NFL News & Notes

[incognito_man]

30 minutes ago, turf toe said:

for christ sakes, your buying this womens laughter and joking around in a talk show as fact, you know damn well she made those decisions based on more then just talking to friends, if you consider that talk show interview to be scientific evaluation, it's not

and there has been a ton of info gathering about turf, again the only reason for it's use is cheap to zero maintenance 

Let's also acknowledge the author of the tweet is a med student who goes on tucker Carlson.

I skeptical he is a reasonable and unbiased source

[Dubz41]

7 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

The last time we "Just listened to science" it turned out that "science" was just a bunch of women calling each other over wine and shooting from the hip about which of our civil libraries we would be allowed that day. Spare me "just listen to science". 

Without the per field injury data, there isn't much to conclude from this. If Panther Stadium is a hell hole but Cowboy stadium has no discernible difference, there's nothing to it. 

Should basketball be played on field turf because there's more give than wood laminate? 

This is one of your worst posts.

Really, you're usually better than this.

[squire12]

31 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

CBAs run 10 years my man, you're saying when we have an idea for player safety that will cost money, we should say, "good idea, let's table that for 10 years from now." Lol come on.

I can't believe we're arguing anti-grass for the game of football. The game is aesthetically better on grass. 

If it were only as simple as making a unilateral decision to make a change.

[MantyWrestler]

10 hours ago, turf toe said:

so you side with the league who really doesn't back up what they say concerning player safety

Where did I say that?

I said if it’s that important to the players, collectively bargain for a better playing surface.

[MantyWrestler]

7 hours ago, Bcv said:

Ah man, you really got me there. That sample size really shows it all. 
 

Wait..

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/36243906/nflpa-new-injury-data-shows-grass-significantly-safer-turf?platform=amp

Well that’s fine but players get hurt on all surfaces. That’s not really the point though. They fight at the bargaining table for everything else, fight for this. 

[MantyWrestler]

7 hours ago, Bcv said:

I’m sure the billionaires will thank you for your hard work defending them. 

I’m NOT defending them! 
 

Workplace conditions are a concern in every workplace but I never hear about that when their contract is up. Only when a player gets hurt. 

[AlexGreen#20]

54 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

CBAs run 10 years my man, you're saying when we have an idea for player safety that will cost money, we should say, "good idea, let's table that for 10 years from now." Lol come on.

I can't believe we're arguing anti-grass for the game of football. The game is aesthetically better on grass. 

Or the NFLPA comes to the Union and says "We'd like to make the following adjustment" and they negotiate.

[Toddfather]

2 hours ago, MantyWrestler said:

I’m NOT defending them! 
 

Workplace conditions are a concern in every workplace but I never hear about that when their contract is up. Only when a player gets hurt. 

How many players are in the league? Around under 2,000? There are a lot of them who won't last long, and I think some of the problem is everyone wants to get their piece before they no longer have an option to. I'm not saying you don't have a point, I just don't know if it is as cut and dry a true great example of coming to the table together for the long term good of the league. It seems very much like get what we can, and hope for the best. 

[MantyWrestler]

41 minutes ago, Toddfather said:

How many players are in the league? Around under 2,000? There are a lot of them who won't last long, and I think some of the problem is everyone wants to get their piece before they no longer have an option to. I'm not saying you don't have a point, I just don't know if it is as cut and dry a true great example of coming to the table together for the long term good of the league. It seems very much like get what we can, and hope for the best. 

We’ll, if your not going to fight for it, don’t complain when the owners save money by using turf. 

[squire12]

how easy is if for the owners to replace the playing surface in the stadiums?   From what I could find, there are only a few teams that own the stadiums where the teams play.  I am not sure the team could make a unilateral decision to have the playing surface replaced.

[MaximusGluteus]

14 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Let's also acknowledge the author of the tweet is a med student who goes on tucker Carlson.

I skeptical he is a reasonable and unbiased source

I'd be interested in seeing the full video to get full context of the conversation.  Interesting how that never gets posted from these types.  I wonder why...

[turf toe]

11 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Or the NFLPA comes to the Union and says "We'd like to make the following adjustment" and they negotiate.

always thought the NFLPA was the union and dealt directly with the owners?

whatever, changing from turf to grass is peanuts, the cost of a stud RB for one year will cover the cost for the 14 teams still using turf, no need to wait another 7 years to do this.

It cost the league 18 billion to settle with the concussed players, if turf is proven to cost injury's, what will the league pay to settle that?

[AlexGreen#20]

9 minutes ago, turf toe said:

always thought the NFLPA was the union and dealt directly with the owners?

whatever, changing from turf to grass is peanuts, the cost of a stud RB for one year will cover the cost for the 14 teams still using turf, no need to wait another 7 years to do this.

It cost the league 18 billion to settle with the concussed players, if turf is proven to cost injury's, what will the league pay to settle that?

1. The NFLPA is the union. They deal with the owners. 

2. The owners disagree that it's worth the cost. 

3. Why wait 7 years? Why not make a formal proposal today? 

4. The league owed that money for hiding the data that they had, lying to the players, and paying for damages that occured due to that obfuscation, especially including long term care. 

Those are actions that would be deemed unreasonable by a jury. Why would a jury think that playing on turf (Something done in every league in America) is an unreasonable action? Especially when certain NFL players PREFER turf fields?

[turf toe]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. The NFLPA is the union. They deal with the owners. 

2. The owners disagree that it's worth the cost. 

3. Why wait 7 years? Why not make a formal proposal today? 

4. The league owed that money for hiding the data that they had, lying to the players, and paying for damages that occured due to that obfuscation, especially including long term care. 

Those are actions that would be deemed unreasonable by a jury. Why would a jury think that playing on turf (Something done in every league in America) is an unreasonable action? Especially when certain NFL players PREFER turf fields?

the jury will decide based on evidence and that will come from Doctors and studies, which already are showing that turf causes more injury's the grass, didn't hear that owners feel it's against the cost, 800,000 per owner to better protect there players, and insure no further litigation or law suits, is less then the cost of a lawyer should it end up in litigation, it's smart money

[Kampfgeist]

Turf vs Grass fields.   What a strange hill for people to die on...