c_hawkbob wrote: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.
Hawktown wrote:What is your preferred field condition and type?
RiverDog wrote:
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 wrote: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.
Hawk Sista wrote: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 wrote: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).
Hawk Sista wrote: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.
c_hawkbob wrote: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).
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.
Hawk Sista wrote: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.
burrrton wrote:I thought it was pretty universally accepted that Field Turf was superior to grass in every relevant way. Not so?
NorthHawk wrote: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.
NorthHawk wrote: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.
NorthHawk wrote: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.
HumanCockroach wrote: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...
HumanCockroach wrote:Of course... At least it's not "mandatory" ( though it really is )
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 138 guests