Time for New Turf?

Think about the crappy Heinz field condition that we've seen way too often the past several years...Doesn't it seem as though it would greatly diminish any advantage we might have gained by adding all the "speed players" this offseason?

What do you think the Steelers should do about the playing surface at Heinz?

A. Leave it as is
B. Soak it down before each game and make it even spongier
C. Put in the newest and best synthetic field turf
D. Go with the "fastest" surface possible
E. Something else

A. ........

C.........

A.....................

E. & A.-Stop sharing the field so much and let it be.

[QUOTE=8467thekraken;607332]E. & A.-Stop sharing the field so much and let it be.[/QUOTE]

It would help greatly to stop sharing the field so much...but do you really see that happening? I don't.

"C"..........

[QUOTE=8467thekraken;607332]E. & A.-Stop sharing the field so much and let it be.[/QUOTE]

They can't stop sharing the field with PITT because they no longer have one.

Well, maybe Pitt needs to get there own damn field, then.

It isn't sharing the field with Pitt that causes the problem...it's the weekend hosting the WPIAL games...

They will continue to share and to have natural grass...

Ahh.........

Call me old school, but I love grass, mud, snow, rain, ...

The argument that it detracts from the game simply isn't true. Roethlisberger played one of his most impressive games in a driving rainstorm with mud an inch deep (yes, it was in Miami but that doesn't take away from what he did or the field conditions).

and I would bet most players prefer grass over unforgiving AT.

A...................................

C. Loose turf causes injuries.

[QUOTE=NorthCoast;607353]
and I would bet most players prefer grass over unforgiving AT.[/QUOTE]

Artificial turf has been greatly improved in the past decade or so. I am under the impression that the newer, better varieties of field turf present no significant increase in risk of injury compared to natural grass turf.

[QUOTE=BradshawsHairdresser;607367]Artificial turf has been greatly improved in the past decade or so. I am under the impression that the newer, better varieties of field turf present no significant increase in risk of injury compared to natural grass turf.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=#ffd700]"[I]Player preference[/I]
A recent survey of 1,511 active NFL players by the NFL players association found that 73% of the players preferred playing on a natural grass system, while only 18% preferred artificial turf (4). Nine-percent of the players had no preference. "

[/COLOR][COLOR=#00ffff]If I was an NFL player I would worry more about this:

[/COLOR][COLOR=#ffd700]"[I]Player injuries
[/I]There is a lack of research comparing injuries incurred on new in-fill artificial fields vs. natural grass fields (5). There are data indicating that the traditional artificial turf fields increased athlete injury, primarily due to increased surface hardness.
Although actual data are not available, anecdotal data are available from NFL players. Players were asked in a 2006 survey “Which surface do you think causes more soreness and fatigue to play on?”. Five-percent felt like natural grass systems increased fatigue, while 74% felt that artificial turf systems were more responsible for fatigue (5). Twenty-one percent felt they were the same. In the open comments section of the survey, the most common comment was “make all fields grass to prevent injuries.”

[I]Potential increases in infections [/I]
An aspect of synthetic turf that is now receiving increased scrutiny is the potential for increased incidences of infections among players that play primarily on in-fill systems. In a report titled “Texas Football Succumbs to Virulent Staph Infection From Turf”, at least 276 football players were reported to be infected with an antibiotic-resistant staph infection, a rate of 517 for each 100,000 individuals (6). The [/COLOR][URL="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/15/1763"][COLOR=#ffd700]U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[/COLOR][/URL][COLOR=#ffd700] in Atlanta reported a rate for the general population of 32 in 100,000. These infections were primarily associated with increased skin abrasions associated with synthetic turf and the risk of infection that might occur off the field from infections. In-fill systems must now be routinely treated with special disinfectants to reduce the likelihood of infections, adding another cost to the maintenance of these fields."

[/COLOR][URL]http://turf.uark.edu/turfhelp/archives/021109.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=BradshawsHairdresser;607367]Artificial turf has been greatly improved in the past decade or so. I am under the impression that the newer, better varieties of field turf present no significant increase in risk of injury compared to natural grass turf.[/QUOTE]


at the college level it seems to be a problem (published 2012):


[QUOTE][COLOR=#00ffff]College football players suffer knee injuries about 40 percent more often when playing on an artificial surface compared to when they're playing on grass, according to a new study.
"We thought it was interesting because many universities are switching to the new generation artificial turf," said Dr. Jason Dragoo, the study's lead author and a professor at Stanford University School of Medicine...................The findings, published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, were part of a study looking back on knee injuries among college football players to see when they might be most vulnerable to getting hurt.. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Good info. Might change my mind on the matter.

Still wish the Steelers could upgrade their terrible field conditions somehow. There are decent natural grass surfaces and and then there's the embarrassment that we see at Heinz.

[QUOTE=BradshawsHairdresser;607371]Good info. Might change my mind on the matter.

Still wish the Steelers could upgrade their terrible field conditions somehow. There are decent natural grass surfaces and and then there's the embarrassment that we see at Heinz.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I agree. Having a muddy field on a sunny, perfectly fine autumn day is not the most best way to represent a model NFL franchise.

i think our style of football is better suited for natural grass

Good solid natural grass field>turf...because there is more forgiveness. But, that isn't what the Steelers have...they have a mud pit which slows them down and IMO is more of an injury risk.

[QUOTE=NorthCoast;607373]Yes, I agree. Having a muddy field on a sunny, perfectly fine autumn day is not the most best way to represent a model NFL franchise.[/QUOTE] I'm not really concerned about this aspect of it. I like other teams dreading to play at Heinz field. IMO, it adds to the mystique of the Steelers nastiness. I am however concerned about neutralizing our speed and having a field with too much give which imo can also be an injury risk. The research on turf does change my mind a bit about the solution however. The solution lies in not sharing the field with anyone else during the season. Is that a possibility? Probably not, as I am assuming it's either a tax issue or a cash cow issue. Money always wins.

Leave the field as is. Other teams don't like playing on it? Tough. It's called "home-field advantage."

[QUOTE=Shawn;607385]Good solid natural grass field>turf...because there is more forgiveness. But, that isn't what the Steelers have...they have a mud pit which slows them down and IMO is more of an injury risk.[/QUOTE]

Yes to this. Natural grass is much better, but when the roots of the grass can't hold and it pulls loose it hurts the direction we are going with more speed on both sides of the ball.

[QUOTE=Slapstick;607347]It isn't sharing the field with Pitt that causes the problem...it's the weekend hosting the WPIAL games...

They will continue to share and to have natural grass...[/QUOTE]

Those are the championship games only, and all 4 of them take place on the same weekend in November. And then the field is re-sodded before the next Steeler game.

[QUOTE=8467thekraken;607332]E. & A.-Stop sharing the field so much and let it be.[/QUOTE]

I may be wrong, but I thought that sharing the field was part of getting public financing for the stadium.

[QUOTE=phillyesq;607405]I may be wrong, but I thought that sharing the field was part of getting public financing for the stadium.[/QUOTE]

it was! However, it is sort of a "Catch-22" because you could actually share it more if it wasn't natural grass and was Field Turf.

[QUOTE=Oviedo;607396]Yes to this. Natural grass is much better, but when the roots of the grass can't hold and it pulls loose it hurts the direction[B] we are going with more speed on both sides of the ball[/B].[/QUOTE]


i dont see them spending all that money because 2 fast players were drafted, one that might not even be a factor

Natural :Boobsor artificial :Boobs?

I'll go all natural all day every day.

Cause silicone parts are made for toys.

[QUOTE=squidkid;607411]i dont see them spending all that money because 2 fast players were drafted, one that might not even be a factor[/QUOTE]
I think 3 fast players were drafted, and a couple more fast free agents were added...might be enough to make a difference...if the sorry field doesn't take that advantage away.

A...

the field wasn't that bad last year.

[QUOTE=Jigawatts;607413]Natural :Boobsor artificial :Boobs?

I'll go all natural all day every day.

Cause silicone parts are made for toys.[/QUOTE]

Hey, what were they like anyway? They looked pretty good, are they real? Are they built for speed or comfort? What'd you do with them? Motorboat? You play the motorboat? You motorboatin' son of a bee-yotch! You old sailor you! Where is she? She still in the house?

[QUOTE=Jigawatts;607413]Natural :Boobsor artificial :Boobs?

I'll go all natural all day every day.

[/QUOTE]

there are always exceptions to every rule...;)

While the turf didn't look bad last year, it never hurts to look for solutions to improve it.