PDA

View Full Version : Have Things Turned Out As Planned?


CloakNNNdagger
07-10-2008, 08:15 AM
This is a thread that I am beginning as a springboard from a Nunusguy post on another thread.


The Texans placed a lot of emphasis on the planning of strategies to make Reliant Stadium and its support facilities the safety and maximum home field advantage:

Real grass which could be maintained fresh every game by allowing frequent feeding by sun and changing pallets often............The architects miscalculated the angle of the sun and the amount of time that the grass would be exposed for adequate growth. The frequency of changing of the pallets initially was very inadequate. Recently, the grass condition at game time has been improved by more frequent pallet changes. However, changes have not been able to be performed often enough to maintain a relatively uniform field.

Practices in the mid day Houston sun would harden the troops. There is no doubt that the 1st few years, the players sustained an inordinate number of muscle injuries during OTA’s, TC, preseason and regular season practices, with the heat factor (dehydration, improper pre-activity preparation, etc). This has improved in recent years, but is still suspect.

The heat factor would beat down the opponent. The sun would fry the opponent’s bench. We only have to ask ourselves, how often do we have the roof open in extremes of heat???? How often are the players exposed to extreme heat and humidity in away games???

maddogmrb
07-10-2008, 08:47 AM
Seldom does anything happen as planned.

You make your plan.

Work your plan.

Adjust your plan along the way.

Look for improvement every year.

Good news is cheerleaders are always hot!

:texflag:

nunusguy
07-10-2008, 09:11 AM
The heat factor would beat down the opponent. The sun would fry the opponent’s bench. We only have to ask ourselves, how often do we have the roof open in extremes of heat???? How often are the players exposed to extreme heat and humidity in away games???
I didn't attend the Pittsburg game in Reliant a few years back, but from what I understand that strategy worked out OK then ? But for the Steelers. And they come from a climate which is anything but like the very steamy, hot climate we have in Houston so go figure ? And many fans were crucified by the temp & humity from what I understand ?

Brando
07-10-2008, 09:22 AM
I didn't attend the Pittsburg game in Reliant a few years back, but from what I understand that strategy worked out OK then ? But for the Steelers. And they come from a climate which is anything but like the very steamy, hot climate we have in Houston so go figure ? And many fans were crucified by the temp & humity from what I understand ?

That game defined the 2005 season. :gun:

alphajoker
07-10-2008, 10:28 AM
That game defined the 2005 season. :gun:

What 2005 season? I've blocked that season out of my head. :tease:

ChampionTexan
07-10-2008, 10:53 AM
I didn't attend the Pittsburg game in Reliant a few years back, but from what I understand that strategy worked out OK then ? But for the Steelers. And they come from a climate which is anything but like the very steamy, hot climate we have in Houston so go figure ? And many fans were crucified by the temp & humity from what I understand ?

Not to poke at old wounds, but that was the home opener for a team coming off of a 7-9 season. We were playing a team coming off a 8-8 season, so expectations were high. We are painfully aware of how that season went for the 7-9 team, and that 8-8 team ultimately was the Super Bowl Champion. In retrospect, the idea that playing conditions would have a meaningful impact on the outcome of that game is laughable.

As to the overall concept, the Texans went 6-2 in Reliant last year, and are 10-6 in in Kubiak era. This compares to 4-12 on the road. There appears to be a developing home-field advantage. As with so many things about this franchise, if we keep doing what we're doing, everything will be fine. Perhaps there will be a bump or two along the way, but we're doing it right.

Buffi2
07-10-2008, 11:00 AM
Man Plans - God Laughs....Yiddish expression. :gun:

Honoring Earl 34
07-10-2008, 11:08 AM
Practices in the mid day Houston sun would harden the troops. There is no doubt that the 1st few years, the players sustained an inordinate number of muscle injuries during OTA’s, TC, preseason and regular season practices, with the heat factor (dehydration, improper pre-activity preparation, etc). This has improved in recent years, but is still suspect.

The heat factor would beat down the opponent. The sun would fry the opponent’s bench. We only have to ask ourselves, how often do we have the roof open in extremes of heat???? How often are the players exposed to extreme heat and humidity in away games???

I think the hardened pros from 2002-2004 were Sharper , Glenn , Dunta , AJ , and Walker . The rest were ... when the going gets tough ... hey we're an expansion team ... it showed in 2005 . This does'nt translate well if your going to try to out tough someone .

TexansFanatic
07-10-2008, 01:23 PM
This is a thread that I am beginning as a springboard from a Nunusguy post on another thread.


The Texans placed a lot of emphasis on the planning of strategies to make Reliant Stadium and its support facilities the safety and maximum home field advantage:

Real grass which could be maintained fresh every game by allowing frequent feeding by sun and changing pallets often............The architects miscalculated the angle of the sun and the amount of time that the grass would be exposed for adequate growth. The frequency of changing of the pallets initially was very inadequate. Recently, the grass condition at game time has been improved by more frequent pallet changes. However, changes have not been able to be performed often enough to maintain a relatively uniform field.

Practices in the mid day Houston sun would harden the troops. There is no doubt that the 1st few years, the players sustained an inordinate number of muscle injuries during OTA’s, TC, preseason and regular season practices, with the heat factor (dehydration, improper pre-activity preparation, etc). This has improved in recent years, but is still suspect.

The heat factor would beat down the opponent. The sun would fry the opponent’s bench. We only have to ask ourselves, how often do we have the roof open in extremes of heat???? How often are the players exposed to extreme heat and humidity in away games???

I have to say I am a bit PO'd about the practice in the heat. It hasn't helped the Texans in the least and there is plenty of evidence that it has hurt the team. CUT THAT OUT! We don't really even have an outdoor stadium anyway. The roof is ALWAYS closed.

Joe Texan
07-10-2008, 01:52 PM
We have adjusted down to when to open the roof and if it is above 80 degrees then you can bank on no sunburn.

Double Barrel
07-10-2008, 02:01 PM
I didn't attend the Pittsburg game in Reliant a few years back, but from what I understand that strategy worked out OK then ? But for the Steelers. And they come from a climate which is anything but like the very steamy, hot climate we have in Houston so go figure ? And many fans were crucified by the temp & humity from what I understand ?

The Steelers also brought cooled benches while the Texans were sitting on metal ones with no cooling features. Whatever braniac with the Texans made that decision was hopefully fired with the rest of that pathetic staff.

Reliant is a dome with a sun roof. I'm always looking down at the field anyway, so I could honestly care less if that thing is open or closed during the game.

El Tejano
07-10-2008, 03:11 PM
It has worked a few times on kickoffs. Last year against the Jags come to mind. Ever since we messed up punt returns against the Bills in 06 Kubiak has used the sunlight to our favor.

BornOrange
07-11-2008, 01:14 AM
After that Pittsburgh game, I doubt we will ever try to use the heat as an advantage again. Too many fans were spoiled by the Astrodome and are too used to being comfortable during a game as opposed to the rest of the football universe who realize that weather is a factor in football games.

Many franchises actually get part of their identity from their weather. Green Bay, Chicago, New England, Buffalo, Cleveland have all used the cold to their advantage. Miami has used its warm weather to its advantage, as has Dallas. Miami, San Francisco, Oakland and recently Seattle have also had an advantage by playing in rainy conditions at home. When Minnesota moved into a domed stadium, they actually lost a large part of their identity and have gone from a tough defensive team to a team that is usually soft.

I'm afraid that prioritizing fan comfort works against what should be the highest priority for the Texans....winning games.

Speedy
07-11-2008, 02:11 AM
Well, it's not a very good plan to think you're going to use your stadium to help you win football games. Stadiums don't win football games, good teams do, in any stadium. Put a team on the field that wins football games, and I don't care if they play in the Fiesta parking lot.

You don't go to Lambeau in December and lose because of the stadium, or the weather that stadium allows in. You lose because the Packers are usually a pretty good football team. And when the Packers weren't very good back in the 70's and 80's, you go to Lambeau and beat them. Doesn't matter about the weather. Where was the stadium "advantage" then?

Personally, in this day and age of technology, I find it difficult to believe there was a miscalculation of sun angle by architects regarding Reliant. I think that's just the way it was going to be from the get go, once the rodeo said there needed to be a roof on the thing. The problem in the beginning was that they simply didn't have enough pallets to rotate. I think that has now been rectified. I don't recall the field looking as bad at the end of the year the last couple of seasons, as it did the 1st couple of years. They have adequate pallets now that they can switch out. Now, sometimes there's a problem switching when you have high school and college games Friday and Saturday, and then a Texans game Sunday. Yeah, the field will look a little worn then, but still nothing like I've seen Hienz Field and some of the other open air grass fields, look like in December.

Many franchises actually get part of their identity from their weather. Green Bay, Chicago, New England, Buffalo, Cleveland have all used the cold to their advantage. Miami has used its warm weather to its advantage, as has Dallas. Miami, San Francisco, Oakland and recently Seattle have also had an advantage by playing in rainy conditions at home. When Minnesota moved into a domed stadium, they actually lost a large part of their identity and have gone from a tough defensive team to a team that is usually soft.

Again, that has nothing to do with stadiums and weather. It has to do with those teams being good. How come Miami hasn't used their so-called advantage lately? Or the Niners? Or Buffalo? Why, because it has nothing to do with their stadiums or the weather they play in. It has to do with their football teams not being very good.

What advantage or identity does Dallas have? They can play in 105 degree heat in September and then play an ice bowl game on Thanksgiving on the same field.

BattleRedToro
07-11-2008, 07:28 AM
If my memory serves me correctly, the architects did calculate for not only the Sun, but the prevailing wind direction as well, but they got trumped because those that have the ultimate say wanted the stadium to run parallel to Kirby, so that it would look better from the street.

Texans_Chick
07-11-2008, 09:36 AM
After that Pittsburgh game, I doubt we will ever try to use the heat as an advantage again. Too many fans were spoiled by the Astrodome and are too used to being comfortable during a game as opposed to the rest of the football universe who realize that weather is a factor in football games.

Many franchises actually get part of their identity from their weather. Green Bay, Chicago, New England, Buffalo, Cleveland have all used the cold to their advantage. Miami has used its warm weather to its advantage, as has Dallas. Miami, San Francisco, Oakland and recently Seattle have also had an advantage by playing in rainy conditions at home. When Minnesota moved into a domed stadium, they actually lost a large part of their identity and have gone from a tough defensive team to a team that is usually soft.

I'm afraid that prioritizing fan comfort works against what should be the highest priority for the Texans....winning games.

It's not just a fan comfort thing. It is fan safety. They ran out of water, fans physically couldn't sit in the seats, and ambulances were all around the stadium.

The Texans have a huge file filled with all the problems that they had during the Pittsburgh game.

Reliant Stadium isn't an open air stadium. It is very vertical so little wind gets in. If it didn't have a roof, it wouldn't exist because the Texans owe their existence to the rodeo supporting the plan.

So:

Having a stadium with a retractable roof > no team at all.

TD
07-11-2008, 09:46 AM
Reliant Stadium isn't an open air stadium. It is very vertical so little wind gets in. If it didn't have a roof, it wouldn't exist because the Texans owe their existence to the rodeo supporting the plan.

The vertical seat design is its best feature IMO. The upper level seats I sat in at Reliant had a better view than my mezzanine season tickets I had at the dome.

Personally, given the advances in turf, I think Reliant should scrap the grass, put in turf and stick with the roof policy based purely on fan comfort.

infantrycak
07-11-2008, 09:49 AM
Personally, given the advances in turf, I think Reliant should scrap the grass, put in turf and stick with the roof policy based purely on fan comfort.

The players love the grass and I think the team should defer to them.

On the roof, I would just like them to open the range up a few degrees. No 95 degree games but edge it up 2-3 degrees this year and see how it works out so maybe we get more than one open roof game per season.

TD
07-11-2008, 09:59 AM
The players love the grass and I think the team should defer to them.

Agree if that's true. I was under the impression that many preferred the new turf as safer with more consistent footing.

Either way, you're right. The players should have the ultimate say.

BornOrange
07-11-2008, 11:14 AM
No, weather alone doesn't win games. But it can be a factor between teams that are closely matched. Look at the lack of success of dome teams playing in cold weather during the playoffs. I guarantee you that dome teams and southern teams have a better road record in games over 40 than in under 40.


I admit I didn't think about Reliant's vertical design. Yes, it does make it difficult for air to circulate compared to the open air stadiums I am used to like UT, A&M, Rice, Baylor, etc. However, Dallas has an even worse situation with that stupid little hole in the roof. I think a big problem with the Pittsburgh game was that fans and stadium personnel just weren't prepared for a hot weather game. If everyone knows that it is going to be a sauna and takes the proper precautions (including giving someone else your tickets if you aren't able to endure the heat), there wouldn't be so many problems.

Texans_Chick
07-11-2008, 12:31 PM
No, weather alone doesn't win games. But it can be a factor between teams that are closely matched. Look at the lack of success of dome teams playing in cold weather during the playoffs. I guarantee you that dome teams and southern teams have a better road record in games over 40 than in under 40.


I admit I didn't think about Reliant's vertical design. Yes, it does make it difficult for air to circulate compared to the open air stadiums I am used to like UT, A&M, Rice, Baylor, etc. However, Dallas has an even worse situation with that stupid little hole in the roof. I think a big problem with the Pittsburgh game was that fans and stadium personnel just weren't prepared for a hot weather game. If everyone knows that it is going to be a sauna and takes the proper precautions (including giving someone else your tickets if you aren't able to endure the heat), there wouldn't be so many problems.


They had been publicizing the open roof all week.

They just didn't consider that it is substantially hotter inside the stadium than the outside temperature. It's not just a sauna--when you are sitting in the direct sun at the stadium, it is like being an ant being scorched by a magnifying glass.

There is no way you could have prepared for that game as a fan. You could have been buttnekkid slathered in sunscreen sitting on sheets of ice and had problems sitting in the sun area of the stadium. People had skin seared off of them from trying to sit in the seats.

Fortunately, I had shade tickets for that game and it was so hot I couldn't even drink a beer. If it is too hot to drink beer, it is too danged hot.

The conditions were dangerous.

The Texans want fans to be in their seats and not have to retreat to the concourse. Having a much better team on the field than for that awful Pittsburgh game helps. The roof policy is intended to make sure the most fans, young and old, can cheer on their team.

I do think that they could make the bottom end of that policy lower. 50 degrees inside the stadium is not that cold--no wind.

Speedy
07-11-2008, 01:11 PM
No, weather alone doesn't win games. But it can be a factor between teams that are closely matched. Look at the lack of success of dome teams playing in cold weather during the playoffs. I guarantee you that dome teams and southern teams have a better road record in games over 40 than in under 40.

Disagree. One, there's not that many dome teams so it's really a small sample size. Now, it goes without saying that dome teams that go on the road are not going to have as good a record as they will in the friendly confines of their dome, I'll give you that, but you can say that for every single team in the NFL. Teams home records are better than their road records. Two, don't think that just because you play in Green Bay, that you're better suited for the inclement weather. Those cold weather teams practice INDOORS, out of the elements. They aren't any more used to it than you or I. I work outside in the Houston heat and humidity and have for the last 15 years, and I can guarantee you you never get used to it. Thirdly, I'd have to go back and look it up, but I believe the Houston Texans, a warm weather, virtually a dome team, is undefeated when the temperature is below 40 degrees. Could be wrong on that, I'd have to double check. I know they beat Chicago in 5 degree weather and it seems like there was another sub 40 game the Texans won. Pittsburgh maybe?

I think a big problem with the Pittsburgh game was that fans and stadium personnel just weren't prepared for a hot weather game. If everyone knows that it is going to be a sauna and takes the proper precautions (including giving someone else your tickets if you aren't able to endure the heat), there wouldn't be so many problems.

Disagree again. as mentioned, having worked in this Houston heat for 15 years, I was plenty prepared at the Steeler game. It was still miserable, and that's an understatement. If you can't see the field because of the sun's glare, then it's probably the massive amounts of sweat flooding into your eyes keeping you from seeing anything. Never mind that any part of your seat that isn't covered becomes 500 degrees so that pretty much keeps you from moving at all. And it's not the fans fault that the Texans ran out of water.

I know, I know, you do it all the time at A&M, UT or where ever. And if the Texans still had the roof open for days like that, and I still sat on that side of the stadium, I'd still be there every single time 'till the clock hit triple 0's, like I did the first 4 seasons and for that Steeler game. But as mentioned above, Reliant isn't an open air stadium. There is no air flow in that place with the roof open. So when you are in the sun, you might as well be in an oven.

If you want to talk about home field advantage, if there's any at all, it has more to do with the fans, being loud and getting into the game. Fans CAN affect the other team hearing the signals and such, drawing false start penalties. There's some advantage there. That Pittsburgh game took the fans out of the game and with it what ever home field advantage there might have been.

TexansFight
07-11-2008, 01:23 PM
The grass last year was fine and looked great all year long. We didn't have a torn up field all muddied up and painted green like we did the first few years. I wish we could get the blue endzones again. I was all for FieldTurf after our first couple of years but they seemed to have fixed the grass problem.

The Pittsburgh game was an absolute disaster and health hazard. We do not have a true open air stadium (hell, MMP becomes much more "open air" than Reliant when both are opened). There is no breeze at all and that is a killer combo when baking.

Now, I would like for them to bump the roof being closed if the temps are higher than 85. I don't think we should close the roof no matter how cold it gets. Now we close it if it gets below 50 which is crap IMO.

I have really enjoyed the games where the roof is open and there is a nip in the air like for Denver last year (one of the best games I have attended as a Texans fan) and Buffalo the year before that.

TD
07-11-2008, 01:23 PM
Fortunately, I had shade tickets for that game and it was so hot I couldn't even drink a beer. If it is too hot to drink beer, it is too danged hot.

Unless the heat somehow caused the beer to evaporate on its way to my lips, I just don't see how that's possible.

CloakNNNdagger
07-11-2008, 01:45 PM
I know, I know, you do it all the time at A&M, UT or where ever. And if the Texans still had the roof open for days like that, and I still sat on that side of the stadium, I'd still be there every single time 'till the clock hit triple 0's, like I did the first 4 seasons and for that Steeler game. But as mentioned above, Reliant isn't an open air stadium. There is no air flow in that place with the roof open. So when you are in the sun, you might as well be in an oven.


It's funny how most of us have made fun of the Girl's Stadium (Texas Stadium) as being so uncomfortably hot. Indeed, there is no air circulation in that stadium, and the humdity is terrible. However, it's roof by it's very construction, which houses only a modified peep hole that's sole function seems to be to serve as a heat sink, at least allows sanctuary to the fans, i.e., SHADE.

infantrycak
07-11-2008, 02:42 PM
There is no way you could have prepared for that game as a fan. You could have been buttnekkid slathered in sunscreen sitting on sheets of ice and had problems sitting in the sun area of the stadium. People had skin seared off of them from trying to sit in the seats.

Fortunately, I had shade tickets for that game and it was so hot I couldn't even drink a beer. If it is too hot to drink beer, it is too danged hot.

While I agree that day was too hot for the roof to be open, at the end of the day fans would have been cheering and the policy would not have changed if the Texans had won. A crappy game made for an overreaction.

They aren't any more used to it than you or I. I work outside in the Houston heat and humidity and have for the last 15 years, and I can guarantee you you never get used to it.

That is your experience but it is not a universal truth. I never liked cold weather much growing up. I took up bow hunting about a decade ago and got used to sitting in bitter cold temperatures without an encumbering amount of clothes. Now if it isn't below freezing you will find me in shorts. Some people do get acclimated.

Hardcore Texan
07-11-2008, 02:48 PM
They had been publicizing the open roof all week.

They just didn't consider that it is substantially hotter inside the stadium than the outside temperature. It's not just a sauna--when you are sitting in the direct sun at the stadium, it is like being an ant being scorched by a magnifying glass.

There is no way you could have prepared for that game as a fan. You could have been buttnekkid slathered in sunscreen sitting on sheets of ice and had problems sitting in the sun area of the stadium. People had skin seared off of them from trying to sit in the seats.

Fortunately, I had shade tickets for that game and it was so hot I couldn't even drink a beer. If it is too hot to drink beer, it is too danged hot.

The conditions were dangerous.

The Texans want fans to be in their seats and not have to retreat to the concourse. Having a much better team on the field than for that awful Pittsburgh game helps. The roof policy is intended to make sure the most fans, young and old, can cheer on their team.

I do think that they could make the bottom end of that policy lower. 50 degrees inside the stadium is not that cold--no wind.


I know nothing of this condition you speak of. :cool:

Speedy
07-11-2008, 03:23 PM
That is your experience but it is not a universal truth. I never liked cold weather much growing up. I took up bow hunting about a decade ago and got used to sitting in bitter cold temperatures without an encumbering amount of clothes. Now if it isn't below freezing you will find me in shorts. Some people do get acclimated.

Well, hardly EVER being in cold weather, I'll be the last one walking around in shorts on a 40 degree day. I absolutely love the cold, it feels good to me, and I certainly am not in it enough to become "acclimated" to it (lived in Houston all my life).

Different strokes for different folks, and so it is on a 53 man roster. Just because you're in Green Bay and in the cold and therefore should be acclimated to it, doesn't mean you like the cold any more than I like the heat down here, no matter how much I'm acclimated to it. That's why you see some guys in short-sleeves and others bundled up.

It effects individuals differently so you can't say a team has an advantage over another team because there's too many individuals that it affects differently, regardless of how acclimated they are to it.

If I was on the warm weather Texans, and had to go to Lambeau in December, I'd be jacked up and my effort might be up a notch or two, even though I haven't been in weather below 50 degrees in 2 years. Others might be dreading the frigid temps.

I remember the Chicago game and all the talk of how the frigid weather would affect the warm weather Texans play. Well, we know what happened there. It looked like the Bears were the warm weather team.

With all the different individuals on teams, I can't buy the concept of a New England having an advantage when the temperature drops. Nor do I buy that Houston has an advantage over a Pittsburgh when the temp. hits 95.

35 degrees in Pittsburgh in 2002, Texans win 24-6.
90 degrees, Steelers at Reliant, Texans lose 27-7.

infantrycak
07-11-2008, 03:59 PM
Agree if that's true. I was under the impression that many preferred the new turf as safer with more consistent footing.

Chester Pitts was just interviewed on 610 am. He said it was worth facing the heat to practice outside to play on grass rather than the field turf in the bubble because the field turf was so much harder on the joints. They directly asked him if he wanted field turf in the stadium and he said "absolutely not."

Topical coincidence.

HOU-TEX
07-11-2008, 04:01 PM
Chester Pitts was just interviewed on 610 am. He said it was worth facing the heat to practice outside to play on grass rather than the field turf in the bubble because the field turf was so much harder on the joints. They directly asked him if he wanted field turf in the stadium and he said "absolutely not."

Topical coincidence.

Wow! I'd say. It makes you wonder if these radio show hosts read the board.

If they were smart they would. :cool:

El Tejano
07-11-2008, 07:10 PM
Weather doesn't win games. Ratings, Refs and video tapes do.

TD
07-11-2008, 07:21 PM
Chester Pitts was just interviewed on 610 am. He said it was worth facing the heat to practice outside to play on grass rather than the field turf in the bubble because the field turf was so much harder on the joints. They directly asked him if he wanted field turf in the stadium and he said "absolutely not."

Topical coincidence.

Yeah, when I looked earlier the players seem to prefer grass by a decent margin, but interestingly when the NFLPA did their last survey of playing surfaces preferred by players, they came up with this order. LINK (http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/62325)

1) Tampa Bay

2) Seattle(Field Turf)

3) Carolina

4) Detroit(Field Turf)

5) Baltimore(Sportexe)

6) Arizona

7) Atlanta(Field Turf)

8) Jacksonville

9) Indianapolis(Field Turf)

10) San Diego

11) St.Louis(Field Turf)

12) Denver

13) Washington

14) Cincinnati(Field Turf)

15) Houston

16) New York Giants/Jets(Field Turf)

17) San Francisco

18) Green Bay

19) New Orleans(Sportexe)

20) Miami

21) Tennessee

22) Dallas

23) Philadelphia

24) Minnesota(Field Turf)

25) Buffalo(Astroplay)

26) Kansas City

27) Chicago

28) Cleveland

29) Pittsburgh

30) New England(pre-Field Turf, new this year)

31) Oakland


Something doesn't add up. It's pretty equal early on, but then grass dominates the bottom of the list.

BattleRedToro
07-11-2008, 08:06 PM
I think the Northern cold winter stadiums with grass are at the bottom because the weather ruins the surface.

Oakland at the bottom makes sense as well because early on they have the baseball diamond and even without it that stadium has some vile fans that probably affects the voting even if only subconsciencely.

Texanmike02
07-12-2008, 06:40 AM
Well weather has to play some role but I think it works against you. Remember the oilers? Who gave us problems? Pitt (cold weather). Kansas City (coldish weather). Denver (cold weather) Look at Indy. But its not the stadium. Its the way the team is built. If you build a team for a dome (St. Louis, Indy) where you're playing on astro turf and and fast, you will struggle in Dec/Jan.

I think it can work against a team but not necessarily for a team. Indy got killed in NE all those years because they were about speed, when they got into cold icy weather in NE they lose traction and the advantage they had was lost.


The Oilers lost games in Pittsburg, Pitsburg, Oakland, Denver, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Denver, Buffalo, Kansas City from 78 on.

Most of those were cold games. Especially from the Cincinnati game on. We were a dome team, especially with Moon at the helm and the dome did us many favors. You can build an offense around timing in a dome (the run and shoot) but when you get outside... well its a different story.

Just a little food for thought.

As for Reliant. I love the stadium. I say put the best surface out there, grass or turf, and let the best team win.

Mike

b0ng
07-12-2008, 11:22 AM
That list looks pretty ridiculous because Heinz field is not on the bottom of that list.

Speedy
07-12-2008, 12:15 PM
Well weather has to play some role but I think it works against you. Remember the oilers? Who gave us problems? Pitt (cold weather). Kansas City (coldish weather). Denver (cold weather) Look at Indy. But its not the stadium. Its the way the team is built. If you build a team for a dome (St. Louis, Indy) where you're playing on astro turf and and fast, you will struggle in Dec/Jan.

I think it can work against a team but not necessarily for a team. Indy got killed in NE all those years because they were about speed, when they got into cold icy weather in NE they lose traction and the advantage they had was lost.


The Oilers lost games in Pittsburg, Pitsburg, Oakland, Denver, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Denver, Buffalo, Kansas City from 78 on.

Most of those were cold games. Especially from the Cincinnati game on. We were a dome team, especially with Moon at the helm and the dome did us many favors. You can build an offense around timing in a dome (the run and shoot) but when you get outside... well its a different story.

Just a little food for thought.

As for Reliant. I love the stadium. I say put the best surface out there, grass or turf, and let the best team win.

Mike

And see, all those teams you named are, or were, good football teams. Good football teams are likely going to win more home games than they will on the road against good teams. The environment sure didn't seem to be a factor that didn't favor the Oilers for the first 2 1/2 quarters of that game in Buffalo.

Good team vs. good team, the home team is more likely to win just because home teams win more than road teams do.

Of those teams you mentioned, how come Buffalo, Oakland, Cincinnati, don't use their "weather" advantage any more? How come Miami doesn't use the heat to their advantage? Where was the Lambeau effect in the 70's and 80's? It's just not there.

Now I'll agree that a team built like the '99 Rams goes into Pittsburgh after it's been raining, and yes, that will have an effect on the Rams game, but it has an effect on EVERYBODY. Both teams have to play in the conditions. Both teams have players from all over the country and each player is effected differently by the conditions. They're not effected as one.

The DOME team Colts won the Super Bowl in the pouring rain.

The New England Patriots win at home, in the cold, because they're a GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM. If the Patriots moved to San Antonio, they would win at home, in the Texas warmth, or under a roof, because they're a GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM. It has zero to do with where your stadium is at. If it did, the Texans might as well close up shop because they apparently have no chance against the cold weather teams in January.

HJam72
07-12-2008, 12:26 PM
OK, guys, next practice....at the ice rink in the Galleria. :photos:

Texanmike02
07-12-2008, 07:14 PM
And see, all those teams you named are, or were, good football teams. Good football teams are likely going to win more home games than they will on the road against good teams. The environment sure didn't seem to be a factor that didn't favor the Oilers for the first 2 1/2 quarters of that game in Buffalo.

Good team vs. good team, the home team is more likely to win just because home teams win more than road teams do.

Of those teams you mentioned, how come Buffalo, Oakland, Cincinnati, don't use their "weather" advantage any more? How come Miami doesn't use the heat to their advantage? Where was the Lambeau effect in the 70's and 80's? It's just not there.

If I'm forced to choose between a good team and a bad team, I'm going to take the good team every time. Now how long as hit been since oakland, buffalo and cincy have been good teams. Obviously if you are devoid of talent you're not going to win games. This isn't a hard fast rule, but it is a factor. I don't think that heat is as much of a factor to be honest. That's because you can do things to combat it. Cooled seats, fans etc can be used to help normalize it but there's not much you can do with 20 degree weather.

Now I'll agree that a team built like the '99 Rams goes into Pittsburgh after it's been raining, and yes, that will have an effect on the Rams game, but it has an effect on EVERYBODY. Both teams have to play in the conditions. Both teams have players from all over the country and each player is effected differently by the conditions. They're not effected as one.

The DOME team Colts won the Super Bowl in the pouring rain.

First of all.... If the colts and bears play that game anywhere.... the colts win 99 out of 100 times. The weather won't let the niner's beat the pats. Or the Bears beat the colts. But look at the Colts that year. They got to play NE at HOME. What has happened in recent history when they've had to go to NE?

The New England Patriots win at home, in the cold, because they're a GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM. If the Patriots moved to San Antonio, they would win at home, in the Texas warmth, or under a roof, because they're a GOOD FOOTBALL TEAM. It has zero to do with where your stadium is at. If it did, the Texans might as well close up shop because they apparently have no chance against the cold weather teams in January.

Ok, when the disparity is as big as the colts/bears I agree. But if you take the Pats/Colts over the last say 5-8 years... those teams are close. Usually in the conference championship, you'll be playing teams that are that close. It isn't a coincidence that in the manning/brady era the colts have yet to beat the Pats when facing the elements too.


Mike

dalemurphy
07-12-2008, 07:25 PM
The Texans won't struggle in the cold. The reason why teams like Indianapolis and the Run and Gun Oilers struggle in adverse weather is largely because they designed their team to excel in a dome on astroturf. When it's 15 degrees and windy, it's good to at least have a TE on the roster and perhaps a FB or two!

The Texans are going to be a run-happy team that takes advantage of short passing and play-action. There's no reason why wind and snow will be a problem for that kind of play.

Texanmike02
07-12-2008, 08:41 PM
The Texans won't struggle in the cold. The reason why teams like Indianapolis and the Run and Gun Oilers struggle in adverse weather is largely because they designed their team to excel in a dome on astroturf. When it's 15 degrees and windy, it's good to at least have a TE on the roster and perhaps a FB or two!

The Texans are going to be a run-happy team that takes advantage of short passing and play-action. There's no reason why wind and snow will be a problem for that kind of play.

Don't know if you were talking to me, but I agree. I wasn't saying the texans would have problems with the cold. Though indy has had quite a TE manning the end of the line for quite some time. But you are right, its about quickness and route running with Indy. I wouldn't mind if it was raining cats and dogs sat and for one reason or another they weren't able to get the roof closed when indy came to town. Better yet.. maybe the sprinklers will magically come on for 2 days straight before the indy game.

Mike

Bull Pen 1
07-12-2008, 10:01 PM
As far as I'm concerned the roof can be welded shut. When I'm watching the game I'm not looking at the hole in the roof, as far as I'm concerned it has not purpose except for the grass. If it was a open air stadium it would be different, there would be a breeze at times and you could see a outside view.

ROOF CLOSED ALL THE TIME WOULD BE GREAT.:splits:

Norg
07-13-2008, 12:58 AM
Well i work outside here in houston and all i can tell u The SUN here will KICK your BUTT if your during physical stuff outside and if your not in good physical shape

you will be drenched in sweet from your pants to your shirt LOL

barrett
07-13-2008, 05:11 PM
i blame the team. if we won more games we'd have more 3pm or 7pm games. and the sun would be less of a factor.

but seriously,

i like having the roof open. it lets the sun shine onto the grass and makes me feel like i'm at a football game. i know that's hard for some of you dome lifers to swallow but for most of us that is a pretty nice feeling.
according to weather.com the average high in october is 82. if they would just raise that temperature policy by say 5 degrees we could have many more open roof games. they built the sunroof, might 5 itty bitty degrees not be worth getting to use the damn thing?

ObsiWan
07-13-2008, 05:48 PM
this thread is proof positive that we're bored silly while waiting for camp to begin