I know it's early but....

[Seanhawk]

Just love the way the MS Surface commercial featuring the NFL's best QB made the rain appear to pour so hard it's like they cranked a hundred rain machines all the way up.... to twelve. Yeah, Seattle is this sopping wet concrete Amazon jungle, USA.

I loved the way it says "rainproof case not available for purchase" at the bottom in tiny letters. Thanks for showing me something really cool that I cannot buy, Microsoft!

Back on topic: I don't see the moisture as benefitting either team. Seahawks still win.

I love that the edited version that they have been showing lately still shows Percy getting off the bus.

 

[hoxrox]

Could just be my imagination, but the crowd always seems louder and crazier in rain games.

 

[Uncle Si]

Stupid post. The big wrap on Ted Thompson was he built a team suited better for artificial turf than Lambeau in January. Fans have been carping about that since the Giants beat us in the playoffs up in Lambeau... Need I remind you that the Packers destroyed top seeded Atlanta in a dome and then went on to win SB 45 in a dome....

IF the Packers lose it's because Seattle has more talent on defense..... End of story....

You're citing two games that happened 4 years ago and calling another person's post "stupid"???

Try again with a larger and more recent sample size. "Fans carping" isn't very scientific.

How about 6-11 over the past 3 seasons on field turf? That's a winning percentage of 35%.
(Courtesy of 12thManHawkFan in this thread.)

If Teddy "built a team suited better for artificial turf," he sucks ass at his job.

Except that 6-11 on field turf is an incorrect stat by 12thManHawkFan as he does not separate between artificial turf and field turf.

Please enlighten us.

Field turf is what the Seahawks play on. I pretty much feels like grass. Artificial turf is pretty much hard plastic on top of some rubber and then concrete like what was in the Metrodome. It's amazing to me that football is actually played on it.

There is a big difference between the two surfaces and they a lumped together as both "artificial turf" in the 6-11 record compiled above.

not that it matters..

field turf doesnt "feel like grass"... its spongy, slick and very hard underneath. the big difference is that astro turf literally was sewn together and had a grain that went in one direction. meaning you could be running with that grain and slide on the turf. going against it? good chance the turf grabs you. this lead to many debilitating injuries (including my MCL, meniscus and peroneal tendon)

field turf is softer on the cuts and impact. its still very hard underneath, with not much more in protection between the surface the grass is sewed into and the surface it is leveled on. about 8-10 inches of recycled rubber in the form of pellets are really all there is. the foundation isnt concrete, but its not pillows and whale fat either. usually class C, alot of sand packed together and grated to be level

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Please enlighten us.

Field turf is what the Seahawks play on. I pretty much feels like grass. Artificial turf is pretty much hard plastic on top of some rubber and then concrete like what was in the Metrodome. It's amazing to me that football is actually played on it.

There is a big difference between the two surfaces and they a lumped together as both "artificial turf" in the 6-11 record compiled above.

Jeez Louise. I know what the surfaces are. :34853_doh: And we play on FieldTurf Revolution®, to be exact.

You said one of our posters was wrong with the W-L record. I was asking you to post the correct Packers' W-L record. You know, because you're a Packers fan? But you couldn't, because the discrepancy you brought up has no basis.

FieldTurf® is a brand name of artificial turf. "Artificial" is a word that means it was made by humans. The hard stuff you speak of was generally referred to as Astroturf®, which like Frisbee® or Kleenex® is a brand name that is widely associated by the layperson with any manufacturers' product that resembles the name-brand item. Astroturf® hasn't been used in the NFL for over a decade.

Since you're legitimately concerned with the discrepancy between playing surfaces, let's call out ptisme for lumping all artificial turf together. He said that Packers fans carped about Ted Thompson building a team for "artificial turf." Then he cited 2 games played 4 years ago on FieldTurf® by Tarkett, and SoftTop Turf® by Matrix, in the Georgia Dome and Cowboys Stadium, respectively.

Here are visual representations of those surfaces:



As for the Astroturf® in the Metrodome, that was 12 years ago. They had FieldTurf® since 2004, then switched to Shaw Sportexe Momentum 51® – the same used by the Ravens – in 2010, according to this article. Wanna see a picture?



Another team mentioned in 12thManHawkFan's post was The Lions. Ford Field has used FieldTurf® since 2002, and upgraded to FieldTurf Classic HD® in 2013, according to this article. Illustration:



So, E.Lacy27, you said 12thManHawkFan stated an incorrect statistic because "he does not separate between artificial turf and field turf." What the hell are you talking about? Wanna try again?

I'm getting fed up with cheeseheads coming in here telling us what we can and can't post, calling us classless, and wasting our time making us do your homework when you post a bunch of incorrect nonsense. Step up your game, Packer fans!

 

[marko358]

Forecast hasn't changed since earlier in the week

 

[ptisme]

Packers never play well on artificial grass even when it is dry!
If it's raining they will fold like a cheap lawn chair!
Don't be surprised if they are down by two scores in the 3rd qtr that they pull Erin...
Imagine having a painful calf and playing on a slippery field.
I hope he remembers to limp the whole way...
He forgot a few times in the Dallas game!

Stupid post. The big wrap on Ted Thompson was he built a team suited better for artificial turf than Lambeau in January. Fans have been carping about that since the Giants beat us in the playoffs up in Lambeau... Need I remind you that the Packers destroyed top seeded Atlanta in a dome and then went on to win SB 45 in a dome....

IF the Packers lose it's because Seattle has more talent on defense..... End of story....

You're citing two games that happened 4 years ago and calling another person's post "stupid"???

Try again with a larger and more recent sample size. "Fans carping" isn't very scientific.

How about 6-11 over the past 3 seasons on field turf? That's a winning percentage of 35%.
(Courtesy of 12thManHawkFan in this thread.)

If Teddy "built a team suited better for artificial turf," he sucks ass at his job.

Not about the turf. it's about the Packers defense... At home the crowd is quiet when Rodgers has the ball and he's able to change plays and hard count the defense. Our defense benefits at home because our offense puts up a ton of sevens..... The difference at home is Aaron Rodgers being super human.. He's reduced to "very good" on the road and that's not enough to compensate for our defense....

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Packers never play well on artificial grass even when it is dry!
If it's raining they will fold like a cheap lawn chair!
Don't be surprised if they are down by two scores in the 3rd qtr that they pull Erin...
Imagine having a painful calf and playing on a slippery field.
I hope he remembers to limp the whole way...
He forgot a few times in the Dallas game!

Stupid post. The big wrap on Ted Thompson was he built a team suited better for artificial turf than Lambeau in January. Fans have been carping about that since the Giants beat us in the playoffs up in Lambeau... Need I remind you that the Packers destroyed top seeded Atlanta in a dome and then went on to win SB 45 in a dome....

IF the Packers lose it's because Seattle has more talent on defense..... End of story....

You're citing two games that happened 4 years ago and calling another person's post "stupid"???

Try again with a larger and more recent sample size. "Fans carping" isn't very scientific.

How about 6-11 over the past 3 seasons on field turf? That's a winning percentage of 35%.
(Courtesy of 12thManHawkFan in this thread.)

If Teddy "built a team suited better for artificial turf," he sucks ass at his job.

Not about the turf. it's about the Packers defense... At home the crowd is quiet when Rodgers has the ball and he's able to change plays and hard count the defense. Our defense benefits at home because our offense puts up a ton of sevens..... The difference at home is Aaron Rodgers being super human.. He's reduced to "very good" on the road and that's not enough to compensate for our defense....

That makes sense. And that's why AR is the best in the biz: his combination of pre-snap smarts and playmaking ability. In the latter, I think RW is right up there, with more tools in the wheels department and his sling-it-in-there ability is starting to come along. He's been learning on the job, doing very well at it, and still hasn't hit his ceiling by a long shot. Rodgers definitely has the edge in pre-snap reads and adjustments though. That's where the 12's come in.

 

[ptisme]

..[/quote]
That makes sense. And that's why AR is the best in the biz: his combination of pre-snap smarts and playmaking ability. In the latter, I think RW is right up there, with more tools in the wheels department and his sling-it-in-there ability is starting to come along. He's been learning on the job, doing very well at it, and still hasn't hit his ceiling by a long shot. Rodgers definitely has the edge in pre-snap reads and adjustments though. That's where the 12's come in. [/quote]



I could only imagine if AR was blessed with a defense half as good as yours....

 

[ptisme]

Bottom line: build a domed stadium, put 79,000 Packer fans in it and the Packers would go undefeated there.... It's not the grass it's the noise when GB has the ball....

Go to any Packer home game and see how many times AROD draws them off sides. Watch how many times he checks into or out of runs depending on the look. You won't see any of that Sunday because of the noise.... Give me Seattle in GB and I'd go from giving us a 5 percent chance of winning to a 55 percent chance of winning....