Packers Huddle

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:35

Doesn't make sense. The owners invest hundreds of millions in players. Keeping them healthy should be a priority. There must be more to the story. The greedy owner theory doesn't meet the logic test. Owners know the better a team is the more money they make. A team is better if it's players are healthy. The cost of resodding the field is less than 1 game check for some of these players.

i tore my acl on grass. Ive seen other people tear their ACL on grass. I wonder what the actual data says.

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:35

Doesn't make sense. The owners invest hundreds of millions in players. Keeping them healthy should be a priority. There must be more to the story. The greedy owner theory doesn't meet the logic test. Owners know the better a team is the more money they make. A team is better if it's players are healthy. The cost of resodding the field is less than 1 game check for some of these players.

Alas, there is another side to the story. Some owners realize their team will not make the playoffs. But they can still make some money by selling seats and merchandise and food/beverage. So, they bring in some well known players and/or coaches in order to stimulate fan interest…

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:51

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:35

Doesn't make sense. The owners invest hundreds of millions in players. Keeping them healthy should be a priority. There must be more to the story. The greedy owner theory doesn't meet the logic test. Owners know the better a team is the more money they make. A team is better if it's players are healthy. The cost of resodding the field is less than 1 game check for some of these players.

Alas, there is another side to the story. Some owners realize their team will not make the playoffs. But they can still make some money by selling seats and merchandise and food/beverage. So, they bring in some well known players and/or coaches in order to stimulate fan interest…

But team owners can get together and pass rules. There are owners, as you mentioned, that may not be interested in building a good team, but I think that its less than 10. And owners like Jerry Jones wouldn't want to put their players at risk during away games.

I played on artificial turf and hated it. That was 35 years ago and it may have come a long way. But I would personally push for grass.

Seems to me a few years ago (decades?) A team refused to play at Philly because the field was in such poor condition. Probably a preseason game. Anyway, the Eagles were forced to make quick improvements before the next home game. There are other examples, as I recall, where other events were held the week before and the NFL determined the field was in poor condition and the team had to replace the field. Not such a big issue.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:49

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:35

Doesn't make sense. The owners invest hundreds of millions in players. Keeping them healthy should be a priority. There must be more to the story. The greedy owner theory doesn't meet the logic test. Owners know the better a team is the more money they make. A team is better if it's players are healthy. The cost of resodding the field is less than 1 game check for some of these players.

i tore my acl on grass. Ive seen other people tear their ACL on grass. I wonder what the actual data says.

I think you need that give of grass. Of course grass is more susceptible to being slippery when wet. Also what happens when it's froze solid? Maybe the artificial has an advantage then? Not sure. I would let the players vote.

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 14:01

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:49

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:35

Doesn't make sense. The owners invest hundreds of millions in players. Keeping them healthy should be a priority. There must be more to the story. The greedy owner theory doesn't meet the logic test. Owners know the better a team is the more money they make. A team is better if it's players are healthy. The cost of resodding the field is less than 1 game check for some of these players.

i tore my acl on grass. Ive seen other people tear their ACL on grass. I wonder what the actual data says.

I think you need that give of grass. Of course grass is more susceptible to being slippery when wet. Also what happens when it's froze solid? Maybe the artificial has an advantage then? Not sure. I would let the players vote.

if the players really have a problem with it they should have brought it up during CBA agreements and threatened to strike over it. I think Rodgers is just upset we lost some guys.

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 13:57

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:51

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:35

Doesn't make sense. The owners invest hundreds of millions in players. Keeping them healthy should be a priority. There must be more to the story. The greedy owner theory doesn't meet the logic test. Owners know the better a team is the more money they make. A team is better if it's players are healthy. The cost of resodding the field is less than 1 game check for some of these players.

Alas, there is another side to the story. Some owners realize their team will not make the playoffs. But they can still make some money by selling seats and merchandise and food/beverage. So, they bring in some well known players and/or coaches in order to stimulate fan interest…

But team owners can get together and pass rules. There are owners, as you mentioned, that may not be interested in building a good team, but I think that its less than 10. And owners like Jerry Jones wouldn't want to put their players at risk during away games.

I played on artificial turf and hated it. That was 35 years ago and it may have come a long way. But I would personally push for grass.

Seems to me a few years ago (decades?) A team refused to play at Philly because the field was in such poor condition. Probably a preseason game. Anyway, the Eagles were forced to make quick improvements before the next home game. There are other examples, as I recall, where other events were held the week before and the NFL determined the field was in poor condition and the team had to replace the field. Not such a big issue.

That last part you wrote seems to make more sense for grass turf, not artificial. Grass gets torn after a game is played during heavy rain and sometimes even during other events. I remember a couple of years ago that there was a concert at Lambeau on a rainy day. And the Lambeau crew had to replace the turf.

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 14:20

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 13:57

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:51

Alas, there is another side to the story. Some owners realize their team will not make the playoffs. But they can still make some money by selling seats and merchandise and food/beverage. So, they bring in some well known players and/or coaches in order to stimulate fan interest…

But team owners can get together and pass rules. There are owners, as you mentioned, that may not be interested in building a good team, but I think that its less than 10. And owners like Jerry Jones wouldn't want to put their players at risk during away games.

I played on artificial turf and hated it. That was 35 years ago and it may have come a long way. But I would personally push for grass.

Seems to me a few years ago (decades?) A team refused to play at Philly because the field was in such poor condition. Probably a preseason game. Anyway, the Eagles were forced to make quick improvements before the next home game. There are other examples, as I recall, where other events were held the week before and the NFL determined the field was in poor condition and the team had to replace the field. Not such a big issue.

That last part you wrote seems to make more sense for grass turf, not artificial. Grass gets torn after a game is played during heavy rain and sometimes even during other events. I remember a couple of years ago that there was a concert at Lambeau on a rainy day. And the Lambeau crew had to replace the turf.

My only point for the last paragraph is that it's not that expensive or difficult to do. There is also a precedent of the NFL forcing a team to do it.

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 14:01

I think you need that give of grass. Of course grass is more susceptible to being slippery when wet. Also what happens when it's froze solid? Maybe the artificial has an advantage then? Not sure. I would let the players vote.

Undersoil heating stops the grass from freezing solid. It's far more efficient than it used to be.

The desso system of artificial blades every inch or so, like Green Bay use (so do Burnley Football Club who I support in England - soccer, of course) doesn't count as an artifical surface. The idea is that the roots of the natural grass entwine around the artificial strands, which go down below the surface as well as up above, and so it's impossible to rip out huge divots.

People keep saying, "I don't understand, the players are an investment, don't owners want to protect their investment?!"

As we all know, players only matter to them insofar as they produce revenue. Yet at present, the owners are raking in more and more money while the product is getting inferior, not as it's improving.

Sure, you could try some market-based solution, i.e. create new leagues that will make a better product and hope NFL employees and customers will flock to them instead. We don't live in the abstract world, though. We live in the reality. And in reality, none of that will happen; the League successfully cornered the market and eliminated all (serious) competition to it, as any smart business owner would in a system that rewards quantity over quality.

Also in reality, the last lifelife in any conglomeration problem is that the government will enforce antitrust. And yes, if we truly had worker state, it would. That is also not going to happen either, because the US government at this point is a "shell company" of people like NFL team owners. And here we have the opposite of the usual problem with our government. Here, it is weak (by design, not incompetence) where it needs to be strong.

It will take collective action by the players to ensure acceptable employment conditions, not appealing to the rational sensibilities of the owners. The owners are just doing what an irrational system encourages (or really, forces) them to do. No other workable solution exists.

And frankly, the players should try to pursue this outside of the NFLPA. The NFLPA has the same issues as most unions nowadays, i.e. they are largely corrupt, in bed with the employer. NFLPA will likely try to ruin this.

You all remember Miami sending a clearly-concussed Tua back onto the football field? NFLPA signed off on that. NFLPA should be renamed DGAF A(bout)P.

Drj820 wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 12:49

i tore my acl on grass. Ive seen other people tear their ACL on grass. I wonder what the actual data says.

Just a sampling of what I pulled up on my phone in a minute...

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... U_pL_CHUUJ

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=e ... PPRJfqFFoJ

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/1 ... 6518808499

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 20:13

As we all know, players only matter to them insofar as they produce revenue. Yet at present, the owners are raking in more and more money while the product is getting inferior, not as it's improving.

You are painting with a mighty wide brush. I don't believe your dim view of owners as all being callous, heartless, and greedy. What is the word for prejudice against people based on wealth?

End the wealthism!

AmishMafia wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2022 10:49

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 20:13

As we all know, players only matter to them insofar as they produce revenue. Yet at present, the owners are raking in more and more money while the product is getting inferior, not as it's improving.

You are painting with a mighty wide brush. I don't believe your dim view of owners as all being callous, heartless, and greedy. What is the word for prejudice against people based on wealth?

End the wealthism!

If you bothered to read past that line, you would see that that was not my point at all. How good/bad they are as people isn't important. What's important is how economic forces... forces them to behave.

Labrev wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2022 20:14

The owners are just doing what an irrational system encourages (or really, forces) them to do.

I mean NFL owners are the same people who resisted paying for 4 pylon cameras in their stadium because of "expense" so I wouldn't put anything past the owners wanting to save a buck.

NFL owners treat these players like objects, man, objects, easily discarded, unless of course there name is Aaron Rodgers, then they sell the farm, and kiss his patut till the wallet is empty

Its a fair guess that Jerry, Kroenke and other owners have contractual agreements with the turf mfgs. ( $$$ for the NFL)
And those turf mfgs use their alliance with the NFL to sell more turf around the world. And those turf companies can afford to "sponsor" research that says turf is as safe as grass.

Bottom line, literally: Grass doesn't put extra cash in their pockets like all the turf companies do.

BSA wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2022 18:25

Its a fair guess that Jerry, Kroenke and other owners have contractual agreements with the turf mfgs. ( $$$ for the NFL)
And those turf mfgs use their alliance with the NFL to sell more turf around the world. And those turf companies can afford to "sponsor" research that says turf is as safe as grass.

Bottom line, literally: Grass doesn't put extra cash in their pockets like all the turf companies do.

Both the NFL and NFLPA supposedly agree this specific type of turf (slit-firm) results in more injuries, specially lower body ones nor caused by collision with another player. Detroit has this type, and Gary and Miller both had these type of injuries there in the last few weeks.

Gary, Stokes, Jones, Dobbs, Watson...

paco wrote: ↑

18 Nov 2022 11:59

I guess what do they currently have?