Is a team better off with depth or team chemistry?
The thought crossed my mind and I added a line into this story about what Kirby had to say about the Bulldogs QB situation: https://dawgs.us/2tiWVQB
Doesn’t the definition of TEAM require both?
I agree with @Bankwalker . Both required.
In Mike's defense, I think the question is IF you're a coach faced with this as an either/or proposition, would you sacrifice depth in favor of chemistry, or vice versa?
Naturally every coach would like to have both.
In that case, I would probably go with chemistry and pray that my talent stayed healthy since not much backing them up.
@texdawg. I agree completely. As a baseball coach, I wouldn't sacrifice team chemistry for anything. That would be even more true in football.
The more interesting question is do you take a kid that's too good to be your QB2 because it gives you great depth at the position and risk the potential hit to team chemistry when your backup thinks he should be starting.
Agreed. I coach HS softball and 14u baseball and chemistry is vital.
However, I do finally have my first truly elite catcher and I don't think I would trade her for anything - not even chemistry.
I’ll go with depth and hope the next HC can bring the team together in year 2 like Kirby did - because you are getting a new HC in the above scenario, playing an SEC schedule.
That is a really interesting observation @texdawg, and it shows why the answer to Mike's question is actually not as simple as it seems.