Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Artificial turf should be banned in the NFL.

Eazy-E

By Eazy-E,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

ColaPanther Apprentice

ColaPanther

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Eazy-E said:

I absolutely hated the fact that Tepper decided to ditch the grass for turf in the offseason. I get it is a penny pinching move and even with all the money he is saving he still isn't having the end zones painted black. 

The NFLPA was pushing to have turf banned last year although I don't know what ever came of it. Clearly the NFL doesn't care nor does our owner as we just switched our field. I'm wondering how Tepper is feeling after seeing our first round pick and our best player go down on non contact injuries due to turf.

I did some research on turf and some of the number are pretty staggering.

For a league that preaches player safety this is just insane. Thursday Night Football is another safety issue all on it own.

Take FIFA for example. For as terrible and corrupt an organization as FIFA, they are at least smart enough to not allow turf to ever be used in the World Cup. Oh and Tepper using the excuse to move to turf for our incoming MLS team, the majority of Pro European Football clubs play on grass and if a club wants to use turf it has to be approved by FIFA.

Look at it this way, Horn and McCaffrey would still be healthy right now if they would have been playing on grass.

Ban turf and do away with Thursday Night Football please and thank you.

Been saying this for years. It’s absurd. Not only is turf dangerous, grass looks better too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Tbe said:


it might be higher, but it’s nowhere near 70%.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/turf-type-and-nfl-injuries-part-i

I went back to check and the research that the NFLPA presented to the NFL in 2020 stated that it was actually 88% for ACLs and 32% for ankle/foot injuries.

Edited by Eazy-E
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tbe Grand Master

Tbe

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Eazy-E said:

I went back to check and the research that the NFLPA presented to the NFL in 2020 stated that it was actually 88% for ACLs and 32% for ankle/foot injuries.


Confusing. I wonder if they were looking at college as well? I know those surfaces can be pretty bad.

Here is another good source.

https://www.brockusa.com/wp-portfolio/ajsm-nfl-higher-rates-of-lower-extremity-injury-on-synthetic-turf-compared-with-natural-turf-among-nfl-athletes-2019/
 

Ive heard these surfaces have changed a lot over the years. I can’t find any good info on the differences and injury rates though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eazy-E Mentor

Eazy-E

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Tbe said:


Confusing. I wonder if they were looking at college as well? I know those surfaces can be pretty bad.

Here is another good source.

https://www.brockusa.com/wp-portfolio/ajsm-nfl-higher-rates-of-lower-extremity-injury-on-synthetic-turf-compared-with-natural-turf-among-nfl-athletes-2019/
 

Ive heard these surfaces have changed a lot over the years. I can’t find any good info on the differences and injury rates though.

Yeah also knowing the NFLPA is trying to make a point I’m sure who ever is doing the research and coming up with the number is obviously doing it in the favor of the NFLPA.

Still, even if it’s only a small percentage increase, it can still be completely avoided by just having everyone use the same grass field.

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Jackie Lee
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By Jackie Lee · Posted

      Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • strato
      If you wanted Danny Dimes here’s the chance

      By strato · Posted

      Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...