Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Turf 2020 and Beyond


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

Why do I get the idea that if Indy opted to replace the turf at LOS with grass, you would post bitching about the cost and ridiculously expensive maintenance?

It would be a wrong idea, as long as no taxpayer money was expended.  Let the Irsay's/Colts pay for it.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Well if Greg Doyel says it.......🙄

Because no one else has ever had a separated shoulder on grass when they are smoked and the body weight of another person drives them into the ground??

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bash Riprock said:

Because no one else has ever had a separated shoulder on grass when they are smoked and the body weight of another person drives them into the ground??

Lol this argument is so tiresome. No one is arguing that injuries don't happen on grass. They just happen at lower rates than artificial turf, which has been proven over and over again in studies. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scarab527 said:

Lol this argument is so tiresome. No one is arguing that injuries don't happen on grass. They just happen at lower rates than artificial turf, which has been proven over and over again in studies. 

Can you prove this for separated shoulders that the onset of this injury in the NFL is less on grass fields than on field turf?

How can anyone be shocked when a team chooses to run their QB in the fashion the Colts do in the NFL?  2 concussions and now a shoulder separation?  Get to the real root cause of his injuries. 

Remember the experiences of Andrew Luck?  While everyone takes the simple approach and blames his protection, people have seem to have forgotten his poor choices when running the ball and refusing to slide.  His lacerated kidney was due to him getting smoked while running the football.  

I am not saying there isn't some factor for turf....but its not like Richardson gets up and skips back to the huddle on some of these hits he's taken, including the one that just separated his shoulder on ANY surface.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bash Riprock said:

Can you prove this for separated shoulders that the onset of this injury in the NFL is less on grass fields than on field turf?

How can anyone be shocked when a team chooses to run their QB in the fashion the Colts do in the NFL?  2 concussions and now a shoulder separation?  Get to the real root cause of his injuries. 

Remember the experiences of Andrew Luck?  While everyone takes the simple approach and blames his protection, people have seem to have forgotten his poor choices when running the ball and refusing to slide.  His lacerated kidney was due to him getting smoked while running the football.  

I am not saying there isn't some factor for turf....but its not like Richardson gets up and skips back to the huddle on some of these hits he's taken, including the one that just separated his shoulder on ANY surface.

Here's a link to a study that shows in the NFL shoulder injuries are 9% more likely to occur on turf than grass. https://www.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/11/08/the-effect-of-turf-on-injuries-in-the-nfl/ 

Also relevant to this, this study actually shows that contact with ground injuries happen more on turf than natural grass:  https://www.the33rdteam.com/category/analysis/analyzing-nfl-injury-frequency-on-grass-vs-turf-fields/

I will also say that many studies have come out saying that mobile QBs actually get hurt at similar rates than 'statue' QBs (with some even saying they get hurt less), this being just one of them: https://www.bruinsportsanalytics.com/post/qb-mobility

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, scarab527 said:

Here's a link to a study that shows in the NFL shoulder injuries are 9% more likely to occur on turf than grass. https://www.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/11/08/the-effect-of-turf-on-injuries-in-the-nfl/ 

Also relevant to this, this study actually shows that contact with ground injuries happen more on turf than natural grass:  https://www.the33rdteam.com/category/analysis/analyzing-nfl-injury-frequency-on-grass-vs-turf-fields/

I will also say that many studies have come out saying that mobile QBs actually get hurt at similar rates than 'statue' QBs (with some even saying they get hurt less), this being just one of them: https://www.bruinsportsanalytics.com/post/qb-mobility

 

I only took the time to review your first report, and you are leaving out tons.  Focusing on the shoulder, injuries per game incident rate for shoulders was 2nd lowest to core body injuries at 0.39 vs 0.42.  Signficant?  That would be debatable.  Looking at legs and hips....pretty much the same.  I believe the report goes on to suggest the data indicates non-contact injuries are even lower on turf.  So I am not sure this report overall is compelling with the results to push the full elimination of field turf.

My point on the Richardson injury was this was in no way shape or form a turf injury.  If one watched him being hit, and drove to the ground on his shoulder, one would not have called this a turf injury.  Doyel was doing what he does best and what the Star pays him to do....stir up 💩

image.png.27a32f5296947a3ec3fb649e0ee2b5df.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

I only took the time to review your first report, and you are leaving out tons.  Focusing on the shoulder, injuries per game incident rate for shoulders was 2nd lowest to core body injuries at 0.39 vs 0.42.  Signficant?  That would be debatable.  Looking at legs and hips....pretty much the same.  I believe the report goes on to suggest the data indicates non-contact injuries are even lower on turf.  So I am not sure this report overall is compelling with the results to push the full elimination of field turf.

My point on the Richardson injury was this was in no way shape or form a turf injury.  If one watched him being hit, and drove to the ground on his shoulder, one would not have called this a turf injury.  Doyel was doing what he does best and what the Star pays him to do....stir up 💩

image.png.27a32f5296947a3ec3fb649e0ee2b5df.png

The report also flat out states that approximately 48 extra injuries are caused per year solely because of the use of turf in the NFL. I would say that’s compelling enough reason to not use turf. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scarab527 said:

The report also flat out states that approximately 48 extra injuries are caused per year solely because of the use of turf in the NFL. I would say that’s compelling enough reason to not use turf. 

I guess doctors confirmed that the 48 additional injuries was due to turf and no other reason?  The report does not in any way say how that determination was made.  The same report also says non-contact injuries are actually lower on turf than on grass.  Also, what are the severity of those additional 48 injuries even if it can be proved that the injury cause was only due to one factor...turf?    Risk = incidence x severity.  48 additional injuries (certainly not all of them serious) over 272 regular season games (153 plays/game average) = 41,616 plays per season.  48/41,616 = .0012.  Is that statisically significant??  I guess the real focus comes down to how serious the injuries are and IF they are soley or even partially attributable to turf.

My comment was about Doyel, and Doyel was talking about the Richardson injury...did you see it?  Do you believe it was absolutely turf caused?  If so, we will agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

I guess doctors confirmed that the 48 additional injuries was due to turf and no other reason?  The report does not in any way say how that determination was made.  The same report also says non-contact injuries are actually lower on turf than on grass.  Also, what are the severity of those additional 48 injuries even if it can be proved that the injury cause was only due to one factor...turf?    Risk = incidence x severity.  48 additional injuries (certainly not all of them serious) over 272 regular season games (153 plays/game average) = 41,616 plays per season.  48/41,616 = .0012.  Is that statisically significant??  I guess the real focus comes down to how serious the injuries are and IF they are soley or even partially attributable to turf.

My comment was about Doyel, and Doyel was talking about the Richardson injury...did you see it?  Do you believe it was absolutely turf caused?  If so, we will agree to disagree.

It’s obviously significant to the guys who potentially lost millions of dollars over it. 
 

My point was that the whole “running qbs get injured more” take is not really backed up by evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scarab527 said:

It’s obviously significant to the guys who potentially lost millions of dollars over it. 
 

My point was that the whole “running qbs get injured more” take is not really backed up by evidence.

if owners truly felt they were losing millions as a result of player injuries due to field turf, it would all be replaced much like the old artificial turf back in the day.

also, if coaches didn't feel there was a risk to QB's running more at the pro level, there would be a lot more teams running RPO's similar to the college model.  Richardson has been hurt 3 times this season....each time running the football.  That is not refutable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bash Riprock said:

if owners truly felt they were losing millions as a result of player injuries due to field turf, it would all be replaced much like the old artificial turf back in the day.

also, if coaches didn't feel there was a risk to QB's running more at the pro level, there would be a lot more teams running RPO's similar to the college model.  Richardson has been hurt 3 times this season....each time running the football.  That is not refutable.

The point is the owners aren’t the ones losing money here…lol

And not to get too far off subject, but that’s not the reason RPOs aren’t the run in the NFL more at all. The speed of players make RPOs much less effective and ineligible man downfield rules are enforced much more in the NFL than college. Not to mention NFL teams utilizing offenses that operate under center more often than not. It’s not about avoiding getting QBs hurt. 

Edited by scarab527
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, btownqbcoach1 said:

Oh wow. Another topic completely off topic, I'm shocked

Did I read someone blame the turf for ARs injury? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Grass sucks, tbh. 

Always coaches of teams that have never won anything that talk the most on this website, ironic. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scarab527 said:

Always coaches of teams that have never won anything that talk the most on this website, ironic. 

Silly comment.....you may want to go look at Brownstown's record for the past 25+ years before deciding to type.  Outstanding program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...