NBA or NFL

Which do enjoy watching the most. I prefer the NBA and basketball.

Football easy. basketball is way to reptitive to me, and I am rarely impressed by the highlights. and i can't stand the last two minutes of the game that take over a 1/2 hour to play.

Can somebody plz expalin the simple rules of american football. To me it looks like a very stop start complicated version of rugby and living where american football isn't played i have extremly limited knowledge.

Football easy. basketball is way to reptitive to me, and I am rarely impressed by the highlights. and i can't stand the last two minutes of the game that take over a 1/2 hour to play.

No need for me to say much since you pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Watching highlights, the best thing you see is a dunk. And then you say "Whoa, a jam. Haven't seen that before."

American Football is one of the most boring sports I've ever seen..

Basketball easily..

No surprise that Europeans don't vote for American football.

I don't blame them either, if I were to choose between rugby and basketball I'd take basketball.

No surprise that Europeans don't vote for American football.

I don't blame them either, if I were to choose between rugby and basketball I'd take basketball.

Rugby >>> American Football anyway..

Rugby >>> American Football anyway..

If you didn't live in Europe you would think differently. Just like if I didn't live in North America.

No surprise that Europeans don't vote for American football.

I don't blame them either, if I were to choose between rugby and basketball I'd take basketball.

I'm european and i prefer basketball. American football just looks like the most complicated version of rugby i've ever seen. They even wear helmets and padding. One word - Wosses. Rugby is more physical and more violent.

If you didn't live in Europe you would think differently. Just like if I didn't live in North America.

Not really, I get to watch both sports if I wanted to, my nationallity has nothing to do with it. Rugby just attracts me more because they don't have any protection and the play just keeps on going. With AF you constantly have to wait 2 minutes before you get to see 10 seconds (tops) of play, waaaaay too many stoppages for me. Completely ruins the entertainment..

They even wear helmets and padding. One word - Wosses. Rugby is more physical and more violent.

Rugby is more about just plain tackling. You don't see the bone-crunching hits you see in the NFL.

Where's the "neither"-option? Basketball and football suck.

Rugby is more about just plain tackling. You don't see the bone-crunching hits you see in the NFL.

Do you watch Rugby much. Rugby has so many more tackles and is a lot rougher. I still have to play it as a core subject and it is dangerous. Try being in a scrum. It kills your back, neck, you get kicked, stood on, jumped on etc.

It's all good, everyone has their preference.

In my opinion football is the best sport to watch after hockey. It's even better a lot of the time. You want to talk boring let's bring soccer (football to you) into the mix. Watching a chess match or spelling bee might be a better option then sitting through a soccer game for me.

Well I'm european... and NFL>>>>NBA>>>>>Rugby
Rugby will always be an amateur sport. The players don't even know all the rules...

That said, baseball does suck awfully bad.

Football is complex enough of a sport to keep my interest on a regular basis.

That said, baseball does suck awfully bad.

Oh, no doubt about that one. I enjoyed playing it as a kid but watching it is a different story. Regular season MLB is very dull.

No surprise that Europeans don't vote for American football.


Wrong. I'm European and I LOVE football.

Fo me it took 8 Panthers games on TV, 3-6 games of College Football & 6 games of HS Football (Go Bisons!!!*g*) to get used to Football and to understand it, not completely though.

If didn't know that I was a Football fan, until Chad Cota interceped a TD pass after a goal-line stand in the season final vs. the Steelers.

Watching a chess match or spelling bee might be a better option then sitting through a *soccer* game for me.
:shakehead

That said, baseball does suck awfully bad.

Qui, bien sure.
:handclap:

NFL.

It rivals the NHL for league I enjoy watching.

The only way you could get me to watch the NBA is to pay me.

Coincidentally, I get paid to watch football. ;)

:shakehead

The spelling bee part was actually truthful. Or are you shaking your head because I call the sport soccer?

The spelling bee part was actually truthful. Or are you shaking your head because I call the sport soccer?

No, I'm shaking my head, because your (ongoing) ignorance.

Do you watch Rugby much. Rugby has so many more tackles and is a lot rougher. I still have to play it as a core subject and it is dangerous. Try being in a scrum. It kills your back, neck, you get kicked, stood on, jumped on etc.

You don't have nearly the caliber of athletes playing it though. Plus, I would highly question the validity of the 'a lot rougher' statement. Have NFL players play rugby, your back wouldn't be killed. You would be killed.

I'm european and i prefer basketball. American football just looks like the most complicated version of rugby i've ever seen. They even wear helmets and padding. One word - Wosses. Rugby is more physical and more violent.

That's basically is our version of football; take rugby, add a hundred or so years of rule changes, padding, TV deals. etc. But it's definately a made-for-TV sport, watching a live NFL game was one of the most boring sporting events I've been to.

Basketball blows, all you have to do is tune in for the last 2 minutes of the game and watch who can come up with the winning basket.

Although, I'm sure watching American football for Europeans is like watching soccer for us, we just can't get into it, yet most of the world finds it exciting.

I used to really like baseball as a kid, ah, the Tigers of the 1980's. Then I discovered hockey.

Hockey >>> all.

NFL. Without second thought.

I prefer the NFL, although I do enjoy a good wrestling match every now and then.

NFL, without a doubt.

No, I'm shaking my head, because your (ongoing) ignorance.

For me your stupid comment sound like, if a person from the Southern US would say. "The spelling bee part was actually truthful. Or are you shaking your head because I call the sport hockey?"

For me your stupid comment sound like, if a person from the Southern US would say. "The spelling bee part was actually truthful. Or are you shaking your head because I call the sport hockey?"

The sport is called soccer here. It is called football in Europe. Hockey is hockey everwhere. For some reason when you quoted me you put asterisks around the word soccer. Why, I do not know.

Hockey is hockey everwhere.

Wrong! Why don't you ask one of the Dutch posters, what hockey means to them?

Wrong! Why don't you ask one of the Dutch posters, what hockey means to them?

Well you have to throw the word "ice" in front of it then. We don't.

What exactly is the point of this anyway? I was just wondering why you put asterisks around the word soccer when you quoted me.

NFL, and i'm european as well.

NFL.

Football is a more complete sport.

NFL by far. I hate basketball.

NFL by a far margin...but I do like the NBA.

The NBA sucks ass.


(Not the sport, just the league)

well, this is certainly one of the more lopsided polls ive seen (note my memory isnt what i would call 'good')

No, I'm shaking my head, because your (ongoing) ignorance.
its no different than when you guys call baseball boring.

its no different than when you guys call baseball boring.
Yeah!!!!
YANKEES! YANKEES! YANKEES!!!!!!

If I had to choose between either an NBA game or the local channel where they show a log burning (for those who don't have fireplaces around the holidays).

I'd choose the burning log.

its no different than when you guys call baseball boring.

Because Baseball isn't that interesting, sorry. I might be interested to play it myself, but I'm not planning to watch it.

BTW, I also like Basketball and the NBA, but the league has become a big joke, after Jordan left the game. I wished that they would have more Ducan's, Okafor's, Nowitzki's...etc.

My overall by sport, not by team

1. soccer
2. hockey
3. football
4. basketball

Hockey and Football are the only sports where I can turn it on and not care whos playing.

Ill actually take ANY football game over a hockey game which has teams i have NO interest in.

Though, give me a good division rival NHL game over a football game. Way i break ti down is, Red wings Trump all. Detroit Lions trump all except red wings [Though my batteries in my remote would be dead by nights in] and Footbal trumps "your Every day hockey game."

Basketball, eh its ok. And dont even bring up the word baseball. Its the only sports 40 year old out of shape fat guys can still make multi-millions.

Football by a mile

basketball sucks

nfl by far

Hmm... 42-3....

I think there is some sort of rule about people who like hockey can't like basketball.

This poll is further proving my point.

I ****ing hate basketball, especially the NBA.

You don't have nearly the caliber of athletes playing it though. Plus, I would highly question the validity of the 'a lot rougher' statement. Have NFL players play rugby, your back wouldn't be killed. You would be killed.

Well first of all i play agaisnt people in their mid teens. Not like it is agaisnt the best. I tell ya for nothing that Rugby players are athletes of high caliber. If Martin Johnston was in the NFl he would pound you. In rugby everyone can tackle big and good.


hat's basically is our version of football; take rugby, add a hundred or so years of rule changes, padding, TV deals. etc. But it's definately a made-for-TV sport, watching a live NFL game was one of the most boring sporting events I've been to.

Yaeh. Totally agree. Football is way better to play and watch then American Football. Every time i see a bit of NFL there are so many stoppages and weird things going on. It is so boring. Though
basketball doesn't blow as it is quite fun to play and watch.

I watch West Coast NBA games on TNT to fall asleep tonight. That game has become sooooo boring. I much prefer the intensity of the NCAA.

The NBA is no match for the NFL. No match.

Yaeh. Totally agree. Football is way better to play and watch then American Football. Every time i see a bit of NFL there are so many stoppages and weird things going on. It is so boring. Though
basketball doesn't blow as it is quite fun to play and watch.

Both aren't that difficult to play (I'm talking about flag football here.) The only problem that I see is the ball. In football you'll need some very similar to a real NFL ball (expensive), where in soccer you can use a coke can. *Oh the memories* :lol:

Well first of all i play agaisnt people in their mid teens. Not like it is agaisnt the best. I tell ya for nothing that Rugby players are athletes of high caliber. If Martin Johnston was in the NFl he would pound you. In rugby everyone can tackle big and good.

Don't kid yourself. If a rugby player had any chance of cutting it in the NFL, he would have been there yesterday. Martin Johnson may be an exceptional rugby athlete, but I very much doubt he could hold up against a Ray Lewis or Brian Urlacher. Or be able to block a Julius Peppers. Or get around Jonathan Ogden.

Think it through. Take the best player in your league. The stud athletes from high school, the very cream of the crop, go on to play college ball. That guy MIGHT make it in college. However, everyone he is up against was HIS school's stud star. The bar has been raised to a whole new level. Now, take the studs from college. The guys who stood out against while playing all the former high school studs, that guy MIGHT make it as a pro. The bar has been raised HIGHER going from college to pro than it did going from high school to college. Now, take that elite of elite talents and apply millions or dollars of research, training, nutrition and coaching. Not only is this guy a 1 in 500,000 talent, he is having that talent maximized by every means legally (sometimes illegally) possible.

Now, want to tell me again how these rugby players are so much tougher and rougher? NFL players are bigger, stronger, faster and playing with every bit of as much intensity. I have absolutely no doubt a NFL player coul easily compete physically playing rugby. I have serious reservations about rugby players making the NFL. To my knowledge, there is only a handful that have ever made the transition. Heck, virtually every rugby player I met in college used to play football in high school.

Look at it this way. Rugby has some outstanding athletes. Rugby players could massacer NFL players because they are tougher, rougher and more physical. Maybe they may not be as athletic (though guys like Jason Robinson are up there) but the average weight of a foward in Pro Rugby is over 15 stone and usually 17 stone. How many NFL players are like that. Rugby doesn't get the antention NFL does except for in Kangaoroo land and Kewi land. Only now after we won the World cup is funding being introduced. Some of out top athletes will go into a different sport because the funding isn't there. Rugby players don't go through thousands of dollars of research and conditioning, coaching and dieting. If they did we would physical dominate the NFL. If a guy in the NFL gets a wee injury or a little cut he will go off. Rugby players get a cut, they go off for a second (rules that if bleeding must go off) they will be back on immedialty.

If a guy in the NFL gets a wee injury or a little cut he will go off. Rugby players get a cut, they go off for a second (rules that if bleeding must go off) they will be back on immedialty.You mean like Travis Henry, who played with a broken leg? Or Hines Ward, who never missed a snap with a partially torn knee ligament? Perhaps Donovan McNabb having his (to-date) best game of his career on a broken ankle is what you mean? Or Brett Favre playing with a broken thumb on his passing hand? Maybe you are thinking about Steve McNair playing with god only knows how many injuries. Or countless others.

Sure, there are some wimps in the league, but guaran-damn-tee you that rugby has them as well.

I don't understand why people who are fans of sports that aren't popular in America feel the need to compare manhood length between the sports.

You mean like Travis Henry, who played with a broken leg? Or Hines Ward, who never missed a snap with a partially torn knee ligament? Perhaps Donovan McNabb having his (to-date) best game of his career on a broken ankle is what you mean? Or Brett Favre playing with a broken thumb on his passing hand? Maybe you are thinking about Steve McNair playing with god only knows how many injuries. Or countless others.

Sure, there are some wimps in the league, but guaran-damn-tee you that rugby has them as well.

I don't understand why people who are fans of sports that aren't popular in America feel the need to compare manhood length between the sports.

I'm not a massive fan of Rugby. I prefer Football or Cricket. However being from the native country of Rugby i have to say Rugby is so physical. I still have to play it in my lasy year of school and it canes evry week. If your a wimp you will never play pro rugby. If you can't tackle never mind how good your skills or speed is you will struggle to make it. Rugby is a tougher sport. i don't know how long an NFL game lasts for but in rugby its 80 minutes.

I'm not a massive fan of Rugby. I prefer Football or Cricket. However being from the native country of Rugby i have to say Rugby is so physical. I still have to play it in my lasy year of school and it canes evry week. If your a wimp you will never play pro rugby. If you can't tackle never mind how good your skills or speed is you will struggle to make it. Rugby is a tougher sport. i don't know how long an NFL game lasts for but in rugby its 80 minutes.
Ever play American football? If you haven't, then you really don't know if rugby is a harder game.

Ever play American football? If you haven't, then you really don't know if rugby is a harder game.

I've seen a lot of highlights and it isn't the same physical intensity that rugby has. American Football isn't played here. I'm pretty sure rugby is played in NA.

I've seen a lot of highlights and it isn't the same physical intensity that rugby has. American Football isn't played here. I'm pretty sure rugby is played in NA.
Ah, you've seen highlights. Plenty to go on there. Is it that hard to say that rugby is a different sport, that requires a different kind of toughness? No one would argue with that.

Rugby is played in NA, but it's about as popular as cricket. Which is a shame, 'cause rugby is a hell of a game.

Look at it this way. Rugby has some outstanding athletes.

I am sure they are. NFL caliber athletes? I very much doubt.

Rugby players could massacer NFL players because they are tougher, rougher and more physical.

Gimme a break. I don't know any pro Rugby players, but I have seen the college club teams. Granted, this is a college club team and a far cry from pro, but these are not any more rougher or tougher than other athletes. Your claims just have no substance.

Maybe they may not be as athletic (though guys like Jason Robinson are up there) but the average weight of a foward in Pro Rugby is over 15 stone and usually 17 stone. How many NFL players are like that.

I had to look it up, but a stone is 14 pounts. A 17 stone forward is roughly 238 pounds.

Want to know how many NFLers are like that? Off hand, I would guess over 70%. Every linemen and tight end, most fullbacks and most linebackers. wide receivers and defensive backs are the positions consistently smaller.

NFL Linemen average around 305-310 pounds and stand 6'5 or taller. 22+ stones. Now, these are not blubber balls. These are athletes. They carry extra weight, but their lean mass has to be in the 280+ range. I have meet several OL, they look like a different species.

D-ends kick in around 260-280 pounds. Around 19 stones. Now, these guys are lean. The best of them are that big and still run a 40-yard (bit less than 40 meters) in the 4.6 second range. That is fast for anybody, but for a guy of that size it is phenominal.

Rugby doesn't get the antention NFL does except for in Kangaoroo land and Kewi land. Only now after we won the World cup is funding being introduced. Some of out top athletes will go into a different sport because the funding isn't there.

Don't mean to rain on your parage, but the top athletes already do. The NFL draws talent from everywhere. If a player can make it, they will go to the NFL and try. You don't get that kind of draw for rugby.

Rugby players don't go through thousands of dollars of research and conditioning, coaching and dieting. If they did we would physical dominate the NFL.

I find this rather funny.

If a guy in the NFL gets a wee injury or a little cut he will go off. Rugby players get a cut, they go off for a second (rules that if bleeding must go off) they will be back on immedialty.

You really have no idea about NFL football do you? A wee little injury and they will go off? Good freaking grief. Dr. Love already nailed you on that. About the only time a player typically comes off the field is if 1) he is physically unable to continue or 2) substituted situationally or 3) taking a breather (the level of competition is high enough that you are a liability if you can't go all-out). Wee little injury my butt.

There isn't one player on the field Sunday's that isn't injured to some degree. Heck, the linemen do anything and everything they can to get an edge. Stomp, kick, punch, pull. All fair game. It is as rough and tumble as any rugby scrum. Only the players involved are that much bigger and stronger.

It should also be noted that in the NFL if anyone comes off the sidelines to attend to a player, that player is not allowed to be on the field for the next play (unless there is a timeout before the next play). So a guy can simply get his wind knocked out and the training staff, thinking he was more seriously injured, goes to check on him, and thus he is forced to sit out the next play, and to the viewer who doesn't know that rule, it appears that he is coming out for other reasons (if the announcer doesn't say so, or if you're at a bar or something and can't hear the announcer).

Hockey and Football are the only sports where I can turn it on and not care whos playing.

Ill actually take ANY football game over a hockey game which has teams i have NO interest in.

Though, give me a good division rival NHL game over a football game. Way i break ti down is, Red wings Trump all. Detroit Lions trump all except red wings [Though my batteries in my remote would be dead by nights in] and Footbal trumps "your Every day hockey game."

Basketball, eh its ok. And dont even bring up the word baseball. Its the only sports 40 year old out of shape fat guys can still make multi-millions.
name one out of shape 40 year old that isn't a pitcher.

NFL. Easily me second favourite sport. I love the game of Football.

watching a live NFL game was one of the most boring sporting events I've been to.

:shakehead
i went to a buffalo to see te bills vs cardinals....me and 3 friends drove 16 hours to see this and it was WORTH IT :D

I am sure they are. NFL caliber athletes? I very much doubt.



Gimme a break. I don't know any pro Rugby players, but I have seen the college club teams. Granted, this is a college club team and a far cry from pro, but these are not any more rougher or tougher than other athletes. Your claims just have no substance.



I had to look it up, but a stone is 14 pounts. A 17 stone forward is roughly 238 pounds.

Want to know how many NFLers are like that? Off hand, I would guess over 70%. Every linemen and tight end, most fullbacks and most linebackers. wide receivers and defensive backs are the positions consistently smaller.

NFL Linemen average around 305-310 pounds and stand 6'5 or taller. 22+ stones. Now, these are not blubber balls. These are athletes. They carry extra weight, but their lean mass has to be in the 280+ range. I have meet several OL, they look like a different species.

D-ends kick in around 260-280 pounds. Around 19 stones. Now, these guys are lean. The best of them are that big and still run a 40-yard (bit less than 40 meters) in the 4.6 second range. That is fast for anybody, but for a guy of that size it is phenominal.



Don't mean to rain on your parage, but the top athletes already do. The NFL draws talent from everywhere. If a player can make it, they will go to the NFL and try. You don't get that kind of draw for rugby.



I find this rather funny.



There isn't one player on the field Sunday's that isn't injured to some degree. Heck, the linemen do anything and everything they can to get an edge. Stomp, kick, punch, pull. All fair game. It is as rough and tumble as any rugby scrum. Only the players involved are that much bigger and stronger.
I doubt you have knowledge of Rugby. The comment that linesmen 305-310 pounds is total crap. Few sportsman are that weight. That weight is very unhealthy and you call them lean. Rugby players are big but few are that big and are not atheltic. Are you honestly saying that a 300 pound guy could be athletic and at the top of their sport in the NFL.

I doubt you have knowledge of Rugby. The comment that linesmen 305-310 pounds is total crap. Few sportsman are that weight. That weight is very unhealthy and you call them lean. Rugby players are big but few are that big and are not atheltic. Are you honestly saying that a 300 pound guy could be athletic and at the top of their sport in the NFL.

Hate to break it to ya kid, but it is true. Kid, if you don't know anything about a topic, then don't talk about it. Here, do yourself a favor:

http://www.nfl.com/players

Go ahead. Look on any team. 300+ is par for the course on the line. Heck, there are HUNDREDS of them in the NFL. You are hard pressed to find ANY player below 200 pounds. Off hand, I would guess the average weight for an NFLer is in the 250-260 pound range. The biggest of them kick in at over 350 pounds. These guys may not be in marathon shape, they they are quite atheletic. Brutishly strong and very nimble on their feet. If they can't dance around at that weight, they simply do not last.

If you ever meet one in person, 'unhealthy' is the last word that comes to mind. Heaping slab of humanity, walking wall, inhuman, enormous. Those are what I thought of. I have meet several. Tra Thomas (a 350 pount offensive tackle) looking like a human eclipse. He was standing next to a 6'1 WR. From a distance, I thought the WR was a small guy, until he walked up to me. He wasn't small, Thomas was just enormous. He looked stocky. Only 6'6-6'8 and stocky. Shoulders had to be three feet across at a minimum. Meet Jon Runyan another time. He wasn't as stocky as Thomas, he just looked big. He didn't have a gut on him what-so-ever (granted, he was in street clothes). He is 6'8, 300+ and looked like he could eat the barstool I was sitting on. The freakiest guy I meet was Jim Kleinsasser. He is shorter, at 6'3 or so, but looks like the Incredible Hulk. 270 pounds doesn't do him justice, he is a cut 270 pounds.

To help you out, I grabbed this image as an example:
http://media.theinsiders.com/Media/College_Mens_Basketball/20_peppers_allsport.JPG

This is Julius Peppers, a 280-pound defensive end for Carolina. Does he look 'unhealthy' to you? He was a college B-ball player as well and runs a 40 yard dash in the 4.6 range. The guy is a beast.

Here is one of Orlando Pace, a 330 pound OT, and Kris Jenkins, a 340 pound defensive tackle. Do they look 'unhealthy' to you?:
http://media.theinsiders.com/Media/NFL/50_Pace.JPG
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040128/040128_vmed_jenkins_630p.vmedium.jpg

I can dig up literally hundreds more if you like. Now, lots of these guys do carry around an extra 30-40+ pounds of flab. It is a neccesity. The reason is that the guys they are going up against are too strong and too athletic NOT to carry extra weight. If they played at 280, they would be too easily to throw around. Having an extra couple buckets of sand makes it that much tougher to get bullied. Just simple physics. If it touger to move 320 pounds than it is 275 pounds.

That no rugby player is that big and that athletic is precisely the point. These NFLers ARE 300+ pounds and EXTREMELY atheltic. They are rare and unique talents. There are millions of high school football players in the country. Most of those are the 'jocks' of their schools. Of them, maybe 1 in 100 will go on to play in college. Of those 10's of thousands of college players, 1 in 100 will make it as a pro. That is how rare these guys are. Once you accept that fact, you will begin to see why I question your comments so.

Don't take my word for it, go ahead and research it yourself. Go to any search engine, type in 'NFL Draft Profiles' and start reading about what freakish physical specimens these guys are. It isn't only the massive linemen, it is the 250 pound LBs running at 4.5 who can bench 500+ pounds.

Soccer: Skill (Agility, speed, touch)
Football: Pure Physical (Size, burst, toughness, and strength)
Rugby: Endurance (Grittyness, power, and durability are key since your always involved in the play somehow)

All the while I think it's fair to say that a lineman would be inneffective in Rugby and vice-versa.

Hate to break it to ya kid, but it is true. Kid, if you don't know anything about a topic, then don't talk about it. Here, do yourself a favor:

http://www.nfl.com/players

Go ahead. Look on any team. 300+ is par for the course on the line. Heck, there are HUNDREDS of them in the NFL. You are hard pressed to find ANY player below 200 pounds. Off hand, I would guess the average weight for an NFLer is in the 250-260 pound range. The biggest of them kick in at over 350 pounds. These guys may not be in marathon shape, they they are quite atheletic. Brutishly strong and very nimble on their feet. If they can't dance around at that weight, they simply do not last.


To help you out, I grabbed this image as an example:
http://media.theinsiders.com/Media/College_Mens_Basketball/20_peppers_allsport.JPG

This is Julius Peppers, a 280-pound defensive end for Carolina. Does he look 'unhealthy' to you? He was a college B-ball player as well and runs a 40 yard dash in the 4.6 range. The guy is a beast.

Here is one of Orlando Pace, a 330 pound OT, and Kris Jenkins, a 340 pound defensive tackle. Do they look 'unhealthy' to you?:
http://media.theinsiders.com/Media/NFL/50_Pace.JPG
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/040128/040128_vmed_jenkins_630p.vmedium.jpg

I can dig up literally hundreds more if you like. Now, lots of these guys do carry around an extra 30-40+ pounds of flab. It is a neccesity. The reason is that the guys they are going up against are too strong and too athletic NOT to carry extra weight. If they played at 280, they would be too easily to throw around. Having an extra couple buckets of sand makes it that much tougher to get bullied. Just simple physics. If it touger to move 320 pounds than it is 275 pounds.

That no rugby player is that big and that athletic is precisely the point. These NFLers ARE 300+ pounds and EXTREMELY atheltic. They are rare and unique talents. There are millions of high school football players in the country. Most of those are the 'jocks' of their schools. Of them, maybe 1 in 100 will go on to play in college. Of those 10's of thousands of college players, 1 in 100 will make it as a pro. That is how rare these guys are. Once you accept that fact, you will begin to see why I question your comments so.

Don't take my word for it, go ahead and research it yourself. Go to any search engine, type in 'NFL Draft Profiles' and start reading about what freakish physical specimens these guys are. It isn't only the massive linemen, it is the 250 pound LBs running at 4.5 who can bench 500+ pounds.

Dude, fair play. I can't be asked to research as you have proved your point. I was wrong about that but surely it still can't be healthy for these guys to be that big especially if your relatively short and are that heavy. I mean i don't think i know any sport (outside fighting) that have guys that big. Man i can't imagine standing up to a 300 pound guy.

I am sure they are. NFL caliber athletes? I very much doubt.

They're designed to do different things. NFL athletes aren't rugby caliber athletes. Its like comparing a sprinter to a long distance runner.


I had to look it up, but a stone is 14 pounts. A 17 stone forward is roughly 238 pounds.

Want to know how many NFLers are like that? Off hand, I would guess over 70%. Every linemen and tight end, most fullbacks and most linebackers. wide receivers and defensive backs are the positions consistently smaller.

NFL Linemen average around 305-310 pounds and stand 6'5 or taller. 22+ stones. Now, these are not blubber balls. These are athletes. They carry extra weight, but their lean mass has to be in the 280+ range. I have meet several OL, they look like a different species.

D-ends kick in around 260-280 pounds. Around 19 stones. Now, these guys are lean. The best of them are that big and still run a 40-yard (bit less than 40 meters) in the 4.6 second range. That is fast for anybody, but for a guy of that size it is phenominal.

None of these players need to run, hit, scrummage (which is one of the most exhausting tasks around) for 80 consecutive minutes. They can be that big becaue they only need to run and move for a play, then rest. If a player sees 20 minutes of actual movement and action in a game, it is a rarity. These players can sprint, but they train for the short sprints, not an entire game.


Don't mean to rain on your parage, but the top athletes already do. The NFL draws talent from everywhere. If a player can make it, they will go to the NFL and try. You don't get that kind of draw for rugby.

The Rugby World Cup is the third highest viewed sporting event in the world behind only the Soccer World Cup and the Olympics. I think they get a pretty good draw.

I can watch a basketball game, but the players with their ego's just make me angry.

The NFL is the best option after NHL for me.

NFL far and away - basketball's monotonous and too much uncontested scoring IMO

I love the strategy of football - watching a game and guessing the playcall by looking at the formation/package on both sides of the ball is so great - but you need to understand the game and LIKELY most people who make the "rugby-no pads, no stoppages" argument doesn't understand what they'r seeing out there - it's a complex game but when you get to understand it it's SO good to watch

I have never and doubt I could ever maintain interest for 60 minutes of a b-ball game, same with baseball - but that's just me of course.

Dude, fair play. I can't be asked to research as you have proved your point. I was wrong about that but surely it still can't be healthy for these guys to be that big especially if your relatively short and are that heavy. I mean i don't think i know any sport (outside fighting) that have guys that big. Man i can't imagine standing up to a 300 pound guy.

To be fair, the 300+ pound crew are linemen. Most linemen are in the 6'4 to 6'8 range.

That isn't to say other positions are not just as imposing. Brian Urlacher is a 250 pound linebacker who absolutely flies as a runner. The guy hits like a freight train. NFL is loaded with premiere athletes. They have to be because that is where the level of competition is.

Healthwise, it is bad. I worked with a retired NFLer. A former defensive end. His knees were totally shot. He said you don't notice the stuff while you are playing because you have so much muscle mass supporting the joints. It is when you stop playing and shed the pounds that the damage starts to surface.

They're designed to do different things. NFL athletes aren't rugby caliber athletes. Its like comparing a sprinter to a long distance runner.

A rugby athlete is comparable to a linebacker or a safety I would suspect. With some tailback thrown in.

None of these players need to run, hit, scrummage (which is one of the most exhausting tasks around) for 80 consecutive minutes. They can be that big becaue they only need to run and move for a play, then rest. If a player sees 20 minutes of actual movement and action in a game, it is a rarity. These players can sprint, but they train for the short sprints, not an entire game.

It is a different game. Those linemen 'scrummage' 40-or-so times per game. With other monsters just as big. It IS exhaustive. Other guys, like linebackers and runningbacks ARE running around. Only they have to take on those monsters on occasions or are getting tackled by them.

It is more short sprint work.

If people were brutally honest, I think the NFL/CFL would actually be close to the NHL if we polled people from HF at random and asked what sports league they enjoy watching the most.

....Yes, even at a hockey forum.

NBA... I hate football.

Because Baseball isn't that interesting, sorry. I might be interested to play it myself, but I'm not planning to watch it.
Don't ever say it isn't interesting to watch. Maybe it isn't for you, but don't ever say it isn't interesting.

If you polled people anywhere, I think you'd get similar results as this poll. The NBA is in shambles right now. The league just stinks. Players fighting with fans, cursing them, running teams. It's awful.

American football is the American pastime these days..

NBA.

I can't tolerate football at all.

Football

Except for perhaps a Duke home game on ESPN, I simply cannot watch a basketball game unless it's close in the last minute. In football, every score is an event, plus, of course, every regular season game is huge. Football also has body contact, which is why I love hockey as well. In basketball, all a guy needs to do is break toward the basket, get brushed on the arm, and he gets to shoot some exciting free throws. ZZZZZZZZ.

I love the strategy of football - watching a game and guessing the playcall by looking at the formation/package on both sides of the ball is so great - but you need to understand the game and LIKELY most people who make the "rugby-no pads, no stoppages" argument doesn't understand what they'r seeing out there - it's a complex game but when you get to understand it it's SO good to watch.
Great post. The NFL is the best TV sport ever created. In person, the games are boring as hell though, but that's why they sell beer.

American Football is designed for a TV audience and is genius in the way it operates. The game is a series of stops and starts. Each play involves some strategy, and that strategy invites comments and thought from every fan. When you sit around and watch a game with friends, you can spend the entire time talking about why the coaches were making the decisions they do.

If you want to learn and get involved in the game, watch it from the coaches perspective. Ask yourself why they do what they do in each situation. Of all sports, football has the most coach involvement and the most complexity because of it.

Great post. The NFL is the best TV sport ever created. In person, the games are boring as hell though, but that's why they sell beer.

American Football is designed for a TV audience and is genius in the way it operates. The game is a series of stops and starts. Each play involves some strategy, and that strategy invites comments and thought from every fan. When you sit around and watch a game with friends, you can spend the entire time talking about why the coaches were making the decisions they do.

If you want to learn and get involved in the game, watch it from the coaches perspective. Ask yourself why they do what they do in each situation. Of all sports, football has the most coach involvement and the most complexity because of it.
And definately the best sport to watch in HDTV. OMG... Technology is a beautiful thing. I remember watching the Baltimore-Tennessee game last year at my friends house in his new home theatre and it was probably the most realistic experience ever.

Easily the NFL. I hate the NBA. Hate it. Like college hoops,though.

The rugby vs NFL argument is dumb. Football players are bigger, stronger and faster. Go find me an athlete like Owens or Vick on any rugby team. And to the person who said that NFL players wear helmets and are wusses. Wow. You already realize you were wrong, but if NFL players were to not wear any protection, there would likely be several deaths per season. It's that rough. I always get a kick out of that argument.

Great post. The NFL is the best TV sport ever created. In person, the games are boring as hell though, but that's why they sell beer.

American Football is designed for a TV audience and is genius in the way it operates. The game is a series of stops and starts. Each play involves some strategy, and that strategy invites comments and thought from every fan. When you sit around and watch a game with friends, you can spend the entire time talking about why the coaches were making the decisions they do.

If you want to learn and get involved in the game, watch it from the coaches perspective. Ask yourself why they do what they do in each situation. Of all sports, football has the most coach involvement and the most complexity because of it.


I agree. I didn't really like football until I started picking up on a lot of the strategy and playcalling. It just gets delicious when you see Baltimore put 10 players on the line of scrimmage to try to stop Peyton Manning, or NE line up with all linebackers and defenseive backs.

ugh NBA sucks. :banghead:

Easily the NFL. I hate the NBA. Hate it. Like college hoops,though.

The rugby vs NFL argument is dumb. Football players are bigger, stronger and faster. Go find me an athlete like Owens or Vick on any rugby team. And to the person who said that NFL players wear helmets and are wusses. Wow. You already realize you were wrong, but if NFL players were to not wear any protection, there would likely be several deaths per season. It's that rough. I always get a kick out of that argument.

Here we go again. Had same arguement and you can't compare the sports. Rugby is very physical and until you play it you won't know. Any i was the guy who said wusses. Like your going to get killed. I mean their are far more dangerous sports out their and deaths are rare.The risks are just as dangerous in rugby and Rugby is 80mins a game and they play the whole game. Now the NHL is rough. Football players are bigger, stronger and faster. Bigger maybe, stronger questionable, faster in some instances, but thier stamina compared to rugby is pathetic.

Here we go again. Had same arguement and you can't compare the sports. Rugby is very physical and until you play it you won't know. Any i was the guy who said wusses. Like your going to get killed. I mean their are far more dangerous sports out their and deaths are rare.The risks are just as dangerous in rugby and Rugby is 80mins a game and they play the whole game. Now the NHL is rough. Football players are bigger, stronger and faster. Bigger maybe, stronger questionable, faster in some instances, but thier stamina compared to rugby is pathetic.
I have played rugby, although not very competitively.

You are dead wrong on stamina and strength. Don't fool yourself, rugby players can't hold a candle to NFL players in terms of strengths. And I'd like to see rugby players who have the speed of a guy like Dante Hall, Moss and Michael Bennett. There likely isn't anyone close. And how do you say bigger maybe? Did you not read the posts about how big NFLers are?

And yes there would be several head injuried that would lead to death. Maybe you haven't seen a WR coming across the middle with a DB coming at him full speed. Literally no one would be left standing if there were no protection.

You're in a no win situation here. You have no knowledge of the game, which you already admitted.

I think it's quite ignorant to assume that Rugby doesn't have players that rival Randy Moss and others in terms of speed. Rugby has its share of special athletes aswell.

I think it's quite ignorant to assume that Rugby doesn't have players that rival Randy Moss and others in terms of speed. Rugby has its share of special athletes aswell.
Of course they do. But I'm sorry, they're not the athletes NFL players are.

I have played rugby, although not very competitively.

You are dead wrong on stamina and strength. Don't fool yourself, rugby players can't hold a candle to NFL players in terms of strengths. And I'd like to see rugby players who have the speed of a guy like Dante Hall, Moss and Michael Bennett. There likely isn't anyone close. And how do you say bigger maybe? Did you not read the posts about how big NFLers are?

And yes there would be several head injuried that would lead to death. Maybe you haven't seen a WR coming across the middle with a DB coming at him full speed. Literally no one would be left standing if there were no protection.

You're in a no win situation here. You have no knowledge of the game, which you already admitted.

Yeah i agree that they are bigger though rugby has some monsters. I'll also admit that my knowldge is poor of NFL and i already lost an arguement on how tough NFL guys were. But when people say rugby is pathetic and NFL blows it away is just plain wrong. It is ignorant to say rugby players couldn't hold themselves against NFL guys. It depends on individuals. How quick can NFL guys go. Cause we have guys in rugby who are extremly fast and as we are so weak and can't light a candle to NFL players in size then they are going to be more agile eh. And deaths please. NHL is as rough. Guys get killed with head injuries all the time. Rugby is very physical and is extremly dangerous yet there are rarely any serious injuries (mean fatal injuries).

So Dude whatever. I'm like so done with you man. I just know your right and can't hack the arguement knowing that every point you make is correct. :lol

I have never stated Rugby players are pathetic, or anything of the sort. In fact, they're probably some of the toughest athletes in the world. Wearing no protection like that is nuts.

But NFL players are like another breed of human. They're ridiculously fast and strong. I just don't think the fastest and strongest rugby players could compare to the fastest and strongest NFL players.

NFL and it's not even in the same universe...

I have never stated Rugby players are pathetic, or anything of the sort. In fact, they're probably some of the toughest athletes in the world. Wearing no protection like that is nuts.

But NFL players are like another breed of human. They're ridiculously fast and strong. I just don't think the fastest and strongest rugby players could compare to the fastest and strongest NFL players.

I've come to the conclusion that the sports are really comparable. Rugby lasts much longer than NFL and is more tiresome while NFL is faster sport.

Maybe 10+ years ago, I would've preferred the NBA.. but this league has become a joke. It's not as fun as it used to be with the intense rivalries like Lakers/Celtics - Magic vs. Bird was just awesome.

Maybe 10+ years ago, I would've preferred the NBA.. but this league has become a joke. It's not as fun as it used to be with the intense rivalries like Lakers/Celtics - Magic vs. Bird was just awesome.

Exactly! :handclap:

I still say Jordan killed the league....

And deaths please.
Back in 1905, 18 people died while playing football. And back then, there were many times fewer people playing. The game was almost outlawed until Teddy Roosevelt (the US president at the time) put together a special comitee to make the game safer.

See President Roosevelt saves the game (http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/kidscorner/football.htm) for more detail.