Seattle Sounders 2015 Season Thread

[Uncle Si]

Drainage is not the major issue. It is the impact of the contact on the grass. coaching on a shared grass field I can tell you that within 3 weeks of football games being on there, the field is completely different shape. Its just not the "rough patches" of which there are many. it is the divots, pock marks and shredded "lanes" from contact. Also, football players tend to spend much of there team in one part of the field (the middle) and thus wear that area down far quicker and more unevenly than the rest.

Even with the best care and groundskeeping people in the business, you are constantly playing catch up once both sports are active on the surface at the same time.

Having played (and coached) competitively on both grass and field turf, the new "era" of simulated grass isnt that much of a difference than real grass. They can weave it to be thicker, thinner, faster, slower, taller, etc. Obviously there is a certain feel that cannot be replicated, but play itself isnt altered. Its a little tougher to tackle on, but the bounces and rolls are truer. Most of my players "complaints" are more about the pace of grass and how difficult the footing can be.

I can live with field turf as long as they replace it every two years and don't flatten it out with dirt bike racing and concerts, but none of those things will ever happen. The current state of the field is far closer to astroturf than it is top of the line fieldturf.

It did look slick when I watched the game the other night.

Not hard to replace either.

I was down on the field before a Seahawks game late in the 2014 season, I was blown away by how flat the turf was. I didn't see a single blade sticking up.

I ve seen fields like that here, but those are usually 8-10 years old. Could be that the Seahawks prefer that? No idea if that turf has changed since it was originally laid down.

The new era field turf is pretty cool. They even LED lights now to glow up the lines (for multi use stadiums, you dont need to paint lines all over for football/lacrosse/soccer... just push different buttons)

 

[Seahawks1983]

I ve seen fields like that here, but those are usually 8-10 years old. Could be that the Seahawks prefer that? No idea if that turf has changed since it was originally laid down.

The new era field turf is pretty cool. They even LED lights now to glow up the lines (for multi use stadiums, you dont need to paint lines all over for football/lacrosse/soccer... just push different buttons)

The turf gets ruined everything an event not called football or soccer takes place in the stadium. Concerts, BMX rallys, corporate events, all of that stuff wrecks havoc on the turf. On top of that, the Seahawks seem to prefer a harder, faster surface, so they are in no rush to replace the field.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I really don't think a properly managed field with good drainage systems would be a muddy mess. Grass in the northwest gets saturated because few lawns and parks are designed to drain properly. This isn't your neighborhood park we are talking about.

Football and soccer are both meant to be played on real grass, IMO. Field Turf sucks.

It's certainly possible, but not ideal.............and that's the issue for the Seahawks, they as well as most NFL teams want a consistent surface to play their games and plan their team around.

If natural grass were ideal, then it'd be in Century Link. It's that simple. It's not because neither the Hawks nor the Sounders want an inconsistent surface (more the Hawks).

Any natural grass stadium once November rolls around has issues. Soldier Field, Arrowhead, Lambeau, etc. They all look WAY worse in December and January than they looked in September. Add in a soccer club also playing on the field? And again, it's just not ideal.

 

[SeatownJay]

The last time the turf was replaced at CenturyLink was February 2012. That's too long between replacements for me.

 

[Seahawks1983]

I really don't think a properly managed field with good drainage systems would be a muddy mess. Grass in the northwest gets saturated because few lawns and parks are designed to drain properly. This isn't your neighborhood park we are talking about.

Football and soccer are both meant to be played on real grass, IMO. Field Turf sucks.

It's certainly possible, but not ideal.............and that's the issue for the Seahawks, they as well as most NFL teams want a consistent surface to play their games and plan their team around.

If natural grass were ideal, then it'd be in Century Link. It's that simple. It's not because neither the Hawks nor the Sounders want an inconsistent surface (more the Hawks).

Any natural grass stadium once November rolls around has issues. Soldier Field, Arrowhead, Lambeau, etc. They all look WAY worse in December and January than they looked in September. Add in a soccer club also playing on the field? And again, it's just not ideal.

1) Paul Allen wanted and promised a grass field. The only reason the Seahawks don't have a grass field is because Mike Holmgren demanded a Field Turf field after playing one at Husky Stadium during the construction years.

2) The late fall and winters of places like Chicago, Kansas City, and Green Bay are nothing like the late fall and winters of Seattle. Those cities have freezing temperatures that make the grass dormant during those months. That doesn't happen in Seattle. Your lawn may go dormant, but it generally retains it's green color, and if you had grow lights you could keep it growing year round.

 

[Smurf]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/TyeMears/status/578344110634844161[/tweet]


So, it looks like the Sounders have moved Kevin Parsemain via Trade or Release.

It also sneaked past me that Kenny Cooper hasn't been training since the CBA was signed and Lagerway says his absence is excused and is CBA related.

If we were to move both players, it would open up $320k in Salary cap space. Which IIRC is enough for a young DP signing. MLS's weird ass transfer window ends in April. So we could sign a U25 DP soon. Of course that opens up the concern of 1 of out 3 DP's would have to lose that status, the most likely being Ozzie Alonso via Contract Buy Down (We have a bunch of Yedlin money left).


So....possible something is in the air...but it looks like we are moving two of our forwards.

 

[Smurf]

I really don't think a properly managed field with good drainage systems would be a muddy mess. Grass in the northwest gets saturated because few lawns and parks are designed to drain properly. This isn't your neighborhood park we are talking about.

Football and soccer are both meant to be played on real grass, IMO. Field Turf sucks.

It's certainly possible, but not ideal.............and that's the issue for the Seahawks, they as well as most NFL teams want a consistent surface to play their games and plan their team around.

If natural grass were ideal, then it'd be in Century Link. It's that simple. It's not because neither the Hawks nor the Sounders want an inconsistent surface (more the Hawks).

Any natural grass stadium once November rolls around has issues. Soldier Field, Arrowhead, Lambeau, etc. They all look WAY worse in December and January than they looked in September. Add in a soccer club also playing on the field? And again, it's just not ideal.

1) Paul Allen wanted and promised a grass field. The only reason the Seahawks don't have a grass field is because Mike Holmgren demanded a Field Turf field after playing one at Husky Stadium during the construction years.

2) The late fall and winters of places like Chicago, Kansas City, and Green Bay are nothing like the late fall and winters of Seattle. Those cities have freezing temperatures that make the grass dormant during those months. That doesn't happen in Seattle. Your lawn may go dormant, but it generally retains it's green color, and if you had grow lights you could keep it growing year round.

1. Field Turf was not an option yet when the Stadium Deal went to vote. And yes, our turf was because of Holmgren.

2. Actual grass would be a bitch to maintain here, regardless of climate. The stadiums drainage in place is not at a suitable level right now, and there are far to many events held at Clink for Grass to make sense.


Don't get me wrong...I'm Team Grass all the way...Just don't see it happening.

 

[Jville]

The Sounders and First & Goal Inc., agreed to extend the lease of the Clink another 10 years to 2028. ......


,,,,,,,,, “The organization and its fan base have set an unprecedented standard for soccer support in North America, culminating in the top six single-season attendance totals in league history and an active streak of 109 consecutive MLS sellouts,” the release quoted majority owner Joe Roth as saying.

The Sounders over the past three seasons have had a home average of more than 43,000 fans, more than double the No. 2 MLS team, the Los Angeles Galaxy. The club finished the 2014 campaign 27th in global average attendance among the world’s top-tier professional clubs (43,734).

Source >>> [urltargetblank]http://sportspressnw.com/2200038/2015/sounders-extend-clink-lease-for-10-years-to-28[/urltargetblank]

 

[Seahawks1983]

I really don't think a properly managed field with good drainage systems would be a muddy mess. Grass in the northwest gets saturated because few lawns and parks are designed to drain properly. This isn't your neighborhood park we are talking about.

Football and soccer are both meant to be played on real grass, IMO. Field Turf sucks.

It's certainly possible, but not ideal.............and that's the issue for the Seahawks, they as well as most NFL teams want a consistent surface to play their games and plan their team around.

If natural grass were ideal, then it'd be in Century Link. It's that simple. It's not because neither the Hawks nor the Sounders want an inconsistent surface (more the Hawks).

Any natural grass stadium once November rolls around has issues. Soldier Field, Arrowhead, Lambeau, etc. They all look WAY worse in December and January than they looked in September. Add in a soccer club also playing on the field? And again, it's just not ideal.

1) Paul Allen wanted and promised a grass field. The only reason the Seahawks don't have a grass field is because Mike Holmgren demanded a Field Turf field after playing one at Husky Stadium during the construction years.

2) The late fall and winters of places like Chicago, Kansas City, and Green Bay are nothing like the late fall and winters of Seattle. Those cities have freezing temperatures that make the grass dormant during those months. That doesn't happen in Seattle. Your lawn may go dormant, but it generally retains it's green color, and if you had grow lights you could keep it growing year round.

1. Field Turf was not an option yet when the Stadium Deal went to vote. And yes, our turf was because of Holmgren.

2. Actual grass would be a bitch to maintain here, regardless of climate. The stadiums drainage in place is not at a suitable level right now, and there are far to many events held at Clink for Grass to make sense.


Don't get me wrong...I'm Team Grass all the way...Just don't see it happening.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see it happening either. I just don't buy the notion that it couldn't be maintained in a way that was acceptable.

 

[Smurf]

If anyone cares...Montreal made it to the CCL final.

 

[Smurf]

Don't get me wrong, I don't see it happening either. I just don't buy the notion that it couldn't be maintained in a way that was acceptable.

I just think it would be too expensive to make work in current conditions...and I'd rather not see my beer prices go up yet again...

 

[KitsapGuy]

Does Safeco Field have grass? And if so, how is the maintenance on it? As far as drainage, etc. Do they keep the roof closed most the time in winter.

On second thought. It would still probably be a PITA for a two sport stadium. Don't the Raiders have a problem with their field because of baseball?

 

[Seahawks1983]

Does Safeco Field have grass? And if so, how is the maintenance on it? As far as drainage, etc. Do they keep the roof closed most the time in winter.

On second thought. It would still probably be a PITA for a two sport stadium. Don't the Raiders have a problem with their field because of baseball?

Safeco has a world class drainage system, a top tier grounds crew, and the added benefit of the retractable roof.

The Raiders only real issue is the start of the season when there are parts of the baseball dirt still exposed.

Some light reading on the Safeco Field system:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. ... lug=lawn25

 

[SeatownJay]

If anyone cares...Montreal made it to the CCL final.

Not quite yet, but they do have a 2-0 lead heading into the second leg of the semis.

 

[Uncle Si]

Don't get me wrong, I don't see it happening either. I just don't buy the notion that it couldn't be maintained in a way that was acceptable.

I just think it would be too expensive to make work in current conditions...and I'd rather not see my beer prices go up yet again...

The concept of a shared grass field between soccer and football would not work, unless you have a system like Wembley, where fields are literally moved in an out by rail. The volume of use, the weather and other major factors would severely damage the field, regardless of the drainage or the team put in charge. Look at England's single use soccer fields as they move through the Winter. One or two are still holding their quality, while the rest, with millions of dollars invested, are starting to suffer.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I really don't think a properly managed field with good drainage systems would be a muddy mess. Grass in the northwest gets saturated because few lawns and parks are designed to drain properly. This isn't your neighborhood park we are talking about.

Football and soccer are both meant to be played on real grass, IMO. Field Turf sucks.

It's certainly possible, but not ideal.............and that's the issue for the Seahawks, they as well as most NFL teams want a consistent surface to play their games and plan their team around.

If natural grass were ideal, then it'd be in Century Link. It's that simple. It's not because neither the Hawks nor the Sounders want an inconsistent surface (more the Hawks).

Any natural grass stadium once November rolls around has issues. Soldier Field, Arrowhead, Lambeau, etc. They all look WAY worse in December and January than they looked in September. Add in a soccer club also playing on the field? And again, it's just not ideal.

1) Paul Allen wanted and promised a grass field. The only reason the Seahawks don't have a grass field is because Mike Holmgren demanded a Field Turf field after playing one at Husky Stadium during the construction years.

2) The late fall and winters of places like Chicago, Kansas City, and Green Bay are nothing like the late fall and winters of Seattle. Those cities have freezing temperatures that make the grass dormant during those months. That doesn't happen in Seattle. Your lawn may go dormant, but it generally retains it's green color, and if you had grow lights you could keep it growing year round.

Again, I'm not saying real grass isn't doable. I'm saying it's not an ideal surface for the Hawks. If it was, it'd be down.

I also imagine it's far more expensive. If you research what the EPL clubs do to maintain their pitches (similar climate), it's insane. Dozens of groundscrew, big ass mechanical motorized covers with grow lights, etc.

 

[Uncle Si]

I really don't think a properly managed field with good drainage systems would be a muddy mess. Grass in the northwest gets saturated because few lawns and parks are designed to drain properly. This isn't your neighborhood park we are talking about.

Football and soccer are both meant to be played on real grass, IMO. Field Turf sucks.

It's certainly possible, but not ideal.............and that's the issue for the Seahawks, they as well as most NFL teams want a consistent surface to play their games and plan their team around.

If natural grass were ideal, then it'd be in Century Link. It's that simple. It's not because neither the Hawks nor the Sounders want an inconsistent surface (more the Hawks).

Any natural grass stadium once November rolls around has issues. Soldier Field, Arrowhead, Lambeau, etc. They all look WAY worse in December and January than they looked in September. Add in a soccer club also playing on the field? And again, it's just not ideal.

1) Paul Allen wanted and promised a grass field. The only reason the Seahawks don't have a grass field is because Mike Holmgren demanded a Field Turf field after playing one at Husky Stadium during the construction years.

2) The late fall and winters of places like Chicago, Kansas City, and Green Bay are nothing like the late fall and winters of Seattle. Those cities have freezing temperatures that make the grass dormant during those months. That doesn't happen in Seattle. Your lawn may go dormant, but it generally retains it's green color, and if you had grow lights you could keep it growing year round.

Again, I'm not saying real grass isn't doable. I'm saying it's not an ideal surface for the Hawks. If it was, it'd be down.

I also imagine it's far more expensive. If you research what the EPL clubs do to maintain their pitches (similar climate), it's insane. Dozens of groundscrew, big ass mechanical motorized covers with grow lights, etc.

And their fields are still in mostly shite condition this time of year (about 2/3rds of the way in, roughly 15-20 home matches between all competitions)

I don't see a way in which American football and soccer can share a grass surface in this climate. It would be tough anywhere, to be honest.

 

[Seahawks1983]

Don't get me wrong, I don't see it happening either. I just don't buy the notion that it couldn't be maintained in a way that was acceptable.

I just think it would be too expensive to make work in current conditions...and I'd rather not see my beer prices go up yet again...

The concept of a shared grass field between soccer and football would not work, unless you have a system like Wembley, where fields are literally moved in an out by rail. The volume of use, the weather and other major factors would severely damage the field, regardless of the drainage or the team put in charge. Look at England's single use soccer fields as they move through the Winter. One or two are still holding their quality, while the rest, with millions of dollars invested, are starting to suffer.

Makes me wish we had a system similar to U of Phoenix Stadium. You could keep a grass field on the tray, and a FieldTurf football field underneath. Best of both worlds.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

And their fields are still in mostly shite condition this time of year (about 2/3rds of the way in, roughly 15-20 home matches between all competitions)

I don't see a way in which American football and soccer can share a grass surface in this climate. It would be tough anywhere, to be honest.

Yep, and field conditions is the #1 thing cited for the growing sentiment and proponents in the UK for going to spring to fall EPL schedule.

 

[Uncle Si]

And their fields are still in mostly shite condition this time of year (about 2/3rds of the way in, roughly 15-20 home matches between all competitions)

I don't see a way in which American football and soccer can share a grass surface in this climate. It would be tough anywhere, to be honest.

Yep, and field conditions is the #1 thing cited for the growing sentiment and proponents in the UK for going to spring to fall EPL schedule.

The first thing they should do is apply a winter break. But thats more a conversation for the EPL thread