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!

     

Aaron Rodgers got hurt on turf… the Panthers switched to Turf


TheBigKat
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, jbland said:

Grow lights. There’s an entire industry based on indoor agriculture. 

Being able to grow plants/grass/etc indoors with grow lights is not the same as being able to grow and maintain an NFL sized field of grass that needs to hold up to the rigors of an NFL game every weekend.

Just because something can be done for one part of an industry, doesn't mean it's applicable and will work in all other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NYPantherFan said:

Have you seen the new retractable pitch for the Real Madrid stadium? This is where Tepper needs to invest his money if he really wants a new stadium... https://youtu.be/epef95O-EwY?si=ZTEP4SjfXOOZV2PH

 

Was hoping someone would mention this, as it's the exact reason my initial post makes the most logical sense.  You put in the new CBA that all outdoor fields need to be converted to grass and make it so any NEW stadiums have to be build in a way that can support grass fields.

Because something like this with Real Madrid isn't remotely feasible to do for an NFL stadium for a variety of reasons.  First being there is probably only 3 stadiums in the entire NFL that they'd even begin a conversation of doing this with, and all 3 of them are already grass fields.  

That has been Real Madrid's stadium for almost 100 years, they weren't ever going to leave it and build a new one, so it had to be renovated.  The only stadiums that would come close to fitting that mold in the NFL are KC, GB, and Chicago, which are already grass fields, every other stadium is relatively new, there aren't any other historically old stadiums in the league that they'd refuse to leave.

Then they also had to play their games in another stadium for a while of course to do that (something that would be a bit tougher to do with the NFL).  

Plus it cost them about $1 billion, at that cost, no NFL team would do that, they'd just build a new stadium, which again isn't an option for a major european soccer club that has played in their stadium for almost 100 years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Waldo said:

Owners do not care because it's all about the money. If Arizona can roll out a grass field in a dome in the desert then they could figure it out anywhere else but they won't because it would be very expansive and they can just replace the hurt players with rookies next year while they throw lame concerts for even more money on that garbage turf. It cold be done but the price would be very expensive at some locations due to geographical location and stadiums designs. The Romans flooded the colosseum 2 thousand years ago and had navel battles so lol to people saying they couldn't put grass in NFL stadiums if they wanted to make it happen. 

I wish the players would force the issue but even they are about their money first or they would make it an issue. That is the NFL at it's most stripped down. 

Exactly. Now days, grass is possible. It will just cost money. Not an unreasonable amount but still money. Turf eliminates the need for said money. But players don’t mean much when you have emotional fans. The fact the Panthers are still highly profitable after half a decade of poo spells it out. The owners can do whatever the want.

Owners are businessmen first - I don’t think fans fully comprehend what that means.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tukafan21 said:

Being able to grow plants/grass/etc indoors with grow lights is not the same as being able to grow and maintain an NFL sized field of grass that needs to hold up to the rigors of an NFL game every weekend.

Just because something can be done for one part of an industry, doesn't mean it's applicable and will work in all other areas.

Um…ok. You can use grow lights to help grow sod indoors. Sod typically requires natural sunlight to thrive, but if you want to establish or maintain sod indoors, you would have to use full-spectrum grow lights that mimic the sun's spectrum of light. You just have to make sure to provide the sod with the right amount of light, water, and proper care to ensure healthy growth.

But I guess we all can’t be experts in horticulture. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tepper demanded an all granite/marble special structurally engineered ceiling for his casa which is an almost insanely dangerous ask..so rolling some real grass may not be an insane ask for the stadium upgrade wish list. 

I read there was promise with replacing the rubber pellets with shreadded natural cork but that could have been NFL owner propaganda so....not sure how much validation there is on safety. 

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • LOL... Yet again proving you can't look below anything than what you see on the surface Mock drafts ARE NOT draft grades They are what people think will happen.  They are mocking teams taking QB's in the top 5 of the draft because that's just historically how drafts go regardless of the grades on the QBs.  Almost every draft expert, even those mocking QB's going high, have said time and time again that none of these QB's actually grade out as those type of picks. This is again, where I say you don't like to actually read what I have to say, because I already explained it. 2022 the exact same thing happened, mock drafts had guys like Pickett and Willis going in the Top 5 because that's just what teams usually do, but GM's listened to their prospect grades and knew they weren't worth taking that high, so they didn't. It's not to say QB's won't go that high this year, but it's to say that they aren't graded out as elite QB prospects.  Mock drafts 
    • Have you seen the mock drafts lately?   Most of them have us taking a QB. Just because you aren't high on these QBs doesn't mean the Panthers or other teams aren't.   If you want me to be real I just think you a Tmac homer and all you care about is us drafting him. It's why you get so defensive when people mention other prospects.   Be open to other people's ideas. Nobody in this thread is saying anything bad about your boy Tmac. 
    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
×
×
  • Create New...