[quote]supermick wrote:
All about the peak. All about the peak.[/quote]
Yeah. Wilkinson had nothing to do with it : )
[quote]Ren wrote:
oarsman, I assumed you played rugby here in the states at either collegiate or men’s league level? If that’s the case then you honestly won’t know shit about rugby. The basics yeah, but nothing intricate.
I am a South African, moved to the states when I was 16, and my u16 B side rugby team in high school back home played a more complex game than my college team did here in the stats all 4 years I played for them.
And yeah, NFL players are amazing athletes, the T.Os, Ray Lewiss, and Corey Dillons are the kind of athletes that would be just as amazing were they playing rugby instead of football.
However, how many of the “big boys” in football can run around the field for 90 minutes, tackling and carrying the ball, lifting in the lineouts, and still be a force to be reckoned with in the scrum? At the age of 33? )Blatant Os du Randt reference for those in the know).
American Football is highly specialized, rugby players have to have a MUCH LARGER skillset to be considered a top player. I mean, if all you had to do was hurtle ur body at some1 all game and not worry about having to push in a scrum or lift in a lineout it really shouldn’t be too hard to excel at that right?
Like someone said, comparing apples and oranges. But rugby still rules. Go Boks![/quote]
I think this is one of the more sensible posts on this thread and raises some good points. I don’t think we are getting anywhere in the arguments because the fundamental issue is that the US doesn’t have a rugby culture, just as the rest of the world doesn’t have a gridiron culture, and until the Yanks have the same understanding of rugby (as Renn pointed out in his email) as the Aussies, Brits, Kiwis etc and vice versa we will never reach an agreement.
Also, even though rugby is my favourite sport, I honestly think that the modern day rugby league forward comes up trumps in most of the various athletic strengths, they have to be extremely strong and powerful, they need a heap of cardio endurance as they move a lot more in a game than even rugby union players, they need to be able to get up quickly after being tackled to play the ball and the modern game is super fast, you even have lock forwards running down fullbacks and wingers from behind these days.
Add in the extra ball-playing skills that forwards need to use these days plus the fact that the players in top teams would play aver 30 games per year and you really have a complete athlete.
Cheers,
Ben
[quote]Gregatron wrote:
B-Rock wrote:
How can you brag about England? They have been spanked all year. I would be hesistant to say they are world champions. Although you are holding to tight to 2003 he World Cup is only reflective of that year. If a team was to be labelled “World Champions” at present then that would have to go to the New Zealand.
No. England are indeed World Champions until 2007. They earned it and we shouldn’t take that away from them…yet. Just 2 more years to go… [/quote]
England are the World Cup holders. This does not mean that for the four years following the have automatic rights to claim they are the worlds best regardless. I think England are a great team however, in recent times they have failed to prove that they are worthy of being labelled “world champions”.
[quote]supermick wrote:
Gregatron wrote:
B-Rock wrote:
How can you brag about England? They have been spanked all year. I would be hesistant to say they are world champions. Although you are holding to tight to 2003 he World Cup is only reflective of that year. If a team was to be labelled “World Champions” at present then that would have to go to the New Zealand.
No. England are indeed World Champions until 2007. They earned it and we shouldn’t take that away from them…yet. Just 2 more years to go…
All about the peak. All about the peak.[/quote]
I can’t argue with that.
[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
OARSMAN wrote:
Like I said, damn you’re condescending
I know and I keep agreeing with you…for heavens sake just move on.
anyway, my point is that you are made the assumption that rugby hits are harder than football hits based on a one-sided and may I add, BIASED, point of view.
Go back and read the posts again. Try to read them slowly this time. I at no stage mentioned the hitting in rugby being harder than NFL…the only possible reference was to the match analysis footage I have and sitting you down and having you explain to me how it is possible to hit any harder. You’re the one that is crapping on about how superior NFL is to rugby and if you want me to point this out to you clearly just ask and I will lay them all out end to end for you.
I made the assumption based on MY EXPERIENCE PLAYING BOTH GAMES that footballers hit harder than ruggers.
Here come the capitals…the last resort of a man drowning in his own shit figuratively…if you have to resort to shouting you’ve obviously have lost the plot.
I was stating what I BELIEVED TO BE A FACT based on MY EXPERIENCE. You fail to grasp the point that what I believe to be a fact may not be what you believe to be a fact.
Do you know what a fact is?
Clearer now?
Clear as mud…like the rest of your argument.
And since we have no empirical way of testing which sport does indeed hit hardest, well, we have to leave it at that, don’t we?
Actually we can…but that is probably beyond you.
My ultimate point being that since you have never played American football you cannot make that declaration OBJECTIVELY - or at the very least not as objectively as I would be able to - it is merely an opinion that you are entitled to.
This makes absolutely no sense. How the hell do you ‘objectively’…I use that term loosely as I’m not sure you even understand what it means…whether the hits are harder in NFL or Rugby? Did you get the same guy to suit up and hit you ‘NFL’ style…then strip down return to his starting position and hit you ‘rugby’ style? This is probably the dumbest thing you’ve said…and that takes quite a statement compared to some of the other pearls of wisdom.
We’ll just agree to disagree.
Something else we can agree on.
I was just pointing out the stupidity of what you were saying.
well so was I.
I wasn’t saying that NFL is not a complex game because I know that it is but unlike yourself I wouldn’t be ignorant enough to think as you did that one sport was ‘infinitely more complex’ than another.
you are putting a hyper-literal interpretation on ‘infinitely’ OK how about ‘more complex’ - happy now? And that is a whole other topic for another really pointless discussion.
I’m supposed to actually work out what you mean now?
I think they are both incredibly hard sports but I don’t understand why you’d try to denigrate one sport to try and glorify another.
Man, I didn’t even go there - I ripped on people who called out American footballers for being pussies because they wore protection. I was merely illustrating some things you can pick out about rugby that knocks them down a peg or two. Rugby is a fucking cool sport, but then again, so is football.
Once again now I realise I should of been working out what you actually meant rather than what you actually wrote…that’s probably what led to the confusion.
Once again you seem to be arguing with yourself. I wouldn’t try to argue this point because the last time I looked I never saw a bench press on the pitch. So either way it doesn’t mean shit…how old are you 12…you seem to be set on a my Dad is bigger than your Dad style discussion.
I was just replying to what you wrote. And you’re right - in the end it doesn’t mean shit.
What are you a nation of fucking robots…what the fuck does one have to do with the other? I think you could actually argue the other way around if you had any sense? That your ‘every technological advantage’ is what is tipping chlorine in your ‘superior athletic gene pool’. But that’s another story.
No. You didn’t get my point. The point was if there was AWARENESS of all these ‘minor’ sports on a wider scale, and the government had a system in place to make it economically feasible for people to participate in those sports, the inherent selection amongst the American population would give them a significant advantage against most every other country - which following that train of thought would translate to even more gold medals.
I didn’t realise you were a ‘master race’…my grandfathers fought wars against people who sprouted that same line in bullshit. I wish you realised the stupidity of what you are saying…problem is I think you may actually believe it.
For example, what if you found a way to get some of those tall inner city black kids that would ordinarily play basketball give rowing a try? If USRowing tapped into that talent pool, instead of relying on all-white upper class kids (for the most part), you’re going to tell me that over 10 years or so, it would not stand a very good possibility of reaping better results at the international level? That same train of logic could apply to all ‘minor’ sports in the US. Even rugby.
Another example, you’re going to tell me that if USA Rugby found a way to siphon off some of those really fast black kids that would end up playing Wide Receiver, Cornerback, Linebacker, or Running Back in American football and channeled them into Rugby - that USA Rugby would not make an immediate exponential improvement on the international arena? I would gather to say yes.
You really are an idiot.
the bulk of USA rugby comes from upper income whites or ex football players who picked up the sport when they football careers came to an end. If USA Rugby found a way to expand the potential pool of young men who are exposed to the sport (i.e. at a young age like in Europe and the Southern Hemisphere) and not in their late teens/early twenties like most USA ruggers) , then the USA’s results on the international arena would begin to improve dramatically.
You’ve actually worn me down with your well thought out and well constructed argument…I’ll get back in my box. You’ve drained the strength out of me.
Yes. I agree. It’s been a slow day at work, thus I have a lot of free time on my hands!
cheers
It must be hard to get so much typing done with only one hand.
[/quote]
this is why arguing on an internet forum is pointless.
not only have you warped everything I said out of context to suit your argument, but yet you continue to insult me.
My argument is clear as day, you choose to misinterpret it and take it out of context because it suits you. The point is nothing you’ve said is going to change my mind, just like nothing I’ve said has changed your mind - so just let it go.
Now please, drop it. If you feel like having the last word go ahead. but keep insulting me and we’ll grind this out as long as you want.
[quote]OARSMAN wrote:
this is why arguing on an internet forum is pointless.
[/quote]
Actually it only illustrates why it is pointless for you.
You bloody hypocrite…go back and read your first post on this topic…then look at your second and on and on…you were the one that marched into this thread throwing insults around. It is hardly my fault that you aren’t articulate enough to get across the meaning of your argument…from the look of the other posts here and by your own admission everyone else must be warping ‘everything’ you’ve said as well.
What’s there to let go of. I don’t really care whether you ‘get it’ or not. I only tried to point out to you some of the flaws in your logic. You can make any claim you like mate but that doesn’t make it gospel and don’t think for a second someone won’t call you on it. I spend most of time here trying to bait people and rub people up the wrong way but I hope that people can tell when I am piss taking and when I am serious. I looked at your posts in that way and realised you were actually serious…so I reserve the right to call B.S. I never expected you neccessarly to change your mind but at the very least you should open it.
I am always here mate. Feel free to point out the flaws or errors in my argument. I unlike yourself am open to having my mind changed should the weight of evidence or argument require it.
[quote]Diomede wrote:
complex probably isnt the right word to describe the difference between NFL and Rugby. Strategic probably is.
I think NFL is more strategic. Remember, we stop after every play so we PLAN what we’re doing this play. It is sort of a physical chess match.
[/quote]
This is the problem…you watch rugby, you see it but you don’t really understand it…I mean I am generalising here and maybe you personally do have a full and intimate understanding of the game but I think that would put you in the minority of posters. I mean I am sure a lot of American’s know the rules, positions, fundamentals but you just don’t get it. I’m not trying to belittle or get down on anyone I am just trying to explain why some of these posts get so many peoples back up here in these forums.
I would say that I am in the same position with regard to NFL. I watch the game, I know the rules, positions, fundamentals but I wouldn’t pretend to have a thorough understanding of the nuances of the game.
You talk about the stoppages in play and the planning of the next play…this happens in rugby at every ruck, every set play only you have a guy calling these plays on the run. Some might argue that makes rugby far more complex not less? Same could be said of strategy in rugby being more fluid and dynamic and less structured much less like chess in that the time for contemplation is greatly reduced? I have the feeling from reading some posts here that a number of the poster’s think that rugby is just about smashing the ball up? The games are very different and the physical requirements of the game are very different and don’t hold up to much direct comparison.
[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
The games are very different and the physical requirements of the game are very different and don’t hold up to much direct comparison.
[/quote]
The most sensible thing that has been said.
To B-Rock,
England ARE the World Champions, have been ever since England won the World Cup in 2003 and will be until someone else wins the World Cup (I’m not going to say 2007 because the team is coming on leaps and bounds and we could have a good shot at defending it).
That does not mean that England are the World’s best at the moment, I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that or would claim that. You would have to be pretty stupid or ignorant to claim that currently anyone other than New Zealand are the world’s best. They have a fantastic side and are playing some wonderful rugby. Sometimes they field two almost entirely different sides in consecutive games with little or no drop in quality, that is incredible strength in depth!
That said, England did run them close a couple of weeks back 
Testament to England’s forward power more than anything because currently our backs are looking lacklustre (possible exception of Mark Cueto, and Lewsey is great but suffering a slight lapse in form).
England had the heart ripped out of the team after the world cup through retirements and injury, it has been a rebuilding phase that is just now on an upturn. The forwards are back to being the best, most dominant pack in the world and the backs need a little work (not creative enough). Expect to see us doing v well in next years 6nations and being there or thereabouts come 2007.
I also think that Jonny will return as an inside centre, Hodgson at Flyhalf and either Jonny or Olly Barkley at inside centre (for the creativity) with Tindall as the battering ram at outside centre.
Jonny Wilkinson may have had more than a little to do with the World Cup win, but don’t for a minute think that he could have done what he did without the support of a group of players on the top their game.
I think that is my longest ever post!
Cheers
Stu.
[quote]Stuey wrote:
Will Heffernan wrote:
The games are very different and the physical requirements of the game are very different and don’t hold up to much direct comparison.
The most sensible thing that has been said.
To B-Rock,
England ARE the World Champions, have been ever since England won the World Cup in 2003 and will be until someone else wins the World Cup (I’m not going to say 2007 because the team is coming on leaps and bounds and we could have a good shot at defending it).
That does not mean that England are the World’s best at the moment, I don’t think anyone has ever claimed that or would claim that. You would have to be pretty stupid or ignorant to claim that currently anyone other than New Zealand are the world’s best. They have a fantastic side and are playing some wonderful rugby. Sometimes they field two almost entirely different sides in consecutive games with little or no drop in quality, that is incredible strength in depth!
That said, England did run them close a couple of weeks back Testament to England’s forward power more than anything because currently our backs are looking lacklustre (possible exception of Mark Cueto, and Lewsey is great but suffering a slight lapse in form).
England had the heart ripped out of the team after the world cup through retirements and injury, it has been a rebuilding phase that is just now on an upturn. The forwards are back to being the best, most dominant pack in the world and the backs need a little work (not creative enough). Expect to see us doing v well in next years 6nations and being there or thereabouts come 2007.
I also think that Jonny will return as an inside centre, Hodgson at Flyhalf and either Jonny or Olly Barkley at inside centre (for the creativity) with Tindall as the battering ram at outside centre.
Jonny Wilkinson may have had more than a little to do with the World Cup win, but don’t for a minute think that he could have done what he did without the support of a group of players on the top their game.
I think that is my longest ever post!
Cheers
Stu.
[/quote]
Ok first off i second the point made here to B-rock. England are world champs. Final. We earned it and until or if Another team wins in 2007 we are STILL word champs. You CANNOT have word champs unofficially, except in fantasy rugby with your mates down the pub. Thats not to say the All Blacks arent the form team at the minute as they are.
Wilkonson will be Fly half again. He doesnt have the pace needed at inside centre. He’s a golden boy, his kicking is at a higher sucess rate than Hodgson and i feel its Hodgson that will make way.
Tindall at INSIDE centre. He’s got good feet, and is a defense monster. Hits the line hard too and useful at the restart (Think world cup 2003).
Most international teams now are searching for an inside centre with a fly halves feet as time and time again fly halves are getting less time on the ball so the footballing inside centre is another option to get them out of trouble if needs be.
England tried this with Henry paul on the inside. Didnt work as he wasnt ready but there arent that many alternatives in our game. Maybe barkly now he’s bulked up a bit? We really could go on and on but we’d come to an agreement in that key backs are injured/are not there/are not in form and were lacklustre as you pointed out in that department. Loads of lateral running and poor desicion making.
The origional question was that the guy wanted to know which sport (Rowing or rugby) do we all think would be better for overall gains to go along with my workouts?
Gains in what? physical gains? social life gains?
If your gonna play rugby you need to cater your weight room workouts FOR rugby. Not bbuilding. You train FOR the game not vica versa. You will get niggles and bumps so if your main goal is progress in the gym and your thinking of “playing” at rugby or “playing” at crew then do neither and stick with the gym.
I was actually thinking that myself…the guy who originally posted is sitting there thinking ‘what the hell is this’ and I’ll put my hand up and take part of the blame for getting so far off track. Sorry about that.
[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
I was just thinking about Jerry Collins running about causing mayhem in the NFL…I shudder to think about Jerry as is he is now but imagine him pharmaceutically enhanced NFL style…I pity the fool that tried to get past JC.[/quote]
Yup. Imagine Jerry on the roids, like 90% of the NFL, with a helmet, clotheslining people and flying in head-first, swinging arms no problem. Frightening.
This whole American Football vs. Rugby argument is bullshit, IMHO. Different games. Similar mentality. No doubt if I had grown up in a country or area with no rugby but NFL, I would have played that. I think rugby is a superior game, because of the fact that I run, tackle, pass, and even kick in every single game, but I’m not going to rag on American Football. I love to watch it. If you guys want to rag on something, rag on soccer.
[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
Diomede wrote:
I would say that I am in the same position with regard to NFL. I watch the game, I know the rules, positions, fundamentals but I wouldn’t pretend to have a thorough understanding of the nuances of the game.
You talk about the stoppages in play and the planning of the next play…this happens in rugby at every ruck, every set play only you have a guy calling these plays on the run. Some might argue that makes rugby far more complex not less? Same could be said of strategy in rugby being more fluid and dynamic and less structured much less like chess in that the time for contemplation is greatly reduced? I have the feeling from reading some posts here that a number of the poster’s think that rugby is just about smashing the ball up? The games are very different and the physical requirements of the game are very different and don’t hold up to much direct comparison.
[/quote]
What you do on the run, we do on the run too. Plays break down once the ball is snapped and things get disregarded pretty quick.
I don’t doubt that there is a lot of strategy involved in rugby. However, our game is designed purely around strategy. The QB is responsible for sometimes hundreds of plays PER player(wideouts, running backs, fullbacks…qb keepers, etc) and thats just what he calls when they are in the huddle. Once he comes to the line of scrimmage and sees what the defense is, he can change the play in a billion different ways to take advantage of the defense. The same thing for the defensive side.
i doubt you are capable of putting in same level of strategy on the run as we do while planning the play. Our players have to make quick judgments once the play starts too…
I was trying to avoid this at all costs. Does the expression ‘apples and oranges’ mean anything to anyone here. Totally different games. What I was getting at before is what was posted above…kicking, passing, rucking, mauling, tackling, lifting, scrummaging you have to do it all in rugby and before anyone gets started I am not saying that to in anyway ‘have a go at’ NFL as I don’t think anybody stating the case of rugby has. I am just stating to illustrate what is involved in being a rugby player.
[quote]Diomede wrote:
Will Heffernan wrote:
Diomede wrote:
I would say that I am in the same position with regard to NFL. I watch the game, I know the rules, positions, fundamentals but I wouldn’t pretend to have a thorough understanding of the nuances of the game.
You talk about the stoppages in play and the planning of the next play…this happens in rugby at every ruck, every set play only you have a guy calling these plays on the run. Some might argue that makes rugby far more complex not less? Same could be said of strategy in rugby being more fluid and dynamic and less structured much less like chess in that the time for contemplation is greatly reduced? I have the feeling from reading some posts here that a number of the poster’s think that rugby is just about smashing the ball up? The games are very different and the physical requirements of the game are very different and don’t hold up to much direct comparison.
What you do on the run, we do on the run too. Plays break down once the ball is snapped and things get disregarded pretty quick.
I don’t doubt that there is a lot of strategy involved in rugby. However, our game is designed purely around strategy. The QB is responsible for sometimes hundreds of plays PER player(wideouts, running backs, fullbacks…qb keepers, etc) and thats just what he calls when they are in the huddle. Once he comes to the line of scrimmage and sees what the defense is, he can change the play in a billion different ways to take advantage of the defense. The same thing for the defensive side.
i doubt you are capable of putting in same level of strategy on the run as we do while planning the play. Our players have to make quick judgments once the play starts too…
[/quote]
[quote]Will Heffernan wrote:
I was trying to avoid this at all costs. Does the expression ‘apples and oranges’ mean anything to anyone here. Totally different games. What I was getting at before is what was posted above…kicking, passing, rucking, mauling, tackling, lifting, scrummaging you have to do it all in rugby and before anyone gets started I am not saying that to in anyway ‘have a go at’ NFL as I don’t think anybody stating the case of rugby has. I am just stating to illustrate what is involved in being a rugby player.
Diomede wrote:
Will Heffernan wrote:
Diomede wrote:
I would say that I am in the same position with regard to NFL. I watch the game, I know the rules, positions, fundamentals but I wouldn’t pretend to have a thorough understanding of the nuances of the game.
You talk about the stoppages in play and the planning of the next play…this happens in rugby at every ruck, every set play only you have a guy calling these plays on the run. Some might argue that makes rugby far more complex not less? Same could be said of strategy in rugby being more fluid and dynamic and less structured much less like chess in that the time for contemplation is greatly reduced? I have the feeling from reading some posts here that a number of the poster’s think that rugby is just about smashing the ball up? The games are very different and the physical requirements of the game are very different and don’t hold up to much direct comparison.
What you do on the run, we do on the run too. Plays break down once the ball is snapped and things get disregarded pretty quick.
I don’t doubt that there is a lot of strategy involved in rugby. However, our game is designed purely around strategy. The QB is responsible for sometimes hundreds of plays PER player(wideouts, running backs, fullbacks…qb keepers, etc) and thats just what he calls when they are in the huddle. Once he comes to the line of scrimmage and sees what the defense is, he can change the play in a billion different ways to take advantage of the defense. The same thing for the defensive side.
i doubt you are capable of putting in same level of strategy on the run as we do while planning the play. Our players have to make quick judgments once the play starts too…
[/quote]
I agre NFL sucks and Rugby Rox! NFL has no integrity. That’s the problem with U.S sports their jsut blokes jacked up on illegal performance enhancing drugs. Your sports have no integrity; i’m afraid to say you know it too.
Union, league, american football… all
are great games and deserve respect. Can’t we all just get along? : )
To the original poster, sorry for being part of the hijacking! To answer your question of which sport would be better for overall gains I would have to say neither. The reason I say this is that your training should be tailored to help with the demands of your sport. Not the other way around.
As long as you are putting your training to good use and improving in your chosen sport, you will be making progress. If you want to make gains you’ve got to keep track of your training and plan your nutrition and recovery accordingly. Regardless of what sport you play.
I hope that helps.
[quote]alstan90 wrote:
I agre NFL sucks and Rugby Rox! NFL has no integrity. That’s the problem with U.S sports their jsut blokes jacked up on illegal performance enhancing drugs. Your sports have no integrity; i’m afraid to say you know it too.[/quote]
It may not be as prevalent but gear is used in rugby as well. Don’t be retarded.
There is no way to even guess what % of players are jacked up on shit. Heck, that BALCO shit wasnt even an outlawed substance in most leagues until recently. I’m sure new things have already been developed that arent outlawed and are untraceable right now.
To say that 90%(or any %) of NFL players(or any league) are jacked up is pure speculation. No one has any real numbers on all this.
There is a lot more money involved in American sports, so i wouldnt be surprised if we do have higher instances of cheating. But yeah, we are hardly the only ones…
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Will Heffernan wrote:
I was just thinking about Jerry Collins running about causing mayhem in the NFL…I shudder to think about Jerry as is he is now but imagine him pharmaceutically enhanced NFL style…I pity the fool that tried to get past JC.
Yup. Imagine Jerry on the roids, like 90% of the NFL, with a helmet, clotheslining people and flying in head-first, swinging arms no problem. Frightening.
[/quote]
the rugby jockers in this thread only ever considered the huge, less mobile linemen in their arguments. prob cause these guys remind them most of rugby.
take the athletic freaks at the so-called skill positions: players like mike vick, tomlinson, reggie bush, and prob barry sanders still. roids don’t give you those moves. and your jerry collins would never even get a chance to put a “hit” on them.
no one is too athletic for the NFL, but those guys would change your game pretty quickly.
[quote]Diomede wrote:
There is no way to even guess what % of players are jacked up on shit. Heck, that BALCO shit wasnt even an outlawed substance in most leagues until recently. I’m sure new things have already been developed that arent outlawed and are untraceable right now.
To say that 90%(or any %) of NFL players(or any league) are jacked up is pure speculation. No one has any real numbers on all this.
There is a lot more money involved in American sports, so i wouldnt be surprised if we do have higher instances of cheating. But yeah, we are hardly the only ones…[/quote]
yeah bet that took you ages to write between injections of winny and dbol…lol
[quote]chillain wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Will Heffernan wrote:
I was just thinking about Jerry Collins running about causing mayhem in the NFL…I shudder to think about Jerry as is he is now but imagine him pharmaceutically enhanced NFL style…I pity the fool that tried to get past JC.
Yup. Imagine Jerry on the roids, like 90% of the NFL, with a helmet, clotheslining people and flying in head-first, swinging arms no problem. Frightening.
the rugby jockers in this thread only ever considered the huge, less mobile linemen in their arguments. prob cause these guys remind them most of rugby.
take the athletic freaks at the so-called skill positions: players like mike vick, tomlinson, reggie bush, and prob barry sanders still. roids don’t give you those moves. and your jerry collins would never even get a chance to put a “hit” on them.
No one is too athletic for the NFL, but those guys would change your game pretty quickly.
[/quote]
Such a ridiculous comment about an athlete whom you know absolutely nothing about. It’s hard to believe anyone can be as insular and narrow minded as has been made clear with this statement…you might want to check JC out one day…it might just open your eyes.