If you got Ladanian Tomlinson and a few of his closest friends...

[prohornblower]

This is similar to asking if you took the 50 most intelligent, hermitlike, piss-in-their-pants, can't-comb-their-hair, socially awkward dweebs from the Global Nerdery, and trained them to play poker for 6 months by the best poker teachers, would one of them end up winning POY at the WSOP?

Or maybe it's nothing like that.

[Pudge714]

I think a much better thread would be creating a rugby team out of NFLers.

[PartyGirlUK]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

btw if this Harris is so sick why isn't he playing running back? I mean, it's a much more influential position that defensive tackle

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Mos...e_Player_Award

OK lets look at it economically, pretty good measure of value is how much these guys get paid.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player?statsId=6773

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/player/70656

If this guy is so supremely talented that he's as strong as a weighlifter, as fast as the breeze, stamina of Gebrasalaisse, the coordination and dexterity of a Bolshoi ballet dancer etc. why is he getting paid such a modest wage?





[ QUOTE ]

It's ridiculous to suggest that a country of 300 million currently has 50+ people who are capable of being the greatest rugby player ever if they tried. NFL has some incredible athletes, but so does rugby. And just because someone is massive and speedy doesn't necessarily translate to a successful rugby career. You need to be much better rounded to succeed in rugby as opposed to the highly specialised positions in NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I'd take the over and it wouldn't even be close. People who don't watch rugby probably don't appreciate how easily they would get dominated at set plays and tactically, ignoring the fact that your average NFL player would need to learn a whole new set of skills. Your average RB/WR probably has no idea how to pass, kick or tackle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replying to a couple of different people here who made similar points.

Many NFL players can catch and tackle, or catch, pass and tackle due to their backgrounds in college and high school. LT played LB in highschool and has thrown 7 TDs in the NFL, Josh Cribbs played QB in college and is now a return man/wide receiver/cover man on special team, mike Vrable is a LB who has caught 8 TDs in his career. Except for very high draft picks, QBs, and the biggest linemen most NFL players start out their careers on special teams where they learn to tackle. There are plenty of guys who are capable of passing, kicking, catching and tackling who just don't have to since there are invariably several specialists on their team better at those specific skill sets.

well obviously, as they are high end athletes they are going to have SOME passing and catching ability. And sure, there are going to be a few standout super athletes. Noone with a brain cell is going to argue that noone from the NFL is talented enough to succeed in rugby and vice versa

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, why not play him on defense AND offense? Seeing as how he would be the greatest ever rugby player, where you play 80 minutes out of 100 and run around a bunch, I'm sure he'd find 60 minutes out 160 in a static but explosive game a piece of piss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the people he is playing against aren't playing both sides of the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand this last comment, I'm asking, why not have him play the whole 60 minutes?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


OK lets look at it economically, pretty good measure of value is how much these guys get paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its not. First there are 3 or 4 D linemen on the field at any one time and only one or occasionally 2 RBs. Secondly players do not start out free agents in football, they are drafted, so positions with shorter player lifespans will get paid on average less than those with longer spans since the longer ones will lead to more free agent contracts being signed on average at those positions.

Your MVP voting is meaningless- the MVP is voted on by the press and because of that it heavily favors the most visible players. Think of it this way, the best D lineman on your team will be double teamed virtually every play (and occasionally tripled) and he will end up being involved in a tackly/sack/interception/fumble 5-10 times a game. For example last year's leading tackler on the KC chiefs had 88 tackles, 30 assists and 1.5 sacks. Their leading rusher had 416 carries and 41 receptions. A RB is always going to be more visible than a d-lineman/LB.

[ QUOTE ]
well obviously, as they are high end athletes they are going to have SOME passing and catching ability. And sure, there are going to be a few standout super athletes. Noone with a brain cell is going to argue that noone from the NFL is talented enough to succeed in rugby and vice versa

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's the whole argument isn't it? If you took an all star team of NFL players how would they do at rugby? I'd say pretty effing damn well, perhaps it takes a little longer than 6 months to be the best team in the world, but not much.

[ QUOTE ]


I don't understand this last comment, I'm asking, why not have him play the whole 60 minutes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the world class athlete playing offensive line across from him in the 4th quarter will only have played 30 mins at that point. No amount of physical preparation is going to make him good enough during that 4th Q to beat another world class athlete who has worked half as hard as him over the past 3 hours.

[onlinebeginner]

[ QUOTE ]
This is similar to asking if you took the 50 most intelligent, hermitlike, piss-in-their-pants, can't-comb-their-hair, socially awkward dweebs from the Global Nerdery, and trained them to play poker for 6 months by the best poker teachers, would one of them end up winning POY at the WSOP?

Or maybe it's nothing like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

does rugby really have that much variance?

[onlinebeginner]

NFL players are far superior athletes... the only interesting part of this debate is the 6 months deadline.... and someone would have to have some experience with playing football than rugby in order to give a good amount of time it would take

one thing is for certain tho...eventually the better athletes would dominate... and the NFL'ers are far superior athletes

[Yeti]

seems like every post i harp on about rugby league and rugby union.

anyway, rugby league is a faster sport than rugby union with basically zero set plays. so i guess more suited to your nfl boys? yet i'm certain you could give your dream team of NFL players 5-10 years and they wouldn't win. the australians are just too good. it's hilarious that you think you could learn the intricacies of a sport in 6 months.

[PartyGirlUK]

tolbiny,

so if this guy is so talented that he's both faster and stronger than the greatest rugby player ever and also has amazing coordination, stamina, handling etc. why is he only getting paid $500k/yr?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
tolbiny,

so if this guy is so talented that he's both faster and stronger than the greatest rugby player ever and also has amazing coordination, stamina, handling etc. why is he only getting paid $500k/yr?

[/ QUOTE ]

Draft.

Edit: I'm also not saying he would be the greatest rugby player ever, but I think its clear that there are many NFL players who would be in the top 5% of rugby players and a team of them would eventually destroy the competition.

[onlinebeginner]

[ QUOTE ]
seems like every post i harp on about rugby league and rugby union.

anyway, rugby league is a faster sport than rugby union with basically zero set plays. so i guess more suited to your nfl boys? yet i'm certain you could give your dream team of NFL players 5-10 years and they wouldn't win. the australians are just too good. it's hilarious that you think you could learn the intricacies of a sport in 6 months.

[/ QUOTE ]

you might be right about 6 months... but i'm not sure

10 years tho.. you are wrong... NFL players are more gifted physically... simple as that