HTTR24-7.com; Tough Turf Times; It's Time To Say Goodbye To FedEx's Grass Field

Click here to read more.

It’s hard to believe that the Redskins did not have a full time practice bubble until this past season.

Literally every other team in the Northeast had an indoor practice facility. All our division rivals did. Every team North of us, at the very least, had a practice bubble. Even the Steelers, the would-be gold standard of NFL history and tradition, had a state of the art indoor practice facility.

But the Redskins didn’t get their indoor practice facility until 2012, which was about a year after it had been announced in the first place due to issues with permits. For years, the Redskins had practiced “as it was supposed to be”—out in the elements. It wasn’t for lack of Dan Snyder asking; Snyder had extended the offer to coach Joe Gibbs, but Gibbs 2.0 was still old school.

When asked about it in August of 2004, Coach Gibbs told the Washington Post, “I don’t like bubbles. You play outside. It’s an outdoor game. I want to be in the rain because you have a lot of these adverse weather conditions. I don’t think there’s any other way to get used to that except to be out in it. You need to be out in the heat, rain, snow, sleet — the whole deal.”

Click above to read more.

I think they should just get the Desso Grassmaster and call it a day.

I think they should just get the Desso Grassmaster and call it a day.

That would certainly be better than the current "spray painted dirt" thing they're doing now.

Desso Grassmaster. /thread Best of both worlds.

Well it seems someone has definitely concluded that the turf was responsible for the Griffin injury

Here is some "logic" for the author...if they are interested...http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/40/10/2200

sucks that the NFL article suggests we are not changing.......good job Redskin Brass, good way to shorten young players careers

Well it seems someone has definitely concluded that the turf was responsible for the Griffin injury

Here is some "logic" for the author...if they are interested...http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/40/10/2200

How in the hell does one argue that the turf did not at least play a role in the injury in the playoff game?

Furthermore, how does one defend just how ****ing bad the field was? I get wanting to play on grass. I say in the article that I'm not arguing that under ideal conditions that grass is a better playing surface than FieldTurf. If you can honestly sit here and defend how bad the field was, then you're beyond reason. That field was godawful.

Nothing about the grass field at FedEx is ideal. It's not the ideal climate to grow grass. It's not the idea kind of grass to grow in this climate if it were possible to grow grass in the climate. That field was ****ing terrible, period, and saying otherwise is trying to defend in the indefensible. It was literally spray painted dirt. I have to hunt down the video of the Seahawks players standing on the field kicking at the dirt, complaining about how bad it was. And they were right. It was miserable.

Is grass a better playing surface than FieldTurf under ideal conditions. Yes. Yes it is. There, I said it.

Are conditions at FedEx Field ideal? No. We are not a Southern football team, we're a Northeast football team has to deal with chilly, rain fall weather and bitter cold winters.

No study ever done about this, not the survey by the players, not the analysis by any independent group, examines field conditions as it pertains to injuries, in addition to FieldTurf or grass. The worse the grass, the more likely an injury is to occur.

Our field sucks. It needs to change.

You have drawn the conclusion that a surface that is more likely to lead to injury is the solution. And an obvious one at that. Nobody that I have seen has even given an informed decision on when the injury took place. We do know that it started on a play that had NOTHING to do with the field.

I'll take the results of a scientific study over the opinion of a blogger regarding what is "more likely".

No disagreement that the field was in bad shape. Not so sure the "obvious" answer is a synthetic surface.

You have drawn the conclusion that a surface that is more likely to lead to injury is the solution. And an obvious one at that. Nobody that I have seen has even given an informed decision on when the injury took place. We do know that it started on a play that had NOTHING to do with the field.

I'll take the results of a scientific study over the opinion of a blogger regarding what is "more likely".

No disagreement that the field was in bad shape. Not so sure the "obvious" answer is a synthetic surface.

Okay, forget the FieldTurf.

What about Desso Grassmaster? What's so wrong with that?

, good way to shorten young players careers

That's interesting, because a majority of the players around the League dissagree with you.

Okay, forget the FieldTurf.

What about Desso Grassmaster? What's so wrong with that?

Not sure what is or isnt wrong with that. Did the study I posted talk about it?

It is quite a leap in my opinion to pin responsibility for Griffin's injury on the condition of the grass. Let alone claim that the field "claimed"2 acl's.

One other fact check that may help give the article some additional credibility. Pittsburgh does play on grass. And they also have a college team that uses their stadium as a home field.

I think they should just get the Desso Grassmaster and call it a day.

It really is the best solution available.

NLC, I think you made some really good points about weather conditions playing a big part in making the field conditions the unplayable mess they have been toward the end of the season several years running. It's also a good point about grass being better in optimal conditions and that conditions in Landover will never be optimal.

Pittsburgh does play on grass. And they also have a college team that uses their stadium as a home field.

And typically Heinz Field is one of the worst fields in the NFL to play on, and the bad field is typically a storyline (or an element of it) whenever they get a home game in the playoffs.

And typically Heinz Field is one of the worst fields in the NFL to play on, and the bad field is typically a storyline (or an element of it) whenever they get a home game in the playoffs.

Then I would use that argument instead of the one you made which was "every team north of us has field turf". Have to decide what you are going to ding the team on and then go with it. But when you make factual mistakes(like the one about Baylor playing on grass in the other thread) it does hurt the rest of your other arguments.

Then I would use that argument instead of the one you made which was "every team north of us has field turf". Have to decide what you are going to ding the team on and then go with it. But when you make factual mistakes(like the one about Baylor playing on grass in the other thread) it does hurt the rest of your other arguments.

So my missing one team that has grass in the article (I did mention Heinz Field's terrible field later in the article for all that's worth), and then me making a mistake not even in the article, but in a different thread, hurts my entire argument that the field needs to be fixed.

It's worth mentioning that I do not definitively say "WE NEED FIELDTURF", and I also talk about Desso Grassmaster repeatedly. But it's nice to know you're coming into this without any sort of biased point of view that would hinder your opinion or reading comprehension.

I'm pretty sure Cleveland plays on bluegrass, that's what someone said in one of the earlier threads

I'm pretty sure Cleveland plays on bluegrass, that's what someone said in one of the earlier threads

I think LL said the part of the problem is that the Redskins use bermuda,which sucks for growing here. Cleveland's field didn't seem too bad. My main thing is that, aside from re-sodding the thing, BA indicated that there would be no changes PERIOD. Which is silly.

So my missing one team that has grass in the article (I did mention Heinz Field's terrible field later in the article for all that's worth), and then me making a mistake not even in the article, but in a different thread, hurts my entire argument that the field needs to be fixed.

It's worth mentioning that I do not definitively say "WE NEED FIELDTURF", and I also talk about Desso Grassmaster repeatedly. But it's nice to know you're coming into this without any sort of biased point of view that would hinder your opinion or reading comprehension.

Hey man, it's your article. And your point that you are trying to make. I didn't even think of Cleveland. When you make a deliberate effort to prove a definitive point...like no team north of us has a field like ours...you may want to be sure that is correct. What do they use in Chicago?

---------- Post added February-17th-2013 at 07:39 PM ----------

I think LL said the part of the problem is that the Redskins use bermuda,which sucks for growing here. Cleveland's field didn't seem too bad. My main thing is that, aside from re-sodding the thing, BA indicated that there would be no changes PERIOD. Which is silly.

Ignoring that they are going to re-sod is pretty silly.

NLC, while it's clear RD is on the other side of the debate from you and me, I think he's just trying to give you some constructive criticism and positive feedback.

When Paulson from 106.7 and Russell from 980 were asked about the method to the madness behind sticking with grass -- their sources didn't say anything about "tradition" guiding the decision. But its Shanny specifically who likes grass because in his mind it lowers the incidence of injurires, the turf is not as tough on the knees as artificial surfaces according to some, etc. If so, the debate then turns to if you going with grass you either do it right or you don't do it. Having played amatueur sports on both surfaces, I can see the notion of grass being easier on the legs. But if you are doing grass it has to really be grass, not mud.

Edit:

I did a quick google search

http://www.jeffersonhospital.org/keep-in-touch/april-2010-issue/2010-4-20-grass-cleats-best-for-knees

Are Grass and Cleats Best for the Knees?

Whether it's your kid playing football for the high school team or you're playing baseball and softball on the weekend, where you play and what's on your feet do make a difference in preventing injuries. According to a new study published in the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, a combination of natural grass – rather than artificial turf – and cleats seems to be the best option for decreasing the chances of a knee injury.

Researchers used lower extremities – knee, foot and ankle – from cadavers to test the strain placed on the ACL (the ligament in the center of the knee) by four different combinations of shoes and playing surfaces: turf shoe/Astroturf, turf shoe/playing turf, cleat/modern playing turf and cleat/natural grass.

When a similar turn was made with all four combinations, cleats on grass created the least force on the knee ligament, according to study authors.

Compared with the natural grass/cleat combination, the Astroturf/turf shoe put 80 percent more strain on the ACL. Strain was 48 percent greater with the modern playing turf/turf shoe, and 45 percent more with the modern playing turf/cleat combination.

Ignoring that they are going to re-sod is pretty silly.

That oughtta do it!

NLC, while it's clear RD is on the other side of the debate from you and me, I think he's just trying to give you some constructive criticism and positive feedback.

I'm really not on the "other side". The hybrid may be the solution. I don't think field turf is a no brainer. In fact, evidence suggests we should expect more injuries if we go that way.

But you are right...I do think an argument should b based primarily on fact or EXPERT opinion. And the facts should be accurate.

Seems to me, the only debate now is: Should they go with Desso or not?

I really haven't seen very many here arguing against that, and almost everyone agrees the field needs to be addressed.

We're not putting in " Turf " this year, and unless next season is a repeat of this past season in regards to the field, we will not be going to " Turf " anytime in the near future.

re-sodding isn't going to do jack crap. even if they do it during the "growing" season, there isn't going to be enough time for the roots to take hold. i wouldn't be surprised if fieldturf SAVED the team money over the long haul, especially if the team is going to do multiple re-sods. i've played a variety of sports on an older version of the fieldturf, and it is nice to play on. the fact that thousands of HIGH SCHOOLS around the country play football on a better surface in November than the Redskins do is criminal.

Hey man, it's your article. And your point that you are trying to make. I didn't even think of Cleveland. When you make a deliberate effort to prove a definitive point...like no team north of us has a field like ours...you may want to be sure that is correct. What do they use in Chicago?

---------- Post added February-17th-2013 at 07:39 PM ----------

Ignoring that they are going to re-sod is pretty silly.

1.) I tend to think of Cleveland or Chicago and more west of us than north of us. If you want to nitpick (which clearly you do), I should've said all the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast teams us a synthetic turf.

2.) Re-sodding a grass field in late fall/early winter will mean diddly, if the way our football field looked in 2011 after the Army-Navy game is any indication. All that happened when they did that is that we had large chunks of sod on some pieces of the field and none on other, the playing surface looked uneven, and the field was still in miserable condition.