- Joined
- Mar 27, 2008
- Messages
- 30,865
- Reaction score
- 29,555
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Hard numbers bah.
All you have to do is watch with your own eyes and see how players land on turf verses grass. Also all the non-contact injuries on turf. And turf-toe; never heard of grass-toe.
I noticed this last night and pulled up an old thread that talked about others complaining about the rise in injuries on turf: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/345709-gillette-stadium-turf-company-under-fire.html
If you watch one Hoomanawanui's catches, his ankle gets caught and he limped off the field. Also remember that the Saints lost Lynell Hamilton in a non-contact injury and I believe that was during a Gillette practice.
pats need to go back to the grass. it's not the same playing at gilette without it. did they change just for cost-cutting purposes?
Bah, that is a stupid answer, accidents happen, if it can be shown they happen much more frequently on the new turf then they will have to do something.
I had turf toe from playing on grass, so yes.
I figure that grass in perfect condition in the best surface, followed by field turf and grass in so-so condition, followed by grass in Houston type condition, then old fashioned astro turf.
The Krafts put in the turf to make more money; apparently money is more important that the players and championships.
And who could forget Wes Welker last year at Houston.
Remember how bad the surface was before it was changed? It was nearly unplayable, it was the worst in the NFL at the time. It was along the lines of that mud bowl when Miami played at Pittsburgh a couple years ago that the Steelers somehow managed to kick a field goal at the end of the game to win 3-0.pats need to go back to the grass. it's not the same playing at gilette without it. did they change just for cost-cutting purposes?
Welker was hurt in Houston where it is real grass that is somehow left outside "in trays" during the week and re-assembled indoors. It has its own set of problems but it is a different surface than the Fieldturf that everyone else is citing here.
Coach blasts 'terrible' Reliant field after Welker injury | Houston Texans Football | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Remember how bad the surface was before it was changed? It was nearly unplayable, it was the worst in the NFL at the time. It was along the lines of that mud bowl when Miami played at Pittsburgh a couple years ago that the Steelers somehow managed to kick a field goal at the end of the game to win 3-0.
Yes, natural grass would be preferable. But for that to happen the soccer team will need to find a new home, and they'll probably also have to limit concerts. We as football fans may not care but the reality is that doing that has an effect on stadium revenues, which indirectly effects the budget for the Pats.
The grass field was effective until they fired their greens manager (I can guess why--he probably went ballistic when told about the rock concerts and soccer games) and multi-tasked the stadium. I wonder if they could lay down a wood parquet thingy on top of the grass for rock concerts. As far as soccer? Well I guess the Patriots are doomed to another season of debilitating injuries. They used to be able to use grass and other teams can do it (even Green Bay in the cold of Lambeau) so the Patriots could do it if they really care about winning. I think they care more about the money.
The grass field was effective until they fired their greens manager (I can guess why--he probably went ballistic when told about the rock concerts and soccer games) and multi-tasked the stadium. I wonder if they could lay down a wood parquet thingy on top of the grass for rock concerts. As far as soccer? Well I guess the Patriots are doomed to another season of debilitating injuries. They used to be able to use grass and other teams can do it (even Green Bay in the cold of Lambeau) so the Patriots could do it if they really care about winning. I think they care more about the money.
Remember how bad the surface was before it was changed? It was nearly unplayable, it was the worst in the NFL at the time. It was along the lines of that mud bowl when Miami played at Pittsburgh a couple years ago that the Steelers somehow managed to kick a field goal at the end of the game to win 3-0.
Yes, natural grass would be preferable. But for that to happen the soccer team will need to find a new home, and they'll probably also have to limit concerts. We as football fans may not care but the reality is that doing that has an effect on stadium revenues, which indirectly effects the budget for the Pats.
I think you're right and it's disgusting. Who cares about soccer? How many people even go to the stupid games? And they tear the field all up...great. There was a survey done and most players prefer grass #1.
Having played sport on artificial turf over here, to avoid injury we were all banned from using proper cleats, we used rubber cleats or just normal training shoes and there was 1 injury in 3 years on the turf.
So could that be an option, or would the weather effect it too much to not wear normal cleats?
I don't get what the big deal is about this artificial crap. Lower maintenance costs, right? More exciting games because the players have supposedly better footing in bad weather, right? God, people are so short-sighted sometimes.
Hard numbers bah.
All you have to do is watch with your own eyes and see how players land on turf verses grass. Also all the non-contact injuries on turf. And turf-toe; never heard of grass-toe.
pats need to go back to the grass. it's not the same playing at gilette without it. did they change just for cost-cutting purposes?
BB said that the team needed to get tougher, but no amount of toughness is going to allow your guys to play well with MCL tears, blown achilles, wrenched ankles, turf toes, rug burns, and MRSA. Last year the Patriots were the walking wounded by the playoffs, and it would appear as if they are headed down the same path. Noticed how much fresher the Ravens were after playing a season on grass?
The grass field was effective until they fired their greens manager (I can guess why--he probably went ballistic when told about the rock concerts and soccer games) and multi-tasked the stadium. I wonder if they could lay down a wood parquet thingy on top of the grass for rock concerts. As far as soccer? Well I guess the Patriots are doomed to another season of debilitating injuries. They used to be able to use grass and other teams can do it (even Green Bay in the cold of Lambeau) so the Patriots could do it if they really care about winning. I think they care more about the money.
I think you're right and it's disgusting. Who cares about soccer? How many people even go to the stupid games? And they tear the field all up...great. There was a survey done and most players prefer grass #1.
source: Artificial-Or-Natural-Players-Respond / News - NFLPlayers.comNFLPA said:The five most common player responses from the 2006 survey were:
1. Make all fields grass to prevent injuries.
2. Keep all grass fields well maintained.
3. Do not allow baseball fields or multiple use fields.
4. Put artificial infilled surfaces in inclement weather cities.
5. Set standards for quality and texture of all fields based on safety, performance and comfort.
To date, the results of the playing surface survey have given the players an active voice, Gaines said.*Two of the top three worst playing fields from the 2006 survey--New England and Pittsburgh--have changed their fields or are currently making improvements.*
That's some of it...
Yes, the players, (Brady, Moss, etc) who wanted the turf instead of the grass only care about money.. DOH.. Guess you forgot about that.