Panthers complaining about the field.... That's rich!

[Hawk Sista]

Yes, the field sucked. There must be a standard in this kajillion dollar industry. And Ohr does look funny. But after the condition of the field in the divisional round, the Panthers can pound sand.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... urf-issues

[c_hawkbob]

Both tackles lose footing in that clip. Not too impressive for such a new stadium hosting the most important game they've ever played there.

No sympathy here either, but the NFL does need to do a better job of holding teams accountable for field conditions. There's too much money in this game for that kinda crap.

[RiverDog]

Both tackles lose footing in that clip. Not too impressive for such a new stadium hosting the most important game they've ever played there.

No sympathy here either, but the NFL does need to do a better job of holding teams accountable for field conditions. There's too much money in this game for that kinda crap.

In addition to the league getting involved, IMO the player's union ought to be front and center in any substandard working conditions issue that involves player safety. If I'm an employee, I want my representative doing what they can to look out for my best interest. I'm not sure if either the Santa Clara or Charlotte fields jeopardize player safety any more than other fields, but the conditions a few years back at FedEx Field damn sure did.

It's amazing to me how a brand new, billion dollar stadium can harbor such conditions. The natural grass field in Green Bay is in better shape than either Santa Clara or Charlotte. If they can't bring their natural turf up to certain standards, they ought to be forced to install the best artificial surface currently on the market.

[Hawktown]

I would also think that with all the money around the league that Football inflation and field conditions would be first and foremost in preparing a game to be held with some sort of standard. Carolina, Santa Clara and I think ?Chicago? come to mind whom have terrible fields...

I play flag (with some tackle) football once a month on a really bad grass field at a park. When it has been raining there are a few spots of mud that Big 5 type cleats just won't dig into and grip in, i slip. If it is dry, the ground is hard like if it were frozen. I hate the field we play on but it is in the middle of where we all live and I guess easier for some players to get to.

I used to play in a flag league that only played on turf with those little rubber pellets. I personally would prefer the turf field over the half gr(ass)/mud park field we play on now. I do know that on turf I prefer to wear long sleeve shirts because it will give you turf burn unlike real grass.

What is your preferred field condition and type?

[Uppercut]

Whatever company is selling them the sod a number of times per season must be smiling. It would seem they would do better with field turf especially in the drought. But the Niners would not want to be in any way seen as copying the Hawks.

[NorthHawk]

George Toma who has worked on all 50 Super Bowl fields said he thought it was the 2nd best sod he's seen and they just had to change their cleats.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... uper-bowl/

[RiverDog]

What is your preferred field condition and type?

A properly maintained natural turf is the best choice. The problem is that for the northern latitudes, and even the mid latitude locations like central California and North Carolina, the turf goes into hibernation once the temperature starts to drop, the sun dips low on the horizon, and cloud cover is more prevalent, the grass loses its ability to repair itself.

[Hawktawk]

I'm pretty sure the field in Minnesota was turf as well. It has heating coils under it. I know Green Bay does. Skins field is another POS.As a golf supe I assure all of you that these field conditions are inexcusable with the money they have and their ability to almost completely control their growing environment. It's a joke in the biggest sport in the world.

[Hawktown]

A properly maintained natural turf is the best choice. The problem is that for the northern latitudes, and even the mid latitude locations like central California and North Carolina, the turf goes into hibernation once the temperature starts to drop, the sun dips low on the horizon, and cloud cover is more prevalent, the grass loses its ability to repair itself.

I assumed natural turf would be preferred. Thanks!

[RiverDog]

I'm pretty sure the field in Minnesota was turf as well. It has heating coils under it. I know Green Bay does. Skins field is another POS.As a golf supe I assure all of you that these field conditions are inexcusable with the money they have and their ability to almost completely control their growing environment. It's a joke in the biggest sport in the world.

The UM field was heated, but it's Field Turf.

IMO the decision as to what turf should be installed should be left up to the players and not some money hungry moonbat like Dan Snyder.

[obiken]

Yes, the field sucked. There must be a standard in this kajillion dollar industry. And Ohr does look funny. But after the condition of the field in the divisional round, the Panthers can pound sand.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... urf-issues

Right on HS, they have nothing coming!

[c_hawkbob]

I think it really was just a matter of not using the proper cleats. Players were sliding along the top of a nice firm surface, it wasn't coming loose under their feet. That's on the players (or their team's equipment managers).

[Hawktawk]

I think it really was just a matter of not using the proper cleats. Players were sliding along the top of a nice firm surface, it wasn't coming loose under their feet. That's on the players (or their team's equipment managers).

Players hate using longer than necessary cleats because they can blow a knee if they get a foot stuck.
The Field at Levis was actually as good as Ive seen it. It was wonderful compared to the dirt hole with shaggy turf in Carolina. That what made the whining so laughable.
Still, cold weather can be mitigated more greatly in a stadium than anywhere else grass is grown. Heat coils are a huge benefit but I'm not sure they are even needed in Carolina.I think they need drainage and roots instead of constantly hacking off their dead sod and replacing it. Whatever is needed it certainly doesn't rise to the level of one years salary for any number of players on the roster.RGIII might have a healthy knee if not for Danny boy refusing to fix his field. I don't get it.

[Hawk Sista]

I agree with all of the sentiments about the NFL (and NFLPA) making dang sure the field conditions are safe. FedEx field is indeed a POS; ask Chris Clemmons and RG3 about that. I live about 2.5 hours south of the stadium in Santa Clara (similar but drier climate) and manage a Parks system complete with a 179 acre golf course. There is no excuse for the conditions at FedEx and the rest of the crappy fields around the league. NONE!

You are so right on, Hawktawk. That Panthers were whining about field conditions was funny given our experience there a few weeks earlier. Look. It clearly was not our year and our team was outplayed that day in Carolina. I am not using the field conditions as an excuse for our inexplicably bad 20 minutes of football that day. That said, the Panther players had a better idea of what cleats to wear than the Hawks because it was there home field. At least in the Super Bowl, both teams had to adjust equally as it amounted to an away game for both of them. Still not an excuse to have those conditions in the SB, but I am saying that both teams had equal opportunity there.

[Hawktawk]

I agree with all of the sentiments about the NFL (and NFLPA) making dang sure the field conditions are safe. FedEx field is indeed a POS; ask Chris Clemmons and RG3 about that. I live about 2.5 hours south of the stadium in Santa Clara (similar but drier climate) and manage a Parks system complete with a 179 acre golf course. There is no excuse for the conditions at FedEx and the rest of the crappy fields around the league. NONE!

You are so right on, Hawktawk. That Panthers were whining about field conditions was funny given our experience there a few weeks earlier. Look. It clearly was not our year and our team was outplayed that day in Carolina. I am not using the field conditions as an excuse for our inexplicably bad 20 minutes of football that day. That said, the Panther players had a better idea of what cleats to wear than the Hawks because it was there home field. At least in the Super Bowl, both teams had to adjust equally as it amounted to an away game for both of them. Still not an excuse to have those conditions in the SB, but I am saying that both teams had equal opportunity there.

Hey Sis didn't know you are in the biz. Cool cool. So you understand what I'm talking about. I dont "blame" the Carolina field for the loss although I blame the first few explosive plays at least partially on it, especially the Stewart run.
Oh well that's why you want HFA.

Still though as you know far better than I realized there's just no excuse for turf anywhere to look like that with the kind of money these clubs have.Id be fired on the spot if my conditions were ever anywhere near that bad.I have 90 acres of turf and not one square yard of it looks like Carolina's field.

[burrrton]

I think it really was just a matter of not using the proper cleats. Players were sliding along the top of a nice firm surface, it wasn't coming loose under their feet. That's on the players (or their team's equipment managers).

Exactly what I thought watching that vid of Oher.

The turf coming apart creating uneven surfaces and such is bad turf- Oher was merely "slipping". Put on longer cleats.

[Hawk Sista]

Still though as you know far better than I realized there's just no excuse for turf anywhere to look like that with the kind of money these clubs have.Id be fired on the spot if my conditions were ever anywhere near that bad.I have 90 acres of turf and not one square yard of it looks like Carolina's field.

I don't have the direct experience you do, but in the biz enough to know you are right. Even when we schedule greens maintenance and publicize it, people complain. I wonder how many field maintenance guys they have there. Probably five times what I have for the whole system and they still can't get it right. Agronomy is no different than any other industry. There have been so many advances that I just don't get it.

[RiverDog]

I don't have the direct experience you do, but in the biz enough to know you are right. Even when we schedule greens maintenance and publicize it, people complain. I wonder how many field maintenance guys they have there. Probably five times what I have for the whole system and they still can't get it right. Agronomy is no different than any other industry. There have been so many advances that I just don't get it.

When Safeco Field opened in 1999, the wife and I took a tour, ironically enough the morning after the first and only football game to be played there (Wake Forest vs. Stanford in the Emerald Bowl). It was pretty impressive, they have reversible fans that can either run one direction to dry out the field or the opposite direction to draw air into the root system, along with a grid of piping they could circulate warm water through to coax the grass out of dormancy and make up for the lack of UV rays. I haven't a clue as to how effective it is.

[Hawktawk]

[quote="Hawk Sista don't have the direct experience you do, but in the biz enough to know you are right. Even when we schedule greens maintenance and publicize it, people complain. I wonder how many field maintenance guys they have Probably five times what I have for the whole system and they still can't get it right. Agronomy is no different than any other industry. There have been so many advances that I just don't get it.[/quote]

I thought the field at Safeco was awesome. But as you say they had about 3 times my crew for a baseball field! To be fair the mechanical stresses imposed on a football field between the hash marks are substantial although there are ways to mitigate it. Overall though I honestly believe with what I know works and the extremely controlled growing environment I could make a football field almost glow in the dark it would be so green, dense and healthy.

My guess is a lot of these managers are stuck in the old school way of thinking, that's how we have always done it. There are some of those guys left in golf too although less all the time.

[HumanCockroach]

The truth is that field turf has come a long, long way. When I played, hands down and going away natural grass, now, the field turf isn't "carpet on concrete" is more durable, more cost effective and doesn't "grab" players. If I was a current owner, or player, I would actually prefer field turf to grass.

[burrrton]

I thought it was pretty universally accepted that Field Turf was superior to grass in every relevant way. Not so?

[Hawktawk]

I thought it was pretty universally accepted that Field Turf was superior to grass in every relevant way. Not so?

Even as a turf guy I would completely agree.
Other than a situation like AZ where they produce some incredible natural turf with their shuttle system it would seem Field Turf is far and a away the most consistent fair, safe, and economical solution long term. Its ecologically far friendlier as well, no fertilizer, fungicide, mowers burning diesel and putting emissions in the environment as well as all the aerosol paint for the lines, or millions of gallons of water annually.

Its funny the NFL is a league that suspends a player over a lb. of air in a football but lets owners have carte blanche regarding what condition of surface the game is played on.

[NorthHawk]

It is odd about there not being a consistent standard for fields, but I think Field Turf isn't as forgiving as grass. If it were, all teams would have artificial practice surfaces whereas most have at least one major grass surface and the preference from what I've read seems to be the grass practice fields.

[RiverDog]

It is odd about there not being a consistent standard for fields, but I think Field Turf isn't as forgiving as grass. If it were, all teams would have artificial practice surfaces whereas most have at least one major grass surface and the preference from what I've read seems to be the grass practice fields.

Not all teams have at least one artificial field at their training facility? Don't they all have an indoor practice facility that would almost certainly be an artificial surface?

[HumanCockroach]

I'm fairly sure RD is right on this one. If I had to guess, it would be that all NFL teams have a field turf practice field somewhere ( like in the 80% sure range) for inclement weather situations, that said, why on earth would a team with a grass field in their stadium, "choose" artificial field turf to practice on, ever? That would make zero sense North.

Pretty sure every team had both surfaces available, and wouldn't surprise me in any way that the use of what type of field varies depending on where the team is playing. Really, I can honestly say, that the "feel" of field turf and natural grass is so incredibly insignificant as to be unnoticeable, but the "slipping" and "holes" you get with grass( not to name a whole slew of other issues once weather gets involved) don't occur with turf. Which makes it at this point ( not the carpet days) far superior.

The only real " advantage" grass has at this point is how "pretty" it is, which lasts for a couple games, or a month...

( North you should go work out on the field turf somewhere, it's as forgiving as grass at this point, and causes less injuries do to slipping. It is actually safer than grass as far as knees, ankles etc. Kind of crazy, but true. Son played four years on it, have worked out on it, you should do the same. It's impressive stuff)

[Hawktawk]

( North you should go work out on the field turf somewhere, it's as forgiving as grass at this point, and causes less injuries do to slipping. It is actually safer than grass as far as knees, ankles etc. Kind of crazy, but true. Son played four years on it, have worked out on it, you should do the same. It's impressive stuff)



Chris Clemons blew his knee and RG III finished off his knee on alleged natural turf surface in Landover 2012. It might well have cost Seattle a trip to the 2012 Super Bowl they were so close anyway. RGIII has never been the same.

As HC says the inconsistency of a BAD natural turf field is far more dangerous to an explosive athlete than field turf. I don't know about the rug burn aspect of artificial turf, it used to be a complaint.
Id be curious to know if there are any stats comparing injuries on the surfaces recently.

My bottom line would be for the league to tell the clubs there is a minimum standard of maintenance for natural turf fields.Maybe appoint a director of agronomy whose job is evaluating playing surfaces and making mandatory recommendations. A field like Carolina's got the ball rolling for them vs Seattle on what could have been a clash of titans, instead it was in part a clash of equipment managers and theirs won the first crucial 20 minutes.

If their field is that bad they should be fined and perhaps have the league mandate a change to the playing surface. It devalues the quality of the product and endangers the safety of the players which I thought Goody two shoes was all about.

[NorthHawk]

I must be out of touch with todays artificial surfaces, but players still talk about playing on grass as something good. I wonder why Arizona went with grass when the notorious Bidwill (he of locking the Gatorade fridge on off days to save money) could have put in fake turf instead that would have lasted for years without any maintenance?

The Snyder turf at Landover stadium is similar to the old artificial crap from Philadelphia where there were 4 - 6 inch open seams and players were talking about boycotting the games there. If you let any field deteriorate, you will have problems.

[RiverDog]

The Snyder turf was also the same field that Adrian Peterson blew his knee out on. But my understanding is that the FedEx turf of today isn't nearly as bad as the stuff we saw back in 2012.

You never hear of complaints about natural turf fields in the sun belt cities, ie San Diego, Glendale, and the Florida cities. But there are some places that just do a more consistently better job than other locations with their natural surfaces... Green Bay, Denver, and Kansas City are cold weather cities subject to a lot of rain and snow that don't seem to generate many complaints.

I remember the issue with the artificial turf in Philly's Veteran's Stadium, but that was a long time ago and was 2nd or 3rd generation Astro Turf, which was a hideous product. I haven't heard any complaints about Field Turf since it came into widespread use back around the turn of the century. It has several inherent advantages, such as consistency and the fact that it can hold more water than a natural field. I'll always yield to the judgment of the players, but IMO it should be the surface of choice for any stadium outside the sun belt.

[Hawktawk]

I must be out of touch with todays artificial surfaces, but players still talk about playing on grass as something good. I wonder why Arizona went with grass when the notorious Bidwill (he of locking the Gatorade fridge on off days to save money) could have put in fake turf instead that would have lasted for years without any maintenance?

The Snyder turf at Landover stadium is similar to the old artificial crap from Philadelphia where there were 4 - 6 inch open seams and players were talking about boycotting the games there. If you let any field deteriorate, you will have problems.

AZ is a turf managers dream. They have an almost completely controlled growing environment . With their shuttle system they can get photosynthesis anytime the sun shines or roll it inside in to maintain soil temperature. I think it's the best natural turf in the league.

[NorthHawk]

My point was it would have been cheaper than building the tray mechanism to roll out real grass as well as field maintenance compared with the artificial stuff.

[Hawktawk]

My point was it would have been cheaper than building the tray mechanism to roll out real grass as well as field maintenance compared with the artificial stuff.

Without question its far more expensive and labor intensive doing what they do. They produce a beautiful surface though. That's the bottom line. And yes, as goofy as Bidwell is its strange that he decided to do it this way.
Every owner is wealthy enough money isn't the issue regardless in terms of it being within their power to spend it if they choose to. No salary cap on stadiums.
Guys like Snyder and Richardson are just idiots who step over a dollar to pick up a dime when it comes to their field conditions. Carolina doesn't even have an indoor practice facility...

[NorthHawk]

I've often wondered why when the owners are each spending well over $150 million for players, some would put that in jeopardy with a lousy playing surface and risk their investment.
It doesn't sound like a good business plan to me.

[HumanCockroach]

Same reason owners in other businesses skimp on tools, computers etc but invest a lot in advertising, their building etc. When a tool breaks, you simply buy another tool, the building and name recognition will always hold value.

[RiverDog]

Yea, I don't think that owners look at their players as financial investments. They're going to spend X amount of dollars on player salaries every year give or take a few million no matter what. That and a good field does not equate a good team.

Owners are just plain negligent and ignorant, but they're not the only villains. The league and the union could both be doing more than they currently are.

[HumanCockroach]

Really isn't much different in the "real" world. It's about the bottom line, and why when someone finds a "good" company or owner they stick with them. Lot of businesses that look at employees as "disposable" parts, tools, not really "people". I've honestly been a manager in a company where I was constantly being reprimanded for NOT viewing employees in that way...

[RiverDog]

Really isn't much different in the "real" world. It's about the bottom line, and why when someone finds a "good" company or owner they stick with them. Lot of businesses that look at employees as "disposable" parts, tools, not really "people". I've honestly been a manager in a company where I was constantly being reprimanded for NOT viewing employees in that way...

Sad but true. I don't want to veer this thread into an off topic discussion, but I've seen a dramatic deterioration regarding the way my company treats their employees... and we're a successful company. We used to have a plant picnic where we'd rent out a water park, Christmas parties, 3 day retreats, golf outings, 3 or 4 of those types of activities a year. Just today I got an invite to a "team building" event that we've all been complaining about that we haven't had in several years, and what does it involve? A BYOB potluck at an apartment complex clubhouse... on our own time, of course.

[HumanCockroach]

Of course... At least it's not "mandatory" ( though it really is ) just the way it is. Greed runs business, and truth be told, I'm not able to emphatically claim it wouldn't happen if I were the one in charge. I'd like to believe not, but who knows for sure? This year my company pulled us all in to let us know our usually substantial Christmas bonuses would be quite small due to lower profits, the next day the owner talked about getting his wife and two kids new cars for Christmas and how excited he was about his 2 1/2 week cruise/ vacation to the Caribbean ( this on top of his 5 or 6 cruises throughout each and every year)... Not saying the man shouldn't enjoy his success, but at the very least, skip bragging about it with employees you just shafted...

( sorry for high jacking the thread).

[RiverDog]

Of course... At least it's not "mandatory" ( though it really is )

Not for this guy. I'm a LIFER (which stands for Lazy Ignorant 'Friend' Expecting Retirement). I have less than a year to go, so I don't have to kiss ass anymore.

[NorthHawk]

Businesses and their owners used to look at the long term and it seems that now it's more about the short term and getting the most out of it quickly.
There was a story a few years back where an owner who was quite older continued to pay his employees out of his own pocket even though the business burned down. He paid them until the building was rebuilt and had a talented and loyal employee group in which to hit the ground running. His comment was along the lines of his employees built the business as much as him.
That was an old world mentality. I doubt you would see it very often from today's business people, if they had the money to do that.

[Hawktawk]

Its how it is now. I haven't had a Christmas party for a couple of years now. Some of it is greedy owners and some of it is greedy government, oppressive overreach and regulation. I've had to cut nearly half my crew on the GC to afford raises for key people and equipment purchase and repairs. I haven't worked this many hours since I was in my mid 30's.But running a goat ranch isn't my style so I make up the difference.

Still, I'm not one to point the finger at a rich businessman who has nice toys and nice vacations. They had the balls and brains to make a business that pays my bills and they deserve to be rewarded. Otherwise what's the point?