and it's not close.
What sticks out about the two championship runs is that we were briefly, mostly, healthy during them. Yes, I know there were a few injured players like Shockey - there's always someone injured in football. But over the last few years, outside those runs, it seems like we've been slaughtered with foot, leg, knee, hip, back injuries etc. Yes, I know it's football. No, I don't have numbers to show it's worse for turf teams than for grass teams or worse for the Giants than anyone else, although it sure feels that way. (I'm not sure I trust a lot of the numbers and analysis either, given some of the financial stakes involved.)
Anyway, it's not just about the numbers. If you run the risk of leg injuries, who wouldn't rather play on soft grass that gives? That field was not only pretty good to our players health-wise, it seems like the last time we had a tremendous home-field advantage is when we had that field. Our team knew that field, and the other teams didn't. Then the owners decided it was too expensive to replace the trays often enough, and got rid of it. A really strange decision for a team that normally treats its people so very well. I truly have never understood the decision. There's no such thing as karma, but boy, if there was, that was some bad karma right there.
I don't miss some of the players and coaches from that era, but I really miss that field. It was fun to see the Giants play at home when they had it. I wish they would bring it back, even though I know they won't.
In 2000?
7 years before Superbowl 42?
That had to be painted green because the grass wouldn't take?
Did you really forget?
?
?
?
Profit!
?
And it's not even close
Cheers.
What they show is that natural grass falls in between the 1st generation turf (Astroturf)and the new Field Turf being used by teams today in regards to "surface causing injuries).
I have to believe some of the findings are based on qualitative data because they try to separate concussions from the ones caused by hits to those caused by the ground, but the finding show that field turf is actually safer by a moderate margin.
However, the general consensus is that field turf is better by a considerable margin because you can't account for factors like players bodies becoming too big for their skeletons in a study like this, so a muscle tear in the leg will get blamed on turf, even though it is most likely a result of overtraining or a substance abuse situation.
I'll see if there is a link to the studies anywhere.