PDA

View Full Version : Chemistry Vs Talent


RipTraxx
05-11-2009, 11:17 PM
Interesting video on NFL network...

There is a debate on what is needed more to win championships. I for one go with chemistry, and i also feel that our team is based on chemistry rather then talent. I thought it would make for an interesting thread.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d8104389c/Chemistry-vs-talent

TimeKiller
05-12-2009, 08:27 AM
I point to the New England Patriots as my evidence for chemistry.

And T.O. as evidence of talent.

whiskeyrbl
05-12-2009, 08:52 AM
I say Chemistry. You can have all the talent there is but if you don't play as a team and gel or like each other it ain't gonna work.

bigbrewster2000
05-12-2009, 09:03 AM
I say Chemistry. You can have all the talent there is but if you don't play as a team and gel or like each other it ain't gonna work.
Thats exactly right, just look at the Cowboys. They have a ton of talent and piss it away every year. Not that that bothers me :whip: it just happens to be the perfect example.:texflag:

HOU-TEX
05-12-2009, 09:12 AM
IMO, you need both, but chemistry becomes stronger as you win games. So, in the beginning I think it begins with more talent than chemistry. In the end, it takes both. They both go hand in hand on a team that is a consistant Super Bowl contender.

Talent + A few wins = Stronger chemistry

Stronger chemistry + The talent = Championship!

beerlover
05-12-2009, 09:46 AM
Texans focus on character while trying to elevate talent = Connor Barwin

InterestedJeff
05-12-2009, 09:47 AM
I would say in the BIG picture, talent wins out over chemistry. For example: the patriots play the toronto arganaunts. The talent alone on the patriots would win the game for them a large majority of the time. That being said, when the competition is closer; say the giants vs the browns, team chemistry becomes a lot larger a factor when dealing with team success.

HJam72
05-12-2009, 09:49 AM
Science classes or OT money. :thinking:

Polo
05-12-2009, 09:51 AM
Give me talent over chemistry everday of the week.

Tailgate
05-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Talent.... THEN chemistry.

ArlingtonTexan
05-12-2009, 10:32 AM
This is not an either/or answer. A baseline of both is needed. A very talented team needs less chemistry, but at least needs to trust that the other player will do thier job even if they don't like the person. I would argue if you have been on a team or worked in a company of any size, that you have had the person no one really liked, but everyone trusted they would do thier job. That is the low end.

On the other hand, a team with great chemistry, but not enough skill will still fall short. Chemistry can overcome some shortages in skill, but at the end of the day if a team has players that can do things that the other can't stop, working together well goes only so far. To win at the highest level in the NFL, the teams overall talent still probably needs to at least a 6/7 on a scale of 10.


Various mixes have worked, but the key is that a team can't be a 9 on area and a 2 in the other.

4Texans
05-12-2009, 12:48 PM
Wasn't in VanGundy that when asked about "talent", said "Talent? Eveyone in the league has talent!" I'll go with chemistry.

Polo
05-12-2009, 01:15 PM
Wasn't in VanGundy that when asked about "talent", said "Talent? Eveyone in the league has talent!" I'll go with chemistry.

That's probably why Van Gundy never won anything...

Showtime100
05-12-2009, 01:19 PM
Both.

Signed - Alex Rodriguez

gg no re
05-12-2009, 01:40 PM
That's probably why Van Gundy never won anything...

He's just mad that his brother's the one with the talent.



























...it's Ron Jeremy, r-right?

Buffi2
05-12-2009, 03:29 PM
I think you have to have both. You can have a great chemistry but no talent and the chemistry will soon fall apart if you keep losing. If all you have is talent - well, lots of teams know about what happens with that.

First, you need some talent - maybe not great talent - but better than good. Then you need chemistry to develop. If you can manage that - you have a great team - and great coaches.

Dapper
05-12-2009, 04:32 PM
CHEMISTRY! I have coached many championship teams who in no way had better talent than the eventual runner-ups. The better TEAM wins every time.

TRUTH :texflag:

Texan_Bill
05-12-2009, 05:17 PM
Dallas Cowboys..... :thinking:


As far as Van Gundy not winning anything; what talent did he have to coach other than Yao and McGrady? (I'll leave the jokes in the other forum). He had talent in New York, but guess what? They ran into a team that had both talent and chemistry.

Carr Bombed
05-12-2009, 05:30 PM
Dallas Cowboys..... :thinking:


As far as Van Gundy not winning anything; what talent did he have to coach other than Yao and McGrady? (I'll leave the jokes in the other forum). He had talent in New York, but guess what? They ran into a team that had both talent and chemistry.

Exactly, I'd go to battle with JVG anyday.

Carr Bombed
05-12-2009, 05:43 PM
This video screams "offseason" to me. I don't blame the OP, but dang... its a long ~120 days until football season.

Who's the owner of that bodacious booty in your avatar. :drool:

wags
05-12-2009, 06:26 PM
Let's see...

Can a crappy team have talent? Yes, the Lions have Sims and Calvin Johnson

Can a crappy team have chemistry? No... unless it's chemistry to suck (anyone seen the South Park baseball episode?)

I'll take chemistry.

4Texans
05-12-2009, 08:07 PM
That's probably why Van Gundy never won anything...

Yes, his teams had some talent, but no chemistry. It's obvious that T Mac doesn't bring any chemistry to a team. But that's for another thread and forum.