The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

I mentioned the importance of having team chemistry in a couple of other threads, but I decided to start 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 ([I]on the court[/I]), 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!

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

Personally I don't think it will be an issue especially with this coaching staff.

The one part of the team that would concern me the most chemistry-wise has it, the offensive line.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

Good post, Matty. While I know I've made a fuss about the Archuleta/Clark situation, I agree that most of our signings seem to have been very sensible. I also agree that Gibbs and the rest of the coaching staff should manage to keep things together. Hopefully this year will be even better than last.
:biggthump

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

Matty, I am with you on the team chemistry question when it comes to O-Line. I don't worry about it with our new receivers, because they will have time to build continuity with Brunell and Campbell during the offseason. I worry about chemistry on Defense, but as long as we are only adding 2-3 new starters, it should not be a huge deal. I mean think about the consistency on our coaching staff for 06 compared to 05. Other than Bill Musgrave, I think everyone is back. Plus we now have Saunders!

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

i wonder what Moss thinks about the signings of the 2 wrs,that means less balls thrown his way but less double coverage also,reading the news reports lloyd sounds like he could become another T.O. so yes,i am worried about the team chemistry with the wr's and will there be enough passes to go around,and if there are then that might mean portis isnt getting the ball as much as he'd like

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

We didn't have any chemistry at receiver beyond Santana. I don't think on offense there is anything to mess up.

On defense, we signed a safety that should be a big help in run support but if we get a new DE, that would be the one thing that I would have to watch. Will a pass rushing specialist hurt the run defense? I don't think so, but it is a question.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

other than the free agents there should not be that much turnover to the roster.lloyd and his attitude does concern me ,but hopefully we have enough leaders that it will not become an issue

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

shouldn't be a problem. adding players is a neccessary thing. its all about the coaching staff getting everyone to work together. sure there will be some rough patches, but that is to be expected. we should be just fine as a team we still have most of our core guys still here which is huge also. as far as CP goes i'd think he'd be happier with the signings. portis took a lot of hits this year. this will help keep him fresh and plus there will be many more carries in which he can take it all the way. there will not be as many in the box. but if you bring 8 in the box. now we have 3 wideouts that can take it deep. lloyd may not have the speed as the others, but that man will make some of the most beautiful catches you will see. this is something that we were definetly missing from last year.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

When all the rumors where flying around that we might have to cut alot of player was the time to be concerned about chemistry. We are keeping all of our core player (except Arington) to keep our team chemestry. Now for lloyd if he gets out of line Portis can just do a Westbrook on him.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

I think we will be ok if Lloyd doesn't mind exchanging the number one reciever spot to be on a winning team. After some good ol' Gibbs coaching he should be fine. Not too worried about the Archuleta/Clark issue, it really isn't that big of a deal, it has been blow way out of proportion, and it will work itself out. I think the most important thing is the chemisty between the recievers and Brunell, possibly Campbell if he is to start. Again we have great seeds in place, but chemisty needs to develop between the WR and QB position if we are hoping to make a run, and that will only be done if we do not change QB's midway through the season. Which in my mind means, keep Brunell starting one more year, and let Campbell sit and learn.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

Im also worried about Chemistry and I'm not sure we spent responsibly. I feel we went after too many receivers (we only needed one, it's not like we go four wide, or even three wide for the matter, very often. Maybe Saunders will change that, but I'm not so sure. We also went after Archeletta who is a good player, but the difference in the two salaries, not worth what we had over Ryan Clark.

I hope that all these players are able to play together and come together quickly, but Im not so sure yet.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

Like I said, everything looks good on paper - I think it will take five or so games to get everyone in a groove.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

We all know Joe. You can't watch a Joe news conference that he does not touch on (or emphasize) such things as "redskin qualities", "core group of Redskins to buiild around", "Redskin, kind of player who'll fight their GUTS OUT". Joe is all about Character, team chemistry, quality of the person, above all else. I don't see this as an issue-Joe Knows

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

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.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

Winning solves lots of problems. Losing creates them.

Who among us wouldn't be a team cancer if we were stuck in SF? My guess is that Lloyd will be a freaking boy scout if he is part of a winning organization.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

One thing I think that we are forgetting. Is that 3 of the 4 added players have been to the Super Bowl. This brings some experience that we didn't have to much of on the team. So these guys know what it takes to get tot he show.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan]I mentioned the importance of having team chemistry in a couple of other threads, but I decided to started a new one to get everyone to weigh in on the matter. [/QUOTE]

Thanks for starting what promises to be an interesting thread.

I've coached boys in baseball, football, and basketball. Keeping the same squad together is far more important in basketball than in the other sports. The more basketball they play together, the better able they are to anticipate and react to each other in the flow of play.

In football, QBs and receivers who spend more time together working on patterns, can make impromptu plays that are similar to basketball passes relying on anticipation and reaction. But, aside from that, football is more about carrying out planned assignments. I think "chemistry" is a relatively minor factor.

I'll tell you what worries me more than chemistry.

I've read about Al Saunders' system at Kansas City. If it's as complicated as it sounds, young Jason Campbell is going to have a full plate. I hope he's up to it.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

[QUOTE=Huddle]Thanks for starting what promises to be an interesting thread.

I've coached boys in baseball, football, and basketball. Keeping the same squad together is far more important in basketball than in the other sports. The more basketball they play together, the better able they are to anticipate and react to each other in the flow of play.

In football, QBs and receivers who spend more time together working on patterns, can make impromptu plays that are similar to basketball passes relying on anticipation and reaction. But, aside from that, football is more about carrying out planned assignments. I think "chemistry" is a relatively minor factor.

I'll tell you what worries me more than chemistry.

I've read about Al Saunders' system at Kansas City. If it's as complicated as it sounds, young Jason Campbell is going to have a full plate. I hope he's up to it.[/QUOTE]

It's not really the timing and the executing of assignments that worries me so much. It's something I mentioned later....can we maintain the hunger. That "intangible" that existed in the lockeroom when we went on the five/six game win streak.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan]It's not really the timing and the executing of assignments that worries me so much. It's something I mentioned later....can we maintain the hunger. That "intangible" that existed in the lockeroom when we went on the five/six game win streak.[/QUOTE]

During that streak, their backs were against the wall. Gibbs and Williams work their teams harder than most coaches, and yet they were on the verge of elimination with six games to play. No...you won't re-create that intangible.

I think what you really want is a supremely confident team that doesn't need to get jacked up on emotion in order to play well.

You want a team that expects to win even when all the breaks are going against them. And the only way to do that is to win a bunch of games by having better players executing a better plan.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

for the most part, i agree with the general consensus that chemistry cannot be predicted, and will have to be TBA until gametime. the one area that concerns me is having 3 high profile WR's.

Talented WR's are egotistical by nature (somewhat understandably so), and I cant help but think that at least one of the 3 top guys will feel that they arent getting the looks that they deserve, which could spill over into an issue over time. just my $.02, any opinions?

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

[QUOTE=RiggoRules]Winning solves lots of problems. Losing creates them.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

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.....

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan]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 ([i]on the court[/i]), 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![/QUOTE]

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.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]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.[/QUOTE]


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

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

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.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

[QUOTE=12thMan]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

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.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

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

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

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

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

I would have to say they'll be better, just barely competitive. Still, they have an aging Warner and no offensive line with which to protect him OR Edge.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

[QUOTE=PWNED]so are you feeling the cardinals who were the pick last year will step up this year?[/QUOTE]

i said so a couple posts ago (and browns next year). I DON'T mean gauranteed playoffs or anything like that. but they got a RB now and the defense will get berry back (and the D's problem's were mental, not really lack of talent). OL still suspect.

Re: The Argument for Team Chemistry?
 

i think ferguson would be a good start for them. at least give edge a side to run to. it would have been a good move by THEN to have signed hutch.