JOESAM2002

I think if the truth be known the difference in the two types of fields you both are mentioning is not stop and go speed but more the ability to move side to side or making quick moves and cuts. The old style turf makes it hard to get used to for running backs and recievers to make their cuts. It works the same on defense.

BillyCarpenter1

First you said that it effects some players more than others, then you say everyone speed is slowed because of a surface then there is no advantage. Which one is it? You can\'t have it both ways. Let\'s take your statement about it effects some players more than others. If mud slows down a cornerback more than a receiver, wouldn\'t that be an advantage to the receiver? As far as turf vs. grass, your talking about 1/10 of seconds here, and I\'m telling you that some players are slowed more than others when running on grass. And if you look at my example of corners vs. receivers , surely you can see the advantage.

lumm0x

I think what Gatorman is saying is that if your team ranks 3rd in average stopwatch speed in the league, they will be 3rd regardless what surface we put on the ground. Will have carpeted concrete make us second, or moving to grass make us fourth? Not likely. If we\'re faster than the Bucs (for instance-since we\'ve had them hung on the pole lately) then we\'re faster no matter where we play them. Grass is better for the longevity of a player\'s career, but it is a non-factor when grading team speed.
Billy\'s right when he says a sprinter will run a better clock indoors than out, but there aren\'t too many games played when one team is on grass and the other isn\'t. Either we\'re faster or we aren\'t, it doesn\'t matter where. Just because we play more games on artificial than our opponent might doesn\'t means we\'ll be more accustomed to running on it when we play. It\'s ground dammit. I think some of these players have learned how to run on a flat surface without it being too signifigant in their game.

roturn

The soon to be new stadium in LA, CA looks good to Benson. If I owned the team I would move the team, especially with ignorant threads (and fans) like this. Who the f#$^ cares!

lumm0x

Hey roturn, why don\'t you get a head start and get over there then. Make sure to leave your Saints jersey in New Orleans so we don\'t have to see a Rams fan wearing one anymore.

If you want the team moved.....you\'re no Saints fan. Go hold Al Davis\'s shaved cat for him.

BillyCarpenter1

lummOx,

What I was trying to tell Gatorman and now you, is that different playing surfaces slow some individual players down more than others. I never said anything about over all team speed. The saints are built for speed and I think it is to their advantage to play on turf.

lumm0x

For one thing I can\'t see it being a signifigant amount to affect their level of play. A good player is good anywhere. The only speed I care about is playing speed on the field. If a player can run a 4.4 40 indoors, and looks lightning without pads, if he looks like slow-poke Rodriguez on the field then he can sell hot dogs in the stands. I want football players not track stars.
If we are on average 6% faster on turf than the Bucs, would we not be 6% faster on grass than the Bucs? If for example, Stallworth is 8% faster on turf than Rhonde Barber but only 6% faster than him on grass, meaning Stallworth slows a hair on grass and Barber maintains, is that reason to keep turf? Both teams have to play on the same field regardless of what it is. How is it our advantage just because we have faster runners? Do you have any data on our players and adversely our opponents on the 40 times in pads on both surfaces?
I will totally agree that an individual will run faster or slower on a different surface. Some more than others. I will use a quick hockey analogy here. Dallas is reputed to have one of the worst ice surfaces in the NHL. Edmonton is reputed to have one of the best. You would agree that Modano may skate faster on the Edmonton ice surface. You will agree that some players wil be affected more by the ice surface than others. Some may skate equally as fast on either. But if two teams play on bad ice, or two teams play on good ice, unless you have data that displays that one team has more players that are positively influenced by one surface, I call it a wash. I will always presume that bad ice will adversely affect each team and good ice will enhance each team in an insignifigant amount. Just because one team may have overall faster skaters, they will on average, only skate faster on good ice in the same ratio as the slower team will skate faster.

It matters for an individual. I\'m not arguing that. Are we better suited just because we\'re faster overall. The opponent will be faster in the similar ratio. That makes it a non-factor. I\'d play on grass every time regardless of how fast I am, and most players will say the same.

BillyCarpenter1

You make some very good points. Since we pratice and play on turf, we are use to it as opposed to grass. So when we play on grass I think it will affect our overall team speed when compared to teams that pratice and play on grass. Don\'t know a lot about hockey, but I bet the team that has the bad ice, if they practice on it everyday, has an advantage????

lumm0x

You know I see your point as well and since football is a game of inches then maybe it matters more than I concede, but I think this is a question not of inches but the thickness of a grass blade.