Skip to content

Charles Tillman knocks Soldier Field, sort of

Charles Tillman

Earlier this year, Bears players like quarterback Jay Cutler have criticized the playing surface at Soldier Field.  On Thursday, cornerback Charles Tillman sounded off on the quality of the field, too.

But there’s a disconnect between the initial media report regarding Tillman’s comments and the transcript circulated by the team.

Per the Chicago Tribune, in an item with a headline indicating that Tillman is the latest Bear to “rip” the playing surface, Tillman said, “Some people say it’s a [sh-tty] field,” Tillman said.

The transcript from the team paints a slightly different picture regarding Tillman’s comments as to the field that looks like it’s been coated with paint of a color that matches the contents of a day-old diaper.

“I think our field is a little bit harder in January and February, or December and January, around that time frame,” Tillman said.  “It is what it is.  Some people say it’s a sorry field, but say what they want. At the end of the day you have to play.  That’s what we do.  We accept it, and we just play.”

Regardless of whether he said “sorry” or “sh-tty,” he wasn’t complaining about the field in the way that others have complained.

Permalink 31 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
31 Responses to “Charles Tillman knocks Soldier Field, sort of”
  1. iluvwikileaks says: Jan 20, 2011 3:36 PM

    Slow news day, huh?

  2. tv426 says: Jan 20, 2011 3:38 PM

    For those who are concerned about the playing conditions in Chicago, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t GB only about 80 miles NORTH of Chicago?

    There might be a concern about the conditions if the opposition were the Falcons or the Saints, but GB? Get real!

  3. nopuntintended says: Jan 20, 2011 3:43 PM

    Tillman said, “Some people say it’s a [sh-tty] field,” Tillman said.

    editor said: only one of those is needed.

  4. nelson8403 says: Jan 20, 2011 3:48 PM

    Lots of players have been saying the field is bad, but the bears have to play on this field too, he’s just saying the bears don’t like it either, but just shut up about the field quality and play football

  5. puddinpouch says: Jan 20, 2011 3:56 PM

    It’s pretty crappy, but nothing beats the Carolina field in ’01 vs. Green Bay. HUGE chunks of field coming out, linemen tossing them aside just to get in their stance, piles everywhere. Referees walking around with chunks of sod the size of their torso in their hands.

    After seeing that, this field looks like a Pebble Beach putting green.

  6. sterling7 says: Jan 20, 2011 3:58 PM

    If your wife is homely and you love her…….she’s still homely. I’m sure the Bears love being at home, who wouldn’t…….but it’s still a rotten field. When your home team says the surface is rotten it’s time to upgrade and do right by them!!

  7. puddinpouch says: Jan 20, 2011 3:59 PM

    @tv426 Milwaukee is about 80 miles north of Chicago. Green Bay is about 200.

  8. majikbullet says: Jan 20, 2011 4:09 PM

    tv426 says: Jan 20, 2011 3:38 PM

    For those who are concerned about the playing conditions in Chicago, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t GB only about 80 miles NORTH of Chicago?

    There might be a concern about the conditions if the opposition were the Falcons or the Saints, but GB? Get real!
    ===============
    Yes they are geographically close but they are not the same field surface. Soldier field is sod while Lambeau has a synthetic turf/sod mix. Completely different playing fields, so this is an issue.

  9. elgaffo says: Jan 20, 2011 4:10 PM

    seems like all the players agree the field isnt perfect. But they’re all smart enough to know its an equalizer since both teams play on the same field….for some reason the MEDIA wont shut up about it.

  10. gregjennings85 says: Jan 20, 2011 4:12 PM

    Good luck, Chicago. May the best team win.

  11. actiondanwi says: Jan 20, 2011 4:20 PM

    Green Bay is not far from Chicago, but that has nothing to do with it.

    Lambeau has a world-class playing surface.

    Chicago has a middle-school playing surface.

  12. purpleisreallypinkyouknow says: Jan 20, 2011 4:21 PM

    puddinpouch says:
    Jan 20, 2011 3:56 PM
    It’s pretty crappy, but nothing beats the Carolina field in ’01 vs. Green Bay. HUGE chunks of field coming out, linemen tossing them aside just to get in their stance, piles everywhere. Referees walking around with chunks of sod the size of their torso in their hands.

    After seeing that, this field looks like a Pebble Beach putting green.
    ___________________________________

    Agreed…I was at that game in it was terrible, but it also played into the Packers strength that day.

    I think either team’s offense this weekend will be benefitting from it. Pass rushing is going to be tough with no footing. I see the Pack trying to do quick outs and quick slants and finding the open receiver when the DB loses his footing….much in the same way the Bears did it to Seattle last weekend. Pack will not be able to run the ball….and I don’t think Chicago will do much better either. The whole game will come down to whether Cutler doesn’t go into F-up mode and whether Rodgers can find the open receiver and have time to get the ball to him.

    Should be one for the ages.

  13. pack15forever says: Jan 20, 2011 4:26 PM

    There is no doubt that its a crappy field but I believe that the Bear players are harping on it to gain a psychological advantage. It won’t work.

  14. conseannery says: Jan 20, 2011 4:31 PM

    Sounds like there’s too many comments from…

    **sunglasses**

    …the “Peanut” gallery

    YEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHH

  15. hobartbaker says: Jan 20, 2011 4:33 PM

    The best surface corrupt municipal politics can buy. How about some payback from homie up in D.C.?

  16. packerfanfornot4life says: Jan 20, 2011 4:34 PM

    tv426 For those who are concerned about the playing conditions in Chicago, correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t GB only about 80 miles NORTH of Chicago?

    There might be a concern about the conditions if the opposition were the Falcons or the Saints, but GB? Get real! actually its 200 miles north but Green Bay has 1. A heated grid under the turf and 2. more importantly a very well kept field (a1 top knotch grounds crew)

  17. lrt79 says: Jan 20, 2011 4:37 PM

    Hines Field is supposed to be just as bad.

    But I suppose if the media can focus on how much the grass at Soldier Field sucks as opposed to how the Bears being the NFC Championship Game has made them all look like tools, they’ll go that route.

  18. beardown4me says: Jan 20, 2011 4:39 PM

    When you sell you’re soul to the Chicago Park District back in 2003 remodel of Solider Field, you’re still going g to ay for it. Do you really think the Bears would spend the $3 million required to install a new artificial turf now! This is about Chicago jobs and the politics of building a stadium there. There will be turf grass there 30 years from now because it’s only about JOBS! There is no crying in football! The stadium lease on the soldier field goes to 2032.

  19. hobartbaker says: Jan 20, 2011 4:52 PM

    Sorry, sh-tty, Soldier Field was originally named Grant Park Stadium. After famous Illinois resident Useless Shoddy Grant.

  20. teal379 says: Jan 20, 2011 4:55 PM

    To be fair – the reason Cutler was complaining about the field is because he was spending so much time face down in it.

    That 0-line was bad at the start of the year….

  21. jc1958coo says: Jan 20, 2011 5:23 PM

    they have to talk about the field. what do you want them to talk about, getting a packers @ss whooping! maybe it’s an excuse to use when you lose. oh our guy slipped when cutler threw that pick!!! lmao

  22. jimmysee says: Jan 20, 2011 5:38 PM

    If the field is so bad, they can always move the gameto Green Bay.

  23. scytherius says: Jan 20, 2011 5:48 PM

    Any partisan “they are setting up excuses” aside (and I’m a Packers fan and don’t believe that BS), I can’t believe the NFL would permit conditions to be so bad that a game of this magnitude is played on such a poor field. I was watching the INFL guys last night and they didn’t hide their contempt for Soldier Field’s conditions.

    this isn’t a Bears issue. This isn’t a Packers issue. This is an NFL issue. how this can happen in this modern day is beyond me. Weather is one thing. A sh*t field is something else.

  24. jrmbadger says: Jan 20, 2011 6:22 PM

    I don’t understand how the NFL could let the field be that bad given the stakes of the game.

    As far as Lambeau is concerned:
    I don’t remember too many people complaining about Lambeau when the Giants played there in ’07 for the championship. Maybe they did, but I don’t remember it.

    Lambeau is generally in better shape as it has heated coils underneath with an artificial/natural grass blend. They also have special lights they put on the field at night to help the grass grow.

    Why soldier field doesn’t join the rest of the league in the 21st century is beyond me.

  25. cmstrick says: Jan 20, 2011 6:46 PM

    If this was the Vikings it would be a schism…

    He’s right though – that field is crap. Far and away the worst in the NFL. They don’t fix it because they’re used to it. It’s the visiting teams that have the most trouble with it.

  26. randolph32 says: Jan 20, 2011 7:10 PM

    Ok Folks, here’s the real deal….The Park District would pay for it, as it’s cheaper in the long run, but the Bears are afraid Artificial contributes to more injuries….they may be right after this season’s Horse Shoe.

    Grass Does NOT grow in this temperature, regardless of the kind of lights your using, it’s not like growing Reefer in your Basement, DUDE.

  27. pervyharvin says: Jan 20, 2011 7:20 PM

    There you go you gutless Pack fans. A built in excuse for your loss. Wa Wa the field was bad! You cake stuffers always cry about something..

  28. ortonsneckbeard says: Jan 20, 2011 8:28 PM

    We need the Sodfather but the Chicago park district is too cheap to hire him. Might take away jobs from whatever union is greasing Daly.

  29. footballrulz says: Jan 21, 2011 5:15 PM

    @Makjikbullett

    Majik–where ya been dude?

  30. jc1958coo says: Jan 21, 2011 6:37 PM

    da bearsssss suck so why shouldn’t the field a match made in heaven! loser field and loser team 28-17 packers!!

  31. cometkazie says: Jan 22, 2011 7:40 PM

    majikbullet says:
    Jan 20, 2011 4:09 PM
    tv426 says: Jan 20, 2011 3:38 PM

    Yes they are geographically close but they are not the same field surface. Soldier field is sod while Lambeau has a synthetic turf/sod mix. Completely different playing fields, so this is an issue.
    = = = = =

    Would someone explain or provide a url that explains how you can have synthetic and natural turf at the same time?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!