11 Minutes of Action in Typical NFL Game

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.

Even if this "beast" plays 5mins of a game. Yes that is truly amazing. You aren't a great athlete if you are not on the field.

Originally posted by silkyjohnson:

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?

You seen, you guys have your panties in a bunch over this. I watch because its entertaining. I have never denied that, but to think they are as good as everyone in the US, especially the media is ridiculous. You say you can't plug any old fat man into the line and have him block, because he will die of a heart attack. I serious doubt he would "die", but I know it takes knowledge on how to play. Take the most athletic skillful 165 pound man, that knows everything about blocking and put him in the line. Who would have more success blocking, a fat 300 pounder or a vastly athletic 165 pound man?

Plus I never take any stock in 40 times. How often do they measure their 40's? Once at the combine, where you can train for that, then once its recorded you don't need to worry about it again.

Originally posted by cubanb:

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]

I pulled a race card? Race was never mentioned until you brought it up, you = fail

Carry On

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.

I can't come back with a rugby player like that solely because they don't take those measurables. You are either a great player or not. You aren't not better because you run a 40, 0.3 of a second faster than the next person.

Take a look at a regular MMA matchup. They're usually three 5 min. rounds for a total of 15 minutes of actual action. And a lot of fights start out with 2-3 minutes of guys just feeling each other out touching gloves only.

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

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

IMO there is the same amount of total explosiveness in Rugby as the NFL. Scrums, pick and drives, rucks, counter rucks, rolling mauls, etc etc for the forwards. Kick and chase, counter plays, back line moves, etc etc for the backs. There is no difference between putting a kick through and having chasers vs a deep route in the NFL. Combine scrums, mauls and rucking and you have a greater total than the number of snaps for a lineman.

Except Rugby players have to constantly move as well, and play a full 80mins, or at the very least 40, barring any injury of course.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Take a look at a regular MMA matchup. They're usually three 5 min. rounds for a total of 15 minutes of actual action. And a lot of fights start out with 2-3 minutes of guys just feeling each other out touching gloves only.

Big difference between "feeling each other out" and taking a 45 break every 4-7 seconds.

Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game


An elite Rugby players season spans through a whole regular club season, into another international season, followed by international tours into the other hemisphere during the offseason. So when you are playing a sport basically all year round, its pretty hard to switch to another sport. So you won't find any rugby players that are former Olympians, because they play and train for rugby all year round.

However since NFL don't have an international season and don't tour other nations they are free to train for other sports if they choose.

P.S. I stated already that I didn't say that there weren't any elite athletes but I will state AGAIN, playing 5mins in a game that is slated for 60 is hardly means to call yourself elite.

Originally posted by Aussie49er:

Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game

Who cares?

By that logic you could argue that Rugby players aren't elite athletes because they don't go as long as a marathon runner or the tour'de'france cyclists. Endurance is just one measurable of athleticism, not the only one. Is the person who holds the world-record for longest hoola-hooping session more of an elite athlete than all rugby, football, soccer, or basketball players?

The vast majority, in fact almost all, of the people who are commonly discussed as elite athletes do not got for a full hour in their respective fields. Running, jumping, swimming, skiing, skating, fighting...none of these things go for as long as a rugby match or soccer game. In fact, almost none of them go as long for as a football player in a football game does. How does that translate to them not being elite athletes?

Oh after I wrote that reply I forgot

in 2016 Rugby WILL be an Olympic sport so in 2016 the answer to your question would be hundreds

Originally posted by mug0mug:

Originally posted by Aussie49er:

Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game

Who cares?

By that logic you could argue that Rugby players aren't elite athletes because they don't go as long as a marathon runner or the tour'de'france cyclists. Endurance is just one measurable of athleticism, not the only one. Is the person who holds the world-record for longest hoola-hooping session more of an elite athlete than all rugby, football, soccer, or basketball players?

The vast majority, in fact almost all, of the people who are commonly discussed as elite athletes do not got for a full hour in their respective fields. Running, jumping, swimming, skiing, skating, fighting...none of these things go for as long as a rugby match or soccer game. In fact, almost none of them go as long for as a football player in a football game does. How does that translate to them not being elite athletes?

By the way, you claim it takes the strongest, fastest, etc etc etc. That is a crock, pure drivel. These guys aren't world class weightlifters, these guys aren't world class sprinters, high jumpers, long jumpers. Again trying to over hype these players as elite athletes.

To rephrase your statement, an NFL team is a collect of great specialised athletes forming together as a team

Originally posted by Aussie49er:

Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game


An elite Rugby players season spans through a whole regular club season, into another international season, followed by international tours into the other hemisphere during the offseason. So when you are playing a sport basically all year round, its pretty hard to switch to another sport. So you won't find any rugby players that are former Olympians, because they play and train for rugby all year round.

However since NFL don't have an international season and don't tour other nations they are free to train for other sports if they choose.

P.S. I stated already that I didn't say that there weren't any elite athletes but I will state AGAIN, playing 5mins in a game that is slated for 60 is hardly means to call yourself elite.

Well, if I play football for 5 minutes it doesn't mean I'm an elite athlete, but pretty much everyone who plays in the nfl is.

As for the year round thing, nfl players train year round and are not permitted to play other sports/compete in other competitive athletics. They achieve their other accomplishments before or after their nfl careers (generally before).

Anyway, I'll agree that both pro-Aussie players, and NFL players are elite athletes...it's just that NFL players are more elite.

Originally posted by mug0mug:

Originally posted by Aussie49er:

Originally posted by mug0mug:
Alright, well, then take'em out of their respective sports.

How many NFL players have been olympians, successful in other sports, and even held world records compared to Rugby players? (I'd love it if someone would do the research on this, but I can think of several off the top of my head.)

I'm pretty sure it isn't even close.

Why? Because the NFL takes the strongest, fastest, most explosive, and most "elite" athletes at specific abilities and puts'em on a team together.

Rugby players may need more "overall athleticism" than many NFL players, but really, being good at everything usually means you're not great at anything.

Running a marathon isn't going to help a world-class weight lifter, sumo wrestler, or an NFL lineman. A great 40 time won't usually help a pitcher, a javelin thrower, or an NFL quarterback. Michael Phelps would probably suck at Rugby, but he sure as hell is an elite athlete.

That's what's so great about football. You field a team of elite, world-class athletes who cover the whole spectrum of athletic abilities and then work together to put all those varying, but elite, abilities into a cohesive unit.

That play 5mins a game


An elite Rugby players season spans through a whole regular club season, into another international season, followed by international tours into the other hemisphere during the offseason. So when you are playing a sport basically all year round, its pretty hard to switch to another sport. So you won't find any rugby players that are former Olympians, because they play and train for rugby all year round.

However since NFL don't have an international season and don't tour other nations they are free to train for other sports if they choose.

P.S. I stated already that I didn't say that there weren't any elite athletes but I will state AGAIN, playing 5mins in a game that is slated for 60 is hardly means to call yourself elite.

Well, if I play football for 5 minutes it doesn't mean I'm an elite athlete, but pretty much everyone who plays in the nfl is.

As for the year round thing, nfl players train year round and are not permitted to play other sports/compete in other competitive athletics. They achieve their other accomplishments before or after their nfl careers (generally before).

Anyway, I'll agree that both pro-Aussie players, and NFL players are elite athletes...it's just that NFL players are more elite.

I swear Deion played for both the Falcons AND Braves/Reds, however I could be wrong. Still wondering which athlete was an Olympic athlete prior to the NFL in the era in which they weren't allowed to play two sports at once?