Rugby vs NFL
-
Unripe apples v ripe oranges
First round of 6N v culmination of NFL season.
Maybe compare later rounds of the 6N
-
@MajorRage great post.
Penalties aren't often the defining element in the game - and I thought yesterday wasn't a great game; lots of drops, didn't really get going. It's like so many sports, the semi equivalent (conference championships) are often better games that the finals.
That said, I really got into NFL a few years ago as it's an absolute apex sport. Specialisation of positions and body types, coaching from the sideline having a huge influence on the game - it's as close as you come to chess with human beings (or war with generals directing troops). Also, the money is insane. The broadcasting revenue alone of the weakest NFL team is about 4-5 times that of the total NZ Rugby turnover. With that money comes elite training, prep, skills and coaching.
And yet, some players shine. I think Mahomes threw some great balls yesterday, but got let down by his receivers. KC just didn't fire. Games can turn on a knife edge, but the TD at the end of the first half for me was huge in putting the game away. TB is one hell of a player, and the offense just got going.
Watch more - follow some teams, watch some good players coming throuhg from College.
@tim you can watch on replay Mon/Tue/Fri - which means they are fast games without ad breaks, with continuous action. Good fun.
-
Not to necessarily counter the points of the OP but NH rugby (particularly UK) has been fixated on size for quite some time. The chances of someone like DMac getting a chance are slim. Even at lower club level the players look like Saffas that munch Roidos as a breakfast cereal.
Oz tend to favor a beach physique with emphasis on arms and upper body while NZ do a lot of core work. -
By far the biggest difference in the games is continuity for players and performance under fatigue. I know that rugby has the scrum reset/set blight at the moment but that is still minimal compared with going and having a sit down while a whole new team goes on the field.
Big motors are way more effective than pure athletic ability in rugby. -
@Crucial said in Rugby vs NFL:
By far the biggest difference in the games is continuity for players and performance under fatigue. I know that rugby has the scrum reset/set blight at the moment but that is still minimal compared with going and having a sit down while a whole new team goes on the field.
Big motors are way more effective than pure athletic ability in rugby.Fatigue is far and away the biggest factor. The fucking NRL of all organisations recognised it, and made a tangible change.
Scrum resets. TMO interruptions. "injuries". every penalty that involves a chat from the offended captain. quick committee meeting. A slowly taken kick to the sideline. A wander up to a lineout. There are so many opportunities for rest.
Then you get to sub more than 50% of the team off during the game, including 4 of the 5 biggest guys.
All of those factors when combined with modern sports science producing incredible levels of stamina makes fatigue a rare thing.
-
The fatigue factor is one thing, and you could argue the NFL doesn't suffer from it (though a lot of guys play a lot of downs in a game, especially linebackers).
The NFL also has a 3D field to play in. you can spread an 11-man defense because you can run or you can pass. There is more field to cover
Rugby all you have to cover is one dimension, across.
-
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
I enjoy the action, the athletic ability, and the coverage, I used to go to college football games for the atmosphere, when I lived in the US, but I just find it way too slow with all the stoppages.
I went to a few college games as well. A televised game becomes so much longer will all the ad stoppages.
The amazing stat is that less than 5% of D1 college football players are drafted and even less make it to the NFL.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
The NFL also has a 3D field to play in. you can spread an 11-man defense because you can run or you can pass. There is more field to cover
Rugby all you have to cover is one dimension, across.Not quite getting your point there?
The NFL is 2d unless they can fly. I suppose you could include the aerial game, but rugby has that too. You can also go forward in rugby, not just across, you just have to kick it instead of throw / pass it. -
@Snowy yeah the wording is a bit fuzzy but
they are not really the same. In rugby if you want to go aerial, the guy has to be behind you to start with. In NFL he gets that headstart to you have guys all around the field to cover.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
@Snowy yeah the wording is a bit fuzzy but
they are not really the same. In rugby if you want to go aerial, the guy has to be behind you to start with. In NFL he gets that headstart to you have guys all around the field to cover.
Right, with you.
Could counter that the headstart is negated by possibly getting taken out before you even get to the ball. I like them both, they're just different games. -
@Snowy i do to. But this is a discussion around the differences.
It's not like everyone here hasn't read my rants against modern rugby over and over again. Test rugby is a bit shit IMO. And in the interests of player safety we are making it worse.
-
-
@shark said in Rugby vs NFL:
My biggest takeaway from yesterday - and it was quite deflating - was the lack of elation at the end from the TB players, and lack of emotion from the commentators. It could have been any old one-sided regular season game.
who did you guys get as Commentators? We had an Australian specific feed, Griese i think and some other dude. And they suuuuuucked. What i would have given to hear Romo picking that game apart, let alone my boy Collinsworth
I think these seasons and games with no fans are making it feel a little unreal to the players. Even yesterday with 25,000 there.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
It's not like everyone here hasn't read my rants against modern rugby over and over again. Test rugby is a bit shit IMO. And in the interests of player safety we are making it worse.
I think that we are all aware of your views about rugby. Agree with your last comment but it isn't like the NFL doesn't have issues, in fact they started it. They might have to make some changes too due to CTE, but that is yet to come.
-
@Snowy I'm not saying they don't. I'm also not really making a comparison over which is better. Rugby has some structural issues that the NFL doesn't have. The NFL has some structural issues that rugby doesn't have. They are very very different games. And i love both of them.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
who did you guys get as Commentators? We had an Australian specific feed, Griese i think and some other dude. And they suuuuuucked.
We also got the ESPN commentators, the main guy was Steve Levy, who I associate more with NHL. They seemed to want to throw in as many shoutouts to Aust as possible.
CBS had the US broadcasting rights.
-
@Bovidae said in Rugby vs NFL:
@mariner4life said in Rugby vs NFL:
who did you guys get as Commentators? We had an Australian specific feed, Griese i think and some other dude. And they suuuuuucked.
We also got the ESPN commentators, the main guy was Steve Levy, who I associate more with NHL. They seemed to want to throw in as many shoutouts to Aust as possible.
CBS had the US broadcasting rights.
Oh!! I thought it was really weird when he mentioned that the Aus/India cricket rivalry is nothing to the rivalry on show.
-
The NFL has plenty of issues with penalties. Only a couple of years since the infamous non-call when the Vikings beat the saints. Then a period of experimentation with allowing coaches to challenge pass interference calls, which revealed that the league really struggled to consistently define what interference is.
The catch rule is also a bit of a dogs breakfast, particularly around the goal line where the determination of whether it was a catch and the player was now a runner can be the difference between getting another go at a play and the ball being turned over and the opposition getting to start at the 25.
The NFL is generally incredibly reactive on rules changes. Until there's a controversy in a play off game they'll generally ignore rules problems. When they fix them they often are focused on what the specific controversy was rather than making a good rule. The catch rule is again an example of this where you can basically track each change against a controversial call.
The difference with rugby might be that the overall trend in the NFL is offence friendly. For example, defensive pass interference calls are much more frequent than in the past, making it much harder for defenders to really close down receivers. In contrast, rugby seems to be going the other way where defence is dominant, probably more down to increased fitness and defensive system planning than rule changes. That means NFL tends towards shoot outs with high tempo offences and defensive schemes built around getting to the qb, whereas rugby tends to be more attritional with a focus on strong defending and gradually wearing down the opposition defence.
-
professional sports' biggest problem is that coaches get paid to win, but the game gets paid by people watching. And what is good for one, is not good for the other in a lot of ways/sports.
