ScottyRo

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.

saintswhodi

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.

spkb25

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

ScottyRo

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)

Saint_LB

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

saintswhodi

Here here LB.