be talking about the power as a tradeoff that we needed. But coupled with his extreme speed it makes him a versatile front 7 monster. That makes him, Mebane, and to a lessor extent Tatupu and Hill guys that are both stout in the run game and assets to stop the pass. Rather than having a front 7 full of specialists that can do one or the other but not both. Kearny could be an asset to both if he is healthy.
5. I keep forgetting the last one. Something I really wanted to say. I guess I should have written it down.
by cashless on Jun 4, 2009 10:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think I agree with John
that Curry really shouldn’t be at twelve-year-old Jewish girls’ birthday parties.
by bewrong on Jun 4, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He said Bar Mitzvah which is for guys
Girls have Bat Mitzvahs.
by Built2Spill on Jun 5, 2009 8:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re #1: once again, I suspect John said exactly what he meant
A bat mitzvah is an equivalent for girls to a bar mitzvah, I think it was Reform Jewish rabbis who came up with it. I don’t think Hasidim do them, which leads me to believe that his point is that Curry’s so talented, he can even show up places that don’t exist.
by The Ancient Mariner on Jun 5, 2009 6:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with the conclusion...
But hyperplasia and hypertrophy are both possible for any athlete. And weight lifting doesn’t. Make you slower. Forever baseball FO’s and players believed this, evidently they don’t anymore. Barry Bonds would be a good example of both points. Through the use of of IGF-1 or another peptide he increased hyperplasia, and his weight training certainly didn’t decrease his power. Sorry to nitpick, but the amount of misinformation out there makes discussing these topics with the typical fan almost impossible.
Steen
by Steen on Jun 4, 2009 11:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, hyperplasia and hypertrophy are possible for any athlete.
I don’t think John was disputing that. His contention, as far as I am led to believe, is that hyperplasia and hypertrophy don’t necessarily translate into the raw athletic power that some elite athletes tend to have when playing the game of football, or possibly even other sports as well.
Case in point: Dan O’Brien, decathlete. One of the finest discus throwers I’ve ever seen. Ever. He had a lot of grace in his discus throws, but more than anything, he also had a lot of explosive power, which helped him place well in the discus, though his best events were the hurdles and the pole vault. But regarding the discus, some of the best discus throwers in history were some of the fast people in the world during their eras, showing that the discus is more a matter of power and technique rather than brute strength and an exceedingly hypertrophied physiqe.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Jun 4, 2009 11:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be clear, Bodybuilders are not strength athletes.
That might be what you and john are thinking of. There are some very “strong” pro BB’s but you can make yourself into a lpiece of meat who isn’t very strong for his size. Powerlifters practice lifting fast because thbey know the body wants to lift heavy things fast. Not only does lifting slow make you slower, it also limits your possible strength gains. Bodybuilders, though, are weak for their size not so much because they lift slow but because of the rep range and exercises they focus on. Explosive power is created by focussing on moving the weight as fast as possible, whether its your 3 rep max or 10 rep max. This doesn’t mean the weights moving quicker, btw. Long story short, John’s point on increasing power flies in the face of mountains of science. And the anecdotal evidence is no less convincing. Sure some athletes start off with more inate power, but its not as nearly tied to genetics as speed. We would see some diversity in the RB and DB ranks if speed was substansially improvable.
by Steen on Jun 5, 2009 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would you please be so kind as to explain your statement of "not only does lifting slow make you slower, and it also limits your possible strength gains"
Because I know that to be irrefutably false. Try using that claim while acknowledging eccentric training, a program that even powerlifters use. (And you talk about misinformation?)
Your generalization of bodybuilders being weak for their size is wholly oversimplified. Having worked as a personal trainer, I met quite a few bodybuilders who much stronger than their size would indicate. Then your reason for that being because of their rep range and exercises that they focus on — question: What are you basing that on?
Besides, I wasn’t referring to bodybuilders in my post, but a top track and field athlete.
As for John’s point, I do recall that he said that muscle fibers don’t increase. That’s true, because the number of muscle fibers do not, in fact, increase. That does not contradict supposed mountains of science. And the power to lift objects slowly is useful for only slowly lifting objects. That also does not contradict mountains of science.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Jun 6, 2009 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify
John is correct, lifting slowly wouldn’t be all that beneficial if power is what we are striving for. It’s a false choice, why not lift explosively and then compare? Yes, static holds, negatives and the like will increase strength, but the goal isn’t absolute strength it is power. Power requires speed. I’ll stand by my comment about BB’s, relatively they are weaker than other ‘strength’ athletes. If your goal is only hypertrophy, why waste time on anything else? Compare the typical BB’er versus PL’er P4P the powerlifter will be much stronger. The comp for your track and field thrower is the powerlifter.
Hyperplasia is possible with GH, IGF-1 or a slew of other peptides. I think assuming NFL players don’t have these at there disposal is unlikely.
by Steen on Jun 6, 2009 2:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I admit
I did not know skeletal muscle hyperplasia was possible. I would think genetics would still determine a person’s range, though. That a person could improve their overall musculature, but that not everyone could improve at the same rate or to the same level.
Obviously, it’s not something I have any expertise in.
by John Morgan on Jun 6, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not possible without help.
But I prefer to think that all pro athletes are using. It’s entertainment, I want to see the best athletes at their physical peak . But what about the children? Medium rare, thank you.
by Steen on Jun 6, 2009 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, the goal isn't strength, but power.
But for there to be power, a one must first also have what? Strength. Without it increasing it, increasing explosive power will not be maximized. In fact, it’s practically impossible to increase one without somehow increasing the other to even the minimum degree. You see, strength is determined by the cross-sectional area of muscle fibers (sarcomeres) recruited to generate force and the intensity of the recruitment involved, so because power includes the amount of force and distance to move an object, it therefore requires strength. When you induce sarcomerogenesis, you are increasing the number of sarcomeres along your muscle fibers, as well as your strength. Therefore, it logically follows that increasing strength helps increase power, even explosive power.
That’s why powerlifters incorporate eccentric training.
Speed, while necessary for explosive power, is not the only component for increasing power. But if your argument that lifting slowly does not increase speed, then you’d be correct. But it would be false to assume that improving strength is not needed to improve power.
As for bodybuilders being weak for their size, and comparing them relatively to other strength athletes, I think is a little narrow-sighted. I knew of a bodybuilder who was in the 160 lb. range at about 14% bodyfat at the time (he was in the offseason at the moment), and he was doing dumbbell presses with 100 lb. dumbells with 12-rep sets. His form was not negatively impacted by the weights, either. That’s pretty strong. Of course, he was probably more along the lines of being the exception, rather than the rule, but I’m quite sure that bodybuilders like him aren’t far and few in between.
P.S. I just realized my post might seem argumentative, but that’s not my intention. Just having what I hope is a healthy debate.
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Jun 6, 2009 11:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I agree with you more than it sounds
And, ofcourse my comparison is narrow sighted, it supports my point. Seriously, its very specific, but I think it best illustrates the idea. Granted, not all BB’ers train hypertrophy exclusively, but they do it more than anyother group. No athlete would train this way, the diminishing returns on the extra size/weight just wouldn’t be worth it. I’m gussing your 160lb lifter was about 5’4"? I say that because
by Steen on Jun 6, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He was 5'8"
Sam Bradford, future Seattle Seahawk.
by Carl Shinyama on Jun 7, 2009 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm excited to see this guy too
He looks freakish. I’m not one of those guys that thinks we have to take a particular position at number four because it might have a bigger impact. We took the best player we could get at number four and that is what any team should do whether it’s OLB, CB, WR, or QB. I don’t care what position, take your best chance at getting a highly productive player for years. That’s what I feel Curry will be for us. Years from now when he’s a Pro Bowl QB that has added nothiing but a positive to this team, no one will be able to complain.
by ASeahawkfan on Jun 4, 2009 11:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 


















