does personality matter FOR GOOD TEAM CHEMISTRY

biznitchn · Post by **biznitchn** » Wed May 19, 2004 9:46 pm

i say yes and so does coach gibs! just because you have "played your heart out for the team" doent mean you have earned the right to disrespect the fans or other team mates. gibs said he wants players that will contribute and be involved in the community. ask yourselves why

JonC56 · Post by **JonC56** » Wed May 19, 2004 10:01 pm

If I remember correctly Darryl was the one of the cornerstones of the defense in the best years the redskins franchise ever had. Also, who was the coach, JOE GIBBS. So it seems to me that gibbs is looking for players like darryl green. It sucks he did not say hello to your kid, but hes paid to play football, which he did to the best of his ability.

I also have a qustion to ask you. Name a better defensive player that played for the redskins? (any era)

biznitchn · Post by **biznitchn** » Wed May 19, 2004 10:16 pm

I never disagreed with you about his playing ability he was great but.......... he played in a different era and there was no free agency. nowadays playing for 1 team for 7 years is great HE WASNT THE ONLY PLAYER ON THE FIELD there was always great chem on the team kw is a great player why not get him because he doesnt have good pr right? ME ME ME AND TO HECK WITH FANS if darl was to start his career now lets say would he have been as great would the coach even get him and one other thing my son wasnt even around he was with trey johnson when this all went down it wasnt him it was other sick kids

vpar2 · Post by **vpar2** » Wed May 19, 2004 10:19 pm

I am going to respond to the question in the topic title. I think team chemistry is how the various personalities of the players mesh. You can't have too many me-first superstars in one locker room, which is probably why GM's value more easygoing, less prima-donna superstars. Look at the Ravens. They have one outspoken personality: Ray Lewis. They have a young team, but their chemistry allows them to play at a high level as a team. We never had this under spurrier because he never emphasized chemistry, and we had no unquestioned leader of the team. I think with Gibbs, we will see much more empahsis on team chemistry and any antics from anyone(star or not) will not be tolerated. I still don't feel that this team has a real leader, but Mark Brunell seems like a good leader to me on the offensive side. On the defensive side, Fred Smoot is the most mature from what I can tell, but he has to play better on a consistent basis to be acknowledged as a leader.

JonC56 · Post by **JonC56** » Wed May 19, 2004 10:21 pm

look man, Im a redskin fan through and through. I love football and darryl green was one of the best football players I have ever had the priveldge to watch. I dont know him personally so i can only base my opoinions on him by the way he played, and thats why I respect him so much.

welch · Post by **welch** » Thu May 20, 2004 12:49 am

Chemistry and preparation are about 3/4 of why a team wins...no, maybe more. NFL managements have an equal chance at the same group of players. Some don't scout well, but by and large, the scouts are equally good. For one thing, they shift teams. Same with coaches...they learn from each other, they study the same tapes, they look for things that seem to work.

But real games are not like rotisserie baseball...stats don't win, except for scoring more than the other team. And team play wins. Selfless play, no-star play, balanced attacks, balanced defense, depth, versatility (ie, Hanifan taught the OL to play any position...and remember Raleigh Mackenzie), and, most of all, pulling together when games are tough.

Every year, Gibbs gets to a point in the season when he holds a team meeting, and says, "We don't have any friends except the guys who are in this room right now. The whole world expects us to lose this game. We have to win. We're going to show the world", etc. It'll happen after a bad start, or it'll happen going into December, when the Skins always had a winning record. Win when it counts.

All that starts with "team chemistry", which means having the right players...the guys Gibbs and Bugel call "real Redskins".

We have had a bunch of fake Redskins putting on the uniform for more than 10 years. A bad 10 years.

Well, that's done. The Coach is back.

genuswine hoglover · Post by **genuswine hoglover** » Thu May 20, 2004 9:59 am

I think team chemistry is the MOST important thing for a winning team. If you look back at our glory years we went to four Super Bowls, broke the NFL record for points scored, for fewest sacks allowed, etc etc. There were no Superstars on those teams (Joe Thiesman, Doug Williams and Mark Rypien were all average quarterbacks, but all very gutsy). Only one player went to the Hall of Fame from that era. How could that be unless you had a lot of hard working, blue collar guys that just clicked.

Scooter · Post by **Scooter** » Thu May 20, 2004 2:43 pm

Chemistry is vital. Within that chemistry, I think you've gotta have a guy out there on the edge - like Dexter. The best teams I've been on always had a guys that one guy on the edge of out of control. The coach has to keep him in line. He sort of provides that defining line. I think he serves as a vent and a relief valve.

Most guys prefer not to skirt the edge - they're more brotherly toward one another.

Most importantly, there is the leadership/coach on the field as a player.

REDEEMEDSKIN · Post by **REDEEMEDSKIN** » Thu May 20, 2004 5:00 pm

Wow. Tough day to be Darrell in THIS forum.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu May 20, 2004 9:30 pm

Yeah, tough day to be Darrell in a couple of forums. We need to keep this particular argument where it belongs, kids, and stay the course of the thread. I'm not a Mod, but I hope to be one day. So listen up.
I think that on a Gibbs team, you can have one or two Prima Donnas that will go along to get along. Witness Theismann and his production. Witness Manley and his issues and his production. As long as you have your core Redskins, on a Gibbs-coached team. you can work around those who stand out semi-negatively as long as they are productive and don't lose games for you.
Let me put the number at 75%, for a bare minimum.
Can this be done in this day and age ? Stay tuned, guys and gals. You'll know for sure very soon.

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Thu May 20, 2004 9:43 pm

i think 75% is reasonable. if we had a total effort of 75% last year we would have finished better than we did. BUT, the pointing of fingers and other issues got in the way. i think gibbs already has 75% involved.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu May 20, 2004 9:45 pm

If that's the case, then I think we're in it for real, T-6.

hailskins666 · Post by **hailskins666** » Thu May 20, 2004 9:49 pm

could be. only time will tell.

tcwest10 · Post by **tcwest10** » Thu May 20, 2004 9:51 pm

No doubt, baby. "Only time will tell" is my slogan.
My motto ? Something else entirely. Still, Gibbs can do more with 75% participation than most. That's a fact, Jack.
Oh, it's a great time to be a fan of these Redskins. So much optimism, so much hope.

njskinsfan · Post by **njskinsfan** » Thu May 20, 2004 11:14 pm

Did the Cowgirl teams of the mid-90's have good chemistry? Troy, Emmit and Michael had their problems, ....half the team was on coke or in jail...and the coach and the owner hated each other.

Did you ever see North Dallas 40?

welch · Post by **welch** » Fri May 21, 2004 1:33 am

Did the Cowgirl teams of the mid-90's have good chemistry? Troy, Emmit and Michael had their problems, ....half the team was on coke or in jail...and the coach and the owner hated each other.

Sure, and George Allen coached a team of crusty eccentric winners...Hanburger, Talbert, Kilmer, Jurgensen, Pardee, Pettibon, McClinton, Houston, Smith, Taylor. They pulled together for George, who used every trick never-before-invented to get his teams up for games.

The Cowboys demonstrate that a team of superstars can win, and implode.

The Gibbs teams prove that Joe Gibbs -- maybe only Joe Gibbs -- can take very good players and coach them to beat a team of primma donnas, over and over. Consider: three SB wins with three different starting QB's, three different RB's, one Art Monk, with two sets of supporting WR's.

That was done by the Gibbs system.

Oh, and by having one center, plus Grimm and Jaccoby, who played in every win, even though their roles had been reduced. A very stable OL. Similar for the DL and linebackers: some change, but slowly. Monte Coleman played for how long?

*

Yes, free agency helped the Cowboys to implode, but how long did they rely on Aikman?

skinsfaninroanoke · Post by **skinsfaninroanoke** » Fri May 21, 2004 9:16 am

13=14 years? Don't forget Kaufman and Olkewicz (?)

OL/DL stability is crucial - which is why I hate free agency...