Are NFL Player the Best OVERALL Athletes

[bushman505]

Olympic Decathletes are the greatest athlete sin the world when it comes to overall condition and balance of abilities....they can sprint, run distance, jump, throw etc. a perfect combo of speed, endurance, strength, power and agility.
100m in the 10s
400m in 46s
1500 in under 4 minutes
Jump over 23 feet
Shot put 18 meters
Discus 50 meters
Also javelin, and hurdles.......

I agree with this. There’s great athletes in every sport but decathathletes can do it all. I played football as a running back but there are a lot of fat linemen who are strong but that’s all.

 

[KnightTemplar]

A lot would be an understatement. Probably 95%.

A simple litmus test would tell you a sport where 95% of the best players are White or Pacific islander would scream bullshit about the best athletes in the world participating in it. It doesn't even make sense when you consider how dominate Black athletes are worldwide in other sports; basketball(Jordan/LeBron/Iverson), baseball(Aaron/Bonds/Ken Griffy), soccer(half of the World Cup French team is black), football(Bo Jackson/Jim Brown/Deon Sanders), MMA(Jon Jones/DC/Silva/Mighty Mouse), boxing(Ali/Mayweather/Sugar Ray), track and field(Carl Lewis/Bolt), golf(Tiger), tennis(Williams).....yet rugby is one of the sports that they have minority representation in. The sport with the 'greatest athletes' in the world?

No one believes this outside of rugby fans.

The Retard is strong with this one!

 

[KnightTemplar]

I literally never uttered the words that rugby contained the best athletes. But they do have great athletes just like any other sport.

Lmao at listing black athletes 'worldwide' in baseball and american football, these are almost exclusively american sports. Basketball is increasingly international, but has historically been dominated by the USA because like the previous two was a very insular sport. Now that the game is being opened up in we are seeing more and more quality international players in the NBA, USA will always be dominant but I would expect this to be questioned more and more in the next 20-30 years.

And the notion of 'black athletes' being dominant in soccer (either historically or currently) because France happened to win the world cup this year is just hilariously dumb.

As for 'blacks' in rugby. There are and have always been plenty of top black players, like

Maro Itoje:

Anthony Watson:

Christian Wade:

Bryan Habana:

Siyi Kolisi:

Gael Fickou:

But true, still a minority in the grand scheme of things. But this largely because of the places that rugby is played and from where it draws it's talent pools..black folks are a minority in general. How many pacific islanders even attempt to play any of those other sports? These are very small countries, but in terms of athletic talent they punch well above their weight. They have fantastic natural talent, but this is pretty much all directed towards the various codes of rugby. Even more so those of pacific ancestry; the same can be said for the NFL. In the USA pacific islanders are such a small minority that their NFL representation makes them something like 25 times more likely to play there than any other ethnic group.

How are you defining 'black' anyway? Do you not consider Semi Radradra and Josua Tuisoiva to be black?

What about indigenous australians? Are they not 'black' enough either?

Fucking lol. @bubbleboyjones just got Walk Off KO'd<Lmaoo><45>

 

[Rimbaud82]

I said "No one believes this outside of rugby fans." Thats who I was talking about and you quoted me first so i responded.

Well, that is true, but I am a rugby fan and I dont believe this.

First of all more people play baseball worldwide than rugby. Second of all U.S. has a bigger population than the top 10 rugby ranking nations combined. So nitpicking me on american football and baseball is completely stupid. These aren't niche sports so don't act like it. My point is they are extremely good in a wide variety of sports.

Yes and there are more black folks playing these sports than is the case with other ethnic groups. Because the USA has a lot more black folks in general.

Playing number only go some ways, places like Ireland and New Zealand dont have big populations to begin with like you said. So obviously this means there will be less black players. It doesn't mean those who do play rugby are any less athletic, or that rugby as a sport produces worse athletes.

Sorry if you think black athletes are not really good at soccer. I disagree.

Well I never said that of course, but its fine if you disagree with that statement.

So which is it? You first said there are plenty of top black players...you name 6 and then go on to say they are still a minority.

You want me to name every black player in history? I gave you 6 examples.
Point is it doesn't matter. There are top black players and alway have been, they aren't any better than Fijian athletes or aboriginal australians just because they are black.

No I don't. Do they define themselves as 'black'?

No, the point was tongue in cheek. Of course they aren't 'black' in the sense of being descended from West Africans like african americans. Do you think they are somehow less athletic because they aren't black?

But look, lets not get so hostile with one another. Reading back my comments to you are a bit snarky. So my apologies

 

[Rimbaud82]

Lol the answer is NFL and its not even close. Skill positions, if u bring up lineman or qbs you are a dumbass. Top Rugby guys have tried to transition and couldn't cut it also if we are playing that game. A team of SEC college running backs would kill professional Rugby teams lol

Now this is just incredibly uninformed, not to mention untrue.

 

[Phlog]

Now this is just incredibly uninformed, not to mention untrue.

I don't know man, my buddy was a 2nd string div 1 RB and it's something else. In athleticism I'd put em pretty high.

The American system is good at wringing all the talent out of their population. There's so much money in youth sports in the USA that their high-school game is as well supported as some of the UKs pro sports.

There's a lot of people in the UK who's potential just isn't mined and thats true accross most countries. That tips things in the US favour a good way.

Then the sport itself, there are more calls for individual athleticism in gridiron, rest periods between reps allows for max effort every time, armour allows for harder hits.

 

[Rimbaud82]

I don't know man, my buddy was a 2nd string div 1 RB and it's something else. In athleticism I'd put em pretty high.

The American system is good at wringing all the talent out of their population. There's so much money in youth sports in the USA that their high-school game is as well supported as some of the UKs pro sports.

There's a lot of people in the UK who's potential just isn't mined and thats true accross most countries. That tips things in the US favour a good way.

Then the sport itself, there are more calls for individual athleticism in gridiron, rest periods between reps allows for max effort every time, armour allows for harder hits.

Of course, not denying there are many fantastic athletes. If rugby was popular I am sure they would produce many great athletes in that sport too. If they had the necessary high standards of skills coaching, tactical knowledge etc. that comes with time, the US would of course become one of the top rugby teams (on par with the other tier 1 nations). I think that should go without saying to anyone who watches US sports.

But the notion that 'A team of SEC college running backs would kill professional Rugby teams lol' is just flat out stupid, not to mention disrespectful. It wouldn't even be true for NFL running backs (some ESPN guy said this like a month ago). Players from each sport are extremely fine tuned to the one they play...those calls for individual 'athleticism' that you mention mean that they wouldn't have the same kind of stamina needed to play rugby. And after all, fitness is surely an athletic attribute too, not just strength and explosiveness. Rugby players have that too, but not to the same kind of max effort, rest, max effort rest etc. level. It is just different. Rugby players, as you know, need to grind it out over 35-65 minutes of the ball being in play over the course of 80 minutes. NFL plays last a few seconds at a time and amount to c. 11 minutes over the course of about 3 hours or so.

Not to mention all the other factors that make this untrue, NFL or CFB running backs wouldn't have the adequate skills in other areas- tackling, passing, kicking and, in union, scrummaging, lineouts, rucks, to compete against top rugby teams. They are hyper-specialised, making them supremely good at one thing, but lacking in other areas. Rugby positions are specialised to a degree, but much more jack of all trades.

Although it is obviously important, like any ball sport at the highest levels rugby isn't an athletics competition. Otherwise the american guy Carlin Isles who, by the 100m time was one of fastest men to step on to a pitch, would have done much better. Instead he couldn't even get a bench spot at the Glasgow Warriors. There was an English sprinter who attempted to play, he had a trial, but similarly never got given a contract. Other factors including skill, positioning, tactical understanding and so on are equally important; same with the NFL, which is why Jarryd Hayne didn't crack it despite clearly having the physical tools...just too difficult to pick up the game at that standard without either growing up playing it, or taking a much longer time to learn and get those other things ingrained.

I suspect we might be taking past each other a bit here though.

 

[Mr Mojo Lane]

Of course, not denying there are many fantastic athletes. If rugby was popular I am sure they would produce many great athletes in that sport too. If they had the necessary high standards of skills coaching, tactical knowledge etc. that comes with time, the US would of course become one of the top rugby teams (on par with the other tier 1 nations). I think that should go without saying to anyone who watches US sports.

But the notion that 'A team of SEC college running backs would kill professional Rugby teams lol' is just flat out stupid, not to mention disrespectful. It wouldn't even be true for NFL running backs (some ESPN guy said this like a month ago). Players from each sport are extremely fine tuned to the one they play...those calls for individual 'athleticism' that you mention mean that they wouldn't have the same kind of stamina needed to play rugby. And after all, fitness is surely an athletic attribute too, not just strength and explosiveness. Rugby players have that too, but not to the same kind of max effort, rest, max effort rest etc. level. It is just different. Rugby players, as you know, need to grind it out over 35-65 minutes of the ball being in play over the course of 80 minutes. NFL plays last a few seconds at a time and amount to c. 11 minutes over the course of about 3 hours or so.

Not to mention all the other factors that make this untrue, NFL or CFB running backs wouldn't have the adequate skills in other areas- tackling, passing, kicking and, in union, scrummaging, lineouts, rucks, to compete against top rugby teams. They are hyper-specialised, making them supremely good at one thing, but lacking in other areas. Rugby positions are specialised to a degree, but much more jack of all trades.

Although it is obviously important, like any ball sport at the highest levels rugby isn't an athletics competition. Otherwise the american guy Carlin Isles who, by the 100m time was one of fastest men to step on to a pitch, would have done much better. Instead he couldn't even get a bench spot at the Glasgow Warriors. There was an English sprinter who attempted to play, he had a trial, but similarly never got given a contract. Other factors including skill, positioning, tactical understanding and so on are equally important; same with the NFL, which is why Jarryd Hayne didn't crack it despite clearly having the physical tools...just too difficult to pick up the game at that standard without either growing up playing it, or taking a much longer time to learn and get those other things ingrained.

I suspect we might be taking past each other a bit here though.

Yes. NFL positions are extremely specialized. One of the posters was talking about Adrian Smith an offensive lineman that plays right tackle and a lot of Bengal fans wanted him to move to right guard. Why? A right guard does not need to be as light on their feet as a right tackle. There are specializations on the five positions of the offensive line.

Generally speaking:
Left Tackle--the guy with the most length, longest arms, best feet, and the best pass blocking technique. He still has to be a big
Left Guard- will usually do more pulling and trap blocking, so he will run more than other o-linemen
Center-Usually the shortest on the line and the quickest
Right Guard--usually won't pull as much as the left guard and, most of the time, he is bigger than a left guard
Right Tackle-Doesn't move as well as the left tackle but he is bigger most of the time.

I think it would take some time for American football players to adapt to rugby. I think most of the offensive linemen and nose tackles in American football just wouldn't play. Some of the offensive linemen would probably adjust if they lost a lot of weight. Generally, they have better endurance than defensive linemen; but, still, they are bigger

 

[Rimbaud82]

Yes. NFL positions are extremely specialized. One of the posters was talking about Adrian Smith an offensive lineman that plays right tackle and a lot of Bengal fans wanted him to move to right guard. Why? A right guard does not need to be as light on their feet as a right tackle. There are specializations on the five positions of the offensive line.

Generally speaking:
Left Tackle--the guy with the most length, longest arms, best feet, and the best pass blocking technique. He still has to be a big
Left Guard- will usually do more pulling and trap blocking, so he will run more than other o-linemen
Center-Usually the shortest on the line and the quickest
Right Guard--usually won't pull as much as the left guard and, most of the time, he is bigger than a left guard
Right Tackle-Doesn't move as well as the left tackle but he is bigger most of the time.

I think it would take some time for American football players to adapt to rugby. I think most of the offensive linemen and nose tackles in American football just wouldn't play. Some of the offensive linemen would probably adjust if they lost a lot of weight. Generally, they have better endurance than defensive linemen; but, still, they are bigger

That is interesting, I didn't realise their was specialisation even within the OLine. I think the only hope linesmen would have in rugby might be coming on as impact players at prop, but they are just too big generally. You do have some outliers like Uini Atonio though, but he cannot last a full game. Plus ecen though its hypothetical, they wouldnt have the scrummaging technique you need.

 

[MartinGibson86]

You have to be joking!!!

This is a sport where the ball is in play for a few seconds and then the game actually STOPS, which means the players effectively receive some rest until the next play.
Seriously, i'm gobsmacked anyone would think of them as the best athletes, it literally makes no sense whatsoever.

How on earth can nfl players in general be better athletes than Tennis pros, cyclists[Tour de France type] and pro boxers? Think about the fitness levels and athletic abilities needed for those sports when done at the highest levels, there is simply no comparison, without any doubt at all.

As far as football codes go when there have been comparisons and tests done with players from Football,[soccer] League, Union, and AFL,[aussie rules] the AFL players won with a good margin from the others.
Some players from these codes regularly end up running miles throughout the games they play.

NFL players are only actually moving for 11 minutes on average during an NFL game. Only 11 minutes of action! The rest is mostly standing around, with the occasional momentum-killing penalty review thrown in for good measure.
Yes there is more to elite athletes than just running but aerobic ability is vital.

https://gizmodo.com/5992583/how-far-do-you-run-in-different-sports

You're confusing conditioning with athleticism.

There is no athleticism involved in cycling.

 

[bubbleboyjones]

Yes and there are more black folks playing these sports than is the case with other ethnic groups. Because the USA has a lot more black folks in general.

Playing number only go some ways, places like Ireland and New Zealand dont have big populations to begin with like you said. So obviously this means there will be less black players. It doesn't mean those who do play rugby are any less athletic, or that rugby as a sport produces worse athletes.

Right but my contention is that rugby simply doesn't have the largest talent pool of high level athletes available. Given how dominate black athletes are on a grand scale across many sports both present and historically the demographics of rugby is a big red flag. I said the same things about MMA early on and that once we started to get a taste of high level athletes coming in people are going to be shocked. Then Jon Jones comes along(direct lineage of NFL players) and this guy starches the entire division(PEDs or not).

You want me to name every black player in history? I gave you 6 examples.
Point is it doesn't matter. There are top black players and alway have been, they aren't any better than Fijian athletes or aboriginal australians just because they are black.

No not in history....I am talking about about current. My original statement was 95% of the top 100 rugby players are either White or Pacific islander which I will stand by(I'm sure the exact % can float). I never said there isn't top black players, just that they are a minority. You would struggle to name 10 black players in the top 100.

No, the point was tongue in cheek. Of course they aren't 'black' in the sense of being descended from West Africans like african americans. Do you think they are somehow less athletic because they aren't black?

This goes back to my original statement "my contention is that rugby simply doesn't have the largest talent pool of high level athletes available." Maro Itoje is one of the best players in the world descendent of Nigerian parents. We know there isn't something special about rugby that would prevent more athletes from West African blood from competing at the highest levels yet they have minority presence there.

It's not that they are automatically less athletic its more that descendants of West Africans have done greater things in sports than anyone. When you think of greatest athletes of all time descendants of West Africans will flood this.(Jordan, Lewis, Pele, Williams, Bolt, Ali, LeBron, Owens).

 

[PRESIDENT TRUMP]

@bubbleboyjones just decimated an entire continent lmao.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

It's called football because you progress the ball up the field on foot rather than on a horse.

<{monica}>

Very, very, very few people know this.

 

[ThunderL1ps]

No. It's specialized athletics.

 

[iThrillhouse]

I'd say MMA fighters.

Name something they would be bad at.

Climb a tree, rope or net and most of the NFL are terrible.

[gif of McGregor gassed after 5 minutes of boxing Mayweather]

[Kimbo/Houston hands on knees gif post-fight]

[literally 99% of MMA fights where a fighter is completely gassed after the first round.gif]

[Roynelson.jpg]

Sure NFL players are some tough MF'ers.

But to claim NFL players generally have more quickness, agility and fast-twitch muscles via running with a handegg than these guys...

LOL love when people say Jordans the goat...the type of defense players had those days were such a joke


IMO:
1.Rugby Athletes - because they're as massive as NFL players but have the intelligence to read and create plays, unlike NFL'ers who literally have a designated player/coach to tell them what to do on every play
2. NHL players - because even the most technically "out of shape" would fucking embarass most people on skates or in general endurance
3. NFL players - because at least 50% of those that make it to the NFL are absolute specimens, and those that cant even crack the NFL as CB's/RB's/WR etc. are STILL absolute units
4. Footballers -

this is a pretty bottom tier national teams player after 96 minutes of fottballery, sprinting the length of the pitch in about 5.7 seconds to pot an empty netter,


football players get shit on for the diving and whatever but no one can question their endurance

 

[Whiterabbit]

Now this is just incredibly uninformed, not to mention untrue.

Sry man it's true. If Rugby guys could cut it playing football they would. Way more money is in it. If the US really wanted to field a rugby team then the rest of the world would be our cock sock

 

[Madmick]

You have to be joking!!!

This is a sport where the ball is in play for a few seconds and then the game actually STOPS, which means the players effectively receive some rest until the next play.
Seriously, i'm gobsmacked anyone would think of them as the best athletes, it literally makes no sense whatsoever.

How on earth can nfl players in general be better athletes than Tennis pros, cyclists[Tour de France type] and pro boxers? Think about the fitness levels and athletic abilities needed for those sports when done at the highest levels, there is simply no comparison, without any doubt at all.

As far as football codes go when there have been comparisons and tests done with players from Football,[soccer] League, Union, and AFL,[aussie rules] the AFL players won with a good margin from the others.
Some players from these codes regularly end up running miles throughout the games they play.

NFL players are only actually moving for 11 minutes on average during an NFL game. Only 11 minutes of action! The rest is mostly standing around, with the occasional momentum-killing penalty review thrown in for good measure.
Yes there is more to elite athletes than just running but aerobic ability is vital.

https://gizmodo.com/5992583/how-far-do-you-run-in-different-sports

I'm gobsmacked that people like you think you know what the hell you're talking about. Here is where the wise post:
What sport's position produces the best athletes?

 

[tmnpothead]

Real champions eat at McDonald's. I'm lovin it

 

[auger38]

[gif of McGregor gassed after 5 minutes of boxing Mayweather]

[Kimbo/Houston hands on knees gif post-fight]

[literally 99% of MMA fights where a fighter is completely gassed after the first round.gif]

[Roynelson.jpg]




LOL love when people say Jordans the goat...the type of defense players had those days were such a joke


IMO:
1.Rugby Athletes - because they're as massive as NFL players but have the intelligence to read and create plays, unlike NFL'ers who literally have a designated player/coach to tell them what to do on every play
2. NHL players - because even the most technically "out of shape" would fucking embarass most people on skates or in general endurance
3. NFL players - because at least 50% of those that make it to the NFL are absolute specimens, and those that cant even crack the NFL as CB's/RB's/WR etc. are STILL absolute units
4. Footballers -

this is a pretty bottom tier national teams player after 96 minutes of fottballery, sprinting the length of the pitch in about 5.7 seconds to pot an empty netter,


football players get shit on for the diving and whatever but no one can question their endurance

Hockey is a skill game. Athletics are secondary. Gretzky, far and away the best hockey player of all time, wasn’t fast, wasn’t strong, just read the game like no other.

No physical freaks in hockey, like there are in the other sports.

 

[cmw43]

Sry man it's true. If Rugby guys could cut it playing football they would. Way more money is in it. If the US really wanted to field a rugby team then the rest of the world would be our cock sock

The rest of the world doesn't have Pro Football leagues, if they're athletic and getting paid it's in soccer.

Although the rest of the worlds big men if they're going to pursue a sport gravitate to rugby or boxing.

The NFL is 97% American I don't know if that constitutes having the "Worlds" best athletes.