American Football > The Olympics

+1 for truth.

You need pads because the hits are probably 20x worse in football than in rugby. If there were no pads, then you'd have injured players and the game would eventually die out.

yea because the average player in rugby weighs like 160 lbs, while in football its like 260....

To add on to this...

One of the heaviest players in the NFL currently is Haloti Ngata at 350 pounds. He is a nose tackle.

One of the lightest players in the NFL currently is DeSean Jackson at 175 pounds. He is a wide receiver/kick returner.

So, imagine this guy...


tackling this guy...


without pads.

No doubt he would be seriously injured.

That's why American football players wear pads.

I'm pretty sure they just did though.

Actually you CAN compare the sports because both use the muscles in your arms and hands to launch something at a target, regardless of how different YOU think they are.

If you were to compare shooting a bullet out of a rifle at a target with shooting a football out of some sort of machine, THAT would also be comparable because technically a rifle is a machine. However a rifle against an NFL Quarterback from 40 yards isn't exactly a good comparison, although I bet a QB like Drew Brees would still give the rifleman a run for his money.

You're taking this way too seriously btw, so chill out. The title of the thread was intended to be funny and an attention grabber. Apparently it worked for the latter. It's just showing how good the best of the best in the NFL can be

I couldn't agree more. I was about to say, if football players didn't wear pads we couldn't have the sport because so many good players would be injured for the season, and like you said, it would "die out".

All I'm going to say is, *some but not all* football players are wimps. Ex: Ray Lewis, a middle linebacker is not a wimp. However Nate Kaeding, a kicker, can be considered a wimp because hitting people isn't part of his job.

But this isn't a thread about Football being better than Rugby. This is a thread about how accurate a great Quarterback can be in his prime. So I apologize if I offended any Rugby fans out there - after all, we wouldn't have American Football if we didn't have Rugby.

Love that video, thanks for sharing another sports science one. It actually goes to show that football is more dangerous *because* of the padding and helmets - Remember a handful of weeks ago with James Harrisson, Brandon Meriweather and Dunta Robinson?

Yes you can, and, no, Football would get demolished; not doubt. Where's the discrepancy? They weren't touching on any other quality aside from accuracy, so I don't see how it wouldn't make sense.

If both sports used in the comparison are analyzed by similar scientific aspects, it can be valid. Right?

So, you disagree with the statistics. But that's not the same as the logic which founds the comparison.


Anyway, I wouldn't say I'd agree with the results of the tests either, but for the "right" reasons: They only tested one person; For a more thorough analysis, there are conditions that should be considered that weren't (i.e. range, biokinetics, general settings and scenarios, etc.). The argument that you can't compare the two sports in terms of accuracy just seems moot to me. They both deal with trajectories dictated by the same laws of physics. That, alone, can validate a comparison -- however trivial.

lol @ roid rage

I was mocking what this topic has turned into.

And I was mocking you. derp

this