Ok, but get this.
Manchester united will play 64 games this season. SIXTY FOUR.
Packers will play what, 19 at max?
Ok, but get this.
Manchester united will play 64 games this season. SIXTY FOUR.
Packers will play what, 19 at max?
but there is barly any contact... nba players run up and down up and down... and have like 80+ games, but im pretty sure a full nfl season is more phsically taxing than a nba players, especially if u are a running back
How. You are covered in fricken padding.
Ok, compare to rugby. Watch that video.
I can't believe you guys are using football and soccer (and now basketball) to have a "mine is bigger than yours" contest!
Im not. I love NFL. I just dont get how a sport that i honest think i could play easily (maybe not very well though), can be compared to either of the 2 i mentioned.
but thats rugby, not soccer, like originally debated... and Ya the point about the padding i can see when compared to rugby
... however Im willing to bet not many 235lbs no body fat rugby players are running the 40 in 4.3 secs
and they say actually when the football players wore less padding in the old days, there were less injuries, cuz the players wouldnt lauch themselves at fullspeed like they do w the padding
and many americans think the same about soccer, how they could easily play it lol
Ok, so put americans, who are always fat usually, running around for 90 minutes and they die.
I can only just do it!
you are not really sprinting most the time, just jogging, standing... unless u r a forward
In soccer?
Yes you are. Midfield covers the entire pitch. 12 miles is average in game nowadays. THATS ALOT
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)