There are 142 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

11 Minutes of Action in Typical NFL Game

Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Isn't rugby the "sport" where a bunch of dudes hug each other for an uncomfortable amount of time until the ball pops out?

Yeah, American Football is better.

Not really the best argument

I'll decide what the best argument is or isn't. But since you're being a girl about it...

The two sports aren't comparable because the players train to achieve different objectives. Rugby players train to last so stamina is very important. American Football players play only a limited amount of time but on each given play they give it their all, an all out sprint off the line. There's no jogging or taking it easy during a Football play. And while Rugby players may have more endurance, there's no arguing that Football players are much stronger and play with much more speed. There's a reason they wear all that padding and it has nothing to do with preventing pain. It's to prevent death. You can't expect them to make the hits they make every game non-stop the way Rugby players do.

Sports Science did a show on the impact of a hit off of a Rugby player and from a Football player.

By the way, Dhani Jones of the Bengals played with Blackheath a couple of years back.

"I think it would be harder for a rugby player to come and play American football. Rugby is a game of power and leverage where as football is a game of impact and speed."

His words.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7226539.stm

I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't have been able to make the transition if he wasn't such a great athlete.

Yes, I've seen that sports science. It didn't really prove anything but hitting power. However still leaves the argument of which is worse, a bigger hit spread over the body and a percentage absorbed by padding or a concentrated hit on muscle and bone. I won't argue this because there would be no use, automatically you'll take the total amount. BTW - Great that they use amateur rugby players while using pro NFL players, but that is neither here nor there. LA Rugby club? The USA National team is considered an amateur that have full time jobs, LA Rugby Club are like YMCA basketballers.

Take those totals, 6 tackles a game vs 18. Thats with a NFL DB vs Rugby Center, both aren't top tackling positions. A Flanker for rugby makes twice as many tackles as a center as well as a linebacker for the NFL. HOWEVER!!!!!! A rugby player plays anywhere from 25 to 35 games a year. Plus practice, vs 16 to 23 for a
NFL player plus practice too. Not to mention that Rugby players hit and get hit as much as each other. I bet Jammer doesn't cop anywhere near that much punishment himself.

On for Dhani Jones, I was wondering when someone will bring up this guy. Blackheath Rugby Club, is a division 3 (yes 3) English Rugby club, and a very bad one at that. Meaning there are anywhere from 60-80 Teams (In England alone) better than that one. Not to mention New Zealand, Australia, France, South African etc etc clubs around the world, so we might be getting into the 200-300's of teams BETTER than that one. Oh yeah, he got a run with them in the final 10mins. Do you know what the score of that game was? 61-15 in a losing effort. That would be like an Australian saying US basketball isn't hard because they torn it up in the NCAA division 2 college ranks.
[ Edited by Aussie49er on Feb 9, 2010 at 4:07 PM ]
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
Originally posted by GhostofJimmyDean:
Isn't rugby the "sport" where a bunch of dudes hug each other for an uncomfortable amount of time until the ball pops out?

Yeah, American Football is better.

Not really the best argument

I'll decide what the best argument is or isn't. But since you're being a girl about it...

The two sports aren't comparable because the players train to achieve different objectives. Rugby players train to last so stamina is very important. American Football players play only a limited amount of time but on each given play they give it their all, an all out sprint off the line. There's no jogging or taking it easy during a Football play. And while Rugby players may have more endurance, there's no arguing that Football players are much stronger and play with much more speed. There's a reason they wear all that padding and it has nothing to do with preventing pain. It's to prevent death. You can't expect them to make the hits they make every game non-stop the way Rugby players do.

Sports Science did a show on the impact of a hit off of a Rugby player and from a Football player.

By the way, Dhani Jones of the Bengals played with Blackheath a couple of years back.

"I think it would be harder for a rugby player to come and play American football. Rugby is a game of power and leverage where as football is a game of impact and speed."

His words.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/7226539.stm

I think it's safe to say that he wouldn't have been able to make the transition if he wasn't such a great athlete.

Yes, I've seen that sports science. It didn't really prove anything but hitting power. However still leaves the argument of which is worse, a bigger hit spread over the body and a percentage absorbed by padding or a concentrated hit on muscle and bone. I won't argue this because there would be no use, automatically you'll take the total amount. BTW - Great that they use amateur rugby players while using pro NFL players, but that is neither here nor there. LA Rugby club? The USA National team is considered an amateur that have full time jobs, LA Rugby Club are like YMCA basketballers.

Take those totals, 6 tackles a game vs 18. Thats with a NFL DB vs Rugby Center, both aren't top tackling positions. A Flanker for rugby makes twice as many tackles as a center as well as a linebacker for the NFL. HOWEVER!!!!!! A rugby player plays anywhere from 25 to 35 games a year. Plus practice, vs 16 to 23 for a
NFL player plus practice too. Not to mention that Rugby players hit and get hit as much as each other. I bet Jammer doesn't cop anywhere near that much punishment himself.

On for Dhani Jones, I was wondering when someone will bring up this guy. Blackheath Rugby Club, is a division 3 (yes 3) English Rugby club, and a very bad one at that. Meaning there are anywhere from 60-80 Teams (In England alone) better than that one. Not to mention New Zealand, Australia, France, South African etc etc clubs around the world, so we might be getting into the 200-300's of teams BETTER than that one. Oh yeah, he got a run with them in the final 10mins. Do you know what the score of that game was? 61-15 in a losing effort. That would be like an Australian saying US basketball isn't hard because they torn it up in the NCAA division 2 college ranks.

The fact that rugby players take more hits over more games doesn't convince you that the hits aren't as hard? It's not like they magically make super humans over there, and us Americans make flimsy China dolls.

And didn't Sports Science put the monitoring device under the pads? I'll agree with you that using amateur rugby players was dumb, but do you think using pros would cause the hit to be 4 times more vicious?

And I'm not trying to say that rugby players aren't tough, or that their sport doesn't require elite athleticism. I just can't grasp how you still think NFL players aren't elite athletes, especially since they're bigger, stronger and faster.

Quote:
A look at the height and weight of the various players on the Australian National Rugby Union Team reveals tons of small men compared to their NFL superiors. Wycliff Palu is the biggest man on that team at the moment and he is 6'4" and 264 lbs. While that's the kind of guy you would want to have your back in a bar fight, he wouldn't be big enough if you were being attacked by most members of the Green Bay Packers.

As a case in point let's look at Green Bay's defensive end, Mike Montgomery. Mongomery makes Palu look like a small man as he, Montgomery, is listed at 282 lbs and he is 6'5". However at the present time there are 15 players on Green Bay's roster that are bigger than Montgomery including Ryan Pickett who is 6'2" and 340 lbs. He would easily dwarf anyone on the Australian National Rugby Union Team.

Keeping in mind that the Green Bay Packers are a club level team while the Australian National Rugby Union Team compete internationally, then it becomes pretty clear that the NFL is way more aggressive than any rugby league.
  • TX9R
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,175
Totally different sports. Like soccer, all rugby guys pretty much do the same thing. Football is highly specialized, a lineman and a corner have almost nothing in common athleticly, but are both elite for what they do. Watch the combine and see just how elite they are at their own things. Personally I would think that anyone who gets paid to play any sport is probably an elite athlete.[/left]
Although in Rugby the clock is continuous, there is times you take a breather.

Say you're a forward and get tackled running the ball, you're laying on the ground while a Ruck is forming over you. Ball goes out and there is another tackle/Ruck. More often than not, there is no chance for you to get up off the ground after the tackle and make the next breakdown. So, what do you do? There is no point to fly full sprint and get into an already forming/finishing ruck. You hang back, take a sec to catch your breath and hit the next breakdown.

Or if you played Wing, a lot of the time the ball either gets run by some forwards with a ruck forming afterwards, or the ball doesnt even make it out that far. A lot more sitting around than say a Prop would have to do. There are also scrums, line-outs and penalty kicks where you have a chance to gather yourself

I played both over 7yrs... Football is more about short burst and a lot more of a 'strategy' (every single play - hence the breaks), while Rugby is more endurance over a long haul, with less strategy, but its all on the go. If you think an NFL football player isnt an elite athlete, you obv havent strapped on the pads and played. If you think Rugby isnt that demanding physically, again you havent strapped on the pads (yes, rugby players wear shoulder pads) and stepped on the pitch
[ Edited by Jordache49 on Feb 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM ]
Who makes more money… the best Rugby Player or football players? The reason why I ask is because if a rugby player can make substantially more playing football than they could in rugby you would think more would make the transition to football yet we don’t see it. The reason we don’t see it is because they usually don’t make it in the NFL. Look what’s going on in Samoa for example, their best athletes are turning to American football not Rugby. I have the similar theory with the heavy weights in boxing. People say the US heavy weight division is dead. All the would-be great heavy weights from the US are following the money which is in the NFL and NBA. Now the heavy weights are left with B class athletes.

My belief is the best athletes go where they can make the most money. I feel the NBA has the best athletes. just my 2 cents...
Originally posted by KB94605NINERS:
Who makes more money… the best Rugby Player or football players? The reason why I ask is because if a rugby player can make substantially more playing football than they could in rugby you would think more would make the transition to football yet we don’t see it. The reason we don’t see it is because they usually don’t make it in the NFL. Look what’s going on in Samoa for example, their best athletes are turning to American football not Rugby. I have the similar theory with the heavy weights in boxing. People say the US heavy weight division is dead. All the would-be great heavy weights from the US are following the money which is in the NFL and NBA. Now the heavy weights are left with B class athletes.

My belief is the best athletes go where they can make the most money. I feel the NBA has the best athletes. just my 2 cents...

That's a very solid point.
Originally posted by StOnEy333:

that's 95 min
a football game takes an average of 180 min
...
Originally posted by solidg2000:
Originally posted by StOnEy333:

that's 95 min
a football game takes an average of 180 min
...

Players stand around during replays. You can't just add those up.

Also, I think they're counting gameplay time.
Originally posted by KB94605NINERS:
Who makes more money… the best Rugby Player or football players? The reason why I ask is because if a rugby player can make substantially more playing football than they could in rugby you would think more would make the transition to football yet we don’t see it. The reason we don’t see it is because they usually don’t make it in the NFL. Look what’s going on in Samoa for example, their best athletes are turning to American football not Rugby. I have the similar theory with the heavy weights in boxing. People say the US heavy weight division is dead. All the would-be great heavy weights from the US are following the money which is in the NFL and NBA. Now the heavy weights are left with B class athletes.

My belief is the best athletes go where they can make the most money. I feel the NBA has the best athletes. just my 2 cents...

NFL players by far make more money. In Australia, each club is allocated $4.1M AU total to spend on 25 players.

Your argument is flawed. Athletes don't tend to branch into the sports for reasons of pay but naturally flow into the sports that were available when they were a child.

You don't see many Australians in the NFL. Why? Because there is no foundation in Australia to support it. You're seeing Pacific Islanders slowly entering the NFL because there's a foundation slowly building there.

-9fA
so "actual playing time" is defined as running a play? like.. what 3 seconds a play? about 100 plays a game? fair enough.

either way, the game is clocked at 60 minutes. that's how long they're acutally playing. and for me, the action is from the end of a commercial break to the start of the next one.

give me a break Wall Street Journal...
[ Edited by chico49erfan on Feb 11, 2010 at 12:59 AM ]
Originally posted by KB94605NINERS:
Who makes more money… the best Rugby Player or football players? The reason why I ask is because if a rugby player can make substantially more playing football than they could in rugby you would think more would make the transition to football yet we don’t see it. The reason we don’t see it is because they usually don’t make it in the NFL. Look what’s going on in Samoa for example, their best athletes are turning to American football not Rugby. I have the similar theory with the heavy weights in boxing. People say the US heavy weight division is dead. All the would-be great heavy weights from the US are following the money which is in the NFL and NBA. Now the heavy weights are left with B class athletes.

My belief is the best athletes go where they can make the most money. I feel the NBA has the best athletes. just my 2 cents...

You mean American Samoa, the same country that has 93% of its population overweight. Samoa is a rugby nation and it will forever be a Rugby nation. There are talks from the Rugby world that the NFL is an option AFTER rugby, where they can retire from contact and just become a punter or kicker.

In the US its ALL about money, no doubt there. However alot of athletes around the world dream of playing for their country, something that is not as big here in the US. So for you to assume that athletes have the same values as US athletes is a fail on your part. Not saying foreigner players don't wan money BUT its not the means to decide which sport they are going to play.
Originally posted by TX9R:
Totally different sports. Like soccer, all rugby guys pretty much do the same thing. Football is highly specialized, a lineman and a corner have almost nothing in common athleticly, but are both elite for what they do. Watch the combine and see just how elite they are at their own things. Personally I would think that anyone who gets paid to play any sport is probably an elite athlete.[/left]

You can't say they are total different, after all one originated from the other.
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by KB94605NINERS:
Who makes more money… the best Rugby Player or football players? The reason why I ask is because if a rugby player can make substantially more playing football than they could in rugby you would think more would make the transition to football yet we don’t see it. The reason we don’t see it is because they usually don’t make it in the NFL. Look what’s going on in Samoa for example, their best athletes are turning to American football not Rugby. I have the similar theory with the heavy weights in boxing. People say the US heavy weight division is dead. All the would-be great heavy weights from the US are following the money which is in the NFL and NBA. Now the heavy weights are left with B class athletes.

My belief is the best athletes go where they can make the most money. I feel the NBA has the best athletes. just my 2 cents...

You mean American Samoa, the same country that has 93% of its population overweight. Samoa is a rugby nation and it will forever be a Rugby nation. There are talks from the Rugby world that the NFL is an option AFTER rugby, where they can retire from contact and just become a punter or kicker.

In the US its ALL about money, no doubt there. However alot of athletes around the world dream of playing for their country, something that is not as big here in the US. So for you to assume that athletes have the same values as US athletes is a fail on your part. Not saying foreigner players don't wan money BUT its not the means to decide which sport they are going to play.

The NFL has lots of cash and is always looking for new talent. Tell us why the NFL does not go after Rugby players? They go after track athletes. I am not trying to knock Rugby at all. It is an amazing sport. However if the NFL felt they could get better talent from Rugby players they would be on the first plane to S.A. or AUS or the UK and offering boat loads of cash to rugby players to come to the NFL however they don’t.
Originally posted by chico49erfan:
so "actual playing time" is defined as running a play? like.. what 3 seconds a play? about 100 plays a game? fair enough.

either way, the game is clocked at 60 minutes. that's how long they're acutally playing. and for me, the action is from the end of a commercial break to the start of the next one.

give me a break Wall Street Journal...

No they are right. That is why it is called a play clock, it means you have 40 seconds to begin to the next play.

I love the game of football, but the NFL presentation of the game is pretty bad, and it has been getting progressively worst each decade.

LOL, at you referring to people standing around as "action"
Originally posted by KB94605NINERS:
Originally posted by Aussie49er:
Originally posted by KB94605NINERS:
Who makes more money… the best Rugby Player or football players? The reason why I ask is because if a rugby player can make substantially more playing football than they could in rugby you would think more would make the transition to football yet we don’t see it. The reason we don’t see it is because they usually don’t make it in the NFL. Look what’s going on in Samoa for example, their best athletes are turning to American football not Rugby. I have the similar theory with the heavy weights in boxing. People say the US heavy weight division is dead. All the would-be great heavy weights from the US are following the money which is in the NFL and NBA. Now the heavy weights are left with B class athletes.

My belief is the best athletes go where they can make the most money. I feel the NBA has the best athletes. just my 2 cents...

You mean American Samoa, the same country that has 93% of its population overweight. Samoa is a rugby nation and it will forever be a Rugby nation. There are talks from the Rugby world that the NFL is an option AFTER rugby, where they can retire from contact and just become a punter or kicker.

In the US its ALL about money, no doubt there. However alot of athletes around the world dream of playing for their country, something that is not as big here in the US. So for you to assume that athletes have the same values as US athletes is a fail on your part. Not saying foreigner players don't wan money BUT its not the means to decide which sport they are going to play.

The NFL has lots of cash and is always looking for new talent. Tell us why the NFL does not go after Rugby players? They go after track athletes. I am not trying to knock Rugby at all. It is an amazing sport. However if the NFL felt they could get better talent from Rugby players they would be on the first plane to S.A. or AUS or the UK and offering boat loads of cash to rugby players to come to the NFL however they don’t.

The NFL game goes against a lot of rugby standards. To train a Rugby player to become a NFL player would have to unlearn everything they have been taught to do or not to do.

A track athlete only runs, so its easy to teach from scratch than breaking down a player and teach from scratch.

Back after the 95 Rugby World Cup Jonah Lomu was heavily sort after by some NFL teams, he turned the money down to stay where his heart belonged, in New Zealand Rugby. BTW there are NFL training schools in Australia, but non of the top athletes are interested.