Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Copa America Centenario


DirtyMagic97

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...

For USA:

What I like: 

  • Nagbe
  • Pulisic
  • Kitchen
  • Horvath
  • Looks like Yedlin will be a defender.  Hopefully the winger/MF experiment for him is done

What I don't like:

  • Wondo over Morris??? 
  • Beckerman.  KB and PK being on the roster means JK will once again be playing Bradley as the number 10 where he's literally played 0 good matches.  Meanwhile, Bradley has been the best Dmid in the MLS this year.
  • Orozco over Castillo.  Or hell, I would have rather seen Garza, Gonzalez, and a few other defenders than Orozco.
  • Looks like they're playing Fabian as a defender, rather than an MF/Winger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

After last night's game:

 

What I like:

  • Nothing
  • Yedlin at least hustled

What I don't like:

  • Michael Bradley - I mean seriously, I don't watch that much MLS, so I'll take your word on it that he's one of the best midfielders from the season. However, last night, he was directly responsible for both of Colombia's goals, but either having such a poo pass it was easy to intercept, or he would lose possession in such a dangerous spot, the backs couldn't get into position to defend at all. Yes, the first goal was from a corner, but it came from his losing the ball in front of the box yet again. Other than his name, there is no way I believe he's worthy of being on the USMNT, much less starting.
  • Guzan - He's no Tim Howard.. like, at all. He tried playing sweeper keeper last night and almost got burned so much, it was scary. His reactions were late, and outside of one terrific save, looked mostly like a spectator. I know Howard is getting up there in age, but is this really a better alternative?
  • Klinnsman - Way to get our guys hyped up for the start of the cup. I've never been a huge fan of the 4-3-3, unless you have some world-class wingers. It's very boring football, with a TON of side and back passes that drive me crazy. Further, if you don't press, then it leaves you weak in midfield to the vertical pass, which is how Colombia exploited us last night. I'd much rather we ran a 4-2-3-1, with Demps or Wood up top crashing the box every five seconds. Combine that with an actual press (not a press after they got to mid-pitch, thank you), and the outcome may have been a bit different. Instead, the guys looked flat, dispirited, and beaten by about 5 minutes before the first goal. Isn't it the coach's job to ensure his players play with some modicum of life? Blame falls squarely on Jurgen for this latest zombie-walk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a pretty pathetic performance last night.  I expect I will be watching much more Euro than Copa as this will likely be over early.

I suppose a draw is the best outcome this evening when Costa Rica meets Paraguay?  Then we need Colombia to just pound the other two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Raskle said:

Guzan - He's no Tim Howard.. like, at all. He tried playing sweeper keeper last night and almost got burned so much, it was scary. His reactions were late, and outside of one terrific save, looked mostly like a spectator. I know Howard is getting up there in age, but is this really a better alternative?

Howard looked really bad in his last few appearances for the USMNT. Neither option is good right now considering Guzan was benched for Aston Villa and Howard was benched for Everton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have not seen enough of Nagbe to have an opinion but what I have seen of Pulisic gives me reason for excitement.

Don't get me wrong, the kid has talent. let's not over hype him though, he's played well in the 2 friendlies for the U.S, but yesterday night he really didn't do much against Colombia. Jordan Morris was overhyped too & look at him, he turned down a European offer to play in the MLS & he didn't make the squad for the Copa Centenario. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...