With all home games and at least 2 other games (Jets, Bills) the Pats will have a minimum of 10 games every year on turf.
Does this change our roster makeup? We have a lot of mudders, do you think we will make subtle changes to add more speed to take advantage of the fast track?
Good question. I don't know what role it will play on future drafting and signings, but I know Maroney and Jackson both will benefit from the field turf.
I don't think so. I think the Patriots have versatile players who can play on really any surface, except when it is a sand pit, but how can play in that. Building versatile, well-rounded teams is the best way to go because you still will have to play a significant nuber of games on turf that is not the one you designed your team around, and then you are at a disadvantage.
IMO the turf was already done because of personnel.
My view is that The Pats put in Field Turf after seeing Tom Brady being unable to use one of his best skills - moving laterally in the pocket - because of the mud against the Jets. Watch the game recording,when TB slipped he got smoked a couple of times.
Had Brady been able to complete a couple of more passes on turf against gang-green... the Indy playofff game would have been at home....
With all home games and at least 2 other games (Jets, Bills) the Pats will have a minimum of 10 games every year on turf.
Does this change our roster makeup? We have a lot of mudders, do you think we will make subtle changes to add more speed to take advantage of the fast track?
With all home games and at least 2 other games (Jets, Bills) the Pats will have a minimum of 10 games every year on turf.
Does this change our roster makeup? We have a lot of mudders, do you think we will make subtle changes to add more speed to take advantage of the fast track?
Something to ponder, but as BB would say the playing surface, "Is what it is". We have done well on this surface, without making any changes prior, so I assume whatever philosophy they employ will not change.