I sure hope Walker is correct....

#51
#51
Voltillyafall said:
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
Click to expand...

I'd tell you what it was but it would just get deleted again.:)

I apologize as well. I should not have reacted that way.
 
#52
#52
sjt18 said:
I'd tell you what it was but it would just get deleted again.:)

I apologize as well. I should not have reacted that way.
Click to expand...

No need to tell me what it was. I saw it. That's how I know what was deleted.

If you had been thinking critically, you would have known that. :hi:

In all seriousnes, I'm not into the "bad man behind the keyboard" stuff. My posts tend to be very lengthy, and sometimes I don't think that fits the message board format very well.

Maybe I should start a blog...possibly that would be a better way to express my sometime lengthy viewpoint. Plus, there are a lot of not-so-serious people on message boards who don't really care for an in-depth discussion... .
 
#53
#53
Hmmm... well, regardless of how they do it or how its defined, I hope that our O-line plays at least average SEC caliber football this fall. I doubt it will happen, but you never know.

The only positive is that we will have a solid foundation for the next 3 years. What we don't have in experience, we do have in young talent.
 
#54
#54
A teams willingness to work togethe amicably towards common goals is good by any name or title. The hard work to get there is mandatory the attitudes, perceptions, and comradrie good or bad are optional in most circumstances. I like to think having fun while working hard with people you trust and value gives reaching goals more weight and enjoyment than just working hard.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#55
#55
"My posts tend to be very lengthy, and sometimes I don't think that fits the message board format very well".

I, for one, have no problem with lengthy posts. It tells me that a person has the capability to put together a thought process dealing with a situation and then put it into words. But, when those words become condescending or mocking to others who have attempted to be respectful....that's where I have a problem.
 
#56
#56
JustFunnN'Orange said:
"My posts tend to be very lengthy, and sometimes I don't think that fits the message board format very well".

I, for one, have no problem with lengthy posts. It tells me that a person has the capability to put together a thought process dealing with a situation and then put it into words. But, when those words become condescending or mocking to others who have attempted to be respectful....that's where I have a problem.
Click to expand...


You thought I was being condescending to you, and I was really poking fun at myself by talking about building "chemistry."

I can't help it that the batteries in your sarcasm meter were running low, and you got mad and posted something that the mods had to take down. I tried to lighten the mood with some self-depricating humor, but it went right over your head.

No need for the discord...
 
#57
#57
Voltillyafall said:
You thought I was being condescending to you, and I was really poking fun at myself by talking about building "chemistry."

I can't help it that the batteries in your sarcasm meter were running low, and you got mad and posted something that the mods had to take down. I tried to lighten the mood with some self-depricating humor, but it went right over your head.

No need for the discord...
Click to expand...

"I don't need your affirmation, or anyone else's on this board."

Arrogant and condescending........!

Iggy button applies.
 
#58
#58
#59
#59
Orange_Crush said:
“I think what is evident out there is we have a lot of new faces. Developing that chemistry with both units is going to take a lot of time. We saw a little bit more (chemistry) on the defensive side because there are more familiar faces. They’ve been out there together and encouraged each other."

-CDD

http://www.volnation.com/forum/tennessee-vols-football/99497-i-sure-hope-walker-correct-2.html


lolol...
Click to expand...


Why the "lolol..." ??

Because you want to wag your finger and laugh as if you have discovered "proof"? Pretty juvenile. Because you think that you have "won" the argument? Sorry, we're giving opinions here, and there is no "right" answer, and thus there is no winner or loser.

And, again, for the umpteenth time, just because someone says it (in your case, Dooley) doesn't mean that "good chemistry" makes a team better.

There are a lot of people who think good chemistry translates into better performance, and there are plenty of people who agree with me.

Chemistry, leadership: Overrated - Bob Smizik's Blog - post-gazette.com

The Chemistry in Sports Debate ? Chemistry… The Excuse When There Are No REAL Excuses The Sports Debates©

A "who can link to the most stories" battle proves nothing other than one can find most anything on the internet.
 
#60
#60
I am an Offensive Line coach. Chemistry is important. Believe what you choose, argue what you choose, I've been there I've seen talented groups fail, I've seen lesser groups succeed. I won't even look at this thread again, but a groups chemistry which is difficult to define is very important.
 
#61
#61
Voltillyafall said:
Why the "lolol..." ??

Because you want to wag your finger and laugh as if you have discovered "proof"? Pretty juvenile. Because you think that you have "won" the argument? Sorry, we're giving opinions here, and there is no "right" answer, and thus there is no winner or loser.

And, again, for the umpteenth time, just because someone says it (in your case, Dooley) doesn't mean that "good chemistry" makes a team better.

There are a lot of people who think good chemistry translates into better performance, and there are plenty of people who agree with me.

Chemistry, leadership: Overrated - Bob Smizik's Blog - post-gazette.com

The Chemistry in Sports Debate ? Chemistry… The Excuse When There Are No REAL Excuses The Sports Debates©

A "who can link to the most stories" battle proves nothing other than one can find most anything on the internet.
Click to expand...
No. Juvenile is posting condescending content as if anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot until you belatedly realize how rediculous you sound, and indefensible your position is-- and then falling back on the "it's all just opinion and no one is right or wrong" cop-out.

That's what's juvenile. If you work as hard as you have to earn the jack-hole persona, at least wear it with pride.

I tuned you out when you claimed that chemistry doesn't exist, and then described it-- all in the same post. But when our current coach belabored its importance while you denied its existence-- well, that nectar was just too juicy not to squeeze.

And for the record, anyone that plays the "critical thinking" card as often as you do comes off as a philosophy poser. You may want to give that one a rest. If you choose not to, think about also throwing in the obligatory "internally inconsistent" to break the monotony for the rest of us that have actually studied reason and logic and can get by on more than just catch phrases we picked up in internet forums.

A good evening to you, Socrates.
 
#62
#62
Orange_Crush said:
No. Juvenile is posting condescending content as if anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot until you belatedly realize how rediculous you sound, and indefensible your position is-- and then falling back on the "it's all just opinion and no one is right or wrong" cop-out.

That's what's juvenile. If you work as hard as you have to earn the jack-hole persona, at least wear it with pride.
Click to expand...

1. You first tell me that I am posting condescendingly toward you.
2. Then, when I say that we all have opinions, and opinions can differ, you call me juvenile.


OK, to make you happy, I'll stick with #1. I'm right, you're wrong.

I don't have a "jack-hole persona", but I will state, without hesitation, what I believe to be true. Perhaps you have a "jack-hole persona" because you disagree with me.

You have never shown me one scintilla of empirical proof that "team chemistry" makes any difference in team performance. All you have shown is anecdotal rambling about its existence, and its supposed boost to a team's performance. All you have established is that the notion of team chemistry is a "self fulfilling prophesy"...

"A Self Fulfilling Prophesy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior."

It has also been defined as a "false definition of a situation which evokes a new behavior, which makes the original false perception come true."

Again, I don't care if my left tackle broods at practice, sits by himself at team meals, doesn't talk to me, or any other thing that you might think would inhibit "team chemistry"...all I care about is that he keep the right defensive tackle out of my grill. You seem to forget I lived this for four years, and we had a LT just like this. I didn't care. He did his job. He blocked. I never had to worry about being blindsided. Because of me not having to worry about that, I was a better QB. I got to hold the ball a little longer. I got to spread the ball around. We won games. As a result of winning, the team was happier. Happiness did not cause us to be sucessful.

Finally, a human being can only give his best. I don't care how great your "chemistry" is, it cannot enable a human to give more than he is capable; in other words, chemistry cannot cause someone to give over 100%. That, I believe, is a physiological certainty.

I'm right, you're wrong. Deal with it. Don't post anything in response that is directed toware me; rather, if you choose to respond, post something about the substance of the argument.



Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#63
#63
Voltillyafall said:
1. You first tell me that I am posting condescendingly toward you.
2. Then, when I say that we all have opinions, and opinions can differ, you call me juvenile.


OK, to make you happy, I'll stick with #1. I'm right, you're wrong.

I don't have a "jack-hole persona", but I will state, without hesitation, what I believe to be true. Perhaps you have a "jack-hole persona" because you disagree with me.

You have never shown me one scintilla of empirical proof that "team chemistry" makes any difference in team performance. All you have shown is anecdotal rambling about its existence, and its supposed boost to a team's performance. All you have established is that the notion of team chemistry is a "self fulfilling prophesy"...

"A Self Fulfilling Prophesy is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior."

It has also been defined as a "false definition of a situation which evokes a new behavior, which makes the original false perception come true."

Again, I don't care if my left tackle broods at practice, sits by himself at team meals, doesn't talk to me, or any other thing that you might think would inhibit "team chemistry"...all I care about is that he keep the right defensive tackle out of my grill. You seem to forget I lived this for four years, and we had a LT just like this. I didn't care. He did his job. He blocked. I never had to worry about being blindsided. Because of me not having to worry about that, I was a better QB. I got to hold the ball a little longer. I got to spread the ball around. We won games. As a result of winning, the team was happier. Happiness did not cause us to be sucessful.

Finally, a human being can only give his best. I don't care how great your "chemistry" is, it cannot enable a human to give more than he is capable; in other words, chemistry cannot cause someone to give over 100%. That, I believe, is a physiological certainty.

I'm right, you're wrong. Deal with it. Don't post anything in response that is directed toware me; rather, if you choose to respond, post something about the substance of the argument.



Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
If you're not intelligent enough to even know who you are or are not talking to, then I'm not sure what else to say, except... Read my username, Socrates... Then read back through this thread and see what I have or have not said.

You posted incredibly condescendingly. Then you defined the existence of 'chemistry' while denying the existence of 'chemistry'-- all in the same post. Then you fell back on the 'opinions' cop-out. CDD posted the need to build chemistry. I pointed that out and alluded to the facts that (a) you come across as a jack-hole and(b) you also come across as a philosophy poser. I also offered another philosophy catch phrase for your use in future posturing.

Those are the facts as they pertain to me. Now, with all of THAT said, please stop with the chemistry experiments. You're making a fool of yourself, in that with every post you prove that you in no way even understand what the term 'chemistry' in this context means. In this context, chemistry means nothing more or less than: familiarity and trust within a discipline that allows a group with a common goal to work together toward that common goal in the most efficient and effective manner possible. It has much less to do with fondness than it does familiarity.

If you deny that that is needed on a team, then you are truly a lost cause.

Good day to you, Socrates.
 
#64
#64
Rah rah. Go team. Slobberknock him. Rah rah. Wrap him up! Hat on a hat! Hmm...I don't feel any better. Oh well, at least I tried.

Please. I beg you.

Please put me on your ignore button.
 
#65
#65
Voltillyafall said:
You thought I was being condescending to you, and I was really poking fun at myself by talking about building "chemistry."

I can't help it that the batteries in your sarcasm meter were running low, and you got mad and posted something that the mods had to take down. I tried to lighten the mood with some self-depricating humor, but it went right over your head.

No need for the discord...
Click to expand...

It's those minor statements like the ones bolded above that make your posts condescending. Now, there's nothing insulting about these, but they can tend to rub the people the wrong way. People don't want to be told that they're not or can't understand something while it's being explained to them. They don't want to be lectured to or have someone assume the teacher role when they're trying to have a mutual conversation (where they're both speaking from the same playing field). When their posts seem to be deemed as invalid, then it makes the other poster feel insulted. A post that illustrates this is this:

Voltillyafall said:
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.
Click to expand...

If this is your point of view, then why am I talking with you? You don't need my affirmation, which to me means you don't place much value on my opinion. So why are you having this conversation with me? In my mind, it's to talk at me and not talk with me. You want to discuss football, but what I say has no impact on you. I've been on forums for a while, and the only time this applies to me is when I'm fueding with a troll. I want to be affirmed as an intelligent poster. I want to be seen as knowledgeable and for people to respect my posts. That's why I post - to gain that status. If I'm not wanting that reciprocal relationship with the other posters on the board, then I'm just posting to hear myself talk or to argue.

You haven't had a mod edit your posts, but apparently your way of debating has affected two separate people in a way that they'd lash out at you. So either your posts are formatted in a way that turns people off, or two different people are immature kids who can't contain their emotion after debating with you. Again, you're not breaking the rules or doing anything wrong, and to be fair they've instigated with similar statements so it is unfair to point you out, but it's something to watch for. If you don't care if you rub people the wrong way, then so be it. You just won't receive the discussion you're looking for though as no one has the energy to deal with such a personality.



As for the concept of "chemistry," it's an intangible attribute that can't really be quantified. So asking for empirical evidence is practically impossible. Although, I think this debate is mostly semantics. You've explained how the term is pretty much a pet peeve of yours, but many people use it as a broad term, synonymous with terms such as "developing," "gelling," etc. Do I think an offensive line gelling helps it improve? Certainly, but that "chemistry" is obtained by the means you've laid out prior in the thread: experience together, practicing as a group, and individual efforts to make themselves better. You see the tangible reasons as steps towards making the unit better, while others see it as an intagible process. The "chemistry" aspect is something people will always embrace as it's more romantic way of seeing it and gives the viewer a sense of a deeper connection between the players.

That's how I see this topic anyway.
 
Last edited:
#66
#66
TitanHope said:
It's those minor statements like the ones bolded above that make your posts condescending. Now, there's nothing insulting about these, but they can tend to rub the people the wrong way. People don't want to be told that they're not or can't understand something while it's being explained to them. They don't want to be lectured to or have someone assume the teacher role when they're trying to have a mutual conversation (where they're both speaking from the same playing field). When their posts seem to be deemed as invalid, then it makes the other poster feel insulted. A post that illustrates this is this:



If this is your point of view, then why am I talking with you? You don't need my affirmation, which to me means you don't place much value on my opinion. So why are you having this conversation with me? In my mind, it's to talk at me and not talk with me. You want to discuss football, but what I say has no impact on you. I've been on forums for a while, and the only time this applies to me is when I'm fueding with a troll. I want to be affirmed as an intelligent poster. I want to be seen as knowledgeable and for people to respect my posts. That's why I post - to gain that status. If I'm not wanting that reciprocal relationship with the other posters on the board, then I'm just posting to hear myself talk or to argue.

You haven't had a mod edit your posts, but apparently your way of debating has affected two separate people in a way that they'd lash out at you. So either your posts are formatted in a way that turns people off, or two different people are immature kids who can't contain their emotion after debating with you. Again, you're not breaking the rules or doing anything wrong, and to be fair they've instigated with similar statements so it is unfair to point you out, but it's something to watch for. If you don't care if you rub people the wrong way, then so be it. You just won't receive the discussion you're looking for though as no one has the energy to deal with such a personality.



As for the concept of "chemistry," it's an intangible attribute that can't really be quantified. So asking for empirical evidence is practically impossible. Although, I think this debate is mostly semantics. You've explained how the term is pretty much a pet peeve of yours, but many people use it as a broad term, synonymous with terms such as "developing," "gelling," etc. Do I think an offensive line gelling helps it improve? Certainly, but that "chemistry" is obtained by the means you've laid out prior in the thread: experience together, practicing as a group, and individual efforts to make themselves better. You see the tangible reasons as steps towards making the unit better, while others see it as an intagible process. The "chemistry" aspect is something people will always embrace as it's more romantic way of seeing it and gives the viewer a sense of a deeper connection between the players.

That's how I see this topic anyway.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your point of view, Titan. However, I have been--in this thread--taking the point of view that "chemistry" is irrelevant to a team's success. So, in the post where I mentioned forming a circle to "create some chemistry", I was attempting (albeit, unsucessfully) to poke fun at myself in that I was going to gather folks and enhance team chemistry.

Also, I realize I am in the minority on this subject. I did give concrete examples of why I felt this way...the example of my left tackle, etc.

Finally, I hope this is a threadkiller post. Instead of discussing the substance of the issue, it has degenerated into name-calling, etc. I did that one time, early on, and apologized. It can be very difficult for some people when they set forth their view, and then cannot make someone like me suddenly agree to their point of view. The discussion then degenerates into name calling, getting personal with each other, and into nothing but immature drivel.

I have not changed my mind about "chemistry", but I'm done discussing it here.
 
Last edited:
#67
#67
I don't know if Voltilyafall has a different definition than the rest of us or what... but he seems to have a real problem with the word "chemistry". I'm not sure how you can claim that familiarity (a component of what we call "chemistry") is not helpful in team sports or any other coordinated activity with two or more team members. I don't know how you can argue that some people simply share innate thinking and emotional patterns that contribute to their success as a team (another component of "chemistry").

He seems to be saying that people are effectively machines and as long as you program them right... all you have to do is plug and play.

I've never run across anyone else in my many years who denies the reality and importance of "chemistry". Maybe he's right and everyone else... including organizational/behavioral scientists building on 2000 years of observation and thought... is wrong?
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top