I sure hope Walker is correct....

[sjt18]

I think we're all trying to make lemonade... but another potential "positive" is that many of these guys won't be able to say "we used to do it different". They'll only know one way. They aren't really learning another system... they'll be learning their first one. Overall it is still a net negative but mitigated a little because they won't have to translate things into the new system.

 

[Voltillyafall]

Are you aware of what the meaning of the term "chemistry" is as it relates to sports? Building a good relationship based on trust through familiarity due to repeated practice is exactly what "chemistry" means. Your argument makes no sense.

What...I disagree with you, and you suddenly think that I must not be familiar with "chemistry" and "as it relates to sports."? It must be pretty neat to live in your world where--if someone disagrees with you--you immediately jump to the conclusion that others must be just stupid and unaware, and that you opinion must be correct because no one with any sense would disagree with you.

sjt18, this response is for you as well.

Let me tell you a few things. The term "chemistry" has been thrown around ad infinitum. Do you have a brain, and if so, do you think critically about things? I happen to think critically, and believe that "chemistry" is a term that has no relationship to performance. None. Can you point to any proof--not opinion, but proof--that "good" chemistry (whatever that is) is directly proportional to improved performance? Since the question I just typed was a rhetorical question, I'll go ahead and answer it: no, you cannot show any empirical evidence that "chemistry" causes better performance.

From an offensive line standpoint, the so-called "group-think" mentioned in this thread, and taking care of your teammate's back, is the function of knowing what protection is called, who you need to block in that protection vs. what package the defense is running, and making adjustments on the fly if the defense doesn't rush the same people in the same lanes that they showed on film. A feeling of comraderie, or "chemistry", is irrelevant to whether an O lineman will make the proper read and make a play that bails out his teammate. Making such a play is a function of film study, footwork, strength, balance, and--especially with referrence to O line play--technique.

I am always somewhat amused at fans who speak wistfully of how a team has chemistry, or that a player is "good for the locker room." Truth is, none of that stuff matters. Again, if you think it does, show me some empirical evidence that it does. Anecdotal rambling about the importance of "chemistry" is just that: anecdotal rambling.

And, yes, I was a player. I played in middle school, high school, and four years at a D-1 universtiy. I played quarterback. I daresay I have been around the game longer than you have, since if I am asked to name the names of UT players I grew up on as a child, I would mention names like Faircloth, Wantland, Fulton, and Warren. I watched as Tennessee was the last major holdout in running the single wing, and watched Doug Dickey usher in the T-Formation. So, please don't question my bona fides to speak on the subject of football. Look at my other posts on this board...it should be obvious that I know what I am talking about.

Don't get me wrong, its not my intention to be a jerk, although when someone claims superior knowledge (like I do in this situation) it always comes off like I deem myself to be superior to others. It is not my intention to come off that way. However, when you say that I make "no sense" and others ask "have you ever played O line," I then must answer those questions.

Like Jules says to Vincent in "Pulp Fiction", "if my answers scare you, Vincent, don't ask scary questions." Similarly, if you don't want to hear about the source of my expertise, don't ask questions like "have you ever played" or questions like that. Looking back, I don't think I have ever said anything about playing football on this message board. Why? Because everyone can have an opinion, and mine is not necessarily right just because i played football at a high level. However, you (or someone else in this thread who disagreed with me) asked me directly whether I ever played, so I am answering directly.

Finally, back to thinking critically, just because something like "chemistry" or "there is no 'I' in team" is tossed around doesn't mean there is any substance to the term. It is much more important to evaluate a player based on his ability, since no amount of "chemistry" can spur a player to give more than the 100% he is capable of. It is simply anatomically impossible to give more than you are capable of. Therefore, I don't take "team chemistry" into account, as such terms are most times used to describe successful teams, rather than providing a reason for their success.

 

[DD4ME]

What...I disagree with you, and you suddenly think that I must not be familiar with "chemistry" and "as it relates to sports."? It must be pretty neat to live in your world where--if someone disagrees with you--you immediately jump to the conclusion that others must be just stupid and unaware, and that you opinion must be correct because no one with any sense would disagree with you.

sjt18, this response is for you as well.

Let me tell you a few things. The term "chemistry" has been thrown around ad infinitum. Do you have a brain, and if so, do you think critically about things? I happen to think critically, and believe that "chemistry" is a term that has no relationship to performance. None. Can you point to any proof--not opinion, but proof--that "good" chemistry (whatever that is) is directly proportional to improved performance? Since the question I just typed was a rhetorical question, I'll go ahead and answer it: no, you cannot show any empirical evidence that "chemistry" causes better performance.

From an offensive line standpoint, the so-called "group-think" mentioned in this thread, and taking care of your teammate's back, is the function of knowing what protection is called, who you need to block in that protection vs. what package the defense is running, and making adjustments on the fly if the defense doesn't rush the same people in the same lanes that they showed on film. A feeling of comraderie, or "chemistry", is irrelevant to whether an O lineman will make the proper read and make a play that bails out his teammate. Making such a play is a function of film study, footwork, strength, balance, and--especially with referrence to O line play--technique.

I am always somewhat amused at fans who speak wistfully of how a team has chemistry, or that a player is "good for the locker room." Truth is, none of that stuff matters. Again, if you think it does, show me some empirical evidence that it does. Anecdotal rambling about the importance of "chemistry" is just that: anecdotal rambling.

And, yes, I was a player. I played in middle school, high school, and four years at a D-1 universtiy. I played quarterback. I daresay I have been around the game longer than you have, since if I am asked to name the names of UT players I grew up on as a child, I would mention names like Faircloth, Wantland, Fulton, and Warren. I watched as Tennessee was the last major holdout in running the single wing, and watched Doug Dickey usher in the T-Formation. So, please don't question my bona fides to speak on the subject of football. Look at my other posts on this board...it should be obvious that I know what I am talking about.

Don't get me wrong, its not my intention to be a jerk, although when someone claims superior knowledge (like I do in this situation) it always comes off like I deem myself to be superior to others. It is not my intention to come off that way. However, when you say that I make "no sense" and others ask "have you ever played O line," I then must answer those questions.

Like Jules says to Vincent in "Pulp Fiction", "if my answers scare you, Vincent, don't ask scary questions." Similarly, if you don't want to hear about the source of my expertise, don't ask questions like "have you ever played" or questions like that. Looking back, I don't think I have ever said anything about playing football on this message board. Why? Because everyone can have an opinion, and mine is not necessarily right just because i played football at a high level. However, you (or someone else in this thread who disagreed with me) asked me directly whether I ever played, so I am answering directly.

Finally, back to thinking critically, just because something like "chemistry" or "there is no 'I' in team" is tossed around doesn't mean there is any substance to the term. It is much more important to evaluate a player based on his ability, since no amount of "chemistry" can spur a player to give more than the 100% he is capable of. It is simply anatomically impossible to give more than you are capable of. Therefore, I don't take "team chemistry" into account, as such terms are most times used to describe successful teams, rather than providing a reason for their success.

I usually rant like this when my wife and I don't have "chemistry"! That's just me.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utman47]

What...I disagree with you, and you suddenly think that I must not be familiar with "chemistry" and "as it relates to sports."? It must be pretty neat to live in your world where--if someone disagrees with you--you immediately jump to the conclusion that others must be just stupid and unaware, and that you opinion must be correct because no one with any sense would disagree with you.

sjt18, this response is for you as well.

Let me tell you a few things. The term "chemistry" has been thrown around ad infinitum. Do you have a brain, and if so, do you think critically about things? I happen to think critically, and believe that "chemistry" is a term that has no relationship to performance. None. Can you point to any proof--not opinion, but proof--that "good" chemistry (whatever that is) is directly proportional to improved performance? Since the question I just typed was a rhetorical question, I'll go ahead and answer it: no, you cannot show any empirical evidence that "chemistry" causes better performance.

From an offensive line standpoint, the so-called "group-think" mentioned in this thread, and taking care of your teammate's back, is the function of knowing what protection is called, who you need to block in that protection vs. what package the defense is running, and making adjustments on the fly if the defense doesn't rush the same people in the same lanes that they showed on film. A feeling of comraderie, or "chemistry", is irrelevant to whether an O lineman will make the proper read and make a play that bails out his teammate. Making such a play is a function of film study, footwork, strength, balance, and--especially with referrence to O line play--technique.

I am always somewhat amused at fans who speak wistfully of how a team has chemistry, or that a player is "good for the locker room." Truth is, none of that stuff matters. Again, if you think it does, show me some empirical evidence that it does. Anecdotal rambling about the importance of "chemistry" is just that: anecdotal rambling.

And, yes, I was a player. I played in middle school, high school, and four years at a D-1 universtiy. I played quarterback. I daresay I have been around the game longer than you have, since if I am asked to name the names of UT players I grew up on as a child, I would mention names like Faircloth, Wantland, Fulton, and Warren. I watched as Tennessee was the last major holdout in running the single wing, and watched Doug Dickey usher in the T-Formation. So, please don't question my bona fides to speak on the subject of football. Look at my other posts on this board...it should be obvious that I know what I am talking about.

Don't get me wrong, its not my intention to be a jerk, although when someone claims superior knowledge (like I do in this situation) it always comes off like I deem myself to be superior to others. It is not my intention to come off that way. However, when you say that I make "no sense" and others ask "have you ever played O line," I then must answer those questions.

Like Jules says to Vincent in "Pulp Fiction", "if my answers scare you, Vincent, don't ask scary questions." Similarly, if you don't want to hear about the source of my expertise, don't ask questions like "have you ever played" or questions like that. Looking back, I don't think I have ever said anything about playing football on this message board. Why? Because everyone can have an opinion, and mine is not necessarily right just because i played football at a high level. However, you (or someone else in this thread who disagreed with me) asked me directly whether I ever played, so I am answering directly.

Finally, back to thinking critically, just because something like "chemistry" or "there is no 'I' in team" is tossed around doesn't mean there is any substance to the term. It is much more important to evaluate a player based on his ability, since no amount of "chemistry" can spur a player to give more than the 100% he is capable of. It is simply anatomically impossible to give more than you are capable of. Therefore, I don't take "team chemistry" into account, as such terms are most times used to describe successful teams, rather than providing a reason for their success.

I'm not gonna lie, that is an impressive post.

 

[orangebloodgmc]

UTMan, clearly you have some credentials. Still doesn't mean that they don't need to develop chemistry together. Maybe chemistry is just short-hand for respecting each other, knowing each other's tendancies, body language and timing, good habits and bad, strengths and weaknesses, and being able to say eventually that they have been thru the wars together, got smoked by some teams, and had blocking field days against others. Seems easier to me to say, I hope they eventually develop good chemistry together.

 

[Voltillyafall]

UTMan, clearly you have some credentials. Still doesn't mean that they don't need to develop chemistry together. Maybe chemistry is just short-hand for respecting each other, knowing each other's tendancies, body language and timing, good habits and bad, strengths and weaknesses, and being able to say eventually that they have been thru the wars together, got smoked by some teams, and had blocking field days against others. Seems easier to me to say, I hope they eventually develop good chemistry together.

The post was NOT made by UTMan, it was made by me, Voltillyafall.

I will take the credit, or criticism, whichever is the case.

 

[JustFunnN'Orange]

Voltillyafall, that was an impressive post. Doubt anyone can say you lack football knowledge. But, as GMC stated, don't you believe after a group plays together and gets use to each others ability or lack of there becomes an inate ability to work together as a unit. Call it chemistry, repetativeness or whatever!

 

[WesTnVol]

What...I disagree with you, and you suddenly think that I must not be familiar with "chemistry" and "as it relates to sports."? It must be pretty neat to live in your world where--if someone disagrees with you--you immediately jump to the conclusion that others must be just stupid and unaware, and that you opinion must be correct because no one with any sense would disagree with you.

sjt18, this response is for you as well.

Let me tell you a few things. The term "chemistry" has been thrown around ad infinitum. Do you have a brain, and if so, do you think critically about things? I happen to think critically, and believe that "chemistry" is a term that has no relationship to performance. None. Can you point to any proof--not opinion, but proof--that "good" chemistry (whatever that is) is directly proportional to improved performance? Since the question I just typed was a rhetorical question, I'll go ahead and answer it: no, you cannot show any empirical evidence that "chemistry" causes better performance.

From an offensive line standpoint, the so-called "group-think" mentioned in this thread, and taking care of your teammate's back, is the function of knowing what protection is called, who you need to block in that protection vs. what package the defense is running, and making adjustments on the fly if the defense doesn't rush the same people in the same lanes that they showed on film. A feeling of comraderie, or "chemistry", is irrelevant to whether an O lineman will make the proper read and make a play that bails out his teammate. Making such a play is a function of film study, footwork, strength, balance, and--especially with referrence to O line play--technique.

I am always somewhat amused at fans who speak wistfully of how a team has chemistry, or that a player is "good for the locker room." Truth is, none of that stuff matters. Again, if you think it does, show me some empirical evidence that it does. Anecdotal rambling about the importance of "chemistry" is just that: anecdotal rambling.

And, yes, I was a player. I played in middle school, high school, and four years at a D-1 universtiy. I played quarterback. I daresay I have been around the game longer than you have, since if I am asked to name the names of UT players I grew up on as a child, I would mention names like Faircloth, Wantland, Fulton, and Warren. I watched as Tennessee was the last major holdout in running the single wing, and watched Doug Dickey usher in the T-Formation. So, please don't question my bona fides to speak on the subject of football. Look at my other posts on this board...it should be obvious that I know what I am talking about.

Don't get me wrong, its not my intention to be a jerk, although when someone claims superior knowledge (like I do in this situation) it always comes off like I deem myself to be superior to others. It is not my intention to come off that way. However, when you say that I make "no sense" and others ask "have you ever played O line," I then must answer those questions.

Like Jules says to Vincent in "Pulp Fiction", "if my answers scare you, Vincent, don't ask scary questions." Similarly, if you don't want to hear about the source of my expertise, don't ask questions like "have you ever played" or questions like that. Looking back, I don't think I have ever said anything about playing football on this message board. Why? Because everyone can have an opinion, and mine is not necessarily right just because i played football at a high level. However, you (or someone else in this thread who disagreed with me) asked me directly whether I ever played, so I am answering directly.

Finally, back to thinking critically, just because something like "chemistry" or "there is no 'I' in team" is tossed around doesn't mean there is any substance to the term. It is much more important to evaluate a player based on his ability, since no amount of "chemistry" can spur a player to give more than the 100% he is capable of. It is simply anatomically impossible to give more than you are capable of. Therefore, I don't take "team chemistry" into account, as such terms are most times used to describe successful teams, rather than providing a reason for their success.

WOW just WOWopcorn:

 

[Voltillyafall]

Voltillyafall, that was an impressive post. Doubt anyone can say you lack football knowledge. But, as GMC stated, don't you believe after a group plays together and gets use to each others ability or lack of there becomes an inate ability to work together as a unit. Call it chemistry, repetativeness or whatever!

I'm not going to say I don't know what you are talking about, because I do. I have had this conversation many times over the years.

For instance, you ask in your post whether I believe that "after a group plays together...there becomes an ability to work together...call it chemistry, ... ." To answer your question, no, I don't. I believe that if that group plays well together, it is more a function of players studying film, paying attention to what their assignments are, and executing what they have been coached to do.

I can see finite evidence on the field that is the result of good teaching and practice. On the other hand, I have never seen a play on a football field that made me jump up and say "Wow...now that was great chemistry!" Bottom line, I don't believe there is any empirical evidence of "chemistry" improving a player, or a team's, performance.

As stated, I know what you and others mean. I don't want to sound dismissive, but I just don't think there is anything to it.

 

[sjt18]

What...I disagree with you, and you suddenly think that I must not be familiar with "chemistry" and "as it relates to sports."? ....
sjt18, this response is for you as well.

.... Do you have a brain, and if so, do you think critically about things? I happen to think critically, and believe that "chemistry" is a term that has no relationship to performance.

What? I disagree with you and you suddenly think that I must not a) have a brain or b) think critically?

What you are doing is NOT an example of critical thinking. It is single-minded materialism gone to an extreme and applied to a human activity where it CAN NEVER explain away the impact of metaphysical influences.

None. Can you point to any proof--not opinion, but proof--that "good" chemistry (whatever that is) is directly proportional to improved performance?

You cannot point to any proof that only the factors you mention apply.

The more people are like minded and work together, the more they are able to anticipate one another by second nature. It involves a heightened sense of awareness and high levels of both verbal and non-verbal communication.

Since the question I just typed was a rhetorical question, I'll go ahead and answer it: no, you cannot show any empirical evidence that "chemistry" causes better performance.

I can point to units that have relatively equal talent, preparation, coaching, etc but do not perform as a unit. I can point to the shear FACT that OL's made up of "individuals" fail no matter how much film they study or how well coached they are.

In your sophomoric diatribe, you effectively negated the very essence of the word "team".

You are either parsing the word "chemistry" out of some dislike for the word itself

... A feeling of comraderie, or "chemistry", is irrelevant to whether an O lineman will make the proper read and make a play that bails out his teammate. Making such a play is a function of film study, footwork, strength, balance, and--especially with referrence to O line play--technique.

It is not a feeling nor is it physical. It may properly lie within the realm of emotional intelligence.

I am always somewhat amused at fans who speak wistfully of how a team has chemistry, or that a player is "good for the locker room." Truth is, none of that stuff matters.

Yes it does. It matters just like it matters whether a talented employee has a terrible home life. People are emotional beings. Emotions have a bearing on motivation, energy, and even metabolism.

So, please don't question my bona fides to speak on the subject of football. Look at my other posts on this board...it should be obvious that I know what I am talking about.

Your "bona fides" on "football" aren't in question. Your "bona fides" on human nature, synergy, and working relationships are very much in question.

Don't get me wrong, its not my intention to be a jerk, although when someone claims superior knowledge (like I do in this situation) it always comes off like I deem myself to be superior to others. It is not my intention to come off that way.

Apparently it is since you have made up your mind, dismissed all arguments to the contrary with a wave of your omniscient hand, and questioned whether anyone who questions your declarations have a brain or not.

However, when you say that I make "no sense" and others ask "have you ever played O line," I then must answer those questions.

... Yeah, by dismissing those who ask them, right?

Similarly, if you don't want to hear about the source of my expertise, don't ask questions like "have you ever played" or questions like that.

You didn't play OL. That is the source of your expertise, right?

Because everyone can have an opinion, and mine is not necessarily right just because i played football at a high level.

I am absolutely convinced based on my experience in sports, religion, business, and the military... in significant leadership positions in all... that you are absolutely wrong.

Finally, back to thinking critically, just because something like "chemistry" or "there is no 'I' in team" is tossed around doesn't mean there is any substance to the term.

We've tried to put meat on that bone for you... you just wave your hand.

It is much more important to evaluate a player based on his ability, since no amount of "chemistry" can spur a player to give more than the 100% he is capable of. It is simply anatomically impossible to give more than you are capable of. Therefore, I don't take "team chemistry" into account, as such terms are most times used to describe successful teams, rather than providing a reason for their success.

The concept of synergy has been around since at least Aristotle. It is a business fundamental.

Are you now going to claim more experience and superior intellect to leading business experts and Aristotle?

 

[sjt18]

Sorry vader... I really didn't know how to say it nicely.

 

[JustFunnN'Orange]

sjt.....I've gained a lot of respect for you thru this discussion!!!!

Voltillyafall.....not implying that I'm dissin' you...just don't totally agree with your position.

 

[theutvolunteers]

Good efforts.. gotta go with sj on this one. People familiar with each other certainly gain a similar thinking pattern which improves anticipation and the like.

 

[Tampavolz]

gotta agree with you,, here is an answer or some minor evidence for voltillyafall,,,

Take my fav pro team the Buccaneers, who were 0-5000 until some changes were made, especially a particlular middle linebacker named Hardy Nickerson who came from a winning tradition at the Steelers. Hardy then was lucky enough to mentor the likes of Derrick Brooks, Warren Sapp, John Lynch, Rondi Barber, and others in what it takes to work and act so that you can be a winner,,, This is team chemistry.

Locker room attitude is important, leadership is important,,, and karma goes both ways. The commitment to excellence is not the easy road for many.

Great points you make, i just think you underestimate the impact of postivie attitudes and leadership aspects in life and especially in future success.

 

[Voltillyafall]

sjt.....I've gained a lot of respect for you thru this discussion!!!!

Voltillyafall.....not implying that I'm dissin' you...just don't totally agree with your position.

That's cool. No problem. I don't need your affirmation, or anyone else's on this board.

I post on this board in order to discuss football. I don't post here so we can all get in a circle, sing kumbaya, and create good chemisty.

 

[Voltillyafall]

gotta agree with you,, here is an answer or some minor evidence for voltillyafall,,,

Take my fav pro team the Buccaneers, who were 0-5000 until some changes were made, especially a particlular middle linebacker named Hardy Nickerson who came from a winning tradition at the Steelers. Hardy then was lucky enough to mentor the likes of Derrick Brooks, Warren Sapp, John Lynch, Rondi Barber, and others in what it takes to work and act so that you can be a winner,,, This is team chemistry.

Locker room attitude is important, leadership is important,,, and karma goes both ways. The commitment to excellence is not the easy road for many.

Great points you make, i just think you underestimate the impact of postivie attitudes and leadership aspects in life and especially in future success.

Hey Tampa...thanks for helping support my position.

In my original post, I stated something on the order of anecdotal rambling on the importance of chemistry is just that: anecdotal rambling. Just because you say something is true, doesn't make it true.

Show me, empirically, that it mattered that Hardy Nickerson came from "a winning tradition" with the Steelers, and that helped turn the Bucs around. No, the reason that Hardy Nickerson--to the extent that he did--turned the Bucs around was because he was big enough, strong enough, and fast enough to make plays. If Nickerson had come to the Bucs from, lets say, the Chiefs (no "chemistry" there), are you saying that Nickerson would not have played as well? Are you saying his contributions would have been reduced? Of course not... that would be asisnine.

You mention Brooks, Sapp, Lynch, and Barber. You say that Nickerson "mentored" them on what it took to act and play like a winner...and that is "team chemistry." Tampa, these are Hall of Famers you are talking about. Show me, empirically, where Hardy Nickerson made one scintilla of difference in these guys' careers. I will tell you what put these guys on the road to Canton: God-given physical skills, and a monster work ethic. Hardy Nickerson didn't help John Lynch make one tackle. He didn't "mentor" Warren Sapp and enable Sapp to be a two-gap player. Sapp is a two gapper because of leverage, footwork, strength, technique, and a mixture of talent and hard work...not because Hardy Nickerson "came from the winning tradition of the Steelers."

I mean, seriously, have some respect for yourself. If you were on a team, wouldn't you have enough pride, drive, and initiative to give your best every play, without Hardy Nickerson in your ear on every play? If you have any self-respect at all, you will say that you don't need any "mentoring" in order to play at a Hall of Fame level (assuming you had a Hall of Fame skill set). You would take your God given talent, use it to its fullest extent, no matter who liked whom, no matter how many guys went out to dinner together, or how the wives got along.

You extol locker-room attitude, and say that this is a part of chemistry that makes a difference in wins and losses. Again, simply you saying this, does NOT make it a fact. If you have 52 guys giving it their best, like I have described above, good locker room attitude may be a result of that effort, but good locker-room attitude will not help you win one extra game. You're simply putting the cart before the horse: great players making great plays usually is a formula for winning games, and winning games usually fosters a good locker-room atmosphere. However, a good locker-room atmosphere with everyone singing kumbaya does not translate into winning. If it did, we could skip football practice and sit around a campfire getting in touch with our feminine side.

As stated earlier, in all my posts before this thread, I never revealed (I don't think) that I played quarterback for four years at a D1 school. I never revealed it because that fact alone doesn't make me better than anyone else on this board. I'm sure (?) that there are others that post here who also played football, but I bet there are few who played to the extent and level that I did. I pull rank here only to say that I am not a neophyte, I have been in locker rooms all my life, and I never threw to one receiver over another because of his contribution (or lack thereof) to "team chemistry." When I played, nobody, and I mean NOBODY, was more important to me than my left tackle. As far as I was concerned, my left tackle could brood in a corner all the time, never say a word to me or any other teammate, show up for practice late--all detrimental to your idea of "team chemistry"--and I didn't care one bit as long as he kept the right defensive end out of my face. He could skip the team party after we won--who cares. We were having a team party because he did his job, not because he kept everybody in stitches with his jokes.

 

[JustFunnN'Orange]

That's cool. No problem. I don't need your affirmation, or anyone else's on this board.

I post on this board in order to discuss football. I don't post here so we can all get in a circle, sing kumbaya, and create good chemisty.

.

 

[Voltillyafall]

I used the word "chemistry"...I meant it as a joke.

Oh well.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JustFunnN'Orange]

We'll just agree to disagree. You're not worth getting banned from the only semi credible source I have for info on the Vols.

 

[lylsmorr]

Just because you say something is true, doesn't make it true.

Maybe everyone arguing should reflect on this. It's all opinion

 

[JustFunnN'Orange]

And we all know what they say about opinions..........

 

[lylsmorr]

And we all know what they say about opinions..........

Exactly

 

[Voltillyafall]

Maybe everyone arguing should reflect on this. It's all opinion

Absolutely correct...I have stated my opinion, as others have stated theirs, about team chemistry, and its effect (or lack thereof) on team performance.

That's what makes it fun. Its opinion. Everybody has one. Everyone is able to add his :twocents:

That's my opinion, anyway... .

JustFunInOrange, its a discussion. I saw what you called me before it was taken down. Adults can state their opinions without losing control of their emotions. There is no reason to lose it and call someone a name because of a discussion on a message board... . In the scheme of things, its just not that important.

 

[sjt18]

Adults can also state their opinions without implying that anyone that disagrees with them is brainless and lacks the ability to reason.

 

[Voltillyafall]

Adults can also state their opinions without implying that anyone that disagrees with them is brainless and lacks the ability to reason.

That is true. I apologize to you, and all readers on this board, for that comment.

However, you did make a personal attack against me. It was such that the mods had to delete it from your post. The mods didn't have to delete anything from my posts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile