There are 221 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

11 Minutes of Action in Typical NFL Game

Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

So you wouldn't consider Usain bolt a world class athlete, he is done in under 10 seconds?

Yes I do, there is a big difference between find out who is the fastest man in the world, than players who stand around for hours on the sidelines.

What do you think Bolt is doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds the day of a race? To say that NFL players aren't elite athletes is laughable.

For real. They gotta work their asses off to get to the level they perform at. You come off sounding a bit ignorant with your rugby talk. I'm sure NFL players would beast it up in Rugby if they trained for Rugby. Hell even without training, they would kick some Rugby ass.

Just because the game doesn't require them to run around for 60 minutes, doesn't mean they're not elite

The irony of an American calling a foreigner ignorant. Every athlete has to work their arses off to be at the top level, that isn't anything new. However when 53 players take 3+ hours to play 11mins of football, I find it hard to really call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I've been watching both religiously for 20 years now. The skill set required to be a rugby player outweighs the skill set for an NFL player. Then throw in the fact that the do it 6-7 times as long as an NFL player in each game. Its just too hard to call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I get what you are saying there are some nfl players that are not that athletic if you account for kickers, punters, qbs.

But when I think of an athlete, I think the whole thing like speed, strength, agility, explosion, size and endurance. And IMO people like say vernon davis have rugby players beat on all but maybe endurance.
Football is an explosive sport by nature, which is why the plays are so short but you generally go full throttle during that, where as in rugby it seems to me to be more like soccer, which I would say was an endurance sport.

If you take a look at sav rocca, who is an ex Aussie footbal player, he is one of the least athletic people in the league. Although not by punter standards, but put him at say defensive end and he wouldn't stand a chance.

Sav Rocca, really? The dude played Aussie Rules (the most grueling endurance football) for 15 years prior to entering the NFL. Became a NFL punter at age 32, after a hamstring injury forced him out of the AFL (Australian Football League). Now 36. That's like me using Favre as an example.

The answer to Vernon Davis would be Pierre Spies of South Africa. Or Alesana Tuilagi from Samoa. Lote Tuqiri from Australia and so on. They could hang with a Vernon Davis or a Ray Lewis any day of the week. Except they play more football in 3-4 games than Vernon Davis and Ray Lewis do in a whole year.
  • DVDA
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,338
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

So you wouldn't consider Usain bolt a world class athlete, he is done in under 10 seconds?

Yes I do, there is a big difference between find out who is the fastest man in the world, than players who stand around for hours on the sidelines.

What do you think Bolt is doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds the day of a race? To say that NFL players aren't elite athletes is laughable.

For real. They gotta work their asses off to get to the level they perform at. You come off sounding a bit ignorant with your rugby talk. I'm sure NFL players would beast it up in Rugby if they trained for Rugby. Hell even without training, they would kick some Rugby ass.

Just because the game doesn't require them to run around for 60 minutes, doesn't mean they're not elite

The irony of an American calling a foreigner ignorant. Every athlete has to work their arses off to be at the top level, that isn't anything new. However when 53 players take 3+ hours to play 11mins of football, I find it hard to really call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I've been watching both religiously for 20 years now. The skill set required to be a rugby player outweighs the skill set for an NFL player. Then throw in the fact that the do it 6-7 times as long as an NFL player in each game. Its just too hard to call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I get what you are saying there are some nfl players that are not that athletic if you account for kickers, punters, qbs.

But when I think of an athlete, I think the whole thing like speed, strength, agility, explosion, size and endurance. And IMO people like say vernon davis have rugby players beat on all but maybe endurance.
Football is an explosive sport by nature, which is why the plays are so short but you generally go full throttle during that, where as in rugby it seems to me to be more like soccer, which I would say was an endurance sport.

If you take a look at sav rocca, who is an ex Aussie footbal player, he is one of the least athletic people in the league. Although not by punter standards, but put him at say defensive end and he wouldn't stand a chance.

Sav Rocca, really? The dude played Aussie Rules (the most grueling endurance football) for 15 years prior to entering the NFL. Became a NFL punter at age 32, after a hamstring injury forced him out of the AFL (Australian Football League). Now 36. That's like me using Favre as an example.

The answer to Vernon Davis would be Pierre Spies of South Africa. Or Alesana Tuilagi from Samoa. Lote Tuqiri from Australia and so on. They could hang with a Vernon Davis or a Ray Lewis any day of the week. Except they play more football in 3-4 games than Vernon Davis and Ray Lewis do in a whole year.

I haven't watched much rugby but your arguement of them playing entire games is similar to that of soccer. Soccer players walk or jog around for most of the game then sprint for a very small portion of the game.

If your rugby players are "elite" athletes, what do you think would happen if one of them came over to the states and played american football? Since they are "elite" athletes, they shouldn't have a problem making an NFL roster, right?
Originally posted by 23zack80:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

So you wouldn't consider Usain bolt a world class athlete, he is done in under 10 seconds?

Yes I do, there is a big difference between find out who is the fastest man in the world, than players who stand around for hours on the sidelines.

What do you think Bolt is doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds the day of a race? To say that NFL players aren't elite athletes is laughable.

For real. They gotta work their asses off to get to the level they perform at. You come off sounding a bit ignorant with your rugby talk. I'm sure NFL players would beast it up in Rugby if they trained for Rugby. Hell even without training, they would kick some Rugby ass.

Just because the game doesn't require them to run around for 60 minutes, doesn't mean they're not elite

The irony of an American calling a foreigner ignorant. Every athlete has to work their arses off to be at the top level, that isn't anything new. However when 53 players take 3+ hours to play 11mins of football, I find it hard to really call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I've been watching both religiously for 20 years now. The skill set required to be a rugby player outweighs the skill set for an NFL player. Then throw in the fact that the do it 6-7 times as long as an NFL player in each game. Its just too hard to call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I get what you are saying there are some nfl players that are not that athletic if you account for kickers, punters, qbs.

But when I think of an athlete, I think the whole thing like speed, strength, agility, explosion, size and endurance. And IMO people like say vernon davis have rugby players beat on all but maybe endurance.
Football is an explosive sport by nature, which is why the plays are so short but you generally go full throttle during that, where as in rugby it seems to me to be more like soccer, which I would say was an endurance sport.

If you take a look at sav rocca, who is an ex Aussie footbal player, he is one of the least athletic people in the league. Although not by punter standards, but put him at say defensive end and he wouldn't stand a chance.

Sav Rocca, really? The dude played Aussie Rules (the most grueling endurance football) for 15 years prior to entering the NFL. Became a NFL punter at age 32, after a hamstring injury forced him out of the AFL (Australian Football League). Now 36. That's like me using Favre as an example.

The answer to Vernon Davis would be Pierre Spies of South Africa. Or Alesana Tuilagi from Samoa. Lote Tuqiri from Australia and so on. They could hang with a Vernon Davis or a Ray Lewis any day of the week. Except they play more football in 3-4 games than Vernon Davis and Ray Lewis do in a whole year.

I haven't watched much rugby but your arguement of them playing entire games is similar to that of soccer. Soccer players walk or jog around for most of the game then sprint for a very small portion of the game.

If your rugby players are "elite" athletes, what do you think would happen if one of them came over to the states and played american football? Since they are "elite" athletes, they shouldn't have a problem making an NFL roster, right?

Well they could easily make it right away as NFL punters or kickers BUT wouldn't know how to play the other positions. They couldn't play the lines as they are not fat and I do mean fat enough.

Soccer players jog because they are all scattered over the field, Rugby players all move in a line, there is a lot of kick and chasing in rugby, imagine an NFL punt being a live ball every time, players are constantly sprinting for the ball.

However you talk as if EVERYBODY in the NFL is sprinting. However there are just as many player engaged in shoving (blocking) as there are players sprinting. So for every FAST guy in the NFL there is an equal fat slow guy bring that average speed down. In rugby everyone has to run and has to engage (rucking).

Like I said before the average skill set of a Rugby player is vastly superior to the average NFL player, and they play 6 to 10 times more in a game, not to mention a top rugby player will play at least 25-30 games in a year. They go all out for more than 11 minutes in a game, but never had anytime to rest. They don't get to come out for a breather if they are gassed either, or if injured they face the option of either sucking it up or coming out for the rest of the game, they don't get to come in and out.
[ Edited by Aussie49er on Feb 4, 2010 at 4:29 PM ]
Originally posted by BigRon:
Originally posted by jaghetersofie:
Originally posted by blunt_probe:
And yet so much more is accomplished than in that "other football" sport.

Lol depends how you look at it. You could also say that in the "other football" almost each player on the team completes 20-25 passes a game, and there's 90 minutes of action.

more like 90 minutes of wind sprints.

Um no real men play football, and real men play futbol. Both are great sports, it's just there are so many Leagues over in Europe and others in South America, vs. all the great players are in one League in the NFL. And of course the US sucks at soccer, well the men anyway.
  • DVDA
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,338
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by 23zack80:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

So you wouldn't consider Usain bolt a world class athlete, he is done in under 10 seconds?

Yes I do, there is a big difference between find out who is the fastest man in the world, than players who stand around for hours on the sidelines.

What do you think Bolt is doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds the day of a race? To say that NFL players aren't elite athletes is laughable.

For real. They gotta work their asses off to get to the level they perform at. You come off sounding a bit ignorant with your rugby talk. I'm sure NFL players would beast it up in Rugby if they trained for Rugby. Hell even without training, they would kick some Rugby ass.

Just because the game doesn't require them to run around for 60 minutes, doesn't mean they're not elite

The irony of an American calling a foreigner ignorant. Every athlete has to work their arses off to be at the top level, that isn't anything new. However when 53 players take 3+ hours to play 11mins of football, I find it hard to really call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I've been watching both religiously for 20 years now. The skill set required to be a rugby player outweighs the skill set for an NFL player. Then throw in the fact that the do it 6-7 times as long as an NFL player in each game. Its just too hard to call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I get what you are saying there are some nfl players that are not that athletic if you account for kickers, punters, qbs.

But when I think of an athlete, I think the whole thing like speed, strength, agility, explosion, size and endurance. And IMO people like say vernon davis have rugby players beat on all but maybe endurance.
Football is an explosive sport by nature, which is why the plays are so short but you generally go full throttle during that, where as in rugby it seems to me to be more like soccer, which I would say was an endurance sport.

If you take a look at sav rocca, who is an ex Aussie footbal player, he is one of the least athletic people in the league. Although not by punter standards, but put him at say defensive end and he wouldn't stand a chance.

Sav Rocca, really? The dude played Aussie Rules (the most grueling endurance football) for 15 years prior to entering the NFL. Became a NFL punter at age 32, after a hamstring injury forced him out of the AFL (Australian Football League). Now 36. That's like me using Favre as an example.

The answer to Vernon Davis would be Pierre Spies of South Africa. Or Alesana Tuilagi from Samoa. Lote Tuqiri from Australia and so on. They could hang with a Vernon Davis or a Ray Lewis any day of the week. Except they play more football in 3-4 games than Vernon Davis and Ray Lewis do in a whole year.

I haven't watched much rugby but your arguement of them playing entire games is similar to that of soccer. Soccer players walk or jog around for most of the game then sprint for a very small portion of the game.

If your rugby players are "elite" athletes, what do you think would happen if one of them came over to the states and played american football? Since they are "elite" athletes, they shouldn't have a problem making an NFL roster, right?

Well they could easily make it right away as NFL punters or kickers BUT wouldn't know how to play the other positions. They couldn't play the lines as they are not fat and I do mean fat enough.

Soccer players jog because they are all scattered over the field, Rugby players all move in a line, there is a lot of kick and chasing in rugby, imagine an NFL punt being a live ball every time, players are constantly sprinting for the ball.

However you talk as if EVERYBODY in the NFL is sprinting. However there are just as many player engaged in shoving (blocking) as there are players sprinting. So for every FAST guy in the NFL there is an equal fat slow guy bring that average speed down. In rugby everyone has to run and has to engage (rucking).

Like I said before the average skill set of a Rugby player is vastly superior to the average NFL player, and they play 6 to 10 times more in a game, not to mention a top rugby player will play at least 25-30 games in a year. They go all out for more than 11 minutes in a game, but never had anytime to rest. They don't get to come out for a breather if they are gassed either, or if injured they face the option of either sucking it up or coming out for the rest of the game, they don't get to come in and out.

You act like they are constantly sprinting during a match when most of the guys are jogging around except for the people near the ball(just like soccer). The ball goes out of bounds and they have scrums(I think that's what it called) where players stand around for the most part. I don't know how you can say they are constantly running.

I agree with you that offensive linemen for the most part aren't very athletic(Joe Staley is an exception) but the rest of the players on offense are generally extremely athletic. Defensive tackles for the most part aren't athletic, but the rest of the players on defense are usually freakishly athletic. That gives you seven or eight(quarterback) players out of twenty two on any given play who aren't very athletic. The rest of the guys on the field are athletes.

When you say "skill set," what are you talking about?
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

Totally different sports. No comparison, regardless of the similarities between the two.

The average NFL player wouldn't have the wind to play on a professional side, and I guarantee you that the biggest, baddest rugby player in the universe would get his balls handed to him by the NFL's hardest hitter. That just is what it is.

Not trying to talk sh*t...but seriously...rugby players are best used as kickers or punters in the NFL.
Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

Totally different sports. No comparison, regardless of the similarities between the two.

The average NFL player wouldn't have the wind to play on a professional side, and I guarantee you that the biggest, baddest rugby player in the universe would get his balls handed to him by the NFL's hardest hitter. That just is what it is.

Not trying to talk sh*t...but seriously...rugby players are best used as kickers or punters in the NFL.

I disagree, with your assessment of what NFL players would do to the baddest Rugby player. Ray Lewis is considered a big hitter, he is 6-1 250 pounds, there are plenty of rugby players that size. If you can take a hit without pads, you can take a hit with pads, that is just a fact. Anyone who disagrees with that is trying to talk s&^t.
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

So you wouldn't consider Usain bolt a world class athlete, he is done in under 10 seconds?

Yes I do, there is a big difference between find out who is the fastest man in the world, than players who stand around for hours on the sidelines.

What do you think Bolt is doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds the day of a race? To say that NFL players aren't elite athletes is laughable.

For real. They gotta work their asses off to get to the level they perform at. You come off sounding a bit ignorant with your rugby talk. I'm sure NFL players would beast it up in Rugby if they trained for Rugby. Hell even without training, they would kick some Rugby ass.

Just because the game doesn't require them to run around for 60 minutes, doesn't mean they're not elite

The irony of an American calling a foreigner ignorant. Every athlete has to work their arses off to be at the top level, that isn't anything new. However when 53 players take 3+ hours to play 11mins of football, I find it hard to really call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I've been watching both religiously for 20 years now. The skill set required to be a rugby player outweighs the skill set for an NFL player. Then throw in the fact that the do it 6-7 times as long as an NFL player in each game. Its just too hard to call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

Irony? What does my location have anything to do with calling an ignorant person ignorant?

And what does rugby have to do with the NFL? Nothing. NFL players train for the NFL, not to possibly compete in a rugby match some day. They are different games, NFL players train for what they do, and they do it damn well. Put the top rugby players in a football game and I bet you they get smoked! Might be the same for NFL players in a rugby game, but from what I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL players whooped their ass up and down the field.
Originally posted by 23zack80:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by 23zack80:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

So you wouldn't consider Usain bolt a world class athlete, he is done in under 10 seconds?

Yes I do, there is a big difference between find out who is the fastest man in the world, than players who stand around for hours on the sidelines.

What do you think Bolt is doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds the day of a race? To say that NFL players aren't elite athletes is laughable.

For real. They gotta work their asses off to get to the level they perform at. You come off sounding a bit ignorant with your rugby talk. I'm sure NFL players would beast it up in Rugby if they trained for Rugby. Hell even without training, they would kick some Rugby ass.

Just because the game doesn't require them to run around for 60 minutes, doesn't mean they're not elite

The irony of an American calling a foreigner ignorant. Every athlete has to work their arses off to be at the top level, that isn't anything new. However when 53 players take 3+ hours to play 11mins of football, I find it hard to really call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I've been watching both religiously for 20 years now. The skill set required to be a rugby player outweighs the skill set for an NFL player. Then throw in the fact that the do it 6-7 times as long as an NFL player in each game. Its just too hard to call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I get what you are saying there are some nfl players that are not that athletic if you account for kickers, punters, qbs.

But when I think of an athlete, I think the whole thing like speed, strength, agility, explosion, size and endurance. And IMO people like say vernon davis have rugby players beat on all but maybe endurance.
Football is an explosive sport by nature, which is why the plays are so short but you generally go full throttle during that, where as in rugby it seems to me to be more like soccer, which I would say was an endurance sport.

If you take a look at sav rocca, who is an ex Aussie footbal player, he is one of the least athletic people in the league. Although not by punter standards, but put him at say defensive end and he wouldn't stand a chance.

Sav Rocca, really? The dude played Aussie Rules (the most grueling endurance football) for 15 years prior to entering the NFL. Became a NFL punter at age 32, after a hamstring injury forced him out of the AFL (Australian Football League). Now 36. That's like me using Favre as an example.

The answer to Vernon Davis would be Pierre Spies of South Africa. Or Alesana Tuilagi from Samoa. Lote Tuqiri from Australia and so on. They could hang with a Vernon Davis or a Ray Lewis any day of the week. Except they play more football in 3-4 games than Vernon Davis and Ray Lewis do in a whole year.

I haven't watched much rugby but your arguement of them playing entire games is similar to that of soccer. Soccer players walk or jog around for most of the game then sprint for a very small portion of the game.

If your rugby players are "elite" athletes, what do you think would happen if one of them came over to the states and played american football? Since they are "elite" athletes, they shouldn't have a problem making an NFL roster, right?

Well they could easily make it right away as NFL punters or kickers BUT wouldn't know how to play the other positions. They couldn't play the lines as they are not fat and I do mean fat enough.

Soccer players jog because they are all scattered over the field, Rugby players all move in a line, there is a lot of kick and chasing in rugby, imagine an NFL punt being a live ball every time, players are constantly sprinting for the ball.

However you talk as if EVERYBODY in the NFL is sprinting. However there are just as many player engaged in shoving (blocking) as there are players sprinting. So for every FAST guy in the NFL there is an equal fat slow guy bring that average speed down. In rugby everyone has to run and has to engage (rucking).

Like I said before the average skill set of a Rugby player is vastly superior to the average NFL player, and they play 6 to 10 times more in a game, not to mention a top rugby player will play at least 25-30 games in a year. They go all out for more than 11 minutes in a game, but never had anytime to rest. They don't get to come out for a breather if they are gassed either, or if injured they face the option of either sucking it up or coming out for the rest of the game, they don't get to come in and out.

You act like they are constantly sprinting during a match when most of the guys are jogging around except for the people near the ball(just like soccer). The ball goes out of bounds and they have scrums(I think that's what it called) where players stand around for the most part. I don't know how you can say they are constantly running.

I agree with you that offensive linemen for the most part aren't very athletic(Joe Staley is an exception) but the rest of the players on offense are generally extremely athletic. Defensive tackles for the most part aren't athletic, but the rest of the players on defense are usually freakishly athletic. That gives you seven or eight(quarterback) players out of twenty two on any given play who aren't very athletic. The rest of the guys on the field are athletes.

When you say "skill set," what are you talking about?

Well on a running play WR's can be seen taking it half arsed. Some don't but still they aren't giving as much effort as they would on a pass play. I'm sorry but most DE's would fit the too big/fat athletes too.

I told you that Soccer players are scattered, in soccer if the ball is kicked towards your goals, the back line and their front line are usually running to get it. In Rugby since they are ALL in a line, if a ball is kick towards your goaline, ALL of them have to run in a line to get there and ALL of you have to run back to field it to get back onside. Soccer and Rugby are nothing a like. There is a line of scrimmage in rugby (or the gain line) you have to be onside, in rugby the ball is kicked a lot, therefore there is more running involved by EVERYBODY than soccer.

By set skills, everyone needs to know how to handle the ball, pass, run with the ball, tackle, field kicks. A fumble in rugby is a turnover so hands are important, the backs need to know how to kick, create on the fly plays. The coach watches the game and makes halftime changes but its like Tennis, the players decide the game, not the coaches.
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

So you wouldn't consider Usain bolt a world class athlete, he is done in under 10 seconds?

Yes I do, there is a big difference between find out who is the fastest man in the world, than players who stand around for hours on the sidelines.

What do you think Bolt is doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds the day of a race? To say that NFL players aren't elite athletes is laughable.

For real. They gotta work their asses off to get to the level they perform at. You come off sounding a bit ignorant with your rugby talk. I'm sure NFL players would beast it up in Rugby if they trained for Rugby. Hell even without training, they would kick some Rugby ass.

Just because the game doesn't require them to run around for 60 minutes, doesn't mean they're not elite

The irony of an American calling a foreigner ignorant. Every athlete has to work their arses off to be at the top level, that isn't anything new. However when 53 players take 3+ hours to play 11mins of football, I find it hard to really call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I've been watching both religiously for 20 years now. The skill set required to be a rugby player outweighs the skill set for an NFL player. Then throw in the fact that the do it 6-7 times as long as an NFL player in each game. Its just too hard to call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

Irony? What does my location have anything to do with calling an ignorant person ignorant?

And what does rugby have to do with the NFL? Nothing. NFL players train for the NFL, not to possibly compete in a rugby match some day. They are different games, NFL players train for what they do, and they do it damn well. Put the top rugby players in a football game and I bet you they get smoked! Might be the same for NFL players in a rugby game, but from what I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL players whooped their ass up and down the field.

Thats why I call you ignorant. You have no clue about rugby yet you think because they are NFL players they are the best athletes. I'm sorry but NFL athletes play 5-6mins a game, they couldn't even last 1 half in rugby before calling for a sub. In which eliminates them from the rest of the game.

6 minutes of action, that should be a bench mark of athletic ability. 6mins in a 60min game. But but but they play hard for that 6mins, well champ every athlete at the top level plays hard.
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

So you wouldn't consider Usain bolt a world class athlete, he is done in under 10 seconds?

Yes I do, there is a big difference between find out who is the fastest man in the world, than players who stand around for hours on the sidelines.

What do you think Bolt is doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds the day of a race? To say that NFL players aren't elite athletes is laughable.

For real. They gotta work their asses off to get to the level they perform at. You come off sounding a bit ignorant with your rugby talk. I'm sure NFL players would beast it up in Rugby if they trained for Rugby. Hell even without training, they would kick some Rugby ass.

Just because the game doesn't require them to run around for 60 minutes, doesn't mean they're not elite

The irony of an American calling a foreigner ignorant. Every athlete has to work their arses off to be at the top level, that isn't anything new. However when 53 players take 3+ hours to play 11mins of football, I find it hard to really call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I've been watching both religiously for 20 years now. The skill set required to be a rugby player outweighs the skill set for an NFL player. Then throw in the fact that the do it 6-7 times as long as an NFL player in each game. Its just too hard to call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

Irony? What does my location have anything to do with calling an ignorant person ignorant?

And what does rugby have to do with the NFL? Nothing. NFL players train for the NFL, not to possibly compete in a rugby match some day. They are different games, NFL players train for what they do, and they do it damn well. Put the top rugby players in a football game and I bet you they get smoked! Might be the same for NFL players in a rugby game, but from what I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL players whooped their ass up and down the field.

Thats why I call you ignorant. You have no clue about rugby yet you think because they are NFL players they are the best athletes. I'm sorry but NFL athletes play 5-6mins a game, they couldn't even last 1 half in rugby before calling for a sub. In which eliminates them from the rest of the game.

6 minutes of action, that should be a bench mark of athletic ability. 6mins in a 60min game. But but but they play hard for that 6mins, well champ every athlete at the top level plays hard.

I ain't the one calling rugby players all-world athletes, and NFL players chumps. Again, different games, different rules. NFL players aren't in control of how long they're supposed to run around out there for. I'm just spinning your argument so you can see how ridiculous you sound. You sir, are ignorant(at least in this subject matter), everybody else sees it too. You are comparing apples and oranges.

It's like comparing Bolt to a Kenyan distance runner. Bolt will win a 100m race no doubt, but the Kenyan will win a marathon. Apples and oranges.
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by silkyjohnson:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Bille:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

So you wouldn't consider Usain bolt a world class athlete, he is done in under 10 seconds?

Yes I do, there is a big difference between find out who is the fastest man in the world, than players who stand around for hours on the sidelines.

What do you think Bolt is doing the other 23 hours, 59 minutes and 50 seconds the day of a race? To say that NFL players aren't elite athletes is laughable.

For real. They gotta work their asses off to get to the level they perform at. You come off sounding a bit ignorant with your rugby talk. I'm sure NFL players would beast it up in Rugby if they trained for Rugby. Hell even without training, they would kick some Rugby ass.

Just because the game doesn't require them to run around for 60 minutes, doesn't mean they're not elite

The irony of an American calling a foreigner ignorant. Every athlete has to work their arses off to be at the top level, that isn't anything new. However when 53 players take 3+ hours to play 11mins of football, I find it hard to really call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

I've been watching both religiously for 20 years now. The skill set required to be a rugby player outweighs the skill set for an NFL player. Then throw in the fact that the do it 6-7 times as long as an NFL player in each game. Its just too hard to call them AS A WHOLE, elite athletes.

Irony? What does my location have anything to do with calling an ignorant person ignorant?

And what does rugby have to do with the NFL? Nothing. NFL players train for the NFL, not to possibly compete in a rugby match some day. They are different games, NFL players train for what they do, and they do it damn well. Put the top rugby players in a football game and I bet you they get smoked! Might be the same for NFL players in a rugby game, but from what I've seen, I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL players whooped their ass up and down the field.

Thats why I call you ignorant. You have no clue about rugby yet you think because they are NFL players they are the best athletes. I'm sorry but NFL athletes play 5-6mins a game, they couldn't even last 1 half in rugby before calling for a sub. In which eliminates them from the rest of the game.

6 minutes of action, that should be a bench mark of athletic ability. 6mins in a 60min game. But but but they play hard for that 6mins, well champ every athlete at the top level plays hard.

I ain't the one calling rugby players all-world athletes, and NFL players chumps. Again, different games, different rules. NFL players aren't in control of how long they're supposed to run around out there for. I'm just spinning your argument so you can see how ridiculous you sound. You sir, are ignorant(at least in this subject matter), everybody else sees it too. You are comparing apples and oranges.

It's like comparing Bolt to a Kenyan distance runner. Bolt will win a 100m race no doubt, but the Kenyan will win a marathon. Apples and oranges.

No, i'm saying that a game that last 60mins, gets a total of 11minutes of action. Half that for offense and defense. Then throw in unlimited subs on a 53man roster to play 11 positions at a time. I'm sorry but when you stand around more than than actually playing, while the clock is running, you can say those athletes are really elite.

Its not comparing a sprinter to a long distance runner since when the gun goes off they are giving it their all the WHOLE TIME, not in chunks. You fail. It would be comparing Bolt to a series of Kenyans who took it in turns running while taking hour breaks throughout the race.
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

Totally different sports. No comparison, regardless of the similarities between the two.

The average NFL player wouldn't have the wind to play on a professional side, and I guarantee you that the biggest, baddest rugby player in the universe would get his balls handed to him by the NFL's hardest hitter. That just is what it is.

Not trying to talk sh*t...but seriously...rugby players are best used as kickers or punters in the NFL.

I disagree, with your assessment of what NFL players would do to the baddest Rugby player. Ray Lewis is considered a big hitter, he is 6-1 250 pounds, there are plenty of rugby players that size. If you can take a hit without pads, you can take a hit with pads, that is just a fact. Anyone who disagrees with that is trying to talk s&^t.

*sigh*

..but Rugby players don't hit the way NFL Players do. Rugby is a wrap tackling game. Ray Lewis is a big hitter...but what about a smaller wrecking machine? There are safeties in the NFL that run 205-220 that can put a 230-240 lb running back on his @ss. There is much more hitting going on in football than in rugby.

Just as an NFL player wouldn't have the juice to run with a professional side, I can guarantee you that a big, scary, fast rugby player would run high into someone like Patrick Willis and get crushed. The two sports have two entirely different ways of hitting and tackling, and that just is what it is.

Now...you might think I'm talking sh*t, but honestly, I'm not. Rugby players make great kickers and punters because of their ability to angle the ball, get backspin on it, etc. That's actually a compliment, not a slight.

If you still want to be huffy, that's on you.
Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

Totally different sports. No comparison, regardless of the similarities between the two.

The average NFL player wouldn't have the wind to play on a professional side, and I guarantee you that the biggest, baddest rugby player in the universe would get his balls handed to him by the NFL's hardest hitter. That just is what it is.

Not trying to talk sh*t...but seriously...rugby players are best used as kickers or punters in the NFL.

I disagree, with your assessment of what NFL players would do to the baddest Rugby player. Ray Lewis is considered a big hitter, he is 6-1 250 pounds, there are plenty of rugby players that size. If you can take a hit without pads, you can take a hit with pads, that is just a fact. Anyone who disagrees with that is trying to talk s&^t.

*sigh*

..but Rugby players don't hit the way NFL Players do. Rugby is a wrap tackling game. Ray Lewis is a big hitter...but what about a smaller wrecking machine? There are safeties in the NFL that run 205-220 that can put a 230-240 lb running back on his @ss. There is much more hitting going on in football than in rugby.

Just as an NFL player wouldn't have the juice to run with a professional side, I can guarantee you that a big, scary, fast rugby player would run high into someone like Patrick Willis and get crushed. The two sports have two entirely different ways of hitting and tackling, and that just is what it is.

Now...you might think I'm talking sh*t, but honestly, I'm not. Rugby players make great kickers and punters because of their ability to angle the ball, get backspin on it, etc. That's actually a compliment, not a slight.

If you still want to be huffy, that's on you.

Honestly a lot of BIG HITS are on WR's or RB's that are off balanced. They have the chance to line these hits up, however if these "heavy hitters" were on a rugby field, they wouldn't be able to line a lot of big hits up, plus I'd love to see Patrick Willis putting on heavy hits in the 79th minute of a game, after he himself has taken a few shots.

Rugby players aren't punters or kickers in the NFL anyway those are Aussie Rules players. Just by sheer volume of tackles I'd say there are more hits in a rugby game anyway.
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by Legbreaker:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Thats why I have always laughed at people talking NFL players up as elite athletes. To think 11mins of action in total.

Meaning Peyton Manning plays 5mins a game, maybe 6 to 7.


Rugby player > NFL players

Totally different sports. No comparison, regardless of the similarities between the two.

The average NFL player wouldn't have the wind to play on a professional side, and I guarantee you that the biggest, baddest rugby player in the universe would get his balls handed to him by the NFL's hardest hitter. That just is what it is.

Not trying to talk sh*t...but seriously...rugby players are best used as kickers or punters in the NFL.

I disagree, with your assessment of what NFL players would do to the baddest Rugby player. Ray Lewis is considered a big hitter, he is 6-1 250 pounds, there are plenty of rugby players that size. If you can take a hit without pads, you can take a hit with pads, that is just a fact. Anyone who disagrees with that is trying to talk s&^t.

*sigh*

..but Rugby players don't hit the way NFL Players do. Rugby is a wrap tackling game. Ray Lewis is a big hitter...but what about a smaller wrecking machine? There are safeties in the NFL that run 205-220 that can put a 230-240 lb running back on his @ss. There is much more hitting going on in football than in rugby.

Just as an NFL player wouldn't have the juice to run with a professional side, I can guarantee you that a big, scary, fast rugby player would run high into someone like Patrick Willis and get crushed. The two sports have two entirely different ways of hitting and tackling, and that just is what it is.

Now...you might think I'm talking sh*t, but honestly, I'm not. Rugby players make great kickers and punters because of their ability to angle the ball, get backspin on it, etc. That's actually a compliment, not a slight.

If you still want to be huffy, that's on you.

Honestly a lot of BIG HITS are on WR's or RB's that are off balanced. They have the chance to line these hits up, however if these "heavy hitters" were on a rugby field, they wouldn't be able to line a lot of big hits up, plus I'd love to see Patrick Willis putting on heavy hits in the 79th minute of a game, after he himself has taken a few shots.

Rugby players aren't punters or kickers in the NFL anyway those are Aussie Rules players. Just by sheer volume of tackles I'd say there are more hits in a rugby game anyway.

If Patrick Willis had trained his entire life to play rugby instead of football, he'd likely be the best rugby player. They train for what their sport requires, and football favors high-intensity in short bursts over endurance. If you think NFL players lack the ability to train for long periods of time, then you don't know what you're talking about.