Bills replacing grass at Highmark starting Monday

[Einstein]

 

[DrDawkinstein]

Cant have divots if the whole field is a divot! Checkmate!

[Mike in Horseheads]

20 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

Green Bay is not a grass field - it is a hybrid field of grass and artificial fibers stitched together.  That is why it lasts.

And thats exactly what I thought the Bills were getting. 

[eball]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Field looks great!

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

Well this latest article in the Athletic makes it sound like they have a real mess in Buffalo.  Basically the article says they likely did too much and may have too much technology under the field.  It also mentions how the sod being grown somewhere think it was New Jersey in an open field is much different than when you get it inside a stadium where there is much more shade from the walls of the stadium and ironically all those panels that are there to cut down the wind, could be hurting the sod

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7561474/2026/09/04/bills-grass-surface-new-stadium-issues/

 

A couple of quotes from article:
 

George Toma is known as The Sodfather. He’s the most revered groundskeeper in sports history, overseeing every Super Bowl field until three and a half years ago.

What’s been happening at Highmark Stadium troubles him.

“That hurts me,” Toma said. “That’s terrible to happen at all, but so soon? Somebody fell asleep.”

 

“Yes, natural turf is safer in a perfect setting,” said Tony Dick, a sports management professor at Baldwin Wallace University and former Cleveland Browns assistant head groundskeeper. “But if you have the situation like you have in Buffalo — and I went back and watched the film — you cannot tell me that field was safer than the artificial turf they just left.

“I’m never putting Josh Allen on a field in that condition.”

 

Unless matters improve drastically, Dick had a more dire outlook for Highmark Stadium’s grass field.

 

“You might have artificial turf back in there within three years,” Dick said, “just because it’s safer than whatever that was.”

[Bruffalo]

22 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

Well this latest article in the Athletic makes it sound like they have a real mess in Buffalo.  Basically the article says they likely did too much and may have too much technology under the field.  It also mentions how the sod being grown somewhere think it was New Jersey in an open field is much different than when you get it inside a stadium where there is much more shade from the walls of the stadium and ironically all those panels that are there to cut down the wind, could be hurting the sod

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7561474/2026/09/04/bills-grass-surface-new-stadium-issues/

 

A couple of quotes from article:
 

George Toma is known as The Sodfather. He’s the most revered groundskeeper in sports history, overseeing every Super Bowl field until three and a half years ago.

What’s been happening at Highmark Stadium troubles him.

“That hurts me,” Toma said. “That’s terrible to happen at all, but so soon? Somebody fell asleep.”

 

“Yes, natural turf is safer in a perfect setting,” said Tony Dick, a sports management professor at Baldwin Wallace University and former Cleveland Browns assistant head groundskeeper. “But if you have the situation like you have in Buffalo — and I went back and watched the film — you cannot tell me that field was safer than the artificial turf they just left.

“I’m never putting Josh Allen on a field in that condition.”

 

Unless matters improve drastically, Dick had a more dire outlook for Highmark Stadium’s grass field.

 

“You might have artificial turf back in there within three years,” Dick said, “just because it’s safer than whatever that was.”

 

I just read the article. It would resonate more to me if the Bills hadn't already decided to take action.  They've identified the issue, they're doing what they can to fix the problem, and so much of this reads like complaining with the benefit of hindsight. 

 

Could it have been done better? Probably. Does that matter now? Not really. 

 

Also, probably worth noting this is a Tim Graham article. He's pretty sour on the Bills organization and has been for some time. 

 

[Einstein]

45 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

Well this latest article in the Athletic makes it sound like they have a real mess in Buffalo.  Basically the article says they likely did too much and may have too much technology under the field.  It also mentions how the sod being grown somewhere think it was New Jersey in an open field is much different than when you get it inside a stadium where there is much more shade from the walls of the stadium and ironically all those panels that are there to cut down the wind, could be hurting the sod

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7561474/2026/09/04/bills-grass-surface-new-stadium-issues/

 

A couple of quotes from article:
 

George Toma is known as The Sodfather. He’s the most revered groundskeeper in sports history, overseeing every Super Bowl field until three and a half years ago.

What’s been happening at Highmark Stadium troubles him.

“That hurts me,” Toma said. “That’s terrible to happen at all, but so soon? Somebody fell asleep.”

 

“Yes, natural turf is safer in a perfect setting,” said Tony Dick, a sports management professor at Baldwin Wallace University and former Cleveland Browns assistant head groundskeeper. “But if you have the situation like you have in Buffalo — and I went back and watched the film — you cannot tell me that field was safer than the artificial turf they just left.

“I’m never putting Josh Allen on a field in that condition.”

 

Unless matters improve drastically, Dick had a more dire outlook for Highmark Stadium’s grass field.

 

“You might have artificial turf back in there within three years,” Dick said, “just because it’s safer than whatever that was.”

 

so the field wasn’t safe like the bills said?

[sullim4]

I am not one to defend the franchise, but this is exactly the kind of hit piece that I'd expect out of Tim Graham.

 

Look, what do you want the team to do?  Leave the damaged field in place?  There is a whole bunch of new technology in this field that they are trying to figure out and dial in.  It turns out, they made some mistakes and now need to re-sod.  They're doing the right thing.

 

What are the alternatives?  Go back to turf?  Tell me Timmy, what in this moment of time would you have the team do differently given the current situation?

 

Graham is the kind of guy that would complain about the taxes after winning a million dollars.  He's trying his best to take Sully's place as the resident curmudgeon.

[eball]

13 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

so the field wasn’t safe like the bills said?

 

And here we go again...taking a few random quotes from guys who have no direct knowledge of the situation and acting as though there is a conspiracy.

 

One of the guys in that article actually said he'd be in a better position to comment if he actually inspected the field himself.

 

But this is what Tim Graham does.

 

I'll take the reasonable approach and wait for the season to play out.

 

[BigPegasus]

5 minutes ago, eball said:

 

And here we go again...taking a few random quotes from guys who have no direct knowledge of the situation and acting as though there is a conspiracy.

 

One of the guys in that article actually said he'd be in a better position to comment if he actually inspected the field himself.

 

But this is what Tim Graham does.

 

I'll take the reasonable approach and wait for the season to play out.

 

 

This is the way, after reading the article the "Somebody fell asleep" quote is from a 97-year old former Chiefs groundskeeper, who apparently consulted on the playing surfaces for the Super Bowl. As a result any negative critique of the use of technology I'm going to take with a grain of salt.

 

Also interesting, he was responsible for one of the most disastrous playing fields in a modern Super Bowl. An important reminder that grass is a living thing, and that even for the Super Bowl, in Arizona, in an almost 20-year old stadium that it's still challenging to get right.

 

"Toma and the condition of the field in Super Bowl LVII were heavily criticized by players of both teams—the Philadelphia Eagles and Kansas City Chiefs—coaches and fans. Players on both teams could be seen slipping on the grass surface. Eagles linebacker Haason Reddick described the field as the "worst field that I've ever played on" and Eagles offensive lineman Jordan Mailata referred to the surface as a "water park out there." Chiefs defensive tackle Chris Jones called the field's surface "terrible." There were also safety issues regarding the field as Chiefs running back Isiah Pacheco could be seen twisting his ankle on the surface. Some Eagles fans questioned Toma’s potential motives, as he is a Chiefs employee and fan of the team. The playing surface significantly hampered the Eagles defensive line, which was their strength, and hampered their ability to rush the quarterback.

 

Although Toma had praised league field director Ed Mangan for his work prior to the game, he blamed Mangan for overwatering the playing surface and then immediately bringing the portable surface back indoors without allowing the grass to absorb sunlight. Additionally, he blamed Mangan for failing to sand the surface properly or in a timely manner, and covering the field with a tarp while it was still wet, giving it a foul smell."

 

[eball]

5 minutes ago, BigPegasus said:

 

This is the way, after reading the article the "Somebody fell asleep" quote is from a 97-year old former Chiefs groundskeeper, who apparently consulted on the playing surfaces for the Super Bowl. As a result any negative critique of the use of technology I'm going to take with a grain of salt.

 

Also interesting, he was responsible for one of the most disastrous playing fields in a modern Super Bowl. An important reminder that grass is a living thing, and that even for the Super Bowl, in Arizona, in an almost 20-year old stadium that it's still challenging to get right.

 

"Toma and the condition of the field in Super Bowl LVII were heavily criticized by players of both teams—the Philadelphia Eagles and Kansas City Chiefs—coaches and fans. Players on both teams could be seen slipping on the grass surface. Eagles linebacker Haason Reddick described the field as the "worst field that I've ever played on" and Eagles offensive lineman Jordan Mailata referred to the surface as a "water park out there." Chiefs defensive tackle Chris Jones called the field's surface "terrible." There were also safety issues regarding the field as Chiefs running back Isiah Pacheco could be seen twisting his ankle on the surface. Some Eagles fans questioned Toma’s potential motives, as he is a Chiefs employee and fan of the team. The playing surface significantly hampered the Eagles defensive line, which was their strength, and hampered their ability to rush the quarterback.

 

Although Toma had praised league field director Ed Mangan for his work prior to the game, he blamed Mangan for overwatering the playing surface and then immediately bringing the portable surface back indoors without allowing the grass to absorb sunlight. Additionally, he blamed Mangan for failing to sand the surface properly or in a timely manner, and covering the field with a tarp while it was still wet, giving it a foul smell."

 

 

This is awesome. Thanks.

 

I'm willing to bet that Graham had to actually tell the guys he contacted about the situation...phrased, I'm certain, in a "can you believe the Bills already have to rip up the field; what did they screw up?" sort of way.

 

Sensationalism at its best.

 

 

Edited Friday at 03:10 PM by eball

[Casual fan]

Nobody cares what I think especially 9 pages in! 

But I wish they did.

Right from the start I'd hoped the Bills would be working with British groundskeepers because soccer teams there play on home grass more often and for longer, 25-30 games over 40 weeks, but their grass holds up. And they are fanatic about it. They call their fieled a "pitch".

 

Anyway they have it down to a science. They even use robots to "stitch" the grass so the grass roots wind round the fibers so they don't tear up and divot easily.

 

Their pitch is 97% grass and 3% fiber.

So if I could talk to the bills I'd tell them to get  some British guys over here for advice. They only play on grass and they've been doing it forever.

 

Vid is of a stitching machine.

 

 

 

[pennstate10]

29 minutes ago, eball said:

 

And here we go again...taking a few random quotes from guys who have no direct knowledge of the situation and acting as though there is a conspiracy.

 

One of the guys in that article actually said he'd be in a better position to comment if he actually inspected the field himself.

 

But this is what Tim Graham does.

 

I'll take the reasonable approach and wait for the season to play out.

 

Agree. Grass field are typically resod a couple times per season,so this doesn’t seem to be an outlier. 
 

And Graham’s articles are typically negative and often wrong. 
 

Such a contrast with the other Athletic writer (Joe B). 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

1 hour ago, Bruffalo said:

 

I just read the article. It would resonate more to me if the Bills hadn't already decided to take action.  They've identified the issue, they're doing what they can to fix the problem, and so much of this reads like complaining with the benefit of hindsight. 

 

Could it have been done better? Probably. Does that matter now? Not really. 

 

Also, probably worth noting this is a Tim Graham article. He's pretty sour on the Bills organization and has been for some time. 

 

 

37 minutes ago, sullim4 said:

I am not one to defend the franchise, but this is exactly the kind of hit piece that I'd expect out of Tim Graham.

 

Look, what do you want the team to do?  Leave the damaged field in place?  There is a whole bunch of new technology in this field that they are trying to figure out and dial in.  It turns out, they made some mistakes and now need to re-sod.  They're doing the right thing.

 

What are the alternatives?  Go back to turf?  Tell me Timmy, what in this moment of time would you have the team do differently given the current situation?

 

Graham is the kind of guy that would complain about the taxes after winning a million dollars.  He's trying his best to take Sully's place as the resident curmudgeon.

 

Completely agree with you on the Graham, take. He never misses a chance to take a shot at the Bills when he can and when I first clicked on the article I expected this to be another one of those.  But after reading the article and quoting some respected names like George Toma and certainly possible he cherry picked what Toma and others stated.  But do think the Bills grounds keeping staff should have realized there were some series issues going on earlier than this and reacted to it.  Like the one quote stated, they should have dumped a bunch of sand on the field and that no one figured this out until now is a bit worry some.

 

Wouldn't surprise me if the Bills end up re-sodding after ever game or two games at most.  And what concerns me is the sod was in place for around a year, and had these issues, how are they going to long term resolve this when the field at best has about 8 months of no usage.  There were a couple of articles about the entire field sodding process and they interviewed the manager of the company in NJ where the sod came from.  Sounded like he visited from time to time to evaluate progress.  He never noticed any issues either??

[Einstein]

5 minutes ago, pennstate10 said:

Agree. Grass field are typically resod a couple times per season,so this doesn’t seem to be an outlier. 

 

see this is what confuses me… just a couple weeks ago the bills said the field was great and that it takes a couple years to get to its best.

 

that was the talking point.

 

now the talking point is that resodding every multiple times per year is common.

 

so which is it? Do we have to wait two years? Or do we have to resodd every 3 to 4 months?

 

more than anything else, I just find the contradictions confusing

 

[Buddy Hix]

1 hour ago, Bruffalo said:

 

I just read the article. It would resonate more to me if the Bills hadn't already decided to take action.  They've identified the issue, they're doing what they can to fix the problem, and so much of this reads like complaining with the benefit of hindsight. 

 

Could it have been done better? Probably. Does that matter now? Not really. 

 

Also, probably worth noting this is a Tim Graham article. He's pretty sour on the Bills organization and has been for some time. 

 

The grass issue is a snapshot of the incompetence of this organization. We have Josh Allen and can’t get to a Super Bowl. The ownership, management, and coaching has been, and continues to be, lacklustre.

 

We can’t even manage a grass field.

[JakeFrommStateFarm]

I just resodded half of my back yard with bermuda.

It looks great now but it took a solid 4-6 weeks before it really took root and was strong.

Before the 4-6 week period, I had to be careful walking on it as I could leave divots in it.

 

So not sure I see how you can resod the whole field and have it take root in 2 weeks and be strong enough to take a football game being played on it

 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

I was at the Panthers game; it was clear there were chunks of the field coming up.  So the Bills realized something wasn’t right and they’re fixing it.  That’s what they should do.  Get whatever folks who specialize in this work to advise and go forward.

 

As for Graham, I lost respect for him when he had the dust up with EJ Manuel - making himself part of the story.  Reporters should report, not make themselves the issue, and should refrain from bias.  Graham often seems to violate the last two.

[Wayne Cubed]

The red endzones are back!

[NickelCity]

4 minutes ago, Wayne Cubed said:

The red endzones are back!

 

Suggests that different colors for different weeks might be on the table. 

 

The red looks great.