HawaiiD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2013
- Messages
- 511
- Reaction score
- 255
The same guy who said the grass is definitely greener on the other side.Poor DK
Might be greener, but there’s no Super Bowl ring attached to that
The same guy who said the grass is definitely greener on the other side.Poor DK
The field being a major contributor to at least one 'practice' injury that kept a player out several weeks would make me rate the field an F.F for the field?! Woah!
The players don’t like the field turf, or just our kind of field turf??
When was that? I’m old enough to remember playing on both, and liking grass far more. In Seattle, we should be able to have grass no problem.I'm old enough to remember when natural grass was public enemy #1 and field turf was the way of the future.
Easy fix. Play soccer at TMobile.The surface is going to be replaced with natural grass, (rather than laid on top of the current turf), for the World Cup. 'Soccer' grass isn't suitable for NFL games. Maybe they can use something else after the World Cup.
Mid to late 90's. It really came to a head on the east coast when the Jaguars' Tony Boselli blew his knee out and essentially ended his career when he stepped into a divot in the field in January 2000. The Gator Bowl was played the day prior and a "repaired" divot from that game caused the injury. That, coupled with Washington's terrible grass field and the disaster that astro turf was, Field Turf was hailed as the 8th wonder and for good reason. Consistent and smooth surface with the long blades of artificial grass and the ground up rubber and sand worked into it gave FT a softer cushion like grass does. I still think Field Turf, or an improved version, is the answer. But what do I know.When was that? I’m old enough to remember playing on both, and liking grass far more. In Seattle, we should be able to have grass no problem.