Jump to content

NFL 11 minutes of action in 3 hours - Is this true???


David

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ossieram said:

So tell me where I got it wrong? I watched the game for a couple years before I lost all interest in it.

Okay, you don't like the sport - that's fine, I don't like snooker, golf or tennis, but it doesn't mean it is an insult to another sport. I've recently got into American Football, and I honestly find it much more entertaining than football - especially to watch with a group of friends. Like another poster said, American Football is much more of a social event than football. You talk more about each snap and every snap is full of action. Compared to football, were you can have an entire half were nothing exciting happens.

Back to the original quote - 11 minutes of action - well it all depends on what you define as 'action'. If you count the time the ball goes from the snap to the end of the play, then I would guess that 11 minutes isn't that much of a silly answer. However, the play in between the snaps is interesting as well, which adds to that time.

For those who don't like American Football, fine, you don't have to like it. I do, my wife does and my friends do - hence why tomorrow night we will be gathered around a TV, having a cooked meal and watching a game (probably Seahawks @ Vikings). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On 12/4/2015, 7:46:03, ossieram said:

I started watching American football in the 80's and quite liked it for a couple of years and would even join up with with some Americans that came over to train at Royces to watch games, but I got bored after a while and never felt the need to watch it again.

Any game that needs 3 teams to play for the same side in one game is way over the top in my opinion. Defence, offence and a special team just to either catch the ball from a kick off or to punt or take field goals!  Why can't they just have a balanced team that can play throughout the game instead of wasting 2 thirds of the game changing one team for the other whilst some sit sucking on oxygen? And to compare it to any form of Rugby is just an insult to Rugby union or League.

Two boring sports where barely any points are scored and are quite often decided by whose fly-half is better at goalkicking? 

And the 3 teams thing means that every player is extremely good at his position. Makes the standard much better.

That being said, fair play if you gave it a go and didn't like it, it's better than people who have never watched and just mouth off about it being a dull sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ossieram said:

So tell me where I got it wrong? I watched the game for a couple years before I lost all interest in it.

Because every player on every play has to go at 100% effort. And when you are a huge fat guy, that isn't easy. Whereas in other sports, it's quite easy to dip effort or have a few seconds here and there to take a breather. Think a flanker might have a fair bit of rest while the ball is on the opposite side of the field. 

Also not sure on the relevance of whether or not a player touches the ball. There are many facets to the game depending on the position. Having the athleticism to protect a quarterback as a 300lbs left tackle, with the quickness of feet, the length, the bend and the hand skills to stop a speed rushing 200lbs defensive end is extremely impressive - but a left tackle will rarely ever come in contact with the ball. If he doesn't, he's done his job well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...