NRL vs NFL debate

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

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.

And forwards in League run decoys etc, the point was that running backs don't have to tackle. League players do.

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.

Are you seriously having a dig at League with that statement?

Every forward on the field is heavily involved in every game. Every half, be it 5/8 or 1/2 is heavily involved in every game. That leaves 4 players on each team who are able to rest occasionally during a game, even though that resting consists of moving all the time, tackling and running. Not even taking into account chasing kicks which in NFL are chased by team #3.

The mere fact that a 1 hour game takes 4 hours to play means that the time spent waiting to play is a damn sight more than the time on the field.

Every player is rested for long periods during every NFL game.

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.

You're forgetting to mention that the defence for the attacking team isn't playing when they have the ball.

Marathon runners don't get to stop after 5 minutes, sit for 5 minutes, then run for another 5 minutes either.

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...

As Bomber pointed out, 200 metres with the ball is considered a great achievement. They don't add in running without it. Nor do they in the NFL. Yet the NRL running back who has run 200 mtres has made 0 tackles.

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

I didn't say that, I said League players had more stamina.

 

[ozhawk66]

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.

Your not watching for, four hours........your living life, if one cares about one of the teams on the TV screen.

 

[ozhawk66]

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.

Your the ignat; rugby people - I try and stay away from, when it comes to legit debate. They tend to have a hard time dealing with......

Now, if I'm an idiot, tell me how an 18 year old kid can play in the NRL, but that same 18 year old kid has another 4-6 YEARS to step on the NFL playing field?


Telling me too take off? when you need to come in for a landing....in more ways than one.


Stay there when you come back with a legit answer.....

 

[ozhawk66]

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

Idiot has no idea about the term of 'lifespan' concerning and NFL player. None, whatsoever.

 

[Y2Eel]

Y

, tell me how an 18 year old kid can play in the NRL, but that same 18 year old kid has another 4-6 YEARS to step on the NFL playing field?

You cannot compare 18 year olds playing league here to 18 yo playing NFL over in the US... Over in the US an 18 year old has to prove themselves in college starting from freshmen to sofmore..... then you have to be drafted into a team after college which could be at the age of 20-21 so there's 3 years already....

But here after you finish school at 17-18 your signed to a NRL team giving you maybe 2 years to get into first grade but if your good enough at 18 your good enough to play....

 

[Y2Eel]

Idiot has no idea about the term of 'lifespan' concerning and NFL player. None, whatsoever.

What do you mean?? explain please?

 

[ozhawk66]

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.




Have not been there, but I'd love too.....





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

 

[choisir]

I used to love the NFL show Don Lane used to host on the ABC because it was a highlight package , an uneditted game can at times put me to sleep.In saying that I can appreciate the athletic abilities and skills NFL players possess and rate the sport above Union , Soccer and AFL.
So its NRL for mine but Im a Rugby League nut that would probably go to a park game than attend an NRL game.

 

[ozhawk66]

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..



Trust me, idget. I dicern betweeen league and union codes.....like I care. But for an ignat like you, too point it out......




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





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


Nothing? Then confront me.





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?


Then why don't you understand extreme violence, perpetrated by extreme concussions.





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.


In your world.





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

I follow the game.


You follow NOTHING!

If you did, you could show me someone in league, who could run amongstst the planet's, fastest..............get, it?





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.





Irrelevant nonsense.

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





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.





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?





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





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.





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

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

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



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.





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.....





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





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





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....



You've got nothing.

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

 

[mudfly]

Shouldn't this be in the fight club

 

[Bomber]

This debate about how far participants in each sport has lead me to do a bit of research. You can draw your own conclusions.

Apologies for not merely providing links, but I would prefer that the stats are posted in this thread and not conviently ignored.

I've taken statistics from Friday night's game between the Tigers and Sharks, and from this year's Super Bowl between New England and Philadelphia.

Rugby League

Statistics with the ball
Tigers - Made 1,503m on 183 hit-ups (8.2 average)
Sharks - Made 1,402m on 168 hit-ups (8.3 average)

Because this is a measurement of how far players run in your average game, we have to take defense into account. Let's factor in (a very conservative guess) that the defensive line runs two metres forward and then ten metres back - a total of 12 metres - for each hit-up that the opposition makes. Considering that a lot of defense would be on the goalline, let's only apply this to 70% of each team's hit-ups, with the remaining 30% being when they are defending their own line. Therefore:

Tigers - In defense, covered 1,411m
Sharks - In defense, covered 1,537m

Let's also factor in the number of incidents in play which would provide a break for players - namely penalties, scrums, knock-ons and scoring movements. The length of time that each stoppage takes up would vary from ten seconds to two minutes.

Total number of stoppages - 42 (13 penalties, 6 scrums, 9 tries, 13 errors, 1 half-time break)

So, assuming that the statistics are correct, the rugby league athlete who played every minute of the Tigers-Sharks game would have to cover approximately 2,900m in 80 playing minutes, with 42 breaks in action, a rough average of 69 metres per break.

American Football

Note - all statistics in my ramble are in yards. Final statistics at the bottom will be presented in metres. 1 yard = 0.9144 metres.

Offensive Statistics
New England made 331 yards on 63 plays (5.25 average)
Philadelphia made 369 yards on 72 plays (5.13 average)

Defensive Statistics
Obviously, NE conceded whatever PHI made on offense, and vice versa

Return Statistics (punts, kickoffs and interceptions)
New England - 92 return yards on 10 plays (4 punts, 3 kickoffs, 3 interceptions)
Philadelphia - 133 return yards on 8 plays (3 punts, 5 kickoffs)

With forty seconds between each play, six touchdowns (a lengthy break), a field goal (ditto) as well as a welter of time-outs, two breaks at 1/4 and 3/4 time and a huge break at halftime, the Total Number of Stoppages amounts to 145.

Now, this is where the comparison gets tricky, because unlike in league, NFL players only play on one side of the ball, offense or defense.

At risk of tempting fate, I'll assume that a player played both ways. Otherwise, a comparison is futile.

Ignoring the return statistics for a moment, the two teams combined for a total of 700 offensive yards on 135 plays. To factor in the amount of running that some players (cornerbacks, wide receivers, linebackers etc) have to do on each play, let's very generously triple the amount of yards actually run. Therefore, there is a total of 2,100 total running yards in the game. (Remember - this is for the individual who plays both ways, not for everyone on the team all added together).

2,100 yards divided by 135 plays equals 15.56 yards, or 14.22 metres.

But wait! After running 14.22 metres on each play, this individual would then get a 40 second break. Sounds great, doesn't it?

I do remember someone saying that a lot of running in NFL actually happens between plays i.e. players running into position and getting ready for the next play. I'm not going to factor that in, simply because if I do this for the NFL then I should be able to add 50m for every time a rugby league player runs back to halfway after a try has been scored (further if you're on the team that actually scored).

So, the end point, in this very unscientific debate?

Rugby League Players can cover up to 2,900m in an average game, averaging 69m before a significant break in play.

American Football Players* can cover up to 2,300m in an average game, averaging 14m before a significant break in play.

*assuming that a player plays both ways (offense and defense). For the 99.9% of players who don't, half the number of metres they have to make and double the recovery time.

Good night

 

[Choppies]

Your the ignat; rugby people - I try and stay away from,

so you come to a Rugby League board where 99% of members who love *wait for it* Rugby League!!!!!!!

Your on fire mate.

 

[gaterooze]

Now, if I'm an idiot, tell me how an 18 year old kid can play in the NRL, but that same 18 year old kid has another 4-6 YEARS to step on the NFL playing field?

We breed 'em tougher

 

[gunnamatta bay]

Can someone please start a thread on the difference between rugby league and netball players. Who has the bigger balls?

 

[strewth_mate]

There really is no comparison except to win some pride, which is really a childish debate. The games are obviously very different, and there is no legitimate argue that either NFL or NRL players are 'weaker' than their respective counterparts. I mean, physically NFL players are typically significantly bulkier (some NRL players are quite built but it's for a different purpose with certain tradeoffs and compromises) but this is not a factor in their 'toughness'.

Each league is an independent entity with its own unique priorities and expectations. If you play rugby league, for example, you will be trained in a manner that hones your ability to play that particular game, to reach the pinnacle within that particular environment. Both leagues have had a long long time to perfect their style and it is useless and just stupid to suggest the inferiority of either in respect to the other. There is no point in arguing that NFL players are weak minded because they make less yardage per play, or they take longer breaks, and that they are soft for doing so 'cos rugby league players play without stoppage'. Obviously the elite athletes in both sports play to their utmost ability and capacity, but for some reason a lot of people here are assuming that NFL players are too precious to cope with any kind of physical pressure. Crap. It is insulting to suggest that an elite athlete does not give his/her all in their sport.

You don't question an accountant's ability to do his job. You don't question a plumber's ability to do his job. But you certainly can't compare them both by picking on the similarities between the jobs and arguing 'who is better' at them. Same as comparing typical gender 'roles'. It's stupid.

Remember also that in rugby league you don't compare the backs to the forwards in the same vein. You compare forwards to forwards, and backs to backs. Both of them are finely tuned to perform THEIR own job to the highest degree, and you give them the benefit of the doubt in this regard that after all this time, they MUST have got it right. Same situation. You can in no way stipulate that NFL players are training and performing substandardly, because it's obvious that they know what they are doing and they know what they have to do to succeed because the evolution of the sport and standards has pushed them in that direction to this point, and because of that it's certainly not a weak minded profession.

I like American Football but I don't like the NFL. I consider the league to be ludicrously over-hyped and bastardised in true American style. The evolution of the sport management and coverage has led it to a point where it is getting a little ridiculous, but at the heart it's still the same game of football. It is exactly the same in the NRL. It is over-hyped and over-sentimental. We constantly criticise our commentators and ridicule the format for taking everything way too seriously when it's not necessary; it's still rugby league under all the crap. We don't care about big presentations or Ken Sutcliffe, we just want to watch the footy. It's just a shame that american football/gridiron is only associated with the NFL when it comes to outsiders (I am one of them) because it gives the sport a bad name. All we think of is the fact that they're all padded up, you have coaches constantly on the phone and it takes 4 hours to play a game. But that's not the sport, it's the face of the sport. Gridiron is a hugely fun game to play with mates because it's a good game. 2 teams in the backyard, improvising the roles, minimal stoppage, good fun. With the current state of the NRL, there is no way we can criticise the NFL for being the only league to lose sight of the important things in football.

Does anyone agree with me, even slightly, or am I wasting my time too? As I said it's really a childish 'macho' debate in which there is nothing to prove but to assert your own dominance for the sake of pride. It's only a game.

 

[Dread]

Does anyone agree with me, even slightly, or am I wasting my time too? As I said it's really a childish 'macho' debate in which there is nothing to prove but to assert your own dominance for the sake of pride. It's only a game.

I agree. NFL players are good at NFL and would fail in the NRL. NRL players are good at NRL and would fail in the NFL. I don't think the argument goes much further than that really...

And I also agree that playing Gridiron is loads of fun, although I can't stand watching it.

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Spot on Dread.

I like NFL but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that their players wouldn't be able to handle NRL and vice versa, for different reason.

Still, pissing contests are fun....

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

Then why don't you understand extreme violence, perpetrated by extreme concussions.

Like I said, why don't you do a comparison of current NFL body weights to pre-padding NFL body weights.

The player size and the size and bulk of the padding have moved upwards together. The players get bigger, more padding is needed. If they played without padding players weights would reduce dramatically otherwise players would die.

That's the reason the NFL has 300+ pound players in it. Lose the padding, lose the 300 pounders...

You follow NOTHING!

If you did, you could show me someone in league, who could run amongstst the planet's, fastest..............get, it?

Get what?

That in a country of 200 million people there are people who can run the 100 in even time?

What a stretch.........

Jesus you're dumb.

And please, would you like me to help you work out how to use this forum correctly?

 

[joshreading]

I was in the US for the Superbowl this year and the poll on one of the TV stations (NBS I think) was - Are you watching the Superbowl for the game or the commercials? Don't you find that even the possibility is funny.

I watched the game as I have a couple times and the athletes themselves are good (although most would never handle the stamina fitness of League due to training - although with training that could be changed) - the game however aside from one or two minor sparks is useless compared to RL.

The fact that the San Diego Chargers thought that RL was a game for madmen - says alot.

 

[gaterooze]

EA, you're just loving that these new troll threads haven't been moved to TFC yet, ain'tya? :lol: