Welcome to PatsFans.com

Turf Team?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by rhubma, Mar 14, 2007.

  1. rhubma

    rhubma Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Does anybody else wonder if at least part of the thinking behind the recent moves has to do with the team's speed gap (vs the chargers, colts and maybe bears) possibly being highlighted more now by the new field?

    Brady has always been at his best on turf, now maybe we are looking for personnel to match...

    Less Dillon & Smith late season pounding in the cold, and more of a quick-pass, screen, 5-wide offense?
  2. 37Harrison

    37Harrison Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +24 / 1 / -2

    #37 Jersey

    The teams speed last year was not what it should be and anyone who watched the games would be able to tell you that.

    I don't think that they are trying to build a "turf team" as you put it because not every team in the NFL has a turf field so what would be the advantage having "guys who play better on turf" when they are playing on a grass field or in dirt? I would think that would give them a huge disadvantage. There is no way that BB looks at a player and selects him because he thinks he's a "turf player".
  3. patsgo

    patsgo Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,466
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    brady has only lost one game on turf at indy so the speed couldnt of been that bad
  4. aabtec

    aabtec Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    so does that mean we are going to the "chuck and duck" offense..aka run and shoot....
  5. Seymour93

    Seymour93 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,681
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +10 / 0 / -0

    I don't think we're actively trying to build a new Greatest Show on Turf, however I think the new surface helps recruit free agents. Would Stallworth really want to play on that garbage we saw versus the Jets? Doubt it.
  6. rhubma

    rhubma Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Brady sliding around in that slop (probably) led to the decision to tear up the sod. Watching the franchise not being able to move away from the rushers was not pretty.

    Also, just think if the Pats has won that Jets game - the championship game would have been at home....
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2007
  7. VJCPatriot

    VJCPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    12,354
    Likes Received:
    28
    Ratings:
    +46 / 1 / -4

    I think you have a valid point there. Although I doubt that's the overwhelming impetus behind the moves (BB just wanted to get Tom Weapons), I think it is probably worth considering that getting faster skilled players will be advantageous on our new home field surface. I've been averse to turf before because of increased injury risk but from what I hear the new artificial turf has all the advantages of turf and is less hard on the player's body, so it should be a good thing (TM) especially with the speedsters we now have in Stallworth, Maroney, etc
  8. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,866
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +55 / 2 / -0

    I'm pretty sure that Donte Stallworth has said prefers to play on grass - but I'm not sure if that's in reference to the field surface or not. ;)
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2007
  9. AFPatsFan12

    AFPatsFan12 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2005
    Messages:
    546
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Just a point of contention...if the Pats win that game, they get the 3 seed based on a better record than Indy. This would have meant that they played Kansas City in the WC round and Baltimore in the Divisionals, while Indy plays the Jets at home and then goes to San Diego in the Divisionals. I'm not sure Indy goes into Qualcomm and beats San Diego, so, in all likelihood, the AFC Championship is in San Diego, not Indy (granted, the Patriots beat the Chargers in the Div. Round, but everything is relative, so who knows?) Obviously winning games > Losing games, but there's no guarantee the AFCC is in Foxboro last year....
  10. zoostation

    zoostation Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,032
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    The turf is certainly a factor. I think the only loss on turf last year was the loss that has us all sick. The Patriots as a team are far better on a faster track.
  11. rhubma

    rhubma Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Agreed... who knows. Lot's of ifs. My prime point though was I think the Jets game was the turning point for the Pats. After years of wanting, but having problems with, a grass field, they decided that they had to make the change to artificial turf. And my question is, does the field change also change priorities for personnel a bit as well?
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2007

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>