Tipster19 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I think Marv has made it obvious the direction that this team will take. Do you agree with his philosophy or would you rather just have talent and individualism? Here's an article that might indicate the kind of player/teammate that the Bills are accumalating. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=3828 I have a question. If team unity and chemistry is going to be this organization's concept, does a player like Willis MaGahee fit in this framework for the long term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Winning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Winning. 712187[/snapback] I second that motion. Winning is all that's wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Chemistry. Just look at the 1998 Yankees. They didn't have the superstars they have today (excluding Jeter and possibly Rivera) and they all played for the team, not themselves. Yes, the talent level of those players in baseball may be better than the existing talent level of the Bills in football, but if the Bills have the right chemistry and play for the team to win - instead of worrying about reaching individual goals - they'll be in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 In a woman I prefer talent, in a lab I prefer chemistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I prefer Physics, thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I think Marv has made it obvious the direction that this team will take. Do you agree with his philosophy or would you rather just have talent and individualism? Here's an article that might indicate the kind of player/teammate that the Bills are accumalating. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/news.jsp?news_id=3828 I have a question. If team unity and chemistry is going to be this organization's concept, does a player like Willis MaGahee fit in this framework for the long term? 712126[/snapback] You need a combination of the two. No team is going to win a championship if it doesn't have some talent, no matter how good the chemistry is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CajunBillsBacker Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 You need a combination of the two. No team is going to win a championship if it doesn't have some talent, no matter how good the chemistry is. 712219[/snapback] True, but I'd say chemistry is a little more important to have. You can have all the good players, but if those guys don't have any chemistry, it won't work. The most recent USA basketball team and the NY Yankees is an example of talented teams who sucked. The Patriots first championship team is a prime example of a team with alot of chemistry and little talent putting it all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 True, but I'd say chemistry is a little more important to have. You can have all the good players, but if those guys don't have any chemistry, it won't work. The most recent USA basketball team and the NY Yankees is an example of talented teams who sucked. The Patriots first championship team is a prime example of a team with alot of chemistry and little talent putting it all together. 712228[/snapback] The Patriots first championship team had little talent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CajunBillsBacker Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 The Patriots first championship team had little talent? 712233[/snapback] I'd say so. They had their usual Teddy B., Willie McGinest, and a couple other pretty good players. But there was a very young Tom Brady who was still an emerging no-name at the time, young recievers, ect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I'd say so. They had their usual Teddy B., Willie McGinest, and a couple other pretty good players. But there was a very young Tom Brady who was still an emerging no-name at the time, young recievers, ect. 712240[/snapback] Tom Brady may have been young and emerging but he obviously was talented. Sounds more like you simply did not recognize the talent. So Matt Light, Damien Woody, Joe Andruzzi, Richard Seymour, Ty Law, Otis Smith, Lawyer Milloy and Tebucky Jones were not talented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Talmistry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I just have one thing to say, 2005-06 Buffalo Sabres They demonstrated that with Chemistry and a little bit of talent, you can prove the "experts" wrong and actually be good. But from what I have gathered the NFL is different because Buffalo sucks cause they didn't get the big names Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scraps Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I just have one thing to say, 2005-06 Buffalo Sabres They demonstrated that with Chemistry and a little bit of talent, you can prove the "experts" wrong and actually be good. But from what I have gathered the NFL is different because Buffalo sucks cause they didn't get the big names 712506[/snapback] The Buffalo Sabres certainly had chemistry. Nobody is saying you will win without it. However the Sabres benefitted from some rules changes and acquired talent that could take advantage of the pace and style encouraged by those new rules. The NFL hasn't made substansive changes to the game since last season, have they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 are we talking about in the sack? If so I would have to go with talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Winning. 712187[/snapback] Problem is that product over process causes losing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fixxxer Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 What's easier? Adding talent to an existing roster and program that demands team work above all things. or Having a bunch of talented individuals and try to sell them that team work and chemistry comes first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 There's an awful lot of space between the players on the field.... I think you can accomplish more with great teamwork and average talent than with great talent and poor teamwork. Now if every player was great this would be close, but given the salary cap, teamwork is more important to winning than individual talent. ...remember, there's no "I" in Teamwork (though there is one in Chemistry). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 You need a combination of the two. No team is going to win a championship if it doesn't have some talent, no matter how good the chemistry is. 712219[/snapback] To apply a real world example- The Heat had great chemistry in the playoffs. But there is no way they win the title without the super talent of Wade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Chemistry. Just look at the 1998 Yankees. They didn't have the superstars they have today (excluding Jeter and possibly Rivera) and they all played for the team, not themselves. 712197[/snapback] Agreed....Why even that back....The 2002 Patriots were a bunch of nobody's and they won the super bowl....because they believed in the team concept.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts