11 Minutes of Action in Typical NFL Game

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.

It isn't volume...its magnitude. The "fat guys" you seem to enjoy bashing live to hit. I'd take Joe Greene against any Rugby player you could come up with in a hitting drill. Or Leo Nomellini. Or Bob St. Clair. Or Ernie Ladd. Or Chuck Bednarik. Or Randy White.

Next...I already conceded that a pro football player wouldn't have the juice to run with a professional side for an entire game, so we don't need to worry about Patrick Willis putting on heavy hits in the 79th minute of a game.

Finally, I never said that Ruby players are kickers...I said that thier best use on an American Football team would be as a kicker. Or maybe as a special teamer.

Lets face it...the sports are different. It isn't a slight...but it is a fact. The high tackling that is against the rules in Rugby is run of the mill in the NFL.

And with that, I'm leaving the thread.

Later.

Originally posted by Aussie49er:

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.

Again, it's just the damn game and how it's set up! If the game of football had rules where none of the players were allowed to sub in and out for the whole time, and they had to run up to the line of scrimmage after each play, then that's how they would play it. That's what they would train for. But that's not how the game is played. It's not required of them.

Different sports. Different rules. Different requirements. Apples and oranges. Get it through your damn head, man.

Discredit NFL players all you want, but everybody can see your ignorance.

Originally posted by Aussie49er:

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.

I think the Kenyans were the rugby players in his analogy, but oh well.

Anyone who has played football knows it's not the 60 minute games once a week that makes football players elite athletes, rather it's the 3-4 hour brutal practices they have to endure 5 days per week. I'm sure rugby players put in a lot of practice as well, which is why I would also classify them as elite athletes.

Whether receivers go full throttle on every running play, there is no doubt that with their impeccable speed, leaping ability, and agility, they are elite athletes. Same thing goes for the other positions except for offensive lineman, defensive tackles and some defensive ends.

I don't know how you can call a league of white players elite athletes when they don't have any black players among. It's like saying the MLB was better before segregation, it's just plain wrong. When you have as few black people as rugby does, it is impossible to call them the elite of the elite. Their sample size is halfed. A lot of the elite athletes in the NFL are black, a lot of white. If both trained to play rugby their whole lives, they would be elite rugby players. Just as I am sure if some of the rugby players trained for the nfl their whole lives they could be good nfl players.

To say people are not elite athletes based on the sport they play is just plain ignorance.

Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:

Originally posted by Aussie49er:

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.

I think the Kenyans were the rugby players in his analogy, but oh well.

Anyone who has played football knows it's not the 60 minute games once a week that makes football players elite athletes, rather it's the 3-4 hour brutal practices they have to endure 5 days per week. I'm sure rugby players put in a lot of practice as well, which is why I would also classify them as elite athletes.

Whether receivers go full throttle on every running play, there is no doubt that with their impeccable speed, leaping ability, and agility, they are elite athletes. Same thing goes for the other positions except for offensive lineman, defensive tackles and some defensive ends.

I'm not classifying Bolt or the Kenyans as either or, I'm just using it as an example of how two sports differ.

Even NFL linemen are athletic as hell. Their athleticism is mostly in their strength, but some of these guys have nimble feet.

But I'm done with this topic, it's obvious Aussie's bias comes from living in a country that likes rugby obviously. No sense in talking reason.

Originally posted by cubanb:
I don't know how you can call a league of white players elite athletes when they don't have any black players among. It's like saying the MLB was better before segregation, it's just plain wrong. When you have as few black people as rugby does, it is impossible to call them the elite of the elite. Their sample size is halfed. A lot of the elite athletes in the NFL are black, a lot of white. If both trained to play rugby their whole lives, they would be elite rugby players. Just as I am sure if some of the rugby players trained for the nfl their whole lives they could be good nfl players.

To say people are not elite athletes based on the sport they play is just plain ignorance.

Coming from guy why just stated that race is a factor in whether an athlete is elite or not.

You guys say I'm ignorant because I grew up in a rugby playing nation. Well I've lived in the US for 8 years now, been watching the NFL and Rugby for 20 years. You guys have the same bias in the other direction, yet talk about rugby when you know nothing about it.

You guy talk as if every NFL player has the speed of Chris Johnson, the strength of Larry Allen, the leaping ability of Larry Fitzgerald, etc etc. For every Fast player there is a slow player, for every strong player there is a weak player, and so on, its the law of averages.

I never said there weren't any elite athletes, but I do believe AS A WHOLE, its hard to call them elite when it takes 53 men, unlimited subs, playing 3+ hours to play a 60min game, while only playing 11 minutes splitting those minute in two for offense and defense, and still calling the THE MAJORITY elite.

If Gridiron wasn't American, if it belonged to another country and America never invented it, I'd put money on it, that guy wouldn't even consider it a sport. Let alone think its athletes are elite.

Originally posted by Aussie49er:
You guys say I'm ignorant because I grew up in a rugby playing nation. Well I've lived in the US for 8 years now, been watching the NFL and Rugby for 20 years. You guys have the same bias in the other direction, yet talk about rugby when you know nothing about it.

You guy talk as if every NFL player has the speed of Chris Johnson, the strength of Larry Allen, the leaping ability of Larry Fitzgerald, etc etc. For every Fast player there is a slow player, for every strong player there is a weak player, and so on, its the law of averages.

I never said there weren't any elite athletes, but I do believe AS A WHOLE, its hard to call them elite when it takes 53 men, unlimited subs, playing 3+ hours to play a 60min game, while only playing 11 minutes splitting those minute in two for offense and defense, and still calling the THE MAJORITY elite.

If Gridiron wasn't American, if it belonged to another country and America never invented it, I'd put money on it, that guy wouldn't even consider it a sport. Let alone think its athletes are elite.

Since NFL athletes aren't elite and can only play for 5-6 minutes a game, rugby players should not only be good, but they should absolutely dominate these un-athletic players in any game. Since they have no problem playing an entire rugby match, sprinting constantly, they should be able to handle 10 minutes of american football and dominate these unathletic wimps here in the United States, right?

Originally posted by Aussie49er:
You guys say I'm ignorant because I grew up in a rugby playing nation. Well I've lived in the US for 8 years now, been watching the NFL and Rugby for 20 years. You guys have the same bias in the other direction, yet talk about rugby when you know nothing about it.

You guy talk as if every NFL player has the speed of Chris Johnson, the strength of Larry Allen, the leaping ability of Larry Fitzgerald, etc etc. For every Fast player there is a slow player, for every strong player there is a weak player, and so on, its the law of averages.

I never said there weren't any elite athletes, but I do believe AS A WHOLE, its hard to call them elite when it takes 53 men, unlimited subs, playing 3+ hours to play a 60min game, while only playing 11 minutes splitting those minute in two for offense and defense, and still calling the THE MAJORITY elite.

If Gridiron wasn't American, if it belonged to another country and America never invented it, I'd put money on it, that guy wouldn't even consider it a sport. Let alone think its athletes are elite.

You talking about averages? Come on now! That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. That's the game of football. You need the big, fat but STRONG players to man down the trenches. It's not like you can bring ANY fat ass tub of lard and plug him in and all of a sudden he's an NFL lineman. You pick a fat dude off the street and put him in an NFL game and that guy would die of a heart attack. These big dudes are athletic. Just because they can't keep up with Chris Johnson, doesn't mean they're not athletic.

If you have such a problem with these guys playing the game the way it's been set up, why do you even watch it? According to you, these guys aren't elite athletes. Why bother with a game that totals only 11 minutes of action and that doesn't include elite athletes?

How the hell can someone seriously argue that all NFL players are automatically disqualified as elite athletes?

Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
How the hell can someone seriously argue that all NFL players are automatically disqualified as elite athletes?

Because someone obviously doesn't appreciate how rare it is for a 275 pound man to run 40 yards in under 4.8 seconds, yet still have the strength to squat over 500 pounds, and the explosiveness to achieve a vertical jump in excess of 20".

Football FTW.

Originally posted by Legbreaker:

Originally posted by Kalen49ers:
How the hell can someone seriously argue that all NFL players are automatically disqualified as elite athletes?

Because someone obviously doesn't appreciate how rare it is for a 275 pound man to run 40 yards in under 4.8 seconds, yet still have the strength to squat over 500 pounds, and the explosiveness to achieve a vertical jump in excess of 20".

Football FTW.

Amen to that

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

IMO, you can't compare the two.

Rugby requires a whole different skill set and puts a heavy emphasis on endurance whereas NFL requires a whole lot more explosive ability.

Edit: they are both elite athletes in their own right.

-9fA

And silkyjohnson, the only NFL players who might have a shot at playing rugby are good LBs. Nobody else would be able to stand a chance at rugby.

Some rugby players could play LB in the NFL. I don't think it's that far of a stretch.

Legbreaker, you're getting confused with rugby and Aussie Rules Football. Both are different. Aussie rules football is not ruby. Rugby players would most likely not make as good punters as AFL players.

-9fA

Originally posted by Aussie49er:

Originally posted by cubanb:
I don't know how you can call a league of white players elite athletes when they don't have any black players among. It's like saying the MLB was better before segregation, it's just plain wrong. When you have as few black people as rugby does, it is impossible to call them the elite of the elite. Their sample size is halfed. A lot of the elite athletes in the NFL are black, a lot of white. If both trained to play rugby their whole lives, they would be elite rugby players. Just as I am sure if some of the rugby players trained for the nfl their whole lives they could be good nfl players.

To say people are not elite athletes based on the sport they play is just plain ignorance.

Coming from guy why just stated that race is a factor in whether an athlete is elite or not.

I brought up race not as a factor of whether an athlete is elite or not, but as the field of competition.

People argue that maybe Babe Ruth wasn't as great as people thought because the leagues were segregated then. That means the best black pitchers never faced off against Babe Ruth. If baseball was still a white only league, big numbers wouldn't be as impressive because the talent pool would be thinner.

But of course it is easier for YOU to pull the race card instead of actually read my post and respond to the statements. [/b]