Page 1 of 2
Is chemistry overrated
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:37 am
by nicknorman
The recent trade of Marion got me thinking about how important chemistry really is to a team. Did the in fighting between Marion and Amare really hurt the Suns, they still have a great record in the West. If KG Paul and Ray didnt get along would their talent not be as beneficial to the Celtics? I personally think that chemistry is important to a degree, but if you have enough talent, the talent will override any off court problems.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:40 am
by NOODLESTYLE
No. I don't think just enough talent will do (this isn't NBA2k or NBA Live), it has to be the right talent and those players need to know how to use each others strengths. I guess that's why there's always so much emphasis on Teamwork. The Team USAs that didn't place Gold had tons of talent, and were always the favorites, yet they couldn't get it done. Lakers 4 HoF team couldn't get it done vs the Pistons. I think chemistry can also connect and supply other factors such as confidence, trust, and better execution which in turn helps the team overall.
It is a team sport which is why I think chemistry definitely is a huge factor.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:41 am
by SmoothKobra
Remember that Lakers finals team in 2004?
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:42 am
by Illuminati
The Sonics have good chemistry and they still suck! :$
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:48 am
by NOODLESTYLE
SmoothKing32 wrote:Remember that Lakers finals team in 2004?
Yes and everyone kept saying we were going to come back and win, can I use the "Karl Malone was hurt" card?
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 11:05 am
by jax98
New York Knicks.
All the talent in the world, but no chemistry and no team-oriented focus. If anything, chemistry is severly underrated. There's a reason GM's prefer to deal in the off-season..
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 11:09 am
by NO-KG-AI
on court chemistry is important, off court, who gives a ****?
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 11:15 am
by sarah42
chemistry also means helping one another on the court when in trouble, on defense.
or passing the ball when doubled. the knicks obviously are the worst at it, hence their record.
its embarrassing how they defend. everything seems one-on-one.
and if players don't get along off the court, it will be the end.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 11:42 am
by tkb
NO-KG-AI wrote:on court chemistry is important, off court, who gives a ****?
+1
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 12:50 pm
by nicknorman
But the lakers of 04 had 2 stars that were not at their peaks, so really only 2 stars playing as hofs, and 2 great players
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:20 pm
by farzi
nicknorman wrote:But the lakers of 04 had 2 stars that were not at their peaks, so really only 2 stars playing as hofs, and 2 great players
Its 4 years ago, you don't need to still make excuses for them.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:36 pm
by jab
nicknorman wrote:But the lakers of 04 had 2 stars that were not at their peaks, so really only 2 stars playing as hofs, and 2 great players
Those lucky bums Chauncey, Rip, Sheed and Tay said chemistry is overrated.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:54 pm
by Frosty
nicknorman wrote:But the lakers of 04 had 2 stars that were not at their peaks, so really only 2 stars playing as hofs, and 2 great players
How many HoFers did Detroit have?
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:55 pm
by Frosty
Anyone remember Portland when they stockpiled more talent then anyone in the league?
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:57 pm
by KobeFarmarEra
SmoothKing32 wrote:Remember that Lakers finals team in 2004?
Yeah I remember that:
1) Karl Malone was injured
2) Gary Payton was washed up
3) The Lakers had absolutely no bench
4) Kobe was on trial for rape
5) Shaq was fat, out of shape and crying about his contract extension
6) Slava Medvedenko started game 5
Nice try though. That team's many flaws had nothing to do with 'chemistry'
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:57 pm
by BillessuR6
Chemistry is overrated on teams with great talent but underrated on teams with poor talent, IMO!
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:59 pm
by jab
KobeFarmarEra wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Yeah I remember that:
1) Karl Malone was injured
2) Gary Payton was washed up
3) The Lakers had absolutely no bench
4) Kobe was on trial for rape
5) Shaq was fat, out of shape and crying about his contract extension
6) Slava Medvedenko started game 5
Nice try though. That team's many flaws had nothing to do with 'chemistry'
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 2:08 pm
by farzi
Frosty wrote:Anyone remember Portland when they stockpiled more talent then anyone in the league?
Pippen
Steve Smith
Damon Staudemire
Schrempf
Rasheed
Sabonis
Bonzi Wells
Brian Grant
Stacey Augmon
Shawn Kemp
Dale Davis
Greg Anthony
Steve Kerr
AND THEN THEY CHOKED!!!!!
And that was the year after they got rid of Jermaine O'neal
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 3:47 pm
by risktaker91
Morten Jensen wrote:New York Knicks.
All the talent in the world, but no chemistry and no team-oriented focus. If anything, chemistry is severly underrated. There's a reason GM's prefer to deal in the off-season..
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 5:50 pm
by Phil Jackson
The 2004 Lakers had good chemistry but no depth