NRL vs NFL debate

[CanadianSteve]

We use z in organized and civilized etc, but pronounce it zed. It's the perfect blend of Brit and Yankee English.

But enough grammar. I'm still reading through the middle pages of this long thread, and all the posts wasted on 'your' and 'you're' are annoying.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

You said everyone is asleep at that time

.......

You missed the point. Think "relevant to this thread".

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Everybody who is saying "He'd be okay in league... for 10 minutes" is being stupid.

If a player can only last 10 minutes, then they have a system set up for that. It's called the INTERCHANGE BENCH.

Some NRL players are really only good for 10 min. a match. During the SKY Sports coverage of the 2004 GF, David Furner referred to Ned Catic as "a 10 minute player...the sort of player who you'd put on the pitch and try to get as much as possible out of him in 10 minutes."

What a load of hot sh*t. The Interchange, if you had a couple of NFL players playing League, would be used up on those couple of players.

Why do you people think we don't watch NFL?

I do.

They play for 3 1/2 - 4 hours.

They play a separate team for offense and defense.

The game lasts 1 hour, played in four 15 minute quarters.

Therefore, the actual playing time for one player who plays the whole game is generally around 30 minutes. That's 30 minutes in 210 minutes.

An NRL player plays between 50 and 80 minutes in a game that lasts 90 - 95 minutes.

The NFL players are padded, the NRL players aren't. There's no way an NFL player would be able to handle an NRL game, absolutely no way.

Do the f**king math.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

I read the first 20 pages of this thread, then couldn't wait any longer to go to the end. It is apples and oranges, but on the other hand they are 2 contact sports, with tackling and ball-running, that both evolved from rugby union.

Some random observations:

NFL players are bigger, stronger, and faster than NRL players.

NFL is more anaerobic, RL is more aerobic. But that doesn't mean an NFL player couldn't last in an RL game, given the proper training. The running backs, wide receivers, defensive backs and linebackers are superior athletes who could adjust to another sport's fitness demands easily. Many of the biggest linemen couldn't run a long time at their current weight, it's true. But some linemen are super athletes too - defensive end Julius Peppers, 6'7", played basketball at the U of North Carolina, lots of running in that sport.

Even the best NFL runners couldn't switch to RL easily though, because they didn't grow up learning the ball skills and tactics of league. They'd be athletic enough and tough enough to do all the running, passing and tackling. But I imagine there would be too much to learn for even a super NFL athlete to play at the NRL level. Not that it would ever happen, because there is too much money in the NFL for a top player to ever want to switch to RL.

Which brings up Manfred Moore. I followed the NFL closely in the 70s, and I never heard of him except on this forum. So he wasn't a top NFL player. And he was in his 20s when he tried RL, I believe. But if you could take a Culpepper, Randy Moss, Barry Sanders, Junior Seau, or someone like that, move them to Aus at age 15, say, and start training them for RL, you'd end up with an NRL superstar.

Steve, you and I have had the odd blue, but they're about to pale in comparison to this one if you don't read closely.

This debate isn't whether you could take a player at 15 and make him into a top player in the other code within 5 years, you could, and that works both ways. Take someone like Keith Galloway for example, take him to the US at 15, pump him full of steroids and within 7 years you'd have an NFL superstar linebacker. Sure, he'd be dead at 43 but he was an NFL superstar so it was worth it so some.

If you properly train a monkey, over time he'll eventually know which buttons to hit in order to get a banana andf that's the bottom line isn't it.

This debate is whether a top NFL player could walk into an NRL side and be a superstar or vice versa. The answer is simply no and no one here who is on the NRL side of the argument has said otherwise.

The two codes are completely different and any claim that an NFL player who has trained for the stop start explosiveness of the NFL could last a game of NRL is laughable. At 210 minutes from the start of an NRL game a player could have played the game, showered, driven to the airport and flown to Brisbane with enough time left over to eat dinner. Yet an NFL player would generally play 30 minutes actual time in that time. No comparsion.

No one said Manfred Moore was a top player, but when you're looking for NFL players who've played top class Rugby League, there isn't a hell of a lot to choose from. There is one particular moron who'd have us believe that any NFL player would make it in the NRL. I'm sure he'd probably include Darren Bennett who played AFL. lol

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

We use z in organized and civilized etc, but pronounce it zed. It's the perfect blend of Brit and Yankee English.

But enough grammar. I'm still reading through the middle pages of this long thread, and all the posts wasted on 'your' and 'you're' are annoying.

Just a tip.

It gets better at phopah and droors...

 

[hrundi99]

The only input I'll have is I remember the Broncos and Chargers came out here to play a demo game some years ago.

They took a bunch of them out to watch a league game, and many of them had dropping jaws because of the non-padding toughness of the players and the game.

If NFL players are impressed, doesn't that say something?

 

[Ghoulies]

I just found my copy of Arthur Beetsons biography which contains a quote from an American footballer by the name of Windlan Hall(defensive back). Apparently he could run 100 yards in under 10 seconds and "hit like an express train". So when Jack Gibson asked if he'd be interested in a season of league, Hall responded, "No way, man! You guys don't use any padding."

 

[CanadianSteve]

Steve, you and I have had the odd blue, but they're about to pale in comparison to this one if you don't read closely.

This debate isn't whether you could take a player at 15 and make him into a top player in the other code within 5 years, you could, and that works both ways. Take someone like Keith Galloway for example, take him to the US at 15, pump him full of steroids and within 7 years you'd have an NFL superstar linebacker. Sure, he'd be dead at 43 but he was an NFL superstar so it was worth it so some.

If you properly train a monkey, over time he'll eventually know which buttons to hit in order to get a banana andf that's the bottom line isn't it.

This debate is whether a top NFL player could walk into an NRL side and be a superstar or vice versa. The answer is simply no and no one here who is on the NRL side of the argument has said otherwise.

The two codes are completely different and any claim that an NFL player who has trained for the stop start explosiveness of the NFL could last a game of NRL is laughable. At 210 minutes from the start of an NRL game a player could have played the game, showered, driven to the airport and flown to Brisbane with enough time left over to eat dinner. Yet an NFL player would generally play 30 minutes actual time in that time. No comparsion.

No one said Manfred Moore was a top player, but when you're looking for NFL players who've played top class Rugby League, there isn't a hell of a lot to choose from. There is one particular moron who'd have us believe that any NFL player would make it in the NRL. I'm sure he'd probably include Darren Bennett who played AFL. lol

I don't think we have to have a "blue" EA, I'm just trying to bring another perspective to this debate. Besides, I'm not a troll and I use good grammar (with Canadian spelling )

With the comment on bringing an American star-to-be to Aus at age 15, I was just trying to look at it in a different way. I mean that there are many NFL running backs who would be bigger, faster, quicker and more elusive with ball in hand than any NRL players, IMO. But they wouldn't know when to pass, when to kick, etc.

Your point about an NFL player not lasting 10 minutes in a league game: if you took him in the middle of the NFL season and stuck him in a league game after a day, you're right, his fitness wouldn't be the same as the RL players. (Though I think he'd last much longer than 10 minutes.) But if you gave him 6 months of RL fitness training, then the NFL player would be fine fitness-wise, and still have his superior size, speed, and athleticism. He just wouldn't have the RL skills and instincts.

BTW, are you still self-exiled from TFC? This thread shows that you're dying to go back. C'mon, you know you want to.:lol:

 

[CanadianSteve]

Now let me try a different tack. I used to like the NFL better and follow it more closely in the 70s and early 80s. I don't like it quite as much now, partly because I do think it's too specialized and the linemen are too big. I liked it better when the linemen were in the 260-280 range. When the Fridge came along in 85, he was a rare 300+pounder - now they're almost all over 300 and many are much bigger.

Question for the Aussies who do watch and like the NFL a bit, like EA: If you changed some NFL rules -

- go back to the limited substitution rules of decades ago, so most players would play offence and defence. This would reduce the size of the linemen if they had to stay on the field the whole game.

- force the offences to play the no-huddle style like Buffalo did with Jim Kelly in the early 90s. Much less stop/start, and the quarterback has to think on the fly much more.

Those rule changes would make the game closer to rugby or league in terms of player size and versatility, and continuity of action. But it would still be NFL football with blocking, padding, forward passing etc. Would such a game be more attractive to Aussies than the current NFL game?

 

[CanadianSteve]

I just found my copy of Arthur Beetsons biography which contains a quote from an American footballer by the name of Windlan Hall(defensive back). Apparently he could run 100 yards in under 10 seconds and "hit like an express train". So when Jack Gibson asked if he'd be interested in a season of league, Hall responded, "No way, man! You guys don't use any padding."

Probably true. But I wonder if you put an NRL player on the sidelines of an NFL game, where he could see the violence of the hitting up close (you can't appreciate it on TV), would he be eager to get out there and try it?

 

[yankeeboy]

Arena Football (the current American "AFL," so to some of you it's already screwed) has already implemented a limited interchange system, so most players play both ways of the 60 min. game. But the field is only 50 yds. long, and these are the "NFL Rejects."

Are they of the same quality as CFL players, or are they rejects from the North, too?

But a no huddle offense would not make you any more innovative. My high school used a no huddle offense, and all we did was place a card with preselected plays on it in a wristband, and once we went through the 10 plays, started over. We changed the cards out at half-time. It was the only game we lost all season, so I'm not a big fan of the no huddle offense.

 

[redVgirl]

Probably true. But I wonder if you put an NRL player on the sidelines of an NFL game, where he could see the violence of the hitting up close (you can't appreciate it on TV), would he be eager to get out there and try it?

i think they would. maybe not the little blokes, but the forwards most definitely. all NRL players have been smacked down hard on numerous occasions...just because they arent allowed technically in the rules doesnt mean dodgy tackles dont happen. imagine all their yrs through the junior and lower grades, then add on their pro games...they are definitely not immune to getting smacked around. knowing they could have the padding and helmets for protection...i reckon a large proportion of them would eagerly get out there on the NFL field. i would say that NFL players would be less likely to wanna run out onto an NRL field coz its more risky, at least mentally. physically of course they could handle it...but running out to be smashed into without any padding whatsoever would no doubt freak them out a bit to begin with.

look generally i think NFL is a wonderful game.....for a highlights real. its flashy and showy and some of the plays and big hits are amazing to watch. nothing is cooler than watching a speedy running back score a touchdown. but to sit down and watch an entire game (which i have done many a time)...i just find it intensely tedious. its too stop and start for me. so many breaks! drives me crazy.

i think NFL players are probably bigger/stronger/faster in general. but they are also required to do alot less. they are more specialised....even the fact they have offensive and defensive teams. NRL players have to be able to do everything AND think on their feet. also i think over 100 metres a typical NFL running back would run rings over mosr NRL players. but they dont have the stamina that league players do.

anyway they are vastly different games requiring different skill levels, its kinda silly 2 compare them really.

 

[yankeeboy]

The games are very hard to compare. This thread is really getting pointless.

I think the main thing affecting any player who would try to convert would be the weather. For example, a Patriots player would not convert to the NQL Cowboys well, and a Texans player probably wouldn't enjoy the weather in Melbourne.

American football is incredibly taxing in any weather, but in the heat it is brutal. It would be like wearing a motorcycle helmet during the whole of a RL game. You'd be extremely tired.

A non-televised American football game really isn't that slow moving. The play clock (how much time you have from when one play ends to when you must snap the ball) in the NFL is something like 40 seconds. It has been the goal of most new leagues to lower this. I believe Arena and CFL both have somewhere around 20 second play clocks. I can't remember what the high school/NCAA clock is.

The commercials and halftime shows are what really draw an American football game out. For example, a Freshman or JV HIgh School Game might last 1:30 hrs., because there is no halftime show for them (halftime is around 12 mins., I think). A non-televised high school game (they actually televise some high school football games) might last 2:00 hrs, and this is with the band playing at the 15:00 to 20:00 minute halftime show. My high school has radio coverage of all games, but they don't do a "radio timeout" like they do a TV time out.

However, televised American football games are scheduled for 3.5 hrs, and usually run over. This is not because the game is so slow moving, it is only because the TV station shows 2-3 mins of commercials after every set of downs, and every score.

It would be like stopping the game and showing commercials after every six in RL.

Blame FOX, CBS, and ESPN for how slow moving pro and college football is.

 

[monaroCountry]

INJURIES


http://sportzfun.com/v-web/gallery/albums/rugby/rugbyeyegouge.jpg
http://sportzfun.com/v-web/gallery/albums/rugby/rugbykneeinjury.jpg

 

[monaroCountry]

Here are our supposed little rugby league/ rugby wingers
LOMU

 

[monaroCountry]

WENDELL SAILOR

 

[monaroCountry]

TUQIRI

 

[CanadianSteve]

I agree that those 3 are big and fast enough to be NFL players. The NFL is full of guys like Jonah, Wendell, and Lote.

 

[monaroCountry]

I agree that those 3 are big and fast enough to be NFL players. The NFL is full of guys like Jonah, Wendell, and Lote.

Physical stature does not determine success in league however, watch State of Origin and watch small guys tackle and injure physically bigger players.

Tackling in league is all about technique and dedication. Some of the biggest tacklers try savers in league and union are small buys i.e. gregan, johns (average size players who loves hitting up the forwards), campbell and wing.

 

[monaroCountry]

Situations like this is common in rugby