NFL Thread

Kasper said:
Eh? Europe's football is pulling the talent from all over the world, football is being played everywhere. American Football is primarily only played in the US and plays an incredible tiny role in other countries. I agree on the salary caps and draft system point, that's definitely a good hurdle in establishing dominance as a team but overall Uniteds dynastie is definitely more impressive than the Patriots one.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing which is the more popular sport here, objectively, we know that football is. But rules have a massive effect on the difficulty of a task. United's dominance is comparable to that of Madrid/Barca, yes the coaches are highly skilled, but the primary difference between them and the rest of the clubs in their leagues is the ability to flex their financial muscle and buy all the best players.

I'm a United fan through and through, but you have to remember that to most other football fans in England, there isn't a vast difference between what we do and what PSG/Monaco/City/Madrid/Barca do.
 
Andrew~ said:
I'm not arguing which is the more popular sport here, objectively, we know that football is. But rules have a massive effect on the difficulty of a task. United's dominance is comparable to that of Madrid/Barca, yes the coaches are highly skilled, but the primary difference between them and the rest of the clubs in their leagues is the ability to flex their financial muscle and buy all the best players.

I'm a United fan through and through, but you have to remember that to most other football fans in England, there isn't a vast difference between what we do and what PSG/Monaco/City/Madrid/Barca do.
Click to expand...

The biggest difference between NFL and European footy is the salary cap and draft systems. They create a degree of balance and parity that doesn't exist in the latter.
 
Why the feck are we comparing United and Patriots?

Honestly for feck sakes, who cares?

Both were/are the best dynasties in their respective sports for whatever reasons due to whichever managers coaches and players. Who cares which is better?

I’m just glad I witnessed both.
 
Raoul said:
The biggest difference between NFL and European footy is the salary cap and draft systems. They create a degree of balance and parity that doesn't exist in the latter.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think people underestimate how much of an effect it has.

rpitroda said:
Why the feck are we comparing United and Patriots?

Honestly for feck sakes, who cares?

Both were/are the best dynasties in their respective sports for whatever reasons due to whichever managers coaches and players. Who cares which is better?

I’m just glad I witnessed both.
Click to expand...

Because I'm at home on sick leave with nothing better to do!
 
I have little knowledge of the NFL but I always enjoy watching the last few games of the season.

What do these players do between now and the start of next season? They seem to hardly play any games? Seems very weird to me.
 
BluesJr said:
I have little knowledge of the NFL but I always enjoy watching the last few games of the season.

What do these players do between now and the start of next season? They seem to hardly play any games? Seems very weird to me.
Click to expand...

It’s a pretty physical sport. Off season is needed to rest and recover.

Other than the draft and scouting combine, and unofficial workouts between team members, the real kick off for the new season is around June July.
 
rpitroda said:
It’s a pretty physical sport. Off season is needed to rest and recover.

Other than the draft and scouting combine, and unofficial workouts between team members, the real kick off for the new season is around June July.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t say it’s more physical than rugby for example? Those guys play a hell of a lot more. For some players on the field it’s not physical at all.
 
BluesJr said:
I have little knowledge of the NFL but I always enjoy watching the last few games of the season.

What do these players do between now and the start of next season? They seem to hardly play any games? Seems very weird to me.
Click to expand...


Everyone takes a long vacation then eventually begin trickling back into off season conditioning programs. In March, teams typically designate franchise players, deal with restricted free agents etc. April is basically all draft prep and May is when teams focus on rookie mini camps and getting their newly drafted players situated for the coming year. June is usually an administrative month where teams tie up any lose ends related to free agency. By July rookie mini camps are in full swing and veteran players begin trickling back in and by August pre-season is fully underway leading up to week 1 in September.
 
BluesJr said:
I wouldn’t say it’s more physical than rugby for example? Those guys play a hell of a lot more. For some players on the field it’s not physical at all.
Click to expand...

It’s a lot more physical than rugby.

The pads and helmets can be misleading. But the force of impact in the NFL and the technique of tackling makes it much more harder on the body IMO.
 
As long as we got Coach Belichick and #12, we’ll be all right

The main reason for the Pats dynasty being more impressed than Fergie’s is cause of how the NFL is structured to cause parity
 
rpitroda said:
Why the feck are we comparing United and Patriots?

Honestly for feck sakes, who cares?

Both were/are the best dynasties in their respective sports for whatever reasons due to whichever managers coaches and players. Who cares which is better?

I’m just glad I witnessed both.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's really random why people would compare United and the Patriots on a Manchester United Forum in the NFL thread.
 
RobinLFC said:
Exactly - you could probably argue either side of the argument but it's certainly not laughable or anything, I'm a fan of neither team but would consider the Pats as a bigger dynasty because of the reasons you summed up. They had 0 Super Bowls in their history, and less than 20 years later they are tied in first place. It's not like they didn't compete when they weren't winning either given how much Brady has had a first round bye and has gotten to the AFC Championship game. Complete and utter domination in a league that's designed to prevent exactly that, is what makes them stand out imo. Same goes for the San Antonio Spurs.
Click to expand...

I find it nonsensical to compare sports and athletes across the spectrum. But the one thing about US sports, and other global sports with playoffs after the season to anoint a champion, is that a club can literally put together a 2-4 game postseason stretch and become champions whereas in European football leagues one must run the gambit for 30-40 matches to be champion, and against all the clubs in that particular division I might add. Winning a postseason tournament is akin to winning a continental or domestic cup in my view, even though that's not how we view said playoffs in the US.

Case in point: 2007 NY Giants finished 10-6 then put together a nice run of postseason games and ultimately toppled the unbeaten Patriots. The Giants weren't nowhere near the "best" in their league throughout the year but won a game that "defines" the league champion. The Giants finished second to Dallas in their own division, basically the equivalent of 2005 Liverpool finishing fourth in the PL and toppling the great Milan side.
 
Last edited:
Eboue said:
Belichick is pretty good for a trump supporter. Brady is pretty good for a guy who kisses his children on the lips.
Click to expand...
0-25zh8sss-535x350.jpg

That's his dad. Is this common custom in US culture? :D
 
rpitroda said:
It’s a lot more physical than rugby.

The pads and helmets can be misleading. But the force of impact in the NFL and the technique of tackling makes it much more harder on the body IMO.
Click to expand...

Very debatable IMO. Though the diving into players legs/knees is way too risky.

What is your opinion regarding the AFL's physicality in comparison?
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Very debatable IMO. Though the diving into players legs/knees is way too risky.

What is your opinion regarding the AFL's physicality in comparison?
Click to expand...

The real difference for me is a couple things. One is that in Rugby, tackling is an art. Yes you have to be physical but there is so much technique along side governance to ensure that, on a general basis, it is less physical comparing on absolute terms. In the NFL players still use helmets and pads as a reason to think they can be brutal.

Secondly the way the NFL is with the gaps etc. to me means each play is like an intense burst. Which consequently makes impacts harder and more likely to cause damage for which recovery is needed. In rugby it’s a bit more fluid. I’m not a scientist so don’t know which takes a worse toll for your body.

Edit: Thirdly wanted to also add that the way impacts happen are different. In a scrum you’re not colliding in the same way as you do on the line in the NFL. Rarely do you have contact with big sprints face to face. It’s usually with a short run up in rugby.

But just to be clear that’s purely based on average typical games. It doesn’t mean that the peak damage is more or less in one or the other. Also doesn’t mean that one is necessarily safer than the other.

I think it’d be really interesting to compare injury statstics between Rugby and the NFL.
 
Last edited:
rpitroda said:
The real difference for me is a couple things. One is that in Rugby, tackling is an art. Yes you have to be physical but there is so much technique along side governance to ensure that, on a general basis, it is less physical comparing on absolute terms. In the NFL players still use helmets and pads as a reason to think they can be brutal.

Secondly the way the NFL is with the gaps etc. to me means each play is like an intense burst. Which consequently makes impacts harder and more likely to cause damage for which recovery is needed. In rugby it’s a bit more fluid. I’m not a scientist so don’t know which takes a worse toll for your body.

But just to be clear that’s purely based on average typical games. It doesn’t mean that the peak damage is more or less in one or the other. Also doesn’t mean that one is necessarily safer than the other.

I think it’d be really interesting to compare injury statstics between Rugby and the NFL.
Click to expand...

I think your analysis makes a lot of sense, especially the parts about equipment basically making things "worse" as well as the bursts causing harder impacts.

I do think if the NFL had twice as many games, there wouldn't be any players left to play in the playoffs for a majority of the teams.
 
There was a really good players tribune piece by Sherman about Thursday night football where he explained why that game has a huge impact physically and it’s because after a Sunday game up until Thursday/Friday players are still recovering from the effects of the previous game and don’t get the time off to recover when it’s TNF.
 
cesc's_mullet said:
Very debatable IMO. Though the diving into players legs/knees is way too risky.

What is your opinion regarding the AFL's physicality in comparison?
Click to expand...

Sorry realised I didn’t comment about your AFL question.

Truth is I don’t follow the AFL so I don’t have any in depth knowledge of those hits and impacts. I have heard it’s very physical though.
 
Anybody listen to NFL or NCAA related podcasts? I listen to The Herd, Rich Eisen but any Pats fans here should listen to Patriots Unfiltered (previously PFW in Progress).

Anyway the reason I bring it up - does anybody know of any good Draft related podcasts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.