Chicken or the Egg?

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?

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.

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?

I think you misunderstood me. There's no reason you can't have the sum of the parts be greater than the whole, AND have players on the team who don't like each other.

Not liking your teammates is not a requisite condition for sucking. If you have two guys who don't like each other, as long as they're not being whiney bitches and they both work hard, you don't have a problem. It comes down to picking decent people; ie avoiding Brandon Lloyds.

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.

Yeah exactly. Hell no, it would make no difference.

Ryan Clark was a much better player than Archuleta. What would have helped that situation was if Gibbs and Grilliams actually listened to the players and kept Ryan Clark.

I think you misunderstood me. There's no reason you can't have the sum of the parts be greater than the whole, AND have players on the team who don't like each other.

Not liking your teammates is not a requisite condition for sucking. If you have two guys who don't like each other, as long as they're not being whiney bitches and they both work hard, you don't have a problem. It comes down to picking decent people; ie avoiding Brandon Lloyds.

Isn't avoiding Brandon Lloyds and TOs the very definition of team chemistry? Do you think having Michael Westbrook beat up Stephen Davis in practice helped the team win?

Look...chicken to egg, Gibbs isn't the offensive or defensive coordinator anymore. He's the CEO. He's the one who is supposed to oversee team cohesiveness. He's the one who is supposed to manage the ying-yang between offense managing the ball and giving the defense a rest. He's the one who has been rubber-stamping these disastorous free agent moves that has hurt the talent-level and club cohesiveness simultaneously. Quite frankly, he's asleep at the wheel.

Gibbs is right: end of the day, it is his fault. Not to say I want him to go, but he needs to WAKE UP and do his job.

Yeah exactly. Hell no, it would make no difference.

Ryan Clark was a much better player than Archuleta. What would have helped that situation was if Gibbs and Grilliams actually listened to the players and kept Ryan Clark.
i agree with this. my problem is, whomever wanted A.A. here, how could they be that wrong about the guys ability? these kind of decisions in the real business world get people fired

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.