Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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 (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.