-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
RUGBY ONSLAUGHT - NFL or Rugby: settled
- Thread starter cyRil
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 100,018,444
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
At least our....more rotund...players still look vaguely athletic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46603000/jpg/_46603948_eifion_get766.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46603000/jpg/_46603948_eifion_get766.jpg
Lol, Eifion Roberts is such a fatty. Tehehe.
I'm on rugby's side in the argument, it flat out makes better all around football players. There are some NFL'ers right now that repeatedly reflect on their rugby backgrounds as a basis for their success. But, if you're going to post fatty pictures of overgrown NFL linemen as part of the argument, then it's only fair that a few of these make it in. For every over-inflated lineman in the NFL, there are a few of these types... big, strong, and fast. This one below is Peyton Hillis from the Browns. As big as a prop, faster than most backs.
http://www.irontontribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Peyton-Hillis-v-Bengals1.jpg
http://www.irontontribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Peyton-Hillis-v-Bengals1.jpg
mohamed_ali12
Academy Player
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2009
- Messages
- 264
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Pretty brave too, playing on with an arm broken like that
Well, when do you ever hear of NFL players being lined-up for rugby? It's always a rugby player would make a good football player. I'm sure if SBW has a good RWC, he'll be offered some deal in the NFL. In US Rugby circles, they are even trying to get football players into US Rugby, as they aren't good enough for pro football, and they seem to think they could be good at Rugby if they can run into someone and kick them on their ass.. which isn't even called a 'tackle'. It's called common assault.
Dizzy
First XV
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,421
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Rugby has always been tougher... I mean, in football you do one down and have a break, you have two seperate squads, offense and defense.. In rugby, the same 15 men do the offensive work the defensive work and the hard work in between.
It's just because football is one of Americas top sports why it is so big. And to have to wear pads and motorcycle helmets says enough about its toughness doesn't it?.. It would be seen as a tougher sport if it was played without pads and motorcycle helmets[lol] but its not.
It's just because football is one of Americas top sports why it is so big. And to have to wear pads and motorcycle helmets says enough about its toughness doesn't it?.. It would be seen as a tougher sport if it was played without pads and motorcycle helmets[lol] but its not.
isaac4leinster
Academy Player
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 43
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
/FrontpageNewsBannersandMisc/rugbyonslaught.jpg
ELITE NFL ATHLETE: Another fine figure of a manSINCE THE dawn of the internet seven years ago one debate has risen above all others in its ability to raise the collective passions of sports fans: which is tougher, NFL or Rugby?
Back to Blog
Back to Blog
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 100,018,444
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Last edited by a moderator:
Dizzy
First XV
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,421
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Ever watch Rugby League?
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 2,193
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
The first part of your assessment is more a question of market size and earning power than it is of sporting ability. The size of the professional rugby world is still quite a bit smaller than the NFL, and so the sums of money on offer are still some way off. This isn't helped by the fact that Rugby has only gone professional within the last 15 years and is only the major sport in one country in which it is pro. So of course you don't hear about an NFL player "coming over to Rugby", as the market dictates it is an unattractive proposition. The other thing to remember is that Rugby is a game which requires all round skills and high stamina, whereas American Football is a high intensity, speciality sport where roles are limited and specific. This is the reason that an AFL player can head over and make it as a punter with relative ease, while the reverse proposition would likely be very complicated if it were ever financially viable.
You don't understand do you... NFL players are more vulnerable. In RL its one line of players running into the other who tackle them. In the NFL the ball is passed forward and the player receiving it is more vulnerable to hits...
For example
Last edited by a moderator:
No offense mate but it doesn't take much to figure out why players aren't lined up to leave a sport which can pay up to 15 million$ a year, to play a sport they are unfamiliar with and which pays much less, gets less exposure and is less ''glamorous'' . It obviously makes more sense for an NFL team to go for a rugby player than a rugby team going for an NFL player because a rugby team wouldn't be able to pull it off.
Dizzy
First XV
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,421
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
That doesn't prove your point at all. It actually makes it sound worse for NFL now.
So what you're saying is that if they expect the hit, then the hit won't happen basicly. Which means in order for NFL players to make big hits they must catch the opposition off guard.
In Rugby, you are expecting to get hit and you try to guard yourself as best as possible and people still get hit. Sometimes worse than what NFL players do.
So that just makes Rugby look even tougher than NFL. Thanks mate.
Last edited by a moderator:
they did back in the days when gridiorn was developing it wasnt uncommon for deaths to happen in the sport
Emm actually it does, I never said the hit ''wont happen''. It stands to reason that if you have a bigger run-up at a player the hit will be bigger, in rugby its a straight defensive line so players don't get to make the hits as big. Am I the only one who can look at this objectively without being biased towards rugby?
LittleGuy
First XV
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,911
- Country Flag
I hate to wade into these kind of debates because I find them nauseatingly pointless, (kind of like Richard Dawkins and the Pope arguing religion.) But it always ****** me off when someone brings up the "pads are for weaklings" argument. Gridiron players wear pads because the force of impact on their hits is like that of a car accident, we would regularly see deaths on the field if they didn't. So is everyone wearing a mouth-guard in rugby now a pussy or every Ice Hockey player who takes the ice a coward(I used to love seeing guys play without helmets as a kid but those days will never come back) should boxing be done with bare knuckles, in fact should all competition take place either nude or in colour coded loin cloths? There are disscussions going on right now about making gridiron more of a tackling then hitting game in order to reduce concussions and injuries which I welcome. It was said best earlier in this thread that these are two entirely different contests one featuring great all around athletes with endurance(especially in Rugby League), versus one where players have incredible skills but limited roles. I don't question the toughness of any of the following sports. Rugby, Gridiron, Ice Hockey, Boxing, Martial Arts, MMA, Hurling, Gaelic Football, Lacrosse, Horse Racing(Jockeys are some of the most injured athletes) and this is just off the top of my head.
What I mean is they know the players now use the pads as weapons, basically because they protect the tacklers when the impact is made as much as the players who's being tackled. I thill suspect they wouldn't have the bottle to launch themselves around nearly as wrecklessly if the didn't have the padding on.
