why do americans find "soccer" boring?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
He actually thought 300 pound linemen are just big fat guys who bear hug.

excuse my ignorance, but what skills do they have? to an outsider it looks like all they have to do is use strength to block other players. its hardly up there with tiger woods, messi or federer in the level of skill needed.

are wide receivers man marked or zonal marked?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
excuse my ignorance, but what skills do they have? to an outsider it looks like all they have to do is use strength to block other players. its hardly up there with tiger woods, messi or federer in the level of skill needed.

are wide receivers man marked or zonal marked?

As an O lineman, you don't get to just stand there and be an obstruction. You have to keep enormous men who can run 40 yards in under 5 seconds and are lightning quick from killing your quarterback. Blocking them is really more than a matter of getting in their way. It's figuring out how to anticipate and stop their spin moves, stunts, wide routes to the QB, bull rushes, etc. I don't think Tiger Woods or Messi or Federer would find it so easy to keep Julius Peppers away from the quarterback for 5-7 seconds even if they did weigh 350 pounds.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
excuse my ignorance, but what skills do they have? to an outsider it looks like all they have to do is use strength to block other players. its hardly up there with tiger woods, messi or federer in the level of skill needed.

are wide receivers man marked or zonal marked?

Receivers have to wear certain numbers so that the defense can identify one.

Long story short, if you are a receiver, you can't wear a number between 50 and 79.

Edit: Or are you asking how receivers are covered? That's up to the defense. Defenses can play zones or man to man or some combination thereof. Defenses also have to decide how many people to send after the quarterback on each play. Obviously, the more people you blitz, the fewer are left to cover the receivers.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I'm surprised American football isn't much more popular internationally. It has high impact, hard hitting action and excitement. It is high scoring, and it's the ultimate of team sports.

Mate, we've already got the original: rugby! It's not quite as popular as football is, but it's massively more popular, in most places, than American Football. And when we've got rugby, why would we go for the watered-down, shoulder-padded derivative you call "football"? It just isn't as good.
You call American Football the ultimate team sport. Most people in the rest of the world would simply disagree. Everything you claim for it, we could just as easily claim for both rugby and football, except for the "massive" - face it, the free world (and China, too) prefers subtlety and craft combined with strength to mere dumb force. Variety? We have that. Speed? That, too. Craft? Yup. Strength? Yes, with bonuses!
As for high scoring... you have to be particularly adolescent to consider that an inherent advantage. It's the game which is important, not the figures at the end.

Richard

Originally posted by shortcircuit
Baseball is a thinking man's game.

Baseball is a counting man's game.

The thinking man's game is cricket.

Especially if they need Duckworth-Lewis 😛

(Seriously, though, cricket is to baseball as higher mathematics is to highschool algebra.)

Richard

Originally posted by Trev33
I'm pretty sure basketball was invented by a Canadian... not sure who invented hockey but i wouldn't call it an American sport.

Even if it was invented by a Canadian - Canada is in America, right? To the North of the USA - unless you want to call that "Asia Plus"...

In any case, basketball is the one American sport which really is their own, and not a cheap, babified knock-off of a real sport. It's also the only one of their sports which I find worth watching, when it's done well. It is probably significant that it's rarely done well by Europeans - certainly our domestic teams are atrocious and unwatchable. It's their original, and they do it well. I doubt that this is coincidence.

Richard

Originally posted by sh76
Receivers have to wear certain numbers so that the defense can identify one.

Long story short, if you are a receiver, you can't wear a number between 50 and 79.

Edit: Or are you asking how receivers are covered? That's up to the defense. Defenses can play zones or man to man or some combination thereof. Defenses also have to decide how many people to send ...[text shortened]... on each play. Obviously, the more people you blitz, the fewer are left to cover the receivers.

i was wondering if a specific player is given the job sticking to the wide receiver like glue, or do players decide whos going with him after the snap? i can understand how teams gain the yards with running games but shouldnt passing games be easy to block. i should watch some games.

i dont like to criticize other sports as its all pretty much subjective. im sure if id been born in the u.s. id be scratching my head at soccer.
but!!! i do have to say the nfl competition system is crazy. you have a mini league with teams you play twice then a team from another league then some the other side if the country or something then the group winner wait while some other teams who didnt win play each other to be wild cards or something then they go into a semi final but its at the home of the group winner so the wild card gets knocked out anyway then its all decided by a single match. wouldnt you rather have a full league system like the premier league.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
Mate, we've already got the original: rugby! It's not quite as popular as football is, but it's massively more popular, in most places, than American Football. And when we've got rugby, why would we go for the watered-down, shoulder-padded derivative you call "football"? It just isn't as good.
You call American Football the ultimate team sport. Most pe ...[text shortened]... ntage. It's the game which is important, not the figures at the end.

Richard

I a full respect and appreciation for rugby, but you're obviously clueless about football.

The protective gear is there because it's absolutely necessary. While rugby players certainly get hit, there are important differences that make the hits in football much more brutal.

- Anyone can get hit, not just the ball carrier.
- The tackler does have to wrap his arms around the guy. He just drill the guy at a fool speed sprint.
- The hits are often in open field allowing for full velocity upon impact.

Hits like these are a regular occurance in football. Play open field football with football tackling rules without pads, then we'll talk.

YouTube

People's opinion of football who don't watch and don't understand the sport is meaningless.

I didn't argue just that football players are massive. I brought that you have 180 pound players on teams with 330 pound players, to make a point that the roles they play are so vastly different. Everyone in soccer (generally) has the same athletic build and skill sets. They can run and handle the ball well with their feet. Only the goalie has a job who role has a dramatic difference.

In contrast football has positions like the quaterback, kicker, linemen, receivers, fullbacks, etc. who's roles absolutely no similarities. Rugby is certainly much closer in that regard, but still not to the same extreme.

Mere dumb force? You are absoltey clueless about football.

By high scoring I was more referring to scores more often. I'm sure even soccer fans would rather see a high scoring game than both teams getting shut out.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i was wondering if a specific player is given the job sticking to the wide receiver like glue, or do players decide whos going with him after the snap? i can understand how teams gain the yards with running games but shouldnt passing games be easy to block. i should watch some games.

i dont like to criticize other sports as its all pretty much subjec ...[text shortened]... decided by a single match. wouldnt you rather have a full league system like the premier league.

i was wondering if a specific player is given the job sticking to the wide receiver like glue, or do players decide whos going with him after the snap?

It can work both ways. The thing you described is called man-to-man coverage. This is a high risk play since if the receiver gets loose, there's no backup plan. On the other hand, it frees up other players to blitz or cover the secondary receivers. Generally speaking, if you have a really good corner (like Darelle Revis), you let him play a lot of man-to-man. If you don't, you play more zone or double coverage on the opposing team's top receivers.

i dont like to criticize other sports as its all pretty much subjective. im sure if id been born in the u.s. id be scratching my head at soccer.
but!!! i do have to say the nfl competition system is crazy. you have a mini league with teams you play twice then a team from another league then some the other side if the country or something then the group winner wait while some other teams who didnt win play each other to be wild cards or something then they go into a semi final but its at the home of the group winner so the wild card gets knocked out anyway then its all decided by a single match. wouldnt you rather have a full league system like the premier league.

No. I'd much rather have a playoff system where you know going into a game that the winner moves on and the loser goes home; where to win the title, you need to win a title game. Crowning a champion based on regular season record can get really anti-climactic if one team runs away with first place.

I also like the ideas of divisions where, even if you're not good enough to finish first over-all, you can still hope to win your division and make the playoffs that way. It keeps the interest of more teams much farther along.

As for the bye in the NFL playoffs, that it unfortunate, but unavoidable unless you want to allow 16 teams into the playoffs (like the NHL and NBA). IMO, 16 is too many teams. I like the NFL's playoff system the best.

Ideally, you'd like it not to all come down to one game. In the MLB, NHL and NBA, you have 7 game series, which is ideal. But you can't play more than once a week in football, which makes a series impossible.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I a full respect and appreciation for rugby, but you're obviously clueless about football.

The protective gear is there because it's absolutely necessary. While rugby players certainly get hit, there are important differences that make the hits in football much more brutal.

- Anyone can get hit, not just the ball carrier.
- The tackler does ...[text shortened]... even soccer fans would rather see a high scoring game than both teams getting shut out.

Ha. I love when people talk about padding in the NFL as though it's some sort of sissy protective device... as though there aren't enough injuries in the NFL as it is. Take away the helmet and pads and you'd either completely change the game or you might as well send the whole team to the hospital after the game.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i was wondering if a specific player is given the job sticking to the wide receiver like glue, or do players decide whos going with him after the snap? i can understand how teams gain the yards with running games but shouldnt passing games be easy to block. i should watch some games.

To further explain passing plays and defense, let's put it this way:

On offense, you have on quarterback and 5 offensive lineman. That means on each play you have 5 eligible receivers. You can allocate them any way you like. You have have 2 running backs, 3 tight ends and no wide outs (this is a power or goal line formation) or 5 wide receivers and no RBs or TEs or anything in between. Fairly typical is 2 running backs (a HB and a FB), 1 TE and 2 wide outs.

On defense, the typical pass rush is 4 defenders, though the defense can theoretically choose to rush nobody or all 11 if they choose. Typically, no fewer than 3 (or once in a while, 2) actually rush and it's very rare to have more than 7 rush.

So, in a standard play, 7 defenders have to cover 5 eligible receivers. It is common for at least one receive to stay back and block the pass rush, so it's often more like 4 receivers against 7 defenders. In this situation, it is expected that receivers will get open eventually, but a good secondary should be able to hold its ground for a solid 3 or 4 seconds.

Take the other extreme. If the offense lines up with 5 wide receivers and the defense brings 6, simple math indicates that someone will get a free shot at the QB. But it also means that all the receivers will be defended by man to man coverage. This means that while you should get to the QB, you'd better get there quickly, because if you don't odds are that someone will get open... and fast! Plus, the QB can take a 5 step drop (or even a 3) instead of the normal 7 to make the throw more quickly and minimize the chance of being reached by a defender.

At the other end, the offense can max protect, which usually means sending only 2 receivers into the patterns and the defense may drop as many as 8 into coverage. In such a case, the receiver is going to have a devil of a time getting open, but he may have upwards of 10 seconds to do it.

And, of course, this all assumes you know it's going to be a passing play. When you don't (which is most often), you have to decide not only how many men to put up close to the line to stop the run, but also the kind of personnel you want in the game. Do you want the smaller, faster defensive backs to cover the receivers, but who can be easily blocked by the offensive lineman and the backs or do you want the big linebackers who are hard to block, but won't be able to cover the tight end or running backs very well in their patterns.

Originally posted by sh76
To further explain passing plays and defense, let's put it this way:

On offense, you have on quarterback and 5 offensive lineman. That means on each play you have 5 eligible receivers. You can allocate them any way you like. You have have 2 running backs, 3 tight ends and no wide outs (this is a power or goal line formation) or 5 wide receivers and no RBs or ...[text shortened]... , but won't be able to cover the tight end or running backs very well in their patterns.

Great explanations. You might also point out that there is a position (cornerbacks) who's specific job it is to cover wide recievers. Maybe you included that and I missed it.

Originally posted by sh76
Ha. I love when people talk about padding in the NFL as though it's some sort of sissy protective device... as though there aren't enough injuries in the NFL as it is. Take away the helmet and pads and you'd either completely change the game or you might as well send the whole team to the hospital after the game.

I think a lot of Eurpeans don't realize just how different the game is. They think it's rugby with pads and rest breaks.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I think a lot of Eurpeans don't realize just how different the game is. They think it's rugby with pads and rest breaks.

I think that's the best point of the thread so far... people (both Europeans and Americans) try to compare the two sports, on the outside they look pretty similar but in reality they're completely different, you made the point easier about rugby players not being able to play football without the pads, it works both ways... you couldn't play a rugby game with pads.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Great explanations. You might also point out that there is a position (cornerbacks) who's specific job it is to cover wide recievers. Maybe you included that and I missed it.

True; there's also that dichotomy... the corners vs. the safeties. Really, there are so many different variables to explain in running an NFL defense it's impossible to really do a complete job.