Chicken or the Egg?

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?

An elite QB and or a great defense breeds chemistry and winning at the same time.

I believe winning breeds chemistry. Because at the moment of victory, you want to share that with your teammates and the bond grows with each win.



Good question by the way.

winning builds chemistry. without a doubt. if you dont like someone as a person, you can still respect thm as a teammate. they dont have to pick roses togeather after practice ya know?

Strong leadership on the team builds chemistry.

Players become leaders through toughness, gutsy play, sticking with a team through hard times and believing that the work will pay off, and winning.

Winning builds leadership. Leaders establish team chemistry. But you can become a leader without winning. You can become a leader by working hard and setting an example, even in losing efforts.

I think that winning and chemistry feed off each other. Winning breeds chemistry, and good chemistry helps teams win. I like the question.

i would like to think that the team will come together after this terrible season... with that built up chemistry we'll tear it up next year and win some games.

the nfl as we know it is changing ladies.

I hated chemistry. All sciences, actually. So, I'm going to go with winning.

i think a team can have good chemistry and still suck. but it can take marginal teams to another level

Chemistry will develop among the team members. However that chemistry could be negative as well as positive.