Rugby vs NFL
So, cracking weekend of sport my way. 6N is always a special time up these ways, and I felt the empty stadiums weren't too much of a blight which was nice. Having to watch it at home without company was a bit crap, but such is life. Anyway, I watched around 180 of 240 minutes of the 6N then most of the Super Bowl and I couldn't help but notice the very stark changes since I last watched NFL. Which was probably 10 years ago.
I know there are vast differences in the games and thus comparisons are sort of apples/oranges but the core foundation of each game is very similar - size, speed and skill. At least it used to be anyway. So read on if your interested in thoughts, sod off if you ain't ...
The main contrast is just how much NFL has changed for the better, whilst rugby has changed for the worse. Thats quite the opener there, but it's simply true. I'll go through my views.
Size It honestly looks like rugby players have spent years just trying to get bigger at the expense of everything else, whilst NFL players don't (to my eyes anyway) look much bigger than say 20 years ago. I found a comparison site and it shows the average is around 10-15 pounds heavier now than 20 years ago. However the fact you don't notice that is very telling. It means these guys are putting it on where it's needed. The players are noticeably leaner than most of their rugby counterparts, and subsequently quicker.
Player Speed After watching the 6N forwards slowly batter into each other time and time again, it was so refreshing to see the NFL guys really really hit the line at speed. It made for spectacular viewing when they punched through it, and also when they defended it. The KC shutout on their own line was absolutely compelling, thrilling, viewing. When did you last say the same about forwards going one-off continuously when pushing for a try and the defence holding?
Game Speed NFL gets rightly criticised for how long it takes, the time outs etc. But when the action is on, it's proper proper on. Ask yourself this ... would you rather 2-3 mins of no play at all whilst players move / things setup, or 2-3 mins of scrum resets etc? They are comparable now, thats just fact. At least with NFL, you know nothings happens so you can take a piss / grab a beer etc.
Penalties It may have just been this game, but NFL seems to have retreated to being a game based a lot on penalties. KC got smashed on penalties last night big time and was part of the reason they got rolled. Lots of silly blocks / grabs etc. Some frustration yes, but I imagine as a KC Fan it would make frustrating viewing watching a game changing play (interception / defensive play) be overturned for a pointless penalty. It feels a bit football VAR like.. and nobody will tell you thats a good thing. A positive though is that the superstars of NFL are NOT the kickers. It actually felt like the commentators were reading the briefing notes when talking about them! Literally zero knowledge on the players!
Excitement I know it was the 6N but the excitement wasn't even comparable. I think Mahomes himself ran further forwards then pretty much so all the backs in the England/Scotland & Wales/Ireland games put together. I really think rugby's appeal to audiences is slipping into being either for purists / or players. X-factor players are few and far between now, as players are more formulaic. Which is kind of strange, given that NFL is formulaic, yet if you watched the games side by side, you'd come to the opposite conclusion
Safety I don't know what the answer is here. Nobody wants to see rugby players in helmets, pads etc, but who wants to see Peter O'Mahony ballsing up hitting a ruck and being sent off for it? I like O'Mahony as a a player - he's incredibly abrasive & empties the tank every game. He's not dirty. But it had to be a red. The thing is though, if you look at the way the players are hitting the rucks now, it is very very NFL like. But without any protection. What do you think is going to happen every now and again?
So all in all, you could perhaps read the above and think I've changed code for sport watching. And you'd be wrong. I still enjoy rugby and will always watch the AB's play and any NZ super team I can. But it's just gotten the last 10 years completely wrong. Where as NFL seems to have really improved by refining itself, rugby seems to have gone the opposite way by putting size above pretty much so everything. It doesn't make for a better game, far from it.
One final point. There is only one current player who I can think of that I thought perhaps looked like an NFL player. Akira Ioane. Perhaps something in that. Not sure what though.
Regarding point 2. Yes top footballers are freakishly explosive and strong but shit they certainly get more down time than your average Rugby player in which to utilise those gifts.
But I seriously doubt any Rugby players could get close to top running backs sprint times, vertical leaps etc or many forwards could match the kind of weight the tight ends are throwing around.
@MN5 That's a great point, if you're having to get to each ruck quickly, you can't focus on training for single play athletic ability.
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 That's a great point, if you're having to get to each ruck quickly, you can't focus on training for single play athletic ability.
Yeah I remember Red Beard or Bart said it was extremely tough after scrummaging, rucking and mauling to be dynamic with the ball in hand, in saying that obviously the current batch of props do this much better than Owen Franks ever did.
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
Regarding point 2. Yes top footballers are freakishly explosive and strong but shit they certainly get more down time than your average Rugby player in which to utilise those gifts.
But I seriously doubt any Rugby players could get close to top running backs sprint times, vertical leaps etc or many forwards could match the kind of weight the tight ends are throwing around.
Yeah, and that is part of the discussion and where game comparisons start to fall over. No denial from me. The real debate is if you'd rather watch a 6ft 4, 250 lb, 2 foot wider player do it, or a 6ft4, 200 bl, 1.5 foot wide player do it.
The NFL players look more the latter, and with their downtime, they could be the former.
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 That's a great point, if you're having to get to each ruck quickly, you can't focus on training for single play athletic ability.
Yeah I remember Red Beard or Bart said it was extremely tough after scrummaging, rucking and mauling to be dynamic with the ball in hand, in saying that obviously the current batch of props do this much better than Owen Franks ever did.
Be fair. You are using the worst ball runner in the history of the game to make your point ...
In saying though, I've just thought of something else and will edit original post.
@MajorRage said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 That's a great point, if you're having to get to each ruck quickly, you can't focus on training for single play athletic ability.
Yeah I remember Red Beard or Bart said it was extremely tough after scrummaging, rucking and mauling to be dynamic with the ball in hand, in saying that obviously the current batch of props do this much better than Owen Franks ever did.
Be fair. You are using the worst ball runner in the history of the game to make your point ...
In saying though, I've just thought of something else and will edit original post.
Be fair. You used England/Scotland to make your point.
France were wonderful on the weekend - the French flair of old.
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
Regarding point 2. Yes top footballers are freakishly explosive and strong but shit they certainly get more down time than your average Rugby player in which to utilise those gifts.
But I seriously doubt any Rugby players could get close to top running backs sprint times, vertical leaps etc or many forwards could match the kind of weight the tight ends are throwing around.
That's because they're specialists.
I used to like NFL because I thought of it as chess with human pieces. But I found this boring and didn't see any tremendous talent like a Jerry Rice etc. Perhaps I don't watch enough these days. A 43 year old was on the winning team and an integral part of it FFS.
@KiwiMurph said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MajorRage said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 That's a great point, if you're having to get to each ruck quickly, you can't focus on training for single play athletic ability.
Yeah I remember Red Beard or Bart said it was extremely tough after scrummaging, rucking and mauling to be dynamic with the ball in hand, in saying that obviously the current batch of props do this much better than Owen Franks ever did.
Be fair. You are using the worst ball runner in the history of the game to make your point ...
In saying though, I've just thought of something else and will edit original post.
Be fair. You used England/Scotland to make your point.
France were wonderful on the weekend - the French flair of old.
First point was acknowledged. Second point yes totally .. perhaps they are showing us the way forwards.
@MajorRage said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 That's a great point, if you're having to get to each ruck quickly, you can't focus on training for single play athletic ability.
Yeah I remember Red Beard or Bart said it was extremely tough after scrummaging, rucking and mauling to be dynamic with the ball in hand, in saying that obviously the current batch of props do this much better than Owen Franks ever did.
Be fair. You are using the worst ball runner in the history of the game to make your point ...
In saying though, I've just thought of something else and will edit original post.
Well yeah I did but I always read about what a freak he was in the gym.
Why then did he have all the impact of a fly hitting a windshield when he ran the ball ?
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MajorRage said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 That's a great point, if you're having to get to each ruck quickly, you can't focus on training for single play athletic ability.
Yeah I remember Red Beard or Bart said it was extremely tough after scrummaging, rucking and mauling to be dynamic with the ball in hand, in saying that obviously the current batch of props do this much better than Owen Franks ever did.
Be fair. You are using the worst ball runner in the history of the game to make your point ...
In saying though, I've just thought of something else and will edit original post.
Well yeah I did but I always read about what a freak he was in the gym.
Why then did he have all the impact of a fly hitting a windshield when he ran the ball ?
I probably could have just written that instead of my dissertation.
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MajorRage said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
@MN5 That's a great point, if you're having to get to each ruck quickly, you can't focus on training for single play athletic ability.
Yeah I remember Red Beard or Bart said it was extremely tough after scrummaging, rucking and mauling to be dynamic with the ball in hand, in saying that obviously the current batch of props do this much better than Owen Franks ever did.
Be fair. You are using the worst ball runner in the history of the game to make your point ...
In saying though, I've just thought of something else and will edit original post.
Well yeah I did but I always read about what a freak he was in the gym.
Why then did he have all the impact of a fly hitting a windshield when he ran the ball ?
You answered that earlier; specialist.
@MN5 said in Rugby vs NFL:
Well yeah I did but I always read about what a freak he was in the gym.
Didn't you (again) read about that from Redbeard?
@Tim said in Rugby vs NFL:
Is the NFL actually a WADA regulated sport for doping? I imagine that there is a lot more juicing there than in rugby.
According to Google, American Football is (the world governing body is a member), but the NFL does its own testing and doesn't test for everything that WADA does.
@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.
I don't watch NFL a lot, so maybe wrong, but in point 3 on game speed you say
'Ask yourself this ... would you rather 2-3 mins of no play at all whilst players move / things setup, or 2-3 mins of scrum resets etc? '
Isn't the point that in NFL the 2-3 minutes happens every 2-5 minutes, and in rugby although scrums are a problem, there are very few in comparison to a stoppage and reset on every tackle/fumble?
I get that you enjoy NFL, and don't have a problem, but to have a player who has a job of just coming on to kick the ball, or be in defence when they on own line etc, but apart from that seemingly not part of game kind of ruins it for me. Like I say I not knocking NFL, just explaining one of biggest differences to me and why perhaps I can't see how it a better game.
@Dan54 respectfully, it doesn't sound like you watch much NFL.
That said, it's a game of specialisation. Kickers just kick, but goddamn they are awesome at it
@nzzp no argument there mate, I don't watch much of it for the reasons I gave. If your only job is to kick, or receive kicks etc, you should be bloody awesome at it. Like I say, not for me , I like my players t be little multi skilled. I not arguing what is best mate, just how I see it.
Hi Dan - good comments. The idea of the write up was more to talk about the changes & draw some parallels between the two games. Here's my thoughts.
@Dan54 said in Rugby vs NFL:
I don't watch NFL a lot, so maybe wrong, but in point 3 on game speed you say
'Ask yourself this ... would you rather 2-3 mins of no play at all whilst players move / things setup, or 2-3 mins of scrum resets etc? '
Isn't the point that in NFL the 2-3 minutes happens every 2-5 minutes, and in rugby although scrums are a problem, there are very few in comparison to a stoppage and reset on every tackle/fumble?
Correct. However, the time taken for a game of rugby now is not far off 2 hours. And it's not getting any shorter. Injuries account for a lot (and this is only getting worse as players get bigger), but the time taken in scrums is often ludicrous. NFL downtime is strictly enforced and you know what you are getting. I.e - you know you have 2 mins. In rugby, you can sit and watch 5 mins of action where nothing real happens.
I get that you enjoy NFL, and don't have a problem, but to have a player who has a job of just coming on to kick the ball, or be in defence when they on own line etc, but apart from that seemingly not part of game kind of ruins it for me. Like I say I not knocking NFL, just explaining one of biggest differences to me and why perhaps I can't see how it a better game.
I hadn't watched it in years and I was surprised how much I enjoyed it. The reasons I enjoyed it, are similar to the reasons my enjoyment of rugby has dipped. Ultimately we watch professional sport because we want to watch the best. NFL you certainly feel like you are watching the best. Modern rugby, it feels like you are watching the biggest.