PDA

View Full Version : Chemistry vs Talent


Gay Ork Wang
05-12-2009, 05:24 PM
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d8104389c/Chemistry-vs-talent

I think this is a quite interesting discussion.

I think id take talent over chemistry. Obviously chemistry is important, but Talent is the thing that u absolutly need to win.


but you need both to eventually win. I feel like its easier to get a talented team to get a better chemistry than get a team with great chemistry to get more talented if thats even possible

neko4
05-12-2009, 05:40 PM
"An Army is a team; lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap."

-General Patton

Sure the cowboys get talked about alot, and yeah they have a ton of talent, but the chemistry has been lacking.

I think talent can get you through the regular season, but a team's chemistry shines through in the playoffs.

AntoinCD
05-12-2009, 05:40 PM
If its a cut and dry issue then talent wins out because if you don't have talent you can't win. But in the NFL everyone has talent, everyone has ability. If I had to choose between a lot of talent and a average chemistry or a average talent and a lot of chemistry then I would side with the chemistry. A good example would be the Oakland Raiders. Nnamdi Asomoghua, Chris Johnson, Zach Miller, Darren McFadden, JaMarcus Russell, Thomas Howard etc. They have a lot of extremely talented players but lack the chemistry throughout the whole organisation to be successful. On the flipside the Miami Dolphins last year had not a lot of outstanding players(Joey Porter, Jake Long are the only definites, maybe Ronnie Brown) but yet won 11 games last year, won the division and got to the playoffs because they worked hard and had the team chemistry. The Dallas Cowboys have arguably the most talented team in the NFL and havent won a playoff game this decade. The San Diego Chargers are the only team that can compete with the Cowboys talentwise and they havent been to a Superbowl. The New England Patriots won Superbowls with a bunch of scrubs but a core of talented players and good chemistry. The same with the Colts, outside of Manning, Harrison, Wayne, Freeney, Sanders and Saturday they were average to good players but had the right chemistry to win.

Brent
05-12-2009, 05:45 PM
Decent talent with great chemistry wins, when faced with talent that is only so much better. A few breaks that go your way dont hurt either.

bored of education
05-12-2009, 05:46 PM
A good audio visual department like the patriots had from 1999-2006.

Gay Ork Wang
05-12-2009, 05:48 PM
A good audio visual department like the patriots had from 1999-2006.
i love you boe

ShutDwn
05-12-2009, 05:48 PM
Every team has a good amount of talent, obviously some have more than others, but that doesn't mean everything.

Talent is nice, but without chemistry it can never reach the full potential. The human aspect of the game is often overlooked, the league isn't like Madden where you can trade and sign any player and they fit in perfectly. You need to have the camaraderie present in order to win championships, guys who will play of each other and not just themselves.

When has a team with a crappy locker room environment won a lot?

AntoinCD
05-12-2009, 05:59 PM
A good audio visual department like the patriots had from 1999-2006.

That's how they developed good chemistry. The all sat in on Saturday nights together eating popcorn watchng signals. Great times where had by all

bored of education
05-12-2009, 06:00 PM
That's how they developed good chemistry. The all sat in on Saturday nights together eating popcorn watchng signals. Great times where had by all

while Bill was out didling Little Leaguers from the surrounding towns.

Gay Ork Wang
05-13-2009, 06:32 AM
So i guess a better question would be:

Would u rather take a team with a lot of talent but almost no chemistry at all.
or would u take a team with a lot of chemistry but hardly any talent

JFLO
05-13-2009, 07:00 AM
In the end, I think running your offense/defense with the right players is the smoothest path to the Super Bowl. The perfect example is Bill Belicheck who constantly brings in role players to contribute to the offensive and defensive scheme that he runs in Foxboro.

Talent is when you look at teams like Dallas, San Diego...who don't always hav

Addict
05-13-2009, 07:10 AM
you need both, but I think a talented team with little chemistry would win less games than a less talented team with great chemistry. It's a team game.

Unrelated sport, but related subject: why do you figure Chelsea hasn't won the Champions League yet? Mainly because they're not a team but an eleven man collection of talent.

NY+Giants=NYG
05-13-2009, 07:25 AM
You need a combination of both to win. See the Dallas cowboys. All the talent in the world but no chemistry. As a giants fan, we had the same issue. We had guys like Strahan, Toomer, Tiki, Plax, and Shockey. Plax and Shockey never spend the offseason workouts with the team. I think now is the true first year, all those personalities are gone, and no one is in Miami working out by alone. But you need a combination of both to win.

Gay Ork Wang
05-13-2009, 07:41 AM
i think id rather take a team with a lot of talent and try to get a chemistry going than way around

NY+Giants=NYG
05-13-2009, 07:51 AM
i think id rather take a team with a lot of talent and try to get a chemistry going than way around

You can't just get chemistry going. That comes in the talent you get. Talent and personality is together. That's just being a human, having football talent, and a set personality. The set goal is to find good guys who have talent. That's why some front offices grade players based on talent, and then on their off the field personality too. Theory being, you collect guys like that chemistry will automatically come because all the guys are of the near same personality type, and will be a good fit.

But if you just focus on talent, without regard for personality, then developing chemistry will be really hard. You would need a Bill B, Coughlin, or Parcells type coach who players would fear, yet respect. You would need a coach who can lay down the law to try to foster it. But even then you can get stuck with a Shockey or Tiki Barber type guy. You just gotta get the right personality from the get go.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
05-13-2009, 08:40 AM
I think it depends on the position, personally. The QB needs at least one WR/TE he has tremendous chemistry with for when the play breaks down.

On the OL, chemistry>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talent to the millionth degree. My old coach told me, each offensive lineman is a finger, together they make a fist. If one finger is sticking out, obviously the fist weakens. If one lineman, no matter how talented, doesn't have that communication down with the linemen next to him, then guys might slip through, weakening the fist.

vikes_28
05-13-2009, 08:41 AM
The vikings have talent because of chemistry. JA makes everyone else look good.

Gay Ork Wang
05-13-2009, 09:11 AM
The vikings have talent because of chemistry. JA makes everyone else look good.
my my Jerry Angelo is really great isnt he

Addict
05-13-2009, 09:19 AM
I think it depends on the position, personally. The QB needs at least one WR/TE he has tremendous chemistry with for when the play breaks down.

On the OL, chemistry>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>talent to the millionth degree. My old coach told me, each offensive lineman is a finger, together they make a fist. If one finger is sticking out, obviously the fist weakens. If one lineman, no matter how talented, doesn't have that communication down with the linemen next to him, then guys might slip through, weakening the fist.

actually if you punch someone with one finger sticking out your fist, chances are you break that finger.

LizardState
05-13-2009, 09:23 AM
Harmony between team members would be a letter term than "chemistry." I guess a term like "chemistry" sounds more macho.

Why do analysts always point to the lack of chemistry on an NFL team when there is absolute chaos in the front office & coaching staff? Announcers do that b/c they don't dare criticize NFL owners on the air, can't bite the hand that feeds them.

They point to the result, lack of team players playing together well as a team, & overstate the obvious. Most of the time the problem is from the top down & the chaos created by rivalry between assts. or between the HC & GM or between all of the above & the owner/owner's family is the obvious 900-lb. gorilla in the living room..... see Raiders, Oakland in the Callahan/Art Shell II/Lane Kiffin eras, basically since they blew their last SB to Tampa Bay. Jury is still out on Cable, if there's a dark cloud still over the whole orgn. it's not b/c of the team chemistry, that's confusing the effect with the cause.

FlyingElvis
05-13-2009, 09:54 AM
I agree w/AntionCD - the talent level in the NFL does not leave major gaps between teams. The difference is chemistry. Give me the hard working, dedicated guys over the prima donna d-bags who think everything is about them. And a solid ownership/FO like NE helps, too. Even if Bill eats puppies and young children to gain their life force.

nepg
05-13-2009, 10:00 AM
If you build chemistry first, the talent will come.

Addict
05-13-2009, 10:17 AM
coaching matters a lot, so do solid decisions by GM's... maybe more even than talent and chemistry.

ShutDwn
05-13-2009, 11:12 AM
coaching matters a lot, so do solid decisions by GM's... maybe more even than talent and chemistry.

If they are making solid decisions, then that would mean they are building a talented team with chemistry.

It is difficult to seperate these ideas when they are so connected, but this is a team sport, and usually it is the best team that wins, which isn't always the most talented.

YAYareaRB
05-13-2009, 12:17 PM
I think the Titans had the chemistry straight FLOWIN' last season. They were also helped out by some exceptional talent.

nepg
05-13-2009, 01:19 PM
How many seasons in a row have the Chargers been the most talented? That proves the point right there.

yourfavestoner
05-13-2009, 03:17 PM
Talent is a personnel issue.
Chemistry is a coaching issue.

Everybody loves to cite Dallas and how TO was a chemistry killer - but the biggest mistake Jerry Jones made was hiring the enabling yes-man Wade Phillips to be his head coach. THAT'S why Dallas doesn't have chemistry. You're never going to win big games if your team is run like a day spa.

giant73zuma
05-13-2009, 11:10 PM
All things being equal chemistry will win out. A team loaded with talent and little chemistry will beat up on lesser talented teams but will choke when faced with an equally talented team or if a lesser teams gets up on them and gives them a fight. Team chemistry is why the cowboy or the yankees also fall apart and teams like the giants and patriots or what ever hot non BCS (utah, boise, whoever it will be this year) get hot at the end of the season. A talent alone based team may get you into the post season but wont take you a championship

TACKLE
05-14-2009, 12:09 AM
Winning in the NFL is all about who can execute the best on the field for 60 minutes. That's why I take talent. If you don't have players that can execute their assignments, you will not win. People often associate heart, determination and preparation with chemistry but those are not really related. On a team that has great talent doesn't have as good "chemistry", the competitiveness and desire to win aren't necessarily lacking. They may not win because the players failed to execute on that day, but it won't be because there athletically inferior. The game of football always comes down to 1-on-1 match-ups. If you have the players, who can win those battles, you can win.

Bengalsrocket
05-14-2009, 05:36 AM
Winning in the NFL is all about who can execute the best on the field for 60 minutes. That's why I take talent. If you don't have players that can execute their assignments, you will not win. People often associate heart, determination and preparation with chemistry but those are not really related. On a team that has great talent doesn't have as good "chemistry", the competitiveness and desire to win aren't necessarily lacking. They may not win because the players failed to execute on that day, but it won't be because there athletically inferior. The game of football always comes down to 1-on-1 match-ups. If you have the players, who can win those battles, you can win.

You said it. Execution is the key to winning. Chemistry and talent both play a part in execution though.

Chemistry should mean that your team has synergy, with said synergy they should be able to execute plays as a team, rather than individuals.

Talent should mean that your players have the skill to execute plays that are above and beyond the average capability.

Combining the two means that you have players who can not only execute extremely difficult plays, but can do it with their teammates. This is a major role in not only football, but all team sports.

AntoinCD
05-14-2009, 04:46 PM
Talent is a personnel issue.
Chemistry is a coaching issue.

Everybody loves to cite Dallas and how TO was a chemistry killer - but the biggest mistake Jerry Jones made was hiring the enabling yes-man Wade Phillips to be his head coach. THAT'S why Dallas doesn't have chemistry. You're never going to win big games if your team is run like a day spa.

In fairness though Dallas didn't have great chemistry when Parcells was there and he is the opposite of Phillips. I agree with the principle though because teams like Dallas and Oakland really don't help themselves in anyway in these situations

Burger
05-15-2009, 12:19 AM
Talent is a personnel issue.
Chemistry is a coaching issue.

Everybody loves to cite Dallas and how TO was a chemistry killer - but the biggest mistake Jerry Jones made was hiring the enabling yes-man Wade Phillips to be his head coach. THAT'S why Dallas doesn't have chemistry. You're never going to win big games if your team is run like a day spa.

You've never heard of a Captain or a project have you?

LizardState
05-15-2009, 08:38 AM
And a solid ownership/FO like NE helps, too. Even if Bill eats puppies and young children to gain their life force.

I think that in the case of NE the factor you're reffing here is called cheating. Finding a loophole in the rules then expanding it big enough to drive an 18-wheeler thru, whatever, getting an edge however you can over next wk's opponent. Belichick makes other teams draft day trade swindles & adding players from division rivals to your PS to pump them for inside info look amateurish. He would sleep with your father to get an edge.

FlyingElvis
05-15-2009, 09:17 AM
I think that in the case of NE the factor you're reffing here is called cheating. Finding a loophole in the rules then expanding it big enough to drive an 18-wheeler thru, whatever, getting an edge however you can over next wk's opponent. Belichick makes other teams draft day trade swindles & adding players from division rivals to your PS to pump them for inside info look amateurish. He would sleep with your father to get an edge.

Oh, hi. You must be new.

;)