Coach Dave Career Deathwatch Thread: Part Four - THE FINAL CHAPTER

True, but I'm talking about the Sarachan era, not the Bradley years.

Thank you for moving the goal posts from "demands the double every year" to "ranks the MLS Cup over the USOC". Could you at least try to be consistent so we can have a worthwhile conversation?

Until September, the Fire were foundering.

Only a moron has no Plan B in case something happens with the current coach (or players). If Guppy is not actively tracking other coaches, he should be tarred, feathered and run out of town.

For the umpteenth time, my beef with Dave isn't that he 'totally sucks'. My beef is that I can't see where he adds an above average amount of value to our team.

I think he's an excellent player selector who builds a competitive roster that he then proceeds to manage in a mediocre (NOT a terrible) manner. As such, we are too inherently limited in the amount of success we can reasonably hope for. Under Dave, we will range from average to above-average but never reach the hight of excellence. I'd prefer to see us be consistently above average to excellent with the occasional necessary sucky rebuilding years during times of generational player change. In other words, I'd like to see us be DCU (minus the Rongen fiasco, of course).

Both our cups have been the USOC which not all MLS teams take as seriously as I'd like them to. I suspect that this is changing, however, as teams are getting wiser to the fact that they can reap the benefits of a "championship" by playing only four good games rather than the 30+ games needed to win either the Supporters Shield or the MLS Cup. I suppose if I bought your argument, I'd only buy tickets to USOC games and ignore the MLS season.

Uhm... You do know what happenend in '04. Right?

Dear Chicago1871,

Only the good die young.

Love ya,

Billy Joel

Take out the month of September and how does our record look? Our fantastic (really, it WAS fantastic. We played like I'd love to see the Fire play on as consistent basis and Dave gets credit for that) USOC run took place in right in that great time from late Aug to late Sept. We looked very good for a whole month.

Also, that play-off series.. . We blew a 2 goal lead to another team that wants to score first and bunker. We reverted to the worst aspects of the beginning of our season and that's mainly Dave's fault.

You didn't answer my question.

And we certainly were NOT ready for many of our opponents this year. We certainly struggled against teams that like to pressure our defenders. Let me put it this way with an example of when we WERE prepared. The 3-0 destruction of DCU in particular was our best played game of the season. The reason we beat DCU so often is because we had a strategy going into the games that largely eliminated their desire to work attacks through Gomez and force them to play the game on the wings where we had our strength in Mapp and/or Jaqua and Guerrero. Armas and/or Pause and Gutierrez were obviously prepped to play Gomez and Adu because they were able to completely disrupt their attempts at possession and passing.

So nice, he said it twice!

Again, though, you didn't answer the question.

While I appreciate the candor and willingness to admit where Dave is weak, this does not answer the question.

It can be part of #2, but in #2 I was thinking more of an ability to impart to his team the strategy he created and get them to implement it tactically before the game. This is as opposed to #3 which deals with tactical adjustments and the like once the game has started.

Again, I appreciate the candor but in all these questions I'm looking for specific things that you see where Dave adds an above average amount of value. I'm looking for actual positives, not a negative like "We could do worse!". What specifically separates Dave Sarachan from the pack of coaches out there and makes him specifically worth keeping as opposed to any other possibility? Saying "Well, he's not the worst" isn't exactly what I'd call a ringing endoresment.

 

I want to clarify this statement that I made in my previous post because I'm sure it will be controversial given our record in August. In all competitions excluding the exhibition game against Club America, the Fire's record until August 12 was 5-8-7. To me, that is floundering. At best it's hardly impressive even taking the road trip during April and May into account.

Then things began to change but few of those changes were under Dave's control:

First, we got to play (twice in a row) the unimpressive Wizards who were conveniently going through the chaos of a coaching change.

Second, we got to play the Revs twice and won both games. "AHA!", you say, "The Revs were MLS Finalists and so that proves we were awesome and Dave's a genius." Not so fast. Back in mid-August, both Dempsey and Twellman were in open revolt against the league and were mailing in performances, causing their two-month winless streak that lasted from early July until the Revs got the perfect slumpbuster in Columbus on 8/27.

Third, there followed the hard-fought razor's-edge-close game against the mighty Rapids who made us struggle by pressuring our line and thus almost totally disrupting our offense.

Finally, our weaknesses were further exposed when we needed a late-game PK to get a draw with eventual champs Houston in what is almost certainly Thornton's last game in a Fire jersey. Houston, btw, was in the middle of an eventual 4-game winless streak when we drew them.

Despite what on paper looks like a great August, it wasn't until after the Houston game that the Fire really began to play well. There were hints of the rebirth evident in mid- to late August, but the real catalyst for our excellence in September was the change from Thornton to Pickens at GK. And that move was all but forced onto Dave after a series of performances by Zach that were so subpar that even a reasonably bright 8 year old would have made the switch. So yes, Dave gets a share of the credit for September but only his proper share and not all the credit.

 

In sum, you are -- and have been -- saying that dave is average and we deserved above average.

I don't think I disagree on either count, except that when I look at the other 11 coaches in the league, I would have dave a little higher up the food chain than simply averagel.

Still, the one thing that your analysis doesn't anticipate is any changes or improvements in dave as a coach from experience.

If you don't see it, or think the possibility is there, then that is fine. I did see a significant improvement in dave's game management throughout the season to the point where I didn't really have any problems with lineups and substitutions over the last month or two.

Now, we will NEVER get people to agree on these things, but at least we were not seeing the mistakes that we saw on opening day in Dallas and some of the subsequent road games to open the season.

As kind of a final word on this issue (from me ) I think dave is a decent coach who has had some success with the Fire. I don't think he has had the talent that Bob had -- not even close. I think he can get better with continuing experience (remember, this was his first pro head coaching gig). I don't have faith in the current FO to replace him with someone substantially better, and I do believe that it could get substantially worse.

We won the USOC. We put ourselves in solid playoff position with a few weeks to spare in the season. We avoided the meltdown that the other teams have had after beginning the season on the road for a long trip as a new stadium is finished. We were in a position to advance in the crap shoot against NE, and would have then been in the mix (from what we saw) to win it all.

As I asked in an earlier post, does anyone really believe that our roster is far superior to those in the final four? I don't. We have a good set of players, and I am encouraged by Peter's post that we will have some real room to maneuver under the cap for the first time in a long time.

Given all of that, I am on board with dave for another year. If we do beef up the lineup and we don't have more success, then it will be time to ask if he has gone as far as he can go with this team.

 

Bradley never missed the playoffs, went 1/2 in MLS Cups and 2/2 in US Open Cups. The time under Bradley was damn good. Under Sarachan the Fire have missed the playoffs once, won the Supporters Shield once, gone 0/1 in MLS Cups and 2/3 in Open Cups. The time under Sarachan has been pretty good. Incidentally, both had one losing season.

The goalposts haven't budged. Also don't put something in quotes that I didn't say verbatim.

Remind me when the playoffs start again.

Neither of us can speak to whether or not Guppy has a backup. Considering how most mid season firings go, Hamlett would likely be the candidate to take over.

What, to you, is above average value?

Of course, minus the Rongen fiasco; but guess what, **** like that happens. It has not, however, happened to the Fire. One season since the team's inception have they missed the playoffs. I believe the only team that can claim that is the Galaxy. You can't nitpick and take the good without the bad, the best thing the Fire have going is that their bad is better than most.

The USOC is part of the treble for the league and therefor is important. If other teams choose not to take it seriously, that is their prerogative. I have never said the USOC is more or even equally important than the MLS Cup. Personally I think it is the second of the three titles a team can walk away from the season with - below the MLS Cup and above the Supporters Shield (unless the organization of the season changes and the SS means more).

The Fire went to MLS Cup, won the Supporters Shield and the US Open Cup. One could lament not winning MLS Cup, but the Fire got outplayed, that's it. 2003 was arguably the Fire's best season in their history. Tell me, what could possibly be bitched about after that season?

I'll take out September if you take out July.

No. See my post from this thread following that loss. The playoff loss was almost entirely on the shoulders of the players, not Dave. The guys on the field lost that series, not Sarachan.

I find it hard to believe that the only team Dave can strategically handle is the best team in the league. So basically you think that Dave can do no right and the players can do no wrong? That is not how things work, and it is definitely not how the Fire operates.

What else did you want me to say? "He is below average in this area." I'm pretty sure they was conveyed clearly.

I'm not going to give a ringing endorsement because I don't think Sarachan deserves one. What it comes down to is that I'm not necessarily against sacking Sarachan, but not just for the sake of sacking him. If Guppy has a coach that comes with considerable experience and a desire to take Chicago to higher heights lined up, then I'm all for it. Dave is a safe bet right now to field a competitive team in 2007. To fire him with no safety net would be downright stupid at this point in time. He's proven he can succeed, if not dominate, in MLS; and frankly I'm not ready to forgo a Dave Sarachan era for a Thomas Rongen era.

 

I'd say you're defining the average downwards. Just because some other guys suck doesn't mean Dave is all that plus tax. Given the quality of our rosters (for which Dave gets much of the credit!), I'd say that, '03 excepted, we have slightly underperformed in our general level of play.

Now, Chicago1871 would likely argue "Yeah, but we did'nt underperform nearly as much as LA or NE did this year" and there is truth to that. At the same time, such an argument just feeds into my sense of "Hooray, we don't suck!" dimished expectations from some -but not all- fans.

I'm trying to judge Dave on a combination of both absolute and relative performance and I think he has so far worked his way up to "average" overall as a coach.

Fair enough although saying "over the last month or so" is really damning with faint praise, don't you think?

Well, it's not like Dave can repeat the Armarsch debacle of '05. Dave still has a disturbing tendency to stick with things that patently aren't working until change is forced on him.

So far, so good although this really just spreads the blame to the FO for not doing their job.

See my previous post. It's a shame we regressed immediately after winning the USOC. I agree that the Revs would probably have been our biggest hurdle but that's more because DCU was a shell of its April-thru-July self than anything else.

I think it is superior to everyone's but NE's, Houston's and possibly LA's. I think we had a better roster than DCU simply because I think Dave put together a roster with beating DCU specifically in mind.

Well, his USOC win has bought him a few more years at least with Guppy and the portion of the fanbase that agrees with Chicago1871. As always, I want us to do the double next year as Dave outcoaches the entire planet and leads us to glory. I'm just not betting my next year's salary on that happening. If Nowak can avoid another megachoke and if Arena can actually improve the Dead Bulls, we might be back where we were this year as far as the MLS season goes. I'm assuming here that the Revs are decimated next year by the losses of Dempsey, Joseph and Twellman.

And we're not due to win another USOC until 2008 at least.

 

Why does Sir Dave continue to make poor decisions?

I've given Sir Dave the Short criticism when I felt it was warranted, and I've praised him when I felt it was warranted. Having said this, I WANT to be able to praise the coach and the team. I WANT to have a successful team. I WANT to be able to cheer my team on.

But then, every time I am ready to praise him, he goes out and makes [IMO] a poor decision. Sometimes this comes in a match, where he fails to make the right tactical choice or respond to what the other team is doing or his substitutions, and sometimes its outside the confines of a match.

The latest example:

Exposing a player like Calen Carr instead of Logan Pause. I can't find a logical reason for him making this decision. Carr was neither expensive nor old nor logjammed @ his position. Carr is a player with great upside potential. Pause is DECIDEDLY a dime-a-dozen player in MLS with limited upside at this point.

Even IF Pause was taken off the team, there are still ~20 or so players like him in MLS, and perhaps another 5 or so more available in the draft. Many of these players would come at smaller price tags and are younger than Pause.


Again, a poor decision made by a coach that I WANT to cheer, but he keeps making it hard for me to do. [And there are other examples of poor decisions with the roster, including soon-to-be FCT player Will Johnson or the Great Scott Buete, etc...]

 

But only one missed the play-offs entirely despite having arguably the best roster in the league at the time.

Yes you did but if you don't want to admit it, whatever.

Remind me what trophy you get for just making the play-offs again.

I didn't say that Guppy has no plan. I'm saying that your argument that the FO has no need to have a Plan B as long as the team is decently competitive is silly.

Results are a part of it. Also part of it are:

1) Our rosters consistently contain players who are better than those of the league average. Dave has done this and I give him full credit here.

2) The team consistently enters games with a strategy for beating the other team that removes the opposition's strengths and lets us use our strengths to maximum advantage.

3) The team is consistently prepared to execute the strategy as evidenced by outplaying the other team.

Digression: Success in #2 and #3 are especially crucial in winning trophies because more often than not (But not always. There is such a thing as luck and outside factors can influence any one game.) the team that plays better wins.

4) In-game tactical management, including subs, usually improve our play during games as the proper adjustments are made. Late-game collapses are a sign that this is not being done successfully.

5) The team's motivation is beyond question. Even when they don't win, you always walk away believing they fought the good fight against an opponent who was just better on that particular day.

6) Younger players develop faster than you'd expect under other coaches.

Remind me who was coach that year we went from best to worst.

You also can't cherrypick the best and ignore the rest. It also helps to be able to put results (either good or bad) into context so that you say WHY something happened and accurately assign either the credit or the blame.

I think the three elements of the season have the following ranking regarding usefulness in determining which team is really "the best" in a given season:

1) The Suporters Shield
2) MLS Cup
3) USOC

These aren't always infallible if you can't provide context but that's the way it usually shakes out.

I meant '04 and changed it in my original post. My bad.

Actually, I tried to put September into context in my clarification post.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree about this as it is tangential to our discussion.

Because we're the only team that built a roster with that goal first in mind.

I hate to say this, but that straw man is so stupid it belongs in the Politics forum. Tsk tsk.

I was looking for the reasons you think Sarachan should stay beyond "Well, we could do worse". Given the paragraph below, it seems like you don't have any.

As with Dave Dir in Dallas, there comes a point where you have to take a chance and try to go from "slightly above average" to "excellent". Obviously, this is always a calculated risk but that's why you hopefully have a competent GM who can execute the idea.

I think we've seen pretty much what we're going to see out of Dave. I also think, as with even the best of coaches eventually, it would be in Dave's best interests to get a change of scenery. If you don't trust the FO to successfully take us to the next level, I can understand that. Again, though, that's merely shifting the blame to the FO, not disagreeing that we probably need a change. At this point, given your last paragraph, it sounds like we're more in agreement than not about Dave himself. It's just a matter of "Is Guppy capable of improving the team?". Frankly, I share your doubts. The trouble is that I don't see us getting a better GM anytime soon so I guess I just have to get used to us being sort of good but not great for the foreseeable future. What a sad thought.

And with that, I have things that need doing today so I'm out until Sunday. Thank you for the discussion. Even if we disagree on how the team should progress, we're still both Fire-til-we-die.

 

Re: Why does Sir Dave continue to make poor decisions?

Rumor has it Johnson was interested in Jaqua from the beginning and hopes to use him as trade bait. That can obviously backfire, but right now it looks like a pretty slick move by the Fire. 20/20 vision taken into account of course.

 

I was wondering if there was ever going to come a time where I would agree with you about something.

 

I just can't see how people consistently defend Dave.

He took a team built for a dynastic run and has turned it into a franchise where the fans are content simply making the playoffs.

Sure, players were bound to go from that 2003 team, but to attribute the success to Dave that season when he literally walked into one of the most talented teams in MLS history and then to not hold him accountable for the fact that the rebuilding has resulted in a mediocre product is ridiculous.

Our allocations/discoveries have been dubious with a one dimensional Herron leading the way with Caballero, Thiago, Reiter, and Bedrossian either gone or hopefully soon out the door.

Our development of domestic players has been similarly mediocre as we've seen young players like Gray, Stewart, Rolfe, Pause, Segares, Curtin, Mapp and Jaqua plateau or regress after their rookie seasons.

We've gone from a franchise who measured success by births in MLS Cups under Bradley to a franchise that measures success by playoff births. We haven't had a sniff of the supporter's shield since '03 and really haven't had a sniff of MLS Cup either.

But if you're happy taking home what has become a glorified MLS Reserve Cup in recent years on a bi-annual basis, I suppose Sarachan is the man for the Fire.

 

Your argument is based on a false premise.

1) The 2003 team was NOT a team ready for a dynasty. The 2002 team eeked into the playoffs and was knocked out in the first round.

2) That 2002 team was more than a million dollars over budget heading into 2003 necessitating the move of Piotr, Hristo, Dema and Josh. I would venture to guess that no team in League history has ever lost that amount of talent in one offseason.

3) MLS budgets and player acquisition restrictions prevent any team from creating a true dynasty. Early DC came the closest, mainly because they were one of the few teams that worked the rules well early on.

The turnaround of the Fire's 2002 (eam has always been under appreciated IMHO.

peter

 

1. It's not necessarily a matter of defending dave as it is an attempt to get people to realize that we are not ready to knock off the European Champions League winner the minute we jettison a coach.

2. See PW's post. For those with a short memory, let me remind you of all of the posts surrounding Bob's departure when people were discussing how he was conveniently running away from a tough situation. We needed to dump serious salary. Most sane people were convinced that we were in for a major rebuilding project in 2003.

3. See PW's post again. That 2003 team played very well and without players brought in by dave (see Damani Ralph) we would have been nowhere near that level. Add in the continuing hassle of playing in Naperville, and it was an amazing year. If you are going to dish out blame, you need to assign credit where due, or you are simply not credible.

4. Reiter is the only one on the list I would agree with. It's not fair to look at who we have signed in comaprison to the 1998-2000 teams. You have to look around the rest of the league NOW and compare. What other team has smoked us in signings? And keep in mind that we have still had cap issues until recently. You are already writing of Bedrossian? Perhaps he won't be around, but I saw him play all of 20 minutes of effective if unspectacular soccer. Not sure what you saw in that 20 minutes to call him a bust.

5. Umm, there have been a few injuries in there you know. In addition, the Fire are not exactly responsible for the term "sophomore slump." Many young players make a splash initially around the world, only to settle into their careers after other teams figure out their strengths and weaknesses. Throw in the physical strain of being a pro and there is often a dip. Our line up still has some of the better young players moving through it regularly.

6. Come on now. If MLS Cup "births" are the measure of success, then the score between bob and dave is 2-1 and dave was an eyelash (or an offside flag) last year from evening the score. Similarly, we have missed the playoffs once with dave and were an eyelash from elimination under bob in 2002. I also think that our hardest chore in getting there this year was getting past NE. The key in the analysis is that 3 or the 4 years under dave, we have been good enough to win, we have been in a position to get there and se didn't close the deal. Sure, dave needs to accept that and get us over the hump, but enough with the mediocrity talk.

7. Yes, I am happy that we won the USOC and I get tired of people belittling it as if it doesn't mean anything. No, I am not content with that and I recognize that we need a little more to get to the promised land.

I don't fully agree with Joe (Ratdog) but at least he discusses the areas where the coach has a direct effect. Your post does little to advance the discussion. The other thing people leave out of the discussion this year is the difficulty presented by the new stadium schedule. I may be wrong on this, but I don't think any other team touches us in terms of success in that first year in a new stadium with a lengthy road trip to start and a congested schedule in the middle.

We rode it out quite nicely and then were in a position to win at the end.

 

The 2001-02 Miami Fusion offseason?

 

...and lived to tell about it.

 

One of the great things that happened from 2002-2003 is the movement of players. We were 4 for 4. Nowak, retired to the FO in charge of talent aquisition, Stoichkov, about to retire. Dema and Wolfe, what have they done since?

 

A few points: Piotr could've played at least another year...we just couldn't afford him and he was becoming more prone to injury. In 2005, Dema told me that during DC's training sessions, Jaime was usually their best player....and Piotr was their 2nd best!

Piotr did work in the front office in 2003, but he wasn't "in charge of talent acquisition.". Dave, his assistants and yours truly handled the player acquisition end. Piotr was more of a special assistant and advisor.

Hristo actually played two more years, but you're right, he should've retired.

Dema and Josh have done ok, but certainly not to the levels that were expected at the time. We got four years of Nate for Josh and Justin for Dema. That worked out ok.

 

I spoke with Piotr at Naperville about some players that I thought would be worth a look, he gave me his card, I don't think the card read, 'special assistant and advisor', but I might be wrong. The card is packed away with an S-load of other Fire memorabilia. I had Armas sign the back of the card.

 

It's kind of funny that much of the conversatin about dave includes either Peter Nowak or Bob Bradley:

http://usasoccer.blogspot.com/2006/12/top-ten-mls-coaches.html

Top Ten MLS Coaches Ranked by PPG

(minimum 50 games, shootouts counted as draws)

1 Arena, Bruce 1.80
2 Yallop, Frank 1.70
3 Zambrano, Octavio 1.67
4 Schmid, Sigi 1.62
5 Nowak, Peter 1.60
6 Sarachan, Dave 1.59
7 Bradley, Bob 1.58
8 Kinnear, Dominic 1.56
9 Hudson, Ray 1.49
10 Nicol, Steve 1.48



As much as I disliked him, I always wondered why Octavio Zambrano didn't get another opportunity.

 

Hristo missed 12 games and only started 3, Nowak missed 12, and Wolff missed 14, so the team was already used to playing without much of that talent.

Personally, I appreciated the turnaround for what it was - removing aging/frequently injured players from the roster allowed a first 11 to consistently play together. That is, the loss of Nowak, Stoitchkov, and Wolff was actually a boon for Dave, rather than something he had to overcome.

Yes, the 2002 and the 2003 Fire teams could have been even better if any or all of these players could have started 80% of the season, but they didn't in 2002, which blunts the claims of a "loss" for 2003.

edit - not to mention the fact that outside of Ralph, every consistent starter on that 2003 squad, even with the "losses" mentioned, was still from the Bradley era.

 

In hindsight, of course you are right, but I don't remember people clamoring for Nowak and Wolff to be cut loose. In fact, I remember people (including myself) wringing their hands over the loss of these two in particular.

If you can show me evidence that anyone was saying that "now that we are freed up from having Wolff and Nowak on the roster, we should shoot right back to the top of the conference," I would be shocked.

Second, the loss of a few key players for roughly a third of the season is more the norm than the exception. This year, Rolfe missed 11 games and Sanneh 13. In addition Barrett played very little, in large part because of nagging injuries.

I'm not sure why people have such a hard time giving dave credit for the job he did in 2003. Even if you want him run out of town now, that doesn'tt take away from the fact that we went from our second worst year to one of our best seasons in a transition year.

 

I'm not really in the mood to argue this point with people who discount it but Beasley and Bocanegra both took their game to MLS superstar level in 2003 which was more a result of maturity then coaching AND to discount the effect of Chris Armas's injury in 2002 and the struggles that year is ridiculous.

His return in 2003 was more important than any of the outbound players at the end of that season.

 

And Sigi Schmidt is ranked above all three. So much for that measure...

 

Nowak, yes. Wolff, not so much. By the time he was traded there was a substantial amount of fans who were tired of Josh's injuries and thought he never lived up to his potential. Wolff is one of those guys who wows you with a spectacular or well-timed goal and then lives off that for the next two years while doing little else. If you look at the league scoring leaders since 1998, Razov shows up almost every year. Wolff makes it only twice in 2004 (6th place) and 2005 (11th place).

For much the same reason nobody thinks Rongen is a genius for winning MLS Cup 1999. Dave took Bradley's team plus Damani and didn't screw it up. OK, that's better than taking Bradley's team plus Damani and screwing it up, but there you are.

Nobody seems to remember the injury bug that really derailed our 2002 team. I cringe when I look at some of the players we were forced to start in those days. Amos Magee started 3 games, one fewer than Armas. Billy Sleeth started 7. Billy Freakin Walsh started 9 games! We resurrected Johnny Torres from the A-League to play two games for us. All of these are regular season games, not the USOC or exhibitions. And despite week after week of cobbled-together rosters, we still made the play-offs. When Dave has to call up A-Leaguers and still makes the play-offs, then maybe I'll think of putting him in the same category as Bradley.

 

I agree with your statement(s) regarding Wolff's status with the fans in late 2002.

 

...or inbound coaches, for that matter.