Derek Carr's camp relieved his injury happened on a grass field

Saints quarterback Derek Carr got lucky on Sunday, despite the inherent bad luck of getting injured. It could have been worse.

As noted last night, Carr "probably avoided disaster" with a shoulder injury than entailed no internal damage. More is expected to be known on Monday about the shoulder injury.

There's also a sense of relief in Carr's camp regarding the ground on which the injury occurred. It happened on the non-frozen non-tundra of Lambeau Field, one of the best playing surfaces in the NFL. If he had slammed his upper body against less forgiving artificial turf, which does not absorb forces but ricochets them back into the body, it could have been much worse for Carr.

"EXACTLY," one source said when the issue of grass vs. turf came up in the context of the Carr injury. "Probably meant the difference."

Despite this basic reality regarding the difference between the hardness, or lack thereof, of a well-maintained, high-quality grass field and the average turf field, there's still an attempt by some to create a debate as to the two surfaces when, among current players, there is still no evidence that one exists.

The notion trickled into Peter King's Football Morning in America column today. Here’s the quote: "I think I found this interesting: Noise made about how bad artificial turf is after Aaron Rodgers tore his Achilles on a contact injury on artificial turf on Monday Night Football in week one: Ear-splitting. Endless. Noise made about natural grass after Nick Chubb tore knee ligaments on a contact injury on natural grass on Monday Night Football in week two: Not a peep—at least that I heard."

First, I need to say that I love Peter King. He has been a great friend and mentor. But we are frank and candid with each other when we disagree. And I wholeheartedly disagree with this take.

There's a fair question as to whether Rodgers's shoe became stuck in the field turf at MetLife Stadium long enough to allow extra forces to pop the tendon in his 39-year-old drumstick as he was being tackled in a fairly routine and basic way. As to Chubb, he absorbed a violent blow to the side of his leg while his foot was down. No surface would have lessened the sudden impact from Steelers safety Minkah Fitzpatrick.

Indeed, it's possible that a turf field would have gripped Chubb's foot more tightly, allowing more damage to be done than a complete tear of the MCL.

The broader point is this. There's no real debate regarding grass vs. turf, not among current players. Those who would like to justify the cheaper route to outfitting fields would love for there to be a debate. And they would love for the media to set up something that looks like a real debate.

But there is no real debate, not with the NFL Players Association calling for all grass fields, with multiple stadiums willing to replace turf fields with hybrid surfaces to secure World Cup matches, and with not a single current player saying out loud, "I like turf over grass."

Until at least one player says it, there can be no debate — no matter how badly the NFL would like members of the media to carry its water as to a surface that doesn't require any.