For us to have a GREAT defense..we need to move on from DOME

[phocis850]

(01-21-2011 02:01 AM)Radical Wrote:  You ever heard an announcer or player something about how the field is "fast"?

The grass in a dome is more or less carpet, and domes also lack any kind of wind. What this allows for is less resistance while running and avoids issues with the elements when throwing down field.

Outside fields lend themselves more to short/intermediate passes, power run games, and downhill styled defenses.

When you look at our offense, we're simply slow all around. None of RBs are very fast, only Roddy White can really stretch the field, and none of our TEs stretch the field at this point. A power run team works best out doors, where the defense isn't able to change directions as quickly and maintain the most solid footing.

We don't have to switch to some wide open spread offense. I am simply suggesting that our offense needs speed on the outside and speed in the backfield to go along with Turner.

Our defense on the other hand is built with an indoor field in mind. Sideline to sideline speed, athleticism, and a swarming style of attack is our strong point.

It isn't game breaking, the Steelers defense is going to be a good defense no matter what field you put it on. However, I promise you that an offense like the Eagles is not going to be as good outside as it would be indoors.

(01-21-2011 11:17 AM)Peyton Wrote:  Actually fast players do run faster on turf. The Falcons aren't particularely fast at a lot of important speed positions. Did you ever see the Greatest Show on Turf play on grass? Completely different team.

Ok guys, I need scientific data to back this up or your observations and assumptions are flat out busted.

To say that if we played outside things would be better... considering all things equal don't all players play on the same field on a Sunday? It doesn't matter if it's turf or grass. I know weather can change things but to say that the 2-5 mph wind to your back makes that much difference when running is flat out retarded. Throwing is a different story of course.

This is the biggest pile of Mularkey I've ever heard.

[Peyton]

(01-21-2011 11:48 AM)phocis850 Wrote:  Ok guys, I need scientific data to back this up or your observations and assumptions are flat out busted.

To say that if we played outside things would be better... considering all things equal don't all players play on the same field on a Sunday? It doesn't matter if it's turf or grass. I know weather can change things but to say that the 2-5 mph wind to your back makes that much difference when running is flat out retarded. Throwing is a different story of course.

This is the biggest pile of Mularkey I've ever heard.

Have you ever heard that a muddy field helps the slower team? Well, grass is the same way, but to a much smaller degree. It's not like....some secret that we are sharing here. It's pretty common knowledge that players can run faster on some surfaces as opposed to others.

That's why you see college players running 4.5 at the combine then going back to their awesome fast college track and running a 4.35 at their pro day.

[phocis850]

(01-21-2011 11:53 AM)Peyton Wrote:  Have you ever heard that a muddy field helps the slower team? Well, grass is the same way, but to a much smaller degree. It's not like....some secret that we are sharing here. It's pretty common knowledge that players can run faster on some surfaces as opposed to others.

That's why you see college players running 4.5 at the combine then going back to their awesome fast college track and running a 4.35 at their pro day.

Heard... schmeard. A muddy field slows down everyone equally. Equal conditions. Your thought process is flawed. The faster team is moving around at the same depreciation as the slower team except the faster team can't keep a firm footing as well as the slower team. It has nothing to do with what were talking about.

Why would team or any other team perform better inside or out? The suns magical rays won't make our team better.

[Peyton]

(01-21-2011 12:04 PM)phocis850 Wrote:  Heard... schmeard. A muddy field slows down everyone equally. Equal conditions. Your thought process is flawed. The faster team is moving around at the same depreciation as the slower team except the faster team can't keep a firm footing as well as the slower team. It has nothing to do with what were talking about.

Why would team or any other team perform better inside or out? The suns magical rays won't make our team better.

I'm not talking about the sun. I am talking about the playing surface.

I know you are very smart and good at math, so i know that you know that if two guys speeds depreciate at the same percentage, then the difference in their speeds still shrinks.

That's the concept.

[Radical]

(01-21-2011 11:48 AM)phocis850 Wrote:  Ok guys, I need scientific data to back this up or your observations and assumptions are flat out busted.

To say that if we played outside things would be better... considering all things equal don't all players play on the same field on a Sunday? It doesn't matter if it's turf or grass. I know weather can change things but to say that the 2-5 mph wind to your back makes that much difference when running is flat out retarded. Throwing is a different story of course.

This is the biggest pile of Mularkey I've ever heard.

It is about as common knowledge is football as you can get.

There is a difference in grip on the ground for real grass and artificial turf. Do I need to tell you that you slide better on a polished/buffed basketball floor with socks on that you do shag carpet as well?

[phocis850]

(01-21-2011 12:24 PM)Peyton Wrote:  I'm not talking about the sun. I am talking about the playing surface.

I know you are very smart and good at math, so i know that you know that if two guys speeds depreciate at the same percentage, then the difference in their speeds still shrinks.

That's the concept.

Yes, so why would this be an advantage for the slower team? The rate at which players would decrease velocity would be constant.

(01-21-2011 12:35 PM)Radical Wrote:  It is about as common knowledge is football as you can get.

There is a difference in grip on the ground for real grass and artificial turf. Do I need to tell you that you slide better on a polished/buffed basketball floor with socks on that you do shag carpet as well?

I know about mud. We are talking about grass vs turf and the speed difference.
Your stating that the difference is grip. I know about grip. I know that you will get better footing in grass. What makes that an advantage for the slow team? Both teams have this constant grip benefit.

I don't need a common knowledge answer. I want statistics. It all sounds great, but it isn't possible to believe this stuff.

[juraitwaluzka]

It's not about constants or absolutes. It's about relative speed. If you compared the speed of 2 opposing players on grass and measured the difference, then did the same thing on turf you would find that both players got faster but not by the same amount. On turf, the difference would grow, giving more of an advantage to the faster guy. The rich get richer.

Let's say that on grass a particular WR can run at 20mph and a DB is a bit slower and can run at 19.5 mph. Say that each gets a 10% speed boost by the turf (I think the actual boost would vary from player to player based on factors such as body mass, body type, overall conditioning etc... but lets just take the simple approach and assume that everyone has a speed increase by the same percentage).

After switching to turf, the WR can run at 22mph and the DB can now run at 21.45mph. So on grass the relative speed difference was 0.5mph but on turf, while both players increased their speed by the same percentage, the relative difference has increased, now the WR is 0.55mph faster. Not a big gain by any stretch but when you are talking about inches it can make a difference.

Now, I don't know if 10% is the actual percentage, but it doesn't matter, the math is the same. The actual percentage only determines the amount of relative increase, but that increase will always happen.

Conversely, a turf team that plays on grass experiences the opposite effect. While both teams are slowed down, the relative speed difference between the two decreases, thereby giving the slower team an advantage vs playing on turf.

[Radical]

I read an article a while back on this, can't find it though.

They found that the difference in speed between the newest artificial turf and natural grass was pretty much none, but on the agility tests(changing directions) the artificial turf provided an advantage of nearly 1/4 to 1/2 of a second. On the older generation of artificial turf, there was a marked difference in straight line speed compared to natural grass.

It is hard to test this kind of thing because it requires you to also consider other factors outside of just speed, being used to that kind of field, and the type of footwear being utilized.

[phocis850]

(01-21-2011 03:05 PM)juraitwaluzka Wrote:  It's not about constants or absolutes. It's about relative speed. If you compared the speed of 2 opposing players on grass and measured the difference, then did the same thing on turf you would find that both players got faster but not by the same amount. On turf, the difference would grow, giving more of an advantage to the faster guy. The rich get richer.

Let's say that on grass a particular WR can run at 20mph and a DB is a bit slower and can run at 19.5 mph. Say that each gets a 10% speed boost by the turf (I think the actual boost would vary from player to player based on factors such as body mass, body type, overall conditioning etc... but lets just take the simple approach and assume that everyone has a speed increase by the same percentage).

After switching to turf, the WR can run at 22mph and the DB can now run at 21.45mph. So on grass the relative speed difference was 0.5mph but on turf, while both players increased their speed by the same percentage, the relative difference has increased, now the WR is 0.55mph faster. Not a big gain by any stretch but when you are talking about inches it can make a difference.

Now, I don't know if 10% is the actual percentage, but it doesn't matter, the math is the same. The actual percentage only determines the amount of relative increase, but that increase will always happen.

Conversely, a turf team that plays on grass experiences the opposite effect. While both teams are slowed down, the relative speed difference between the two decreases, thereby giving the slower team an advantage vs playing on turf.

This is logical. Thanks. Everyone else... remember this info. A 10% increase for player A does not mean the 10% increase for player B is equal.

If Player A ran = 100mph
Then a 10% increase = 110mph

If Player B ran = 1000mph
Then a 10% increase = 1100mph

I know those are drastic, but it shows the difference easily.

[papachaz]

(01-21-2011 01:12 AM)phocis850 Wrote:  I may not be the smartest when it comes to football knowledge, but what the hell kinda lame thinking is this?
Not a dome team?
Built to play outdoors?
My dog cries at night holding a shampoo bottle?

These sentences make no logical sense. You think the players are gonna run faster in the Sun?

Have you guys not noticed how often we win in domes? Particularly our own?

get him some baby shampoo, that won't burn his eyes...... LMAO couldn't resist, sorry david