If American Football wasn't called "football", would it be more popular...

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]I think the problem and hurdle that many Europeans face is that they view American football through the lens of soccer (for the purposes of this discussion so we can distinguish), rugby and even Aussie football. The truth is, while those sports are all relatively similar in that there is non-stop action and no stops, American football is a completely, totally different game.

Every single person on an American football field is 100-percent specialized to play that exact position. They have probably been playing that very specific position their entire lives and wouldn't even know what to do if they were placed elsewhere. That is part of the brilliance of it, though.

I say this with no malice toward soccer (a game that I do appreciate), but it (soccer) is checkers compared to football's chess. On a chess board, you have certain pieces that can only move certain ways and do certain things.

Coaches have total control of what happens on a football field and, if they have one guy out of place or call a blitz at the wrong time, it can cost them the game.... Just like making one tiny mistake on the chess board can be the end.

I think you have to learn to look at American football with fresh eyes and don't compare to other sports, because it is totally unique. There may be significant time in between plays, but that is only because every play is of so much importance. It is incredibly tactical... Like war without the deaths.

Also, the time between the plays allows players to go 100% on every snap, as opposed to nonstop running, which will obviously wear on you in a different way. You are not going to be able to unleash the kind of incredible hit on someone after running for an hour nonstop the way you can with breaks after each play, nor can you run as fast, be as physical, etc.

Comparing rugby or futbol to American football is like comparing a marathon to a sprint.

That's my take.[/QUOTE]


Well said. I still thinks it's bs for a 60min game to take 5hours to play.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]Cool. Texas A&M defense dominated the **** out of RG3 at Baylor because they used Johnny Manziel as the scout QB in practice. They said RG3 was easier to get a hold of and had a much harder time in containing Johnny.[/QUOTE]
college :sleeping

RG3's game actually translates to the pros. Why? Cuz he's athletic

[QUOTE=KingBeasley08]college :sleeping

RG3's game actually translates to the pros. Why? Cuz he's athletic[/QUOTE]

Yeah...you're an idiot if you don't think Johnny can play in the pros.

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]Yeah...you're an idiot if you don't think Johnny can play in the pros.[/QUOTE]
im sure he can play but I doubt he can ball


dudes 6'1 200 pounds. needs to start bulking up

[QUOTE=Nick Young]I like the tactics of football, I understand it because I'm American but compared to sports like basketball and soccer (THE ENGLISH INVENTED THAT WORD, GET OVER IT EUROSNOBS) it is too slow paced and dull. I like watching the playoffs and superbowl, that's it.[/QUOTE]

Football is dull compared to soccer? That's the direct opposite of reality.


It's harder to get into a sport when you don't understand it, and there's a lot of shit you have to learn for football to really understand it. When your country doesn't really have anyone playing at a high level in that sport, then it makes it harder for you to cheer for it. And of course, the expenses of playing the sport. I don't really care if it's not hugely popular around the world. It's doing just fine here and that's what matters to me.

[QUOTE=LJJ]Never knew eugenics was still so in fashion these days.

American Football, a sport that is played in really only one country in the world (where it's just one of many popular sports), a sport that a handful people around the world practice professionally and sport that only about 5% of the world population is exposed to [U]of course still has the absolute elite athletes in the world.[/U]

:rolleyes:

Because they're American, right? And the "American race" is inherently more athletic than the rest of the planet?

:rolleyes:

Please. That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard, you guys need a dose of reality.[/QUOTE]

Remind me how well India does in the Olympics. Do you think all countries put as much money and training into their sports like the US? Not all countries are equal. Not all sports require the level of athleticism as others do. Your talent pool argument is flawed especially since it's the only argument you're even attempting.

[QUOTE=B-hoop]This is why most people hate americans, you dont know shit about what you are talking and act as if you know it all because America cant possibly be anything other than the best (in this case worse since we are talking about slavery here).[/quote]

People hate Americans because of ignorant generalizations they make about them? That says a lot more about them than it does about Americans.

There simply isn't anyone in soccer with this [U]combination[/U] of speed, agility, balance, power, jumping ability, and explosiveness, with that kind of size.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3cs9fT_CnM[/url]

Or this.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP0_mDhn2RA[/url]

Similary ancestry, if they aren't playing one, they're playing the other.

Lol at the reactions in this thread. Americans just think their shit doesn't stink and have the best of everything. Definitely has nothing to do with the fact that athleticism is the top priority in the NFL. I wonder if any of these guys saying this have ever seen a combine?

I remember when I tried comparing real world statistics of NFL players to Rugby players, and found that I had to do a good amount of digging to find anything on top Rugby players other than size and weight. A lot of those guys don't even have any sort of official stats posted. That alone tells me that Rugby does not focus as much attention on athletic ability as the NFL. Do a search on even some of the most obscure names in pro football and you will easily find out their speed, strength and jumping height.

Rugby is more skill-oriented. You can't take a freak athlete and turn him into a great Rugby player like you could in the NFL.

You can't exactly take a freak athlete and turn him into a football player either. Brock Lesnar failed to make an NFL team and he even played football in high school.

[QUOTE=PHX_Phan]Lol at the reactions in this thread. Americans just think their shit doesn't stink and have the best of everything. Definitely has nothing to do with the fact that athleticism is the top priority in the NFL. I wonder if any of these guys saying this have ever seen a combine?

I remember when I tried comparing real world statistics of NFL players to Rugby players, and found that I had to do a good amount of digging to find anything on top Rugby players other than size and weight. A lot of those guys don't even have any sort of official stats posted. That alone tells me that Rugby does not focus as much attention on athletic ability as the NFL. Do a search on even some of the most obscure names in pro football and you will easily find out their speed, strength and jumping height.

Rugby is more skill-oriented. You can't take a freak athlete and turn him into a great Rugby player like you could in the NFL.[/QUOTE]

Good point. In the NFL your role is pretty much limited to one thing; Quarterback throws, WR runs/catches, punters punt, fg kickers kick fgs. So being effective in your area requires you to be bigger (linemen), faster (WR),better change of direction (running back) etc. Rugby and soccer are all round games that require you to be proficient in a large number of things, rather than being elite at one thing.

[QUOTE=KingBeasley08]im sure he can play but I doubt he can ball


dudes 6'1 200 pounds. needs to start bulking up[/QUOTE]

Russell Wilson says hi

Johnny Manziel is the ****ing man. 6' 1" 200 lbs. Sure he could gain a little weight if he needed to but his agility gives him the ability to make the plays that wins game. If he bulks up? Who knows.

Plus Manziel is only 20 and won the heisman was a redshirt freshman. He's got time brotha.

[QUOTE=PHX_Phan]Lol at the reactions in this thread. Americans just think their shit doesn't stink and have the best of everything. Definitely has nothing to do with the fact that athleticism is the top priority in the NFL. I wonder if any of these guys saying this have ever seen a combine?

I remember when I tried comparing real world statistics of NFL players to Rugby players, and found that I had to do a good amount of digging to find anything on top Rugby players other than size and weight. A lot of those guys don't even have any sort of official stats posted. That alone tells me that Rugby does not focus as much attention on athletic ability as the NFL. Do a search on even some of the most obscure names in pro football and you will easily find out their speed, strength and jumping height.

Rugby is more skill-oriented. You can't take a freak athlete and turn him into a great Rugby player like you could in the NFL.[/QUOTE]

Carlin Isles says hi. He's been touted as the FASTEST rugby play OF ALL TIME. And guess what? He's american and black.

He played american football for awhile...and now plays Rugby sevens. He's without a doubt the fastest rugby player of all time. If you've ever seen him play, if he gets just a little bit of space. Forget about it. That's a try guaranteed. Of course only one of him being like that isn't enough to win the world championship against teams like SA, New Zealand and Australia but imagine seven of him playing in the rugby sevens. They'd wreck shop dude.

[IMG]http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fasted-rugby-player-carlin-isles.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=Balla_Status]Carlin Isles says hi. He's been touted as the FASTEST rugby play OF ALL TIME. And guess what? He's american and black.

He played american football for awhile...and now plays Rugby sevens. He's without a doubt the fastest rugby player of all time. If you've ever seen him play, if he gets just a little bit of space. Forget about it. That's a try guaranteed. Of course only one of him being like that isn't enough to win the world championship against teams like SA, New Zealand and Australia but imagine seven of him playing in the rugby sevens. They'd wreck shop dude.

[IMG]http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fasted-rugby-player-carlin-isles.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Pay attention to the following emoticon: :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=AngelEyes]6'7" 287 lb Julius Peppers

[IMG]http://www.mtrmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/julius-peppers.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/741681/julius-peppers.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
They're different kind of athletes specializing in different things.

Julius Peppers would be winded and finished halfway through a rugby match, he couldn't last 90 minutes running 12 KM.

It's like marathon runners vs sprinters-who is the better athlete? Who is tougher? It's foolish to compare athletes in different sports.

If American football players didn't wear pads, they would simply not do the same type of tackles and hits that they do now while covered in padding.


ALSO, the game just gets boring in low stakes regular season matches. Who wants to waste time watching the Cleveland Browns vs the Miami dolphins go 3 and out 3 and out 3 and out every drive with a 3 minute commercial break in between and a 5 minute break between each quarter? It is boring as shit.