Jump to content


Photo

NFL 2010


  • Please log in to reply
425 replies to this topic

#406 g.johnson

g.johnson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,881 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:09 PM



Is the scrum half going to do it square into the opposing pack? no of course not, but if one of the centers or a loose forward gets himself one on one with a smaller back? I would be confident you would see it.


You do see it. Watch some old Jonah Lomu videos. But it's a very small part of the game, because the runners usually meet at angles. Anyway, I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

Yeah I think we have to agree to disagree.

I suspect it's a bit of both.
The Obnoxious Glyn Johnson

#407 mongo_jones

mongo_jones

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21,669 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:11 PM

i had no idea bonner was so butch.

my annoying opinions: untimely whisky reviews and occasional cultural commentary

 


facts are meaningless. you could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
~homer simpson




#408 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68,994 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:12 PM

I suspect it's a bit of both.


Happy clapper.

#409 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,669 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:16 PM

yes, I read it the first time through. I think it's further proof that NY is not a sports town because the question is not remotely interesting to anyone who has been paying attention to football for the past two years because it's been discussed repeatedly. However, for people on NY food boards, I'm sure it's like, well, like something that they've never heard before.

Carry forth and prosper.

Out of curiosity, which sports boards do you frequent?

Actually, I think the issue of severe aports injuries goes back many years. In my mind, it appeared on my screen in the 70s with the cases against Rawlings and Riddell (helmets) concerning spinal cord injuries generally resulting from "spearing."

I got that gin in my system
Somebody's gon' be my victim.

 

Big Freedia


#410 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,791 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:18 PM


I suspect it's a bit of both.


Happy clapper.

always being reasonable and what not.
Why not mayo?

#411 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68,994 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:20 PM

Spinal cord injuries, Stone will be interested to learn, are the big deal in rugby. That's the disadvantage of the interlocked scrimmage.

#412 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 40,609 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:29 PM


yes, I read it the first time through. I think it's further proof that NY is not a sports town because the question is not remotely interesting to anyone who has been paying attention to football for the past two years because it's been discussed repeatedly. However, for people on NY food boards, I'm sure it's like, well, like something that they've never heard before.

Carry forth and prosper.


Blame the New Yorker for publishing another story on the subject.


The New Yorker is not a sports mag.

Fight THAT one!
Bar Loser

MF Old

#413 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 68,994 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:30 PM

Not primarily, anyway. :)

#414 g.johnson

g.johnson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 18,881 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:35 PM

Thinking a little more about it. In rugby, it's generally in the interest of the ball carrier to avoid contact. Progress is made by playing as Wilfrid suggests, passing laterally to an open teammate or kicking before being tackled. On the other hand, it's in the interest of the defenders to hit the ball carrier as hard as possible in the hope of making him drop it. But defenders may be less likely to hit head-to-head because it would be too fucking painful.

The real danger of rugby is to one's looks.

Posted ImagePosted Image

(Not that many rugby players start out looking like Johnny Depp.)
The Obnoxious Glyn Johnson

#415 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10,791 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 07:40 PM

On the other hand, it's in the interest of the defenders to hit the ball carrier as hard as possible in the hope of making him drop it. But defenders may be less likely to hit head-to-head because it would be too fucking painful.

This is essentially my point. Wilf was saying that those opportunities are rarer then they are in Football Americain because of the opportunities to pass and kick. I would argue they would be less rare if everyone were wearing more equipment. Reasonable people disagree on the last point.
Why not mayo?

#416 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,669 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 08:53 PM



yes, I read it the first time through. I think it's further proof that NY is not a sports town because the question is not remotely interesting to anyone who has been paying attention to football for the past two years because it's been discussed repeatedly. However, for people on NY food boards, I'm sure it's like, well, like something that they've never heard before.

Carry forth and prosper.


Blame the New Yorker for publishing another story on the subject.


The New Yorker is not a sports mag.

Fight THAT one!

B-b-b-but Roger Angell!

I got that gin in my system
Somebody's gon' be my victim.

 

Big Freedia


#417 Daisy

Daisy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15,150 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 09:04 PM

Thinking a little more about it. In rugby, it's generally in the interest of the ball carrier to avoid contact. Progress is made by playing as Wilfrid suggests, passing laterally to an open teammate or kicking before being tackled. On the other hand, it's in the interest of the defenders to hit the ball carrier as hard as possible in the hope of making him drop it. But defenders may be less likely to hit head-to-head because it would be too fucking painful.

The real danger of rugby is to one's looks.

Posted ImagePosted Image

(Not that many rugby players start out looking like Johnny Depp.)

Ha.

My ex boyfriend, who was pretty easy on the eyes, played on an intramural veterinary school rugby team and had his nose broken twice. He came out of graduate school a little less pretty than when he went in.
Sardines aren't for sissies.---Frank Bruni
------------------------------------------------------------
The mistake one makes is to react to what people post rather than to what they mean.---Dr. Johnson
-------------------------------------------------------------
I want to be the girl with the most cake.

#418 JPW

JPW

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 26 January 2011 - 04:52 PM


who would have believed that on a day that featured aaron rodgers, ben roethlisberger and the vagina-face who starts for the bears that sanchez would emerge with the best performance as a quarterback. i was never a fan when he was at usc but he showed me a lot yesterday. confidence from the get-go, and no fear of the chicago pass rush. the way he coolly side-stepped a number of potential sacks and delivered throws on the fly was quite impressive. yes, a couple of his throws could have been picked off but that's true for all quarterbacks. yes, the jets' run-defense was sad--but if their o-line hadn't been pushed back as often as they were this could have been a different game.

also, strange play-calling by the offensive coordinator on what ended up being the goal-line stand by the steelers.

I can't find all the stats for Sanchez but he was 20 for 33 for 233 yards and he lost. Rodgers was 17 for 30 for 244 yards and he won. Just sayin'.

All things considered, I thought that Caleb Hanie had the best performance as a QB on Sunday.
"You know what we need around here? More guidelines. I don't think we have enough guidelines. I mean -- look at that other place, it even has guidelines for its guidelines."

"Also, we don't "ban" people in the arbitrary fashion you are describing. It's a meticulous and careful process, which is only used sparingly." -jhlurie (now ex-officio)

#419 hollywood

hollywood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,669 posts

Posted 27 January 2011 - 02:57 PM

Farewell Ochocinco?

I got that gin in my system
Somebody's gon' be my victim.

 

Big Freedia


#420 Adrian

Adrian

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,352 posts

Posted 31 January 2011 - 01:22 AM

On Rugby v. Football:

I've played a fair bit of both, football through high school and for a year in college, and rugby at about as high a level as you can play in this country without playing for the national team and the key passage in the Gladwell piece is here:

"The force of the first hit was infinitely greater than the second. But the difference is that the first player saw that he was about to be hit and tensed his neck, which limited the sharp back-and-forth jolt of the head that sends the brain crashing against the sides of the skull. In essence, he was being hit not in the head but in the head, neck, and torso—an area with an effective mass three times greater. In the second case, the player didn’t see the hit coming."

In rugby, almost every hit is from someone who lines up in front of you and, consequently, you are always ready to be hit. My concussions (three) have come from incidental knees at the bottom of a ruck and one hit that I was unprepared for because the defender was a half mile offside. In football, the frequency of the unprotected hit is much higher. Think about the blindside shot on the quarterback, the receiver coming across the middle, the running back being hit from a scraping linebacker, or a lineman facing a stunt or a chip.

Also, the points about tackling technique are pretty on point. In the NFL, players often lead with their heads because 1) they're protected and 2) you don't have to commit to a side as quickly. In rugby, you don't have that option and you're more likely to have help on the tackle.

I think you need to interpret what I'm saying in a reasonable way.