NFL News & Notes

[incognito_man]

4 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Money is made when the best product is on the field

This is the start and end of the discussion as I see it. 

Only dumb owners with zero foresight would skimp on something like this. A trash field is pennies to update compared to the risk potential. 

But since players have to play on other team's fields (which may be run by an idiots), I also get the desire to mandate change.

[HokieHigh]

5 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

This is the start and end of the discussion as I see it. 

Only dumb owners with zero foresight would skimp on something like this. A trash field is pennies to update compared to the risk potential. 

But since players have to play on other team's fields (which may be run by an idiots), I also get the desire to mandate change.

The revenue gets shared anyways. One team can cheap out on turf and reap the benefits of the teams that dont.

[incognito_man]

8 minutes ago, HokieHigh said:

The revenue gets shared anyways. One team can cheap out on turf and reap the benefits of the teams that dont.

TV revenue, yes. But the Jets will lose money because Aaron got hurt.

[skibrett15]

4 hours ago, Refugee said:

I like this. There is obviously tons of untapped talent but the game is so specified that athletes need to learn the various positions to compete at the highest level. I’m glad Ken O. got his shot with us this year , hope he can develop into a player even though I know it’s a long shot. I nominate myself to be international talent scout for the Packers.  

This is a marketing ploy to drum up interest from abroad in the league.  Indicative that the league thinks US interest is almost saturated.

[skibrett15]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

That's the reason why teams prefer turf to grass.  It's easier to maintain turf and keep it at a high level.  Every year, we hear players, coaches, and fans complain about natural grass fields and how they're not safe.  But the second that there's a major injury on a turf field, it's time to overhaul all the turf fields.  It's not a winning situation, and honestly I don't think there's a single right answer to this question.

I think there's something to a competitive "choice" when it comes to field surface.  Being able to choose, within reason, the surface, design, and indoor/outdoor setting of your home field should be up to the team.

 

If I want to build the greatest show on turf, I should be able to.  If I want to build a team of mudders, I should be able to.  I think that's what the league is pushing back on.

 

Stupid part is, despite the argument being sound, I don't really see teams built to reflect the field/environment they play on.  NO is a defensive team playing on a race track, Buffalo is a lamborgini running on a dirt track.

[squire12]

2 hours ago, Old Guy said:

The question remains why can't they grow grass there properly? I've been to both places. The surrounding areas grow grass just fine. Why can't a NFL team with an agronomist grow grass? 

That is a legitimate question. 

Most stadiums playing surface is below the outside ground surface level.   Most of Chicago was built on a swamp.  the ground at Soldier field is to wet and is more like a bog than soil that you have in your back yard.

[ThatJerkDave]

21 minutes ago, squire12 said:

Most stadiums playing surface is below the outside ground surface level.   Most of Chicago was built on a swamp.  the ground at Soldier field is to wet and is more like a bog than soil that you have in your back yard.

What about Arlington Heights?  They will be the Arlington Heights Bears as soon as they move.  

[HokieHigh]

53 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

TV revenue, yes. But the Jets will lose money because Aaron got hurt.

Jersey sales probably pretty negligible at this point, especially when you take into account sales of their next QB that wouldnt happen if rodg stayed. 

Most games are probably sell outs.

Playoff tickets losses are real. 

 

Hard for me to say about value loss compared to turf/grass. 

 

And this doesnt account for the probability that aaron doesnt get hurt, which is now moot. 

 

The cost analysis has to be a close call or we wouldnt see the turf and grass in the same league. 

[Mr. Fussnputz]

1 hour ago, Packerraymond said:

I played on a brand new college turf field, nice isn't what Id call it. Pellets in all orifices, turf burns, cleats catching when you don't want them to. It was a hype fad for it's sharp look and low maintenance, it's fast to play on but I'd rather be tackled on grass any day of the week. 

It's a player safety issue, they shouldn't have to make concessions on that. You sound like a total suit taking that stance. The NFL is going to get hit massively hard in the ratings game until they can flex the Jets out of primetime. Money is made when the best product is on the field.

Football was made to be played on grass, not concrete. I remember some of the players from the 60's saying they liked playing on a muddy field because it gave easily and they didn't have many injuries. Of course they slid around a lot, but that was for both teams. Level playing field, ya know. Sometimes you couldn't even see their numbers. The game is too antiseptic now, and too fast. Physics tells me the bigger the players are and the faster they're moving when they collide, the greater the force of impact is going to be. That means more injuries. Bring back the mud, make all the players wear more padding, and please put a layer of soft, high density foam on the outside of the helmets. It can be molded and painted like a regular helmet, but will save a lot of concussions.

IMHO football may be the greatest game ever invented. It involves strength, speed, mental alertness, team work, strategy, deception, and more. Making it safer won't change any of that, so do it.

[pgwingman]

1 hour ago, incognito_man said:

Only dumb owners with zero foresight would skimp on something like this. 

AKA, all of them

[Refugee]

7 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

This is a marketing ploy to drum up interest from abroad in the league.  Indicative that the league thinks US interest is almost saturated.

If that's the case then all good marketing is a ploy.  Generating more interest and tapping into talent is sound strategy.  Ideally, some international academies or NCAA recruiting can be developed before they get to pros.

As for the turf question, I absolutely feel it's safer on grass but to what degree?  I don't know.  The NFLPA seems to be taking it up as a bargaining point so we will see.  As for the Pack, if the Bears switch to artificial turf that would be 3/4 of the NFCN.  I wouldn't like it for injury possibilities but also as to how we build our roster vs. the other 3 dome teams.  Interesting to see how things unfold.

[skibrett15]

1 hour ago, Refugee said:

If that's the case then all good marketing is a ploy.  Generating more interest and tapping into talent is sound strategy.  Ideally, some international academies or NCAA recruiting can be developed before they get to pros.

As for the turf question, I absolutely feel it's safer on grass but to what degree?  I don't know.  The NFLPA seems to be taking it up as a bargaining point so we will see.  As for the Pack, if the Bears switch to artificial turf that would be 3/4 of the NFCN.  I wouldn't like it for injury possibilities but also as to how we build our roster vs. the other 3 dome teams.  Interesting to see how things unfold.

I guess what I mean is that it's probably not going to unearth any new talent.  Players international in origin might get a little longer leash to develop, but if they were promising they wouldn't need a dedicated spot to blossom, they would kick someone else off the end of the roster and be on the normal practice squad with or without this change.

NFL isn't going to create any more stars here unless they have an actual international league and grow the game at lower levels.  Australia, I'd say.

[Refugee]

13 minutes ago, skibrett15 said:

I guess what I mean is that it's probably not going to unearth any new talent.  Players international in origin might get a little longer leash to develop, but if they were promising they wouldn't need a dedicated spot to blossom, they would kick someone else off the end of the roster and be on the normal practice squad with or without this change.

NFL isn't going to create any more stars here unless they have an actual international league and grow the game at lower levels.  Australia, I'd say.

I disagree that it won't unearth new talent.  Look at the list of guys still active since the program started in 2017. Mailiata, OT for the Eagles is probably the biggest success story but there are others still on the 53 of some teams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Player_Pathway_Program

[pf9]

I think a primary market should only carry a regional game involving a division rival when the team in question is playing the team that calls that primary market home.

Like the Vikings should only be on regional TV in Green Bay and Milwaukee when they are playing the Packers.

[skibrett15]

57 minutes ago, Refugee said:

I disagree that it won't unearth new talent.  Look at the list of guys still active since the program started in 2017. Mailiata, OT for the Eagles is probably the biggest success story but there are others still on the 53 of some teams.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Player_Pathway_Program

my point is that these are players who would have made it with/without the program.  They are NFL caliber players who are on teams and would be regardless.

Adding a special affirmative action spot for international players may cause teams to dig a little bit deeper, but they are already looking for football players to play on their football team.  The same result could be accomplished by adding an extra practice squad spot that isn't designated for international players.