If you give an asterick to Performance Enhancing Drugs, then you ought to asterick Artificial turf runners.
Would Barry Sanders or Emit Smith be as good on grass as they were on rugs?
Artificial turf was "PERFORMANCE ENHANCING TURF".
Jim Brown would still be the all time rushing champion if artificial turf rugs wouldn't have been used.
Whats the difference between performance enhancing drugs and performance enhancing surfaces?
The difference is an individual vs environment. People dont always play well or like turf. Times change, some teams play on it more than others but does that give the advantage to the team who plays on grass all the time and a turf team comes into town? Or vice versa? Also with drugs the individual will play at a higher level unlike a field where everyone is running on the same type of ground. Case closed
Who cares, the Owners pay the damn money. So let them have what they want.
It's called, adjusting to your enviroment. It doesnt affect AP at all, never affected Tomlinson.
Talking when AP is on the road.
Last edited by steelchamp204; 01-25-2013 at 03:49 PM.
It would appear that turf to grass takes more than adjusting to your environment.
If you could adjust and not lose anything, we would be seeing multiple great RB's nowadays.
There are so few outstanding backs nowadays because we got rid of the turf. Thats why I said they should get an asterick. A lot of those "great RB's" wouldn't be so great if they didn't have turf.
If we never would have gone to turf, Jim Brown would probably still be the leading career rusher. Followed by Bettis because he didn't need turf. Curtis Martin is a good example of a turf runner. Clinton Portis, Sanders, and Smith too.
Payton would have been great on grass too.
Lets just look at Barry Sanders 2000 yard season in 1997.......@ Chicago 19 carries 161 yards, @ Tampa Bay 24 carries 215 yards, @ Green Bay 23 carries 105 yards, @ Washington 15 carries 105 yards, @ Miami 30 carries 137 yards...............111 carries for 723 yards on grass fields in 1997....Yea turf made Barry Sanders great...eyes rolling....lolOriginally Posted by weakdraft
You probably posted a list of the worst teams in the nfl that year. Rolls eyes.
3 of those 5 teams were playoff teams (Tampa Bay, Miami, Green Bay). Tampa was 6th against the run (Worth mentioning that of the 5 games listed, his best was against Tampa). Only Washington had a bottom-10 rush defense. Tampa (2) Green Bay (5) and Washington (9) were each top-10 scoring defenses. Chicago was the only team of those noted in the bottom-10 in scoring defense (but was still 12th in total defense)
Doesn't matter your sorry *** excuse of Turfs making RB's great was just shut down.........so whatever dude.....such a lame *** excuse......
Here is a quantitative look using stats from 1997-1999.
The money quote:B&G nailed the coffin shut on this theory and this throws the dirt on it..."In fact, in terms of styles, there doesn't seem to be any pattern at all to the list. This is an indication that "ability to run better on turf" and "ability to run better on grass" are not really abilities at all. I strongly suspect that simple random chance ordered that list and that it has no predictive value whatsoever. If we re-do this list after the 2000 seasons, it's just as likely to be flipped upside down as stay where it is.
Summing up, I think we have pretty strong evidence here that playing surface should play no role whatsoever in determining which running backs you draft or which ones you start. Turf may give running backs better traction, but it also gives defenders better traction, and apparently it evens out."
(Click on "quantitative look" above for the link.)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks