Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: Jets praise new turf at new stadium after the practice-ESPN

  1. #21
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,472
    I coulda told you that after my daughter fractured her ankle the second time playing soccer on it.

    As bad as I feel for the athletes, it's a war crime what youth sports is doing to our kids in this country [climbs down off soap box]

  2. #22
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105
    [QUOTE=Piper;3628384]I coulda told you that after my daughter fractured her ankle the second time playing soccer on it.

    As bad as I feel for the athletes, it's a war crime what youth sports is doing to our kids in this country [climbs down off soap box][/QUOTE]

    Damn, that's horrible, Piper. I hope she made a full recovery.

    But the study is disingenuous because there are so few grass fields compared to Turf fields in the NFL. There are triply more games played on Turf than grass so, of course, there will be more injuries on Turf.

  3. #23
    Sometimes the turf isn't the only culprit. Equipment, weather, etc., also factor into this.

    How about steroids? Does increasing the size and strength muscle surrounding the joint capsule (knee), without proportionately increasing the tensile strength of the ligaments and tendons have any affect? Seriously, I've always wondered if steroids and hormone therapy have any impact on this.

  4. #24
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,473
    You would think with all the technology being dedicated to fields there would be be some advancement with shoes. For the most part they look very similar to cleats I was wearing more than 30 years ago and I spare no expense when it comes to equipment for my kids.

  5. #25
    [QUOTE=SMC;3628393]Damn, that's horrible, Piper. I hope she made a full recovery.

    But the study is disingenuous because there are so few grass fields compared to Turf fields in the NFL. There are triply more games played on Turf than grass so, of course, there will be more injuries on Turf.[/QUOTE]

    Well the study should be adjusted for injuries per field turf game vs natural grass so its apples to apples.

    In any case, really would be nice to have a real grass field, IMO.

  6. #26
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oceanside, Long Island
    Posts
    10,959
    [I][COLOR=blue]"With all due and sincere respect to Antrel Rolle, who is a wonderful player, [B]he is simply not medically trained or qualified to make such a statement,"[/B] FieldTurf spokesman Chip Namias told ESPN.com. "The people who run NFL teams are ultra conscientious, and there's a very good reason why 21 of the 32 member clubs use FieldTurf."[/COLOR][/I]

    This statement jumped out at me as sounding remarkably similar to some of the defenses put out by big tobacco. For every independent study that showed tobacco was dangerous, they could pull several out which puported to show inconclusive results.

    Any study comparing Grass to Turf at the NFL level would obviously need to account for difference in the number of games played on each. Such a comparison would have to be something along the lines of <injury type>, <number of injuries> per <number of games played>.

    Still and all 88% is a big number.

  7. #27
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Way Upstate NY
    Posts
    931
    I think I missed something here, this is an athletic sport right? Injuries do happen don't they?

    I dont get it, so replace field turf and go back to astro turf or grass? Ah, yeah, that will remove injureis :eek:

    Its a game, injuries happen deal with it. Stop complaining about a perfectly flat, soft, fast field, that happens to not be able to eliminate all possible injuries, fluke or not.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    22,105
    [QUOTE=EM31;3628437][I][COLOR=blue]"With all due and sincere respect to Antrel Rolle, who is a wonderful player, [B]he is simply not medically trained or qualified to make such a statement,"[/B] FieldTurf spokesman Chip Namias told ESPN.com. "The people who run NFL teams are ultra conscientious, and there's a very good reason why 21 of the 32 member clubs use FieldTurf."[/COLOR][/I]

    [b]This statement jumped out at me as sounding remarkably similar to some of the defenses put out by big tobacco[/B]. For every independent study that showed tobacco was dangerous, they could pull several out which puported to show inconclusive results.

    Any study comparing Grass to Turf at the NFL level would obviously need to account for difference in the number of games played on each. Such a comparison would have to be something along the lines of <injury type>, <number of injuries> per <number of games played>.

    Still and all 88% is a big number.[/QUOTE]

    LOL

    There were hundreds of studies--peer reviewed--on the dangers of tobacco. There is ONE non peer reviewed study on Turf vs. grass and it reminds you that?

    The study in question is actually an old study that was panned because of shoddy methodology. The only reason why this comes out now is that the lazy, cheep Vikings rather than commission their own study decided to use the old one as part of their court papers.

  9. #29
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Naples FL
    Posts
    44,278
    [QUOTE=SMC;3628499]LOL

    There were hundreds of studies--peer reviewed--on the dangers of tobacco. There is ONE non peer reviewed study on Turf vs. grass and it reminds you that?

    The study in question is actually an old study that was panned because of shoddy methodology. The only reason why this comes out now is that the lazy, cheep Vikings rather than commission their own study decided to use the old one as part of their court papers.[/QUOTE]

    Reminds me of the quote from Tug McGraw when asked which he preferred astroturf or grass.. He said I never smoked astroturf..:P

  10. #30
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Oceanside, Long Island
    Posts
    10,959
    [QUOTE=SMC;3628499]LOL

    There were hundreds of studies--peer reviewed--on the dangers of tobacco. There is ONE non peer reviewed study on Turf vs. grass and it reminds you that?

    The study in question is actually an old study that was panned because of shoddy methodology. The only reason why this comes out now is that the lazy, cheep Vikings rather than commission their own study decided to use the old one as part of their court papers.[/QUOTE]
    [URL]http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d816e77f1&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true[/URL]

    Not such an old study. It was only presented recently although it sounds like parts of it may have been released earlier for comment. I also find it dubious that individual franchises would commission their own study after an NFL panel has just come out with one. That the Vikings are cheap there is little doubt but not in this regard.

    You are correct that the study drew some criticism over some of it's methods but...

    (a) This one was done by an NFL panel and was only presented recently.

    (b) The Fieldturf response was to cite another study paid for by (wait for it).... Fieldturf.

    "FieldTurf president Eric Daliere argues that the panel's methods are faulty and cites research by Montana State professor Michael Meyers that has been published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine. Meyers' work, though, has only looked at high school and college football, and not the NFL. [B][COLOR=red]FieldTurf paid for Meyers' recent study[/COLOR][/B] that found lower overall injury rates for college games played on the surface."

    (c) Yes there were questions about the methodology of the NFL study but...

    "while other statisticians expressed concerns, Hershman the author of the study commented 'Nobody withdrew anything,' he said. 'We actually did some review of our data based on some of the thoughts they raised, and [COLOR=red][B]we validated our data. Because we did all that, we now feel our data is valid, relevant and statistically significant.[/B][/COLOR]'"

    All of this will play out however it plays out, and it may be that the Fieldturf study is validated in the long run but in a battle of duelling "studies" I tend to be suspicious of the ones that are being touted by the side with an obvious commercial interest in a particular outcome.

    You are right of course there is absolutely no parallel on any level to the duelling studies that were cited over the effects of tobacco. Makers of Aluminum baseball bats also have studies showing that those are no more dangerous than wooden bats. No parallels there either.

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=Green&White51;3628383]Speaking of the turf, anyone know if they can or will do team logos in centerfield? I'd like to see our logo on the 50 on gameday.[/QUOTE]

    I was under the impression the endzones and 50 would have the home team logos.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us