Basketball vs Football

[KeithTalent]

I'd say Hockey, Rugby/Aussie Rules, and Soccer players are all better athletes than Football or Basketball players.

KT

 

[SludgeFactory]

I don't agree with the intelligence argument at all. How's it the basketball players' fault that the football players are so stupid they have to study film over and over for days before a game?

I don't see how you can give them the edge in agility, coordination, or quickness either. It seems to me that you're morphing the abilities of the linemen, RB, linebackers, QB, and DB/WR into one archetypal player and holding him up as the best. Football has a lot more diverse player types than basketball, in large part because of the massive specialization and substitution that the huge rosters and constant stoppages allow. I also think it's strange how NFL players keep getting bigger and faster when the NFL has such great drug testing. Oh wait, they don't.

I think basketball demands more sport-specific skill than football on average. Every man in basketball has to be capable of handling the ball and then doing something with it, to some degree. In football, the skills are so narrowly defined that you have guys who specialize in long snaps, and a guy who specializes in catching those snaps and putting them on the ground for a little gnome who trots out onto the field a handful of times per game to kick the ball.

Endurance is a fairly significant part of fitness/athleticism that you're leaving out of this as well, and I suspect NBA players would mop the floor with most NFL players in that department.

So no, it doesn't seem cut and dried to me.

 

[Bill Brasky]

It kind of retarded to compare b-ball and football players. They have completely different goals...

And I don't want to hear that "basketball is football without pads" bs.

 

[ric1287]

i don't understand how you guys can actually even see this as debatable. I don't remember ever seeing a 350lb fat white guy with a mullet play a full NBA basketball game.

Honestly, you can get by in football by being large. Basketball, you need to at least have decent footwork and be able to run back and fourth all game (something i doubt a lineman could do).

You also have to play defense AND offense in basketball.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: SludgeFactory
I don't agree with the intelligence argument at all. How's it the basketball players' fault that the football players are so stupid they have to study film over and over for days before a game?

I don't see how you can give them the edge in agility, coordination, or quickness either. It seems to me that you're morphing the abilities of the linemen, RB, linebackers, QB, and DB/WR into one archetypal player and holding him up as the best. Football has a lot more diverse player types than basketball, in large part because of the massive specialization and substitution that the huge rosters and constant stoppages allow. I also think it's strange how NFL players keep getting bigger and faster when the NFL has such great drug testing. Oh wait, they don't.

I think basketball demands more sport-specific skill than football on average. Every man in basketball has to be capable of handling the ball and then doing something with it, to some degree. In football, the skills are so narrowly defined that you have guys who specialize in long snaps, and a guy who specializes in catching those snaps and putting them on the ground for a little gnome who trots out onto the field a handful of times per game to kick the ball.

Endurance is a fairly significant part of fitness/athleticism that you're leaving out of this as well, and I suspect NBA players would mop the floor with most NFL players in that department.

So no, it doesn't seem cut and dried to me.

Exhibit B

Notice how "athleticism" and "quickness" are just 2 categories in 10 on those sheets. Sure, they rate them highly. I'm not saying they're slouches, I'm just saying that the sport does not demand them to be the best specimens of human athletic potential like the NFL does. The NFL's combine and pro days, however, focus on measurable, physical abilities. How much can you bench? How high or far can you jump? How much can you bench or squat? How fast can you weave in and out of cones? How quickly can you stop and start again? How fast can you run 10-, 20-, or 40-yards? Everything else comes second.

Whether or not you are near the limits of human potential is of the utmost importance to NFL scouts. You could be as skilled as any player out there in college and still not make it in the NFL if you're not fast enough or strong enough. In the NBA, your production in high school or college are far and away the best indicators of your potential as a pro. In the NFL, it's just the tip of the iceberg.

A minimum amount of athletic ability is OF COURSE necessary to perform in the NBA, but in the NFL, having all the skills and practicing all you want will not make up for deficiencies in raw strength or speed.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: ric1287
i don't understand how you guys can actually even see this as debatable. I don't remember ever seeing a 350lb fat white guy with a mullet play a full NBA basketball game.

Honestly, you can get by in football by being large. Basketball, you need to at least have decent footwork and be able to run back and fourth all game (something i doubt a lineman could do).

You also have to play defense AND offense in basketball.

This is the biggest and dumbest misconception about football. The biggest and slowest guys out there are the NTs and the OG/OCs. NTs have to be strong enough to handle constant double-teams and at least hold the point of attack. But I promise you, for their size, they're very quick. If they weren't, quicker linemen would dominate them. OG/OCs that are too slow can't get to the outside on screens and traps. Plays develop way too quickly to wait for someone that is fat and slow.

Plus, that's 4 players out of 22 on the field. Compare NBA players to RB/WR/LB/DS/DC... no contest.

An NBA player might work on strength and quickness as an ASPECT of his game. An NFL player ALWAYS work on those things because they ARE his game.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Ilmater
A) Tall (to a degree, depends on position)

No.

Originally posted by: IlmaterB) Fast

Only the running backs stand out as shockingly quick. B-Ball players are also fast.

Originally posted by: IlmaterC) Strong

Defensive line, yeah. QB, running backs? Not so much.

Originally posted by: IlmaterD) Agile

So-so. Certainly no more so than basketball, and perhaps less

Originally posted by: IlmaterE) Coordinated

Less so than basketball

Originally posted by: IlmaterF) Intelligence

Only the QB, really.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: ric1287
i don't understand how you guys can actually even see this as debatable. I don't remember ever seeing a 350lb fat white guy with a mullet play a full NBA basketball game.

Honestly, you can get by in football by being large. Basketball, you need to at least have decent footwork and be able to run back and fourth all game (something i doubt a lineman could do).

You also have to play defense AND offense in basketball.

This is the biggest and dumbest misconception about football. The biggest and slowest guys out there are the NTs and the OG/OCs. NTs have to be strong enough to handle constant double-teams and at least hold the point of attack. But I promise you, for their size, they're very quick. If they weren't, quicker linemen would dominate them. OG/OCs that are too slow can't get to the outside on screens and traps. Plays develop way too quickly to wait for someone that is fat and slow.

Plus, that's 4 players out of 22 on the field. Compare NBA players to RB/WR/LB/DS/DC... no contest.

An NBA player might work on strength and quickness as an ASPECT of his game. An NFL player ALWAYS work on those things because they ARE his game.

Yeah and that's the ONLY aspect of NFL player's game. It takes much more than agility and strength to shoot the ball from 3pt line or handle the ball with behind the back, between the leg and crossover dribbling.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Ilmater
A) Tall (to a degree, depends on position)

No.

Originally posted by: IlmaterB) Fast

Only the running backs stand out as shockingly quick. B-Ball players are also fast.

Originally posted by: IlmaterC) Strong

Defensive line, yeah. QB, running backs? Not so much.

Originally posted by: IlmaterD) Agile

So-so. Certainly no more so than basketball, and perhaps less

Originally posted by: IlmaterE) Coordinated

Less so than basketball

Originally posted by: IlmaterF) Intelligence

Only the QB, really.

Fast? A 255lb man that does a 4.5-4.7 40? That's not fast? Running backs are just ridiculously fast.

Strong? Doesn't take strength to break a defensive lineman's tackle? Are QBs the most jacked? No, some are bigger than others, but I'd say they as strong as most bball players.

Agile? So-so? Are you serious? Pass rushing DTs/DEs? Guys that move that fast and put moves on offensive linemen all while weighing 240-300lbs? It's easy to be agile when you're 180-200lbs, try adding another 50-100lbs.

Intelligence? This is my biggest problem with people who don't play/watch/understand football. If you honestly believe that it doesn't take intelligence to understand offensive/defensive schemes than you really have no idea what you're talking about. A lot of defense is about recognition but there are still numerous schemes. Offensive line play is incredibly complicated, though, and these are some of the players who are made fun of for being the dumbest. Try knowing who you're blocking (DT/DE/MLB/OLB/blitzer/etc.) on every possible defense (3 man line, 4 man, 5 man, 6 man, line's with walk up LBs/blitzes/etc.) for every play in the offense's book. Yes, for things like pass protection it can be simplified, but run blocking can be very intricate.

I'm not in any way trying to say that either athlete is better, because I think it's an inane argument. I'm just trying to defend football players a bit.

 

[hypn0tik]

Wow. Either you truly have no knowledge of basketball if all you think they require is height and coordination or you have extreme bias towards football. Perhaps you should watch a few basketball games and see what is required in order to excel.

Also, people who think one sport requires intelligence while the other doesn't are idiots. They both require a great deal of intelligence, and it's impossible to say that one requires more smarts than the other.

 

[Coquito]

An easier argument for you to win would be which is more of a team sport. Football is recognized here.

Both types of players are athletes, & both have positions which benefit from additional athleticism & intelligence. Both suffer from the lack of it.

Hockey wins. :laugh:

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: ric1287
i don't understand how you guys can actually even see this as debatable. I don't remember ever seeing a 350lb fat white guy with a mullet play a full NBA basketball game.

Honestly, you can get by in football by being large. Basketball, you need to at least have decent footwork and be able to run back and fourth all game (something i doubt a lineman could do).

You also have to play defense AND offense in basketball.

This is the biggest and dumbest misconception about football. The biggest and slowest guys out there are the NTs and the OG/OCs. NTs have to be strong enough to handle constant double-teams and at least hold the point of attack. But I promise you, for their size, they're very quick. If they weren't, quicker linemen would dominate them. OG/OCs that are too slow can't get to the outside on screens and traps. Plays develop way too quickly to wait for someone that is fat and slow.

Plus, that's 4 players out of 22 on the field. Compare NBA players to RB/WR/LB/DS/DC... no contest.

An NBA player might work on strength and quickness as an ASPECT of his game. An NFL player ALWAYS work on those things because they ARE his game.

so a bball player who has to work on: defense, footwork, shooting, dribbling, rebounding, off-the-ball moving, passing

is LESS difficult than a WR who has to practice: running, catching, the occasional block. Never has to worry about defense and might not be involved in a play for the entire game.

right

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: ric1287
so a bball player who has to work on: defense, footwork, shooting, dribbling, rebounding, off-the-ball moving, passing

is LESS difficult than a WR who has to practice: running, catching, the occasional block. Never has to worry about defense and might not be involved in a play for the entire game.

right

I'd love to see a basketball player get down in the trenches with that 350lbs white guy with a mullet and see what happens to him.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: ric1287
i don't understand how you guys can actually even see this as debatable. I don't remember ever seeing a 350lb fat white guy with a mullet play a full NBA basketball game.

Honestly, you can get by in football by being large. Basketball, you need to at least have decent footwork and be able to run back and fourth all game (something i doubt a lineman could do).

You also have to play defense AND offense in basketball.

This is the biggest and dumbest misconception about football. The biggest and slowest guys out there are the NTs and the OG/OCs. NTs have to be strong enough to handle constant double-teams and at least hold the point of attack. But I promise you, for their size, they're very quick. If they weren't, quicker linemen would dominate them. OG/OCs that are too slow can't get to the outside on screens and traps. Plays develop way too quickly to wait for someone that is fat and slow.

Plus, that's 4 players out of 22 on the field. Compare NBA players to RB/WR/LB/DS/DC... no contest.

An NBA player might work on strength and quickness as an ASPECT of his game. An NFL player ALWAYS work on those things because they ARE his game.

so a bball player who has to work on: defense, footwork, shooting, dribbling, rebounding, off-the-ball moving, passing

is LESS difficult than a WR who has to practice: running, catching, the occasional block. Never has to worry about defense and might not be involved in a play for the entire game.

right

I think the devil's advocate counter argument here is that a bball player doesn't have to be able to catch an oddly shaped ball at 30-50 yards and then not drop it after getting hit full speed by someone else. Not counting diving catches, 1 handers, etc. This argument will go on forever because there is no answer; they're just different sports.

 

[aplefka]

They're athletic in different ways. You can't compare the two, they are two different styles of games.

 

[Argo]

Hmm, it's obvious to everybody that baseball players are the best athletes. I mean you try running 90 feet 4 times a game after sitting on the bench for 15 minutes. Hamstring pulls anybody?

 

[CellarDoor]

This is a stupid argument really. Some of the worlds best athletes span tons of different sports. There are hundreds of great athletes in both football and basketball. Some of them are the traditional athlete. They are big, strong, fast, quick, etc. Then there's also the athlete like Steve Nash, who is multi-skilled, excellent hand-eye coordination etc. To be athletic can be a thousand different things.

There are tons of people who would look at an offensive lineman and say they aren't athletic. Does that mean it's true? They're generally huge, fat, can't run very fast etc. That does not mean they aren't athletic. There are also some basketball players who aren't as fast, strong or even have as good of a vertical jump as a tight end, but that doesn't make them less of an athlete.

Oh, and I enjoy both football and basketball equally. My favorite team is a basketball team but I enjoy watching the average football game more.

Edit: As far as the OP's argument goes. Basketball players only tall and coordinated? How about offensive linemen only huge and fat? Those are equally ridiculous statements.
Edit 2: Intelligence? Are you kidding me? Im sure some basketball players are as dumb as a rock just as some football players are (low wunderlic tests anybody?). Read a book about basketball and you'll learn more about it. They memorize plays, have to adapt to certain situations just like football players do. Most football players also only have to understand how to play on offense or defense. Basketball players have to do both. I'm not going to argue that that means basketball players are more intelligent, that would be ridiculous. I'm just pointing out that if you really want to analyze this there is a lot more to it than you think.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: Argo
Hmm, it's obvious to everybody that baseball players are the best athletes. I mean you try running 90 feet 4 times a game after sitting on the bench for 15 minutes. Hamstring pulls anybody?

I love people that make these jokes. They obviously never played the sport which means they are unable to comprehend it and therefore make comments like this. I'll tell you right now that in high school we ran a minimum of 5 miles every practice sprints and long distance combined. One year there was even a nice 14 mile run after a loss.

But you're right, baseball players never run.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Argo
Hmm, it's obvious to everybody that baseball players are the best athletes. I mean you try running 90 feet 4 times a game after sitting on the bench for 15 minutes. Hamstring pulls anybody?

I love people that make these jokes. They obviously never played the sport which means they are unable to comprehend it and therefore make comments like this. I'll tell you right now that in high school we ran a minimum of 5 miles every practice sprints and long distance combined. One year there was even a nice 14 mile run after a loss.

But you're right, baseball players never run.

Dude, relax it's just a joke. I actually know quite a bit about baseball, which just happens to be my favorite sport.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: Ilmater

Originally posted by: ric1287
i don't understand how you guys can actually even see this as debatable. I don't remember ever seeing a 350lb fat white guy with a mullet play a full NBA basketball game.

Honestly, you can get by in football by being large. Basketball, you need to at least have decent footwork and be able to run back and fourth all game (something i doubt a lineman could do).

You also have to play defense AND offense in basketball.

This is the biggest and dumbest misconception about football. The biggest and slowest guys out there are the NTs and the OG/OCs. NTs have to be strong enough to handle constant double-teams and at least hold the point of attack. But I promise you, for their size, they're very quick. If they weren't, quicker linemen would dominate them. OG/OCs that are too slow can't get to the outside on screens and traps. Plays develop way too quickly to wait for someone that is fat and slow.

Plus, that's 4 players out of 22 on the field. Compare NBA players to RB/WR/LB/DS/DC... no contest.

An NBA player might work on strength and quickness as an ASPECT of his game. An NFL player ALWAYS work on those things because they ARE his game.

so a bball player who has to work on: defense, footwork, shooting, dribbling, rebounding, off-the-ball moving, passing

is LESS difficult than a WR who has to practice: running, catching, the occasional block. Never has to worry about defense and might not be involved in a play for the entire game.

right

You mention footwork and off-the-ball moving for basketball, yet you don't include it for a wide receiver?

Just like a basketball player, a WR is going to have to do things like shedding a block (fighting through a pick), beating coverage (off-the-ball movement), jump ball scenarios (rebounding), after-catch moves like jukes, stiff arms, breaking tackles (footwork, off-the-ball moving), etc.

Both of you guys are aren't look at the full picture with the opposing sport's skillset.

 

[aplefka]

Originally posted by: Argo

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Argo
Hmm, it's obvious to everybody that baseball players are the best athletes. I mean you try running 90 feet 4 times a game after sitting on the bench for 15 minutes. Hamstring pulls anybody?

I love people that make these jokes. They obviously never played the sport which means they are unable to comprehend it and therefore make comments like this. I'll tell you right now that in high school we ran a minimum of 5 miles every practice sprints and long distance combined. One year there was even a nice 14 mile run after a loss.

But you're right, baseball players never run.

Dude, relax it's just a joke. I actually know quite a bit about baseball, which just happens to be my favorite sport.

My apologies. Just been in a weird mood lately so I don't think the sarcasm detector is working too well. I'm just so tired of hearing people dog on a game they don't really know.

 

[coldmeat]

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: Argo
Hmm, it's obvious to everybody that baseball players are the best athletes. I mean you try running 90 feet 4 times a game after sitting on the bench for 15 minutes. Hamstring pulls anybody?

I love people that make these jokes. They obviously never played the sport which means they are unable to comprehend it and therefore make comments like this. I'll tell you right now that in high school we ran a minimum of 5 miles every practice sprints and long distance combined. One year there was even a nice 14 mile run after a loss.

But you're right, baseball players never run.

The 14 mile run wasn't mandatory for the sport, it was just your coach being a jackass. Who cares if a baseball player can run 14 miles? They need to sprint, not run marathons.

 

[Mo0o]

Depends on the position in football but in general, football players are better athletes since their strength conditioning is alot harder than bball players while still requiring a lot of agility and cardio

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: rchiuYeah and that's the ONLY aspect of NFL player's game. It takes much more than agility and strength to shoot the ball from 3pt line or handle the ball with behind the back, between the leg and crossover dribbling.

Shooting and dribbling are all about hand-eye coordination. They're skills. A juggler can juggle really well, but he's not an athlete. Shooting and dribbling are not signs of athleticism. Someone could be the best ball-handler in the world but not at all athletic.

You all need to realize that shooting and controlling the ball has nothing to do with athleticism, and you'll realize I'm right about football players being more athletic.

 

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Edit: As far as the OP's argument goes. Basketball players only tall and coordinated? How about offensive linemen only huge and fat? Those are equally ridiculous statements

I'm not saying they're ONLY tall and coordinated. I'm saying that's all they NEED to be. You don't NEED to lift weights to be good at basketball. You don't NEED to run sprints to be good at basketball. Those things can help you play better, but they're not things you NEED to be.

In football, you NEED to lift constantly. You NEED to try to increase your speed. You NEED to work on your agility.