NFL ain't so NFL anymore?

[BoyEngland]

I do agree that hockey is more dangerous that American football, but there's no need to make a big argument over it. As said before, just stick to your own opinion, you said what you think and that's the end of it.

However, I do think there are more dangerous or violent sports than Hockey and Football (Not including the obvious ones).

I would say Rugby is on par or even worse than Hockey for the simple fact there is barely any protective gear. Usually, the only gear they wear is a headband to make sure their ears don't get ripped off. Granted, they aren't racing down the pitch as fast as a Hockey player, but the impact can be as severe.

My cousin used to play rugby for the local league team, then went to play in Australia. He broke his collar bone at least twice, and various other bones along with way. Now he can't play for the simple fact that his collar bone won't stand another operation to put it back together.

I used to play rugby at school and never got seriously hurt, but falling on the icy ground makes me realise I don't want to fall on actual ice. As most of you know, iced grass can be like glass, so it's not nice. So in a small way, I do have respect for Hockey players despite them wearing all that padding and head gear.

I am in no way saying American Football or Hockey are soft sports and I am not trying to make any of you agree with me. These are my views, I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.

[Scuba Steve]

Originally Posted by BoyEngland

I do agree that hockey is more dangerous that American football, but there's no need to make a big argument over it. As said before, just stick to your own opinion, you said what you think and that's the end of it.

It's not an argument, though. What Writer and I were doing was having a discussion, such as what you have done with your post. If everyone stuck to their own opinions, this world would be a very dull place. It's apparent there are a select few people in this thread who are trying to put down others and things of that nature, though.

Originally Posted by BoyEngland

However, I do think there are more dangerous or violent sports than Hockey and Football (Not including the obvious ones).

I would say Rugby is on par or even worse than Hockey for the simple fact there is barely any protective gear. Usually, the only gear they wear is a headband to make sure their ears don't get ripped off. Granted, they aren't racing down the pitch as fast as a Hockey player, but the impact can be as severe.

There are very few critical and severe hits in rugby, though. Just like football, they hop right back up. The protective gear is a double-edged sword. With gear on, the hits are heavier. Plus, in hockey, they are moving three times as fast and there isn't any soft grass for them to land on, just cement hard ice or boards.

Originally Posted by BoyEngland

My cousin used to play rugby for the local league team, then went to play in Australia. He broke his collar bone at least twice, and various other bones along with way. Now he can't play for the simple fact that his collar bone won't stand another operation to put it back together.

I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. His injuries don't prove rugby is tougher, though. You can find plenty of football or hockey injuries, too.

Originally Posted by BoyEngland

I used to play rugby at school and never got seriously hurt, but falling on the icy ground makes me realise I don't want to fall on actual ice. As most of you know, iced grass can be like glass, so it's not nice. So in a small way, I do have respect for Hockey players despite them wearing all that padding and head gear.

Icy grass is nothing compared to an ice rink. It's just as hard as cement. Even just slipping and falling on skates can hurt with the proper gear on.

Originally Posted by BoyEngland

I am in no way saying American Football or Hockey are soft sports and I am not trying to make any of you agree with me. These are my views, I don't care if anyone agrees with me or not.

This is what I like; a discussion. It's a shame some people on here think everything is a flame fest, though. *sigh*

Originally Posted by -paT_BiZzL3-

Scuba, I'm not even going to argue with you. The fact that you have to insult for no particular reason is astonishing enough. So, My sense of self-control won't allow me to argue with you, for the simple fact that you're not worth being banned over. Good day.

Thank you. Why you even came into this thread is beyond me.

[Sypher]

Closed for repairs!


EDIT: If I have to clean this again I'm just going to delete the whole thing and ban everyone! Have a nice day.

[BoyEngland]

I honestly think that it would help get the word out there about the NFL by letting teams play abroad.

The last Superbowl was the first one to be aired on TV in the UK and (without actual statistics) I would say it was pretty popular viewing-wise. As said before, an NFL game was also played here last year which again was quite popular.

To me, a whole new market is opened up when a sport takes the world. The Olympics has been held all around the world for hundreds of years and look how popular it is. I know most of you will say you don't care about it, but to me it is the best sporting event. I might even go as far as to say it keeps the world at peace (for the most part) since almost every country in the world is involved, and most people in each country do their best to make it a good event.

Just look at China when they got chose as host for the next one, the entire country just turned into am instant party.

To me, the NFL is lately riddled with stories of cheating, drugs, and general criticism and for the sport to go global could only make things better for the game and the fans. I have to admit, I do feel for the home fans who go to their local games religiously, but I doubt more than a handful of games per year will be played in other countries so that can't be seen as a valid reason to oppose the decision to go global.

As previously said, an NFL game was played in London quite recently and without listening to the typical moaners, it was quite popular.

..... all this coming from a person who can't stand to even watch the sport.

[tina.anderson]

I think Hockey is the more violent sport of the two, but American football is more entertaining in my opinion.

[Godmoney]

Originally Posted by Headsniper

As you all know,this past season there was a NFL game played in London. These up coming season there will be NFL teams playing again in various parts of the world. I know that my team, San Diego Chargers, are playing the Saints in the same stadium that the Giants played the Dolphins in. The Buffalo Bills are playing 8 games over the next like 5 years in Toronto. I see a problem of the NFL becoming more than the traditional NFL. Of course, this is all about the money. Europe can not afford to keep NFL Euro so they need our NFL teams to help them with money..this is crap. It's not our damn problem that they can't keep their own football league. Does anyone else not like this idea? or maybe you guys do like it...idk..please share.

I have no problem with this. The NFL is one of the hugest sports in the world. Why not play around the world. I don't want every game played in other countries, but sure let them be played a couple times a year somewhere else.

As for the NFL Europe not having money, I don't think that's a problem. If it's under the wing of the NFL, it's got money to operate. The NFL is a sharing revenue kind of company. It gets it's slice every year, if I'm not mistaken.

[Jimdalf]

Originally Posted by Godmoney

I have no problem with this. The NFL is one of the hugest sports in the world. Why not play around the world. I don't want every game played in other countries, but sure let them be played a couple times a year somewhere else.

As for the NFL Europe not having money, I don't think that's a problem.

I didn't know the NFL even bothered in Europe. There is no point really... there is an appetite for a few games every few years between the best teams, I think thats because we all see American Football in the movies but don't understand what the hell is going on, so we go to matches to satisfy curiousity. These matches are quite nice, but they should be preseason friendlies, playing matches in the league itself outside of north america would be crap.

[NUN-PUNCHER]

I'm just happy it's the Saints and Seahawks that play in Europe this season. The Buccaneers were mentioned as a possibility and I thought for sure it was going to happen being that the Glazer family owns the Bucs and a large chunk of Manchester United.

[Scuba Steve]

I don't think the NFL should play in other countries. They hardly play any games as it is, so playing outside of the US would be disheartening to a big fan. Plus, I don't think Europeans would ever really get into American Football. Why is beyond me, though.

[dansdarkside]

Originally Posted by OME6A

Buffalo Bills? Are they seriously even a team anymore?

Professional Sports is all about making money. They'll take it to any market that proves profitable.

I wouldn't be too concerned about American football in Europe though, because compared to rugby and hurling, it's tame.

Yea, a team that has a very loyal and dedicated fan base that almost no other team in the NFL can match. After a long 10 or so years without playoffs we still sell out most of our games before the season.


Oh and to the guy that posted this. It is only 1 game in toronto this year only. Don't get your facts twisted trying to sound smart.