Taniwha B in football, you run plays. During a play, the offensive lineman have to make sure the defensive lineman don't get to the quarterback or ball carrier if they are there. The defensive lineman have to try do get there. The receivers run routes, which are covered by corners and safeties. On some run plays, the relievers block. The linebackers can cover receivers, sit back in coverage, or rush. Same with the safeties. The running backs have to block, receive, or run the ball. There are fake plays and trick plays. All of these things depend on what plays the coaches decide to use. Teams go through tapes to help prepare themselves against the style of play another team uses. If this isn't planning, I don't know what is.
SIG GOTSIG! Rugby is way more dangerous than NFL are you alright? No padding and short breaks you literally have to be a tough cardio freak of nature to survive. The slightest wrong move or tackle can destroy your life
Lol how many rugby players have died from head injurys or much less from any injury. American Football is a very dangerous sport, and that's why the padding is required. Look at the evolution of the helmets, they started off not wearing any helmet almost 100 years ago to what you see players wearing today. That pretty much speaks for itself.
NFL players would be red carded on every play because they dont know how to properly tackle. They just now practice proper tackle, where as rugby players are light years ahead.
Don't Know i can tell you've never played football because tackling is 90% of practice. Small football players are taught how to tackle under the waist while most other football players learn how to run full speed to take out people. That's what makes football hits harder, on top of that football players on average are a lot bigger than rugby players. And pads don't do shit, in fact it makes it more painful when the pads clip onto ur body when getting tackled. Pads were issued in the first place because too many people were dying in football hits. Think about it, if pads make football players invincible, why is it that the football has a higher death count than rugby?
There are plenty of rugby players that could play football and plenty of football players that could play rugby. They are very similar athletes. Guys that go to football in the US would go to rugby if they grew up in Australasia, England etc, vice versa the rugby guys if they grew up in football.
the old saying goes "football is a gentleman's sport played by hooligans while rugby is a hooligans sport played by gentlemen" i feel like if rugby players would play football (not all of them of course) it would be boring because football is a sport built around showmanship and drama and keeping momentum. On the other hand if football players played rugby without a few years of training they would probably die due to spinal injuries.
krem1able bro majority of sports are respectable. just because american football has lots of dick heads that play in the nfl doesnt mean the sport is disrespectable it just means the sports reputation has been damaged by those responsible for taking care of it. rugby has the irb that takes good care of rugby worldwide so rugby is lucky. another tarnished sport is football as in soccer
Nathan Kult men like the physicality of the sports. contrary to popular thought some people are quite careful when they play rugby. when i used to play rugby some people would walk over people lying in the ruck while i used to tip toe around them. it looked silly af but id prefer that to standing on them with cleets. there was other stuff id do so that i could try prevent myself or others from getting hurt dangerously. if i saw someone in the ruck try to clotheline a team mate out id pull them back even if it meant we lost the ball. theres some other players like that too.
The thing I hate about NFL is how stop start it is, like that guy said you play for 3 seconds and then it stops and the amount of aderts and constant analysm makes it worse. It's just far to slow for me to enjoy, I'd actually enjoy it if it wasn't for that
Same here. And how stupid that you're only allowed to pass the ball to one player at a time, and if he gets tackled, they start over. What a stupid sport! Whenever my friends make me watch, I always make the joke, "Why are they showing a football game in between commercials?"
That's because strategy is involved, also if the NFL was nonstop play(not sure how'd that even work) for minutes at a time the entire roster would be dead by halftime, it's an extremely punishing sport
J SteeZ I like that you say gladiators. 10-15second tops. Ummmm, doesn't sound like gladiators to me. They should try going full on for 5 minutes. There might be only 2 left standing cause the rest can't make it pass 60seconds. What a joke 🙈
Rugby is a battle. Football is a war. Rugby you don’t stop. It’s one long fight. Football is a series of tactical battles. Its a defense and offense playing a mental game with each other. Every play is well thought out and much more complicated than it looks on screen. Every player has a slightly different task that changes every play and sometimes they have to do it on the fly and wing it. That’s what makes football great to me. Don’t underestimate the physicality of it either. Those linemen are 300+ pounds of unrelenting force hitting each other with the force of car crashes every single play. After 100+ snaps that shit will kill any average person or put them in the hospital. These dudes take serious drugs to help with the pain of a 16 game season and play through injuries. I have a huge respect for rugby and the players. They are tough as hell too. It can’t be easy running for so long without stopping and taking hits then getting back up right away and running again, but both sports take another level of toughness and you can’t talk shit on either of them.
petnzme01 if you don’t get the concept of war vs a battle then you’re probably too slow to understand a sport like football anyways. Tf are talking about weak? Don’t act like rugby players don’t take pain killers too. Average rugby player wouldn’t survive a season in the trenches of an American football game. AF players are proven to be bigger, stronger, faster than Rugby players so don’t even come at me with that shit. Rugby players have tried to play in the NFL and not a single one has been successful, so don’t act like you’re tough shit if you play a second hand sport that doesn’t even scratch the surface in popularity compared to AF.
I’ve played football my whole life but decided to go out for rugby for off season football training... I played my first game yesterday and I’m not gunna lie it was so fun... I still like football better it’s definitely a little more fun but I think it’s because my school takes football way more seriously than rugby and if we took rugby seriously it could be an even match.... football is a lot more clean and planned out while rugby is more chaotic... one second the balls on one side of the field the next it’s all the way on the other... both are fun so imma have fun playin both
I played American football in high school and college. We had an Australian exchange student at my high school who had played Rugby down under and he came out for our football team. He said the hits in American football were harder, but Rugby required more endurance because there is more flow to the game, but he said the "plays" in American football were more intense. He said the pads allow for harder hitting and gang tackling is encouraged in American football. He said that the passing aspect of the American game opens the game up more and makes the receivers more vulnerable to harder hits in the open field as well. He said he was surprised the first time he was tackled in American football....he said it was like the tacklers were trying to drive him through the turf. Both are great games with some similarities. One of the downsides of American football is the cost, due to the equipment. One other thing, the games are also different and require different physical skill sets. Yes, a +300lb American football lineman wouldn't last in a game like Rugby, but that kind of endurance isn't required to play that position well. Put a 250lb Rugby player on the line in American football and he would get blown out. Most college and pro linemen are power lifter strong. One last point. There are many American football players who have run in the Olympics in the sprints right after college and then played football in the pros. www.nfl.com/photoessays/09000d5d82aed82d
I agreed with you till the end. A 250lb Rugby player would dunk every single nfl player that came towards him. You say nfl has power lifter strength but you dont see them stop a 250 lb moving force every few seconds.
@@thomatherton5759 There is "stiff arming" in American football as well. Running backs "dunk" defenders in American football. But at the same time, Rugby has more rules concerning tackling that American football doesn't. No, an NFL lineman doesn't have to stop a 250lb "moving force every few seconds", but offensive linemen do have to stop men of the same, or close to the same size from penetrating into the backfield. It's a different game. As I said, Rugby requires more endurance as the game is more fluid.
Yeah - both sports were crap back then, by our standards, that is. They were NOT spectator sports; they would have been boring to watch. For the participants, they were more a test of manhood - mainly of toughness - rather than a competition to score points. The rules of both American football and rugby have changed enormously since those days.
I've watched some of an American football game and was surprised that it stops and starts so often, up until then I thought it was pretty much just rugby with armour. To me it looked like an hour of lining up and crashing into the opposite line. Need to watch a full game at some point but it's not the best first impression. Too much on/off play.
If Rugby Players were so dominant and monster Athletes with power and speed, You think you would see more Rugby Players trying to cross over and obliterate the ameture NFL players and pocket all the Money from the NFL.... Oh wait.
good thing about rugby vs NFL - everyone gets to touch the ball - you need to play offence and defence - no breaks in play- free flowing and fluid gameplay I seriously recommend it for anyone curious- its a great game to play. it will never take over NFL - but if you're looking for a good physical game thats got movement but sick of just pushing against the same guy in the front line for 2 hours, never touching the ball- then this is it.
I thought they were actually gonna compare what the players go through... not the fans... I wanna know the longevity of players compared in both sports...
I feel like American football is 90% pre game tactics 10% execution Not trying to pick a fight, all I see is a bunch of set pieces and little open play
Most Mericans don't get to view the world in the same way that the rest of the world get's to view Merica. So it's no surprise to us to see such Merican ignorance on display.
+THE ANDROID GAMER That's just plain wrong. Rugby has more play than American Football. That in itself doesn't make either better or worse in my opinion, but saying otherwise is ignorant. I'm a chess player myself so I can't complain about waiting for the tactics and setup. However I'm also a racecar driver and there, not being able to adjust immediately is fatal. What I'm trying to say is that the amount of actual play is irrelevant as long as it's befitting of the sport.
Majidul Gwuaa yeah it's a different sport. In a way rugby is like soccer and American football is like chess. Soccer is constant play, but football is tactical execution, which like you said has multiple pieces that do different things.
As someone who has played football for 16 years and then jumped into my first rugby season rugby is brutal guys. Rugby's response to the football's lineman hits is the clearing of the ruck and the support of the ball carrier. Between that and the scrum it could be easily comparable.
British video with ancient football footage and asking rugby fans at a rugby game if rugby is better than football.. wonder why it got dislikes.. p.s. rugby looks awesome. but don't try to compare the two.
I love how the guy said 'rugby is so different because you have to concentrate for the full 7 minutes rather than a few seconds' how would he survive playing a proper 80 minute game of rugby?
What people don’t understand is that when you have a helmet and padding you feel like you can take more hits and dish out mor hits. That’s why injury’s and concussions are more prevalent in American football.
american football players have pads that weigh around 10-20 pounds(depends what position you play) and you have to run, throw , tackel with these on and if your pushing on the line if your pushing a 320 man then you will probably push a 340 man or even 2 of them
Rugby requires MUCH more endurance (I prefer football but I'll admit that) but football requires MUCH more strength among other things. Don't try to say "We need more strength for our scrums" or whatever they are called, cause our offensive and defensive line do basically whatever your scrum thing is FOR THE WHOLE GAME!!!
+MRB 187 Its totally dependent on position. The O/D line guys will on average be stronger than any rugby position, but rugby props are generally gonna be stronger than any non-linemen football players. Rugby flankers and no8s will be around the same as LBs, TEs and FBs etc etc.
I hate arguing about different sports. It's pointless. They are sports and are worth nothing more than entertainment to those that watch. So it really is pathetic when people latch onto and get personal with a certain sport and feel the need to protect it. BUT from an objective standpoint, hockey really is the most well rounded sport when it comes to physical ability. It has speed, physical play, finesse, and for the most part is non-stop fast paced game play. Doesn't make it "better", but there is definitely a lot of skill to appreciate.
Wrong. You just don`t understand rugby. Rugby players have the same amount of strategies as AF players. We just dont need a break every 4 seconds to read the next strategy
Are you fucking dumb? You can't just throw forward in rugby. You have to create a diagonal line so you don't forward pass which is illegal in rugby. So you NEED strategy to that rather than just simply throwing the ball to whoever is at the other side of the pitch. Rugby also has and needs more strategy since it lasts longer you dimwit, rather than having breaks every fucking 5 minutes.
Yeah but in rugby you can't stop and look at plays lmao we run drills or phases and we have to run these perfectly in game with only a moments notice after the scrum half calls it while you goes have 3 minutes going through a book and still make no yards
dead moose meat when I look at rugby I see people tossing a ball back and fourth when they get hit. They run down field and when they get hit they pitch it, a middle school football playbook has more strategy that professional rugby. Everyone has a job and if one person doesnt preform then that play is a bust. And yes football has breaks because they need to lay out an actual fucking play rather than run forward and lateral before you go down. And unlike rugby or soccer you lay your heart out on every single play, you don't have yourself. My highschool coach slept in his office some nights because he was busy up all night creating plays. Football is a much harder sport than rugby
can we all just agree they both have there perks and understand they are both quite different sports but only compared because people tackle each other
They’re both very similar, but NFL players are just another breed. They’re fucking monsters. If you put a player like Adrian Peterson into a Professional Rugby league, he would body the shit out of people
in rugby and soccer, players have to rely on themselves during an entire half-time. that's what makes these sports so interesting, compared to american football were the coach always tell the players what to do every few seconds.
@@CBFW_KO faaarrrk off bro, we would str8 destroy yous on the field, we dont wear all that sissy paddings cuh, try running up str8 to a Samoan rugby player bro see what happens..
Football hits harder, but rugby hits more Average football hit: 4800lbs of force Average rugby hit: 1600lbs of force Average tackle a football gets per game: 4 Average tackle a rugby player gets per game: 18
Average football hit: 4800 lbs of force Average rugby hit: 1600 lbs of force Average hard hit a football player takes per game is 6. Average hard hit a rugby player takes per game is 18 This averages out to 28,800 lbs of force for both rugby and football However, this doesn't take into consideration all the non-tackling hitting/blocking on every football play (Which averages between 60-70 plays per game). In rugby, only the ball carrier can generally be hit. Sensors in mouthguards of rugby players record impacts around 10 to 20 G’s, with some up to 40 G’s. The average impact is 22 G’s. Head Impact Telemetry System in football helmets commonly indicate 100-g impacts and occasionally over 150- g's.
Makes sense, considering rugby tackles actually require technique and you try not to hurt yourself and the other person. American football tackles are basically going head first against a person at full speed, which should explain the force difference... and the intellect of football players
Question: Why is it called football but the ball is carried by players and only the kicker actually kicks the ball? In soccer (or like the EU calls it football) the only player that actually handles the ball is the goalie or a player that throws the ball back into play, the rest of the time the ball is managed by feet thus being called football.
Not just people from the EU call soccer football, pretty much everyone outside America calls it football and rightfully so, I'm American and I think they should change the name to handegg personally
The biggest differences between the two games is in the substitution rules. American football has unlimited substitution so that their players get to spend a lot of the game resting on the bench. In Rugby there is no bench to rest on (unless one is naughty). Rugby players have to be on the field for the whole game. This results in American football players not having the level of aerobic fitness of Rugby players and Rugby players not having the level of anaerobic fitness that American football players have. What this means is that American football linemen are usually bigger and stronger than Rugby forwards and American football running backs and wide receivers are usually taller and faster than Rugby backs. However, if American footballers had to play an eighty minute, no substitute (actually eight substitute) game they would soon collapse from exhaustion. Also, all Rugby players must be able to tackle, kick, pass and run with the ball whereas American football players are usually highly skilled in only one specialized area e.g left tackle, defensive end, etc.
are you kidding me have you ever played football on a team you run more than anything i averaged about running 6 miles a day at practice and im a linemen my job is to hit
Also, part of football practice is known for the "suicide" drills. Line up at your own goal line and sprint to the 10 yard line and back. Then the 20 yard line and back. Then the 30 and back, the 40 and back, the 50 and back, the opposite 40 and back, the opposite 30 and back, the opposite 20 back, the opposite 10 back, the opposite goal line back. This also included a 2 mile run before and after practice in addition to other conditioning drills.
I wasn't talking about practice. I was talking about playing an 80 minute game, on the field the whole time with only a 15 minute half time break. The job of rugby forwards is to hit as well. The difference is they don't get to rest on the bench when the offense is on the field.
Training and body fat percentage doesn't measure aerobic fitness. I think it is interesting that, aside from Steve Tasker, the only rugby players to make it in the NFL are kickers and sevens players like Nate Ebner. (As you know, seven-a-side isn't real rugby. It is a game invented by the Scots in the nineteenth century, probably because they couldn't find fifteen players.)
Well, many former NFL players have played Rugby, and as Craig said (former Miami player) it requires a little more knowledge overall, but is a little bit more relaxing. Think of it like soccer, 11 players on the field, moving around constantly but not a full sprint like during a football play. It's not as hard hitting, but you are vulnerable to just as many injuries.
Off course they can not. Off course they could. They don't have the stamina to play a rugby game, but if they are skilled athletes, there is nothing to say they could not handle rugby. Sure, rugby requires a broader game sense, since football is based on set plays. An american footballer only has to think tactically, whereas the rugby player needs both tactics and strategy. This being said, there are a lot of stupid rugby players in the top leagues.
cody1212143 Sure, they would need a year or two to optimize their physique to rugby. Some american footballers are big enough for any rugby position. Some would need to lift to be able to help in defence.
In Football every player is part of a play whether it's blocking, tackling, taking up blocks, running, throwing, catching, or even distracting a defender. Every one of the 11 players on the field take hits on every play, but the player with the ball takes the most of course. Rugby seems more like 1 player runs with the ball and other people just stay behind if he laterals it or whatever but not very player (except the defense) is involved
***** He made "3rd stringers" look like shit. You seem to think 3rd stringers are completely useless. These guys are top athletes who have played at top colleges, the fact Hayne came into American football completely blind and had the pre season just proved he is a world class athlete which is why he was added to the roster. They dont add people to the roster for the sake of marketing you gotta back it up and justify it.
corpeedo What is wrong with having strategy in sports? There is nothing wrong with being intellectually fit, as well is physically fit. It in fact adds another level of skill in my opinion. :)
You missed my point, and assume another. IMO, "robot player" = with every move already planned, radios contact from the coach/s, only plays either offence or defence, not both. Only engaged in live play for just a few seconds at a time, no real room for enterprise or individualism. see my comment in SAM' comment above.
I like watching both sports but I like watching football more because it seems more strategic with different plays and things coach’s can make to a team. I also like the different roles. I can get why people like rugby more though.
I think if NFL players knew the rules (And the same goes for rugby players who were learning NFL rules) they would kill either sports since they're both contact sports with many similarities (And well as opposites). One doesn't just become a pro after all.
Id have to agree with this, these days you see so many pros in the NFL and even some in basketball and a couple other sports who can transition and still be pro level. At a certain point it is narrowed down to alot of guys who are just such raw athletes that with fine tuning and sport specific training, they could step on the field professionally in alot of sports. Hell tebow left the NFL, got a tryout for a pro MLB team, got signed and cracked a homer in his first game in the MLB...some people are just athletically inclined all around.
Former NFL running back Dahani Jones actually played rugby in England for a tv show.He played with a semi professional team at a real game. He only trained with them for a week .He said it was fun but he said that he had a hard time when his face was scratched alot and he lost his contacts so he couldnt see for some of the game. He also was told by his coach that he was hitting and tackling too hard. He also said the ball was alot bigger and harder to hold on to
Both sports produce extremely high level athletes. I have had countless debates with Americans who feel compelled to think NFL has the most superior athletes in the world. Which I don’t agree with because they literally train for power, explosiveness and short bursts of speed because the game stops every other minute or in 30 seconds. Rugby players go for 40 minutes straight. No little breaks, to breath or drink Gatorade.
@@Coda_Shorts facts brother in new Zealand that's all we do ..roll hard dont care who or where you are from..just go hard play hard party hard and back each other up no matter what..rugby is a real gladiator sport that in the end we pick each other up off the ground dust each other off and go have a beer with the opposite team..problems solved and we can become friends like it should be.
honestly if u think about it nfl players can not play rugby, but rugby players can play football. nfl players has no stamina if u watch them they are hugging and puffing for air and always needing water..rugby players are the better athletes and of course the nfl players going to hit harder bcuz they get rest in between downs and they have equipment that makes them feel safe
The myth that NFL players are not in condition for a sport like rugby is Bullshit. How do you think someone like Aaron Donald who is 6 foot, 295 lb has 10% body fat and runs a 4.68 40 yard dash? Aerobic conditioning. He's probably better suited to play for long durations than many rugby players. It's sheer ignorance to say NFL players are not aerobically conditioned when they have so little body fat. The only way to cut bf is thru massive aerobic conditioning. The ignorance regarding the NFL & it's players by some rugby fans is an embarrassment to their sport. On the flip side a large majority of rugby players don't have the size/speed & athleticism to play in the NFL. International rugby star Jarred Hayne couldn't even cut it as a Punt Returner in the NFL and was relegated to the lowly Practice Squad of the lowly 49ers before scurrying off back to Australia to chase yet another dream of his, but one thing for certain - he will never play in the NFL. The *average* NFL player makes about 2Million per season, so why aren't Union players coming to the States and showing us soft Yanks how much tougher they are? They would if they could, but they can't so they don't.
NFL players hurt their head/shoulder they have medics carry them off, Rugby players hurt their head/shoulder they get back up toughen up and keep on playing. Yea their was a rugby star that failed at NFL but when the fuck did an NFL player come into rugby and played with the pro's?. NFL is only a sport that is played in the US but for rugby, it's played all over the world. I'm from New Zealand and our country has the best rugby team in the world. NFL players think they can play rugby but I'm sure honesty they can't. If they could win they wouldn't lose so much in the RUGBY WORLD CUP.. NFL players doesn't have what it takes. New Zealand's club rugby would beat the NFL players.
Why would an NFL player take a massive pay cut to play rugby.? Hayne is proof that a top rugby player couldn't make it in the NFL Hayne runs a 4.53 40 yard dash. There are guys in the NFL almost 300 lbs. that run 4.68 40 yard dash and guys his size that run low 4.4x Hayne couldn't deal with how physical and how hard the hits were, and it got in his head which led to ball security issues and eventually cut by mid-season. The US would rather watch paint dry than watch rugby. It's not played much here. So what if Rugby is played at an "international" level? A handful of small countries doesn't mean much and if you weren't so ignorant about the NFL you would know the schedule would make international play impossible. They do play an overseas game once a year, but it's before the "bye" or off week due to the 20 hour flight each way. And you underestimate the size, strength, speed, and athleticism of players in the NFL They would destroy those slow and small rugby players in a neutral athletic competition and would send them running home just like Jarred Hayne. I wouldn't doubt that if you took a good college team and spent the summer teaching them the game that they would be competitive with any rugby union team. One more thing... NZ sent 199 athletes to the 2016 Olympics and won 18 medals. (1 medal per 10.5 competitors) The US sent 555 athletes and won 121 medals.(1 medal per 4.5 competitors) Keep fooling yourself that your inferior athletes would be able to compete with the best in the world and that the average player makes about as much as a top rugby player. The NFL and its athletes are far superior to any rugby code. I would love to see a competition comprised of things like the 40 yard dash, vertical jump, long jump, number of reps benching 235 lbs. etc... Again, your boys would scurry home, tails between legs just like the great "international" rugby star Jarred Hayne.
Everybody commenting on this thread is wrong, but I'd like to make one correction: PH Peters - comparing the number of medals to the number of athletes sent to the games is meaningless. NZ won 18 medals and has a population of 4.5 million. USA won 121 medals and has a population of 319 million. So NZ won a medal for every 250,000 people; USA won a medal for every 2.6 million people. If you're going to use Olympic medals to prove which country has better athletes then NZ's are ten times better than America's. I wouldn't, because that's stupid.
I love the englishmens description of american football in the black and white video, "nobody knows whose got the ball, so to be safe knockdown everyone in site" hahahahah
Rugby has become extremely popular in my country (Georgia.), and I would love to see this happen in America. I think it would be great for the sport if they had a mainstream league. That's an enormous market.
@@allergy3659 yea but it won't be as popular as Football unless that whole wrapping thing and not being able to run right into people with it being legal goes away
What they didn't mention is that football is way more punishing physically than rugby. Rugby you get cuts but in football you have injurys like torn ligaments, post concussion syndrome and dislocated shoulders. I find rugby more challenging but don't think rugby players could play in the NFL. There two different games and will always stay that way so you can't really compare skill.
People should realize the stop and go nature of football gives the players a chance rest, making the game so much more intense when the ball is live. Players can give 100% in tackles, rather than having to conserve energy.
They also don't realize how much bigger and stronger the players are compared to rugby players owing to the fact that they don't have to train for stamina. Rugby fans were like impressed by Jonah Lomu's size, speed, and strength. But the thing is, the NFL looked at Lomu with an eye toward recruiting him and concluded that he had no exceptional athletic ability that would make it worthwhile. Lomu might have made a decent NFL tightend, but he wasn't stand out enough athletically to make it worthwhile to try train him in a second sport because the NFL already had a dozen players just like him or even bigger and stronger. The strongest NFL players, by virtue of not having to get lean to keep up their stamina, are by every measure - bench press, dead lift, leg press, etc. - about twice as strong as strong rugby players. Americans typically concede Rugby is a real and manly sport. But that's one of the problems Americans have believing soccer is a real manly sport. Compared to the monsters they are used to seeing as athletes, soccer players - which much condition for even more extreme stamina - look like wimpy midgets.
1.91m, 115kg, and a 4.37 40 quick enough for you? He squats 685 pounds and bench presses 450 pounds, or 33 reps at 225 pounds. That's Vernon Davis, the first guy I looked up, who is considered a 'small fast' player at his position. NFL players aren't usually measured on the 100m so it's hard for me to give you numbers on that, but I do know several NFL players have had Olympic sprinter level speed. Point is Lomu's "freak" status in the world of Rugby was considered pretty much normal in the world of American football. He would have made a great tight end, but it's unlikely he'd be remembered as the greatest at the position and especially unlikely he'd be remembered for unusual size and strength. Arguing about speed however misses the point, as I pointed out the two sports train differently. Speed between the two sports over the first 30 yards or so is similar. It's the strength that is different because football players don't have as severe constraints on stamina. And as for your racism, plenty of Polynesians play American football too. We did conquer much of that area from the Japanese and much of Polynesia is effectively an American protectorate.
What you asked me was, " name me a guy that is 1.96m 120KG and running around 10.8 sec the 100 meters" Again, I stand by my facts. Lomu impressed the NFL scouts enough to make them go look for him, but they concluded that while he was athletically gifted enough to play in the NFL, he wasn't gifted enough to make it worthwhile to try to get him to change sports. And keep in mind, until quite recently most Rugby players were paid so little most of them had to keep up second jobs, while in the NFL players are paid at rates equivalent to the big soccer leagues in Europe. The NFL has the money to go after any Rugby player it really wants. It doesn't do it very often, because there wouldn't be a point.
No ruby player a are smaller. The NFL is lengenary in strength and size and the runners are all fast enough to be in Olympics 100 metres. You just hate cause it is America. We wear pads cause our guys are bigger. We have a big black guy name Ben.
***** Not as physically demanding do u see how America football players train. I don't want this conversation to become an insult match. JUST SAYING American football is hard!
For those wondering, American football his in my opinion hurt much more than Rugby hits. It’s less to do with strength but the padding makes people think they’re invincible and therefore try to tackle you anyway they can with full power. It’s a much different “tackle” in rugby where there’s form involved. I’ve played both and each of them are hard in their way. Rugby takes more endurance and overall athleticism. American Football is a strategic game with bouts of violent collisions, that’s the best way I could put it in laymen’s terms. A rugby player is a better overall athlete since they play both offense and defense, Football is a very VERY specific game.
I'm a kiwi and I honestly love Rugby (and League also) and personally think it's better. Maybe just because it's a lot more fast paced and exciting, but then again I can see why you can like NFL, it's technical, methodical and can be fun (when not on an ad-break ;P).
American football: padding, helmets, 7 minutes average playtime per person. Rugby: No padding, no helmets, 60-80 minutes of play time per person. Nuff said
littlepiggydog on IG I hate watching football, but man I have started playing defensive end in high school football and man it's way harder than rugby. You hit every time and I come home constantly in pain. But it is very fun. In high school though there's no commercials and they play for 10 seconds then 10-40 second break then do it again. It's really gruesome and the hits are way harder than rugby.
Call footbal boring because of 90 minutes of a few goals yet eggball has more adverts and stops in play, than actual gametime... 3 squads for an actual team is stupid.
Thanks, I never heard that term before. Initial reaction was that it could players with learning difficulties, but google assure me that it's a group of players dedicated to kicking the ball. I could understand having one guy on the team who was useful with his right foot, but an entire squad with guys each specialising in one particular type of kick, is just ridiculous.
So don't watch. I really hope football doesn't catch on with you european trashheads, because next you would try changing our sport. So just don't fucking watch, please.
Rugby players remind me a lot of hybrid linebackers. Big and really fucking strong, but also fast and agile. players like Khalil Mack, Von Miller, Clay Matthews, or Vic Beasley definitely have the build for rugby
I played college football and rugby when I lived in England after graduating with a level 5 team. They're very different sports, really, share some attributes but rugby is a lot easier in terms of strategy and physicality. Football is legalized warfare, and some positions take a lot of "school" to play well (I used to watch 20 hours of game film a week to prepare), and it took years and years to get my mind/body ready for a high level of competition. The hits are vastly harder, but less frequent. I had to be stronger and faster to play at a higher level in football, whereas rugby required more conditioning for stamina. I think in general the highest level Rugby players would be years behind being able to compete in the NFL, but it wouldn't take an NFL-grade athlete (especially someone like a linebacker or defensive end) long at all to catch on and be a top-flight Rugby player. This bears out in the fact that the potential $$/fame for transitioning to the NFL is extremely high, yet no rugby players have really done it. If they had the skills and "brain" for it, they'd have already done it and there would be quite a few in the ranks.
This is like a Boxing vs MMA debate but you made the best points about there team sports Football is more athletic and strategy and takes harder hits because players come from a more distance and pads Rugby is like throwback team tackle with more strategy and takes more endurance but a nice sport to play
Craig Gibson really it took u year and year while it took me 1 year easy and I didn't even watch football for strategic. U don't even have to be all of these thing only smart and strategy! , get the fuck out of here
