NRL vs NFL debate

[Bomber]

a four match ban for first offense - virtually a slap on the wrists, NPK

 

[ozhawk66]

Manfred Moore:

http://www.rl1908.com/Rugby-League-News/manfred.htm

I don't have time to dive into the full length of that article, but it's amazing, so far. I wanted a lot of legit discussion, when I came to this forum, but this article has blown me, so far.

I've been taken back from the premise of this story.....so far...

 

[c_eagle]

Lets just say the NFL tests at a MUCH higher level than win the NRL.

Where is your proof? Making statements is easy, especially when they are baseless.

 

[Bomber]

He played five games, and all things considered he was a bit of a dud. Seems to be a feather in the cap of the leaguies, don't you think?

The article was written in 1977, in case you didn't notice

 

[c_eagle]

Everytime you get stumped you just say, "don't even go there." Is it because you can't back it up?

If you want to watch the NFL, do it. No one is going to convert on the basis of your whining. I don't like spending 4 hours watching one game, especially when the majority is stoppages.

 

[Choppies]

well ozhawk here is what you do, here is a quick list
1. Book a flight
2. Get Taxi to Airport
3. Get on plane
4. Get off plane in America and stay there.
You will be happy there. You can crap on about the NFL all you want then and no big bad Rugby League fans to make you look like an Idiot when comparing the NRL to the NFL.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

You have no idea about the NFL roid policy.

No you have no idea. Average lifespan of NFL Offensive tackle, Defensive end is 52. Why, the roids kill them in the end.

 

[Bomber]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3573248

WASHINGTON (AP) - A law establishing uniform drug-testing rules for major U.S. sports would be a mistake, NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue told Congress on Wednesday, while defending his league's steroid policy under questioning from lawmakers who were far less adversarial than during last month's baseball hearing.


div.foxBite {margin-bottom:10px;border-bottom:1px solid black;border-top:1px solid black;padding:5px;}div.foxBite td {font-family:verdana;font-size:10px;}FOX Bite
Videos

Upshaw tells players' side
NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw gives the players' opinion on steroids and steroid testing.
"We don't feel that there is rampant cheating in our sport," Tagliabue told the House Government Reform Committee.




Also...
<LI>Even NFL has questions to answer
<LI>Complete NFL draft coverage



Members of the panel asked whether the size of today's NFL players is evidence of steroid use, they criticized football's penalties as too lenient, and asked whether amphetamines should be banned and when growth hormone will be tested for.

"How is the average American supposed to look at the size, strength and speed of today's NFL linebackers and not conclude that they might be taking performance-enhancing drugs?" asked chairman Tom Davis, R-Va.

Tagliabue countered: "We're certainly not going to jump to the conclusion that because we have larger athletes today there is increased steroid use in the National Football League. I think it's nonsense."

On the whole, congressmen generally praised the NFL for its cooperation, with more than one calling Wednesday's session a "breath of fresh air" compared to Major League Baseball's hearing.

Still, the committee didn't get a direct answer as to how widespread steroid use might be in the NFL. Lawmakers tried to gauge that level in baseball on March 17, when an 11-hour hearing featured Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco and other past and current stars.

On Wednesday, only two former NFL players were present, and one was Hall of Famer Gene Upshaw, invited because he's the NFL Players Association chief executive.

The other was Steve Courson, an offensive lineman for the Pittsburgh Steelers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers from 1978-85. He has admitted using steroids and said they probably played a role in his developing a heart condition.

Courson delivered his statement to dozens of empty black leather chairs: Only one member of the committee was present, because others left for a floor vote.

Later, when asked by ranking Democrat Henry Waxman of California what percentage of pro football players use steroids today, Courson said: "That would be very hard for me to determine. I've been out of the game for 20 years."

Even a congressman pointed out the contrast in the witness lists.

"If this committee is serious about investigating steroid use among football players today, well, we should probably start by talking to some of today's football players," Massachusetts Democrat Stephen Lynch said.

Davis promised more hearings and said the NBA will be next. He said he, Waxman and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are working on legislation that would put sports' banned substance lists and testing protocols under the auspices of the White House drug czar but might leave penalties up to the leagues.

While boosting strength, steroids can lead to heart attacks, strokes, cancer, sterility and mood swings; using most steroids without a doctor's prescription for medical purposes has been illegal since 1991.

"Let everybody compete under the same rules and the same platforms and that's what an across-the-board policy does," Davis said after the hearing. "I don't know how the public feels about this, but I think members are pretty united on this. It's a huge issue and it needs to be taken care of."

Tagliabue disagreed.

"If we've got to start outsourcing or off-shoring our drug programs, then I think we're in trouble," he told Waxman in the closest thing to a contentious exchange.

"When it comes to process and other considerations, including discipline, we can deal with our own sport better than a uniform standard, which in many cases can become the lowest common denominator."

Baseball banned steroids in September 2002 and instituted mandatory 10-day suspensions this season. The NHL does not test players for performance-enhancing drugs, while first-time offenders are suspended for five games in the NBA.



The NFL began testing in 1987, added suspensions in 1989, and instituted year-round random testing in 1990. Fifty-four players have been suspended, and Tagliabue said another 57 retired after testing positive. A first offense carries a four-game ban.



Several lawmakers referred to a CBS report that a South Carolina doctor wrote steroid prescriptions in 2003 for three Carolina Panthers who played in that season's Super Bowl.

"The percentage of NFL players who test positive for steroids is very low," Waxman said. "Is this because the policy is working or is this because players have figured out how to avoid detection?"

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2020408

Haslett apologizes for implicating Steelers
Associated Press





NEW ORLEANS -- New Orleans Saints coach Jim Haslett apologized to the Pittsburgh Steelers on Thursday for saying that team's use of steroids during its Super Bowl championship seasons in the 1970s popularized the drug in the NFL.

"I have a lot of respect for that team, that organization and Mr. (Dan) Rooney," Haslett said. "That's just what we believed when I played. And, later, one of their players admitted using steroids. But I didn't mean to cause them any harm."

The admission by Steve Courson, a part-time starter on Pittsburgh's last Super Bowl title team in 1979, was one reason Haslett felt rumors about the Steelers' steroid use were true.

Courson has blamed a heart condition on steroid use. Courson also said that teammates such as Jack Ham and Jack Lambert adamantly refused to use them.

Steelers owner Dan Rooney, who ran the team during the 1970s, denied the Steelers pioneered steroid use in the NFL.

"This is totally false when he says it started with the Steelers in the '70s," Rooney told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "(Then-coach) Chuck Noll was totally against it. He looked into it, examined it, talked to people. Haslett, maybe it affected his mind."

Haslett who played in Buffalo from 1979 to 1985, and finished his career in 1987 with the New York Jets, admitted Wednesday that he experimented with steroids, believing he needed them to keep up with the many players he felt used them. The acknowledgment and his comments about the Steelers came in Hawaii, where he had been attending NFL meetings.

"It wasn't against the rules in those days, it wasn't illegal," said Haslett, who estimated that half of the NFL players when he was in the league, and all the linemen, took steroids.

The NFL banned their use and began testing for steroids in 1987, but players weren't suspended for using them until 1989. The league started using random, year-round drug testing in 1990.

Haslett said he talked about steroid use in his day to point out how far the NFL had come, not to cast aspersions on anyone.

"I have a lot of respect for this league, but it's naive to think people weren't using enhancing drugs before they were illegal," Haslett said. "The difference is that the NFL recognized that steroids would hurt the league and took steps to stop their use. That's what I was trying to show."

Haslett had already bulked up from his 160-pound high school weight by the time he left college. He did that strictly through working out, he said.

It was after he was drafted by the Bills in 1979 that he used steroids, thinking they would help him stay competitive.

"If you didn't you weren't as strong as everybody else, you weren't as fast as everybody else," Haslett said. "That's the only reason to do it. Everybody's looking for a competitive edge."

But the drug did not help as much as he expected, Haslett said on Thursday, and he quit using it.

"You still had to do all the work, eat right, lift weights," Haslett said. "I didn't think it did much for me."

And Haslett did not like the side effects, saying steroids made him hyper and left him bloated.

"I'm a proponent of the NFL policies and what we've done in this area," Haslett said. "I was just trying to explain the differences between the old days and now."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/football/bal-te.sp.nflsteroids26apr26,1,6973612.story?coll=bal-sports-football&ctrack=1&cset=true

Steroid use in NFL may be wider than thought
House staff members cite 'credible insiders'
By Jeff Barker
Sun Staff
Originally published April 26, 2005
WASHINGTON - Steroid use by players in the National Football League may be more widespread than tests have indicated, according to congressional staff members investigating the league's drug-testing program.

The House Government Reform Committee has been conducting interviews with "credible insiders" as part of an investigation leading to tomorrow's hearing on the league's steroid policy.

http://adserver.trb.com/event.ng/Ty...rect=http://www.scion.com?et=CAID&CAID=123789

As a result of those interviews - along with the recent report that three Carolina Panthers purchased steroids before the Super Bowl in 2004 - committee staff members say they are concerned that steroid testing may understate the problem.

"We're aware of the reports of the Panthers obtaining steroids," said Robert White, a spokesman for the committee's chairman, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, a Virginia Republican. "Does that raise the issue of whether there are ways around the tests? That is obviously an inquiry we'll get into."

White declined to say whom the panel has interviewed or to discuss the results.

Another House staff member, speaking on condition of anonymity, called those contacted "credible sources who follow football."

Through their statements, he said, "there is a specific issue with the NFL. Either the credible insiders are wrong when they say steroid use is widespread or else the testing program has a fatal flaw."

None of those "insiders" is scheduled to appear at tomorrow's hearing. Because of that, the session might be less of a media spectacle than the panel's March 17 hearing, in which some of baseball's brightest current and former stars testified uneasily about steroid use in their sport.

Among those scheduled to appear tomorrow are Steve Courson, a former NFL lineman who has said that steroids damaged his health, according to an updated witness list released yesterday.

Other witnesses are to include NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue; Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association; and Harold Henderson, the head of labor relations for the league. The panel has also invited physicians and steroid experts to testify.

But White said: "The public hearing is only a part of our inquiry. We've talked to and continue to talk to many people."

In the past, lawmakers often praised the NFL testing program as the strongest in professional sports. Adolpho Birch, the NFL's counsel for labor relations, appeared at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing March 11 and was hailed for the league's mandatory four-game suspension for a first violation. Major League Baseball, whose recently toughened steroid testing regimen is still relatively lenient, was criticized at the hearing as being "extremely weak."

The NFL conducts year-round testing. Seven players per team per week are tested at random during the season, including the playoffs. There is periodic testing in the off-season, and every player is tested for steroids.

"We do have one of the most comprehensive treatment and testing programs in all of sports," said league spokesman Brian McCarthy. "We work with the medical community to come up with state-of-the-art tests, not only testing, but discipline and education."

But the policy has come under increased scrutiny since CBS News reported last month that three Panthers players filled testosterone prescriptions issued by a doctor two weeks before they played in the 2004 Super Bowl. The State, a newspaper in Columbia, S.C., had reported earlier that at least nine current or former Panthers were sought for information about the doctor, James Shortt.

As the Panthers story was being dissected in the news media, Tagliabue said at an owners meeting in Hawaii that he remained "comfortable" with the league's steroid protocols. The NFL moved to strengthen its program by asking the players union to lower the criteria for what is considered a positive test for elevated testosterone levels.

Unlike baseball - which initially fought the House committee's attempts to subpoena witnesses for a hearing on steroids last month - Tagliabue has said from the beginning that the league would cooperate with the panel's investigation.

As part of its investigation, the committee asked the NFL on March 31 for a number of documents on drug testing - including how it is conducted, the notice provided to players, and the procedures for disclosing the identities of those who test positive.

The NFL does not specify what substance triggered a player's suspension. But the number of those suspended for steroid use appears to be relatively low.

According to The New York Times, three players violated the league's drug policy in 2001 and eight in 2002. There were six violations in 2003, the newspaper said, and at least one in 2004.

Sun staff writer Ken Murray contributed to this article.

 

[Bomber]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/29/60II/main683747.shtml

Steroids Prescribed To NFL Players
(Page 1 of 3)

March 30, 2005

http://javascript<b></b>:vlaunch('c...eroids$@$For$@$NFL$@$Players&hitboxMLC=60II') Steroids For NFL Players?
An exclusive report reveals the names of three NFL players who filled steroid prescriptions before they played in the 2004 Super Bowl. (Photo: CBS/AP)

"This is not even medicine. This is better athletes through chemistry."
[size=-2]David Black, forensic toxicologist

[/size]


(CBS) The baseball season opens next week under a shadow cast by allegations of steroid abuse.

The National Football League, by contrast, has been widely praised for having a tough steroid-testing program – which is why 60 Minutes Wednesday was surprised when an investigation we began last year led us to a list of prescriptions filled by current and former NFL players.

On the list were the names of NFL players who had prescriptions for steroids filled shortly before they played in the 2004 Super Bowl. Contributing Correspondent Anderson Cooper reports. Super Bowl 2004 turned out to be one of the most exciting Super Bowls ever. When the Carolina Panthers took on the New England Patriots, 140 million Americans tuned in to watch.

Two players among the Panthers' starting offensive linemen had prescriptions filled for a banned steroid within a week and a half of the game, according to the list obtained by 60 Minutes Wednesday. So did the Panthers' star punter, one of the best in the NFL.

The list says the Panthers players had prescriptions for steroids filled at a South Carolina pharmacy. It doesn’t say whether they actually used the steroids. But all three players repeatedly refilled their prescriptions – in one case, 10 times.

The NFL says it tests players randomly, without warning, throughout the year. And yet there’s no record of these players ever testing positive.

"Apparently, players are not intimidated by the program," says David Black, a forensic toxicologist who helped the NFL set up its drug testing program in the late 1980s. 60 Minutes Wednesday showed him the players' prescription information without telling him their names.

"I must confess, before looking at this information, I really did not imagine that someone could use -- drug as it's represented here, and not be identified in the program," says Black, who thought they would get caught.

How members of the Carolina Panthers came to our attention is a story in itself -- a story that begins near an airport on the outskirts of Columbia, S.C., at the offices of Dr. James Shortt, a self-described “longevity physician.” Shortt, as 60 Minutes Wednesday reported in January, was accused of killing one of his patients.

The county coroner said a controversial intravenous therapy the doctor administered was responsible for the death of patient Katherine Bibeau, but Shortt said she died of other causes.

Attorney Richard Gergel told 60 Minutes Wednesday last year that he was suing Shortt on behalf of the patient’s family. Gergel also sued the neighboring Congaree pharmacy that filled some of the doctor’s prescriptions.

In response to a routine request for documents, the pharmacy’s lawyers provided Gergel with a list showing all the prescriptions the pharmacy filled for Shortt and his patients, from January through October 2004 – including the prescriptions for three Carolina Panthers.

Mignon Simpson is one of two former employees of Shortt who helped 60 Minutes Wednesday corroborate information on the list given by Gergel. While watching the Carolina Panthers play in the 2004 Super Bowl, she said she "recognized some of the players" that she had seen in Shortt's office.

Former patient Marguerite Meyer says she saw one of the Panthers in Shortt’s office in the summer of 2004. "He was just very big. He was, I think, the biggest person I had seen," recalls Meyer, who says she asked Shortt's nurse, Kathleen Rush, who he was. "And Kathleen said, 'That was Todd Steussie.'”

Offensive lineman Todd Steussie – 6'6", and 320 pounds, is an NFL veteran and two-time Pro-Bowler. Out of 190 games, he's missed only one because of injury – a remarkable record.

His prescription record, however, tells a different story: 11 prescriptions of testosterone cream over an eight-month period.

Forensic toxicologist Black says testosterone is a steroid, and he says NFL players are not allowed to take it: "Testosterone is the original base chemical or the starting chemical for all the anabolic steroids."

 

[ozhawk66]

Here is what it boils down to....


The athletes in the NFL and NRL are not special.



I know what you mean by that, but in the sense of the NFL, we as fans, have to deal with it, in a certain way. Special, is a hard word......


Given the right situation....an American athlete that headed to Australia at a young enough age could be a great league players and an Australian athlete could make a great NFL player.



True, if you could get the American athlete in Australia at a young age, it would revolutionize the game of rugby/league. Big time.



One MAJOR thing NFL players have going for them is the relaxed ruloes regarding steriods. I remember a couple of seasons ago a guy getting four games for testing positive to steriods.


careful............


If I had to choose the better all round athlete...it would be a League forward.

If I had to choose the athlete that could make the conversion the easiest it would once again be the League forward.


That's OK. No argument here, but thats OK.


One NFL player I'd have loved to see play league was Darren Woodson of the Dallas Cowboys. He was a VERY good tackler and a big hitter.

I hate the Cowboys. Woodsen was more than good. But he never took over a game like Dion did........

 

[Bomber]

Steroids Prescribed To NFL Players
(Page 2 of 3)

March 30, 2005

An exclusive report reveals the names of three NFL players who filled steroid prescriptions before they played in the 2004 Super Bowl. (Photo: CBS/AP)

(CBS) Steussie now plays for Tampa Bay, but when he was with the Panthers, he was reportedly close friends with fellow lineman Jeff Mitchell. The list says Mitchell received seven testosterone prescriptions – more than a six-month supply.

Todd Sauerbrun, the NFL’s top-rated punter two years in a row, got more than just testosterone. According to the list, he also obtained syringes and an injectible steroid called Stanozolol – at one point, receiving 2,500 mg in 21 days.

"I honestly, in my wildest expectations, I could not imagine someone using 2,500 milligrams of Stanozolol, competing in the NFL," says Black.

Stanozolol is the same steroid that sprinter Ben Johnson was caught using in the 1988 Olympics. Like other steroids, it’s used to increase muscle mass, but Black says it can also be used at the time of competition to give athletes a psychological edge.

"I would read this as being used for a competitive advantage," says Black.

Would it give an advantage? "Yes," says Black, who speaks from personal experience. While directing a drug-testing lab at Vanderbilt University, he took some Stanozolol for research purposes.

"I must have been around 40 when I was injected with Stanozolol," says Black. "And I pretty much felt like I was 18 again."

Dr. Harry Fisch of Columbia University Medical Center, says the long-term risks of steroids far outweigh the short-term benefits.

"If you take too much testosterone, you could have heart disease, heart attacks. You could have strokes," says Fisch. "There are psychological issues such as rage, aggression and actual depression when you remove the testosterone."

Fisch says he gives testosterone to men who are deficient, but not in the dosages that some of the Panthers were receiving.

"We prescribe very small amounts to men who need it," says Fisch. "These people are taking mega doses of these medications, well above what we would prescribe, and at levels that could result in testosterone levels that are sky high."

If that's true, why wasn't it detected?

"We test players on all teams each week, conducting more than 9,000 tests a year for steroids and related substances," says NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who told Congress last year the league spends $10 million annually on steroid testing and education.

The NFL says it tests all players for banned substances before the season starts, and then randomly tests seven players per team every week of the season.

"Over the past five seasons, just to take one example, we’ve only had 25 players who have violated our program and been suspended," says Tagliabue. "This is far below 1 percent."

NFL officials declined to give 60 Minutes Wednesday an on-camera interview. But at the NFL team owners meeting last week, Tagliabue said the league was looking into the situation with the Carolina Panthers.

"We have our security people investigating that, and I know they’re cooperating closely with the Panthers," says Tagliabue.

 

[Bomber]

Steroids Prescribed To NFL Players
(Page 3 of 3)

March 30, 2005
Steroids For NFL Players?

(CBS) In a statement to 60 Minutes, the NFL said: “Is this a widespread problem? We doubt it.”

But Black says there is a problem if the NFL’s testing program didn’t catch players receiving so many steroid prescriptions for so long.

"If this continued to go on, under the umbrella of that program, then that program needs to be reevaluated and have some substantial improvement," says Black.

Testing for testosterone is difficult. Men naturally produce it in their bodies, but the levels vary widely from one man to the next. So in the NFL, only players with testosterone levels six times above normal are flagged as potential violators.

"It's almost like saying if the speed limit on a highway's 55 miles an hour, you're gonna give a ticket to only those that are speeding at over 100 miles an hour," says Fisch. "You could be missing a tremendous amount of steroid use below that level."

The NFL says it plans to toughen its screening for testosterone to bring it in line with recently stiffened standards for Olympic athletes. But there’s one banned substance the NFL doesn’t test for at all -- Human Growth Hormone, or HGH. Like steroids, HGH can make big athletes even bigger. The NFL is supporting research to develop a urine test, but there isn’t one at the moment, which means if you’re using HGH, it’s very hard to get caught.

Unless, of course, the woman who mails it to you decides to go on national television. "Do you know for a fact that professional football players from the Carolina Panthers were receiving Human Growth Hormone?" Cooper asked Mignon Simpson.

"Yes," says Simpson.

How did she know that they were receiving HGH?

"Well, because I shipped out some of it," says Simpson, who adds that "possibly a half dozen" professional football players got the Human Growth Hormone from Dr. Shortt.

Simpson says the growth hormone wouldn't show up on any pharmacy list because she shipped it straight from a refrigerator in Shortt's office: "The amount and dosage, I mean, I don't recall. But I know when things cost thousand -- couple of thousand dollars, that's not a little bit."

And it wasn't just once or twice, she says. "[It was] on a fairly regular basis," says Simpson.

Simpson says she quit working in the doctor's office because she grew suspicious about some of the medications the athletes were receiving: "If this is good, why aren't the others receiving it as well? Why isn't this -- why didn't the coach load up the bus and send 'em all down?"

In September 2004, a year after Simpson quit, state and federal investigators raided Shortt’s office. The State newspaper in South Carolina has reported the Drug Enforcement Agency wants to interview nine current and former Panthers about Shortt.

60 Minutes Wednesday tried to talk to Shortt about the Panthers last year, but didn’t get very far.

"Now, you treat professional football players, too," Cooper asked Shortt.

"I do nutritional work and detoxification," said Shortt.

His lawyer told 60 Minutes Wednesday that the federal health privacy law known as HIPAA limited what the doctor could say.

"But in general, professional football players come to you for what?" Cooper asked Shortt.

"I really think that goes beyond HIPAA," said Shortt.

Shortt declined to be interviewed for this story. So did Todd Steussie and Jeff Mitchell.

60 Minutes Wednesday did have a brief phone conversation with punter Todd Sauerbrun. When asked about Shortt, Sauerbrun said, “I like the guy very much.” Ten minutes later, he called back and said, “Dude, we got our communications confused …I don’t know this guy.”

Shortt is still open for business at his office in South Carolina -- despite the DEA investigation into his prescription of steroids.

"This is bad medicine [for a doctor to prescribe this amount of medication, in this combination]," says Black. "It's not good medicine. This is not even medicine. This is better athletes through chemistry."

 

[camsmith]

OK can you stop with the posting of crap bullsh*t articles, if you have to, post the Link only? its not hard to search google and come up with a whole bunch of articles you probably havn't even researched into.

Also, ild like to invite "ozhawk66" into the NFL section of these forums if you have not already been there.





---------------------

To end it with me, If your an NRL fan, you obviously think NRL players are fitter and more talented.

If your an NFL fan you think the complete opposite.

If your a fan of sport in General especially NRL and NFL then you will admire the athletes of both these sports.


---------------------------------

Thats all from me.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

ozhawk, let's get something straight right out of the blocks ok, Rugby and Rugby League are two different things.

No kidding? What's next, 2+2=4? Does it make you feel better by stating the obvios in front of others?

Well, you keep calling it Rugby so I'm assuming that you're an idiot right off the bat. Correctly assuming by the way.

I'm sorry if you didn't get that impression..

If you want to argue the relative merits of two games, make sure you actually know what to call the other one first.

Uh huh. And so far, I've at least tried to keep it too comparable aspects of the game and or each sports counterparts.

No, you're trying to compare apples and oranges, badly.

I happen to enjoy the NFL but have absolutely no doubt that players from the NFL wouldn't last in the NRL.

Blond, ditzy females in in the states also like the game. Doesn't mean they know anything about it. And your NFL not lasting in the NRL comment confirms your, blond, non-knowing feminine side.

In other words, you've got nothing. It's ok honey, I understand.

NFL players are bigger because they have to be.

Of course they are, in order to absorb the punishment that is the violent game of American football.

Stupid comment.

Take the padding off and they'd be a lot smaller very quickly....

Why don't you do a comparison of body weights with NFL pre-padding?

The nature of the game in short, explosive increments means that the one single thing that can be relegated is stamina and in most cases that's swapped for size and/or explosive speed.

Wrong answer concerning stamina. Every player TRYING to enter the NFL is tested on a great many attribites. One testing aspect of "stamina" is how many times a player can bech 225 lbs. Then they test that aerobic "stamina" in a multitude of ways.....at a later date....and or on the same day......or look at your collgiate footage etc.... get the point yet?

Which means absolutely nothing in relation to what you're trying to argue.

No NFL player would last any more than 20 minutes or so in the NRL. They are used to playing for 20 minutes in a 2 hour period.

Stamina is critical in NRL players. Good NFL running backs average 100 metres per game,

More or less.Your problem here is that these backs take a pounding on each and every play thats on a very different level in rugby/league/

No, not more or less. I said metres. 100 yards is considered a benchmark in the NFL.

I follow the game.

good Forwards in the NRL average 150 per game. One plays over 80 minutes, one plays over 4 hours.

Over 80 minutes? not even close. Don't try that one with me. A linebacker has 60-70 collisions a game. And he has to deal with men anywhere from 60-120 lbs heavier than himself!!!!!

Did the NRL change the game from 80 minutes to something else without telling me?

Bastards.

Linebackers don't generally have to move more than 5 yards from their starting position. They don't have to move forwards or backwards for 40 minutes straight as they do in the NRL.

Your comparisons are bizarre, stupid and ridiculous.

No NFL player could play an NRL match and last the distance, they wouldn't even get close.

You really wanna go there? Go ahead and take yourself for read. Be careful, I lost a great one, as a fan, in this article..........


http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/020801.html

Irrelevant nonsense.

http://www.souths.com.au/history/seasonbyseason.asp?Year=1970

How many tackles does a running back make in a season?

The stupid answer would be.....how many multiple hits does a RB endure on eac and every hit/tackle......by himself.

No, what you did what ask a stupid question.

A Running Back doesn't have to tackle does he?

A Running back doesn't have to play every offensive, defensive and special teams play does he?

A League player does.

The fact that you can't comprehend the difference is quite laughable.

Less than the average NRL forward makes in one match.

Now join the real world.

You can't answer the question obviously.

I'll help you understand it with an easier question.

How many tackles did Curtis Martin make last season?

When you don't have to be moving, tackling and running for 40 minutes without a break,

Thi is where your ognorance of the sport shines........

I'm not "ognorant" of NFL, I watch it and enjoy it.

you can be bigger and get away with it. The explosive running backs and wide receivers from the NFL would last 10 minutes in Rugby League,

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The best the NRL has to offer has NOOOO IDEA on the training regiment to be that fast and big. Remember, the likes of Bott aren't even a dime a dozen in the NFL. Bott would have a hard time gettin into a decent college team back in the states.

Why would he?

Stupid comment, as usual.

NFL players train for the NFL, NRL players train for the NRL.

The two games are totally dissimilar.

Bott doesn't need to be 300lb to play in the NRL. He neds to be able to play 2 periods of 40 minutes once a week for 26 weeks per year though.

If you told an NFL player that the NFL season was changing to that, and that he was going to play without padding, he'd have a steroid-induced heart attack on the spot.

then they'd be run over for the next 70 by League players.

This is where I'd like to hear how a much smaller and slower NRL player is trying to run over someone MUCH bigger, faster and stronger.......

Of course they would.

Are you short a few IQ points, would you like to borrow some?

An NFL player in the NRL would have played his whole match in 20 minutes. And that doesn't include the fact that he'd have to either do hit-ups or tackles, one of which is foreign to him.

The linemen would be lucky to last 10 minutes.

Against who? These linemen laugh at those who can't handle being killed,tackled or just play the game.

The same linemen that are padded to the eyeballs......

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Nice argument. Would you like me to take both sides to help you out?

Imagine a forward coming into league; the age of 21/22 years old. He is 6' 7' 1/2......weighs 145+ kgs (is not fat) and is fast as most of the players on the NRL field?

Those people exist in Australia, why do you think they don't play League?

And please, which 145 kg NFL player isn't a fat arse?

Do you think our eyes don't work?

Is there anyone at 145kg playing in the NFL as a wide-receiver or as a player who defends against wide receivers?

You talk sh*t.

NFL players have plenty of attributes but the pace and continuous action of Rugby League would find them out quicky.

The so called 'pace' in league is American football players are used too in practice.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Funny stuff.

But the game is played over 4 hours...

But the defence don't play offence and vice versa...

Why is that?

Simply, they'd be f**ked before the end of the first quarter, that's why.

Bobby Bouchet was the last bloke I saw that played both.....

Read up on Manfred Moore. He was a top NFL player and a completely sh*t Rugby League player.

No, you link him for me. Every rugby/league player trying to make in in the NFL never pans out the way it's said.

Sorry, I'll spell it slowly for you so that you can type it into google.

M A N F R E D M O O R E

Christ, the NFL has ex-AFL players playing in it and AFL is a sport for complete pussies. Compare those two, they at least have that in common.

Tell me how many AFL players have made it in the NFL - and be very carefull with your answer.

What are you going to do if I get it wrong, argue the toss between volleyboall and basketball?

Imbecile.

1 AFL player in the NFL should be an embarrassment to the NFL. AFL players are wimps compared to NRL players.

That's not really a big deal though, AFL players are wimps compared to Lawn bowlers.

Darren Bennett.

oops, my apologies...

D A R R E N B E N N E T T

Fact is, the two games are too different to compare. One is non-stop over 80 minutes and the other is stop-start over 4 hours.

Keep it to comparable aspects/athletes of each sport and don't even try and back up the non-stop 80 minute garbage in league.

Yes, you have nothing.....

Fact. NRL League is played over 90 minutes with 2x40 minutes haves and a 10 minute break between them.

If you don't believe me, watch a game.

NFL is played in 4x15 minute quarters over approximately 4 hours.

If you don't believe me, watch a game....

If Rugby League had an offensive 13 and a defensive 13, there may be a comparison. As that isn't the case, a comparison based on anything you're throwin up is just plain stupid.

You've got nothing.

Now, take a hike you weirdo.[/QUOTE]

So far, you've proven to be a stupid weirdo.

oh, good come back.

Let me know when you've worked out what your argument is. Try using italics next time, block letters just make you look like a dork with no argument trying to use block letters to make up for the lack of substance in your argument.

Well f**k a duck, that's exactly what you are...

Don't think that we don't get wankers like you prancing thorugh here all the time, we do. It's just that you're one of the dumber ones.

Welcome back beaussie.....

 

[Bomber]

OK can you stop with the posting of crap bullsh*t articles, if you have to, post the Link only? its not hard to search google and come up with a whole bunch of articles you probably havn't even researched into.

The articles were posted so all members could have the benefit of reading them.

If your concentration span is that short that you can't read four articles, then bully for you.

As for 'bullsh*t'.....they are totally relevant to the topic.

Also, ild like to invite "ozhawk66" into the NFL section of these forums if you have not already been there.

A very, very good idea

 

[Big Bunny]

I've played gridiron, rugby league, union and Victorian rules. I consider myself a student of the history of how football of all kinds has evolved from the myriad of village games, so it's always with great interest that I enjoy a debate on the merits of the various codes where I'm dealing with people educated in the games via first hand experiences. This thread however is pretty much a joke. An arrogant gridiron fan with little tolerance for opposing views (as noted by bomber) and only really interested at hurling abuse. I won't play that game.

For those discussing Manfred Moore however, there have been several other crossovers over the years, with the majority of them being duds. Manfred Moore (Oakland Raiders > Newtown Jets), Al Kirkland (NCAA > Parramatta Eels) and Paul Sironen (NCAA Hawaii > Balmain / Australia), Kelton Alexander (NCAA > Canberra Raiders), then of course there was that dope at Newcastle promoted by Wok. Kirkland is the only one I'd really call a success coming from America despite returning to the US after one season and following the All-Stars tour of the 50's. Sirro did well at Hawaii but chose rugby league instead of gridiron.

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

The articale 2 pages back where some dumb ass talking about the ideal body of a QB is 260 pounds nowadays is just bs..

Culpepper is 6ft5 260pounds..he is the biggest QB not the average size QB..and besides the BMI doesnt take muscle into account so of course its going to list players as overweight.

over 40m you will find that the avg Wide Reciver and Corner Backs will out sprint most backs..heck even most Runing Backs could out sprint a league back line.

How come ppl are still talking about how runing backs dont tackle and etc..a runing back can take up 30 hand offs in a game thats equivelent to about 30 hitups..then you add him doing pass routes and then you add him doing pass blocking..thats alot of physical contact.

The game may take a few hours more then league but its not because there doing nothing..in case you are not aware every dropped pass results in time stopping, every run out of bounds in the 2nd or 4th qtrs is also time stoppage..Yes there is a 25second break but you have no idea how hard it is to run up field and run back down to the huddle.

You guys make it sound like every player in the NRL gets close to 40hitups and 40 tackles..face facts..in league alot of players do crap all and you cant blame em cause if they tried to make every tackle then there would be overlaps everywhere lol.

Also if you guys were to talk about steriods the least you could do is list David Boston of the Miami Dolphins lol the guy looks like a tank..lol.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

raiders2k2,

You said: "You guys make it sound like every player in the NRL gets close to 40hitups and 40 tackles.."

Who said anything even close to that?

You said: "Yes there is a 25second break but you have no idea how hard it is to run up field and run back down to the huddle."

As against running back and forward non-stop over 10 - 20 metres making tackles or hit-ups, without that 25 second break?

You said: "How come ppl are still talking about how runing backs dont tackle "..

Because they don't, and that's exactly the point.

They don't have to master both attack and defense, they only have to master one.

It's different in League, in case you haven't noticed...

They could run 10 flat for 100 metres, but would they still able to do that after making 20 tackles and 8 hitups in 30 minutes?

Like I said, 20 minutes in they'd be looking for the showers....

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

raiders2k2,

You said: "You guys make it sound like every player in the NRL gets close to 40hitups and 40 tackles.."

Who said anything even close to that?

You said: "Yes there is a 25second break but you have no idea how hard it is to run up field and run back down to the huddle."

As against running back and forward non-stop over 10 - 20 metres making tackles or hit-ups, without that 25 second break?

You said: "How come ppl are still talking about how runing backs dont tackle "..

Because they don't, and that's exactly the point.

They don't have to master both attack and defense, they only have to master one.

It's different in League, in case you haven't noticed...

They could run 10 flat for 100 metres, but would they still able to do that after making 20 tackles and 8 hitups in 30 minutes?

Like I said, 20 minutes in they'd be looking for the showers....

A Runing Back just doesnt run the ball he does alot more work such as blocking and going on a pass route..im saying the thing with Gridiorn is your always doing something which makes is why i probably believe you need more stamina to play.

I know that in league its frantic action non stop for most the game but alot of the action involves a handfull of players therefore the break in both games are justified..and also this explains why sooo many teams have most the bench full of forwards.

Lets say the avg 100m time is 11seconds...you run 50m but its an incomplete ball you then have to run back to the the huddle which is another 50m..you then have 25seconds to return to the huddle for the next play, lets say it takes you 5 or 6seconds to return..in which case it means you have roughly 20seconds to catch a breather then do it again...first 2 or 3 times it wont be too long till it feels like you have run a marathon.

In league runing 200m in a game is considerd a great achievment..but in the NFL they run 200m by the 1st half for most positions...

League may be rougher but saying you need more fitness isnt true.

 

[Bomber]

In league runing 200m in a game is considerd a great achievment..but in the NFL they run 200m by the 1st half for most positions...

Very selective.

Running 200m in a rugby league game with the ball is considered a great achievement.

When you factor in the amount of times teams run backwards and forwards in defense, it would easily be well over five kilometres (5000m).