Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Redskins Locker Room (http://www.thewarpath.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   The Argument for Team Chemistry? (http://www.thewarpath.net/showthread.php?t=11491)

12thMan 03-13-2006 03:12 PM

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!

MTK 03-13-2006 03:18 PM

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.

jermus22 03-13-2006 03:22 PM

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.

scowan 03-13-2006 03:46 PM

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!

htownskinfan 03-13-2006 03:53 PM

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

GoSkins! 03-13-2006 03:55 PM

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.

dmek25 03-13-2006 03:59 PM

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

skin4Life28 03-13-2006 04:02 PM

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.

hooskins 03-13-2006 04:17 PM

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.

Daseal 03-13-2006 04:23 PM

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.

12thMan 03-13-2006 04:27 PM

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.

Hog1 03-13-2006 04:29 PM

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

MTK 03-13-2006 04:48 PM

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.

RiggoRules 03-13-2006 04:52 PM

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.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:42 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site has no official affiliation with the Washington Redskins or the NFL, we're just a bunch of fans talking football

Page generated in 0.04833 seconds with 8 queries