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!

     

Super Bowl record of teams with turf on their home fields since 2010

PhillyB

By PhillyB,
in Carolina Panthers

 Share

Recommended Posts

PhillyB Grand Master

PhillyB

Posted
  • Author
Posted
6 minutes ago, The Huddler said:

TBH, I trust Tepper to build the Panthers brand. If turf, a dome, a new stadium... whatever he wants to do makes the panthers more popular, successful.. helps the city grow..  

..I'm all for it. 

 

Let the guy that grows money on trees grow the Panthers accordingly

my litmus test is that if mr scot is wailing about it it's probably a good move 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, rayzor said:

Looks like you are trying to veer into another discussion with that first statement, but to your second...turf definitely isn't a detriment to teams getting in and winning superbowls. Grass is better for health and aesthetics, but it won't interfere with our chances to win.

 

so it’s ultimately irrelevant to success, thanks for driving the point home

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhillyB Grand Master

PhillyB

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Growl said:

so it’s ultimately irrelevant to success, thanks for driving the point home

that is the exact point that all the massive babies unencumbered by brains bawling in the other thread about it need hammered between their ears 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, PhillyB said:

huh?

right, all the grandstanding about “heritage” and “tradition” in your OP wasn’t meant to frame this as a discussion of old school types “clinging” in opposition to enlightened forward change, forgive my projection 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

that is the exact point that all the massive babies unencumbered by brains bawling in the other thread about it need hammered between their ears 

most of those posts seem to relate to on field health and player interests, mine included

 

Edited by Growl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhillyB Grand Master

PhillyB

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, Growl said:

most of those posts seem to relate to on field health and player interests, mine included

i

they aren't made in good faith. they're using player health as props to bleat about meaningless heritage. we know this because they categorically resist all attempts to improve player safety.

they are crying over grass.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

they aren't made in good faith. they're using player health as props to bleat about meaningless heritage. we know this because they categorically resist all attempts to improve player safety.

they are crying over grass.

perhaps but the complaint against putting out a willfully inferior product with legitimate concerns over the health of the entity that sells the tickets because Dave needs just a few more billions is valid

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Floppin Grand Master

Floppin

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Growl said:

perhaps but the complaint against putting out a willfully inferior product with legitimate concerns over the health of the entity that sells the tickets because Dave needs just a few more billions is valid

Not really, as I've pointed out in the other thread. The stress on a natural field with all the added events and two major sports is likely to worsen conditions fairly significantly. I'd argue that having an artificial surface with consistent conditions is by far the superior option for all products that use the surface until there are separate venues.

If it was just a football field these overzealous concerns would be warranted but as it stands theyre just cover for some other bullshit agenda.

Edited by Floppin
  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Floppin said:

Not really, as I've pointed out in the other thread. The stress on a natural field with all the added events and two major sports is likely to worsen conditions fairly significantly. I'd argue that having an artificial surface with consistent conditions is by far the superior option for all products that use the surface until there are separate venues.

If it was just a football field these overzealous concerns would be warranted but as it stands theyre just cover for some other bullshit agenda.

aren’t you one of this boards bigger soccer fans? I’m inclined to believe you just like the change because it’s being made with the fc in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BrianS Veteran

BrianS

Posted
Posted (edited)

I do actually wonder if there is something to it.  Is turf an advantage?  Thinking in terms of the regular season setting up the post season.  Do teams that play on turf win / have a better record in the regular season, smoothing their post season path?

I don't know, just thinking out loud.

Edited by BrianS
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Floppin Grand Master

Floppin

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Growl said:

aren’t you one of this boards bigger soccer fans? I’m inclined to believe you just like the change because it’s being made with the fc in mind.

Lol I have no idea where you got that idea from. I haven't watched a soccer game outside of the WC in my entire life.

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

    • Mistuh Jones
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By Mistuh Jones · Posted

      This is gonna be longest six weeks ever 
    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
×
×
  • Create New...