otis p. driftwood

First of all, if this isn't the right place, I apologize, please move, thanks.

A recent post by MoLewisRocks about the Pats all access show triggered something that's been bouncing around in my head for a while now, about team chemistry.

Zolack talked about the chemistry already coming together for the Pats, and of course everyone's been talking about how amazing the Celtics chemistry has been, and how quickly it developed.

Then last year there was how quickly Brady and Moss and Welker got together, and it made me wonder, is chemistry a product of the individuals or the organization?

I know in my personal life there have been people I couldn't work with no matter what, and I'm sure that's the same in everyone else's as well. So what's the secret to the Pats or the C's success? Does it come from only getting good people? Or is it strictly something that trickles down from the top, in this case BB and Brady?

__________________
Questions are a burden
and answers a prison
for oneself.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RayClay

They take the time to evaluate and don't fool themselves.

__________________

PatsFanInVa

The old phrase "winning fixes everything" comes to mind. When you come to NE you know you are coming to the class of the league.

People have 1 of 3 opinions about the Pats, it seems:

- Really hate 'em. They're cheap, they're cold, they're heartless, they cheat, yadda yadda yadda. They don't want us, we don't want them.

- Faking hating 'em. They're cheap, they're cold, they're heartless, they cheat, oh thank GOD they called me! (See Hobson, V.)

- Are psyched beyond belief to get a call from what most of the league realizes is the class of the NFL, pretty much in all regards.

I mean, could you imagine playing for a team struggling for, say, their 3rd playoff berth in 4 years -- which considers that GOOD -- then coming to a team all but guaranteed to make a Super Bowl run?

Yeah, I noticed the same thing w/Brady, Moss, Welker... etc. Also even more amazingly, there is a "Patriot Way" about "PR"... players themselves are VERY tight-lipped outside the team. That was true before last year's camera bull****, and it's even truer now.

When it's rare for a player to pop off at he jaw for the media, it's impossible for them to take their minor tiffs public (where minor tiffs turn into major ones.)

Just some bored observations. It's Saturday night, and I'm middle-aged. What else do I have to do?

otis p. driftwood

True enough--but how do you explain the Celtics? Is there a common denominator, do you suppose (besides winning)? Because Ainge and Doc don't seem to be Belioli...

__________________
Questions are a burden
and answers a prison
for oneself.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Keegs

i think with the Celtics, they got lucky and it seems to have worked out.

I've seen Portland and LA load up crazy with talent and do nothing.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

BelichickFan

I guess we'll all relate this to our experiences. My experience says it's the players - once Brady, Bruschi, Harrison, et al, are gone, Belichick will have to have more players like that or there could be no chemistry. I love Belichick, obviously, but if he doesn't have the leaders on the team he's not the type to bring a warmth and hapiness to the locker room. That's largely based on my own experiences - my management can go fly a kite or all go down in an airplane for all I care. Seriously. But I'm happy and contribute to a "team chemistry" because I like my engineer peers.

Patjew

My opinion is that chemistry is more important in basketball than any other sport.

Basketball teams, more than any other sport, can be greatly influenced by one or two players. I mean, look at the Celtics the year before Bird got there. This year, KG really turned around the team. Not just with his O or D, but also with his intensity and love-of-team, which spread to the rest of the players. The C's had good-character guys last year, but a guy like KG brought everyone's focus together and turned everyone's efforts to "11", especially on the D side of the ball. And obviously his on the court contributions have played a huge part in the team's success.

Ray also helps, of course, and he's a consumate pro that the youngsters could look up to.

And then as the team began to win, everyone seemed to buy more and more into it, to the point where a guy like Scalabrine who isn't even dressing is totally into it and intense.

__________________
Drink like a beast.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

dhamz

I think chemistry in football and basketball are apples and oranges. 53 guys versus 12 guys (only about 8 of whom even play) is very different.

The Patriots locker room is full of veteran players who are hard workers which is the key to their team culture. Every position has guys who fit that mold - QB, RB, WR, OL, DL, LB, DB.

The Celtics team culture is essentially because of their best player (Garnett) being a totally selfless player. In basketball one player can set the tone - positive or negative.

DarrylS

As much as it is raisins and grapefruit, team chemistry comes from the top and the players as well...

Consider the sox, remember in the Nomar years there were 25 cabs for 25 players.. now Francona confronts everyone privately, there are primadonna's, but somewhat less, and the team is much more cohesive than it has ever been.. how is that working out for that team.

The Celtics at the beginning of the year were discussed by the talking heads that this team would be good for 40+ wins as they had to learn to play together. Rivers and these guys made sacrifices for the good of the team, how did that work out..

The Patriots, who I know more about, have always been this way.. BB knows how to build a team and protect them from the evil influences of the press, this coupled with players who want to win and realize that by playing together they can do so. Consider #83, last year when he was signed ( I loved this signing) he showed up all over the place at showings with the Pats, softball games.. charitable activities.. this guy wanted to be here, compare to many athletes who come on the scene and no one really knows them until TC starts.. Welker was brilliant as he had already negotiated all those relationships and just fit right.

Back to the question, it is a combination of both.. great leadership, players who individual ego's are not bigger than the group and a willingness to let themselves be coached. How many times have we seen big scenes on the sidelines with the likes of superstars like Chad Johnson, can you imagine this ever happening on the Patriots??

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.

MoLewisrocks

Winning certainly facilitates building chemistry, but absent the right makeup it can be pretty short lived. I think for it to roll so to speak, as it does here from season to season, you need a strong core of genuinely unselfish players and management who can pay more than lip service to chicking egos at the door. That is what Ainge appears to have built (or stumbled onto if you don't want to credit him just yet) with Doc and this big three. It only takes one or two bad apples in either of those positions (core talent or management) to flumox chemistry, which is why some teams are one and done or never quite get there. The Giants had to lose Tiki and Shockey and Strahan had to embrace Eli warts and all. And their HC had to back off and give his remaining coaches and players room to develop some chemistry. Their's will likely be short lived as some new egos emerge and an old ones exit(Strahan) or re-emerge (unless they replace Shockey and Plax). Sometimes guys can do the ego less thing in brief increments, it's rare they can maintain it in the presence of superior talent. That's just human nature. The Lakers are trying desperately to manufacture it with Kobe (and as JoeSixPack dubbed 'em the Euroweanies) and Phil, but those are two huge personalities to keep in check for long, win or lose. I think it's a lot easier to win in BBall without it if you have just so much talent. That is why Kobe and Shaq could win while hating each other in the process. Dallas is trying to manufacture it in the presence of some odd ingredients like an owner who has to be front and center, a weak HC, a likeable good old boy QB and some troubled mega talents for whom the process has to be fun or tempers flare. For them chemistry is tenuous and will key on winning early and often, because if they don't it will all implode in a hurry on a 53 man roster in a game where a superstar's impact can be minimized/marginalized by several of his complimentary teamates play on any given day. The Eagles have long struggled with being dominated by two (and briefly three) core personalities/talents who at times are at odds in McNabb and Reid. It always seems to be about one or the other of them there on and off the field, publicly and privately. The rest of the team is just along for the ride.

Chemistry is all about trust and comfort level with each other and a program, and that is built over time through adversity but ultimately with success. And time is the one thing professional athletes/teams don't have much of as individuals or units for one reason or another. We were lucky 2001 unfolded as it did. It built a core trust between Brady, the staff and the team that 2003 and 2004 just cemented for at least the decade. It would likely take a couple of 5-11 seasons to remotely begin to shake that trust. And Belioli have done a good job over the last several seasons recruiting even fringe guys with potential core qualities to the point we now have like an inner and outer core that pretty mucy corrals the rest of the seasonal roster almost from day 1.