team bonding

[dchogs]

in an argument with a friend about the skins' prospects this year, he said that we're going to do poorly due to the fact that we brought in a lot of new players and that it takes time to gel. he brought up the 2000 season as an example. while it may take time to gel, i don't think we'll be a failure like the 2000 team was. the cohesiveness of the 2000 squad was, in my mind, underminded by the weak leadership of norv. he was to vanilla to pull the guys together for a common cause.

now in the 2002 season we have brought in a bunch of players. will it take time to gel and bond to achieve maximum efficiency, sure. what we have going for us is spurrier's "no mercy" attitude, his "hey football is fun" attitude, lewis's leadership and success on D, AND the fact that we brought in guys with something to prove to themselves, their old teams, and the NFL in general. couple that with the fact that two of our big signings came from within the division, so they understand what it means to beat dallas or philly or new york.

i'd love to be in the skins' locker room. it will have the best combination of comraderie, intensity, and fun.

HAIL

[Art]

Tell your friend the next time he points to the 2000 season and chemistry problems that the 2000 Redskins were 6-2 before starting to get in trouble. Ask him if he's ever heard of injuries limiting a team and if that factors in. People who think the 2000 Redskins lacked chemistry simply haven't paid attention. You can't go 6-2 with no chemistry because it takes time to gell. Argument persuasively ended. Try that DC.

[Utah]

Thank-you Art.

If you really want to bash the 2000 season. Do it for these reasons:

We lost our #1 WR.

We lost our starting center.

We lost our starting guard.

We lost our starting QB which in turn created a QB fiasco.

We could not find a kicker (Norv's true mistake of 2000) to put the damn ball through the uprights.

All of these things are what killed us in that season. Sure Norv should of been more aggressive in the media about the team, but our defense put our offense in positions to win games and we just didn't have the horses to get it done.

In the end, it falls on the Head Coach to make things happen in the face of adversity. Norv couldn't get it done. But lets not forget that Norv was fired while still in the hunt for a playoff spot. To this day, I say that is Snyder's worst move.

[G-Town]

Amen Utah!!!! You hit the nail on the head there. The damn kicker, I am still trying to figure that one out.:notworthy

[redman]

Also, remind your friend that the vast majority of new players on the 2000 team - Smith, Carrier, Sanders, Terrell, Arrington, Drakeford, etc. - played defense, not offense. That defense improved from something like 29th the year before to 4th, if I recall correctly. We also had a new defensive coordinator in Ray Rhodes with new schemes being run from the old passive Mike Nolan schemes.

Given that, how could chemistry problems, as opposed to injury problems as others have pointed out, have affected that team?

[RiggoDrill]

Chemistry is overrated, for the most part. Look at perennial powerhouse college teams -- they turn over year after year, yet somehow continually find a bond and win.

It is true that continuity can help, esp. along the lines, but it's really a reflection of the coaching as to whether newcomers can come in, learn the system and communicate effectively in a short amount of time.