- Joined:
- Jan 4, 2011
- Posts:
- 45,912
- Liked Posts:
- 40,609
- Location:
- Chicago
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/foot...-field-grass-might-be-costing-bears-wins.html
editor's note: and, yes, what about the opponents?
Soldier Field grass might be costing Bears wins
BY MARK POTASH Staff Reporter October 29, 2014 9:11PM
Bears coach Marc Trestman missed his cue.
The slipshod condition of Soldier Field’s grass surface during the Bears’ loss Oct. 19 to the Miami Dolphins — with players on both teams slipping and falling — led to the inevitable question for Trestman last week: Does the condition of the surface affect his game-planning?
It was Trestman’s opportunity to lobby Bears ownership and the Chicago Park District to end years of stubbornness and install an artificial surface that would — to put it in terms general manager Phil Emery can appreciate — give Trestman’s teams the best chance to win. Instead, Trestman toed the company line and abstained.
‘‘I’m not going to go into that long dissertation,’’ Trestman said. ‘‘We had players on both sides slipping [against the Dolphins]. That was evident from the tape. Whether it was related to the field or the footwear is another issue.’’
‘‘The field or the footwear’’? It’s always interesting to see how far Bears personnel will go to avoid criticizing the Soldier Field turf, which has been considered one of the worst in the NFL — by Bears players and opposing players — for years. Emery, while saying he was open to change, defended the turf last week during an online chat on the Bears’ website.
‘‘No. 1, the Chicago Bears in the last 10 years have about a .625 winning percentage at home,’’ Emery wrote. ‘‘We are below .500 on the road. We’re in the top 10 in the NFL in home wins over the last 10 years. If I had my druthers, I’d bring the Soldier Field surface with us on the road, based on that record. That doesn’t mean that we don’t constantly research what is best for our players and wouldn’t make an adjustment in
the future.’’
Unfortunately, that 10th-ranked home record since 2004 (50-30) has netted the Bears only three playoff berths, tied for 16th in the NFL. And most of those home victories came during the Lovie Smith era, when the Bears were a defensive team with a subpar offense.
The situation has reversed under Emery. Now the Bears’ strength is their offense under Trestman. And virtually every consistently good offensive team in the NFL in the last 10 years plays on turf — the New Orleans Saints and New England Patriots, in particular. (A point of clarification: The Green Bay Packers play on a grass surface at Lambeau Field, but it’s a specialty surface, GrassMaster, that is a level above natural grass.)
In fact, the Patriots’ rise to offensive prominence with Tom Brady coincides almost directly with the installation of FieldTurf at Gillette stadium in 2006. Since then, the Patriots have ranked in the top 10 in the NFL in points (3-1-3-1-6-8-1-3) and total yards (7-1-2-8-3-5-1-10). Before that, playing on a grass field at home, the Patriots were 7-10-4-12-10 in points and 11-7-7-17-21 in yards in the Brady era. To simplify the numbers, the Patriots have averaged fourth in points and fifth in yards playing on turf; they averaged ninth in points and 13th in yards playing on grass.
The final numbers of the Patriots’ grass/FieldTurf season in 2006 were compelling. They averaged 16 points and were 2-3 on grass; they averaged 30.5 points and were 4-0 on FieldTurf. Furthermore, they played the New York Jets at home twice that season, losing 17-14 on grass and winning 37-16 in the playoffs on FieldTurf.
That evidence, though, is not so compelling to Emery, who has the power to lobby the Park District to install a credible playing surface at Soldier Field.
‘‘I just don’t believe that [playing] surfaces determine who wins and loses,’’ Emery said. ‘‘You’re pointing out the No. 1 team. How come the 30th and 31st teams aren’t winning more at home? It’s about the players. It’s about the team. And it’s about the situation.’’
To answer Emery’s question, the 30th and 31st teams aren’t winning more at home because they are bad football teams. The argument isn’t that an artificial surface will turn a bad team into a good one; the argument is that it will enhance a good offense. The Bears clearly are an offense-first, offense-strong team. It makes competitive sense that they play to their strength.
Trestman, of all people, should be aware of the advantages of playing on artificial turf. His Montreal Alouettes teams in the Canadian Football League played almost exclusively on turf and were first or second in points and yards in four of his five seasons.
In fact, the Alouettes played only two games on grass during Trestman’s five-year tenure — at the Edmonton Eskimos in 2008 and 2009 — and lost both of them. In 2009, the Alouettes, on their way to the Grey Cup championship, lost to a mediocre Eskimos team 33-19 in Edmonton. Three weeks later, they beat the same team
50-19 on artificial turf at home. Hmmm.
Maybe it’s because of the awkward relationship with the Park District, but the Bears have a surprising aversion to improving the playing surface at Soldier Field. It has been an issue for years. And while the grass is better than it has been, it was an issue against the Dolphins. And that was only the third game at Soldier Field in a nine-week span in late summer and early fall. What are the odds it will be any better when the Bears play five games in six weeks at Soldier Field in November and December?
That’s reason enough to install a specialty turf at Soldier Field. You don’t have to be an expert at X’s-and-O’s and talent evaluation to know that players slipping and falling on a field — no matter which team they’re on — is bad football. The additional argument is one that should resonate at Halas Hall: It gives the Bears the best chance to win.
‘‘I just don’t see [FieldTurf] as the end result,’’ Emery said. ‘‘Are we open to continuing to look for ways to improve our playing surface? Yes, we are. That’s not going to happen at the midpoint of this year.’’
Email: mpotash@suntimes.com
Twitter: @MarkPotash
editor's note: and, yes, what about the opponents?
Soldier Field grass might be costing Bears wins
BY MARK POTASH Staff Reporter October 29, 2014 9:11PM
Bears coach Marc Trestman missed his cue.
The slipshod condition of Soldier Field’s grass surface during the Bears’ loss Oct. 19 to the Miami Dolphins — with players on both teams slipping and falling — led to the inevitable question for Trestman last week: Does the condition of the surface affect his game-planning?
It was Trestman’s opportunity to lobby Bears ownership and the Chicago Park District to end years of stubbornness and install an artificial surface that would — to put it in terms general manager Phil Emery can appreciate — give Trestman’s teams the best chance to win. Instead, Trestman toed the company line and abstained.
‘‘I’m not going to go into that long dissertation,’’ Trestman said. ‘‘We had players on both sides slipping [against the Dolphins]. That was evident from the tape. Whether it was related to the field or the footwear is another issue.’’
‘‘The field or the footwear’’? It’s always interesting to see how far Bears personnel will go to avoid criticizing the Soldier Field turf, which has been considered one of the worst in the NFL — by Bears players and opposing players — for years. Emery, while saying he was open to change, defended the turf last week during an online chat on the Bears’ website.
‘‘No. 1, the Chicago Bears in the last 10 years have about a .625 winning percentage at home,’’ Emery wrote. ‘‘We are below .500 on the road. We’re in the top 10 in the NFL in home wins over the last 10 years. If I had my druthers, I’d bring the Soldier Field surface with us on the road, based on that record. That doesn’t mean that we don’t constantly research what is best for our players and wouldn’t make an adjustment in
the future.’’
Unfortunately, that 10th-ranked home record since 2004 (50-30) has netted the Bears only three playoff berths, tied for 16th in the NFL. And most of those home victories came during the Lovie Smith era, when the Bears were a defensive team with a subpar offense.
The situation has reversed under Emery. Now the Bears’ strength is their offense under Trestman. And virtually every consistently good offensive team in the NFL in the last 10 years plays on turf — the New Orleans Saints and New England Patriots, in particular. (A point of clarification: The Green Bay Packers play on a grass surface at Lambeau Field, but it’s a specialty surface, GrassMaster, that is a level above natural grass.)
In fact, the Patriots’ rise to offensive prominence with Tom Brady coincides almost directly with the installation of FieldTurf at Gillette stadium in 2006. Since then, the Patriots have ranked in the top 10 in the NFL in points (3-1-3-1-6-8-1-3) and total yards (7-1-2-8-3-5-1-10). Before that, playing on a grass field at home, the Patriots were 7-10-4-12-10 in points and 11-7-7-17-21 in yards in the Brady era. To simplify the numbers, the Patriots have averaged fourth in points and fifth in yards playing on turf; they averaged ninth in points and 13th in yards playing on grass.
The final numbers of the Patriots’ grass/FieldTurf season in 2006 were compelling. They averaged 16 points and were 2-3 on grass; they averaged 30.5 points and were 4-0 on FieldTurf. Furthermore, they played the New York Jets at home twice that season, losing 17-14 on grass and winning 37-16 in the playoffs on FieldTurf.
That evidence, though, is not so compelling to Emery, who has the power to lobby the Park District to install a credible playing surface at Soldier Field.
‘‘I just don’t believe that [playing] surfaces determine who wins and loses,’’ Emery said. ‘‘You’re pointing out the No. 1 team. How come the 30th and 31st teams aren’t winning more at home? It’s about the players. It’s about the team. And it’s about the situation.’’
To answer Emery’s question, the 30th and 31st teams aren’t winning more at home because they are bad football teams. The argument isn’t that an artificial surface will turn a bad team into a good one; the argument is that it will enhance a good offense. The Bears clearly are an offense-first, offense-strong team. It makes competitive sense that they play to their strength.
Trestman, of all people, should be aware of the advantages of playing on artificial turf. His Montreal Alouettes teams in the Canadian Football League played almost exclusively on turf and were first or second in points and yards in four of his five seasons.
In fact, the Alouettes played only two games on grass during Trestman’s five-year tenure — at the Edmonton Eskimos in 2008 and 2009 — and lost both of them. In 2009, the Alouettes, on their way to the Grey Cup championship, lost to a mediocre Eskimos team 33-19 in Edmonton. Three weeks later, they beat the same team
50-19 on artificial turf at home. Hmmm.
Maybe it’s because of the awkward relationship with the Park District, but the Bears have a surprising aversion to improving the playing surface at Soldier Field. It has been an issue for years. And while the grass is better than it has been, it was an issue against the Dolphins. And that was only the third game at Soldier Field in a nine-week span in late summer and early fall. What are the odds it will be any better when the Bears play five games in six weeks at Soldier Field in November and December?
That’s reason enough to install a specialty turf at Soldier Field. You don’t have to be an expert at X’s-and-O’s and talent evaluation to know that players slipping and falling on a field — no matter which team they’re on — is bad football. The additional argument is one that should resonate at Halas Hall: It gives the Bears the best chance to win.
‘‘I just don’t see [FieldTurf] as the end result,’’ Emery said. ‘‘Are we open to continuing to look for ways to improve our playing surface? Yes, we are. That’s not going to happen at the midpoint of this year.’’
Email: mpotash@suntimes.com
Twitter: @MarkPotash