Jump to content


Photo

Pro Rugby Vs. Nfl Players


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#46 Shoue

Shoue

    X-S Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 108 posts

Posted 05 February 2007 - 06:55 PM

um.. have you guys have ever Lawrence Taylor. Anyway, to say that an NFL player is not as tough as a rugby player is just flat out wrong. NFL players have trained their entire life and beat out hundreds of thousands of other people just for their shot at NFL football. Linebackers who weigh 240 pounds can run flat out faster than any rugby player. And any football player would gladly get stitches during a game and get back out there, but they are million dollar investments. However I'm basing this off American rugby players, and I hope the rest of the world makes fun of them because they are pretty unimpressive.

#47 deadparrot

deadparrot

    X-S Messiah

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 05 February 2007 - 07:33 PM

No matter how old this thread is...


I have played both Rugby and American Football in school (yes, in England!). When we play rugby, arms get broken, knees get dislocated, and faces get stamped on.

When we play American Football (full contact, no pads), everyone walks away just slightly muddy.

In my personal opinion, American Football is dead boring to play, but it's an improvement over Football (personally, I don't like it - call me crazy if you wish!). However, rugby is fast-paced and doesn't stop unless we have a serious injury or a lighning strike near the pitch.

In my opinion, NFL players may have a chance in a fair game, but if you play dirty (like most of our guys) with full on face punches in the scrum and knees into the jaw, most of them would find themselves lying in hospital with serious concussions.

#48 gasclown

gasclown

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,128 posts
  • Location:Brisvegas
  • Xbox Version:v1.4
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 05 February 2007 - 08:35 PM

Rugby with a doubt... anyone saying otherwise is either blinded by bias or has never watched a pro game of rugby or played the sport properly.

I garantee you it is only North Americans who would back NFL players over their rugby counterparts. The only thing NFL players could possibly have over rugby is speed (generally speaking) and even that is debatable.

#49 rugbycanada

rugbycanada

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 19 March 2007 - 06:34 PM

In terms of pure sporting aspect, comparing football (american) and rugby is like comparing Butter and Plastic, they are one molecule appart. Yet you don't ask for a knife and a piece of plactic to put of your toast in the morning. Do you?!?!

As far as compraing UFC to boxing goes: its true, boxers might be more fit (football) but NEVER in all athletic areas (pure strength, strength endurance, cardio endurance, mental capacity to perform, agility, speed, technique, attitudinal and knowlege). UFC (rugby) requires all of the above.

A perfect example of the hightened requirements of being a professional rugby player follows the below 2 month training regimen:

Jason Eaton has packed on eight kilograms.
Mils Muliaina is five kilograms heavier than he was in December.
The seams of Keven Mealamu's shirts appear to be having a hard time holding back the advancing mass of muscle
Ali Williams, once a sapling, looks more an oak tree.

"If you took a guy off the street and put him through the same programme as the All Blacks, he would make some improvements. But he would be starting from a much lower base so he would maybe go from being at 40 per cent of his athletic potential to say 60 per cent," Blair told the Herald.

"But with the All Blacks, who already have been doing a lot of training, they are probably starting at 80 per cent. "


If we took the NZ All Blacks, Indianapolis Colts and the Italien Soccer team and threw them into a "neutral" activity testing pure athleticism and not specific skills, NZ would undoubtedly come out ontop.

Soccer has by far the greatest cardio (arobic fitness), football the greatest emphasis on technique, maturity and correct performance, meanwhile rugby has a high quality requirement for anaerobic to arobic transitioning (for 90 minutes continuous), knowledge and adversity, and ofcourse pure and endurance based strength.

Rugby evolved from Soccer as soon as strength and techniques needed to be perfected in order to create a more competitive and high excellence game. Football (American) was last to follow by been developed due to urban pressure for aggresivness and Ad compaigning.

#50 Tony42077

Tony42077

    X-S Senior Member

  • XS-BANNED
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 27 April 2007 - 06:33 AM

QUOTE(rugbycanada @ Mar 19 2007, 06:41 PM) View Post

Rugby evolved from Soccer as soon as strength and techniques needed to be perfected in order to create a more competitive and high excellence game. Football (American) was last to follow by been developed due to urban pressure for aggresivness and Ad compaigning.

So at what point did strength and techniques need to be perfected? It sounds like you've played one rugby too many. Are you just making this up as you go? So we're supposed to believe that U.S. football was created to quench the blood-thirsty urbanites and for commercials. American football was formed as a spin-off from rugby football. The reason why we wear helmets is to protect our teeth, which is something that most Euros aren't too worried about (have you seen their teeth).

Off-topic- Why don't Europeans take better care of their teeth? They must have some nasty smelling breath.

The NFL (or any top U.S. sport) doesn't have any advertising on their uniforms, while almost all professional rugby and soccer teams have advertising on their jerseys. Shameless

If these Euro-rugby players are such great athletes, then why aren't any of them playing in the NFL? A top NFL player's salary is more than double than that of a whole Pro-Rugby team. All of the best U.S. soccer players go to Europe when they want to get paid better, as the U.S. doesn't care enough about soccer to pay it's players top salries.

It seems to me that if these rugby players are so great, they would take one season off to play in the NFL. The money they would make in one season would be more than they make in an entire career of pro-rugby.

It seems to me that money talks and BS walks

#51 epsilon72

epsilon72

    X-S Freak

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,213 posts
  • Location:Arizona
  • Interests:updating my interests section of my profile
  • Xbox Version:v1.6
  • 360 version:none

Posted 27 April 2007 - 07:10 AM

I'm an american, and I say rugby wins.


#52 Arvarden

Arvarden

    X-S Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 297 posts
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 27 April 2007 - 01:12 PM

QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Apr 27 2007, 06:40 AM) View Post


If these Euro-rugby players are such great athletes, then why aren't any of them playing in the NFL? A top NFL player's salary is more than double than that of a whole Pro-Rugby team. All of the best U.S. soccer players go to Europe when they want to get paid better, as the U.S. doesn't care enough about soccer to pay it's players top salries.

It seems to me that if these rugby players are so great, they would take one season off to play in the NFL. The money they would make in one season would be more than they make in an entire career of pro-rugby.

It seems to me that money talks and BS walks


The reason why our rugby players do not migrate to the NFL for a season or two is because they don't like wearing skin tight lycra. Apparently wearing skin tight lycra around the crotch can reduce a mans sperm count making him feel less of a man.

I've always wondered why NFL players have squeaky voices...now I know why.


#53 Tony42077

Tony42077

    X-S Senior Member

  • XS-BANNED
  • PipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Xbox Version:unk
  • 360 version:unknown

Posted 27 April 2007 - 04:45 PM

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Apr 27 2007, 01:19 PM) View Post

The reason why our rugby players do not migrate to the NFL for a season or two is because they don't like wearing skin tight lycra. Apparently wearing skin tight lycra around the crotch can reduce a mans sperm count making him feel less of a man.

I've always wondered why NFL players have squeaky voices...now I know why.

Once again you have nothing constructive to add to a thread. Justing trolling again huh? You really are one pathetic piece of Euro-trash. Enjoy your rotten teeth tongue.gif

#54 deadparrot

deadparrot

    X-S Messiah

  • Head Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Xbox Version:v1.0
  • 360 version:v1 (xenon)

Posted 27 April 2007 - 05:03 PM

QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Apr 27 2007, 06:40 AM) View Post
The reason why we wear helmets is to protect our teeth

Firstly, that's a load of bullshit. You don't need a helmet to protect your teeth. A simple mouth guard is plenty of protection. I play both rugby and american football at school, only one person wears a mouth guard and that's because he plays for the city club.

QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Apr 27 2007, 06:40 AM) View Post

Off-topic- Why don't Europeans take better care of their teeth?

Second, we're not all like Austin Powers.

QUOTE(Tony42077 @ Apr 27 2007, 06:40 AM) View Post
If these Euro-rugby players are such great athletes, then why aren't any of them playing in the NFL? A top NFL player's salary is more than double than that of a whole Pro-Rugby team. All of the best U.S. soccer players go to Europe when they want to get paid better, as the U.S. doesn't care enough about soccer to pay it's players top salries.

It seems to me that if these rugby players are so great, they would take one season off to play in the NFL. The money they would make in one season would be more than they make in an entire career of pro-rugby.

Rugby is not about money. It's about playing the game and having pride in representing your club. Athletic ability is not defined by your salary.

Now, NFL is much like Football/soccer in the UK. It's all about money.

As the phrase goes, "Rugby is a hooligans sport played by gentlemen, football is a gentleman's sport played by hooligans."

#55 ruggamon

ruggamon

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 01:48 AM

QUOTE(Shoue @ Feb 6 2007, 06:31 AM) View Post

um.. have you guys have ever Lawrence Taylor. Anyway, to say that an NFL player is not as tough as a rugby player is just flat out wrong. NFL players have trained their entire life and beat out hundreds of thousands of other people just for their shot at NFL football. Linebackers who weigh 240 pounds can run flat out faster than any rugby player. And any football player would gladly get stitches during a game and get back out there, but they are million dollar investments. However I'm basing this off American rugby players, and I hope the rest of the world makes fun of them because they are pretty unimpressive.



#56 ruggamon

ruggamon

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 11 May 2007 - 02:18 AM

Kiaora everyone thought i might add my 5cents in.NFL athletes are bigger and faster than Rugby players? Go on pull the other one. I've read NFL stat's like the 40yard dash bla bla bla etc.... In Rugby we gauge athletic ability on a 3km time trial and for exceleration the 40m dash.That's 42-43yard dash.Plus 2-3hr's hard training,and a couple hr's pushing weight's.I wonder?Have you ever heard of Jonah Lomu? he weigh's 260-270lb"s run's the 100m sprint in 10.65 and 40m dash in 4.2 seconds. I've never heard of any athlete that big and that fast ever. I suppose that's why the great NFL tried to poach him.WHY?when your got lawrence taylor to match Jonah Lomu stat's or can he? I await your reply and NFL statistics for comparison. chur bro!

Edited by ruggamon, 11 May 2007 - 02:25 AM.


#57 clarkt

clarkt

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 02 June 2007 - 03:30 PM

firstly its non comaprable as many NFL players are on steroids. And no one say there drugs tests are clean because my friends brother plays for an NFL team and they're warned as to whena drug test is going to happen therefore being able to pass a test.

secondly being a rugby player i am slightly biased but many have said on here that a rugby player couldnt hit/tackle like an NFL player. Bearing this in mind id like to see how many NFl players could have tackled or blasted through Jonah Lomu when he was in his prime becasue i bet there wouldnt be many.

#58 Solikos

Solikos

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 27 August 2007 - 05:34 PM

I'm American, played both in high school and still follow up with both.

For me the prize would go to Rugby for individual over-all "in-shape and athletic ability."

Why?

American Football is a sport geared at specific tasks. Individuals hone their bodies to complete that task better than any other. This happens with any sport:

A Quarterback has the arm and accuracy
A Receiver has the speed and agility
A Lineback has burst speed and power
And so on...

All rugby players encompass the focus of play, making rugby players are more versatile due to their training and how they hone their bodies and skills. A Forward (similar to a linebacker) may run the ball 10 times in a game, kick the ball, score points, etc. A Back (similar to a Receiver) may make 20 scrums (like trying to block a line backer) in a game. There are also essentially no breaks - you are constantly running between 30-80% speed with many burst sprints mixed in.



For those saying NFL players hit harder? Of course they do, they have protection and thus are able to. Tackling in rugby is NOT the same as tackling in American Football - if you attempted it you would be dead or wishing you were dead in no time. Though I will say that no matter how hard you are hit in either game, it certainly will put you to the test in Rugby.

This isn't a knock to American Football, it's just realizing the specialization that goes into each sport. The more diverse a sport, the more "athletic" the average player will be.

American Football likely has faster runners, harder hitters, further kickers, etc... But rugby will put all of those attributes into a single package.

In the end, it's near impossible to judge individual players such as Lawrence Taylor or Jonah Lomu. They were both great athletes in their own respect. Both would likely excel at the other sport, but probably not to the same magnitude.

It's like saying "Barry Bonds could have been a gold medalist tennis player because he's got lots of home runs... And look at how big his arms are, imagine how hard he could hit the ball."

Then we see how Michael Jordan did with his change. blink.gif

#59 ironnica

ironnica

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 12 January 2008 - 05:55 PM

I saw some of toni blah blah's bollox comments and had to register just to try explain somethin to the thick moron.

If nfl players were to try play rugby, it would be a whitewash, any tough man on the pitch would be gone after the first play for maybe 2 or 3 plays.

Although due to game adaptation, the rugby players would probably be beaten, but not by alot. Due to the fact that apart from qb position, rugby has every other position rolled into every player. That and we'd be short a squad of like 30 players tongue.gif

NFL players are fuelled by money, not by pride. This pride gets rugby players up after every play.

Nfl Clubs are given way more money than they know what to do with, so rugby has to compensate with sponsorship on jerseys.

Ronan O'Gara Irish Rugby player, turned down a very generous offer from the dolphins, because of his love for the game.

Id also imagine that he would get pissed off with just having to kick straight ahead of him rather than, as rugby players take kicks, at huge angles. And the fact that he'd have to turn to a blob on d sidelines while waiting for a play.

There should be no debate that a level of an athlete should take into account many skills, not just one.

What is the point in just having strength, or just being fast? To fill just one purpose.

As i said, rugby players have an all round athleticism that they fulfill for 40 minutes continuously a side.

I watched a video on youtube on the hardest nfl hits, and could honestly say that I, a 5' 6 lightweight could have taken all of them except for one, where the guy landed on his head and body went back.

http://ie.youtube.co...feature=related
1min 47 sec into that.

From watching NFL games iv also seen that a running back often waddles in for touchdown because too many opposing players jumped for him, leaving their faces in the shit, and him to keep waddling.

Conditioning: Rugby players cant use steroids, so they're natural powerhouses, who may not have all the strength but wont take long in taking down the opposing player first time.

Its seen in rugby that if a tackle is missed, its your fault. but with NFL and all these people jumping around seems to be effort enough made to justify 10 people missing a tackle.

NFL is where the crunch tackles get you money, The missed tackles, the dive is still good for tv.

#60 joshlangy5

joshlangy5

    X-S Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 0 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:34 PM

Being English (England 24 - France 13 Woo) i am obviously going to be a bit biased, but i hope you take this as a valid arguement:
1. Obviously other people on the forum are biased too, and just insult others when they have not got a good comeback arguement.
2. More violence dosn't = better/more skillful game.
3. No one has really outlined what you are looking at. At the start it says Athletes, but both sets of players have athletic qualities, albeit from both ends of the spectrum. One person said that NFL players are the best in America and therfore the world.
If you were to put the two sets of players into a game, whther it be AF or Rugby Union, you would therefore have to get the best rugby players from around the world. This would mean the likes of Johnny Wilkinson (best goal kicker in the world-fact), Bryan Habana (Potentially the fastest player in union at the moment), The Caveman (France) Andrew Sheridan (a big pusher in the scrum, despite his relative size), not to mention many other players that would make the shortlist for the best rugby team. This is not forgetting Rugby League players who swap disciplines for their country e.g. Lesley "The Volcano" Vainikolo and Jason Robinson. These players are built like brick outhouses and bloody fast to boot. when watching said players in the Union world cup, they were taking on forwards twice their size and winning.
4. I occasionally watch American Football when it is on Sky Sports, and do not find the tackles that "big" as some of the americans are claiming. Like someone said, the big tackles shown in that rugby video don't happen all the time, and it is the same with American football. And whoever said that Rugby was senseless violence, why in AF does every player on the pitch need to be fighting over nothing? Rugby players fight FOR the ball, AF players just fight.
5. I fell it must also be said that Rugby does appear to be the "harder" man's game. Although the tackles aren't as violent they come thick and fast. Anyone see Wilko at the weekend? Fat lip, bleeding out of his mouth and still scored many drop goals and conversions. American player hurt? He's stretchered off to the expensive locker room with ice baths, hot baths multiple phsyios etc.

However, i don't thick there will ever be a straight game for comparison, as Rugby players have one thing instilled in them through years of training, AF players another.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users