Guess we are getting field turf

[ctpatsfan1]

considering that not one person posting here is going to play on the new surface and if all reports are correct that all (or the majority) of the players like it better than what is there, shouldn't we be happy that the players are getting something they like as it will most likely help them play better? And isn't that what we want to see from the team we root for?

 

[Willie55]

they used to play with no face masks/helmets, smaller pads, no forward passing, in non-domed stadiums, no free agency, different rules regarding hitting, etc etc etc. The sport has been progressing and changing for decades this is just one more change/progression.

Doing a little research....there are 12 non grass fields and 20 grass fields in the NFL.

Most of what you listed was for the player safety. One was labor relations and don't even get me going on domed stadiums.

 

[mtbykr]

I would much rather have grass than fieldturf. However we don't even have grass now, and the situation isn't going to improve unless they stop having "non-football" events there during the season (starting at camp) We all know this isn't going to happen, so fieldturf seems like the only alternative.

As far as this report goes, i am still skeptical though as no-one else has picked it up. Usually WEEI (especially the big show) is pretty quick with things like this, and i haven't heard anything about it today. I guess we will see!

 

[pats1]

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.

That would be in the Dana Farber Field House.

The Pats use their two lower practice fields unless there's inclement weather. Also, they will use the stadium field from time-to-time to stay adjusted. See: 3GTG III. Since they're home games are outside and in the cold, it doesn't make sense to use the heated FieldHouse anyway.

So, in short, the Pats don't practice on FieldTurf that frequently.

 

[pats1]

considering that not one person posting here is going to play on the new surface and if all reports are correct that all (or the majority) of the players like it better than what is there, shouldn't we be happy that the players are getting something they like as it will most likely help them play better? And isn't that what we want to see from the team we root for?

I'm sure there are players who would much rather play in a dome, too. Start off with a certain Vinatieri.

I'd also say a new contract for Branch would have helped him play better (anything was better than the nothing he was giving us.) And I don't think that was necessarily what we wanted. Certainly wasn't in the best interest of the team, either.

 

[Urgent]

Are you sure about this? From what little I know it's not something you can just slap down -- the whole floor of the stadium would have to be graded, prepped, etc. Sounds to me like something that'd have to be done during the offseason. I thought they were just going to put in new sod.

The news video says it takes about a week to install.

 

[dhamz]

1) NESN reported this Saturday night. No one else has confirmed it.

2) Why does everyone assume just between the hash marks is torn up? It is likely only the most torn up which makes sense becasue it gets the most use.

3) I do not think MLS needs to be played on grass. INTL soccer does. I would be surprised if the Krafts went to field turf and lost out on holding those games when the opportunity presents itself.

3) I think it is a little ridiculous to say the field is the fault of "Kraft's greed." If it was about greed, he never would have bought the team, he would have moved it for better deals, and he never even would have paid to build Gillette. They certainly use the place to maximize their revenue but who can blame them.

 

[JoeSixPat]

I think this is an erroneous interpretation of an acutal report.

Turf = Sod = Grass

Either that or the Turf Farms near my house are growing artificial grass - and that would be very difficult I would think.

I expect that when all this gets sorted out, it will be understood that the Patriots will get new turf - i.e. grass - installed in the torn up middle of the field.

Artificial Turf = Artificial Turf. And indeed, the old AstroTurf of old - a green rug on concrete - is a thing of the past. Actual artificial grass blades have artificial "dirt" (made of crumb rubber from old tires) in their foundation that make for a very natural and safe playing surface. But that's not what's being discussed here as it would be a major undertaking and not possible in less than one week.

 

[tailgater]

If they do put in fieldturf this season i would be surprised.

If and when they do it though, I'd expect them to be able to use it more effectively for advertising, just as every other in of available surface in the stadium is. Just what my tired eyes need at Gillette. More signage.

 

[pats1]

I think this is an erroneous interpretation of an acutal report.

Turf = Sod = Grass

Either that or the Turf Farms near my house are growing artificial grass - and that would be very difficult I would think.

I expect that when all this gets sorted out, it will be understood that the Patriots will get new turf - i.e. grass - installed in the torn up middle of the field.

Artificial Turf = Artificial Turf. And indeed, the old AstroTurf of old - a green rug on concrete - is a thing of the past. Actual artificial grass blades have artificial "dirt" (made of crumb rubber from old tires) in their foundation that make for a very natural and safe playing surface. But that's not what's being discussed here as it would be a major undertaking and not possible in less than one week.

No, watch the video on Boston.com. It's from NESN SportsDesk.

They even interviewed the groundskeeper at some Cambridge school that had FieldTurf installed. It also has the stats on how many NFL/MLB/NCAA fields have it.

http://www.boston.com/partners/worl...744&autoStart=true&mute=false&continuous=true

http://www.boston.com/partners/worl...766&autoStart=true&mute=false&continuous=true

 

[hwc]

If the report were true, then the field at Gillette would already be graded and smoothed. From what I can tell, it's about a 2 week process to actually install a Field Turf field, not counting the prep time to get a fully graded dirt base. The Revolution has a home game on October 28th. There would have to be signs of removing the old field already.

 

[BradyisGod]

Most importantly...how is it in snow in January? You know, like the games we like to play...

 

[mtbykr]

If the report were true, then the field at Gillette would already be graded and smoothed. From what I can tell, it's about a 2 week process to actually install a Field Turf field, not counting the prep time to get a fully graded dirt base. The Revolution has a home game on October 28th. There would have to be signs of removing the old field already.

Here is another source:

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/

Although the pats are refusing comment right now. I do think though that the "rock" movie is being filmed there right now so that would not allow them to do it currently if all the reports are true!

 

[dhamz]

Here is another source:

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/

That is not another source. That is someone else reporting that NESN reported it. By that standard, this thread is another source.

No one else is reporting that they can confirm the NESN report.

 

[R_T26]

the report says it only takes a week to install.

 

[Patjew]

Hey, it's not like FieldTurf can prevent snow from falling. We can still have some nice, messy games later this year.

 

[mcbee]

There was a field expert on here the other week talking about how a field can be upgraded, ie maintained to have much better grass, much better root system, etc.

He said they did it in Conn. and took a beaten field and turned it into a 3 foot root system, etc, within a year. And it also saw alot of use.

I don't think they have that many other events there that justify the beaten look of the field. They could hire someone to aerate the field and grow deeper hardier grass. Sounds like it couldn't be that simple, but why is the Pats field the worst in the league?

Grass fields are just better, IMO. THey could cut the grass long when playing fast teams, cut it shorter when playing slow teams. Fieldturf is not maintenance free either.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

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.[/CENTER]

I agree with you. It seems very odd that it is going to be november 26th and why wouldn't they do it now since they have the bye week and are on the road two weeks in a row which would give them 3-4 weeks to install it.

 

[lobster]

The New York MLS team plays on field-turf at Giants stadium, however all the other MLS teams play on grass. Besides Gillette, only Arrowhead Stadium (Kansas City) has both an NFL team and an MLS team on grass.

 

[lobster]

I agree with you. It seems very odd that it is going to be november 26th and why wouldn't they do it now since they have the bye week and are on the road two weeks in a row which would give them 3-4 weeks to install it.

The Revolution is in the playoff's, which they probably want to have on grass.

P.S. The Globe wrote an article exactly one year ago titled "Magic Carpet" which discusses the pro's and con's of artificial turf. Colvin apparently loves it:
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/articles/2005/10/16/magic_carpet/?page=1