Rugby Players Playing NFL

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

DubTony

In 1986 when the Dublin Tornadoes started out there was a trial for new players. After some mentions on radio and some shop window ads between 40 and 60 guys turned up.

Before the scrimmage, tests of speed, strength, and agility were carried out to determine what positions would be best suited to each player.

Many rugby players came along with an attitude of "This game is easy. In rugby we don't wear pads. You're all wusses. We'll show you".

The scrimmage took place without padding so there was little head to head stuff and "most" tackles were made below the neck, i.e. shoulder to chest or legs. After the scrimmage, (everyone knew beforehand that it would be more a game of modified rugby than American football), and some very light "go easy on them" tackles, many of the rugby players had a different attitude and a little more respect for the game.

I can't remember if any of them actually continued to play with the Tornadoes.
So another question arises. Apart from who could make it, who would really want to?

As for hundred metre sprints ... aren't speed tests in American football done over 40 yards to show short bursts of speed?

Tony

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Pherekydes

DubTony wrote:

As for hundred metre sprints ... aren't speed tests in American football done over 40 yards to show short bursts of speed?

Tony

It makes no difference. Bob Hayes was the fastest man at any distance up to, and including 100. And he was a football player!

It's the same nowadays. If you're fast over 40, you're fast, period.

djf1970

http://www.vikings.com/player_detail_objectname_david_dixon.html

As a youth in New Zealand, was a member of the elite New Zealand All Blacks junior rugby team...Discovered playing rugby in New Zealand by a traveling U.S. football coach...First New Zealander to start in the NFL.

As neither an American football or rugby fan, I would have to say that I think very few rugby players would be able to make it without a couple of years conditioning and even then most would be a flop.

fixer

very VERY loosely, rugby 1-3s are generally suited to defensive tackles, offensive line or fullbacks. 4-8s are defensive ends, linebackers or tight ends. 9-13 are linebackers, safeties or halfbacks. 14-15 are cornerbacks or wide receivers.

ozhawk66

>>Just an of the wall thought.....how many rugby players with serious training could play nfl and who would they be<<

It's mostly an apples and oranges comparison between the two sports and comparable positions, but by and large, it really isn't feasable for professional rugby players to play in the NFL.

They are bigger, faster and stronger, and it would take several years of training - in their prime - to learn the teamwork/chess aspect of the game AND to learn on how to deal with the continuois, physical pounding of the NFL and the overall violent nature of the game.

You could take some of the bigger, faster rugby players (that rugby had to offer) and stick them in the TE (tight end) position. But that would take about two years of sitting on the bench to soak it all in.

ozhawk66

>>As a youth in New Zealand, was a member of the elite New Zealand All Blacks junior rugby team...Discovered playing rugby in New Zealand by a traveling U.S. football coach...First New Zealander to start in the NFL.

As neither an American football or rugby fan, I would have to say that I think very few rugby players would be able to make it without a couple of years conditioning and even then most would be a flop.<<


As a Viking fan who knows his players, David Dixon has been nothing but a class act for the Vikings. As a matter of fact, I think I recently read where Dixon was willing to downgrade his contract and was willing to stay on the team as a backup lineman. Almost unheard of in the NFL.

ozhawk66

Slow coach wrote:

It makes no difference. Bob Hayes was the fastest man at any distance up to, and including 100. And he was a football player!

It's the same nowadays. If you're fast over 40, you're fast, period.

Hayes can be argued as the fastest or one of the fastest, but there is a (short) list who could match Hayes.


http://archive.profootballweekly.com/content/archives2001/features_2001/nflist_092401.asp

ozhawk66

>>martin johnson plans to play football when he retires. i remember seeing him on skys football coverage saying so. some rugby wingers would make brilliant receivers. i dont think many footballers would translate well into rugby tho as it is more complex and there are many rules and things to get used to in rugger.
__________________
That money was just resting in my account!It was a routine relocation of funds! <<


Martin Johnson quote: 'I'd never be quick enough. In our sport, you try to get good rugby players and make them into athletes. In the NFL they've got some good athletes who they make into players. How quick you do the 40 [run 40 yards] is the big thing. "What? He does the 40 in 4.2? He's that quick?" They love their stats.'


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,6903,1406820,00.html

ozhawk66

Stormfox1020 wrote:

Well having played WR in High School football, and now playing winger in rugby I can say that both sports are equally as tough. Football has has tougher hits but the padding help alot, and dont forget in football you can also jump into a tackle. While in rugby you do get vicious hits with no padding but you also suffer the raking and burns from other players studs etc. I have easily settled into playing winger coming from wide reciever as the two posistion sort of complement each other. As mentioned though It would be tough for rugby players to play NFL because most Football Pro's have been playing their posistion for their whole football career and have undergone Instense training and Fitness camps to get where they are now. I found rugby tough at first though due to the amount of running needed. You have to be much fitter to play rugby than Football hence why rugby players dont weigh as much as football player. Also when you consider the US has 300 Million people and nearly 60% of boys play Football, thats probably 100x more than people who play rugby worldwide. Then again on the contrary why would pro rugby players want to play NFL when they worked their ass off to get where they are now?

>>You have to be much fitter to play rugby than Football hence why rugby players dont weigh as much as football player.<<


I'm not sure that aspect is even debatable between the two sports. There is a reason why they have two-a-days/hell weeks for 2 weeks in football. The stories I could relay about training camps in the NFL. Gag!

ozhawk66

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I read an article concerning certan "padding" in the NFL and how most of the players aren't wearing cups anymore - I guess its turned into a macho thing.

ozhawk66

Slow coach wrote:

Rugby players do wear padding. They just don't bother to protect the important areas of their bodies.

>>Quote:
Originally Posted by daveirl
Indeed, I can give you stacks of videos of Rugby hits that are as hard as those American football ones but without padding.<<


That's almost funny to me, as I've been debating rugby league (NRL) fans down here, Down Under in Sydney about the differences in nature of hitting between the two sports.

I'm going on my 6th season of watching NRL, and I have yet to see a full-fledged knockout. I'm not talkin when a guy's head gets knocked and gets loopy, or just lies there on the field. I'm talking unconscious knockouts that's hard to find in the sport of boxing. Instantanious,violent knockouts.

ESPN has been running a Monday Night segment for the past two seasons, where they save the best to the last; the top 5 hits (of the week) that DON'T result in injury.

The speed and the violent nature is amazing. Sometimes gut-wrenching. They have to cover most of these hits from different angles, just by the fact that the speed of these hits, takes the scene out of the camera eye.

The bottom line: there are more injuries in football as opposed to rugby and the severity of those injuries are more severe, in nature.

uum

ozhawk66 wrote:

The stories I could relay about training camps in the NFL. Gag!

Please tell !!
Or link!
This has been a great read tbh.

ozhawk66

IncredibleBulk wrote:

To be honest you havnt got a clue about football.

If you did you wouldnt have written that sentence.

You need to be tougher to play football than you do to play rugby.

In football, no matter what position you play or no matter what time of any play, you have to be physically fit, you have to make contact with another player on every play, you have to tackle someone every play. You have to get hit every play, you have to get tackled every play.

You only get tackled in rugby when you have the ball, and thats if you dont wuss out and throw it away. In football you dont get to choose when you get the ball or who you give it to. You take it and run. You get hit you go down you get up and go to the huddle for the next play.

/rant

Dammit why do people have to be so .... argh

That's one of my biggest points of contention between the two sports. Invariably, all I hear is - "rugby players run around for the full 80 minutes". Which is a bunch of crap.

*I don't watch union, but I do watch league (I run a NRL comp).

Basically, league, is a running and tackling drill. 13 players on each side. On average, for arguments sake, you have anywhere from 2-5 players involved on the play/tackle.

In football, EVERY player is involved on EVERY play.

And when you consider the amount of money involved in the NFL - I won't even mention the money involved for the amateur/collegiate football player - You can almost guarantee that every player has been put through hell, just so the coaches can put the best and fittest athletes they have on the field.......willing to give it all.

ozhawk66

IncredibleBulk wrote:

LOL that is so untrue.

Heres a couple of examples: (56k warning!!!)



Who has the ball? Who gets hit?



Who has the ball? Who gets hit?

Now I dont watch rugby all that often, but from what I do watch of it, you do not find this in that game.

Good example. I don't like either team, but I think Lynch got fined for that hit, didn't he?

ozhawk66

Chucky the tree wrote:

majority of the times a blocker will not get hit that hard though

>>majority of the times a blocker will not get hit that hard though<<


The worst "hit" I saw this year in the NFL was a bull****, but legal hit. It was from the same team, Broncos against the Bengals. A defensive lineman for the Bengals got his leg broken (from an offensive lineman) and he didn't even see it coming - and he was standing straight up,looking around for someone to block.

The announcers went over and over about how this certain nuance of blocking had to be changed in the NFL. And I've been saying it for years. I'm bettin that it will be brought up in the rules committee this off-season.

ozhawk66

Chucky the tree wrote:

WOuld any nfl player make it in rugby?

A lot of American football players who fail at football, eventually play rugby.

ozhawk66

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Height 1.96m (6ft 5")
Weight 125kg (19 st)
Fastest 100m 10.8 scnds


His height is right on. The weight you posted is pushing it by 5 kg's

I would love for you to back up that 10.8 in the 100m

I've seen Jonah play, and he is legit.....but I seriously doubt he's that fast.

He's more like an 11.5+ in the 100m (field speed) and a 4.5/6 40 in the dash, not the meter.

He would be a good TE, though.

The Clown Man

BTW Incredible Bulk - although I think it's fairly safe to say you know very little about rugby - I don't think you really understand the amount of fitness required to play a full 80 minutes at full pace. The forwards on a rugby team are constantly pushing and shoving and then running and pushing and shoving and running. They don't stop. The only breaks they get is the odd break in play for a lineout or penalty. Footballers play for about 10 seconds and then break for about 3 minutes. They are built for big hits. Rugby players are built for fitness. The average forward would be about 16-17st. Thats a 16-17st person who could run 10km without breaking a sweat. A football player would just not be up to the constant exertion of energy required for rugby.

I played rugby at the top of the irish schoolboys level (which is pretty much pre-professional) and I could run 15km and then go for a game of indoor soccer and a circuit training a while later. (And did every thursday.) Now I was 12st and a winger but my 17st teammates could do the same.

One game of rugby though and I was totally exhausted.

Vikings

The Clown Man wrote:

BTW Incredible Bulk - although I think it's fairly safe to say you know very little about rugby - I don't think you really understand the amount of fitness required to play a full 80 minutes at full pace. ..........Footballers play for about 10 seconds and then break for about 3 minutes.

And i can safely say you don't understand the game of football at all.


3 minutes, that got me laughing.


It's more like, play like oh say 20-30 seconds, run back to the huddle, get the play, run to LOS, play the play. Rinse and repeat. The most rest the players get is 40 seconds from the time the ball is blown dead until the time the next play HAS to start (during normal play - penalties/time outs aside).


..... 3 minutes

Pherekydes

IncredibleBulk wrote:

..... 3 minutes

And you're worried about Packers' fans with donkeys like that?

Way to go Moss! He'll fit right in with the Raiders.

Vikings

Don't get me started on that, shafted is all that I can say.

Shafted.

ozhawk66

uum wrote:

Please tell !!
Or link!
This has been a great read tbh.

I cut/pasted to highlight then offered the link for the full article. Pretty amusing/telling, actually.




>>The first thing you need to know about NFL training camp that nobody tells you about is the puke. There's a lot of it, on a daily basis. You know puke? Vomit? Hurl? Upchuck? Corn chowder? It's pretty much everywhere. It's hot as hell down here. And most guys, they might work out on the weights in the offseason because it looks good to be all cut and swole -- and they gotta do something to work the creatine and crap off -- but they won't do much running.<<

>>There's tricks to surviving the first round of cut downs, after the first week of two-a-days. What are two-a-days? Two-a-days are what will kill you if you don't pace yourself through them. Think I'm kidding? I give you Korey Stringer. I give you J.V. Cain. And dying ain't no way to make a living, boy. Coaches, they say you'll pass out way before you actually die, but I don't know, and I ain't really trying to find out. Gotta know your own body in the NFL, your own tolerance levels for heat and fatigue. If you think they're looking out for you, think again. I work off this theory, learned at three other training camps: If you feel like you're dying ... you are.<<

>>Gotta have the right kind of coach. Anybody fond of nutcrackers, "Oklahoma" drills, ain't really me. I'm a buck-eighty soaking wet. What I look like taking on some 300-pound water buffalo pulling guard, shedding that load, then getting in front of Ricky Williams, knees high, point to prove, nothing to fear from my buck-eighty?<<


http://espn.go.com/page2/s/wiley/020801.html



And here is another really good one from a different angle:

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/toomay/010829.html

ozhawk66

The Clown Man wrote:

BTW Incredible Bulk - although I think it's fairly safe to say you know very little about rugby - I don't think you really understand the amount of fitness required to play a full 80 minutes at full pace. The forwards on a rugby team are constantly pushing and shoving and then running and pushing and shoving and running. They don't stop. The only breaks they get is the odd break in play for a lineout or penalty. Footballers play for about 10 seconds and then break for about 3 minutes. They are built for big hits. Rugby players are built for fitness. The average forward would be about 16-17st. Thats a 16-17st person who could run 10km without breaking a sweat. A football player would just not be up to the constant exertion of energy required for rugby.

I played rugby at the top of the irish schoolboys level (which is pretty much pre-professional) and I could run 15km and then go for a game of indoor soccer and a circuit training a while later. (And did every thursday.) Now I was 12st and a winger but my 17st teammates could do the same.

One game of rugby though and I was totally exhausted.

Rugby leaguers down here in Australia aren't even close to being as fit or talented as NFL athletes. Geez, they let 17-18 year old kids make their professional NRL debuts!

Thats frickin high school age! You would be hard pressed to find an 18 year old getting legit playing time a a division 1-A school. Needless to say, that won't ever happen in the NFL, as Clarett found out.

The other major difference I noticed down here is the schedule. They play 26 (regular) season games and throw in 3 all-star games - State of Origin - throughout the middle of their season! Good grief! If they did that in the NFL, you would be lucky to have 10-20% of the team standing by season's end!

The Clown Man

3 minutes was a derogatory exaduration. Sorry I should be more literal in the face of petty arguments. Point is by your own description (20 seconds play and 40 seconds to huddle and restart) football players spend 2/3 of their time not doing anything.

Anyway. This topic excites me like a varuca so retort away without me. Cause I really don't care.

ozhawk66

The Clown Man wrote:

BTW Incredible Bulk - although I think it's fairly safe to say you know very little about rugby - I don't think you really understand the amount of fitness required to play a full 80 minutes at full pace. The forwards on a rugby team are constantly pushing and shoving and then running and pushing and shoving and running. They don't stop. The only breaks they get is the odd break in play for a lineout or penalty. Footballers play for about 10 seconds and then break for about 3 minutes. They are built for big hits. Rugby players are built for fitness. The average forward would be about 16-17st. Thats a 16-17st person who could run 10km without breaking a sweat. A football player would just not be up to the constant exertion of energy required for rugby.

I played rugby at the top of the irish schoolboys level (which is pretty much pre-professional) and I could run 15km and then go for a game of indoor soccer and a circuit training a while later. (And did every thursday.) Now I was 12st and a winger but my 17st teammates could do the same.

One game of rugby though and I was totally exhausted.

I've watched league for 5 years now. 13 players on each side and an average of 2-5 players involved on each tackle, with exceptions, of course. In football, EVERY player is involved ON EVERY play.

ozhawk66

The Clown Man wrote:

3 minutes was a derogatory exaduration. Sorry I should be more literal in the face of petty arguments. Point is by your own description (20 seconds play and 40 seconds to huddle and restart) football players spend 2/3 of their time not doing anything.

Anyway. This topic excites me like a varuca so retort away without me. Cause I really don't care.

For arguments sake, 20 seconds of play and 40 secs to huddle/resart, is the same thing most of the players are doing, on average, in rugby after each tackle. Jog back for 5-10 meters and jog forward on the play the ball.

ozhawk66

raven136 wrote:

Just an of the wall thought.....how many rugby players with serious training could play nfl and who would they be

If there was more money in rugby league and teams from league scouted and recruited some of these guys that didn't make it in the NFL, they could probably hone some pretty good players - if they could get their interest up about the sport. There are loads of 220 lb lightning fast running backs who never make it to the NFL.

Sangre

I can't see why people are arguing these points.
(As a rule)
Football - stronger, faster, bigger
Rugby - fitter, more versatile

I can't see why people are arguing this point, as a forward you're in every line out and scrum. You have to make it to every 2nd break down to ruck a tackle or potentially maul (a bitch on the legs), At the ruck you have to push, shove and heave the other 16/17stone guy out of the way. And what are you doing in between every 2nd break? Thats right, you're running to the next ruck so you'll be there first, on they way you'll have to fringe defend or probably tackle. If you're backs have made a break, it can take some effort trying to keep up, full sprint usually. Or don't forget if you actually get the ball and have to sprint at the oppostion and try and keep possession.
Now the worst for forwards is probably when the forwards get some momentum and do pick and drives up the pitch, with nearly every forward in the ruck or running.

On the more versatile think, I think rugby wins because there is simply no point in telling others stats if they can't catch, pass, tackle, kick (for most), ruck, maul, scrum, throw etc.,

Also the guy who pointed out 18/19 year olds playing, need I point out Tait as an example of that going wrong ?
Anyway, they start because at 18/19 their pace and fitness aren't going to get any better, they've been probably playing 10+ years anyway. Of crouse they'll get better, but there is no accounting for pure pace sometimes. I've never seen a forward start that young, they need several years from schoolboys to bulk up physically.

Neil3030

Well, I think I've stayed out of this baby long enough. So it's time for my two cents if you're bothered to read it.

I am a fan of rugby, I am a fan of football. I do not, for one second, propose the notion of rugby being a wimpy sport in any way shape or form, as I used to play it and know all about how tough it is. I proposed that other thread entitled "rugby for wimps in armour" out of a resentment towards those who argue football is a sport for wimps. It was not, in any way, a spiteful jab at rugby. I was merely defending the sport I love, just as any rugby fan would if a long standing accusation was being made against it.

That being said, and from reading all the posts on this thread, I think both sides need to allow for a bit of give and take of opinions. I can understand how difficult it may be to stand up for your sport on the one hand, while taking in an opposing viewpoint on another, but we are all sports fans here and should treat rugby and football not as enemies, or threats, but as two sports that can offer something to one another.

Sangre put it as clear as I think you'll get it. Football is faster, bigger and heavier on impact, while rugby demands a lot more fitness levels. The main thing to remember is that neither sport is for the faint hearted.

I wouldn't imagine all that many players could make the cross over from either sport after being brought up and trained in one particular discipline. Given the nature of both sports (football with it's specialisation of tasks, rugby with it's all round team effort) it would be quite difficult. Also, you really have to also look at the sporting facilities available in the US. I mean, I think it's Minnesota University have a stadium that holds over 100,000 seats. That's amazing!

So when you consider the facilities available to athletes in the US and the specialisation of tasks, it's hard to see where any rugby player could keep up in the NFL. Football players grow up perfecting their specific, particular skills with the best possible facilities, whereas rugby players grow up focusing more on overall fitness and multi-tasking with, what could be argued as being inferior facilities. I think that's the main reason rugby players would not succeed in the NFL.

Likewise, football players would probably take too long perfecting all the skills needed to play rugby at top level to ever make an impact. Perhaps a running back could make it as a full-back in rugby, I dunno. It’d probably be the position that’d require the least amount of extra training, namely catching and kicking. But that still would take a while and could possibly interfere with the abilities that would have made the running-back effective in the first place.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ozhawk66

>>can't see why people are arguing these points.
(As a rule)
Football - stronger, faster, bigger
Rugby - fitter, more versatile<<


I've never understood the MORE "versatile/fitter" arguments from rugby when it came to the comparable basics of each sport.

In football, players get their "rest" between plays, even though they are going back and forth from the line, just as in rugby - while in rugby, players have to pace/rest themselves, while they can, during play. That's the other reason I never bought the 'running for 80 minutes' argument.

I'm going on my 6th season watching league, and on the average, there are 2-5 players involved on each play/tackle, from BOTH sides - until something gives or all heck breaks loose, of course.

In American football, every player is involved on every play, and the continuous exertion/pounding on each play, is a bit more taxing than in rugby. Hence the differences in size and speed between the two sports.


>>On the more versatile think, I think rugby wins because there is simply no point in telling others stats if they can't catch, pass, tackle, kick (for most), ruck, maul, scrum, throw etc.,<<

I've never really bought this part of the argument on the comparable aspects of the two sports. MANY players change positions, skills and sides when they advance from high school to college and from college to the pros. It's common and a needed aspect of the game. That's why every week, you see some gangly 250+ lb guy - from offense OR defense - make the highlights cause he caught a hard catch and actually did something with the ball.

One of the greatest plays I saw in recent history was Randy Moss doing a no-look, over the shoulder rugby-type (lateral) pass for a touchdown...AFTER he had first caught about a 40+ yard catch.


>>Also the guy who pointed out 18/19 year olds playing...<<

I actually said I saw 17-18 year olds making their NRL (Australia) debuts. I brought up the fact that it's harder than hell to find 18/19 year old kids getting legit playing time in major collegiate football, let alone 17 year kids playing in the NFL!

And that's one of my main two points in the differences between the 2 sports. It's physically and mentally impossible for a kid that young to play in the NFL. It will never happen, and for good reason. Even the NBA is coming around to this point of view.

ozhawk66

>>That being said, and from reading all the posts on this thread, I think both sides need to allow for a bit of give and take of opinions. I can understand how difficult it may be to stand up for your sport on the one hand, while taking in an opposing viewpoint on another, but we are all sports fans here and should treat rugby and football not as enemies, or threats, but as two sports that can offer something to one another.<<

That's why I try to keep it - the debate - to the comparable aspects of each sport, instead of leaning on extreme examples to make a broader point about either of the two sports.


>>I wouldn't imagine all that many players could make the cross over from either sport after being brought up and trained in one particular discipline. Given the nature of both sports (football with it's specialisation of tasks, rugby with it's all round team effort) it would be quite difficult. Also, you really have to also look at the sporting facilities available in the US. I mean, I think it's Minnesota University have a stadium that holds over 100,000 seats. That's amazing!<<

I have argued that it would be easier for RB's to make the changeover to rugby - due to size and speed. It happens all the time for those who don't make the collegiate football team in America, but end up playing collegiate rugby, for whatever reasons.

The University of Minnesota plays at the Metrodome. I'm a Viking fan and I hate that dome. And it seats nowhere near 100,000. The University of Michigan seats over 100,000 people, though. You might be getting those two stadiums mixed up.


>>So when you consider the facilities available to athletes in the US and the specialisation of tasks, it's hard to see where any rugby player could keep up in the NFL. Football players grow up perfecting their specific, particular skills with the best possible facilities, whereas rugby players grow up focusing more on overall fitness and multi-tasking with, what could be argued as being inferior facilities. I think that's the main reason rugby players would not succeed in the NFL.>>

I was watching team Australia play the Tomahawks earlier this year, and the subject came up about anyone on the Australian side, capable of playing in the NFL. The American announcer mentioned one of the faster players being able to play in the defensive backfield. He was being nice, though, by leaving out the fact that it takes years to learn the defensive backfield positions. And "multi-tasking" is a key, essential ingredient in being able to play in the defensive backfield - just like any other aspect of the defense.


>>Football players grow up perfecting their specific, particular skills with the best possible facilities<<

That's a misnomer about American football players. While they may spend time "perfecting" certain aspects of the game, they practice many other skills and aspects of the game from high school onwards through the NFL, if they make it that far. - cept for kicking, of course

ozhawk66

>>Also the guy who pointed out 18/19 year olds playing, need I point out Tait as an example of that going wrong<<


Maybe this will shed a bit on the reasons why kids aren't allowed to play in the NFL. It's kind of funny, cause this was BEFORE the ruling against Maurice Clarret. And they don't even bring up the mental part of the equation, when concerning the concept of high school age kids playing in the NFL.



Despite the NFL ruling, several high school football coaches said the grueling physical demands of the NFL would make it unlikely that many high school football players would choose to bypass college and enter the draft.

"Only if they are into career suicide," said Terry Edison, the defensive coordinator for the football team at De La Salle High School, a 1,000-student private school in Concord, Calif. It was the nation's top-ranked high school team this past season, according to USA Today rankings.

"Football is way too physical a game," Mr. Edison added. "I can't imagine a pro team drafting someone out of high school. I've had great players come out of this program, and they struggle their first year in college."

John Poovey, the head football coach at the 1,400-student Loveland High School in Colorado, whose team won a state championship this past season with the help of the nation's high school football Player of the Year, Jeff Byers, agreed that the physical demands of the NFL would be too hard for even the best high school players.

"Jeff is 6 feet 5 and weighs 270 pounds," Mr. Poovey said. "He's a very strong young man. Still, the strength of a man and the strength of a boy are different. The NFL's rule to wait three years after high school was in the athlete's best interest."

http://www.usafootball.com/features/edWeek.html

Big Ears

I think we should focuse more on NFL and Union , because for me , and most rugby fans in this country(and around the world) , Rugby League is the infierior code .

in comparing NFL and League , I wouldn't be suprised at all if the NFL came out on top by miles , but Union is a far more skillful , physically demanding and all round more entertaing sport(than League) .

ozhawk66

Big Ears wrote:

I think we should focuse more on NFL and Union , because for me , and most rugby fans in this country(and around the world) , Rugby League is the infierior code .

in comparing NFL and League , I wouldn't be suprised at all if the NFL came out on top by miles , but Union is a far more skillful , physically demanding and all round more entertaing sport(than League) .

I'd think some league fans would differ. I can't really "argue" against union, as I've watched very, VERY little of that code. The ironic thing is that American football was based and evolved from a more union type of rugby.

I myself, found the union code a bit more boring, for two main reasons. One, way to many kicks on 1st possession without even running the ball. Second: it seems too many points are scored from the kicking game, than actually scoring (a try).

I have noticed one thing down here Down Under: it seems more players were willing to change over to union, or were able too, as opposed to union players changing over to league. It must be a money thing.

Big Ears

ozhawk66 wrote:

I have noticed one thing down here Down Under: it seems more players were willing to change over to union, or were able too, as opposed to union players changing over to league. It must be a money thing.

Tis a money thing alright .League I find very boring as its just constant running trying to find the gap , tackled , get up , running to find the gap , tackled gets rid of ball so as not to turn over possesion after two more tackles , running tyring to find a gap tackled . There is very little variation of the play .

Some people like that kind of thing , but certainly not me and the majority of the world when it comes to rugby . Although League is very fun to play , but so is Union so meh .

gert83

So stupid I have to get inolved.

Loads of americans like Ozhawk like to say that rugby players wouldn't make the NFL. They're kidding themselves.

But the converse is also true - alot of good American footballers (and some not so good ones) would make unbelievable rugby players.

Here is an interesting fact for you - American Samoa produces more American football players per head than anywhere else, including Junior Seau for example. The reason is simple - American Samoans are polynesians and polynesians are naturally the biggest, most muscular race of people on earth.

American Samoans happen to be mad about US football, but....

Here is another fact - most polynesians nations have rugby as a national sport (think New Zealand, Tonga, Fiji, Western Samoa).

Are you trying to tell me that if all those nations (most of which have bigger populations than American Samoa) decided to switch from Rugby to Football they wouldn't have loads of guys at the highest level of pro-football?!?!?!?! They would have scouts from the NFL drooling - they would be camped on the white sands of their beaches...... Look at Jonah Lomu in 1995 - 18 years old, 250lbs, 10.6 100m and he hadn't even been to a gym! Come On!

As for which is tougher - it looks to me like the collisions in football are bigger, the players generally bigger and faster, but they give and take way fewer hits and don't need much endurance.

Today i read that Gethin jenkins, wales hooker (weight about 270 lbs) is reckoned to have run 5 miles at a semi sprint, made 15 tackels and taken 15 tackles, and taken 2 metric tons of force down his shoulders and spine in 18 scrums in 80 minutes during Wales win against france in last week's 6N.

I wouldn't disparage athletes who endure that kind of brutality every week for a living by saying they aren't tough...

Pherekydes

gert83 wrote:

So stupid I have to get involved....

Me, too!

gert83 wrote:

Look at Jonah Lomu in 1995 - 18 years old, 250lbs, 10.6 100m and he hadn't even been to a gym! Come On!

We've had all this hyperbole about Lomu before. Lomu was 20 in 1995. His own website lists his DOB as 12/5/75. His own website lists his 100m PB as 10.8. Which is quite good, but probably manually timed and only worth 11.00 auto. There are high-school kids in the USA running 10.3 and under, FAT.

There are plenty of rugby players who would make a living in the NFL. Most would be kickers or punters. A few would make excellent linebackers or Tight ends. But you could not drop one into an NFL game cold and expect him to make an impact. It would take a year or two to get up-to-speed with the nuances of the game. The very same would be true in reverse.

gert83 wrote:

Today i read that Gethin jenkins, wales hooker (weight about 270 lbs) is reckoned to have run 5 miles at a semi sprint

Again more hyperbole. You can't run 5 miles at a semi-sprint (whatever that means). The max is probably 800m. Rugby players and Footballers both run quite a distance during their respective games, some is fast but in rugby not very much is flat out; in football quite a lot is flat out. But this is stop start. Totting it all up and saying so-and-so ran 5 Mls at a sprint means next to nothing, and is quite misleading.

Some running backs in the NFL will carry the ball more than 30 times in a game. This probably means up to a 1000 yds of nearly flat out sprinting, most of it ended by physical contact. It could mean 30 plus times being tackled by multiple guys who are bigger than you are. Even when they don't run with the ball they could be called upon to block, which means yet more contact. Some wide receivers could be on the field for 60 plus offensive plays, accelerating flat out on each. They still have to maintain concentration so they can make a tough catch late in the game, despite getting only a handful of passes thrown their way.

The athleticism of players in either code is beyond question, but football produces the extremes (bigger, faster) because it has gone the specialisation route, and that is because of situational substitution.

You can't beat a specialist (especially in his own field).

ozhawk66

>>Loads of americans like Ozhawk like to say that rugby players wouldn't make the NFL. They're kidding themselves.<<

Generally speaking, rugby players do NOT have the required size or speed necessary to make it in the NFL.


>>Here is an interesting fact for you - American Samoa produces more American football players per head than anywhere else, including Junior Seau for example. The reason is simple - American Samoans are polynesians and polynesians are naturally the biggest, most muscular race of people on earth.<<

I can claim almost anything about a small population by using the 'per head' capita technique. The observation about Polynesians as being naturally the biggest, most muscular race on Earth is dumb and ignorant. I'm not a genetic expert, but I do know that all humans have about 99.9% of the SAME genetic material, but that's a different subject. By the way, Junior was born in San Diego, not anywhere in Polynesia.



>>Are you trying to tell me that if all those nations (most of which have bigger populations than American Samoa) decided to switch from Rugby to Football they wouldn't have loads of guys at the highest level of pro-football?!?!?!?! They would have scouts from the NFL drooling - they would be camped on the white sands of their beaches...... Look at Jonah Lomu in 1995 - 18 years old, 250lbs, 10.6 100m and he hadn't even been to a gym! Come On!<<

I'm talking about the players who play in the game of rugby itself as being able to play in the NFL. There never has been any judgment from my part about anyone's population base and there perceived abilities in general to play professional, American football. And your citing of Lomu is another example of leaning on an extreme example to try and make a point in general about rugby players as a whole.


>>As for which is tougher - it looks to me like the collisions in football are bigger, the players generally bigger and faster, but they give and take way fewer hits and don't need much endurance.<<

Where rugby is a contact sport, football is a collision sport. The injuries are more numerous and the severity of those injuries are more extreme in American football.

The link (below) might be a bit long, but it gives a good idea, from many angles, about the violent nature of the game. I've experienced the "ether" angle in this piece (in the doctors office and on the playing field), and it's less than halfway through the article. If you can make it past the "ether' remark, then you'll have a good idea by then, on the violent nature of the game as described by many different players.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n36_v219/ai_17278203


>>Today i read that Gethin jenkins, wales hooker (weight about 270 lbs) is reckoned to have run 5 miles at a semi sprint, made 15 tackels and taken 15 tackles, and taken 2 metric tons of force down his shoulders and spine in 18 scrums in 80 minutes during Wales win against france in last week's 6N.<<

Says here on the official 'RBS Six Nations' website that Jenkins is 250 lbs. And I bet it's a safe bet that this man is no where near as fast as those in the NFL of comparable weight.

I don't know what a semi sprint is either, in this context. But someone else already spotted that one and replied to it very well.

http://www.6nations.net/squad_wales_219733.htm

gert83

Slow coach wrote:

Me, too!




We've had all this hyperbole about Lomu before. Lomu was 20 in 1995. His own website lists his DOB as 12/5/75. His own website lists his 100m PB as 10.8. Which is quite good, but probably manually timed and only worth 11.00 auto. There are high-school kids in the USA running 10.3 and under, FAT.

You don't know it was manually timed, and none of those college kids weigh 270lbs either, especially when they haven't been to a gym. Anway - rugby has it's players who can run those sorts of times - Paul Sampson of England for example. very few of them have really made it, because they cannot maintain the work rate required - they are extreme explosive athletes, and whatever you say, there is simply no comparison in the endurance levels required to be a wide receiver compared to a rugby winger. You know Jonah Lomu was dropped by theABs before he got ill because his work rate was poor?

If Junior Seau can make the NFL then so would Jonah Lomu. are you seriously suggesting he wouldn't?! My point about American Samoans is that the same people who are so good at football play rugby in most of Polynesia, and if they played football they would be really good at it, just as they are at rugby.

And I disagree with the assertion that rugby players would only make good punters and some of the flankers linebackers! There would be defensive backs, full backs, even wide receivers in there (maybe not the fastest wide receivers, but contrary to what others are saying, not all wide receivers run olympic sprint 100m times - some of them ae skillfull, or big). Everyone knows Ronan O'Gara and Jonny wilkinson have been approached to kick by various NFL clubs, but not many people know that Ben Cohen, the england winger, was also approached by NFL scouts. He isn't even the biggest, fastest guy in the England team!

Look at these guys and tell me they wouldn't play top level college football at least:
Rupeni CauCau
Lote Tuquiri
wendell Sailor
Jason Robinson
Josh Lewsey
Lawrence Dallaglio
Doug Howlett
Mark Cueto
Joe Rokocoko

And loads more! If these guys had been brought up in the US playing football they would be there, and sayin they wouldn't is just stupid. By the same token, loads of NFL players, had they been brought up in the UK or NZ, would be totally exceptional rugby players. Loads of people who don't make the NFL would be exceptional rugby players, because there are so many good players trying that if you are unlucky, get injured at the wrong time or there is someone the coach doesn't like you, you may never get the chance no matter how good you are. sometimes there are 4 guys who have almost identical ability going for one spot, so if you do get in, slip up once and you'll dissapear.

As for the toughness of the gamess, my point is that saying football is tougher than rugby is stupid - they are different. Gethin Jenkins ran 5 miles in two periods of 40 minutes divided by a 10 minute half time break. In between he did 18 scrums taking 2 metric tons of pressure on his shoulders, neck, spine and legs, and gave and took 15 tackles, some of which could only be described as collisions.

Not all the hits in football are that big, in fact most of them aren't any bigger than the hits in rugby. In football though, there are huge guys who are only there to hit smaller guys hard. Your spacial awareness is curtailed by wearing a helmet, and because you wear a helmet and pads there is less fear of injury when flying into a tackle, so tacklers have less technique than rugby players but fly into every tackle so every game you really see some huge hits that just leave the victims floored. The big injuries that you see more of in American football than rugby are serious concussions, breaks and dislocations caused by people being hit hard by armoured opponents twice their size who caught them unaware. Watch the quarter back when he gets sacked! Most of the time he doesn't even know it's coming because he's looking for the long bomb and his helmet prevents him seeing his opponent. Also, all the padding curtails flexibility so these guys fall awkwardly and damage themselves that way too.

In rugby it's probably more attritive (you play more often, seasons are longer, you get hit less hard but more often ec. etc.), but all the top level players carry some serious injuries through a season, just like their football counterparts. We're talking broken fingers, minor dslocations, cracked ribs, ligament tears, minor concussions. These guys are usually permanently damaged by their careers.

They are both brutal sports - a bit different in their emphasis, but there are loads of top rugby players who, if they had been born in the US, would be top level footballers, just as the NFL is full of guys who, had they been born into it, would be great rugby players.

Pherekydes

gert83 wrote:

You don't know it was manually timed...

Yes I do. When a time is quoted to one decimal place it's manual. When it's quoted to two decimal places it's usually auto. They are simply conventions of track and field.

Anway - rugby has it's players who can run those sorts of times - Paul Sampson of England for example.

With reference to any track and field ranking list you care to inspect, who is/was rugby's fastest ever player? Nigel Walker has run 10.47. You might do better, but I'll bet you won't find anyone faster than 10.30. The ranking lists are littered with football players.

and whatever you say, there is simply no comparison in the endurance levels required to be a wide receiver compared to a rugby winger.

Well, at least we agree on this one. At any distance, from 100m up to the marathon, I'll take the pick of the NFL against Rugby's finest, from any nation. Let's organise a track meet! (And throw in the field events, too)

Look at these guys and tell me they wouldn't play top level college football at least:
Rupeni CauCau
Lote Tuquiri
wendell Sailor
Jason Robinson
Josh Lewsey
Lawrence Dallaglio
Doug Howlett
Mark Cueto
Joe Rokocoko

Yep, you're right there. A good comparison too. Because the college boys are just that, boys. The cream of Rugby union might just be able to hold their own against 19-22 year olds, most of whom will never make it in the NFL.

ozhawk66

Anway - rugby has it's players who can run those sorts of times - Paul Sampson of England for example. very few of them have really made it, because they cannot maintain the work rate required - they are extreme explosive athletes, and whatever you say, there is simply no comparison in the endurance levels required to be a wide receiver compared to a rugby winger. You know Jonah Lomu was dropped by theABs before he got ill because his work rate was poor?


What your trying to do, is to use extreme examples of rugby players being able to hold a candle with those in the NFL. When you take the BEST the sport of rugby has to offer, in terms of size and speed, your talking about the basic, average norm in NFL standards.

And your statement of comparing wingers to WR's when it comes to the endurance levels is laughable. You need to read the links I offered about the training regiment on just GETTING into the NFL. It's an eye opener.

If I took the 10 best players (by NFL standards) at each comparable position(s), to the best player in rugby had to offer at each (comparable) position, there would be no comparison.

There are (many) legit players in the NFL who are classified as having world class speed. My team lost one, via trade, by the name of Randy Moss. Randy had many memorable plays, but very few of his rugby style of plays made the highlights.

The main point of contention NFL fans have (and I call the NFL, the No Fun League with comparing the two sports is.....American football is a much more violent sport - the players are bigger, faster and stronger - and the level of endurance needed to maintain the level of play, is incomprehensible. Even to the die-hard, avid fans of the game.

Good grief. There is no possible way the NFL could play a 26 game, regular game schedule - with 3 all-star games strung out, throughout the middle of a season.

There is no possible way a 17-18 year old kid, and kids is what they are, could play in the NFL.

Translation: if you took the bulk of the best/heaviest forwards in rugby league, and stuck em in an NFL game? They would get hurt. Hurt quickly and probably in a bad way.



If Junior Seau can make the NFL then so would Jonah Lomu. are you seriously suggesting he wouldn't?!


I'm not sure anyone is saying the likes of Jonah wouldn't have the ability to make it. But Jonah isn't the norm of rugby athletes, is he.


Everyone knows Ronan O'Gara and Jonny wilkinson have been approached to kick by various NFL clubs, but not many people know that Ben Cohen, the england winger, was also approached by NFL scouts. He isn't even the biggest, fastest guy in the England team!


Scouts in the plural? I seriously doubt it was true, or even given serious consideration, concerning Cohen.




Look at these guys and tell me they wouldn't play top level college football at least:
Rupeni CauCau
Lote Tuquiri
wendell Sailor
Jason Robinson
Josh Lewsey
Lawrence Dallaglio
Doug Howlett
Mark Cueto
Joe Rokocoko


I can only (personally) comment on Tuquiri and Sailor. Lote is way too slow to play the tailback position, and he would need to at least pack on 25-30 lbs to play at the TE spot, without losing what speed he possesed. And to do so, he would need years of blocking technique, just too fend off much larger, and mostly quicker, defensive linemen.

Example:

>> The average speed was 4.82 seconds. Seven men in this group were over 6-foot-5, with the tallest being Marquise Hill of LSU (6-6 5/8, 305 pounds). Seven players ran times under 4.7, with Isaac Hilton of Hampton being the fastest with 4.57 speed in the 40, all while weighing 257 pounds. The fastest DT was Tank Johnson of Washington, who was 304 pounds and ran the 40 in 4.69 seconds and added 31 lifts. Johnson was a tight end when he arrived at Washington and he looks like he could become the next William Perry. Tank Johnson had 10 sacks as a DT, which is generally a position in college that you don't get a lot of sacks. He's a very good athlete who earned a lot of money after his workout.<<

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/7121687



As for the toughness of the games, my point is that saying football is tougher than rugby is stupid - they are different. Gethin Jenkins ran 5 miles in two periods of 40 minutes divided by a 10 minute half time break. In between he did 18 scrums taking 2 metric tons of pressure on his shoulders, neck, spine and legs, and gave and took 15 tackles, some of which could only be described as collisions.


As for comparing the "toughness" of each sport is not stupid. Rugby is a CONTACT sport. Football is a COLLISION sport. They are different sports, in many ways, but there is legit comparison between the two sports.

Your continued Jenkins mantra as an example, is a novel approach. 18 scrums? Is that all? Every (American) football play starts off with a scrum.

We won't mention the set plays - the technique involved BEFORE the play starts - the observation of the opposing team - who are you supposed to block, this guy or that guy, or both of em! - plays/audibles being called out - blocking assignments being called out (on the offensive line) - all the while, you and your fellow offensive lineman, have to stand (perfectly) still - waiting... with almost no time to think.......

...then bam! The "scrum" starts the play. And in football, we're not allowed to hold hands for the "scrum". The "scrum" is separated by the nose of the football. Then extreme violence ensues.





Not all the hits in football are that big, in fact most of them aren't any bigger than the hits in rugby.


This shows the ignorance of rugby fans have about the NFL. I'm going on my 6th season of watching NRL, and I have yet to see a full-fledged knockout. I'm talking an instantaneous, concussed, unconsious.....knockout. The type of knockout that's hard to find in the sport of boxing. Yet, it's almost a weekly happening in the NFL. The flip-side to this aspect in American football, is that it has major repercussions on those who suffer these injuries.

Too be blunt about it, we're talking about the equivalent of car wrecks in football - not the bumper-car mentality, that is the sport of rugby.

gert83

OK - I think american football fans are totally ignorant about rugby, and I hear this crap all the time from American friends. It's utter crap to say that nobody playing rugby would make the NFL -plainly lots of them have that potential. Just as lots of pro footballers would be excelent rugby players.

As for endurance - American footballers don't have much compared to rugby players full stop, and they don't need it either. Sure - Wide receivers run at a sprint every play (when the game isn't stopped for adverts), but they're only on the pitch for offensive plays, and wide receiver and some defensive back positions are about the only position where that applies. There are usually 60 people on a football team, so you get replaced and the game lasts hours because of all the ads. And no wide receiver ever has to ruck or maul - you hit the deck (and many of them hit the deck - understandably - with a minimum of contact) and play ends. By the way - perhaps the fact that lots of wide receivers hit the deck before taking major contact emphasises the fact that there are lots of athletes playing American football. My point is, in football being a good athlete is the base, whereas in rugby you have to be athletic, but you have to enjoy ball sports and contact too, because nobody is going to do your tackling, your kicking or block for you if someone has lined you up for a hit. Most really top athletes who have tried to have a go at rugby haven't made it, because they are intimidated by contact or lack ball skills.
Besides all this, you cannot run 10 flat over 100m and have extreme levels of endurance, it is just physiologically impossible.

I would also ask, how do you define an athlete? If speed over 100 metres and size is the defining criteria, then football wins, although rugby has had its speed freaks, like John Carlton, JJ Williams or Nigel Walker. But are you trying to tell me someone like Andy Ripley, who might not have made the NFL, was not a freak athlete? He was a junior 800 metre champion, and even now aged over 50 he can row 2 kms in 6 minutes on the ergometer. I would be extremely surprised if anyone half his age in the NFL at this moment can do that.

Jonah Lomu is not a freak. Scotland had a winger, Roland Reid, weighing in at 240lbs who ran 10.8 for 100m. He has only been capped twice - not enough work rate. There are guys like Wendell Sailor, or Lote tuquiri who are only marginally smaller and/ or slower than those two playing the game, and who compare to their equivalents in the NFL. Rugby and football are so different that there are probably people who will never make the highest level of football who would be great rugby players, and people struggling to break into the highest level of rugby who would be great US footballers - like Roland Reid perhaps, who a college football team would work on just because of his athletic potential, or like Geoff Cape's son who made the NFL draft but couldn't make the Leicester tigers. Or like Dan Lyle, 4th choice at Minnesota Vikings but a hit at Bath.

Also, most of the 300lbs + line men in football are anywhere from 20 - 60lbs overweight, and a scrimmage is not a scrum. American football stops every 30 seconds for a set piece, with a big break in between whilst plays are decided or adverts played on the TV, consequently games last hours, whereas rugby is non stop 40 minutes each way.

Another thing, there would not be so many of these 300lb 4 second 40 yard dashers doing the rounds if the NFL had an ethical policy on steroid abuse (laughably held up as an example of how to police steroid abuse! I can hardly believe it!)

Personally, I think that if you were looking for players who could make the switch between codes, you would be looking at goal kickers, flankers, back 3 and perhaps centres from rugby, and some offensive linemen like the tight ends, wide receivers, full backs and some defensive backs from football. The rugby players would have to go on the 'roids - sorry - I meant get down the gym, and the footballer players would have to slim down/ go on a few 10 mile runs to have a chance.

There aren't actually many people who have played both games at the highest level, but two who have are Dan Lyle of Bath and the Minnesota Vikings, and Richard Tardits of the US Eagles and the New England Patriots. It may be inetersting to note that Dan Lyle was the better rugby player, Richard Tardits the better footballer - so perhaps this shows that being better at one does not equate to being better at the other.

Dan Lyle's only comment on the relative toughness of the two sports has been that the Zurich premiership in 1996, when rugby had just gone pro, reminded him of Division 1 college football. The comparison in terms of step up between Zurich premiership and playing rugby for England is about equivalent to the step up from top level college football to the NFL.

But let's face it.. If either sport was an easy way to earn a million bucks, we'd be out there doing it ourselves

Pherekydes

gert83 wrote:

OK - I think american football fans are totally ignorant about rugby, and I hear this crap all the time from American friends.

Well, I'm not American. I'm Irish, and I grew up watching Rugby, GAA, Soccer and the others, and I understand the rules of all. I also understand what is required athlete-wise to make it in each code, because my primary participation and spectation sport is Athletics. It's a simple and verifiable truth that there are more world-class athletes playing football than any other field sport. I'm not talking about Sprinting alone. There are also world-class jumpers, hurdlers and throwers in the NFL. Do you think you can be world class in the 400m or 400hurdles without having good endurance? So now it's you who's showing their ignorance. Of course you'll get a few delicate types playing receiver, but it's probably the only position you'll find this. And there isn't one starting receiver who could be labelled 'chicken'.

gert83 wrote:

There are usually 60 people on a football team, so you get replaced and the game lasts hours because of all the ads.

More ignorance. The game lasts hours because the clock stops when the ball goes out of play. Football matches last 60 minutes, as advertised, and not like Rugby, where an 80 minute game has the ball in play for about 45-50 minutes. So much for running non-stop for 80 minutes!

gert83 wrote:

Besides all this, you cannot run 10 flat over 100m and have extreme levels of endurance, it is just physiologically impossible.

What are "extreme levels of endurance"? I know Drew Bennett who's a WR for the Titans, ran a marathon in under 3 hours. Quite exceptional for a guy who's essentially a big sprinter. (6-5, 206 lbs). He wouldn't be out of the ordinary when it comes to the NFL. How do you think Jerry Rice played for 20 years? Do you think he did no conditioning, including lots of running?

gert83 wrote:

rugby has had its speed freaks, like John Carlton, JJ Williams or Nigel Walker.

These guys are speed freaks in relation to other Rugby players. As I mentioned before, Walker's PB is 10.47, pretty mediocre by NFL standards.

gert83 wrote:

American football stops every 30 seconds for a set piece, with a big break in between whilst plays

The game clock is set at 40 seconds. Hardly that big a break.

gert83 wrote:

whereas rugby is non stop 40 minutes each way.

Ha ha

gert83 wrote:

Another thing, there would not be so many of these 300lb 4 second 40 yard dashers doing the rounds if the NFL had an ethical policy on steroid abuse (laughably held up as an example of how to police steroid abuse! I can hardly believe it!)

And I suppose Rugby is all squeaky clean?

por

gert83 wrote:

Rupeni CauCau
Lote Tuquiri
wendell Sailor
Jason Robinson
Josh Lewsey
Lawrence Dallaglio
Doug Howlett
Mark Cueto
Joe Rokocoko

And loads more! If these guys had been brought up in the US playing football they would be there, and sayin they wouldn't is just stupid.

Had any rugby player been brought up in the US then they would have had a chance at pro football there but this thread started with the question

.....how many rugby players with serious training could play nfl and who would they be

And the answer is NONE, they may be fit but not in the right shape to play NFL and no amount of training would make them catch up.

gert83

Drew Bennet - 206 lbs is just under 15 stone, in a 6'5 frame. That's quite light - less than most rugby union flankers who are a similar height. I think a few of them would chow a marathon pretty quick.

The NFL has more world class athletes than any other sporting league? Well that's what the NFL marketing board likes to say, and it could well be true, I don't dispute, but the emphasis of both games is totally different. You cannot be in the NFL if you aren't a great athlete, no matter how good a ball player you are, with the exception of quarterback and special teams. This is because american football is so specialised, you can have extreme athletes in your team who are good at doing one thing only. They even tried to turn a record breaking javelin thrower into a quarterback on the basis that he threw a javelin a long way, nothing else (he was crap)!

In rugby you have to be able to play rugby, and some pretty great athletes have made ropey rugby players, because they were intimidated, lacked ball skills or were extreme in one discipline. Any human who runs 100m in 10 flat is an extreme explosive athlete and cannot have extreme endurance - it is just not possible. I have seen Drew Bennett play, and the main reason he was picked was because of his height and size, rather than out and out pace.

As for steroids - if you are caught taking them in football you only get banned for a couple of games and testing only takes place in the off season! That's because the NFL markeintg boys and the sponsors who pour millions into the NFL so that they can use it as an advertising vehicle want the game choc full of 300lb guys who run 40 yards in 4 seconds and know that's the only way to get it. If you are caught in rugby, where testing happens year round, the minimum penalty I have heard of is 6 months - that can end a career. I don't doubt rugby has its 'roid heads, and a few have been caught (like Frankie Sheehan) and some South Africans, but there's a much higher chance you'll get rumbled and the penalties are greater if you are.

Pherekydes

gert83 wrote:

Drew Bennet - 206 lbs is just under 15 stone, in a 6'5 frame. That's quite light

Tut tut! 206 lbs is 206 lbs. It requires exactly the same oxygen requirements, regardless of height.

On a related point: which is heavier, a ton of coal or a ton of feathers? Do you see your mistake now?

The NFL has more world class athletes than any other sporting league? Well that's what the NFL marketing board likes to say

The NFL has nothing to do with it. Look up the IAAF (Track and field) world lists, and check for names that are now in the NFL. As simple as. You don't have to believe all the hype, of which the NFL is as guilty as any governing body.

gert83

15 stone and 6'5 is a light build - that's what I meant.

Anyway, Drew Bennett was not that fast. He was tall, and big, and difficult to stop.

I don't deny the NFL has exceptional athletes, but lots of them are extreme athletes, which corresponds with the extreme specialisation of that sport. a wide receiver may never make a tackle, and he may rarely ever even take one, cos as long as he makes a yard he can fall over and do a few high 5's. Nobody can say a wide receiver needs the same endurance as a rugby winger - they don't! Just like rugby wingers aren't as fast as wide receivers, although most of them would clock 11 seconds, some less for 100m. I know Ben Cohen can do 4.72 seconds for 40 metres (note metres, not yards). I also read Chris Paterson can do 5.78 for 50 metres. Those are quick times, you can't deny it, and these guys have bags of endurance and are great footballers. Ben Cohen also weighs over 200lbs.

American football has great athletes - no doubt. All I am saying is that there are plenty of rugby players with the potential to be in the NFL! Only the most one eyed bigot would say otherwise.