Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

I think it's been pretty clear, but the Linc turf sucks quasi-straight, wealthy cock.

The Eagles have been vigorously denying they have a turf problem, claiming it's one of the best in the league.

Apparently during Super Bowl week, their dreams have been publicly dashed in two separate quotes, plus some new statistics released:

1. On the surface. NFL Players Association executive director Gene Upshaw said yesterday that Lincoln Financial Field had one of the worst playing surfaces in the NFL. The Eagles play on a DD Grassmaster surface that required resodding late in the season.

A survey of NFL players by their union last year listed the Linc's playing surface 23d among the league's 32 teams. Upshaw said Field Turf was the surface of choice among NFL players.

2. Lincoln Financial Field might be a great place to watch a game, but it isn't a great place to play one. Players association president Troy Vincent said the consensus of the league's players is that the DD Grassmaster fields at the Linc and Pittsburgh's Heinz Field are the worst playing surfaces in the league.
"Philly and Pittsburgh, take your pick," said Vincent, a former Eagles cornerback. "They're the two worst fields to play on. Sloppy, muddy. And it wasn't just the skill-position guys saying that. It was the interior-play guys saying that the surface was pretty tough to play on."

Both fields had to be re-sodded during the season.

Gene Upshaw said he'd like to see both the Eagles and Steelers switch to FieldTurf, which is what the Seattle Seahawks have at Qwest Field. In a survey of players 2 years ago, Qwest was overwhelmingly voted the league's best playing surface.

It should be noted that the Patriots recognized their issues with the Grassmaster field in their environment before they had to be publicly ridiculed by the NFL and players, replacing it with FieldTurf last off-season.

when it had been mentioned several times during the year (by broadcasters and players int he media) that the Eagles field was a joke, the Spuds had this to say:

1. "No, the Eagles want to keep natural grass. The players prefer it and the team prefers it."

2. "I prefer the natural grass and the players prefer it and that is what is going to stay. It's part of the game if you want to have a grass field."

3. "Too many players slipped. A.J. had a receiver wide, wide open on that one play. Ugh ... The Eagles are committed to a grass field"

4. "The Eagles would like to keep the grass field. In Pittsburgh, the sod was down for two days. Here, the sod has already been down for a couple of weeks and it should play great on Sunday and for the two games after that and hopefully a playoff game. After that, the sod gets rolled up and the field grows again for next season."

5. "I've talked to some players who actually liked the field on Sunday ... three games in eight days is a lot of wear and tear, so the sod is here for the remainder of the season. Once the season is complete, the sod will be rolled up and the DD Grassmaster field will grow for next season. If need be, the Eagles will re-sod in the future."

6. "The field was actually better than I thought for three games in eight days. It will be better. Don't worry."

7. "I personally would prefer grass. I don't think turf would look better. So, no, there hasn't been talk."

8. "Actually, nobody slips and falls and while the visual part may be important to you, it isn't important in the game. The plan is to continue to manage it and have it play well. I know it doesn't look great on TV, but when is the last time you saw somebody try to make a cut and fall? Go back and look at the games."

9. "The footing was the same for both teams. Gocong did not play poorly in all three games. Only at times in this game."

10. "The field was in good shape until the Army-Navy game preceeded the Carolina game by two days. It rained during Army-Navy and tore it up a bit. I saw the rankings and the Eagles want to see the entire survey. In reality, while the middle of the field didn't look pretty in the Dec. 31 and in the playoff game, nobody slipped. Nobody lost his footing. That is in sharp contrast to other grass fields.

I don't expect the Eagles to change the surface."

11. "The field looked like it was in decent shape, in terms of the pure look. It isn't in August condition, for sure. What the Eagles have stressed to me is that the playability was very good on Sunday. Did you see anybody slip and slide, lose his feet? I didn't. The Eagles could paint it and make it look all shiny and nice ..."

12. "I suggest you look at other fields, and at the number of players on those fields slipping all over the place. Field looked good for December. Not good for August, but good for December. They grew what they could grow and they are going to work on it. Sod is stupid to put in during a season, so forget it. Go look at a Steelers or Redskins --disgusting amounts of sand -- or look at anybody else with natural grass. Aikman is wrong. He must have been talking to kickers ..."

13. "The field was fine for Army-Navy and then got torn up. I didn't see a lot of guys slipping and falling on Monday night, though."

14. "No plans to change from the current surface."

This is all from individual posts in the last calendar year (did a 5 minute search to find them, so I'm sure there are a lot more).

I personally don;t know how bad the field is, but it's been pretty clear that by the end of the last 2 seasons it's been destroyed.

The thing I can;t wrap my head around is why the Eagles are so stubborn in saying they have a great playing surface when the broadcasters, players, union, etc. all tell them they are wrong?

Par for the course, I suppose.

I should add that this is where my comments start again after the 2nd article snippet:

It should be noted that the Patriots recognized their issues with the Grassmaster field in their environment before they had to be publicly ridiculed by the NFL and players, replacing it with FieldTurf last off-season.

"Glenn Drunk"

The thing I can;t wrap my head around is why the Eagles are so stubborn in saying they have a great playing surface when the broadcasters, players, union, etc. all tell them they are wrong?

Same reason for the lack of hurry-up offense in the last 5:00 of the SB?

Because all they did was rip the Vet rip the Vet and rip the Vet some more. Now they have their taxpayer funded palace that they designed, and they can't take any criticism. Imagine McNabb tore his ACL on a non-contact play at the Vet? YOu wouldn't hear the end of it.

Imagine McNabb tore his ACL on a non-contact play at the Vet? YOu wouldn't hear the end of it.

That's very true.

I'm surprised that the NFL hasn't stepped in and required every single team to have the same surface. They are so over-protective of their product yet the biggest visible part of their product is often an ugly mess.

Plus, having Temple play on it doesn't help matters.

They whore the stadium out for concerts in the summer, too.

That's the problem with Pitt too

Al Golden and Kenny Chesney can suck a fat one!

It really is odd they let Temple play there. It's like buying a Ferrari and letting your kid, who just got his license, take it

They want to be a part of the Temple Football Dynasty from the ground floor up.

If they let Temple play there, they can scout the players so the decent ones don't slip by, like Raheem Brock.

THey get $$$$ for Temple playing there.

So you're saying it's b/c Lurie is jewish?

KB your unconscious probably assumed that b/c it saw "$$$$$" and the word "Temple" in the same sentance

Neag....cold...cold.

Same reason for the lack of hurry-up offense in the last 5:00 of the SB?

That started with 8:42 left, Bass.

it started at the end of the '06 season. i started commenting to my buddy that the field looked worn and dirt was flying behind guys running fast.

this yr started out looking better, but it quickly went back to crappy just a few gms in.

Glad to see this thread, and I contemplated starting one on this subject at various times this season. The field looked like shit from October on, and I don't think it had anything to do with the number of games played on it. I can see the argument if the thing was still healthy and the center was ripped up from overuse, but it started to turn greenish brown in early October, and went to overall brown by the end of the month. Believe me, I'm no turf guru, but just by looking at it, I gotta question it's ability to grow healthy grass at any time if it can't do so during a month with temps that certainly weren't cold and there was ample rain. I think that the whole theory of putting interlocking squares of grass down on top of a hydronic heating system and expecting good turf is fundementally flawed. Exactly how is the grass supposed to get a healthy root system when it's planted on a gridwork of rebar and plastic tubes?

I guess that the organization is steadfast in ignoring the obvious for fear of losing face by going back to the EXACT SAME SURFACE that they cursed at the Vet.

Yes, I know that the Vet's horrible Astroturf 8 was replaced with FieldTurf in 2001, but the fact remains that they sold everyone so hard on the new field having natural turf that they chose to ignore the fact that it was the original astroturf and it's seams & cutouts around the baseball configuration that posed the biggest demons of Vet lore. They really don't want to admit that once they got the new FieldTurf properly installed, the seams & turf weren't nearly the issue that they once were. In order to do that, ownership would have to admit a miscalculation, and God knows, we don't have any of those around here.

Fellas, come clean here. It really wasn't about the turf, it was about the mid-level corporate seating that the Vet couldn't accommodate. Do the right thing and admit what the guys up the road (both of them, actually) who are playing in the SB did and acknowledge the fact that trying to grow grass in this climate for half a season is a losing proposition.

Not only the seams and what-not, but, more importantly, 1/4 inch below the surface was all f-ing CONCRETE!

For some reason, this topic has become Black and White while not allowing for the enormous technological advances in that business.

Pittsburgh is switching this off-season. Guess Philly needs an embarrassment like that Steeler Monday (or was it Thursday) night slosh-fest where the lines were washed away along with the newly replaced sod.