NFL week twelve: Turkey Day Cliches

[Guest]

That's FieldTurf, you fucking moron.

[Guest]

As in, it is the same damn thing, with a different name.

[Hawk 34 0]

Why should the NFL mandate that professional athletes play on unnatural well-manicured playing fields? If a franchise wants to take a so-called risk by possibly playing in the rough on a rare occasion, let them.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

That's FieldTurf, you fucking moron.

 

Its a specific brand of field turf only used in a handful of stadiums

[Guest]

It is the same thing. And you have no idea how much it hurts to get tackled on an artificial turf surface.

[Hawk 34 0]

It's still fucking FieldTurf.

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

Why should the NFL mandate that professional athletes play on unnatural well-manicured playing fields? If a franchise wants to take a so-called risk by possibly playing in the rough on a rare occasion, let them.

Because the NFL may want to take the game in a direction away from this sort of game. Look at the way pass interference is called nowadays. Not that they should, but that might be their rationale. The elements belong in football--I loved watching the sheltered Saints fail to adjust to the wintry Chicago lakefront--but srsly, city of Pittsburgh, move your buttfucking HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL games somewhere else.

 

Also, thanks Marvin, for taking a discussion of artificial turf and tangentially relating it to the Baltimore Ravens. Neva' change.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Why should the NFL mandate that professional athletes play on unnatural well-manicured playing fields? If a franchise wants to take a so-called risk by possibly playing in the rough on a rare occasion, let them.

 

You'd think the team would want to minimize any risk to the high paid athletes they have..but I guess not.

 

It comes down to a competitive balance issue and the fact that no one wants to see 3-0 games because the team is too cheap to maintain their facility and ends up with a crappy field like that. Like I said, Im not for everyone installing field turf, but if they're sticking with natural grass they should be required to maintain it and keep it in good condition. You'd think the groundskeepers at the stadium would take pride in their field but I guess thats not the case either..

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Why should the NFL mandate that professional athletes play on unnatural well-manicured playing fields? If a franchise wants to take a so-called risk by possibly playing in the rough on a rare occasion, let them.

Because the NFL may want to take the game in a direction away from this sort of game. Look at the way pass interference is called nowadays. Not that they should, but that might be their rationale. The elements belong in football--I loved watching the sheltered Saints fail to adjust to the wintry Chicago lakefront--but srsly, city of Pittsburgh, move your buttfucking HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL games somewhere else.

 

Also, thanks Marvin, for taking a discussion of artificial turf and tangentially relating it to the Baltimore Ravens. Neva' change.

KingPK mentioned Gillette Field having crappy turf and the ravens game there a couple years ago in 3 or 4 inches of mud is a good example of that.

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

There's gamesmanship in groundskeeping, though. Different sport, but before the bureaucracy was strong enough to act/care, Comiskey Park's crew would vary the hardness of their dirt from game to game, depending on who was pitching. Wrigley Field maintains a tall infield to eat up ground balls. Last year, the Patriots let their field go to shit as far as they could. It's not a matter of pride, it's home field advantage.

[The Niggardly King 0]

shurt up, this was classic old school football. Mike Dikah probably had a tear in his eye.

[Hawk 34 0]

Marvin, did you not happen to notice the fucking rain that wrecked the field or the 5 other games this weekend? Nah, it was the grounds crew and their lack of pride.

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

Mike Dikah

Mike Ditker

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Marvin, did you not happen to notice the fucking rain that wrecked the field or the 5 other games this weekend? Nah, it was the grounds crew and their lack of pride.

 

The field was shitty 2 weeks ago in the Ravens game. They couldn't have done something to fix the field in those two weeks?

[Hawk 34 0]

It's home field advantage. They could have played on the most beautiful fake grass in the world and it wouldn't have changed the outcome of that game.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

It's home field advantage. They could have played on the most beautiful fake grass in the world and it wouldn't have changed the outcome of that game.

 

It wouldnt have been a boring 0-0 snoozefest for 59:40.

[jimmy no nose 0]

Why should the NFL mandate that professional athletes play on unnatural well-manicured playing fields? If a franchise wants to take a so-called risk by possibly playing in the rough on a rare occasion, let them.

 

You'd think the team would want to minimize any risk to the high paid athletes they have..but I guess not.

 

It comes down to a competitive balance issue and the fact that no one wants to see 3-0 games because the team is too cheap to maintain their facility and ends up with a crappy field like that. Like

It's hard to say the issue is the team being "too cheap" to maintain the field when you consider the fact that they spent roughly $1 million this weekend alone laying down what they ended up playing on tonight. Putting in field turf would actually be much more cost-effective. The issue is that the owners want to have natural grass and are very hesitant to budge on their position.

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

It was just reported that Sean Taylor died.

 

 

RIP

[Guest Vitamin X]

edit: Moved to the other thread.

[Guest Tzar Lysergic]

It comes down to a competitive balance issue and the fact that no one wants to see 3-0 games because the team is too cheap to maintain their facility and ends up with a crappy field like that.

 

Not true! I glanced at the screen at work last night and thought, "Fuck, wish I recorded this."

 

At least once every season or every other season, I enjoy watching a low scoring game in a total fuckin' mudhole where players are kicking and biting and pounding each other up the middle 90% of the time.

 

It's a weird example, but in threads before I've proclaimed my love of the Seattle/Kansas City game from a season I can never remember, where the game was delayed at points because of the friggin' LIGHTNING. Just a torrential nonstop downpour from whistle to whistle.

[nogoodnick 0]

That game was so awful and boring that the only highlights on ESPN are mud, Ricky Williams getting stepped on, and the field goal.

[Celtic Guardian 0]

Because the NFL may want to take the game in a direction away from this sort of game. Look at the way pass interference is called nowadays. Not that they should, but that might be their rationale. The elements belong in football--I loved watching the sheltered Saints fail to adjust to the wintry Chicago lakefront--but srsly, city of Pittsburgh, move your buttfucking HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL games somewhere else.

 

Seven football games on that field over the course of 11 days, according to the Post-Gazette. Apparently, nobody used any common sense when scheduling these events.

 

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

That game was so awful and boring that the only highlights on ESPN are mud, Ricky Williams getting stepped on, and the field goal.

I watched that entire game. Like Agent said, sometimes you need a shit game like this every two years or so to remind us what old-school football is supposed to be all about, as opposed to the climate-controlled, synthetic-surface, pass-interference-when-I-gently-shove-you style that we get a smorgasbord of every week. I wouldn't watch last night's game all season long, but I'd like to thank Pittsburgh and its lineless cat litter-laden swamp of a football field for a very refreshing change of pace.

 

My point stands, though: move your high school football shit. Few things are more depressing than high school sports being taken seriously.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Alright, the roomie's on about Favre again....Convince me that anyone but Tom Brady should be the MVP this year?

 

Same reason I'd bring up any time Favre's name comes up in MVP talks.. Without Favre, where are the Packers? And without Brady, where are the Patriots? I think it actually comes pretty close in terms of the ramifications of a major injury to either guy, but Moss, Gaffney, Stallworth, and Welker are all proven, good WRs that can work with any quarterback. I think Favre makes Green Bay's offense go, especially the way he carried that offense in the beginning half of the year with no running game.

 

I just saw this. Would you actually pick Favre over Brady as MVP based on a hypothetical?

[Guest Vitamin X]

Probably not, since MVP these days usually means "player who racks up the most impressive stats in the regular season" but in terms of what player is actually Most Valuable to their team's success this year, I'd say Favre's impact weighs heavier than Brady's. If you care to argue that point, go for it. I'm all ears (or eyes, as it is).

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

Nobody's taking pay cuts to play for the Packers. It's Favre.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

MVP is the player who is playing the best, whatever that means. If you wanna do it with who is the most valuable to their team, then we should take away some of Favre's previous MVP's, as I highly doubt the best defense in the league combined with what was the best offense would have taken too much of a hit had Favre not been there. The Lions would have been 1-15 if Barry didn't break the record that year probably.

 

I don't see how you can say Favre is more valuable even to his own team, when this team won super bowls with Troy Brown and Deion Branch as the primary targets. Sure, they're a powerhouse now, but Brady has done the most with the least for years now, and I don't think we should necessarily take away his value just because he has some toys to work with. He has carried this offense time and time again with nothing, and this team has essentially been a super bowl contender every year since he's been the starter, except maybe in 2002. Brady is what makes this team go, and he's proven it with less. Brett Favre needed the best to win his one super bowl, and hasn't really come close since the Broncos loss. Tom Brady has consistently put up great numbers with nobodies, Favre hasn't. I understand you're talking about this season, but I'm using the past as a reference point to show how valuable Brady really is, and how Favre hasn't really been all that valuable this past decade. The team has done great this year, but I wouldn't point to him as being the focal point.

 

The Pats haven't had a straight running game for awhile either, Maroney has just recently come to life after injury. Not to mention, the Pats have had the tougher schedule, playing two undefeated teams on the road and coming away with big wins, mostly thanks to Brady.

 

Bottom line is this; if you had a choice between the two, who would you take to quarterback your team?

[Jaxxson Mayhem 0]

It comes down to a competitive balance issue and the fact that no one wants to see 3-0 games because the team is too cheap to maintain their facility and ends up with a crappy field like that.

 

Not true! I glanced at the screen at work last night and thought, "Fuck, wish I recorded this."

 

At least once every season or every other season, I enjoy watching a low scoring game in a total fuckin' mudhole where players are kicking and biting and pounding each other up the middle 90% of the time.

 

It's a weird example, but in threads before I've proclaimed my love of the Seattle/Kansas City game from a season I can never remember, where the game was delayed at points because of the friggin' LIGHTNING. Just a torrential nonstop downpour from whistle to whistle.

 

 

I remember that. That shit was awesome. Wasn't it in 98?

[Guest Pizza Hut's Game Face]

So Tom Brady deserves the MVP because of who his wide recievers were in the past? What? This year, Brett Favre is the most valuable player to his or any team. Take him off the Packers, and they're sure as hell not doing what they're doing. If he's not the key to the Packers' success, who is? A.J. Hawk? Come on. As Brett Favre goes, so go the Packers, and this year, he's going pretty damn well.

[The Niggardly King 0]

Actually, MVP this year is Albert Haynesworth.