Does this change your opinion of Jeff Ireland? it does for me...maybe.

#value #leverage #chemistry

 

Yes a team can win without chemistry. They obviously can't win them all without it.

 

No, actually that means a lot. Surely you can't expect a person to be motivated to perform for the sake of someone he despises more than someone he reveres. It is basic human nature.

 

It depends on how you define "chemistry". IMO you need talent and personalities that complement each other. Having 10 guys that can only run go routes will limit you as much as having 10 guys, none of which can run the 9. Complementary talents enhance the production of the team overall. That's why you can have a team that is greater than the sum of it's parts. I don't think the '72 Dolphins win the championship without Warfield. His individual production was minimal in terms of stats, but his presence spread the field and enhanced the production of the running game. It's the same with personalities. I don't care whether someone is disruptive. Harmony is not what wins. But their are personality types that don't mesh and detract from the production of the team. I don't know whether Marshall was that or not. I wanted to keep him. But if he didn't want to be here than in my experience you're better off letting that guy go 99% of the time. I've found that people who don't want to be someplace almost always detract from the production of the team.

As for Ireland, I was never one of those who assumed he didn't try to replace Marshall. I had heard the Maclin rumors and had heard that the deal was close. IMO Maclin was exactly the right type of talent that would have complemented what we have here and a perfect fit for what I believe Philbin wants. And I do credit that evaluation even though the deal did not get done. Reality is that there are things outside of the GM's control. I'm not going to fault a guy for not drafting a Luck when the guy he actually has a shot at drafting is a Mallett. It's simplistic to try to bottom-line everything without considering what the GM could and could not control. I find that type of simplistic analysis as both wrong and useless. I think it stems from having very little understanding of what actually goes on.

 

What about all the teams who've won Championships without chemistry? Did they just get lucky?

There are countless examples, in all sports.

 

What teams are those? On what basis have you concluded that those teams had no chemistry?

 

There are quite a few. The Shaq Heat team, the Shaq and Kobe Lakers teams, Yankees teams of years past, one of the Cowboys teams just to name a few.

I'll ask you the same question though, on what basis have you concluded that all Championship teams had chemistry? Seems like there's an assumption being made that Winning = Chemistry. If we're talking chemistry on the field, then yes. But chemistry in the locker room and off the field? Irrelevant. It's like saying David Eckstein improved his teams because he was "gritty."

It's a sports myth that fans and media buy into, nothing more.

 

What does a 5 man sport have to do with football? Which Cowboys team?

 

I don't really agree with the Cowboys or Lakers' teams not having chemistry. One or two guys not getting along does not mean there is no chemistry. Phil Jackson's entire coaching identity is essentially rooted in harnessing whatever negative emotions exist into chemistry. IMO the most important thing isn't necessarily liking one another. It is everyone buying into the same goal.

 

IMO the Shaq/Wade combination were great complementary talents (also the outside shooters) and I also think that personality wise they drove the team to be very productive. I don't see that as an example of a team with poor chemistry. I think that people tend to proclaim any team with an outspoken player as having poor chemistry. I don't agree with that definition at all.

 

Exactly. It could be argued that Phil Jackson's success and entire career has been predicated on having a great player and fitting the pieces around him that complement him in terms of talent and personality (in other words "chemistry").

 

We moving the goalposts here?

 

No, just trying to establish a definition for "chemistry".

 

To see how poorly Ireland has done, one need only look at the excuses made for him. Now he's being excused because he almost got a deal done.

 

Ask anyone who covered that team, Skolnick, anyone. They'll tell you that roster wasn't a great fit, personality wise.

 

So am I.

 

Anything can be argued. How do you quantify that?

 

I was privileged enough to be able to see the 72 Dolphins play and they indeed had chemistry. They were unselfish and didn't have the me, me mentality. They truly believed in each other and they knew they always had someone that had their back. No one took plays off and they all played till the whistle sounded. The defense swarmed the ball and they knew that every one of their teammates were coming, no matter where on the field they were. The Dolphins were great because they played as a team not as a group of individuals. They played as a team because of the chemistry they had with one another. They set the benchmark, the standard that Dolphin teams should still strive for.

 

I've heard he "almost" got a deal done for James Jones as well.

Perhaps explains why the Dolphins are "almost" a mediocre football team.

 

A great fit personality-wise doesn't mean "harmony". You can have a guy that pisses you off so much that it makes you work harder.

 

So he almost got a deal done for Maclin, and when it didn't happen he decided to move on and sign Legedu Nannee and Chad Johnson?

Yeah, he's still an idiot.

 

You don't quantify that. You look at how well the teams works together on the court or field.

 

In reality, they should be motivated to perform for themselves and their own livelihood.

Anything is mostly a bunch of hokum. I suppose it's possible to get up for one particular game, or particular moment based on something other than self inetrest, like KC winning the day after Belcher's suicide, but they immediately returned to their losing ways, despite seemingly having come together as a family, etc.

 

So you're basically saying that it's impossible to play well and not have chemistry?

 

You know people aren't robots right? Considering your entire take on everything Dollphins is based in an emotion, I find hard to believe you don't understand the importance of emotions and chemistry when dealing with athletes.

 

But there were certainly personality conflicts on that team. One of the most famous of which was Shula and Jake Scott. The thing was that despite that conflict (or maybe b/c of it) they each worked really hard to prove they were right. I always felt that Arnsparger was a huge factor in keeping that situation from becoming detrimental. He seemed to function as the buffer.

 

Also, this discussion got started when Finascious stated that Philbin got rid of Marshall because chemistry was more important to talent for a rookie HC and then he went on to give the 72 team anecdote.

This isn't about whether certain players talents fit together or the like, this was about removing a talented player for no other reason other than you're worried about chemistry, which I think is dumb.

 

If that in itself changes your opinion of Jeff Ireland, your opinion must've been pretty flimsy to begin with.

 

I'm aware of that.

And I'm also aware that teams that have more talent win more than teams that don't have as much talent, whether the players like each other or not. That's the point.

It's winning that breeds chemistry, not the other way around.

 

Then why did Philbin get rid of him? Is he just big fat stupid head?

 

How can you say that after questioning if there is such a thing as chemistry?

 

As I define "chemistry", yes, you have to have complementary talents to have team success. Jordan on a team with a bunch of guys who needed the ball in their hands and were limited outside shooters would not have had chemistry and would not have been successful despite having great talent.

 

I presume, he got rid of Marshall because of exactly the reasons you believe. He had ehard that the guy was difficult and he didn't want to deal with it.

And yes, I think that is a dumb reason to get rid of a very talented player, particularly without even giving him the chance to work in your program and see how it went.

 

You've coached professionally for how long?

 

"Chemistry" is all about the composition of things and how those components behave together. So in terms of football, it absolutely is about how talents fit together.

 

Don't know how happy I would be with a 2nd for Maclin given the injury history. Good player, not a dynamic player certainly, but then you're not giving up the price you'd give for a dynamic player.

But I am going to question a little bit the validity of this information. I'm not here to impeach Section126, I'm sure he's telling us exactly what he's been told, but if the person very close to the situation was on the Miami side of things for example, I could see that person coming away from a negotiation about Maclin thinking they were really, really close and the Eagles inexplicably backed out...whereas someone on the Eagles side of things would come away thinking, they tried to get Jeremy Maclin out of us but the trade made no sense to us and so we rejected it. Different points of view.

One reason I wonder at the validity of all this is because, who replaces Maclin? Jason Avant seems at best a #3 and Riley Cooper seems at best a #4. Presumably this was all before the season started and the Eagles had high hopes and big dreams before the season started. Hard to see jettisoning players when you're convinced you're about to make a Super Bowl run.

 

I suppose but this discussion is about whether there is some magical elxir called chemistry, which a guy like Brandon MArshall causes to blow up.

I just don't believe that

 

That's fair, and I don't disagree. I think though that there are many on this board who put more stock into off-field chemistry than they should, given there's no way it can be quantified in regards to team success.

It all stems from the Brandon Marshall debate. Some argued he wasn't a good fit schematically while others flatly said he was a cancer.

 

I think it's all about fit. I wanted Marshall here, but there were two factors in his game that were questionable fits to what Philbin wanted and what this team needed. My perception is that Philbin wants consistent pass catchers/route runners and Marshall is not that. And this team needed a player that spread the field vertically, which Marshall also didn't do. And possibly more importantly, Marshall asked to be traded. In my experience a guy who doesn't want to be someplace can definitely cause a decrease in how hard the rest of the team works and ultimately how productive it is. As much as I wanted Marshall to be here, if he told me he wanted out, then the odds of me finding a way to move him would go up considerably.

 

I'm not sure anyone really cares about what he does off the field. Its things like making your WRs coach quit because you're hard to work with that lead people to believe he is detrimental to a team's chemistry.