American Football vs. Rugby

[KZNSharksFan]

I'm sorry but I'm have a hard time believing that guys like Adrian Peterson, Ladanian Tomlinson and Larry Johnson can't adapt to the game of rugby. Sure , the majority of them wouldn't be able to adapt, but there are significant amount who, if they knew the rules, would make a seamless transition from playing American football to rugby.

Thats just a stupid statement. Rugby and NFL are two completely different games.Do you really think that someone who has never played the game would "seamlessly" fit into rugby? It takes years just to develop the pass, let alone the mental grasp of the rules, the nuances etc etc. It takes a guy 20 years of development from the age of 5 in most cases to become a solid international rugby player.


[/quote]

I suppose my post was ambiguous as to its meaning. The arguement is not whether they could switch to rugby and automatically be superstars, because it would be ludicrous to suggest that. The arguement I'm making, is that their size and type of athleticism would lean itself to rugby had they grown up with it. I'm saying that you can be that size and strength and quickness and speed, and still compete for 80 minutes. It can be done, but those athletes aren't in rugby. That is the basis for my arguement, not that they could switch and be fantastic.
[/quote]

Yet again, an equal proportion of freaks are born into rugby as American Football. To say that Jonah Lomu or Daniel Carter etc etc are not one of "those athletes" is ludicrous.

 

[DC]

I'm sorry but I'm have a hard time believing that guys like Adrian Peterson, Ladanian Tomlinson and Larry Johnson can't adapt to the game of rugby. Sure , the majority of them wouldn't be able to adapt, but there are significant amount who, if they knew the rules, would make a seamless transition from playing American football to rugby.

Thats just a stupid statement. Rugby and NFL are two completely different games.Do you really think that someone who has never played the game would "seamlessly" fit into rugby? It takes years just to develop the pass, let alone the mental grasp of the rules, the nuances etc etc. It takes a guy 20 years of development from the age of 5 in most cases to become a solid international rugby player.

I suppose my post was ambiguous as to its meaning. The arguement is not whether they could switch to rugby and automatically be superstars, because it would be ludicrous to suggest that. The arguement I'm making, is that their size and type of athleticism would lean itself to rugby had they grown up with it. I'm saying that you can be that size and strength and quickness and speed, and still compete for 80 minutes. It can be done, but those athletes aren't in rugby. That is the basis for my arguement, not that they could switch and be fantastic.
[/quote]

Yet again, an equal proportion of freaks are born into rugby as American Football. To say that Jonah Lomu or Daniel Carter etc etc are not one of "those athletes" is ludicrous. [/quote]

They arent end of story, Lomu maybe Carter no

They are brilliant rugby players but they do not match up physically with NFL players in terms of strength, size, or speed.

 

[Brodizzle]

They are brilliant rugby players but they do not match up physically with NFL players in terms of strength, size, or speed.
[/b]

Ask even the most experience international rugby player, for example in a interview before the world cup Mortlock I think is was, admitted he doesn't know all the rules of the game despite having played all his life, and the same has been said by other elite rugby players. How do you honestly think that a nation such as the USA, which have a game as basic (in comparison to Union) as Gridiron, can adapt to such a complicated game such as Union, where a lifetime could be spent learning and interpreting the different rules. There is a reason that many Union players also have doctorates and various tertiary degrees, they need to be smart enough to understand the game in its intricacies, do you think these athletes who spend thier life in the gym or on the field, to do one single, simple act, can move over to such a complex game as rugby union? If the leaguies are only successful a quarter of the time, despite the closeness of the codes, NFL players have no chance.

 

[ikvat]

Imagine that during a century, we (frenche) have been ref by guys that didn’t speak a word of French.

 

[fcukernaut]

<div class='quotemain'>
They are brilliant rugby players but they do not match up physically with NFL players in terms of strength, size, or speed.
[/b]

Ask even the most experience international rugby player, for example in a interview before the world cup Mortlock I think is was, admitted he doesn't know all the rules of the game despite having played all his life, and the same has been said by other elite rugby players. How do you honestly think that a nation such as the USA, which have a game as basic (in comparison to Union) as Gridiron, can adapt to such a complicated game such as Union, where a lifetime could be spent learning and interpreting the different rules. There is a reason that many Union players also have doctorates and various tertiary degrees, they need to be smart enough to understand the game in its intricacies, do you think these athletes who spend thier life in the gym or on the field, to do one single, simple act, can move over to such a complex game as rugby union? If the leaguies are only successful a quarter of the time, despite the closeness of the codes, NFL players have no chance. [/b][/quote]

Gridiron is not a simple game, in fact it is far more complex for than a rugby game. That doesn't mean it's a better game but it is more intricate and detailed that rugby. What makes rugby great is by the fact that it doesn't get bogged down by bullshit and complexities. The simplicity of it is it's beauty.

We're in agreement about not being able to automatically slip in and be great. When I said "athlete's like" I meant in that body type. People were saying that they couldn't last a full 80 minutes in their body type. That is a rediculous argument to make. These guys, who I've referred to, don't just train one single way. They are multi-dementional athletes, that if were grown up in New Zealand playing rugby, would be dominant players.

 

[Brodizzle]

All these 'what ifs' are a null point, if these NFL athletes were so great at least one would have made the switch? For no other reason then to try it out. I mean, Tai McIssac, the hooker for the Force and Wallaby last year took up rugby at the age of 24 after playing water polo of all sports. Yet curiously no superhuman NFL converts....

I think by saying rugby is simple, that's incorrect, you are thinking of league here. The plays that each individual player does is extremely simple, for example it's all a single role, while the coach creates the overall strategies. A bunch of meatheads shoved into action by thier coach. Rugby union creates players who can think on thier feat and create a game out of nothing, NFL creates players who can go through the motions to do what they are told by thier coach.

Union simplistic.....wow....

 

[Dmx#1]

Okay I've seen people from both sides switch ( friends etc) I found that people who originally played football found it harder to adapt. A Lot of rugby players Ive seen switch to American Football and they found it easier. Although there is the odd few who cant manage to get into the mental game of football

 

[fcukernaut]

All these 'what ifs' are a null point, if these NFL athletes were so great at least one would have made the switch? For no other reason then to try it out. I mean, Tai McIssac, the hooker for the Force and Wallaby last year took up rugby at the age of 24 after playing water polo of all sports. Yet curiously no superhuman NFL converts....[/b]

There's no NFL converts, because there is no money in it. Even being a scrub sitting on the end of the bench makes about as much as the highest paid rugby player. The star players make about ten times even the highest paid rugby player. Would you give that up? The vast majority of NFL players were four sport stars growing up (basketball, football, baseball, track), then when they went to university most of them just stuck to football/track or football/basketball or just football. Then they made their choice to avoid injury and picked football because of the lucrative contracts that awaited them the moment they choose to leave university.

I think by saying rugby is simple, that's incorrect, you are thinking of league here. The plays that each individual player does is extremely simple, for example it's all a single role, while the coach creates the overall strategies. A bunch of meatheads shoved into action by thier coach. Rugby union creates players who can think on thier feat and create a game out of nothing, NFL creates players who can go through the motions to do what they are told by thier coach.

Union simplistic.....wow.... [/b]

Sure there are complexities and subtleties of the laws, but the game at the top level is becoming more and more simplistic the deeper we go into professionalism. In recent results we've seen a basic game, play defence and kick for territory. The game is being dominated by defence so much that it is stifling creativity. What we see now is, first five gets the ball, kicks it, fullback counters then chips, rinse repeat until the ball finds touch. The game is simple in concept and requires dynamic, creative players to make it complex, otherwise it gets bogged down in gameplans and coaching points.

 

[Ripper]

All these 'what ifs' are a null point, if these NFL athletes were so great at least one would have made the switch? For no other reason then to try it out. I mean, Tai McIssac, the hooker for the Force and Wallaby last year took up rugby at the age of 24 after playing water polo of all sports. Yet curiously no superhuman NFL converts....[/b]

The minimum contract from memory for an NFL Player is $350,000 US - That's probably than what Carter earns. JaMarcus Russell, the number one overall draft pick this year signed a US$68 million, 5 year deal, with US$32 million guaranteed i.e he could've turned up to his first ever team practice, blew out his knee while running a lap, be forced to retire and walk away with that 32 million. That's why you never see NFL players go over.

 

[jeffb]

Wigan had an American Footballer in the 60's. Chuck Wiseman, think his name was. Only played a few gams.

 

[KZNSharksFan]

Well, some people don't know when they're beaten. This is a senseless thread if sense is absent from some of the participants

 

[Aviatora]

Rugby is a superior sport to gridiron. But then I wouldn't be on this here forum if I didn't think so, right?

 

[Z-Town Pirate]

I often wonder how the best American Football and Rugby players would fare in the other sport. I have no doubt some of the beasts of the Gridiron could transition to a game of playing both-sides and endurance, because most did it growing up. The Linebackers, Running Backs, Defensive Ends, and Wide Receivers make the most natural transition to Rugby. Those are the beasts with incredible size, strength, and speed who can punish by running the ball or tackling an opponent. And lots of high schools play football with an option-offense, so the dummy pass, pitch at the last second laterals are very familiar.

The hulking blobs on the offensive line who primarily block and can't run long distances would be lost in Rugby. Or they'd slim down.

Oh, and to answer the question:

I prefer American Football, because it is what I grew up watching. The intricacies of play-calling make for a very creative game. It's like Rugby starting out with a scrum and set piece every time someone is tackled.

But I love watching Rugby, because it reminds me a great deal of what American Football used to be. Especially the way people tackle each other. It looks more like what you saw in the 1950s before face masks and superior pads, because tackling someone without good pads hurts a defender. Not a lot of arm-tackling in Rugby, but also not as much head-hunting. The pads make for some incredible hits, but then the crowd watches the officials peel a guy off the ground who may never walk again.

 

[Csaba]

I prefer the rugby because it's a continous game like european football. I think the stops in the American Football is very boring.

 

[holycheezit]

I like rugby better, I played American Football for a few years. I played defense and when the offense is playing it is very boring, and you freeze you ass off when you stand on the sideline.

 

[Gone]

I prefer rugby of course

 

[USA_Rugby]

I think both are awesome sports and I have played both. Both are also fun to play as well. I go to a lot of american football games, and here in america, you get more people at an American Football game than you ever would for a rugby match. It could be All Blacks vs England, free tickets for all, and probobly only a couple thousand would show up.

 

[nam97]

I think both are awesome sports and I have played both. Both are also fun to play as well. I go to a lot of american football games, and here in america, you get more people at an American Football game than you ever would for a rugby match. It could be All Blacks vs England, free tickets for all, and probobly only a couple thousand would show up.
[/b]

What? I'm pretty sure England vs NZ would sell out even if the ticket prices were soaring. Domestic matches in France at the Stade de France for example often pull 80,000 which is a sell out, and that's just domestic. Now, if the tickets were free for NZ v England (as you say), heads would be rolling in order to get a ticket mate.

 

[DC]

<div class='quotemain'>
I think both are awesome sports and I have played both. Both are also fun to play as well. I go to a lot of american football games, and here in america, you get more people at an American Football game than you ever would for a rugby match. It could be All Blacks vs England, free tickets for all, and probobly only a couple thousand would show up.
[/b]

What? I'm pretty sure England vs NZ would sell out even if the ticket prices were soaring. Domestic matches in France at the Stade de France for example often pull 80,000 which is a sell out, and that's just domestic. Now, if the tickets were free for NZ v England (as you say), heads would be rolling in order to get a ticket mate. [/b][/quote]

Overall the attendances are higher, BUT rugby has just become professional in the past 10 to 11 years i expect to see large attendances in the next 10-15 years

but if tickets for NZ v England were free i'd be rollin heads to pick those up... then sell them on Ebay for a 100,000,000% profit..

 

[SaintsFan_Webby]

but if tickets for NZ v England were free i'd be rollin heads to pick those up... then sell them on Ebay for a 100,000,000% profit..
[/b]

$0 multiplied by 100,000,000 is still $0.

Nice profit.