Chicken or the Egg?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm with you on that point. The term "chemistry" is so vague, I don't understand what it is really getting at half the time.

Players don't need to be friends to win. Hell, they can hate each other and still win. They just need to work hard and work well together, and share in a common goal.

see Shaq and Kobe. Hell Gmanc and I loathe, despise, detest each other...but we work well together as mods and on our Tony McGee partnership.

Let me ask this, a lot of talk has been made about how Clark would invite Taylor over for dinner, just to hang out etc. last season and that really helped Taylor. So do you think that (regardless of his performance on the field) if Arch had invited Taylor over for dinner and they played X-Box together etc. that Taylor would have had a better season because he felt "close" to AA? I'm inclined to say no.

[brent]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm with you on that point. The term "chemistry" is so vague, I don't understand what it is really getting at half the time.

Players don't need to be friends to win. Hell, they can hate each other and still win. They just need to work hard and work well together, and share in a common goal.

If you have excellent raw talent, yes. But if you have average talent that you are trying to get to work together and excel so that the whole exceeds the parts (ala the Williams defense 2 years ago)? No.

Wasn't Gibbs magic always predicated on getting more out of the sum of his parts than seemed possible?

[freddyg12]

I think what's missing from this question is the fact that the Pats have a business plan that fosters team chemistry. They will pay big bucks to a few players but that's the exception. Seymour & Brady come to mind, & they were re-signed. I can't think of any big name free agent they gave big $ to. I can't recall what they paid Dillon.
It seems obvious to me that based on what AP & Smoot have said, the Skins players feel that outside free agents have a better chance of a big payday than those already here. This will be a tough offseason for Gibbs to back up his core redskin talk. I hope he can keep the guys toghether.

[The Zimmermans]

Good players play well together, bad players (redskins defense) miss assignments and start to irritate eachother. the players had confidence in each other last year on defense (chemistry), this year there is no way that ST has confidence in the guys in front of him, so he must gamble, which hurts the team.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Very nice post.

[brent]

Both the Steelers and Patriots have made some brutally tough decisions over the years, replacing players like crazy. They are loyal though to their players, not to a fault. For example, that the Steelers wouldn't match Randel El's contract was very predictable and understandable. Neither team is beyond rewarding its own players, including defensive ones, and the Steelers in particular have come out with fatter contracts in the past 5 years to help get beyond their "too cheap" perception.

The Redskins have shown zero loyalty to anyone on the defense. I think what happened with Ladell Betts is a good start for the organization in rewarding its own but -- again -- its on the offensive side. The message is clear: Snyder values offensive flash. And Gibbs, who is noted for offense, doesn't quell this.

Throwing the biggest contracts on players who aren't playing (Adam) and not studying their playbooks (Lavar) hasn't helped matters either.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

So we hear a lot of talk about chemistry, and lack thereof on the Redskins because of constant player turnover, and how this lack of chemistry has led to inner turmoil and losing. By the same token though, the Pats are often changing players yet they continue to win.

So here's my question for the group. Does chemistry breed winning? Or winning breed chemistry?

Here is the difference. Great coaching, Tom Brady and mainstays on the defensive line and linebackers. For all the praise Brady gets and it is well deserved, people don't mention Richard Seymour, Ty Warren, Vince Wolfolk, and Marquis Hill. Plus Vrabel and Bruschi have been solid. NE has had some turnover but they have also kept some real solid core guys too.

[hurrykaine]

Great thread.

If chemistry refers to chemistry in off-the-field or locker room relationships, then no, chemistry doesn't breed winning. I'll pick on my two favorite scapegoats (Daniels and Wynn) and say that you can have great team chemistry with a bunch of likeable personable dudes even when you get the crap beat out of you in a 5-11 season. Its entirely possible to develop this type of chemistry after a tough loss.

If Chemistry refers to on-field chemistry (e.g., better timing between QB and receivers, or better chemistry between O-linemen, linebackers, etc.), then hell yes, chemistry breeds winning.

On the other hand...

Winning can build off-the-field chemistry, but it tends to be pretty fragile. A losing season after a couple of winning seasons can destroy the off-the-field chemistry.

Winning can't build on-the-field chemistry. That develops through rigorous practices over time.