Printable View
LOL, kinda like all the rest when they get wet........slippery.Quote:
Originally Posted by TackHammer
The field is in better shape this year than it has been in previous years and the turf seems to be holding up better despite the fact that up north the growing season is over for the grass.
I'd say the condition depends on just how much rain but I don't expect it to be a mud bowl. It should be much better than that.
Another Texans fan here...Quote:
Originally Posted by soulman
Pretty concerned about Foster's running in these conditions. When he runs he seems to be gliding, very patient. But he plants his foot in the direction of the cutback lane, i.e. cutting left, plants left foot, and then takes a crossover step. He slips A LOT when doing this even on dry turf. This could be a major problem for the running game. Tate is better suited to these conditions IMO and he's out. How have Forte and Bush done in similar conditions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragintexan
That thoughts crossed my mind as well.
But at least it works both ways.
Ragin pretty much covered where I was going with the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulman
Foster has traction problems.
I haven't seen Bush run on a wet field but he runs with short strides and has very quick feet. He's more of a North/South guy who can bust arm tackles and has enough short area elusiveness to be a very effective runner against quick penetrating defenses. He's got good power in short yardage and at the goal line as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ragintexan
Forte is a long strider who needs space and cutback lanes in order to be effective. He's dangerous in space because he can cut at full speed and set guys up to miss. Ordinarily he runs pretty well on a wet field because he tends to stay balanced over the top of his feet and does it with a weight shift rather than a body lean where he's pushing hard off his cutting foot.
Bush played in Oakland before coming to the Bears and that field gets really crappy when wet and of course Forte has played his entire career in Chicago so they both know how to run on a field with less than great traction. I think we're less concerned about IF they can run than whether they'll be running enough.
For a team with outstanding RBs and a line that may be one of the best run blocking lines but worst pass blocking lines in the NFL Tice sure likes to ignore that and run the ball far less than many of us think he should.
You hit the nail on the head. The body lean is Foster's game and I think it may render the Texans running game ineffective. Bears D will eat up the backup Forsett.Quote:
Originally Posted by soulman
I hope we see lots of the Bears passing game. If so I'm looking forward to lots of salutes and finger wags! I think there might be some old practice squabbles about to come to the surface from Watt and Carimi's Badger days. I may be wrong but I think Watt is gonna destroy the Bears O-line no matter how they play him.
The field can be pretty bad. This is a 2011 article, but the field we have is about the same every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by TackHammer
Remember this one?Quote:
LINK to the article
Even Bears Players Are Wary of Soldier Field’s Slippery Turf
LAKE FOREST, Ill. — It has been called Chicago’s Soldier Field since the 1920s as a memorial to World War I armed forces, which may surprise some recent opposing football teams who thought it was so named because an army marched across it — with tanks in tow.
Soldier Field’s often scuffed, squishy or rock-hard turf — players say it can be all three at once — has been a topic of conversation this week as the Chicago Bears prepare to host the Green Bay Packers on Sunday in the N.F.C. championship game.
“You can count on slipping at least four or five times a game,” said Bears linebacker Brian Urlacher, who last month called the Soldier Field footing horrible.
Last month, Bears quarterback Jay Cutler called the turf “one of the worst fields in the league.”
Complaints have emanated from Green Bay as well. On Monday, Packers wide receiver Greg Jennings referred to Soldier Field as “probably the worst in the league.” He added that the playing surface would “play a huge, huge role in the game.”
The field, part of a city-owned park complex, has been worked on over the past week, with a tarp covering it during recent snowfall and heaters used to keep the surface from freezing. Low temperatures this week have reached single digits. City officials have defended the field, saying it will be in good condition.
Soldier Field is one of only a handful of grass N.F.L. fields in cold-weather climates. It was also recently resodded.
“They change the sod out a lot,” Cutler said. “Any time you’re going to change out the field in freezing temperatures, I’m not sure it’s going to really take hold. It’s going to be thick, and it’s going to come up a little bit and it’s going to be soft in spots.”
It is the unpredictability that appears to bedevil some Bears, who said they gained no advantage from playing at Soldier Field more regularly than other teams.
“You can’t tell when you’re going to fall down, you just know it’s going to happen,” cornerback Charles Tillman said.
Or, as Urlacher said, “The Packers play on a cold, snowy field too.” Green Bay’s Lambeau Field, however, has a turf system that includes synthetic fibers stitched into the grass.
At least one Bear said he thought the Soldier Field playing surface was improving.
“For the last game against Seattle, I thought they put down something that made it better,” cornerback D. J. Moore said.
“Like sod or grass?” he was asked.
“No, definitely not grass,” Moore answered. “But something. It filled some gaps.”
Bears kicker Robbie Gould said he would not assess the playing surface until Sunday, when he would use the same process he has in each of his six seasons in Chicago.
“I go out there before the game and see what it looks like,” Gould said. “And I bring several shoes with me so I can adjust. It can change from week to week. Sometimes you even have to change your kicking technique.”
If the field is particularly hard and icy, Gould said, he will shorten his steps and make sure he stays more upright to prevent even a minor slip.
“But I don’t worry about it much anymore; I’ve done it so many times,” Gould said, standing in the locker room. He motioned to the Bears’ outdoor practice facility, which is adjacent to the locker room.
“I’m used to all this,” he said. “I think the practice field is in worse shape.”
Quote:
New warning signs on Soldier Field's turf
By Kevin Seifert
ESPN.com
Where to start? I guess at the beginning: The Chicago Bears bussed to Soldier Field on Friday night for their annual Family Night practice at Soldier Field. After examining the playing surface, however, they turned around and went back to Bourbonnais, Ill., for a closed late-night practice.
http://assets.espn.go.com/i/teamlogo.../trans/chi.gif
Locally, this is a big story because fans were already filing into the stadium when the decision was made. I don't think I would be thrilled to have fought through Friday afternoon traffic only to find out the event was canceled at the last moment.
From a bigger picture, however, this episode serves as one of the most glaring examples yet of the Chicago Park District's inability to maintain serviceable grass at Soldier Field. It's one thing for the turf to be torn up by midseason. It's another for it to have sand-filled gaps in the first week of August.
Soldier Field general manager Tim LeFevour told Zach Zaidman of the Bears radio network that the grounds crew had a "miscalculation" on how much water to put on the field. The result is what you see in this photograph from Zaidman and another photograph from Michael C. Wright of ESPNChicago.com. It's true that the Bears were originally scheduled to play in the Hall of Fame preseason game this weekend, but that event was canceled July 21. You would like to think that two weeks would be enough time to get the field ready.
You don't want to go overboard in criticism of a sloppy training camp practice field, especially since the Bears immediately recognized it and didn't put their players at risk. But let's be real. Soldier Field is one of 32 NFL stadiums in the country. It's a basic expectation for the field to be playable anytime between August and January.
It's worth noting the Bears are scheduled to play a preseason game there a week from Saturday. Is it possible to rehabilitate the turf that fast? Are the Bears doomed to an even worse playing field this season than they normally have? Linebacker Brian Urlacher said this summer that the turf is a "disaster." Now, more players are growing concerned. Here's what place-kicker Robbie Gould, who is also the team's player representative, posted on Twitter:
We all know the Bears prefer a torn-up field over Field Turf. This spring, team president Ted Phillips made clear the organization considers the grass a home-field advantage. I have no doubt that it is, but there is a fine line to walk here.
"Field conditions this bad this early in the season is inexcusable. This is becoming a reoccurring problem and needs addressed"
The Bears are trusting that the Park District, which owns and operates the stadium, can maintain safety guidelines in the environment of less-than-ideal conditions. If the Park District made an August watering "miscalculation" that forced the cancellation of a practice, how confident should we be that it will provide a safe field this season? Will this be the incident that finally leads to the installation of Field Turf? Stay tuned.
I was at the Panther's game two weeks ago and the field was beginning to get that raggedy look. I did get this pic of a rough spot around the 35 yard line (North end). You can see a Chicago Park District guy trying to fill in the divot before game time.
http://www.wag-malawi.org/nav/galler...ge/PitTrap.jpg
At least it wasn't raining that day. To you Texans fans, just pray the rain doesn't hit. That's when the field REALLY gets bad. Much worse than this.
:smile:
The likely outcome of the game largely depends upon one key question:
Can and will the Bears utilize their RBs effectively?
I say "can" to mean whether or not the Texans can shut down the run and "will" to mean whether or not Tice playcalls a heavy blend of Forte & Bush BOTH on the ground and in quick pass receiving.
The Bears are still without Jeffery as a bookend big boy WR threat opposite Marshall. They still have shown a stupid overuse of Hester and underuse of Bennett in the passing game (although is gradually improving as Bennett has gotten healthier lately). They still can't or don't use their TEs effectively as receivers. They still tend to get "pass happy" (in other words "Marshall dependent") to early and too often. And they still can't be expected to pass protect, especially against a beast like Watt, well enough to justify the above. We all know Houston is going to focus on not letting Marshall win the game by himself.
If there was ever a game when Tice MUST run the ball heavily, utilize predominately short throws (to RBs for example), and roll Cutler out whenever possible (to avoid sacks and swats), this one is so obviously it. It's not complicated and there's no reason to over-think it. Tice really must become the Anti-Martz for the offense to be effective. And it must be reasonably effective because, given how well Houston does protect the ball, the Bears staff can't count on the defense to take it away repeatedly and score points. If it happens, that's gravy, but it probably won't.
If it is a "clean" game by both sides (i.e. neither has bushels of TOs, stupid penalties, or gives up big plays), the outcome will come down to the above in a grind-it-out battle of attrition. 20-17 Bears if so, Texans win if not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPBears68
The running game could definitely decide the game.
As long as the Texans can keep you running I like our chances. Nobody has scored a rushing touch down on the Texans D in 12 games going back to last year.