PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Terry Robiskie has been mentioned as a possible RB coach in New Orleans.
Word is the Saints will make a strong push to bring fired Packers DB coach Kurt Schottenheimer to New Orleans, and the rumor that it will be to take over as defensive coordinator won’t go away.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PF...hispers1929.htm

New Orleans

No matter who guides the Saints’ offense next season — Mike McCarthy, last year’s architect, was rumored to be on the move, and head coach Jim Haslett may have someone new in place by the time you read this — we’re told the attack won’t change much. While there could be different formations and packages, the Saints still will be a run-oriented team. With RB Deuce McAllister entering his prime, we’re told the Saints are focused on shoring up the offensive line and making sure he has room to run. This season, the Saints were forced to pass more because they fell behind early, something that allowed WR Joe Horn to tie for the NFC lead in receptions with 94. Although Haslett will leave the new attack up to whichever coordinator is in place — we hear Haslett rarely attended an offensive meeting this season — there is a belief that he wants to keep the Saints grounded to take some pressure off QB Aaron Brooks to make plays.
http://www.profootballweekly.com/PF...m?mode=nfcsouth

[Edited on 24/1/2005 by Danno]

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

I would dig Robiskie as an RB coach...but not as an OC!

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Rumors about McCarthy AND Brooks.... hhhmmm... those could be \"major changes\" around there. Think Haz took exception to the \"great player on a bad team comment?\" One too many outbursts without enough to support them? Too many fights with team players. Too much friction from the rest of the core stars (Grant, Horn, Turley, etc.) Maybe Haslett is smart enough to realize that when the cornerback who has been on the team for 6 weeks can stand up at a meeting and get the team more riled up than the 5-year starter at QB, maybe it\'s time for that QB to go. We can hope, right?

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Haslett said. \"As long as I\'m here, I want Aaron Brooks as my quarterback.\"

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Haslet has lied before.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Brooks this, Brooks that. I hope the Brooks topic just die. Fans are quick to say release. What then? Bring in a has been or do another Ricky Williams deal with San Diego.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Excellent point. the only available upgrade would be Hasselback(FA) and i think he will stay in Seattle!

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

I can think of no better argument for what I am about to say than: The New England Patriots.

I am beginning to think that team chemistry is the single most important factor in the winning of games in the NFL. I believe that the coaching for NE is great (who can argue?) but it should not be able to make a defense the likes of the Patriots - especially out of cast-offs and players from the offense filling in in the secondary.

I used to believe that star players can compensate for poor team work. I now believe that star players are nice to have and they help out a lot, but a strong TEAM is everything.

That being the case, and considering how seemingly disruptive (see: Primadonna) Brooks has been; I would say that ANYTHING would be an upgrade. I have said in another thread that I would take Bouman for a year and deal with losing just to get rid of Brooks and move on to \"tomorrow\'s QB\" (player to be named later).

His play is average and were it all about that, I would say keep him. It\'s not about that. It\'s about his attitude, his me-first-ism, and his inability to be a part of this team. Add in the fact that Brooks is definitely not a star player.... the decision seems clear to me.

Just my two cents.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Nice point Frenzy and the one I have been trying to make for a while. Yes you can measure stats but you CAN NOT measure team chemistry, yet we can all agree it is one of the most important parts of success. I would like to know one championship team that did not have team chemistry and has a quarterback who deflects blame better than a Jedi does blaster shots. Team chemistry is a MUST, and the guy we have in there now does NOTHING to promote that, by his attitude, his play, or his comments to the media that anyone can readily read. That\'s another two cents that\'s worth a dollar Frenzy. I am sick of this \"who would be better so we gotta stick with him\" stuff. Turn the page. It\'s time for the bum to go.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Team chemistry is an interesting concept. The problem is that it cannot be shown with any empirical data.

Does New England have team chemistry or do they APPEAR to have team chemistry because they are winning? Isn\'t it just a result of the individual talents and coaching?

Sure, team chemistry might be defined as how well the players and coaches get along, but every team get s along to some degree. Isn\'t it easier for a team that is winning to get along?

There can be disruptive influences on a team as there can be positive influences on a team. There are few disruptive influences on NE\'s team because they are wining and everyone is happy. Should they start to lose unexpectedly, fingers will begin to point and \"team chemistry\" suffers.

The only team chemistry that I do not think is the direct result of winning or losing is that chemistry between teammates indicated by how well they handle in-game adversity. That is where trust is built. Nevertheless, trust, too, will probably only be gained through adversity if the team wins.

To sum up, good team chemistry is a result of winning not a factor in indicating that a team might win.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

New England didn\'t make the playoffs after winning their first Superbowl. They seem to have hung together pretty well after that. Seems like their Team Chemistry was tested and found to be in ample supply Scotty my man.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

So, did they NOT have team chemistry that one year in between winning that first superbowl and the second? How does that work? They had it , then they lost it, then they had it?

Or can a team with great team chemsitry be losers, too?

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

They never lost their chemistry. They didn\'t blame the coaches or other players for not making it. They hung together and went back the next year and got it done. They cut Milloy, a team leader, everyone was hurt about it but they hung together and won a Superbowl. Ty Law said he would never play for Belichek again, where was he smiling and grinning all this year? And never once did I hear a \"false love on this team\" or a \"I am a great this or that and the rest of these guys suck.\" So to answer your question, team chemistry promotes trust and unity from the coaches down to the players and allows a team to overcome adversity TO BE WINNERS. If you still have no idea, I suggest you run out and get a copy of Patriot Reign by Michael Holley about the Pats organization. then maybe you can get a better understanding of how team chemistry helps a team.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Just another thing about Team chemistry. When Milloy was cut, Pats players cried to see him go. It killed them. When Bettis told the Steelers it may have been his last game, players cired, Hines-Ward was in an interview crying. Now name me one person on our team that would leave and anyone else would give a flying flip? Maybe if Leon left it would be tears of joy, but that\'s about it. That\'s what team chemistry does for you. You care about the person in the locker next to you, not how to talk your way into a bigger paycheck without proving it on the field.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

First, if Michael Holley wants to tell me something about team chemistry, he can come on this site and start posting. I didn\'t ask for his idea of it, but rather for yours and others\' understanding of it.

Second, you admit that a team with seemingly good team chemistry can miss the playoffs. That\'s good. However, you try to justify the difference between the pats and saints by claiming the comments AB made or the purported ways he fails to lead as examples as to why the saints lose because they don\'t have chemistry.

But aren\'t you just guessing that\'s the case? Maybe you don\'t have personal knowledge of that type of thing being exhibited by the pats because you don\'t hang out in their forums. How many pats fans do you think know of AB\'s comments or such? I\'d bet very few.

You can tell me that alot of players cried in those situations and I\'ll accept it because there are alot of babies in the league nowadays. But I do know that if Deuce were to retire, there be some upset players. With AB if he were to retire or demand a trade and say he\'s not going to play for the saints again, there\'d be a lot of players that would be concerned about what the heck we\'re gonna do now for a QB. I don\'t buy that a majority on the team hate or dislike him.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

First off, Patriot Reign is a docementary of the team, not an OPINION by Michael Holley. He documented the teams transition from one Superbowl to the next. There are no personal feelings in it, so again, maybe you should read it and form a better opinion, not what you think it is about.

Second, I talk to fans of most every team cause I moderate another forum, football.about.com. And yes those I speak to are aware of AB\'s comments. So there goes that argument also.

Um, yes, a team with good chemistry that wins the superbowl, doesn\'t make the playoffs the nextyear, and wins the Superbowl the following year. Notice a trend? You have to be in the playoffs to make a Superbowl right? I am looking for that team that wins a Superbowl with guys making comments like AB does, can you show me that? I have shown you examples to the contrary.

So if a guy gets upset cause one of his TEAMmates may not be with the team next year or got cut, he is a baby? Hines Ward is a baby? The best blocking wide receiver in the game and annually voted as one of the toughest players BY OTHER PLAYERS is a baby? Okay, that\'s enough for me. I don\'t know if you ever played team sports but chemistry is BIG. If you don\'t have it, you don\'t win. We don\'t have it, and there is a lightning rod of a reason as to why it doesn\'t get better. Unless you think calling yourself great and saying your teammates blow in the midst of a 3 game winning streak and in the playoff hunt promotes team unity, well then we just have a difference of opinion on what team chemistry actually is.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Of course, I can\'t. Winning breeds good chemistry. That is my point after all. But, I\'m not saying there aren\'t any out there. I don\'t care to look though so I\'ll concede that to you for now.

I\'m glad you have such quality sources. I talked to President Bush today and he said AB IS a great QB. I\'d bet they know of it cuz of you at any rate. How many times have you posted it here?

Yep. Crybaby Ward, that what I call him. :D The deal is that ever since Dexter Manly got permanently expelled from the league for drugs and gave us all a big boo-hoo on natinal tv, NFL players have a greater tendancy to cry publicly. I think they should have a little more pride in themselves. There\'s nothing wrong with crying...just keep it private, if you can. That\'s my opinion and just cuz you might disagree doesn\'t make me worng.

Be careful with arguments that suggest you have to be involved in something before you can have an opinion on it. This site would have to be closed if only NFL players and coaches could state their opinions about the game.

I never said chemistry isn\'t big. It is likely that it is what separates two equally talented teams from one going home and the other going to the superbowl. However, it is winning that creates this sense of chemistry among the players. The Saints won four in a row at the end of the year and I believe that that made them a dangerous team - not because they were really any better but because they were gaining that attitude of oneness.

And i was probably mistaken earlier when i referred to a team that survuves adversity as having chemistry. Instead that is character. Something the pats have plenty of apparently.

Oh, it\'s a documentary. My bad. I didn\'t know it was as relaible as that cuz, as we all learned from Farenheit 9/11, there are no personal feelings expressed in documentaries.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

You conveniently forgot to address this:

Comments on that?

And truly dude, if all you care to read about in sports are what they print about the Saints, then I guess I can see why your view is so narrow. I choose to read all the literature I can about sports and successful teams, but I guess just making guesses based on what you know about one team works too.

Kinda sad that you say you doubt I have talked to Pats fans, then when I mention the number of fans from other teams I do speak to, you get overly sarcastic. Kinda runis this discussion for me cause I thought we could disagree intelligently, but I guess when your argument is shot that\'s the only route left. Cool. I\'ll keep mine civil.

And to me, there is a difference between a person who HAS NOT played teams sports regularly and someone who just sits home and comments. I may not have been in the NFL, but I played football and basketball in high school and intramural sports in the Army. So sorry if I feel I am slightly better qualified to know how much chemistry affects a team. Now if you have played team sports, you know how big chemistry is, and are just arguing to get your faulty point across. As noted by your earlier sarcasm, I believe that to be more of the case.

It\'s also sad that instead of reading a book, you point to a MOVIE with an OBVIOUS AGENDA to say documentaries are faulty. Whatever dude. Just say you don\'t wanna read it and care not to know how a successful organization operates. That would be more respectable. Explain to me how a documentary written about a sports team can have an agenda. Do we vote for the Superbowl champ all of a sudden? When they start doing that, I can see your point. Wow dude. You are as bad as Gumbo. Arguing just to argue.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

I think you\'re taking this all a bit too seriously, but to state that I am arguing just to argue while you retort each point I make is just silly. But I can take it. I\'m not a \"Hines Ward\" after all. (Note: I like Hines and try to get him on my fantasy teams every year. I\'m just making light of some things and that is plainly not coming through.)

I did forget to addres the section you quoted above, but it\'s so obvoius. Of course, that is a distraction or a \"disruptive influence\" as i referred to in another post. It didn\'t seem to harm the team any. We came out against our toughest opponent during that 4 game streak and had our best game of the year. Maybe it fired some people up. Isn\'t that what good leaders do?

As far as the documentaries thing goes, you missed it completely. I didn\'t say documentaries are faulty. I said they CAN have agendas. That was simply in follow up to your implying that there was no opinion in that Patriot Rain book just because it is a documentary. Oh yeah, voting isn\'t required for documentaries to have agenda.

I may have stepped over the line when referring to your knowledge of other fans\' knowledge of the Brooks statements. Might point there and, I guess, poorly made is that we both can just make things up as we go to prove our points. If you know that the general Pats fan would know about AB statements, then maybe it is so. But to tell me what they say and to hold that out as the truth doesn\'t mean I have to accpet it as true without verification.

Lastly, calling me Gumbo is just plain out of line. ;)


I misspelled Patriot Reign on puprose. Just checking to see if you\'re reading all my posts before you respond. you can go back up and delete that portion of your response now.;)

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

I didn\'t see where you spelled Patriot Reign at all and never responded if you did mispell it. Unless I am missing something. that is possible. I generally try not to correct people\'s spellign unless it is just way off.

I apologize for calling you Gumbo. That is out of line as he is in a class all by himself. Right gumbo ;)

Also, I never said me speaking to other fans was truth, I simply commented on your suggestion that I didn\'t know what other fans thought. They don\'t own football teams either, they are just fans like us. But I do know what was said about AB\'s comments by the fans of other teams. That\'s all I was saying.

It\'s all good bro. We are on opposite sides of the fence about team chemistry and how important it is. Nothing wrong with that. I will stand on the fact the team wanted to win more than those dumb arse comments by Leon inspired anyone. I fail to see hwo anyone coudl take anything positive out of what he said. But that\'s where we\'ll have to diagree. Like I said, it\'s all good.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Maybe I mispoke somewhere, but I didn\'t mean to say that chemistry is not a big thing if I did. My point is that chemistry, i.e., trust among players, good spirits on the team generally, etc., is the result of winning rather than being the cause of winning.

I can see how this might only be half right. Maybe a team just has to get lucky and get a group of players together that have this bond from day one. Regardless, it is built up and strengthened through winning.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

I disagree again Scotty. Look at the Lakers. They won a lot with Shaq and Kobe but their chemistry was bad and it finally boiled over. The Spurs( my favorite team) do have team chemistry and are annually one of the best teams in the league. In football, look at the Bucs. Year after they win the Superbowl Keyshawn is cussing Gruden out on the sideline and inactive for about 6-8 games. They haven\'t been winners since. Lynch and Sapp are gone. Team chemistry gone. Look at the 49ers. When they first got Garcia as a starter they were still an elite team. But a rift between Owens and the rest of the team destroyed that as well. I don\'t think winning builds chemistry at all. I do think overwhelming talent can replace some chemistry, but we do not have overwhelming talent.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

to even doubt chemistry in my opinion is ridiculous. can any one name more then half the starters on the patriots. and if you can do those names mean anything to you. more then likely not. it is all about chemistry. i use to be a huge arron fan. now i just think the guy has worn out his welcome

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Don\'t know where you\'d get \"doubt\" from as far chemistry goes. I think the basic part of my argument is being over looked which, again, is: Does chemistry make the team a winner or is it a product of winning.

Admittedly, there must be some amount of chemistry to start with and I\'m playing devil\'s advocate to some degree in trying to reach a better articulated conclusion than what has been offered so far. But there is also a little truth to the Pats chemistry being a product of winning - and that later developed chemistry only makes them better.

Then again maybe I just don\'t have a very good definition of what chemistry is.

I have found out so far that:

1. An ultra talented team can win without chemistry. (Lakers)

2. Teams with much talent and chemistry can be perenial winners. (Pats, Spurs)

3. Teams that appear to have chemistry at one point may actually not have it or unexected losing creates a reduction in chemistry by which only character can see the team through. (Pats = example of later, Bucs = might not have had it or had it but didn\'t have character.)

4. If your QB is making remarks that tick off some fans, the team probably lacks character. (Guess who) ;)

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Also, if those remarks are ticking off other players on the team, then you are probably looking at a chemistry lab explosion.

PFW - Whispers/ TWWHI
 

Here here LB.