Chemistry is overrated

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,095
Reaction score
12,915
chemistry is very overrated i hear about chemistry from teams that win. It is rare that a championship team doesn’t get along great............ that’s because winning cures all. Chemistry comes as a result of winning, not the other way around.

I’m curious, did any of you hear the browns talk about how good their chemistry was? Of course not, because it would be ridiculous to say such a thing.but that team played hard, and I would argue they did have good chemistry, but it is part of our thinking that it isn’t possible to have chemistry on a bad team.

So when our wrs get tired of being blamed for our crappy passing game, watch our “chemistry,” continue to get worse.

How is the Steelers chemistry looking right now?
 
Shaq and Kobe during the Lakers' early 2000's run is all you need as a proof point for me...it's overrated.
 
So are you trying to say we have bad chemistry until we start winning?

Is this an attempt to start a rag thread?
Nope, I just read someone’s talking about Dez ruining chemistry........ garbage, so I figured I start a discussion on chemistry of teams. Like I said, chemistry comes from winning.....it’s rare for winning teams to not be involved in a love fest.
 
Shaq and Kobe during the Lakers' early 2000's run is all you need as a proof point for me...it's overrated.
Or the 77 Yankees, they didn’t exactly love each other wth Reggie and billy Martin about to kill each other.
 
I think chemistry is more about familiarity, it may not translate to wins but on the field that chemistry will give you match up victories within a game. O-line chemistry and chemistry between a quarterback and wide receiver doesn't ensure you will win but that doesn't make it non-existent.
 
Have to agree with this sentiment - I was talking to a buddy the other day about what a disaster the 2015 season was and he made an interesting comment. Basically said that he thinks Greg Hardy would still be in the league had Romo never gone down, because the guy was a monster on the field for us to start the season and the wheels only started to come off once the winning fell away and he was fighting with coaches, etc. I don't necessarily agree that Hardy would still be in the league, but it's an interesting example of how winning might cure all evils - had we kept the offensive momentum from the prior year and Hardy kept playing like the top DE he had the potential to be, we might have been voting him into the pro bowl that year! Winning = "Chemistry"
 
I think chemistry is more about familiarity, it may not translate to wins but on the field that chemistry will give you match up victories within a game. O-line chemistry and chemistry between a quarterback and wide receiver doesn't ensure you will win but that doesn't make it non-existent.
I guess we’d need to define exactly what “chemistry,” is?
 
And now both Shaw and Kobe say they wished they had handled things differently..youth makes you do dumb stuff.
Of course they say that now...I was neighbors in the Oakland Hills with B. Shaw's family and saw/spoke to him regularly during that time (2001-10), as he knew that I was/am an avid Lakers fan...his version of things was very different then...they fed off of the conflict between Shaq and Kobe as motivation for the rest of the team. I will admit though, that the team fell under the weight of it when adding Karl Malone and Gary Payton to that mix in 2004. It boiled over where before it was just dynamic tension.
 
It sounds like you never played team sports at a high level. Does chemistry trump talent? NO. Does chemistry affect how players play in team sports? YES.
You don’t know a damn thing about me.
 

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,003
Messages
14,505,658
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top