Message Boards

It all depends on how well kept the surface is. Washington and Chicago have the two worst playing fields in the NFL because of poor maintenance.

QUOTE(#1):

Originally posted 01:31 PM ET  01.07 by Guns N Guitars

It all depends on how well kept the surface is. Washington and Chicago have the two worst playing fields in the NFL because of poor maintenance.

The growing conditions in L.A. are great year round but the field in San Diego looked pretty bad for the Holiday bowl.

Poor maintenance or not in Washington, Chicago, Pittsburgh etc. are you not going to have good grass in January.

Did look good at the bowl games play in Florida though, should be in good shape for tonight's game (gaging at the thought of watching it).

For me it depends on how it's maintained, artificial playing surfaces can be just as brutal.

are the owners just cheap....or do they think they have an ''advantage'' over their turf-playing matchups....?,...i know the pats had their ~grass~ ripped-up and replaced A$AP after the jets came-in and kicked their butts in a ~messy~ muddy [REGULAR-SEASON] game.......never mind a freakin playoff-game !

*about 7 yrs. ago [?].

RGIII was clearly hurt and was evident and shouldn't have been playing after halftime, although the playing surface was bad "really bad" I can't blame the surface on RGIII's injury he shouldn't have been playing at the time he got hurt worse than he already was.

Bottom line though the NFL does need to look closer at the playing surface if they are intent on keeping players safety as they want us to think they are as well as question whether or not RGIII should have even been playing after half time.

I have to ask though if RGIII would have had labeled a quitter or toughness questioned had he not played after half time as some players in the past have been.

QUOTE(#6):

Originally posted 02:24 PM ET  01.07 by GSH1

RGIII was clearly hurt and was evident and shouldn't have been playing after halftime, although the playing surface was bad "really bad" I can't blame the surface on RGIII's injury he shouldn't have been playing at the time he got hurt worse than he already was. Bottom line though the NFL does need to look closer at the playing surface if they are intent on keeping players safety as they want us to think they are as well as question whether or not RGIII should have even been playing after half time.I have to ask though if RGIII would have had labeled a quitter or toughness questioned had he not played after half time as some players in the past have been.

Good point, brings up Cutler and even LT in a bolts playoff game years ago.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 02:12 PM ET  01.07 by {+}MOTHER-MARGE{+}

are the owners just cheap....or do they think they have an ''advantage'' over their turf-playing matchups....?,...i know the pats had their ~grass~ ripped-up and replaced A$AP after the jets came-in and kicked their butts in a ~messy~ muddy [REGULAR-SEASON] game.......never mind a freakin playoff-game !

Hard to imagine it's cheapness but who knows. Those owners sit in their luxury boxes being fed gourmet meals dressed in $2,000 dollar suits. Makes one sick thinking about it.

QUOTE(#4):

Originally posted 02:12 PM ET  01.07 by {+}MOTHER-MARGE{+}

are the owners just cheap....or do they think they have an ''advantage'' over their turf-playing matchups....?,...i know the pats had their ~grass~ ripped-up and replaced A$AP after the jets came-in and kicked their butts in a ~messy~ muddy [REGULAR-SEASON] game.......never mind a freakin playoff-game !

Hard to imagine it being cheapness especially considering Snyder & cheapness is usually something you never hear of and usually totally opposite is usually being discussed.

It could however be the thinking of giving an advantage or slowing down a fast team but I always question this as both teams play on the same surface and what hinders one team hinders the other as well.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 03:13 PM ET  01.07 by GSH1

Hard to imagine it being cheapness especially considering Snyder & cheapness is usually something you never hear of and usually totally opposite is usually being discussed.It could however be the thinking of giving an advantage or slowing down a fast team but I always question this as both teams play on the same surface and what hinders one team hinders the other as well.

i think it cost the pats just under a million to replace their grass [with turf] back 7+ yrs. ago.,....i could only imagine the co$t today.....?

QUOTE(#8):

Originally posted 02:32 PM ET  01.07 by Hammered_in_Soup

Hard to imagine it's cheapness but who knows. Those owners sit in their luxury boxes being fed gourmet meals dressed in $2,000 dollar suits. Makes one sick thinking about it.

You should have been an owner.

QUOTE(#9):

Originally posted 03:13 PM ET  01.07 by GSH1

Hard to imagine it being cheapness especially considering Snyder & cheapness is usually something you never hear of and usually totally opposite is usually being discussed.

Snyder is more closely associated with being an idiot than for being cheap.

QUOTE(#10):

Originally posted 03:42 PM ET  01.07 by {+}MOTHER-MARGE{+}

i think it cost the pats just under a million to replace their grass [with turf] back 7+ yrs. ago.,....i could only imagine the co$t today.....?

Did they raise season ticket prices to pay for the new playing surface?

I saw the video,and yeah he's fubared,did the same think with my knee aslo,[stepping into a sink hole] whilr delivering years ago,and still gives problems today.

You really don't care about whether it is grass or turf. You're just upset because you guy got hurt.

Some of us think that a player using PED's should have been banned for 4 games. Ya I know they say that Shermans test was compromised by the testers. My question is if the other players test wasn't compromised and he tested positive wouldn't it make sense that if they both drank from the same container then they should both have PED's in their system? Ya I know that kind of logic is probably to overwhelming for the NFL.

The answer to your question is a resounding "NO" the NFL should not ban grass.

QUOTE(#16):

Originally posted 05:02 PM ET  01.07 by narrator

The answer to your question is a resounding "NO" the NFL should not ban grass.

How about contact?

QUOTE(#3):

Originally posted 01:50 PM ET  01.07 by GSH1

For me it depends on how it's maintained, artificial playing surfaces can be just as brutal.

Usually worse. Fans have ripped on artificial turfs as dangerous for years.

Which is why I find the grass ban to be a complete joke.

QUOTE(#13):

Originally posted 04:32 PM ET  01.07 by Guns N Guitars

Did they raise season ticket prices to pay for the new playing surface?

they were ~raising~ prices gradually every season until the ''cra$h'' in 2008,......i haven't been there since,........don't feel like spending $300-$400/gm. to ''people-watch''!