Rugby for wimps in armour....

MizzKattt

I live in the south of the US. American football is the heartbeat of many towns here. If you live in one such town, you are either playing the game, coaching the game, cheering the game or talking about why you are missing the game. From what I gather (because I'm not a huge fan), its more a mental game of strategy, finesse, and intimidation. I personally enjoy watching a rugby game over an American football game because of the constant movement and the short shorts!

ozhawk66

Originally Posted by por
Is there a rugby player to compare with Michael Vick ?

Come on he's a quarter back that doesn't even remotely relate to any postition on a Rugby team. How about Jonah [http://www.jonahlomu.com/index.php] he can run as fast as any American footballer, tackle, kick and pass. That's what I'm talking about when I'm saying that Rugby players are far more well rounded atheletes than the 300lb atheletes you see in the NFL.

And then we have to go into how pathetic the NFL's anti drug rules are. Wow a four match suspension for a positive test. That is disgraceful.


Michael Vick is the equivelent of the #7 jersey in league. You can thank the players Union for the 4 game suspensoin limit, but that's only for a 3rd offense. A 4th can bring a season long suspension and they are forced into some sort of rehab program for 1st, 2nd offenses etc...

ozhawk66

>>put vick on a rugby team and he would be milled.<<


Vick is 6 ft and 215 lbs and would be MUCH faste than anyone on the rugby league field. I've seen Vick get hit hard enough to do a full 360 degree summersault and bounce right back up. I seriously doubt rugby leaguers would be fast enough to get a clean hit on him let alone one with some meat behind it.

Big Ears

It doesn't matter how physically good he is if he would be tactically inept on a rugby pitch .

'would be MUCH faste than anyone on the rugby league field'

thats extremely unlikely .

Although if you mean someone that quick for his weight then yes he would be much quicker than rugby players of the same weight .

'I seriously doubt rugby leaguers would be fast enough to get a clean hit on him let alone one with some meat behind it.''

So let me see evertime he would get the ball he would score ? , because thats what your pretty much saying .

ozhawk66

It doesn't matter how physically good he is if he would be tactically inept on a rugby pitch .


I guarantee Vick ran the 'option' in high school and college - which is similer in philosophy to the game of rugby itself. It's just "pitched" differently.

'would be MUCH faster than anyone on the rugby league field'

thats extremely unlikely .

VERY likely as Vick's time in the 40 yd is around 4.2-4.25 seconds. Needless to say,there aren't that many leaguers motoring at that speed, let alone at that weight.


Although if you mean someone that quick for his weight then yes he would be much quicker than rugby players of the same weight .

'I seriously doubt rugby leaguers would be fast enough to get a clean hit on him let alone one with some meat behind it.''

So let me see evertime he would get the ball he would score ? , because thats what your pretty much saying .


No, I didn't say that nor did I imply it. I said it would be very hard for a league player to get a clean hit on the man in reply to the comment of Vick getting milled.

I don't even like Vick that much. I think Dante Culpepper would be a better example for the #7 jersey. Culpepper weighs in at 265 lbs and runs a 4.7 40 yard time.

birdiewhistler

well look at rugby players and football players. Football players are huge. My best friend plays offensive line for the University of Iowa. He is 6'5" and weighs 325 pounds. And none of its fat. he benches 390 pounds and cleans 330. So it doesnt matter if you play rugby or whatever. If that man was running at you full speed I am pretty sure you might like a little bit of padding.

paulcr

I live in Minneapolis Minnesota home of the Vikings. I've got to say that when it come to comparing athletes from one sport vs. another it truely is impossible. Linemen in general and defesive more specifically (American Football) are really not great athletes in the true sense of the word. Many are overweight and are there to plug up the middle of the line to stop the run. Offensively they are there to push open a hole for the running back to get through. The skill position players are the true athletes, those being receivers, running back, corner backs, linebackers. I wouldn't group quarterback there since most can't run at all and if they can't throw they are pretty much useless. Vick is a prime example...if wouldn't win anything until he stops running and starts looking down field...but thats a whole differnet subject. I know first hand watching Daunte go through the same process. A true athlete can do do many sports well and excell at there chosen sport superbly....all others are players.

ozhawk66

birdiewhistler wrote:

well look at rugby players and football players. Football players are huge. My best friend plays offensive line for the University of Iowa. He is 6'5" and weighs 325 pounds. And none of its fat. he benches 390 pounds and cleans 330. So it doesnt matter if you play rugby or whatever. If that man was running at you full speed I am pretty sure you might like a little bit of padding.

There's only a couple of guys on my Hawkeye roster that come close to that description at 6'5" - but not 325 lbs.

fish_stroker

damnyanks wrote:

The padding starts a vicious cycle in American Football. If I'm covered in pad's I am more likely to luanch my body at someone

I do enjoy watching American football don't know all the rules. I think that rugby produces more all round athletes rather then someone who can just stand there and get in the way and so on. Rugby is a more team orientated sport... a starting panel of 60 player's comes across as a bit much

the thing is if u watch rugby do they launch themselves anyway without the pads! no care for ur own wel being! jus as long as u gain sum ground and keep the ball! dats rugby!
also the 80 mins kills and u have barely any breaks! especially if ur a forward! ur constantly doing sumthing whether it b scrum lineout or whatever!
and u do this all while having ur body tataly dystroyed and keep working it anyway!

fish_stroker

skittishkitten wrote:

Not all NFL Football players are 300 lbs. The Running backs and Quarterbacks are usually alot lighter. The "big guys" on the front of the line are basically blockers and usually they do very well at it. It's the Quarterbacks and Runningbacks that move the ball. They have to be light enough TO move the ball and 300 lbs just won't cut it. I would think if you take a good Runningback and gave him the appropriate training, he could very easily impress some of the rugby people.

i agree sum of them wud be gud but i don no if they wud have the mentalitly for it without the pads! to be brought up wit ur "shield" and have it taken away wud make u feel quite defenseless and i dont think they cud take the hits without it especially not take the hit then get back up and run on and do this repeatadly for 80 mins!!

ozhawk66

[PHP]he thing is if u watch rugby do they launch themselves anyway without the pads! no care for ur own wel being! jus as long as u gain sum ground and keep the ball! dats rugby!
also the 80 mins kills and u have barely any breaks! especially if ur a forward! ur constantly doing sumthing whether it b scrum lineout or whatever!
and u do this all while having ur body tataly dystroyed and keep working it anyway![/PHP]



Not even close when comparing to the NFL! And don't give me the 'runnin for 80 minutes' BS line! I know, cause I watch league down here ,Down Under!

fish_stroker

whatever compare the running times between a player for rugby and a player for the nfl!!!(an average estimate not a player who don run in rugby and 1 dat does in nfl) bet all i own the rugby 1 is higher! and jus cos ur from"down under" don mean anything!

Pherekydes

Rugby players train like rugby players, and so have a rugby player's endurance.

But many NFL players train like track athletes.

The requirements of the game are one thing. The realities are something completely different.

ozhawk66

fish_stroker wrote:

whatever compare the running times between a player for rugby and a player for the nfl!!!(an average estimate not a player who don run in rugby and 1 dat does in nfl) bet all i own the rugby 1 is higher! and jus cos ur from"down under" don mean anything!

1st off, I wish you'd spend some time typing and come across as somewhat cognitive....


And if your gonna sit there and stand by the runnin for 80 minutes argument, I'll tell you your coming from the land of OZ.



ps) I'm not FROM Down Under.

fish_stroker

Slow coach wrote:

Rugby players train like rugby players, and so have a rugby player's endurance.

But many NFL players train like track athletes.

The requirements of the game are one thing. The realities are something completely different.

yeh like rugby is closest to long distance running whereas as nfl is closer to a sprinter!!

and ozzyhawk dude look at the forwards even when der not running der always active! der in the scrums lineouts etc....dey dont stop! dey keep on moving! nvr realy getting a break!

Chucky the tree

lay off the crack man, its not doing you much good.

ozhawk66

fish_stroker wrote:

yeh like rugby is closest to long distance running whereas as nfl is closer to a sprinter!!

and ozzyhawk dude look at the forwards even when der not running der always active! der in the scrums lineouts etc....dey dont stop! dey keep on moving! nvr realy getting a break!

How old are you, anyway?

Davey Devil

Not old enough to find all the keys on the keyboard.

fish_stroker

im 17 why? what difference does that make?
as for me being on crack?? im not!!!

fish_stroker

Davey Devil wrote:

Not old enough to find all the keys on the keyboard.

i can type...i just like my way better!!

RuggieBear

fish_stroker wrote:

i can type...i just like my way better!!

Hey mate, i've told you this already but "txt spk" is seriously frowned upon on Boards. It's really really irritating. And tbh, you will probably get yourself banned if you keep at it.

Oh and BTW, i don't think the two sports are strictly comparable but i do bel;ieve that if rugby was taken seriously by americans, they would rule the world at it. There is enough raw talent in the NFL to make some seriously good rugby players....

ozhawk66

fish_stroker wrote:

im 17 why? what difference does that make?
as for me being on crack?? im not!!!

You seem a bit clueless when it comes to American football, that's all.

ozhawk66

>>...but i do bel;ieve that if rugby was taken seriously by americans...<<


I seriously doubt it would ever happen. Americans would just automatically assume anything different to football as having something wrong with it. The only reason Arena football found a niche, was they made it a faster game, on a smaller field, more points, smaller arena, smaller prices etc...

I know my American friends view rugby in comparison to football - pro or collegiate - as just to slow, one dimensional and not enough action (hitting, violence, passing etc...). Ironic, but perception is reality to us in this case.

fish_stroker

thats strange when if you look closely at the games history it evolved from rugby(i think) its realy quite similar! like a more speed version of it(speedy as in running every1 is faster) with loads of little breaks

ozhawk66

fish_stroker wrote:

thats strange when if you look closely at the games history it evolved from rugby(i think) its realy quite similar! like a more speed version of it(speedy as in running every1 is faster) with loads of little breaks

That's why the comment "Football evolved from rugby in the way humans evolved from the apes." was posted in this forum - and for good reason.

fish_stroker

yeh i no i read it...i jus never realy thought about it before...its like... there based on the same things...but people make one of them to be better then the other when in reality they are probably jus as good as each other...

ozhawk66

>>but people make one of them to be better then the other when in reality they are probably jus as good as each other<<


The level in play in the NFL is much higher than professional rugby, by the very fact that 17,18,19 year old kids can't play in the NFL.

fish_stroker

id say its more to do with the fact that there arent many 17-19 yr olds who are big enough or strong enough! takes years to build up all that muscle! not to do with the level of play!

ozhawk66

fish_stroker wrote:

id say its more to do with the fact that there arent many 17-19 yr olds who are big enough or strong enough! takes years to build up all that muscle! not to do with the level of play!

There are many high school kids that either are or broach the needed size of NFL players. Now, your being delusional if your telling me that 17-19 year old kids are as talented as the players in the NFL who have played years at a much higher level. And I can prove it by showing you articles on the subject of rookies having very little, if any impact at all, in their 1st NFL season. And these players are in their early 20's. Those that do succeed right away are expeptions to the norm.

the fnj

I’ve never seen such a wood from the trees debate, you can’t compare the athletes against each other.

Rugby players are trained to work for eighty minutes and expected to be able to complete a variety of tasks.

American footballers are trained to work in short burst for sixty minutes and are expected to perform more specialised tasks. I’m not saying they can’t run for eighty minutes, I’m sure lots of them could but it’s not the point they are trained to work with breaks for sixty minutes.

Someone made a point about knowing a linebacker who was 6’ 5” and is 325lbs, claiming he would be unstoppable on a rugby pitch. First of all that is not true and more importantly he would not be able to maintain that bulk playing rugby.

As someone said earlier, some people are “athletic freaks” you could train them up for any sport they would do well, this is genetics. If Brian O’Driscol trained all his life for American football and not rugby I’m sure he would be a great receiver. Vice a versa for some of the other exceptional athletes playing American football.

Also the padding used does create a vicious cycle the players use it as weaponry, also they are trained to hit with their helmets, rugby players have to make an attempt to wrap up the player being tackled this is why you don’t see two players bouncing off each other from the collision.

It is this simple!

By the way I’m a fan of both sports, I’ve played rugby all my life but after living in America I really developed an understanding for football. I am considering trying it out in Ireland next season, I can give an even better opinion then.

The attitude from the American football fans towards rugby players is pathetic, some rugby fans have the same attitude to American football but this doesn’t excuse it.