Yes!!! I was thinking that earlier today. 2009 in particular, halfway through the season, probably even further in, we were all dejected and disgusted because we were losing these low scoring ugly games. We won our last few games and backed into the playoffs and had a storybook run. it gave me a little bit of hope.
It appears that turf is grippier than grass, especially when wearing certain types of cleats. This increases the torque on areas like ankles and knees when turning/planting, which can lead to more injuries. At least according to a doctor. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/science-grass-turf-debate-sports-103833861
Those people can be problems at work but this isn’t work. Clearly some of you expect your fellow fans to act a certain way regarding this incredible 4-3 triumph we’re experiencing at the moment, and we’re not living up to those expectations.
The Jets haven't lost a game in over a month. They haven't suffered a blowout in almost two months. They're the only team to beat the Eagles, who sit atop the NFL standings right now. That's damn near paradise by Jets' standards. I can be happy that the franchise found this tiny oasis with a little fresh water and a hint of shade without deluding myself into believing it's the fountain of youth. When this very flawed team loses again, I will recognize they're just heading back into the desert, hoping for find something better on the other side, and I'll cross my fingers that they'll find it before I'm dead.
According to Costello of the Post, JD had several conversations with the Vikings regarding Cleveland. The Jets decided that Cleveland wasn't a good fit. Hackett and Carter would have had a lot of input into that decision. Of course, that could just be the rationale he gave. Perhaps Minnesota was trying to hold JD up for a 4th round pick or more.
Excellent, thoughtful post! Thanks. I found the following to be the most surprising thing in the article. Turf Wars – Natural vs Artificial While players mostly favor stadiums with grass surfaces, the natural versus artificial turf debate could be settled on the grounds of safety. Seven of the ten stadiums with the lowest injury rates feature an artificial surface, perhaps suggesting that playing on grass poses a greater risk of injury. 10 Least-Cursed Stadiums Stadium Injury Reports Per Game Surface GEHA Field 17.78 Grass Qualcomm Stadium 17.74 Astro Caesars Superdrome 17.74 Astro Bank of America Stadium 17.57 Astro Candlestick Park 17.57 Grass Mercedes-Benz Stadium 17.08 Astro TCF Bank Stadium 16.83 Astro Edward Jones Dome 16.78 Astro Georgia Dome 16.74 Astro Giants Stadium 16.63 Astro Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 14.35 Grass
Really? I must have missed that. Well if anything it shows JD wasn’t sitting on his hands at least …. the Vikings were probably holding out for more too I bet.
If you had just posted your first two sentences, I would have been setting up fake accounts to give you likes.
Fair enough. Please let me assure you and all other 'dyed in the wool darksiders' to use your own description, that I am not trying to tell anyone what to do. Far from it. Most of the post you didn't like had question marks in it and even the end sentence...."bloody hell, can we lighten up a bit?"..... was a plea rather than an instruction. This is a common interest forum and posters will have different opinions and perspectives. Live and let live. I was trying to understand the human nature angle. I just wonder why people involve themselves in a leisure pursuit that leads to more frustration, disappointment and downright anger than any enjoyment derived from it. I was wondering if this was a by-product of some people being naturally more pessimistic than others in real-life, so that is the natural perspective they take. On a personal level I completely understand constructive criticisms and often make them myself. I confess that I dislike constant whinging though. None of us are on the payroll or can affect the outcome, so I find moaning a distraction. As a result I've got a few people on ignore, but all that is doing is to manage my own feed, rather than trying to shut them down. Again, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do and I hope you accept that at face value. We do have different viewpoints so I don't expect us to agree on much - but I hope we can agree on that, at least.
My apologies for lumping you in, but as a guy who is half realist half pessimist, not much optimism when it comes to the Jets, I am constantly being told I'm not a "real" fan, I should go root for another team, I am a fair weather fan - shut up and support your team, etc. I'm at the point where I get angry at being told those things, not because I disagree with people who want to be optimistic, but who the hell are they to tell me how I should feel and root for my team? And fair weather? That's comical. It just goes to show they don't even know what it means. The fact that I'm sticking around and living and dying with the worst times is the exact opposite of a fair weather fan lol Again my apologies for lumping you in with others.
No apologies are needed, my friend. As sure as anything, we are all in it together. I'd not considered the angle that people might be digging you out. There surely cannot be such a thing as a fair weather Jets fan. We've all been in it for long enough !! I think it is great that we all don't look at the same thing, the same way. I've heard Philly fans moaning about one loss, 49ers fans wanting Salah's passion back, Chief's fans on the go for losing to Denver for the first time in 8 years. I just think it's amazing how people see the same thing very differently. We have what we have. I love it and so do pretty much all of us on here. You certainly do @broomulack, there is no doubt. As an International fan, I come over for games with my two sons-in-law every so often and they are magical experiences. I love this place as it allows me the opportunity to learn from people who are nearer to it than me, who have all enhanced my enjoyment so much. This is a friendly and informative forum and long may it continue to be so
And yet… the NFLPA isn’t a fan of turf fields. Injuries in NFL games, by stadium 7 of the 10 stadiums with the highest number of injuries per game on average use synthetic turf, and 7 of the 10 stadiums with the least injuries use grass. Allegiant Stadium (Las Vegas) 5.32 Grass Empower Field at Mile High (Denver) 5.08 Grass Mercedes-Benz Stadium (Atlanta) 4.94 Turf Paycor Stadium (Cincinnati) 4.85 Turf Ford Field (Detroit) 4.82 Turf Nissan Stadium (Nashville, Tenn.)4.76 Grass U.S. Bank Stadium (Minneapolis) 4.71 Turf MetLife Stadium (New York City) 4.7 Turf SoFi Stadium (Los Angeles) 4.65 Turf Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis) 4.63 Turf
Those two sets of stats contradict each other on which surface is safer, but the numbers of injuries per game are way off. Something is amiss.
I’d say 5 a game is more likely than 17. I’ve used this data in prior discussions, but take note that it’s not injuries per game but how many people are on injured lists week to week. Another article that references MetLife. Bottom line: the Jets and Giants have more people on injured lists per season than most of the other teams for over a decade running. Turf or not it’s no coincidence at this point.
It’s pretty strange as I don’t understand how there can be such inconsistency across turf fields. How are they all that different? It obviously is given what you just posted but it’s weird. Just like how the SB grass in Arizona and San Francisco some years back was a sloppy disaster. Can the NFL hire a couple million dollars worth of scientists to get the best playing surface going?
What does not seem to be part of the discussion is how shoes of different design interact with the playing surface. I'd like to see Nike, Adidas and other shoe companies spend that kind of money on researching cleat size and placement to maximize safety on the various surfaces. The question then would be if different shoe patterns could be mandated for different playing fields or would players object to that.
I don' t know how specialized it is, but I think they do this to a degree. I remember seeing a pregame segment years back (might have been Revis) where he had brought like 6 pairs of shoes to the field and was trying each one on the playing surface, with varying cleats styles.
One article actually did mention that specific types of cleats seemed to lead to more injuries on turf because of the way they hook into the ground, though they didn’t get more specific than that. They also mentioned that even with that knowledge some players still don’t change to different types when on turf. What amazes me is the idea that it’s about maintaining costs. I have to imagine it’s cheaper to maintain a natural or hybrid type field like in Green Bay than it is to pay, say, Aaron Fucking Rodgers.
