Is chemistry overrated

Moderators: bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid, cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285, Clav, ken6199, Domejandro

nicknorman
Ballboy
Posts: 22
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 25, 2005

Is chemistry overrated 

Post#1 » by nicknorman » Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:37 am

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.
User avatar
NOODLESTYLE
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,827
And1: 828
Joined: Jun 16, 2005

 

Post#2 » by NOODLESTYLE » Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:40 am

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.
User avatar
SmoothKobra
Starter
Posts: 2,107
And1: 638
Joined: Jan 14, 2007
Location: Florida
Contact:

 

Post#3 » by SmoothKobra » Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:41 am

Remember that Lakers finals team in 2004?
Illuminati
Banned User
Posts: 5,977
And1: 11
Joined: Jun 24, 2006

 

Post#4 » by Illuminati » Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:42 am

The Sonics have good chemistry and they still suck! :$
User avatar
NOODLESTYLE
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,827
And1: 828
Joined: Jun 16, 2005

 

Post#5 » by NOODLESTYLE » Sat Feb 9, 2008 10:48 am

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? :lol:
jax98
RealGM
Posts: 36,697
And1: 3,015
Joined: Aug 31, 2003

 

Post#6 » by jax98 » Sat Feb 9, 2008 11:05 am

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..
User avatar
NO-KG-AI
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 43,946
And1: 19,764
Joined: Jul 19, 2005
Location: The city of witch doctors, and good ol' pickpockets

 

Post#7 » by NO-KG-AI » Sat Feb 9, 2008 11:09 am

on court chemistry is important, off court, who gives a ****?
Doctor MJ wrote:I don't understand why people jump in a thread and say basically, "This thing you're all talking about. I'm too ignorant to know anything about it. Lollerskates!"
User avatar
sarah42
Starter
Posts: 2,094
And1: 2
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
Location: In bed with Jake Ryan. woot woot!

 

Post#8 » by sarah42 » Sat Feb 9, 2008 11:15 am

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.
Image
inmate347 wrote:
BTW, I still maintain that the 1984 Denver Broncos are Lebron's father
tkb
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 10,759
And1: 198
Joined: Mar 19, 2005
Location: Norway
   

 

Post#9 » by tkb » Sat Feb 9, 2008 11:42 am

NO-KG-AI wrote:on court chemistry is important, off court, who gives a ****?


+1
nicknorman
Ballboy
Posts: 22
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 25, 2005

 

Post#10 » by nicknorman » Sat Feb 9, 2008 12:50 pm

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
User avatar
farzi
RealGM
Posts: 12,485
And1: 5
Joined: Dec 20, 2007

 

Post#11 » by farzi » Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:20 pm

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.
jab
Starter
Posts: 2,321
And1: 3
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Location: Detroit: Where only the strong survive cause the weak are eaten alive!

 

Post#12 » by jab » Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:36 pm

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. :winkgrin:
User avatar
Frosty
RealGM
Posts: 10,974
And1: 15,620
Joined: Nov 06, 2007

 

Post#13 » by Frosty » Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:54 pm

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?
User avatar
Frosty
RealGM
Posts: 10,974
And1: 15,620
Joined: Nov 06, 2007

 

Post#14 » by Frosty » Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:55 pm

Anyone remember Portland when they stockpiled more talent then anyone in the league?
Atheism is a non-prophet organization
KobeFarmarEra
Pro Prospect
Posts: 973
And1: 0
Joined: Oct 24, 2006

 

Post#15 » by KobeFarmarEra » Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:57 pm

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'
BillessuR6
General Manager
Posts: 8,785
And1: 2,608
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
 

 

Post#16 » by BillessuR6 » Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:57 pm

Chemistry is overrated on teams with great talent but underrated on teams with poor talent, IMO!
jab
Starter
Posts: 2,321
And1: 3
Joined: Jul 25, 2004
Location: Detroit: Where only the strong survive cause the weak are eaten alive!

 

Post#17 » by jab » Sat Feb 9, 2008 1:59 pm

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'






:violin:
User avatar
farzi
RealGM
Posts: 12,485
And1: 5
Joined: Dec 20, 2007

 

Post#18 » by farzi » Sat Feb 9, 2008 2:08 pm

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!!!!! :cry:

And that was the year after they got rid of Jermaine O'neal
risktaker91
Banned User
Posts: 2,487
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 18, 2007

 

Post#19 » by risktaker91 » Sat Feb 9, 2008 3:47 pm

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..
Phil Jackson
Banned User
Posts: 1,758
And1: 8
Joined: Jul 05, 2006

 

Post#20 » by Phil Jackson » Sat Feb 9, 2008 5:50 pm

The 2004 Lakers had good chemistry but no depth

Return to The General Board