The Argument for Team Chemistry?

Winning solves lots of problems. Losing creates them.

That's my take on it also.

Players with character will gripe less when the team is losing, but that doesn't mean that they have confidence in their coaches or the system.

team chemistry is always a concern but like others this coaching staff has the responsibility to put everybody in the right positions.everyone needs to be content which worries me a bit also,nobody will be content.but with this staff i feel pretty good about our situation all in all.

but one does wonder.....

I mentioned the importance of having team chemistry in a couple of other threads, but I decided to starte a new one to get everyone to weigh in on the matter.

First of all, I love the all of the FA signings to date. On paper I think we made ourselves an immeditate Super Bowl contender for the upcoming season. But I have to wonder how much, if at all, we've disrupted team chemstry. And furthermore how do you really measure team chemistry? I mean you know it's there, but how do you know when a team has advance it's cause or messed with a good thing?

Allow me to sidetrack for a moment: I think about this years' Washington Wizards versus last years' team. At the end of last year, many around the NBA thought they were perhaps one or two solid players from breathing down the Miami Heats' neck in a significant way. During the offseason, however, they allowed Larry Hughes, one of their marquee players, to sign with a conference rival. Sound familiar? While he wasn't the main star for Washington, he added so much to the team in terms of chemistry, balance and intensity. The upshot of the story is that the Wizards added three new faces because of Hughes' departure and have been mightily inconsistent for most of the season. Hughes was recently interviewed and strongly intimated that if he had his druthers he would still be playing ball here in D.C. He also noted the Wizards inconsistant play this year and said you can replace bodies but you can't replace chemistry - the way guys feel about each other (on the court), the way they play together is important.

Do I trust Joe Gibbs and Co - yes!! I just hope that these recent additions isn't a case of two steps forward, one step backwards. I hope this is a case of building for the future as well as right now. But then again, in the words of the late George Allen the future is now!

Hail to the Redskins!

the wizards will be better in the long run though. larry would have cost too much to continue adding players and it looks like both taylor and blatch are going to be good players (and daniels and butler have both stepped up recently). Hughes can't stay healthy and paying for 40-60 games a season isn't worth it. Trades can hurt in the short term though.

for the skins, how many starters were replaced? clark is the only real arguement. patten wasn't around long enough (when healthy) to gel and everyoen else was worthless at WR #2, so there's no hit there. at DE, wynn wasn't exactly good and he'll probably be on the field at DT doing what he IS good at, so i don't think there's a big hit there. royal was average and a bit player and his repalcement is a bit above average, no hit there.

the only places with potential issues are ROLB and SS, but the talent level of the team has sky-rocketed thus far, and at least 40 players are returning.

It's already been mentioned that Saunders will use a 3 WR set often so WR depth was critical.

Teams acquire new players every year, we're adding some new guys but it's not a roster overhaul.

Let's not forget this is the 3rd year with this core group of coaches, that goes a long way to promoting team chemistry as well.


This seems right on to me, Matty--man, you're kicking this thread's ass! :biggthump

also, every team moves players every year, so it evens out a bit because of that. QB/WR and OL are the spots where chemistry is the most noteable.

the wizards will be better in the long run though. larry would have cost too much to continue adding players and it looks like both taylor and blatch are going to be good players (and daniels and butler have both stepped up recently). Hughes can't stay healthy and paying for 40-60 games a season isn't worth it. Trades can hurt in the short term though.

for the skins, how many starters were replaced? clark is the only real arguement. patten wasn't around long enough (when healthy) to gel and everyoen else was worthless at WR #2, so there's no hit there. at DE, wynn wasn't exactly good and he'll probably be on the field at DT doing what he IS good at, so i don't think there's a big hit there. royal was average and a bit player and his repalcement is a bit above average, no hit there.

the only places with potential issues are ROLB and SS, but the talent level of the team has sky-rocketed thus far, and at least 40 players are returning.

Good points. It did take the Wizards a little time to come around and Hughes' health has been an issue.

But like I said, on paper everything looks great. I'll wait for about five games to see how we adjust.

Good points. It did take the Wizards a little time to come around and Hughes' health has been an issue.

But like I said, on paper everything looks great. I'll wait for about five games to see how we adjust.

you are right that chemistry is an issue, but i think its more important in the coaching staff than the players (unless you're moving 20 guys like the browns).

the analysts jumped on the cards, chiefs defense, vikes defense, skins, and some even the bears when new coaches/owners came in and massive roster overhauls occured.

they were off on the bears and skins by a year. i bet the cards are much better this year (their problem was too many new faces and mental lapses on defense last year, and no running game, not a total lack of talent), but that doesn't mean they'll have a winning record.

I'd bet on the vikes too, but a new coach and really strange GM decisions are making them look like a bad choice (trade culpepper a year after randy moss, trust your team to an above average 37 year old that has an EXTREMELY weak arm and throwing 50mill at an (admittedly great) guard, letting williams go, etc).

I'd bet the browns are better this year, but next year is when i think it really starts to click and they could make the playoffs, depending on health.


you can see screwed up OL situations every year too, but a lot of time it has to due with injuries which cause less talented backups onto the field and forces others to switch positions from game to game trying to find something that works.

so who are you guys voting on the "fashionable" pick this year. im really going with the browns too. if all their first round picks could stay healthy, they could do some damage with who they got in FA.

the fashionable picks are right, but they're usually a year early.

so are you feeling the cardinals who were the pick last year will step up this year?