Who is the best QB in NFL history?

It is time once again to reopen one of the largest can of worms for all fans of the NFL; who is the greatest quarterback ever?

There are many ways to measure this so I attempted to come up with another method of determining who the best quarterback is. With all due respect to the many other guys who have played the quarterback position, I limited myself to 10 different players spanning the last 53 years of professional football.

Johnny Unitas
Roger Staubach
Terry Bradshaw
Joe Montana
John Elway
Dan Marino
Steve Young
Brett Favre
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning

One can easily argue that some people don’t belong on this list but this was a first pass. Essentially, I wanted to put together some preconceptions and see which of them held up to statistical scrutiny and which did not.

One of the tools I employed for this analysis I stole from baseball analysis. While OPS+ and ERA+ take into account park factors, my own normalized stats simply compare the rates of these QB’s against the league average over the course of their careers. The reason for this is simple; the game is changing and at the heart of this change are more efficient quarterbacks. In the 1960’s, the overall quarterback rating for the league was 66.4. In the 70’s, it regressed to 62.4, probably due to expansion and the AFL/NFL merger. However, since then, that number in the 80’s, 90, and 00’s has been 71.9, 75.2, and 79.2, respectively, reaching an all-time high of 82.0 last year.

There are many factors that go into that but the important thing is simply to keep in mind that the nature of playing quarterback has changed very much in the past 40 years. This was my first task in my analysis of these ten quarterbacks; normalizing their quarterback rating numbers (from now on, I will abbreviate quarterback rating as RTG). The answer I came up with was to simply compare them with the league averages and like OPS+ and ERA+, multiply them by 100. Therefore, a RTN+ of 100 means a league average quarterback, 125 is 25% better than the average, and 75 is 25% worse.

The results…

133 – Staubach
130 – Young
127 – Montana
122 – Unitas
121 – Manning
118 – Brady
117 – Marino
111 – Favre
109 – Bradshaw
108 – Elway

To me, by far the most surprising place on that list is #10, John Elway. According to this, throughout his career, his passer rating was only 8% better than the league average. Now, before citizens of Denver, CO, hunt me down (because I only live half an hour from downtown) let me say that my analysis tools don’t take into account intangibles or the ability (or lack thereof) to gain yards on the ground. There is no denying that John Elway was a great QB and definitely deserves to be in this discussion… however, when it comes to RTN+, he is #10, not #1.

I decided to use three other pieces to put together this puzzle and feel free to throw things at your computer when you read my choices because I’ll still be writing and you’ll be paying for another computer…

The other three were winning percentage, TD/INT ratio, and yards per game. A quick note in defense of this metrics. Football is a team game but quarterbacks have more influence than any other single player since they touch the ball on every offensive snap (excluding fakes or the recent limited adoption of the Wildcat formation). TD/INT ratio is the most easily defended since it measured a quarterback’s ability to make good decisions against questionable decisions. And, of course, there are exceptions. A pass was tipped at the line of scrimmage and was then intercepted. However, for those, there are also perfectly thrown balls that the defender just makes an extraordinary play in order to make an interception, so given a large enough sample size, these instances usually have a habit of evening themselves out. The last metric, yards per game, is also very much dependent upon the team these QB’s played for. However, many coaches are able to utilize the talent that they have and therefore, better quarterbacks will put up more yards on the stat sheets. I realize that this logic is far from 100% solid, but considering that it is only ¼ of the formula, I feel comfortable including it.

The results were quite interesting. Again, a league average QB would have received a “value”, if you will, of 100 once these metrics are averaged.

142.04 – Tom Brady
141.78 – Roger Staubach
141.03 – Joe Montana
137.37 – Steve Young
134.44 – Peyton Manning
128.00 – Dan Marino
124.15 – Johnny Unitas
118.79 – Brett Favre
115.84 – John Elway
115.51 – Terry Bradshaw

Now, of course, anyone looking to poke holes in my lovely little formula will point out how little wins and losses have to do with quarterback play. Obviously, it is the most important position on the field and has more to do with winning and losing than any other single position but it’s not as if a QB playing well guarantees a win or a QB playing poorly guarantees a loss. All but three of these 10 quarterbacks were helped by the teams that they played on. Only Steve Young, Dan Marino, and Peyton Manning had W%+ marks less than their overall marks shown above. So who benefited the most from playing on good teams? Terry Bradshaw was the runaway #1, followed by Tom Brady and then John Elway.

All of this manipulation of numbers is great but how does this answer the question; who is the best quarterback in NFL history? Before I render a final verdict, I absolutely don’t want to hear anything about “system quarterbacks”. Any good coach knows how to get good results out of his players. Joe Montana and Steve Young were perfect quarterbacks for the West Coast Offense and between the two of them; they won 5 Super Bowls as starters and have two of the highest quarterback ratings in league history. Bill Belichick is one of the best defensive minds in the history of football and I believe that any of these quarterbacks could succeed with him as a head coach.

If you keep the effects the team has on the quarterback (in other words, leave in the win percentage and the yards per game metrics) Tom Brady ranks number 1. However, if you only take into account quarterback rating and TD/INT ratio, Steve Young ranks number 1 and Tom Brady ranks number 4. The answer to this question depends entirely on what statistics you value the most. For me, quarterback rating is the best representation of how well a quarterback plays and the TD/INT ratio measures the ability of a quarterback to make good decisions and good throws versus bad ones. Therefore, the answer can only be Steve Young or Joe Montana. Granted, Young leads Montana by a few points but nobody is close to those two and between them, I have to go with the one that I’ve said for years and is one of the more cliché choices: Joe Montana.

BCS Busters: Do They Deserve a Shot?

Does Boise State and Utah deserve a seat at the table with the big boys?

Thankfully, the always muddled BCS conversation became a bit clearer with several weeks left in the regular season. Coming into this weekend, these were the teams in the conversation:

#1 Florida (8-0)
#2 Texas (8-0)
#3 Alabama (8-0)
#4 Iowa (9-0)
#5 Cincinnati (8-0)
#6 TCU (8-0)
#7 Boise State (8-0)
#8 Oregon (7-1)
#9 LSU (7-1)

Now that I write out that list, I had forgotten until now how many teams really are in the discussion, whether they deserve to be or not. However, the picture has cleared up a little bit.

#3 Alabama effectively ended LSU’s underdog bid for a third BCS Championship with their 24-15 victory on Saturday. If LSU had run the table, beating Alabama and then #1 Florida in the SEC title game, they would have made a compelling case for one of the top two spots, especially with their only loss coming to then #1 Florida. However, with current record of 7-2 and no berth in the SEC title game, none of that will happen. Still a 10-2 record (assuming they win out) with the only losses coming to #1 Florida and #3 Alabama is a strong resume.

#4 Iowa took a 10-0 lead against Northwestern and then allowed two touchdowns in the second quarter. Northwestern added a field goal in the fourth quarter to take home a 17-10 win. So, officially, unless the next three weeks prove to be crazier than any stretch run in recent history, a Big Ten team will not play for the national title. This loss by Iowa actually puts Ohio State on the inside track for the rose Bowl while the Hawkeyes probably won’t get an at-large bid in that scenario because of the teams at the top of the standings.

#5 Cincinnati and #7 Boise State were underwhelming against inferior opponents on Saturday and I believe that this is going to hurt them tonight when the next BCS standings are revealed. The Bearcats beat Connecticut 47-45 in a game in which they had larger leads but couldn’t put the Huskies away. This victory added to the general opinion that the Big East is a much weaker conference than the other BCS heavyweights could seriously hurt Cincy’s chances at a national title. Along the same lines, but without the automatic BCS berth (more on that later) are the Broncos of Boise State. They did play on the road but it was 3-5 Louisiana Tech and the margin of victory (45-35) wasn’t what you would expect from a #7 team in a conference like the WAC. Luckily for them, the two teams immediately below them, both potential 1-loss suitors for the BCS title game, both lost for the second time. The downside is that one of them was Oregon, the sole victory on Boise State’s schedule they can really hang their hat on. With Oregon out of the top ten and TCU still playing very well, Boise State may not have enough to garner an at-large bid.

This is how I think the BCS standings will shake out tonight:

#1 Florida (9-0)
#2 Alabama (9-0)
#3 Texas (9-0)
#4 TCU (9-0)
#5 Cincinnati (9-0)
#6 Boise State (9-0)
#7 Georgia Tech (9-1)
#8 Iowa (9-1)
#9 USC (7-2) or Oregon (7-2)

Unfortunately, six unbeaten teams will three or four games remaining doesn’t do very much to clear up the BCS situation and the playoff-shaped elephant in the room would get even bigger and louder if this is how the season ended. This is where we step from the world of fact and stray into the world of prediction…

First and foremost, either Florida or Alabama will most likely play for the national title. They both had to play good schedules in the SEC and will play each other in the SEC Championship game, giving one of them a huge quality win over a top opponent. Even a 12-1 SEC champion looks pretty good on paper.

Texas simply has to avoid losing. If they finish 13-0, they will play for the national title, it’s as simple as that and with their remaining schedule, even with the Big XII title game, their last tough game is now a week in the rearview mirror (Oklahoma State).

For the rest, things get really muddled. Realistically, TCU can finish undefeated and if this were a different year, I might say that they deserve a shot at the national title. I hate nitpicking when it comes to a team’s schedule but if we end up with 6 undefeated teams, we’ll have to. Wins at Virginia and Clemson look good. They went to BYU’s place and simply dismantled them and if they are able to do something similar to Utah next week, they will have a solid resume. Just not good enough.

BCS Busters

Ok, the subject can’t be avoided any longer. Why will TCU and Boise State be shut out of the biggest games this January? Indeed, it is possible and probable, that one of these teams will finish undefeated and finish outside the BCS. Is it fair? As much as I hate to say it, when all parties are taken into account, yes, it is.

I know it will take a lot of assumptions, but as of right now, these are the teams that will win the BCS conferences.

ACC – Georgia Tech
Big East – Cincinnati
Big Ten – Ohio State
Big XII – Texas
SEC – Florida
Pac-10 – Oregon

First of all, Alabama will be chosen as an at-large team. If Alabama wins the SEC, this first at-large spot will go to Florida. That leaves three spots open. TCU, under BCS rules, gets one of them. Based on their schedules, USC and LSU would be prime candidates for two of those three spots. And, shockingly, Boise State might just get in with that last at-large position, just don’t be shocked if they don’t.

So why is it that a team that has gone 55-9 in the past five years (better than Florida, LSU, and Oklahoma) has to go above and beyond simply to get people to pay attention to their blue turf? Quite simply, it’s because of the Western Athletic Conference as well as the history of small schools playing in the BCS bowls. Immediately, someone should point out that non-BCS schools have gone 3-1 in the BCS but that number is misleading. I say that record should be 1-1 and here’s why. The WAC and the Mountain West Conference want a piece of the BCS pie and they want to play with the big boys and eventually play for national titles. I have only ever seen one team that I think could compete on that level, the Utes of Utah last year.

In 2004, Utah became the first non-BCS school to get a BCS berth and they beat up an inferior Pittsburgh team 35-7. This is not evidence that they deserve to play for the biggest prize on the biggest stage. USC and Oklahoma were #1 and #2, respectively, from wire to wire for good reason. With apologies to Auburn fans, they were the two best teams all year and Utah would have been blown out against either one of them.

Example number two occurred two years later when Boise State beat Oklahoma 43-42 in one of the best Bowl games ever. However, this is still not the marquee win that the little guys needed. That Oklahoma team can in with a record of 11-2 and was ranked 10th in the country while Boise State came in ranked 8th. You can read all sorts of things into that alone but what it really comes down to is Boise State was the higher ranked team and needed two miracle plays to win this game. On top of that, they picked the one year, other than 2009, in the past ten where Oklahoma wasn’t a great team, just a good team.

The very next year, we got to see it again, this time with #10 Hawai’i playing #5 Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. This was the first true test of an undefeated team from a smaller conference playing against a powerful BCS opponent. There are many that would say, in the hectic finish to the 2007 season, that Georgia should have played for the national title. To put it simply, the Bulldogs embarrassed Hawai’i. The final score was 41-10 and Heisman finalist Colt Brennan looked awful against the Bulldogs defense. It would be easy to point out the fact that Hawai'i had to fly over 4,200 miles while Georgia had to go roughly 500. To anyone who would bring up the flight time or the venue, I’d like to simply say this. If you think of yourself as a top ten team and you have a month to prepare for a game, you have absolutely no excuse for not being ready.

Which finally brings us to last year, when #6 Utah was picked to play #4 Alabama, fresh off an SEC title game loss to Florida, who would win the national title. Alabama was a good team all year and many people, including myself, said this would not be an even game and the Tide would roll. Utah scored the first three touchdowns of the game and didn’t look back in their 31-17 win. In my opinion, this was the first time that a non-BCS team went up against a top tier BCS team and looked like it belonged.

So, that’s a win over an overmatched team, a miracle win, a blowout loss, and finally, a solid win. This is hardly the resume upon which to build your case that you deserve better representation in the BCS. But enough of the past, let’s focus for a moment on the present. If Boise State doesn’t make it into the BCS, they have only themselves to blame. They scheduled one team from a BCS conference. TCU could have gotten away with that because the Mountain West is widely viewed as stronger than the WAC (3 ranked teams against 1 for the WAC) and still they didn’t. TCU scheduled both Virginia and Clemson and while they haven’t been as good as Oregon (Boise State’s marquee game) both were on the road, whereas Oregon came to Boise.

In the last five years, Boise State has played 9 games against a top 25 opponent, 4 of which were against a top 10 team. Their record? 4-5 and 1-3 respectively. When you compare this with the cream of the Division I (FBS) crop, it doesn’t stack up at all. The four teams that have won a national title in the past five years (USC, Texas, LSU, and Florida) have played an average of 22 times against top 25 opponents and 10 times against top 10 opponents. What it adds up to is this. The past five national champions have played 33% of their games against ranked opponents and 14.7% against top ten teams. Those numbers for Boise State are 14.1% and 6.3%, respectively.

This is partially a product of the WAC and partially of Boise State’s scheduling. If you want to be treated as one of the big boys, you have to schedule better opponents. The perfect example in the earlier part of this decade was Fresno State. They wanted respect so badly that they would play anyone on any field on any day. This strategy finally culminated in 2005, when Fresno State was 8-1 and played on the road at #2 USC. In a shootout, USC finally prevailed 50-42 and the loss ultimately caused Fresno State to go from one of the most prominent mid-major football programs back to the rest of the pack chasing the BCS. The point is they were willing to go on the road to a place where the team was the two-time defending national champions. Quite simply, that is how you get respect on the national stage.

In the past five years, while Boise State has played Oregon State three times, Georgia once, BYU once, and Oregon once, they had also played Sacramento State, Portland State, Weber State, and Wyoming twice.

I’m not trying to jump all over mid-majors and say they’re not ready to play for the big prizes. All I’m saying is that if they really want the respect they’re clamoring for, they need to earn it. The way you earn it is by playing a tough schedule, tougher than you have to, and risking a loss or two. It would have been easy for Ohio State and Texas to schedule someone else in 2005 and 2006 or Ohio State and USC to schedule some hapless bottom dweller of the FBS in 2008 and 2009. Those programs know that you are considered one of the best by beating another member of the club. That’s how Boise State and Utah and TCU have to get into the club. Not by knocking down the door with media lobbying or congressional hearings or anti-trust lawsuits. You get in by beating the current members, not in the postseason, but in the regular season.

Until then, stop pretending the BCS is a bully that stole your lunch money because at the end of the day, all your conferences signed up to play along with the BCS back in 1998.

A Beginner's Guide to Rugby

We’re almost to the end of the first week of November which traditionally means baseball is at least a week and more like two weeks in the rearview mirror. Unfortunately, because of the postseason schedule (probably more on this later), the season ended on the 4^th of November. Nevertheless, congratulations to the Yankees and Phillies on a (mostly) well played series, and to Hideki Matsui, who took home the World Series MVP award with absolutely stunning numbers.

However, this post (my first in a very long while) is a bit of a tangent. The other thing that November usually signifies is the BCS picture is beginning to clear and in the absence of clarity, debates over who deserves what are heating up.

Again, this is not going to be the subject of this post. On December 11^th of this year, Invictus will open in theaters, starring Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. The movie will tell the story of the 1995 Rugby World Cup, which was hosted by South Africa, and the host team eventually went on to victory.

This movie piqued my interest because rugby is not a terribly popular sport in the United States but the final of the Rugby World Cup in 2007 (also won by South Africa) set the world record for largest viewership of any sporting event, ever. So in honor of this movie coming out in just over a month, this post will be dedicated to the great sport of rugby, basic rules, how it differs from one of America’s greatest obsessions (football), and why it may even be better than said obsession.

To make a broad sweeping generalization, rugby is what you would get if you combined soccer and football. More to the point, rugby exists after soccer and before football on the evolutionary scale of these particular sports. To the layperson, rugby is little more than chaos but in truth, it is far more organized than most people give it credit for. The perfect example is the use of the word “scrum” by commentators and sportscasters in America. Invariably, when they use the word scrum it is to describe a melee where there is a free-for-all in an attempt to acquire the ball, whether it is used to describe a loose ball in basketball or a fumble in football. This might lead one to believe that there is little or no organization or structure in a rugby scrum, which is entirely false. The scrum is, in fact, the most structured and most closely monitored aspect of any rugby match, as the scrum poses the largest risk of a serious injury to one of the players.

First of all, there are 15 players per side and traditionally, the starters wear the number of their position. For instance, #1 is the loose head prop and the starter at that position usually wears number 1. The rest of the positions are as follows:

#2 – Hooker

#3 – Tight Head Prop

#4 – Lock

#5 – Lock

#6 – Breakaway

#7 – Breakaway

#8 – 8-man

#9 – Scrum Half

#10 – Fly Half

#11 – Inside Center

#12 – Outside Center

#13 – Wing

#14 – Wing

#15 – Fullback

Positions 1-9 are the ones involved in the scrums and with the exception of the scrum half, they are called forwards. Positions 9-15 are called backs. If you were to draw a football analogy, the forwards are akin to the offensive and defensive linemen while the backs are more of the speedy players, wide receivers and running backs. However, to say that forwards can’t handle the ball well is a big mistake and oftentimes, they are instrumental in whether or not a team wins or loses.

Scoring

Scoring in rugby is similar to football. A “try” is worth five points and a player gets a try by placing the ball down in the try-zone (or end zone, if you prefer). You physically must “touch down” the ball to get these points and the play is not over until you control the ball to the ground (spiking the ball in the try zone before touching the ball to the ground would be a bad idea…).

Like in football there is a conversion attempt after a try. The twist is that you must kick the ball laterally from where the ball was placed down. For instance, if the ball was put down directly in the middle of the field, the kick must be taken from the middle of the field. Likewise, if the ball is placed down one yard from the sideline, the kick must be taken one yard from the sideline, and the kicker is allowed to move back as far as he wants. A conversion is worth 2 points.

When there is a penalty, you have two options. You can “kick to touch” or “kick for points”. Kick to touch involved kicking the ball out of bounds and will be covered later. If you are close to the uprights, you can try to kick for points. The other team is not allowed to attempt to block the kick and the kicker can take as long as he wants… and sometimes they take their sweet time. A kick is worth 3 points.

Lastly, there is a drop kick. If you are close enough to the goalposts, you may drop kick the ball through for 3 points. However, the ball must touch the ground before you kick it and this kick occurs in normal play so as you are lining up the kick, there’s probably a very large man attempting to take your head off. And don’t forget, there’s no blocking in rugby.

Advancing the Ball

Moving the ball forward in rugby is simple. You can run it forward and you can kick it forward. That is all. The former is simple enough. Run as far as you can before you get tackled. The latter is slightly more complicated.

Any player can punt the ball forward at any time. The main purpose of the punt is to move the ball from your defensive territory to your offensive territory. In rugby field position is much more important than in football because of the back and forth nature of the game, where rules of possession are much different. As far as punts are concerned, the rule of thumb is get behind the kicker. Once the ball is kicked, you either need to start behind the kicker or have the kicker pass you. Once this happens, the ball is live and whoever gets there first can take possession.

Sometimes the kick is simply utilized to clear the ball away from your defensive try zone but at others, it is used to take advantage of your momentum relative to the defender. Say, for instance, an offensive player is one on one out on the wing. He has a full head of steam going but the defender has the good angle of pursuit and is dug in and ready to make the tackle. If the wing is able to kick the ball over the defender’s head, just a few yards downfield, he can completely negate the good positioning. Firstly, and most importantly, you can’t hit a guy without the ball and as the kicker, your full momentum is going downfield while the defender is either standing still or is just starting to run downfield. Either way, the advantage is heavily in the offensive player’s favor, assuming a well placed and timed kick.

Many professional and international teams make heavy strategic use of the kicking game while at lower levels, not every team can find players who can kick the ball well. If done correctly, it can kill a defense’s will and if done improperly, it can lead to the other team scoring points in a hurry.

Penalties and officiating

One of the biggest differences between football and rugby, other than the pace of the game, is the way penalties are called. In football, penalties are called if they are seen, no matter the situation, no matter the down, no matter the distance. In rugby, this is not necessarily the case.

One of the most important jobs of the rugby referee is to keep the game moving. Penalties stop play. Now, if one player were to wind up and punch another player (from the other team, of course) play will stop and penalties and cards will be handed down. However, if a penalty occurs which is a minor penalty (offsides, for example) and the player that is committing the penalty is far away from the ball, the ref usually will not call it in the interest of keeping play moving. The football parallel of this would be something along the lines of an offensive player committing a holding penalty when the ball is all the way on the other side of the field. Yes, a penalty did occur, but it probably made no difference in the outcome of the play. In football, that would cost the offensive team 10 yards. In rugby, it wouldn’t make a difference.

Obviously, given a sport with as much contact as rugby, another job of the officials is to protect the players. Rules differ slightly depending on the level of rugby being played but referees will always put a stop to unsafe actions by any player that are outside the parameters of the game. Which brings us to the one aspect of rugby that can cause as much as two tons of human flesh and bone to go hurtling into each other…

What is the scrum?

There are certain penalties that call for a scrum but the most common cause of a scrum is when the ball gets tied up. The ball carrier is brought down and during the ruck (a contest for possession of the downed ball), several people collapse accidentally on top of the ball carrier and the tackler and nobody can extract the ball. It’s nobody’s fault, the play just died. Which brings us back to the scrum.

It begins with the forwards binding together into as tight a mass as they can. Their job, after the call of “engage” by the ref, is to stay as low and as tight together as they can. Losing even a single person out of 8 can cause a significant disadvantage.

The front row is where most of the action is since that is where one team actually engages the other. There are three players across the front row with two props flanking the hooker. The goal of the props is to (if possible) literally suspend the hooker so his feet are dangling beneath him. This isn’t always possible depending on your personnel but the hooker is the one player in the scrum who isn’t completely holding himself up. Behind those three in the second row composed of the two locks and on the outside of them, the two breakaways. The breakaways are usually some of the smaller forwards in the pack and are responsible for breaking out of the scrum quickly when the ball comes out. The locks are the main pushing force for each team and immediately behind them is the 8-man, the last man in the scrum.

When the ref calls for the two teams to engage, you can usually hear guttural sounds almost exclusively reserved for animals doing battle on the Discovery Channel. Once the initial contact has occurred and the scrum is fairly stable, both teams begin pushing in earnest in an attempt to drive the other team back. It is around that time that the aptly named scrum half introduces the ball to the scrum. He is supposed to roll the ball directly between the two sides on the ground. At that point, the hooker attempts to “hook” the ball towards his side of the scrum (no, he’s not morally promiscuous). The ball works its way back to the breakaway or the 8-man and one of two things can happen. Either the breakaway or 8-man can let go of the scrum, pick up the ball and start running, or they can control the ball with their feet until the scrum half comes back and picks it up. The advantage to the latter is there is no limit to how far you can drive your opponents and as long as the ball stays within the feet of your team, you can keep moving forward. It is possible to drive the other team the length of the field, all the way into their try zone, and then the 8-man can let go of the locks and fall on the ball for a try.

The moral of this story is this; scrums are very structured and very closely monitored by the refs. Risky behavior is punished and scrums are sometimes restarted three or four times because the initial contact wasn’t stable enough to maintain.

Rugby vs. Football

When it comes down to the difference between rugby and football, it is very much a case of to each his own. In football, you play offense or defense and within those teams, you have a very specialized skill set and job description. In rugby, substitutions are rare and at the highest level, they only happen because of injury or there is a substitution at halftime where one guy plays the first half and the other plays the second. The result of that is every player plays both offense and defense. Sooner or later, every player will handle the ball. Some guys run straight at the opponent, three yards and a cloud of dust, while others are the world class sprinter types that attempt to outrun their opponent.

The largest difference I’ve noticed in playing and watching both sports is the tackling. In rugby, you have to control a player to the ground. If you trip the ball carrier and he takes two more steps before falling to the ground, he’s going to get up and keep running. Because of this, tackling in rugby is very fundamentally sound. You have to get low, wrap up your opponent, and bring him to the ground. In football, you simply have to knock him over and in this era of video highlights, the bigger the hit the better. That strategy would simply not work in rugby.

The other part of that is the padding that you wear in football and don’t wear in rugby. Because your head and shoulders are so well protected in football, defenders use these body parts as weapons to get the ball carrier to the ground. In rugby, your head is mostly unprotected and because of that, it is more or less the last body part you want to lead with when tackling. Taking an elbow to the head playing football isn’t that big a deal. The same in rugby can put you on a stretcher.

As to which is better, I very much enjoy watching both. Rugby is continuous like soccer so players don’t get breathers between plays and have to always be alert. For that reason I think it requires more awareness to play rugby than most positions in football. The bottom line is that the sports are too different in what they require from each position to make a direct comparison but both are very entertaining.

As we get closer and closer to late summer of 2011, I’ll probably put more on here in preparation from the 2011 World Cup in New Zealand and with any luck, I’ll be there. For the meantime, I hope this was informative and I hope that Invictus proves to be a good movie as well as a good representation of the grand sport of rugby.

I leave you tonight with one simple instruction: HUG A RUGGER!