Question about SD field conditions

Lots of discussion about the heat and the grassy field. Perhaps that diminished our team's ability to play up to their ability. However, my questions are:

Why would heat and tall grass not also affect San Diego's team? Wasn't their offense on the field just as much as our defense making them just as susceptible to cramps? Or do the offensive players not have to work as hard as the defense?

Wouldn't the real grass slow down both teams equally?

fenderbender123":1xvmujci said:

Wouldn't the real grass slow down both teams equally?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's why the heat and field conditions excuses are lame as hell. SD sure didn't look like they had problems huh?

That's how I see it. But there's a lot I don't know about football so there could very well be reasons why it would affect one team more than another. Perhaps SD is used to practicing in the heat? I don't know.

If you think the heat wasn't a problem, you weren't there.

Also, the Chargers practice facility is next door to the stadium. It was 90 + every day last week.

The Hawk staff dropped the ball here IMO. I was there, I lived in the same area for years. It gets this way at this time of the year. The Chargers had an excellent game plan for this game and conditions. and most importantly...THEY EXECUTED the plays.

The Hawks defense was on the field for 3/4 of the game......Our staff should have prepared better, not only on the condition part, but the total game plan. I am not blaming Bevell, but we should have done a short passing game as well.

We scored on offense too quickly, which is not bad in normal conditions but the condition was FAR from normal.

SD's 3-yard checkdown gameplan was obviously tailored to exploit the extreme temperatures. They were also wearing their whites. Seattle was in dark blue, and if you don't think wearing dark blue vs. all white under an unforgiving sun makes a difference, then you should probably get out more.

SD also has the benefit of playing and practicing consistently in the SoCal heat. Does that make a difference? I dunno -- but it sure seems like teams that play consistently in the snow do better in snow games. You ever notice that teams that practice and play in domes can't play in real weather? Acclimation matters.

Anyway, I'm not putting this entire game on the conditions, but I do think they were a factor. We still could have won.

Edit: basically in agreement with L80.

Largent80":20uh2c8h said:

If you think the heat wasn't a problem, you weren't there.

Click to expand...

Again, it was only a problem because we couldn't get off the damn field. It wasn't a problem for SD's defense not because of all the things you listed, it wasn't a problem because they were barely on the field, thus were fresh to stuff us on our last couple drives.

Yes if you're defense is on the field for 75% of the plays run in 100 degree heat, it is a factor. But it's a chicken or the egg discussion........if the defense plays the way it should have played, no one's talking about the heat. Period.

This is from Shannon Love, who is the guy always decked out in some sort of awesome Hawk suit, usually white or green, but he is dressed for success, he was there yesterday, and he sent me this message on Facebook.....

"For all of you out there that still did not believe that heat was a factor, are absolutely crazy! That heat was so hot, that not only fans during the game were falling out, getting on the train to go back home was when you saw all sorts of folks getting sick. There was a five hour wait to get on the train, why so long? Trains kept stopping, people were hyperventilating, passing out, hitting the. Emergency stop button, trains were sitting there, every one off the train, back on the train. People were on top of one another.
I myself had heat sickness, I think I scared my daughter, as my health has been a question mark as of late. As I was squeezed in, an old Man got in with a cane, he kept backing into my stomach, I kindly told him, if he bumped into my stomach one more time, I was going to throw up all over his head. I wasn't kidding, two minuets later I threw up three times. Luckily as I was by the door someone had discarded a large paper cup I picked the cup up and let it loose and filled it to the brim. Oh my gosh, what an end to a NFL Sunday."

The heat wasn't a big enough problem that it was the reason the Seahawks lost the game, so it's pointless to mention it

The players have been practicing in summer conditions for a month now. It's the time of the year where it's hot all around the country. The Seahawks are more acclimated to the heat than people here really want to believe.

Sure it was hotter in San Diego, but again, not a big enough reason why the Seahawks lost the game. They lost because the Chargers were more prepared and had a great game plan on offense. From the first drive of the game when the defense was fresh to the last drive, the Chargers pretty much did what they wanted to do.

Stop blaming the heat. It's a lame excuse that other people laugh at.

The heat only became a factor because the Defense couldn't get off the field. I don't think you can really say the heat affected the first 20 minutes of the game. After that our guys were gassed, but at the end of the half it was 14 - 20. Our Defense got to rest for the halftime and was on the verge of getting a 3 and out when Irvin had a brain cramp. Really not trying to dump on him as he played a good game, but that was a pivotal moment as SD went on a long drive and put our defense back in the hole.

Nobody is saying that we lost the game because of the heat. People are only saying the the conditions effected our team more than they effected San Diego's team. It's only common sense. If you live there, you are used to it.

Saying that the heat had zero effect on the Seahawks is like saying that the cold weather has zero effect on Drew Brees. The stats say otherwise.

If you look back at Seattle's history, everytime we've played a southern team, early, it's been tough. And the southern team ALWAYS wear their whites. Do you think there's no reason for that?

Try living in Seattle, being 300 pounds, wearing all of that gear, then having to run and fight other men who are acclimated in that heat and say that it has no effect. Especially when that type of heat kills people. ukeface:

Edit: But SD also EXECUTED and Philip Rivers, an ELITE QB was connecting with his ELITE TE that he has been throwing to for all of these year, even with tight coverage, and that's why the Chargers won the game. Kudos to them.

DavidSeven":1gpqws7x said:

SD's 3-yard checkdown gameplan was obviously tailored to exploit the extreme temperatures. They were also wearing their whites. Seattle was in dark blue, and if you don't think wearing dark blue vs. all white under an unforgiving sun makes a difference, then you should probably get out more.

SD also has the benefit of playing and practicing consistently in the SoCal heat. Does that make a difference? I dunno -- but it sure seems like teams that play consistently in the snow do better in snow games. You ever notice that teams that practice and play in domes can't play in real weather? Acclimation matters.

Anyway, I'm not putting this entire game on the conditions, but I do think they were a factor. We still could have won.

Edit: basically in agreement with L80.

Click to expand...

You should educate yourself about the light/dark clothing in high heat issue.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=96730&start=50#p1416151
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=96730&start=50#p1416163

The heat affected both teams. Some of our guys didn't even stay hydrated properly, which is, frankly, a joke. Sure, the Chargers practice outdoors and are a little more used to it. We've played in very hot outdoor conditions recently, too. Look up the game time conditions from our last couple @ Carolina games, @ Miami, etc.

If your game plan is to throw quick passes and pick up 5 or 6 yards at a clip, you want to maximize the defensive slowness. Taller grass would allow that, especially when the other team is playing off coverage.

As for the heat differential, it's easier to play offense than it is defense. Defense has to be 'perfect' 3 times, but the offense only needs to be successful once (for each new set of downs). As the game wears on, the mental game went in favor of the offense - so while both teams felt the heat, one team 'felt' it a more pronounced way because of the differing success rates. Confidence overcomes difficulties. It would have worked the other way around, against the SD defense, if Seattle picks up 2 fumbles and the offense scores on those swings of fortune.

RolandDeschain":1rgrtfs2 said:

DavidSeven":1rgrtfs2 said:

SD's 3-yard checkdown gameplan was obviously tailored to exploit the extreme temperatures. They were also wearing their whites. Seattle was in dark blue, and if you don't think wearing dark blue vs. all white under an unforgiving sun makes a difference, then you should probably get out more.

SD also has the benefit of playing and practicing consistently in the SoCal heat. Does that make a difference? I dunno -- but it sure seems like teams that play consistently in the snow do better in snow games. You ever notice that teams that practice and play in domes can't play in real weather? Acclimation matters.

Anyway, I'm not putting this entire game on the conditions, but I do think they were a factor. We still could have won.

Edit: basically in agreement with L80.

Click to expand...

You should educate yourself about the light/dark clothing in high heat issue.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=96730&start=50#p1416151
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=96730&start=50#p1416163

The heat affected both teams. Some of our guys didn't even stay hydrated properly, which is, frankly, a joke. Sure, the Chargers practice outdoors and are a little more used to it. We've played in very hot outdoor conditions recently, too. Look up the game time conditions from our last couple @ Carolina games, @ Miami, etc.

Click to expand...

NFL players wear skin tight uniforms. All sources, including the ones you cherry-picked, concede that dark colors absorb light and emit heat. If two people are wearing skin tight uniforms, the lighter color is going to be cooler than the darker color. There might be some potential for dark, LOOSE clothing to be cooler than white, LOOSE clothing because of reflective properties. That is irrelevant here, because both sides are forced to wear skin tight clothing. Thus, I'm not sure why articles discussing dark, loose clothing are part of this discussion. From what I understand, the Seahawks did not have the option to wear their home blue muumus.

IIRC heat temperature is measured in the shade. The SD bench was on the shade side of the field and the Seahawks bench was on the direct sun side. There must have been a fairly significant difference in temperature between the two sides of the field. I would guess that the shade side bench was way cooler than the direct sun bench. Not the reason for the loss but a major component of it IMO.

Those saying the heat was not a problem were not at the game. We were and it was sick. Our sidelines had a canopy that was held over the team while SD was in the shade. We had people falling out around us. People were sick and turning weird colors. I could not yell because if I did, I felt I would pass out. I drank at least 4 bottles of water but poured that many on my head. Now all that being said, the fact that we were in it to then end was what made us proud as fans. We love our team and looking forward to being at this weekends game. Go Hawks.

CamanoIslandJQ":1e6bfmet said:

IIRC heat temperature is measured in the shade.

Click to expand...

Yes, which I pointed out repeatedly with proof of that AND of how much it matters, but some just ignore it "because I wasn't there" which I guess has some correlation between how to actually measure temperature properly. :roll:

DavidSeven":1e6bfmet said:

NFL players wear skin tight uniforms. All sources, including the ones you cherry-picked, concede that dark colors absorb light and emit heat. If two people are wearing skin tight uniforms, the lighter color is going to be cooler than the darker color. There might be some potential for dark, LOOSE clothing to be cooler than white, LOOSE clothing because of reflective properties. That is irrelevant here, because both sides are forced to wear skin tight clothing. Thus, I'm not sure why articles discussing dark, loose clothing are part of this discussion. From what I understand, the Seahawks did not have the option to wear their home blue muumus.

Click to expand...

Put on full pads that these guys wear, then tell me how much of that jersey's actually directly touching skin. Varies by position a lot obviously, but point is, a fair part of the uniform's actually held away from the skin.

A dark object being hotter to the touch than a light one in sunshine does not mean what's behind/under it is hotter as well. A point wildly ignored by some with no plausible reason why.

...Ugh, stop trying to suck me back into this debate, I said I was staying out of it! Lol.

RolandDeschain":3hurigmd said:

CamanoIslandJQ":3hurigmd said:

IIRC heat temperature is measured in the shade.

Click to expand...

Yes, which I pointed out repeatedly with proof of that AND of how much it matters, but some just ignore it "because I wasn't there" which I guess has some correlation between how to actually measure temperature properly. :roll:

DavidSeven":3hurigmd said:

NFL players wear skin tight uniforms. All sources, including the ones you cherry-picked, concede that dark colors absorb light and emit heat. If two people are wearing skin tight uniforms, the lighter color is going to be cooler than the darker color. There might be some potential for dark, LOOSE clothing to be cooler than white, LOOSE clothing because of reflective properties. That is irrelevant here, because both sides are forced to wear skin tight clothing. Thus, I'm not sure why articles discussing dark, loose clothing are part of this discussion. From what I understand, the Seahawks did not have the option to wear their home blue muumus.

Click to expand...

Put on full pads that these guys wear, then tell me how much of that jersey's actually directly touching skin. Varies by position a lot obviously, but point is, a fair part of the uniform's actually held away from the skin.

A dark object being hotter to the touch than a light one in sunshine does not mean what's behind/under it is hotter as well. A point wildly ignored by some with no plausible reason why.

...Ugh, stop trying to suck me back into this debate, I said I was staying out of it! Lol.

Click to expand...

The only reason there is even a debate is because your are incapable of admitting you are wrong. The debate could have been over long ago.

Largent80":38tr8a8n said:

Also, the Chargers practice facility is next door to the stadium. It was 90 + every day last week.

Click to expand...

From Tuesday through Saturday last week the high temperature in San Diego was 82 degrees. The only day that was 90 was Monday, the day that NFL players get off.

On Thursday - Sunday San Diego was between 1 and 3 degrees hotter than Seattle.

For Tuesday and Wednesday it was 9 degrees hotter (81 and 82 degrees).

Of course, if the Hawks had won and Chargers fans were insisting that they're team lost because it was worn out from practicing in 9 degree hotter weather on Tuesday and Wednesday then Hawks fans would (rightly) laugh at them, just as I'm sure Chargers fans are (rightly) laughing at Hawks fans now.

Popeyejones":2qov0yr2 said:

Largent80":2qov0yr2 said:

Also, the Chargers practice facility is next door to the stadium. It was 90 + every day last week.

Click to expand...

From Tuesday through Saturday last week the high temperature in San Diego was 82 degrees. The only day that was 90 was Monday, the day that NFL players get off.

On Thursday - Sunday San Diego was between 1 and 3 degrees hotter than Seattle.

For Tuesday and Wednesday it was 9 degrees hotter (81 and 82 degrees).

Of course, if the Hawks had won and Chargers fans were insisting that they're team lost because it was worn out from practicing in 9 degree hotter weather on Tuesday and Wednesday then Hawks fans would (rightly) laugh at them, just as I'm sure Chargers fans are (rightly) laughing at Hawks fans now.

Click to expand...

I was right next to the stadium since wed before the game. It was far hotter then 82. San Diego is a huge city. The national weather is taken at the airport which is right on the water and far away from the stadium. It was 90+, including a few peaks into the 100's next to the stadium.

I WAS THERE. YOU WERE NOT.

Sgt. Largent":3arnuhea said:

Largent80":3arnuhea said:

If you think the heat wasn't a problem, you weren't there.

Click to expand...

Again, it was only a problem because we couldn't get off the damn field. It wasn't a problem for SD's defense not because of all the things you listed, it wasn't a problem because they were barely on the field, thus were fresh to stuff us on our last couple drives.

Yes if you're defense is on the field for 75% of the plays run in 100 degree heat, it is a factor. But it's a chicken or the egg discussion........if the defense plays the way it should have played, no one's talking about the heat. Period.

Click to expand...

I always love people who know better than people who were there.

The heat was a factor in CROSSING THE PARKING LOT, so it probably had some influence on the field.

Why not equally? a) the obvious... the Chargers had practiced in it for a week b) The Chargers, presumably based on their experience during practice, got pre emptive IVs done before the game and at half time. Except for Richard Sherman, the Seahawks were doing IVs only reactively.

Dont know how you can pretend the weather didnt influence the game when you know for a fact that Seahawk players missed substantial time.

Its not an excuse and its not the sole reason.

The Chargers had a better game plan, and executed perfectly.

But its ridiculous to pretend the weather was not a factor at all.