Guess we are getting field turf

[Brownfan80]

I'm not sure how the Stones concert set-up was, but as oters have said, they do KILL the grass. If it was set at midfield, much like the U2 set-up was during SB38, then, yes, it can be a result of that.

Also, I would like to suggest that maybe the run-off from the center of the field is too good. Meaning that the area doesn't hold water well and so the grass doesn't hold the water.

However, the Pats are going to field turf and water CAN collect on it if the drainage isn't done right. Who knows, maybe they will do a combination of FieldTurf down the center and Grass everywhere else. Anyways, having new turf will be a good thing.

I think, if nothing else, at least Stephen Gostkowski will be happy.

 

[Gumby]

I'm not all that thrilled with the idea of field turf. I guess it has progressed enough that it is as good - safe as grass. but i am too much of a traditionalist. having a muddy spot or two on the field is good football.

I think it would be better to leave the good grass on the 20 yards of each side and just put down some deep turf in the middle. You cant tell me they could get some cut with 6 inches of dirt underneath to stop slipping.


but I guess to look on the bright side we can re-hire the snowplow machine operators for the next miami game if we are putting down field turf.

 

[CTPatsFan]

That blows. Although I don't think it's change they could make in-season with all of the prep that would need to be done.

Heck, while they're at it why don't they make everyone play in a dome with a constant 70* ambient temp. so that everything will be equal. Home field advantage used to extend beyond crowd noise. Or maybe the field itself could be covered by a bio-dome, free from crowd-noise and the elements like the table-top games you find in bars.

 

[Jacky Roberts]

Not a fan, but the boobs from the NFL and Polian must have overuled us... Getting it before the Bears game... According to NESN...

I thought MLS teams had to play on grass?

 

[DB15]

im glad to hear this

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I'm sad. Football ought to be played on grass -- at least by my team. Still, I don't want them to play on sand and dust either ...

Ditto.

...

 

[zippo59]

I don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a twist about this. I don't think it matters that much, and the field turf is pretty similar to grass in a lot of ways. Football is not meant to be played on dirt and sand.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I thought MLS teams had to play on grass?

I think I read that somewhere.

 

[Jacky Roberts]

I don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a twist about this. I don't think it matters that much, and the field turf is pretty similar to grass in a lot of ways. Football is not meant to be played on dirt and sand.

I disagree. If you've ever been on "field turf", its quite different from grass. It has a light spring to it and it is very slippery when wet, especially new field turf.

 

[zippo59]

I disagree. If you've ever been on "field turf", its quite different from grass. It has a light spring to it and it is very slippery when wet, especially new field turf.

Well I guess you would know better but it certainly sounds better than the loose mess of dirt they call "grass" at Gillette.

 

[Sporin]

I don't know why everyone is getting their panties in a twist about this. I don't think it matters that much, and the field turf is pretty similar to grass in a lot of ways. Football is not meant to be played on dirt and sand.

Plus we already have it in the practice facility, our guys are very used to it.

http://www.fieldturf.com/football/highProfile.cfm?highProfileID=38

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Any reason why they'd kill the middle of the field more than the outside? Everytime the events and concerts angle is brought up, people point out that it's the middle of the field that endures the most damage evidence of football damage. But the field was screwed from the beginning this season, leading me to believe that football is not the cause of the problem.

It depends on the stadium configuration for concerts. I have no idea what Gillette's concert configuration is, but I'll give an example. Assuming the stage is put in the endzone and seats are put on the field with a concentration on the center, this is a heavy burden on the turf. Factor in the trucks needed to cart all this in and out and you can bet the turf is going to be worn fast, especially down the middle.

Regards,
Chris

 

[PATSNUTme]

I am a believer in natural grass fields IF they are well kept. Gillette has not been able to do that due to the non football activities.

The old artifical turf was awful. It was like playing on a thin carpet and was as hard as cement.

But the new turf that they are using has some rubberized stuff that make the field seem and feel like natural grass. If you watch a game with the new turf you'll see what looks like dirt come up as players are running. You never saw that with the old turf.

 

[Michigan Dave]

This sucks. I hated when we switched to FieldTurf at Michigan, and our field was just as bad, if not worse. I love football on grass in the nasty mud and filth. FieldTurf is OK, but I prefer grass whenever possible.

 

[Brownfan80]

This sucks. I hated when we switched to FieldTurf at Michigan, and our field was just as bad, if not worse. I love football on grass in the nasty mud and filth. FieldTurf is OK, but I prefer grass whenever possible.

Again your insider info is appreciated. Any idea how Tom felt about Grass vs Turf?

 

[stoirtaP]

haven't read the whole thread but has anyone mentioned Tom Brady is 17-1 on artificial turf? I say bring it on!

 

[Michigan Dave]

Again your insider info is appreciated. Any idea how Tom felt about Grass vs Turf?

We didn't get the FT at UM until 2003 (both Tom and I were gone by then), but we did get it in our indoor facility my junior year. It was OK, I mean, from a player's perspective it's a pretty ideal surface. It's going to be a faster track than the grass, and all of the players I know (including TB) like it just fine. It really isn't a huge difference like the old astroturf was, and the adjustment is minimal. I think you'll see more receivers/backs wearing visors, because the small pieces of rubber hurt when they get in your eyes.

While there was a general consensus from players everywhere that astroturf sucked, FieldTurf isn't treated any differently than grass. The players are used to it by now, and I think it's in the indoor facility, so they won't have to adjust to the agility issues (cutting on turfshoes v. cleats is slightly different) at all.

It's a good thing for the players, it is just bad for schmucks like me who love seeing cold, dirty football.

 

[pats1]

Reasons why I'm VERY skeptical on the validity of the report:

A) Guys, all we have on this is a Kathryn Tappen report. I'll believe it when a REAL news outlet reports it (and not just a blog picking up the story.) Even Reiss doesn't have it.

B) There was just a report a few days ago about the center strip of the field being replaced with sod. What would be the point in doing that if the Pats were going to put down FieldTurf in two weeks anyways?

C) I'm no expert, but just the sound of an entire turf field being put down in a week is sketchy, at best.

D) Why has the field come to be like this? It's simple, and it has to do with Kraft's, well, greed.

Movies. Concerts. Soccer. Football.

They're trying to squeeze all of the above on the field, and it's just not working.

E) We all know how the Pats left the field uncovered before the Jan. 2005 Colts game. We all know how the Pats feel about Polian, his crybaby rants, his soft Colts, and their climate controlled dome.

Has the thought of the Pats making a Polian-esque move like this ALLEGED CHANGE EVER crossed your mind?

...

But, if it all stands to be true, I mourn another blow to the status of the Patriots. I'm still upset about what effects the Pats' trip to China will have on the team. And we all know that was a purely BUSINESS decision. I don't want my hometown Pats to be like any other team. We should pride ourselves in an owner like Kraft, out on the field saying, "It's not that cold out," where he prided himself on his days sitting on the frozen Foxboro benches.

First it was the step from a non-heated to a heated field, eliminating any "risk" of having inches of snow on the field, a la the legendary "Snow Bowl." Now this - a divot-less, mud-less, dirt-less - FOOTBALL-LESS field. Just another step.

I don't want to know what's next. We might have the FieldTurf, a la Ralph Wilson stadium. So...Jonathan/Robert Kraft stadium next?

R.I.P.​

 

[Stokes]

It depends on the stadium configuration for concerts. I have no idea what Gillette's concert configuration is, but I'll give an example. Assuming the stage is put in the endzone and seats are put on the field with a concentration on the center, this is a heavy burden on the turf. Factor in the trucks needed to cart all this in and out and you can bet the turf is going to be worn fast, especially down the middle.

Regards,
Chris

A friend of mine was an extra on the set of the rock's new movie at the stadium and said that noto only was the middle all dirt, but one whole endzone was as well, so maybe it was due to the stage in the endzone and then either a walkway down the middle or like you say the seats.

 

[brady et al fan]

Plus we already have it in the practice facility, our guys are very used to it.

http://www.fieldturf.com/football/highProfile.cfm?highProfileID=38

ok, this warms me up to this turf. If they are practicing on it then it'd benefit them to play on it as well since that's what they are used to.