Europeans call NFL for "pu$$ies"

runner4lifes wrote:

true, I bet most of the guys here really like "grindy"/"hardworking" white players that give max effort and teamwork to win.

BS! give me the best athletes, that's why people want to see lebron play and not jj reddick.

Lol. As usual, the Hillel House guys chime in with their scripted answers and not so hidden agendas.

Then again, it could be another brain-washed, self hating white who posted this merely so he could show it to his Soc professor, who would then allow him to lick his balls. Again.

runner4lifes wrote:

true, I bet most of the guys here really like "grindy"/"hardworking" white players that give max effort and teamwork to win.

BS! give me the best athletes, that's why people want to see lebron play and not jj reddick.

Yeah! American sports are a lot more fair. That's why we see outstanding QB's like Jamarcus Russell or maybe even Michael Vick and his wondrous throwing ability, lol.

hey, I like Mike Vick (being in the ATL has something to do with that, maybe). Too bad he had some unfortunate hobbies... XD

[quote]coach d wrote:

You know what kids in the US who aren't fast enough, big enough, strong enough for football do, don't you? They play soccer and cross country.

quote]

You know what kids in the US who are too fat, stupid, and have no endurance for cross country do, don't you? They play football.

American Football is shit.

bingo jim wrote:

American Football is shit.

kinda like american running

small wrote:

They also wouldn't last 5 minutes in a road race. Does that make them "pussies" too?

yes.

It's not for pussies and it is rough, but even a diehard fan has to admit- they wear pads for protection (rugby doesn't), they do get time in between plays (which last about 5 seconds each) to rest and think about what to do next. And I agree about the QB's. In high school, a good QB is prolly the best athlete in the school. In the pro's he's a wobbling mass of un-athletic mass.

This thread is retarded...

People keep on saying "theres no comparison" before declaring either Rugby or NFL to be better.

This makes no sense.

PS. Rugby is better. There is a comparison. They have the same roots. The games from which teh sports emerged did not employ a "play for a few seconds and then lets all sit down and have a nice break"-type procedure. That is too similar to cricket.

This thread is retarded...

People keep on saying "theres no comparison" before declaring either Rugby or NFL to be better.

This makes no sense.

PS. Rugby is better. There is a comparison. They have the same roots. The games from which teh sports emerged did not employ a "play for a few seconds and then lets all sit down and have a nice break"-type procedure. That is too similar to cricket.

'If nobody is interested, why does Wembley sell out in about 10 minutes for that match they play here each year?'

yeah one game in the capital. Half of them are probably Americans working over here. Man Utd fill out their 70k stadium every week

So for eveyone seems to have agreed that American football players are fast but they are still over padded pussies

I couldn't watch a game which stops every 10 seconds and whats with tackling a player who does not have the ball?

Coach D ...You know what kids in the US who aren't fast enough, big enough, strong enough for football do, don't you? They play soccer and cross country.

give me a break - thats so cliche/sweeping generalization. We had 5 males in our family alone who could have played football, or basketball, or baseball - all with some level of excellence - and we 'chose' distance running - for a number of reasons.

The coaches and the players knew that we ran and recruited us to change - nada. We played against each team at one time or another - large (AAA) school, so cal. The 'appeal' of those sports did not mesmerize or envelope us.

Soccer (futbol) was not around then.

While I'll 'grant' you this may be the case in general - its not the case 100% of the time.

And if you haven't heard - soccer/futbol is the most popular sport in the world - by quite a ways. None of this takes away from any other sport and the most recognized athlete in the world ... is still playing a 'minor' but lucrative sport, closely followed by some basketball guys - non of which are football or rugby players. That 'proves' nothing, other than excellence in their own right.

Apples - oranges - avocados - etc etc

have play rugby and football,enjoyed both. but God!! rugby was way tougher

I'm surprised Aussie Rules FB isn't more popular in the USA. The two most exciting plays in American Football are the punt return and hail mary.

Aussie Rules is a combination of those, nonstop, for 45 minutes. It's awesome. I'm actually hoping the brain injury controversy puts NFL out of business so it can spring up here.

OK, let's break the two sports down here.

FOOTBALL- Much bigger guys tearing ass at each other and delivering hits that are similar to small car collisions. These guys wear pads, which allow them to deliver these hits. Without the pads, it is likely that they would not hit so hard.

These guys are also roided out of their asses. Their balls probably look like little prunes.

They also take minute-long breaks and breath out of oxygen masks between plays, which normally last about 10 seconds.

RUGBY- "Smaller" guys who don't hit as hard (maybe because they don't have pads on? Also keep in mind, these smaller guys are pretty big). However, no breaks in play, still a very rough game, technically and physically tough.

Sounds to me like rugby athletes have to be strong, have aerobic endurance, and be quite athletic.

In my opinion, rugby takes the cake for being a more "athletic" sport. However, considering the huge hits in football, I don't think it is a "pussy" sport, just a retarded one. "Hey LaShawn, let's go run into each other as fast as we can and see what happens!"

i used to watch arules football a long time ago. i feel like ive seen highlights somewhere now where they like throw guys up in the air on the restart to get the ball- am i imagining this?

nfl football players in my experience(with the exception of linemen) are smaller than you think in person. ray lewis is shockingly small to me i was surprised the couple times i saw him- just looks like a normal guy hes just fast as crap i guess and solid. he came to a few track meets actually to see his brother run.

some linemen on the other hand are enormus. seen ogden a few times at the gas station hes big. one time the ravens were practicing at our school during the playoffs cuz there was some big snow and some lineman came out of the bathroom i was like shit that guy is big.

JohnnyO wrote:

N/A wrote:

It's a non-argument, not an issue. The NFL is lanced and is not a sport. It's phony like MLB and NHL.

I agree. I don't even believe the outcome anymore - pretty much all of the major league sports results are contrived now. It's all fake from start to finish. I can't believe it's come to that, but it has.

Are you retarded? Seriously dude. You are enough of a conspiracy nut to think that the outcome is fixed? Can't you focus on the moon landing or JFK or something? Or find a job and move out of your mom's basement and stop standing on street corners with signs saying the end is near? Idiot.

[quote]Monte wrote:

I'm surprised Aussie Rules FB isn't more popular in the USA. The two most exciting plays in American Football are the punt return and hail mary.

I disagree. I think the most exciting play in football is the lateral pass in broken-field play...just what a rugby (not Australian rules) game is full of. If you ever watched a good 15-man match or,especially, a sevens (7 man rugby) tournament, you would be hooked. Check out youtube stuff like the Hong Kong Sevens tournament.

Most of the bigger NFL position players wouldn't have the wind to last more than a few minutes. Everyone in rugby has to be somewhat versatile, since every player gets the ball at least several times. You just don't have the single focus positions whose sole job is to headhunt. There are positions for bigger players, but they usually play closer in to the ball, so they don't get huge run-ups to the point of tackle. Bone-jarring, nonetheless. Finally, in rugby you must grab onto, and actually tackle, the person you are hitting--you can't just collide into him. It's easy to careen into someone when fully armored, but it's a much different story to cream someone in a grasping tackle and then get up and play continuously for the next 80 minutes. Of course there are high impact collision, but the tackle for zero yards is not really the thing in rugby--getting and keeping possession of the ball is the thing.