Rugby Players Playing NFL

ozhawk66

gert83 wrote:

Endurance?

read on: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1508491,00.html

Ironic that we are discussing the apparent "lack of serious injuries in rugby" then this happens: http://www.rfu.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/RFUHome.News_Detail/StoryID/9851

That story made some waves when it first came out, but it didn't have any legs due too the flaws in the study. It's not scientific at all.

gert83

5.5 secs for 50m is the kind of time Ben Johnson was posting at his juiced up best, so you're telling me there are 270lbs + linemen in the NFL who are faster than that? We're talking 5.78 secs for metres, here, 50 of them to be exact, not a 40 yard dash.

No offense, but you cannot compare injury stats in "top class" American rugby to the NFL. The injury rates in top class rugby are very high, and all top class players will have suffered broken ribs, legs, fingers, concussions, and noses, as well as standard run of the mill deep cuts. Just look at their faces! they tell the story better than I can.

Regards endurance - you don't have to take it from me, ask high level american footballers who have tried to go from one sport to the other, and there are a few. Quote Tom Billups - "I couldn't believe how much you had to run in that sport when I first played it. I kept on asking my team mates when the game would end". Sure he played division III, but so what? He's the kind of guy (of which there are many) who might have had a try-out at an NFL training camp as an undrafted player or in the NFL Europe.

There is no 45 strong starting roster in rugby, no offensive and defensive teams, and no 40 second break between plays. The team which takes the pitch, by and large, finishes the game, which lasts 80 minutes, with a 10 minute break in between. The ball is also contested at every breakdown, whereas in football play stops.

You're telling me those 300lbs fat boys could do that, and run 5.5 seconds for 50m? you're talking from your orifice.

ozhawk66

gert83 wrote:

5.5 secs for 50m is the kind of time Ben Johnson was posting at his juiced up best, so you're telling me there are 270lbs + linemen in the NFL who are faster than that? We're talking 5.78 secs for metres, here, 50 of them to be exact, not a 40 yard dash.

First off, even though I'm Down Under, happy St. Patricks day
(I prefer Guiness - always have )


I was admitting comparable times for a shorter distance ran by NFL standards - I try to go by the norms, while you try and lean on extreme examples to try and prove a point. And I took your example at face value, without asking for proof/link of said time.

No offense, but you cannot compare injury stats in "top class" American rugby to the NFL. The injury rates in top class rugby are very high, and all top class players will have suffered broken ribs, legs, fingers, concussions, and noses, as well as standard run of the mill deep cuts.

The injury rates are no where near as high in rugby when compared to the NFL. Good grief, I'd think you would see this by the fact that 18 year old kids CAN'T play in the NFL, for this very reason ! - the NFL can't possibly play a regular season schedule, like they do in rugby.....for this very reason!

But it happens in rugby, doesn't it!

You keep saying there isn't any stop in play between tackles in rugby. Of course not! Most of the players aren't INVOLVED on every play in rugby, unlike in the NFL!

The're doing the same thing in the NFL as in rugby, between plays - getting organized for the next play; running to and fro from the line of scrimmage/ruck area. Cept, rugby fans gloss over the fact that most of their players aren't involved on every play - unlike in American football.

I also don't think you comprehend the money that's behind the NFL. And I can gaurantee you, that there is increadible pressure, just like in rugby, to win....NOW! And part of that (basic) equation, is the coaches WILL get those players into shape. And Anaerobic* fitness, is a very big part of this, nowdays.

There are anti-violence rules in rugby, that are enforced. These same rules are not enforced in football, but are a part of the game in American football.

And I'll say it again; I have yet to see a full-fledged, unconcious knockout in rugby. But its almost a weekly occurence in the NFL.

I've repeated these basic points of undeniable facts, between the two sports, but you never have an answer for them.[/B]

Regards endurance - you don't have to take it from me, ask high level american footballers who have tried to go from one sport to the other, and there are a few. Quote Tom Billups - "I couldn't believe how much you had to run in that sport when I first played it. I kept on asking my team mates when the game would end". Sure he played division III, but so what? He's the kind of guy (of which there are many) who might have had a try-out at an NFL training camp as an undrafted player or in the NFL Europe.

This is a major misunderstanding on your part about collegiate football. I mentioned earlier that there is a major/profound leap in talent from division I-A to the NFL. Needless to say, some guy from division III is not a good example to lean on.


I myself, thought I might be able to play collegiate football, someday. Then I broke my (left) femur at the beginning of my 8th grade year. Lost 2 1/2 years of football, because of it. I did eventually start/play every game my junior and senior seasons, but I just dind 't have that 3rd gear, like I used too........back in my Iowa days.......

Anyway, enough sob story. The point I'm getting too, is that the best RB, or player I played against, was David Winsley from Flagstaff, Arizona. I think he ended up splitting starting at TB with some other guy for 2 seasons at Arizona State. You couldn't possibly get a clean hit on this guy, even though I solo tackled him more than a few times.

Translation: I was out of his league; this guy had success against others who made the pros, but he never stood a chance to make the leap too the NFL.

There is no 45 strong starting roster in rugby, no offensive and defensive teams, and no 40 second break between plays.

That ought to tell you something right there. First of all, the "active' roster on an NFL gameday is 53 players. Now tell me something, why does the NFL need 53 players to dress for a game, yet less than 20 dress for a rugby match? Hmmm?

The team which takes the pitch, by and large, finishes the game, which lasts 80 minutes, with a 10 minute break in between. The ball is also contested at every breakdown, whereas in football play stops.

Players in rugby rest/stop WHILE play is happening on the field. Correct? Such is not the case in American football. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but halftime in rugby is the same as in football; 15 minutes.


You're telling me those 300lbs fat boys could do that, and run 5.5 seconds for 50m? you're talking from your orifice.

I never implied that. Read what I posted. Besides, some of those 300 lb "fat boys" , ain't all that fat.




* My team, the Vikings just signed a defensive lineman from the Bills. They don't see him but as a 2-down lineman. The reason why? He's more of a run-stopper. You guys would look at this as a lack of endurence. What you guys don't comprehend, is the exertion aplied just to stand upright after the ball is snapped, in defense of oneself, against one or two opponents at the same time.

gert83

There is never any concession in these arguments, or even points taken, but they're fun none the less.

During breaks in play rugby players are not organising themselves for the "plays".

You run to lineouts, you run to scrums. You get penalised if you waste time at restarts. The breaks in play in football are 40 seconds, long enough for a few Budweiser adverts, and the game is played in quarters. The endurance requirements of the two sports just don't compare.

And I am not citing "extremes" in the case of Chris Paterson. The top teams are full of guys with comparable speed to him. Have you seen Jason Robinson? I bet he does nothing over 100m (he admits he doesn't know his time), but his speed over 40 just has to be seen to be believed, and his sidestep is outrageous.

Even when you don't have the ball, you run in support, or you run to keep the defensive alignment.

There are guys playing for top rugby teams who would very, very fine Americasn footballers. Who knows if they would make the cut, but they would certainly be there or thereabouts. Rugby is a big, big sport. Sure it's not soccer, but England has hundreds of thousands of senior players, and the England 15 is the top 15 players drawn from that pyramid.

Lots of them would be very, very comparable to their NFL counterparts. Additionally, all the Polynesian nations apart from American Samoa and Hawaii have rugby as their national sport. American Samoa in particular has supplied several NFL players - notably Junior Seau. You cannot seriously be suggesting that if all those rugby players currently turning out for the All Blacks, Fiji or Western Samoa were playing football they wouldn't have the same impact, can you?

ozhawk66

gert83 wrote:

There is never any concession in these arguments, or even points taken, but they're fun none the less.

The only funner forum would be a bar. Scuse me, a pub :cool:

During breaks in play rugby players are not organising themselves for the "plays".

Keeping themselves aligned for whatever the current circumstances dictate, are they not?

You run to lineouts, you run to scrums. You get penalised if you waste time at restarts.

Same thing done in a different way in the NFL.

The breaks in play in football are 40 seconds, long enough for a few Budweiser adverts, and the game is played in quarters. The endurance requirements of the two sports just don't compare.

The breaks in play may be 40 seconds, but those 40 seconds aren't spent standing around. They are every bit as active between plays as in rugby. The game is played in 4 qtrs, but takes 3 1/2 hours, as opposed to 95 minutes in rugby.

The endurance requirements do compare. One; the players have to be that big in order to absorb the physical nature of the game. A lot more endurance rquired in blocking skills than run suport. Two: endurance is more of a factor, especially over the long haul of a season in American football. Your misguided, in the sense that less time between plays somehow equates to more spent energy - more needed endurance in rugby. The exertion on any given football play far outweighs that in rugby. That's why 18 year old kids aren't as physically fit/mature as young adults in their early/mid 20's.

That's why rugby has 18 year old kids playing professionally and the NFL does not. There is NO way you can argue around these basic, common sense facts.

That's one of the main reasons we couldn't POSSIBLY play a regular season schedule in American football, like they do in rugby. It just can't be done and you don't have an answer for this.

And I am not citing "extremes" in the case of Chris Paterson. The top teams are full of guys with comparable speed to him.

The average times of the better players in rugby are no where near the norms of the better athletes in the NFL. They aren't even in the same ballpark.

Have you seen Jason Robinson? I bet he does nothing over 100m (he admits he doesn't know his time), but his speed over 40 just has to be seen to be believed, and his sidestep is outrageous.

Nope, haven't seen him. But, there are many RB's that are incredible runners in the NFL. And I posted a link a few posts ago, describing what it sounds like when the RB gets the ball and crashes into the line. Even the people in the stands have a hard time comprehending those closeup sounds.

Even when you don't have the ball, you run in support, or you run to keep the defensive alignment.

Run? More like a slow jog, from what I've seen. Unless it's run support, but then we're still talking less than 6 players involved on the play.

There are guys playing for top rugby teams who would very, very fine Americasn footballers.

By far the majority in rugby are too small and too slow. And the percentage of those who who came close to the needed size and speed, would be very small who would be considered as prospects.

Tell yuh what, give me a list of the 5 better rugby players you want to give me - your gonna need some size with these examples - and I'll put em on the NFL playing field, and lets see what happens. OK?

Who knows if they would make the cut, but they would certainly be there or thereabouts. Rugby is a big, big sport. Sure it's not soccer, but England has hundreds of thousands of senior players, and the England 15 is the top 15 players drawn from that pyramid.

That's one of the different facets of each sport we really can't compare. Even our 'Pro Bowl' is more of a joke, than not.

Lots of them would be very, very comparable to their NFL counterparts.

We'll see, with your given examples from above.

Additionally, all the Polynesian nations apart from American Samoa and Hawaii have rugby as their national sport. American Samoa in particular has supplied several NFL players - notably Junior Seau. You cannot seriously be suggesting that if all those rugby players currently turning out for the All Blacks, Fiji or Western Samoa were playing football they wouldn't have the same impact, can you?

I think that's a two-part answer to that one. There is enough of an American influence, even as far as New Zealand - David Dixon ex - who want an American education. And a lot of these players literally, outgrow rugby. Again David Dixon. Heck, the percentage of players in rugby who are basically the same size as Seau are very small. And he's a linebacker.


Here's another way of comparing the differences in the rough factor of the two sports. I go through Canbet down here and I recently e-mailed them asking if they were going to offer OVER/UNDER betting in the NRL. They answered in the negative. The reason being, was that the are more points scored in th sport. More teams seem to be getting tired and more points are scored. This is my other point ; more points are scored in rugby than in the NFL, on average.

Big Ears

I also noticed than in rugby league a lot of trys come late on , but just to point out again we are taking about the infierior code , infact when you make comparrisons with football using rugby league make sure you're talking about College football in comparison and not NFL , as this would make a more fair argument .

ozhawk66

[PHP]

Big Ears wrote:

I also noticed than in rugby league a lot of trys come late on , but just to point out again we are taking about the infierior code , infact when you make comparrisons with football using rugby league make sure you're talking about College football in comparison and not NFL , as this would make a more fair argument .

[/PHP]


Methinks the best of international rugby union would have a hard time comparing to the .500 collegiate teams, from average conferances in the states.

Big Ears

ozhawk66 wrote:

[PHP][/PHP]


Methinks the best of international rugby union would have a hard time comparing to the .500 collegiate teams, from average conferances in the states.

Not if they had been brought up playing American football .

gert83

American influence in NZ? Yer Jokin! Everybody in NZ grows up wanting to be an All Black.

David Dixon would never have made the All Blacks because he's a fat bastard, besides which, a strongly polynesian nation like NZ will have plenty of David Dixons knocking around. Trust me - Polynesians are huge. In actual fact, they compared caucasian "Pakehas" to Maoris and mixed white/ Maori people in NZ, and found that the average weight of a white 13 year old boy with no first degree Maori ancestry was about 65 KGS, whereas the same age group with Maori ancestors tipped the scales at 10 kilos (22lbs) more, even though their body compositions are similar as races. The NZRU commissioned the study to find out why Polynesians were starting to dominate rugby in that neck of the woods.

Jonah Lomu was the size of Junior Seau before he'd even gone to a gym, and even faster. The All Blacks have people comparable to somebody like Seau - think Tana Umaga.

The requirements of the two sports are very, very different that's all, but there will be those who could make the switch.

My 5 rugby lpayers who could make the switch:

1) Lawrence Dallaglio
2) Josh Lewsey (he's the guy doing the "hit" on Mat Rogers in one of the earlier posts on this thread).
3) Ben Cohen
4) Lote Tuqiri
5) Jonny Wilkinson

But there are so many who would be close with the correct training. To limit it to 5 is almost impossible. There are guys like ROland Reid, or Thom Philip in Scotland who have not made much impact in rugby (yet) but who might be better at football than some of the legends, just because nof their athletic abilities. Thom Philip - junior 400m stand out (his bro' is a champion), weight about 230lbs, thighs the size of bangladesh and benches 200 kgs (440lbs) aged only 20, for example.

gert83

By the way - if you watch Lewsey's hit - Mat Rogers got 2 ribs broken in that collision but played on. So much for rugby players being soft.

Here is the current Englasnd rugby team injury list just before the 6N - there's only 22 of these guys including subs: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/international/3355993.stm#white

One thing rugby players do get lots of which footballers don't is smashed cheekbones, jaws and broken noses.

Our very own Ben Cohen, mentioned by me alot in this thread, is out with a smashed cheekbone following the Tsunami aid game at this moment, the exact same injury which effectively ended his predecessor, dan Luger's career (didn't realise what he had done, bits of bone from the socket could have made him go blind - dropped from the england team during lay off, never made it back etc.)

By the way - Dan Luger! There's another fantastic athlete. The son of Croatian and Czech sprinting champions. Weight about 220 lbs. Sprint coach Margo Wells trained him during his rehabilitation, and said he was, without a doubt, one of the fastest men over 40 meters she had seen anywhere. He was on BBC grandstand, and a time of 4.7 something rings a bell.

Here are some pictures of some particularly tasteful rugby injuries: http://www.srsd.org/search/studentprojects/2001/injury/

http://www.morticom.com/bloodandgutsinjuriesentry22.htm

See ya!

Pherekydes

gert83 wrote:

One thing rugby players do get lots of which footballers don't is smashed cheekbones, jaws and broken noses.

We Gridiron fans wonder why?

Neil3030

What would ye have to say about this little idea:

Victor Costello playing FULL-back, maybe....3-4 years ago?

Pherekydes

Neil3030 wrote:

What would ye have to say about this little idea:

Victor Costello playing FULL-back, maybe....3-4 years ago?

Too big and too slow. Might make a TE out of him, though.

geladi

Australian, Sydney - Hi..I'm an actual rugby player not like most of the people who have written threads on this forum who just 'watch' the two games (NFL and rugby) and judge visually. I play at fairly senior level on the sydney clubs competition (one level below Super 12's) in the position of Hooker (No.2) and i can definitely say as a hooker playing the front row where these days you are required to act as a 4 backrower - where fitness is everything, and playing in the front row where strength is the cornerstone of you winning scrums and plays places me in a pretty good position to comment on this forum.

Rugby compared to the NFL i believe is a tougher sport, theres no doubt about that! last weekend (easter weekend) just between two sydney clubs (out of a 12 club competition) between 3 grades there were 4 players taken to hospital, with injuries ranging from lower back, broken ribs, a suspected broken leg and another player ( a good friend of mine) taken out by a late hit in mid air.... I personally broke my index finger - which i didnt realise was broken till after the game had finished. I know it is a tougher sport because my american friends, two who have played in the college league in america in the NFL, who attend University with me, tell me rugby is tougher. Both have tried it and both enjoy playing rugby (with headgear)

whether a player from rugby can play in the NFL... that is another question altogether. And the answer to that question in my point of view is yes....and most definately!! Who could not say that some of the players in the NRL and Super 12 competition could not play up there in the NFL....you want speed, you only have to look at wingers like NRL rookie Leon BoK and super 12 waratahs and brumbies wingers such as lote tiquiri and clyde rathbone to have speed. Not only can these men run...They can pass, tackle (and hurt trust me!) .... If you want strength on a one on one close range situation, thats what us Front rowers specialise in....the loose head and tight head props have pack weights of around 600 - 700kgs behind them, while themselves have to get the better of the opposing front rower weighing around 110 -150 kgs and wrestle to take control of scrum possesion.
Do you want a kicker....in the both codes of rugby players can kick up to 70 metrs, and have a conversion success rate of up to 90% (wilkinson and el mazri).

I believe the rugby fly half/five eight and scrum half/half back have as much pressure perhaps more (think about this) coming from the opposing team as does a quarter back in the NFL. And in a fly half, scrum half position you need to have precision as you main tool in passing the ball. Which im sure can be acquired if taken into the NFL!

People said before that NFL is a game of tactic and skill....Rugby is only a game of tactic and skill perhaps not as much as that of the NFL...but during training all we practice are moves off scrums, line outs, penalties, back line moves. And there is a strategy for every bit of grass on the field. Our team which is not even pro, breaks the field up into 6 different sections and has a different game variation for each section in which we are placed ... and the strategies differ for defense and attack.

As rugby has become more professional and there are more players converting from league to union (in australia anyway) with more money in the game, there is a need for the game over the last 20 years or so to have developed into a game, that needs players to read the play of the game as much as just being strong, tough minded and fit. In the NFL, you see the coaches writing out plays and they have whole teams of coaches doing this....in rugby its the players that co-ordinate the play....reading and watching the other team closely and strategising between themselves what strategies will be implemented on different areas of the field in the lineout or whatever. (usually the fly half or scrum half conducts play for the team, with the hooker leading the forwards).

Also in rugby there is a need to be precise in one skill set also like the NFL, for various positions....as a hooker my scrummaging and line out throws have to be precise and on target everytime (more than you realise) i set three 1 hour sessions aside a week to practice just these skill sets and as i said earlier im not even pro ... brendon cannon and jeremy paul have to practice these aspects of the game without fail everyday. A fullback will practice kicking for the line, a fly half as well as most of the back line would need a mean pass, front row would need a perfect scrum set, and back rowers and second rowers would need to be precise in the timing of line out balls and reading play around the field.

I welcome all comments on my posting, i think this is an extremely interesting topic of conversation!! and would be glad to answer any replies

Vikings

You cant judge how tough a sport is by the amount of injuries it gets like you suggest here

Rugby compared to the NFL i believe is a tougher sport, theres no doubt about that! last weekend (easter weekend) just between two sydney clubs (out of a 12 club competition) between 3 grades there were 4 players taken to hospital, with injuries ranging from lower back, broken ribs, a suspected broken leg and another player ( a good friend of mine) taken out by a late hit in mid air.... I personally broke my index finger - which i didnt realise was broken till after the game had finished.

if thats the case then football is by far the tougher sport as there are for more serious injuries in it. In the irish american football league there was a player this year (2 or 3 weeks ago) who broke both his tibia and fibia (both bones in lower leg) in a tackle this year. Myself and another teammate both did in our knees last year, thankfully we're both back playing now but it happens!

ozhawk66

gert83 wrote:

American influence in NZ? Yer Jokin! Everybody in NZ grows up wanting to be an All Black.


The sort of "influence' I meant was so many wanting to come to the states for a free, collegiate education, via football.


>>David Dixon would never have made the All Blacks because he's a fat bastard...<<


Dixon is indeed a good point as he wasn't fat or too big when growing up - but he outgrew rugby and grew into the sport of football.

Jonah Lomu was the size of Junior Seau before he'd even gone to a gym, and even faster. The All Blacks have people comparable to somebody like Seau - think Tana Umaga.

Seau is just a half frame smaller than Lomu and Lomu is an abhorration in rugby, while Seau is the average norm for his position. The All Blacks may have some the size of Seau, but not to their comparable counterparts in the NFL - and that's my point.

The requirements of the two sports are very, very different that's all, but there will be those who could make the switch.

I've always tried to keep the comparisons to the comparable positions. Such is not always the case, though. From both sides.

My 5 rugby lpayers who could make the switch:

1) Lawrence Dallaglio
2) Josh Lewsey (he's the guy doing the "hit" on Mat Rogers in one of the earlier posts on this thread).
3) Ben Cohen
4) Lote Tuqiri
5) Jonny Wilkinson

Cohen - he's got the size needed for a mid-range/smaller RB but he better be REAL fast, cause I couldn't find any 100 meter time on him. But I'm guessing he's much too slow for his WR/TB counterparts in the NFL.


Dallaglio is 6'4'' and 240 lbs and his comparable counterpart in the NFL would be a LB/DE. I couldn't find any 100 meter time on him, so he can't be all that fast to his NFL counterparts. He would also need to add an extra 30-40 plus pounds and somehow increase his speed.



Lewsey - 5'11" and 205 lbs and I found a 10.8 100 meter time on him. His NFL counterpart(s) would be WR/TB on offense and a SS/FS on defense.

Lewsey would have to add anywhere from 10/15 - 30+ lbs and still have to drop that 100 time to a legit 10.5. But he could probably get away with that 10.8 time - he would just have to pack on some extra lbs and still be able to maintain "field" speed.



Tuqiri - 6'2" and 225 lbs. I've seen the guy play. Fast on the rugby field but slow when compared to his NFL counterparts. The best I could do with him is pack on another 30-40 lbs - teach him how to catch in the NFL (patterns, routes, timing, catching etc) then hopefully after a couple of years he would be able to handle the defensive lineman that would still outweigh him by 40-60+ lbs.

The bottom line is that even when it comes to these exceptional examples on the rugby field, it would be harder than hell to get em on the NFL playing field. And when your talking about putting the the norm of rugby players on the NFL playing field, forgetuhboutit.

But there are so many who would be close with the correct training. To limit it to 5 is almost impossible.

I used 5 as a "limit" to keep the posts shorter

There are guys like ROland Reid, or Thom Philip in Scotland who have not made much impact in rugby (yet) but who might be better at football than some of the legends, just because nof their athletic abilities. Thom Philip - junior 400m stand out (his bro' is a champion), weight about 230lbs, thighs the size of bangladesh and benches 200 kgs (440lbs) aged only 20, for example.

I don't know what "athletic" abilities you would cite as being better in the NFL as opposed to rugby, for those examples you gave.

For every example you give like Thom Philip, I could come back with a Charles Woodsen who has an awesome 40 yd time, yet can bench 500 lbs! And he's a DB!

geladi

maybe im trying to get paranoid and prove my point ... but in reply to this quote

"if thats the case then football is by far the tougher sport as there are for more serious injuries in it. In the irish american football league there was a player this year (2 or 3 weeks ago) who broke both his tibia and fibia (both bones in lower leg) in a tackle this year. Myself and another teammate both did in our knees last year, thankfully we're both back playing now but it happens!"

The injuries i mentioned in posting before, are only injuries that happened on one weekend (so its standard). You cant tell me that the injuries sustained in rugby or league, both hardcore contact sports with little protection would be as frequent on a american football field. You mentioned busted knees... knees are blowing up also common on the rugby field, how about if i told you, that in 2003 there were 7 deaths worldwide related both to the sport of rugby and rugby league (Australian Sporting Commission: Sports and Injuries, Article 204, April 2003). 5 of those deaths for some reason occured in Australia and New Zealand.

I guess what im trying to prove is that by complexion rugby in terms of mentally and physically would be able to match it with NFL players. But i tend to agree also with postings that say trying to compare NFL and rugby players can not really be compared untill they are brought to the same level. I guess both games have there individual strengths and weaknesses.

ozhawk66

geladi wrote:

Australian, Sydney - Hi..I'm an actual rugby player not like most of the people who have written threads on this forum who just 'watch' the two games (NFL and rugby) and judge visually.


Hey there, I tried to shorten your post as I've answered much of what you have argued in one post! So, I'll try to keep it short and maybe we can elaborate in later postings.



Rugby compared to the NFL i believe is a tougher sport, theres no doubt about that!


Where rugby is a CONTACT sport, football is a COLLISION sport. This is born out by the fact that there are more injuries in football and the severity of those injuries are more severe, when compared to rugby, in general. This includes concussions.


I know it is a tougher sport because my american friends, two who have played in the college league in america in the NFL, who attend University with me, tell me rugby is tougher. Both have tried it and both enjoy playing rugby (with headgear)


American universities are littered with former football athletes playing rugby, either because of injuries or they couldn't make the transition from high school to collegiate football.


whether a player from rugby can play in the NFL... that is another question altogether. And the answer to that question in my point of view is yes....and most definately!!


My contention is that this isn't the case, just by the basic fact that rugby players are just smaller and slower than their NFL counterparts. And the increase in level of play from under 19's to professional rugby is not all that profound when compared to the level of play between those in college compared to those who make it in the NFL. Like I posted before - good grief! There isn't any possible way an 18 year old kid (Bott) who is still in high school, could make the jump to the NFL. It's physically and mentally impossible. Hell, 18-19 year old teenagers have a hard enough time making it right away on the collegiate level - forget about the NFL!


Who could not say that some of the players in the NRL and Super 12 competition could not play up there in the NFL....you want speed, you only have to look at wingers like NRL rookie Leon BoK


I can add more about Bott as an example. He is supposedly the fastest player the Broncos have had (10.8 in 100 meters) but his time comes no where NEAR to the faster players in the NFL, let alone some of the fastest times ever clocked for NFL players. The fastest times these NRL examples aren't even in the same league as those in the NFL - and Bott is much to small to put on the NFL playing field.



and super 12 waratahs and brumbies wingers such as lote tiquiri and clyde rathbone to have speed. Not only can these men run...


Speed on the rugby field, but no where near as fast as those of comparable weight in the NFL.



They can pass, tackle (and hurt trust me!) .... If you want strength on a one on one close range situation, thats what us Front rowers specialise in....


There is NO comparison with front rowes to their NFL counterparts. This is a prime example of bigger, faster and stronger........and much more violent.


Do you want a kicker....in the both codes of rugby players can kick up to 70 metrs, and have a conversion success rate of up to 90% (wilkinson and el mazri).


70 meters or 70 meters over the goalpost? The only comparable differences between kicking for points is that timing is of the essential in the American football game. While in league - people on this board know I only watch league - can stand there, think and line up the ball. At least they started that 90 second rule! LOL


I believe the rugby fly half/five eight and scrum half/half back have as much pressure perhaps more (think about this) coming from the opposing team as does a quarter back in the NFL.


This one will take time to discuss. For instance, we start EVERY play from the equivalent of a scrum - yet if that QB doesn't let the ball fly in about 2-3 seconds, he's in trouble already. In more ways than one, too.


And in a fly half, scrum half position you need to have precision as you main tool in passing the ball. Which im sure can be acquired if taken into the NFL!


Precision, timing and add extreme speed to the NFL, and you have a slight idea on what it takes to complete a measly 10 yd pass for a 1st down.


People said before that NFL is a game of tactic and skill....... and the strategies differ for defense and attack.


Where the NFL is a game of chess, rugby is a game of checkers. Where rugby is a game of bumper cars, football is waiting for the next car wreck :eek:


As rugby has become more professional and there are more players converting from league to union (in australia anyway) with more money in the game, there is a need for the game over the last 20 years or so to have developed into a game,


The NFL has also changed over the past 20+ years.


. In the NFL, you see the coaches writing out plays and they have whole teams of coaches doing this....in rugby its the players that co-ordinate the play


Again, chess vs checkers. And yet, with all this organization, the name of the game is the ability to adapt as soon as possible.


I welcome all comments on my posting, i think this is an extremely interesting topic of conversation!! and would be glad to answer any replies

Hope you can stick around for some added value/blood to this thread. Heck, I might even ask for some tips on some certain NRL matches.....beings I bet on the game Hopefully the Eels lose to the Panthers as I have something on Penrith tonight

geladi

ok....well what if i were to switch the topic of conversation around and say could NFL players play rugby?? (say if rugby all of a sudden offered bigger financial contracts than that of the NFL)

I think this would provide a much more interesting topic of conversation...

Could a NFL player run around a field for 2 x 40 min halfs?? non - stop, while putting on hit after hit, and getting tackled .... as well as rucking and mauling, scrummaging and line outs included??

This does include, putting the hit on, getting the player to ground, rucking, then getting up and proceeding play around the field.

Would a NFL player be able to keep up his concentration, in position such as a Quarter back, as a fly half (halfback) of scrum half (five-eight) does in rugby? Remember in rugby a fly half is different from that of a half back in rugby league, where the fly half has continued pressure from rucks and mauls while the half back in rugby league acts as a five eight would in rugby.

Would an NFL player be in as good of shape as a rugby player? If the NFL player were to be trained to be a rugby player, would he lose the speed and strength and agility they once possessed, in order to gain endurance and stamina??

Big difference........I think writing this post just answered a few questions.

If there was a game between a rugby (world team) Vs a American Football (world team) ....
-played say in 4 quarters, with no stoppage (we'll play 4 quarters to even up play ... no stoppage will also even up play),
-Where you have an american shaped football, but with rucks and mauls included when players are tackled....
-knock ons are not allowed, but knock backs are.
-instead of scrums (when a penalty occurs, such as a knock on) we'll have a one of those american football stop and start situations (dont know what they are called), where the ball is passed back to quarter back.
-and passes can go forward as well as backwards...

Who would win??

Would you go with the team that is more physically in shape (rugby) or team that can play more off set pieces?? (NFL) Would a QB be able to deliver a pass from the back of a ruck situation with forwards lining him up from just 2 metres away?

Would the bigger men in the NFL be able to keep up with play?

This is why comparing rugby and the NFL is like comparing a croquet with sky diving.

ozhawk66

geladi wrote:

ok....well what if i were to switch the topic of conversation around and say could NFL players play rugby?? (say if rugby all of a sudden offered bigger financial contracts than that of the NFL)

I think this would provide a much more interesting topic of conversation...

Could a NFL player run around a field for 2 x 40 min halfs?? non - stop, while putting on hit after hit, and getting tackled .... as well as rucking and mauling, scrummaging and line outs included??

This does include, putting the hit on, getting the player to ground, rucking, then getting up and proceeding play around the field.



I'll tell you what; there are a slew of collegiate RB's and LB's in the 220-245+ lb range who don't stand a chance to make it to the next level - the NFL. Yet, these athletes in comparison to their (positional) rugby counterparts, are faster and MUCH bigger. Except for the odd faster winger, these guys would be the fastest guys on the rugby field.

And don't give me this running for 2 x 40 minutes, cause they aren't running no where near the full 80 minutes. I know. I watch 2-3+ games every week.

On the average, for arguments sake, there are 2-5 players involved on any given play in league. In football, every player is involved on every play. The game of American football is so physically taxing, that once they reach the collegiate level, let alone the NFL, they can't play both sides of the ball. This also backs up another point I've had, that there is NO way the NFL could play a 29 regular season schedule like they do in the NRL down here. Heck, they have been bitching about the pre-season schedule - for years - lengthening the season too long - BECAUSE of injuries!

"Rucking and mauling, scrummaging..." ? First off, every play in American football starts off with an intense, physical and violent scrum. And "putting the hit on" ? The most watched segment on ESPN's, Monday Night Football countdown is saved for the very last. It's called JACKED UP! on the 'Hit List'. They show the most dramatic/violent hits, that don't result in injury, from a half dozen angles at times. This is cause the hitter and hittee leaves the screen so fast. Unconscious knockouts are almost a weekly happening in the NFL. I'm on my 6th season watching NRL and I have yet to see one of these, especially the sort of concussions of this magnitude.



Would a NFL player be able to keep up his concentration, in position such as a Quarter back, as a fly half (halfback) of scrum half (five-eight) does in rugby?


Concentration is one of the names of the game in the NFL. Basically, it's not how good you can play in the NFL, it's how good you can play when one is injured, in the NFL.



Would an NFL player be in as good of shape as a rugby player?


I think one thing that is lost on rugby fans about the NFL is the phenomenal shape these athletes are in and, what kind of shape they have to be in, just to absorb the punishment that is part of the sport. Trust me, when there are billions, yes, BILLIONS of dollars involved n the NFL, I can guarantee those coaches have those players in the best possible shape (some coaches more than others.) And if that player isn't, he will lose his job, real quick.

Endurance and what it takes to make it in the NFL? Take a look at this link I posted. It's actually a good/short read.

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



If the NFL player were to be trained to be a rugby player, would he lose the speed and strength and agility they once possessed, in order to gain endurance and stamina??


One of the evolutions in the game of football over the last couple of decades, in both collegiate and NFL ball, is taking fast players and moving them to a "larger" position, while keeping all or most of their speed.


Big difference........I think writing this post just answered a few questions.


I think you got a few answers you didn't expect



Would you go with the team that is more physically in shape (rugby) or team that can play more off set pieces?? (NFL)


I still don't accept the premise that rugby players are in better shape than their NFL counterparts.


Would a QB be able to deliver a pass from the back of a ruck situation with forwards lining him up from just 2 metres away?


Happens on every pass play. And with bigger men blocking his view in front of him. Remember, the QB has a good 2-3 seconds to not only pass the ball, but to make a (correct) decision. This is why many QB's fail. Their brain malfunctions under diress. LOL


Would the bigger men in the NFL be able to keep up with play?


For the most part, sure they would. They would "rest" just like the other 20 or so players on the rugby field do.....during normal play of the ball.

By the same token, there are many defensive lineman who aren't every down players. Part of this is due to personal strengths and weaknesses against either the run or passing game, but the other part is that the game is so physically taxing, some NFL coaches try to platoon their defensive linemen.


This is why comparing rugby and the NFL is like comparing a croquet with sky diving.

I try to keep the comparisons to comparable counterparts of each sport.

ozhawk66

Another prime example on the differences in the level of play from amateur rugby to pro rugby, when compared to making it the NFL from college.

A kid like Bott, who was still in high school! when he made his debut for the Broncos, was 18 years old. And he played union with little or no organized league on his resume, but he's starting for the Broncos.

Maurice Clarett who tried, but failed, to enter the NFL draft at an early age, is now screwed. He's quick becoming the poster-child on why the NFL enforces their no teenager rule. And as physical specimens as athletes go, Bott is no where near Clarett's physical stature.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=ratto_ray&id=2027609

fish_stroker

ozhawk66 wrote:

>>Quote:
Originally Posted by daveirl
Indeed, I can give you stacks of videos of Rugby hits that are as hard as those American football ones but without padding.<<


That's almost funny to me, as I've been debating rugby league (NRL) fans down here, Down Under in Sydney about the differences in nature of hitting between the two sports.

I'm going on my 6th season of watching NRL, and I have yet to see a full-fledged knockout. I'm not talkin when a guy's head gets knocked and gets loopy, or just lies there on the field. I'm talking unconscious knockouts that's hard to find in the sport of boxing. Instantanious,violent knockouts.

ESPN has been running a Monday Night segment for the past two seasons, where they save the best to the last; the top 5 hits (of the week) that DON'T result in injury.

The speed and the violent nature is amazing. Sometimes gut-wrenching. They have to cover most of these hits from different angles, just by the fact that the speed of these hits, takes the scene out of the camera eye.

The bottom line: there are more injuries in football as opposed to rugby and the severity of those injuries are more severe, in nature.

dude i play rugby for an irish school and firstly i can say without a problem that iv seen over 20 knockouts!! and i only play senior schools level(under 18's) and 1 of my mates have had minor(very minor but still) braindamage!!

and as for scrum caps all they stop is colly flower ears nuthing to do wit protecting ur head as i havve 1 and can say wit no problem that the dont do anything protection wise!!
and as for ppl saying nfl players go rugby!! half of dem cudnt hack it i suppose a reciever or sumthing mite have a shot but hed have to get his fitness up and a blocker wudnt even have a chance!!!!

fish_stroker

id also like to point out that like if u wer playing a game of rugby wit nfl players den it wud be like for example for those of u who know hayes who is the biggest player on the irish teamit wud be like makeing a team of them like powerful and quick but not quick enuf dat u cud make a team out of em!!
whereas rugby has a perfect balance!speed endurance and strangth and it takes alls if anythiing when u see a back going to take on a prop running ful out in nfl u only c big players hit the big players whereas in rugby even the smallest guy can take out the biggest and is expected to!

Pherekydes

fish_stroker wrote:

i suppose a reciever or sumthing mite have a shot but hed have to get his fitness up and a blocker wudnt even have a chance!!!!

Haha, You're totally ignorant of the fitness levels of NFL receivers.

If Nigel Walker, a High Hurdler, has enough endurance to play Rugby, then an NFL WR, RB or DB would have more than enough.

fish_stroker

im ot being ignorant but those players are used to doing a sprint stopping doing another sprint etc...whereas in rugby u can go through an infinate amount of plays without stopping! they get up and run again without stoppin!

Pherekydes

A rugby match lasts 80 mins, the ball's in play for about 45 mins. There isn't time for an infinite amount of plays.

And you can't "get up and run again without stopping" by definition.

And whether a football game is stop-start or not is immaterial; the skill position players in NFL have tremendous endurance.

fish_stroker

regaurdless of ur endurace theyve been trained differently they spent der lives playing it differently they wud need to be trained to play rugby do the running training a rugby played does!like a sprinter doing cross country it can be done but it takes training!! im not saying der not as fit cos dey are but they are in a different way!

but even if they can run can they tackle? can they pass? can the get beaten to the ground and get back up quickly to run on! dats the diference in rugby! it takes more wel rounded players whereas nfl is based around specialised players its a different game! im not saying it wud be any easier for a rugby player to play nfl im jus saying dat either way its gonna take alot of work!!

ozhawk66

fish_stroker wrote:

regaurdless of ur endurace theyve been trained differently they spent der lives playing it differently they wud need to be trained to play rugby do the running training a rugby played does!like a sprinter doing cross country it can be done but it takes training!! im not saying der not as fit cos dey are but they are in a different way!

but even if they can run can they tackle? can they pass? can the get beaten to the ground and get back up quickly to run on! dats the diference in rugby! it takes more wel rounded players whereas nfl is based around specialised players its a different game! im not saying it wud be any easier for a rugby player to play nfl im jus saying dat either way its gonna take alot of work!!

You need to read the postings since this thread began to find out how far yor behind in the debate and how little you do know of American football.

Come back to us when you do.

fish_stroker

ozhawk66 wrote:

You need to read the postings since this thread began to find out how far yor behind in the debate and how little you do know of American football.

Come back to us when you do.

dude get over urself! how do u no how much i no bout american football? u dont so stop thinking u no everything!
as for my not knowing things, what i said is accurate! u didnt dispute dat cos u no its right! so dont imply i no nothing when everything i said is pretty much right!

Pherekydes

fish_stroker wrote:

how do u no how much i no bout american football?
as for my not knowing things, what i said is accurate! u didnt dispute dat cos u no its right! so dont imply i no nothing when everything i said is pretty much right!

What you said is not accurate. You claim that NFL players haven't much endurance:

reciever or sumthing mite have a shot but hed have to get his fitness up

That is wrong.

in nfl u only c big players hit the big players

Wrong again. You've never watched a match.

whereas in rugby u can go through an infinate amount of plays

Your ignorance of your own sport is mind boggling.

they get up and run again without stoppin

You'll have to give us a demonstration of this. Pure nonsense.

how much i no bout american football?

u no nuttin bout murikan futbaw