NRL vs NFL debate

[ozhawk66]

What, it hurts more than taking a shot whilst not wearing helmet?

Give me a break.



Yes it does. And the number of concussions prove it. You should look up the term second impact syndrome and be careful with your response, cause you won't like the answer I give you as it's a sick part of the game.



I didn't say it was soft, hell, compared to Soccer and AFL it's as hard as nails. But not compared to Rugby League it isn't.


Bigger, faster and stronger combined with a faster game has that impact on human bodies. That's why you ignored my posts concerning the DIFFERENCES in injuries between the two sports.



See, this is where your argument falls apart.

Every player on an NFL team spends more time waiting to play than actually playing.

Fact.


Just like how most league players are NOT in actual play - just by the very fact they are NOT involved on said tackle/play of the ball?




If the game goes for 4 hours and the play is only for 1 hour, that leaves 3 hours of either preparing for a play in a huddle or sitting on the bench.


It's more like 3 1/2 hours and league players play about 55-60 minutes on the average over 80+ minutes.



You tell me, do they spend more time sitting on the bench or in a huddle?

What's the ratio, 3 hours on the bench as against 1/2 an hour in huddles?


All the while most league players are wandering around during normal play of the ball.



Hardly. Are you seriously suggesting that NFL players sprint into position for the next play?

In cetain circumstances they do, but that isn't the norm.


Sometimes they do and a lot more on passing plays, which is half the game right there. So yes, it is the norm.



So what FFS....

In Rugby League, team A kicks off, team B takes the ball in their in-goal and works it inside 5 tackles to the half-way, they kick to their opponents in-goal and chase the kick. How far has EVERY player on the team run in that time?

And two sets of down in the NFL takes a damn sight more time than two sets of six in League.


This is where each play is more important unto itself than a single league play. It's why 5-10 yards is very hard to come by, while those same meters are a basic in league. It's why football is a game of chess, while league is a game of checkers.



In NFL, when the running backs are doing the bulk of the work, the wide receivers job is easy.


A very, ignorant and clueless statement.



I'll assume you didn't watch last night's game.


I did.





Who sprints 40 metres?


The 40 yard dash is a key gauge in measuring a players speed combined with endurance.



It's stop-start even when they're on the field. League isn't.


All the while most league players haven't started yet, in the sense that they are pacing/positioning themselves for the next play. You have an obsession with the start/stop aspect of football, all the while failing to recognize that EVERY PLAY STARTS WITH A SCRUM! Something that is NOT a part of the league game. Nor is the constant one-on-one physical contact or blocking. Hell, the concept of blocking is considered a sin in league!



LOL


Gridiron here is just for blokes who couldn't hack League.

Uh huh. That's why they are bigger, faster and stronger and have stamina to kill for. It's also why the immature 18 year old body is incapable of playing at the NFL level.

 

[ozhawk66]

l
Originally Posted by Everlovin' Antichrist
What, it hurts more than taking a shot whilst not wearing helmet?

Give me a break..

Like I said, you don't know what Oklahoma or circle drills are, do you.

 

[ozhawk66]

Gridiron here is just for blokes who couldn't hack League.

That's funny. In some of the research I've done over time, I've come across the same talking points vouching rugby as a safer sport than football. A bit sophmoric, but it gets the point across.

Here they are....




Rugby is definitely a "contact" sport, but it is not a brutal sport. In fact, it is much less violent than American Football. There are several very good and logical reasons for this including the fact that contact, while vigorous, is much less dangerous than in American football since neither blocking or rigid protective equipment is allowed in Rugby. This means players are not getting blind-sided' by the unexpected blocker nor striking each other with armored' shoulders and helmets. Also, dirty or dangerous play is not tolerated, and the offending player may be ordered off the field or even suspended by his club or the local league. Rugby places as much importance on sportsmanship as on winning. Here are some other reasons rugby compares favorably with football:

(1) Possession: Rugby is a game of possession, not yardage. Therefor coaching emphasizes passing the ball before being tackled as well as other skills aimed at keeping the ball in your teams possession, and not struggling ahead trying to gain a few more yards while the opponents entire team tries to drag you down.

(2) No Blocking: (Surprise) Most think a lack of blocking makes the game more dangerous, but the fact is it makes rugby safer because defenders are not being blind sided by some sprinting lineman hoping to open a hole in the defense (and in the defender!). In football space is created for a runner by brute force (blocking). In rugby space is created by guile and cunning (passing the ball and using misdirection). In Rugby, nearly all collisions between players is anticipated by both, and therefore better prepared for.

(3) Tackling: (Surprise part deux) Tacklers must wrap their arms when tackling. No rolling body block' type tackles aimed at an opponent's knees are allowed. Also, NO tackling is allowed above the shoulders. Also known as high tackling', it is strictly forbidden and quickly penalized if it occurs. This not only makes for safer play but for surer tackling. Coaches teach not only how to tackle but how to be tackled (i.e. how to fall so that your team keeps possession of the ball).


http://lamar.colostate.edu/~greg/parents.htm

http://www.hendersonrugby.com/volunteers.htm

 

[juneauquan]

How many have played in the NFL?

18 years olds would get CRUSHED in the NFL

 

[juneauquan]

Rugby League players have more stamina (I played League for ten years and know a thing or two about this)

NFL players (on the whole) are more athletic, have more skill, are stronger, and are quicker than Rugby League players

These points are a given:

Put it this way

Compare the populations of Australia and USA. Now compare who makes up the population. African-Americans are by trait stronger, quicker better athletes then us white dudes. No one can deny this point.

Just think about how many white guys play in the NBA (a game I believe has the most skillful, athletic players in the world) compared to black dudes.

I believe I am the least bias person on this thread because I have lived in both countries and I LOVE and UNDERSTAND both sports

 

[juneauquan]

I don't live in the land of "Oz" :lol: But the slogan "nfl=sh*t" is quite universal

American football has gone downwards ever since the unlimited substitute rule was invented, pre - 1938 it was probably quite enjoyable with fg's and drop kicks more important ways to score+several players being able to pass the ball

But now evers since the current nfl/afl exists it's sh*thouse

Perhaps the most ignorant statement on this thread

The NFL is undoubtedly the most popular sport in the USA

 

[ozhawk66]

Rugby League players have more stamina (I played League for ten years and know a thing or two about this)

NFL players (on the whole) are more athletic, have more skill, are stronger, and are quicker than Rugby League players

These points are a given:

Put it this way

Compare the populations of Australia and USA. Now compare who makes up the population. African-Americans are by trait stronger, quicker better athletes then us white dudes. No one can deny this point.

Just think about how many white guys play in the NBA (a game I believe has the most skillful, athletic players in the world) compared to black dudes.

I believe I am the least bias person on this thread because I have lived in both countries and I LOVE and UNDERSTAND both sports

Once you reach the major collegiate ranks and NFL level , training is now a science with extreme levels endurance a must. It's a basic in order to protect against the high injury rate. And endurance is tested in many ways in more than just running. This is an amusing, but enlightening piece on training camps for the NFL....

(I've lived in both countries too and watch both sports, so I guess I'm qualified like you )


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

 

[Lego_Man]

It just might prove to be the wrong decision in taking Johns over Kimmorley.

Yeah, it sure was a f**king bad call.

Stick to NFL analysis champ...

 

[ozhawk66]

Yeah, it sure was a f**king bad call.

Stick to NFL analysis champ...

I said might and I did nail the over, and that post was made at half time.

 

[Jae]

Geez you're a spammer and a half, 8 posts in a row?? Prime example, someone writes multiple paragraphs making an argument and (for the 500th time) you reply with...

Uh huh. That's why they are bigger, faster and stronger and have stamina to kill for. It's also why the immature 18 year old body is incapable of playing at the NFL level.

Prove it geez, don't just say things and expect people to buy it just because you said so. You actually have to back up things you say with facts, didn't they teach you that one in reading comp?

 

[hutch]

i dont mind nfl, i got into it after madden 2003 on playstation, and watch quite a few games on foxtel. however, the arguments you put forward ozhawk are the most biased, opinionated loads of sh*t i have ever heard. both games produce great athletes, regardless of their race (take note juneauquan), both athletes are great at the jobs they have to do.
the sports are completely different, they are not too many similarities. to say that nfl players are more skillful than league players is ridiculous, the majority of them can only do one thing, whereas league players are required to do pretty much every thing on a football field.

bigger??? sure, nfl players may be bigger, they are required to be big in certain positions. but who is the athlete, a 150kg defensive end, or a 115 kg second rower such as willie mason who is fast, strong, can attack and defend and plays for 50-60 minutes non stop. if he was training with a nfl team and on the diet required for a defensive end then he could put on 30kg of fat too.

faster??? the nrl has quite a few guys who can run the 100m under 11 seconds (chris hicks, leon bott, rhy wesser, scott donald), any quicker and they would be in the olympics. im sure the nfl has a few players who can run this quick as well, but if they were any quicker than this they would be in the olympics as well.

stronger??? both codes would train just as hard in the gym. league has exceptional athletes, many who bench press more than double their weight. kylie leuleli of manly can bench press 200kg, and he weighs 105kg. the nfl does has a very suspicious past when it comes to steroids, there is no denying this. however, i am sure some of their big fellas could also lift exceptional weights, and have never used steroids.

your argument is crap, and so are your intentions. we love our rugby league which is the reasons we use these forums, stop talking bullsit.
both sports have great athletes, who are you to compare who is the best. all you have is an opinion, you are not right because of it!

 

[ozhawk66]

Geez you're a spammer and a half, 8 posts in a row?? Prime example, someone writes multiple paragraphs making an argument and (for the 500th time) you reply with...
Prove it geez, don't just say things and expect people to buy it just because you said so. You actually have to back up things you say with facts, didn't they teach you that one in reading comp?

Okay, on one hand your complaining about me spamming but you turn right around and say I have to prove it, not just say it. That specific quote was part of a much larger post, alot of which was stating the very same case. That quote was just a pithy statement because I had indeed already mentioned it and it required mentioning again. Play your stupid debate tricks with someone else.

Prove what? That entire quote you pulled out is entirely factual. The fact that 18 year olds cannot nor have ever played in the NFL is a true statement. And not just because I said it, either.

Now, if you can prove otherwise, then go ahead. That's all part of debate.

 

[attamarrap]

Actually, there is no real difference between league and NFL in duration of ball or players actually in play. The big diff between the two sports is continuous/flow in league and the scrum started every play in American football.

the big difference is that nfl has 4 teams (offense/defense) in one game and the nrl has 2

While league players are pacing themselves DURING normal play of the ball, when they are not involved on the play/tackle (which is 80% of the time)

when you say league players are pacing themselves because they are not tackling thats false because they still move up in the line and move back constantly running up and back is not really pacing yourself

every player on the NFL field is involved on every play. Rugby fans just don't see the game BETWEEN the plays.

not every player is involved in every play in NFL because half of both sides are on the sideline every play

 

[ozhawk66]

however, the arguments you put forward ozhawk are the most biased, opinionated loads of sh*t i have ever heard.


Nothing wrong with bias if it's based in fact or reality.


both games produce great athletes, regardless of their race (take note juneauquan), both athletes are great at the jobs they have to do.
the sports are completely different, they are not too many similarities.

Different yes and more similar than whats given credit.



to say that nfl players are more skillful than league players is ridiculous, the majority of them can only do one thing, whereas league players are required to do pretty much every thing on a football field.

I've never said that NFL players are necessarily more skillful, but I could make the case when pitting the best the NFL has to offer against the best the NRL has to offer. And your view that they can only do one thing is just ignorant of reality in the football world. League players required to do many things when the basics are all the same. Run, catch, pass, tackle, sometimes kick.

Those league basics are covered by NFL athletes, too. And in some areas, on much higher levels.



bigger??? sure, nfl players may be bigger, they are required to be big in certain positions.

Most positions and that's one of my points in the differences between the two sports. It's required in order to absorb the punishment.


but who is the athlete, a 150kg defensive end, or a 115 kg second rower such as willie mason who is fast, strong, can attack and defend and plays for 50-60 minutes non stop.

Do you really want me to describe what an NFL lineman has to do, do you wanna go there? And the likes of a Mason isn't "playing" anywhere near that 50-60 minutes - he may be on the field for that long, but hes not involved on every play like NFL linemen are.



if he was training with a nfl team and on the diet required for a defensive end then he could put on 30kg of fat too.

There are very few positions required to put on extra weight in fat. Those that do are strong enough to carry it. Now, if Mason could put on an extra 10 or even 20 kg and still keep his speed/endurance, that would be an advantage at his position, would it not?



faster??? the nrl has quite a few guys who can run the 100m under 11 seconds (chris hicks, leon bott, rhy wesser, scott donald), any quicker and they would be in the olympics.

The fastest players the NRL has to offer (Bott, Wesser) are a dime a dozen in the NFL. And I'm not exaggerating. They are in the 10.8 100 meter range.


im sure the nfl has a few players who can run this quick as well, but if they were any quicker than this they would be in the olympics as well.

If the money was there, some players probably would. Bennett from my team wanted to qualify for the Olympics last time around to see if he lost a step from a freak foot injury. He runs a flat 10 seconds in the 100 meters and weighs in at 210 lbs - or right around 98/100 kg. And he wasn't even considered to be the fastest guy on the team when Randy Moss was around.




stronger??? both codes would train just as hard in the gym. league has exceptional athletes, many who bench press more than double their weight. kylie leuleli of manly can bench press 200kg, and he weighs 105kg.

Training is a science at the NFL level now days. An extreme case/example would be Woodson for the Raiders. They guy can run about a 4.4 second 40 yd dash and bench 500 lbs and weighs a smallish 200 lbs.



the nfl does has a very suspicious past when it comes to steroids, there is no denying this. however, i am sure some of their big fellas could also lift exceptional weights, and have never used steroids.

They don't need roids at that level. The players actually want more stringent testing as it's the borderline players using roids to make it in the league they are concerned about. It's those sort of players the athletes don't wanna be around.

your argument is crap, and so are your intentions. we love our rugby league which is the reasons we use these forums, stop talking bullsit.
both sports have great athletes, who are you to compare who is the best. all you have is an opinion, you are not right because of it!

No argument about league having athletes, just that there is a difference in the level required to play at the proffesional level of each sport.

 

[ozhawk66]

the big difference is that nfl has 4 teams (offense/defense) in one game and the nrl has 2


This is where it's tough to compare. While there are 17 players on a match day roster in league, the are well over 50 in the NFL. More like a 100 in collegiate football, but that's a different scenerio. The main reason for this evolution over time is the rate of injuries because of the physical nature of the game, endurence being one of them. 50 years ago, they did play both sides in the NFL. It can't be done anymore.


when you say league players are pacing themselves because they are not tackling thats false because they still move up in the line and move back constantly running up and back is not really pacing yourself


Pacing themselves in the sense they are not involved on each play of the ball/tackle. What league layers are doing during the game, football players are doing in between plays.

not every player is involved in every play in NFL because half of both sides are on the sideline every play

Every player that is on the field. It's just how the game has evolved. Just like there isn't a scrum after each tackle in league.

 

[Vicious]

Who remembers the 2 ex Gridiron players who spent a season playing Reserves for Parramatta about 5-7 years back???
All i can remember is that one of them was Nate someone who had actually played in a Super Bowl only 2-4 years before he spent his season over here. He could supposedly run 100m under 11 seconds and weighed in at about 105kgs. Great athlete, sure, but i was talkin with Jimmy Dymock one night when this guy was playing with Parra. Dymock said that he`d spent quite a bit of time with this American dude, trying to educate him and give him the best possible chance of making 1st grade. JD said that he told him `it`s quite simple, you`re big, strong and fast, all you have to do is constantly get deep and hit the ball at pace and you will succeed`. Nate replied `are you crazy???`. He said that the tackles are hard enough when running at half pace, if i run at full pace i will get killed!!!
Very amusing, but is a true story!!!

 

[attamarrap]

Every player that is on the field. It's just how the game has evolved. Just like there isn't a scrum after each tackle in league.

really the only problem I have with your opinion I can understand why you would think the are stronger faster and what not, dont get me wrong I dont mind the nfl I just dont get how you can say they have better endurance than NRL players when half the team is not playing half the time maybe they do have greater endurance (the offensive/defensive linemen no way) but it is not on display for us to see because they're not out there all the time like nrl players

 

[MutOofd]

but that really has nothing to do with the main discussion.

The main discussion is ridiculous hence me giving ridiculous answers...
The guy who started this just wants league fans to give detailed views of why nrl is better so he can make fun of them afrterwards, so i have given him some of his own medicine,

 

[MutOofd]

Perhaps the most ignorant statement on this thread

The NFL is undoubtedly the most popular sport in the USA

Football is the most popular sport in the us, college football receives a lot of coverage

 

[Everlovin' Antichrist]

How many? It's NEVER happened. And for good reason. Matter of fact, the percentage of rookies being productive, let alone starting in the NFL is a dismal figure, indeed.

Second sentence is irrelevant, and more than likely wrong. As are most of your arguments.

There have been no 18 year olds play NFL therefore you have no idea how they'd go. No one has any idea how they'd go because... and this is the big one... no 18 year old has ever played NFL.

They cottonwool them, that's their choice, but your statements regarding it are ridiculous because you have nothing to base your assumptions on.

Nothing except your own stupidity....