-
Brian Urlacher rips Soldier Field turf
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nf...ory?id=6696768
Soldier Field turf? Urlacher calls it a 'disaster'
CHICAGO -- Chicago Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher believes he's on the most talented team in the NFC, but there is one thing the Green Bay Packers possess that makes Urlacher jealous.
"Green Bay has awesome turf," Urlacher said Thursday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on ESPN 1000. "The weather we play in, they have the same [weather]." Both Soldier Field and Lambeau Field have grass surfaces. "We played in the last game of the regular season there, and it was great," Urlacher said. "Look at ours, and it's beat up and looks horrible." Urlacher isn't the only player on the Bears -- or other teams -- to complain about Chicago's field conditions. "It is a disaster," Urlacher said. "I don't know what else to say. "We complain about it all the time. I prefer playing on grass, but the Field Turf stuff is pretty awesome." Soldier Field, which is owned and operated by the Chicago Park District, often is the site of high school football games, concerts and other activities. "Every week they re-sod," Urlacher said. "They had a soccer game or nine high school games in two days. It's always something." Urlacher said the Bears' familiarity with the turf is not an advantage. In fact, he said it's the opposite. "We're a fast team," he said. "If you put us on Field Turf for eight home games a year? We're going to be real fast. Put [Julius] Peppers on turf? [Devin] Hester with those cuts?"
-
-
Junior Member
Can't disagree with anything he said. Don't know why they can't do the hybrid thing that is in place in GB. For all the times they have to re-sod the damn thing it would be more cost effective in the long run.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
What...I thought our players loved playing on nat surface, and never complained out Soldier....stunning....
The soldier field turf is embarassing.
-
If they just stopped using it for every event from concerts to tractor pulls they may be able to keep it in reasonable shape. If they don't want to pay to install Field Turf maybe the Bears should offer to up their rent in exchange for not playing other events there during the NFL season.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. 
Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
There is a charm to the turf, though. I can't quite point out what it is, but there is a charm to it.
-
Junior Member
Originally Posted by
soulman 
If they just stopped using it for every event from concerts to tractor pulls they may be able to keep it in reasonable shape. If they don't want to pay to install Field Turf maybe the Bears should offer to up their rent in exchange for not playing other events there during the NFL season.
I agree that having other events there does degrade the field but from all that I have read it has nothing to do with money as to why the Bears do not go over to an artificial surface. Whenever asked about it by the media the Bears FO always points out the safety factor and that they do not see any evidence that supports playing on the new field turf causes less injuries than playing on natural grass in fact they say it is the opposite and until there are enough studies proving artificial grass is safer they will stick to the natural grass. If this is the case then I say fine but do like GB did and install heating elements and go to a hybrid synthetic blend with the natural grass and also tone down the other events played there during the NFL season. It would be a lot cheaper in the long run to go to the field turf as opposed to the $250,000.00 it costs each time they resod it.
Last edited by thekmann; 06-25-2011 at 10:56 AM.
-
Lambeau Field has always been in far better shape than Soldier Field for those late games and has been for decades. Whatever they decide to do it should be done and done this year. It's getting to be an embarrassment to look at the condition of that field in December. Field Turf is not the only option if there is still a concern about the safety factor. Hell they played on a very shitty rug back in the 70's and 80's and the current artificial or hybrid surfaces are many times better than that. There's is such a thing as "paralysis by analysis" and it's time they got the problem solved one way or another.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
thekmann I agree that having other events there does degrade the field but from all that I have read it has nothing to do with money as to why the Bears do not go over to an artificial surface. Whenever asked about it by the media the Bears FO always points out the safety factor and that they do not see any evidence that supports playing on the new field turf causes less injuries than playing on natural grass in fact they say it is the opposite and until there are enough studies proving artificial grass is safer they will stick to the natural grass. If this is the case then I say fine but do like GB did and install heating elements and go to a hybrid synthetic blend with the natural grass and also tone down the other events played there during the NFL season. It would be a lot cheaper in the long run to go to the field turf as opposed to the $250,000.00 it costs each time they resod it.
the soldier field grass IS heated, but like greenbay when gets below 20 for a few days even heated still hard as a rock...I agree would like to see some syntethic blend and be done, but as the city, not bears control field. not as Simple to get done or get approval, and then comes the question of cost and if bears do a synthetic blend, are they now responsible for the field? and any lawsuits and current problems that now fall on the city as they are in charge of maintence for all the other events( concerts. soccer etc etc)- think that may also play into this debate and more layers than the simple, "grass doesn't grow in winter" argument.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/114057339.html
Like Lambeau Field, there are heating coils underneath the playing surface at Soldier Field. LeFevour said there were 40 miles of heat tubing buried about 8 inches below the surface. Those coils keep the field at a temperature between 53 and 58 degrees.
Chicago officials have talked in recent years about converting the playing field to a natural grass surface reinforced with synthetic fibers and rooted partially in sand. That's what the Packers did at Lambeau after the 2006 season.
Last edited by dabears54; 06-25-2011 at 11:34 AM.
-
Junior Member
Originally Posted by
dabears54 the soldier field grass IS heated, but like greenbay when gets below 20 for a few days even heated still hard as a rock...I agree would like to see some syntethic blend and be done, but as the city, not bears control field. not as Simple to get done or get approval, and then comes the question of cost and if bears do a synthetic blend, are they now responsible for the field? and any lawsuits and current problems that now fall on the city as they are in charge of maintence for all the other events( concerts. soccer etc etc)- think that may also play into this debate and more layers than the simple, "grass doesn't grow in winter" argument.
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/114057339.html
Like Lambeau Field, there are heating coils underneath the playing surface at Soldier Field. LeFevour said there were 40 miles of heat tubing buried about 8 inches below the surface. Those coils keep the field at a temperature between 53 and 58 degrees.
Chicago officials have talked in recent years about converting the playing field to a natural grass surface reinforced with synthetic fibers and rooted partially in sand. That's what the Packers did at Lambeau after the 2006 season.
Well if the Bears have to worry about lawsuits from other events played there then they need to either outright buy the stadium from the city...highly unlikely or they need to build their own stadium and if that means they have to go outside the city limits to do so then so be it. I doubt very seriously they would lose any money from fans if they had to travel a little further to get to the stadium. Me personally I think the NFL should step in and force the issue one way or the other because Chicago's political machine as corrupt as it is, is going to need a higher authority than the McCaskeys to make it do something.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
And there is the real deal....shitty politics...The Bears point the finger at "no proof" but that proof also shows it's no worse...but what it does show is the field holds up better. The city points to potential "lawsuits" and points the finger back. Both while counting the cash from not doing anything b/c they know the cub fans are going to show up no matter what.
I've said for the past couple years the Bears need to get out from under the cities authority and get their own stadium. The amount of money they spent to "redo" soldier field is more then what AZ spent on a brand new f'n stadium. But the Bears don't want to dish out the caesh for it, and the city isn't going to flip for a new on for them. THere is lies the issue w/a new stadium.
That goes back to all the other things happening during the NFL season. Get the H.S events out of there, get the college events out of there. IF the turf could hold up that would be one thing, but it cannot. It barely holds up to the NFL schedule. This isn't the 20's, when the nfl was amateur hour to college football. The NFL VAST majority of the revenue coming into that stadium, and they need to give it some VIP treatment.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
