Thought experiment: if only one of Heaps or Burns is sacked, which would do more to correct the course of this team? To me, it's Burns.
I would go with Heaps. A good/great coach would make something of the team he is given. Where a top GM could get the players, but if the coach doesn't use them correctly; you are in the same boat as we are now.
To me, this is a no-win choice. Whoever (singular or plural) selected Heaps and Burns for their roles is likely to replace them with someone similar. It's Captain Kirk's Kobayashi Maru (I've wanted to work that reference in for three years!).
This is a grey area. Sure, his "intention" is to win MLS Cup every year, but is he willing to do what it takes to make the odds of that as favorable as possible? To me, the answer has always been "no." There were several times over the years where one key addition could have made the difference, but we stood pat, keeping the status quo. If his "intention" was to do everything possible to get to that next level, he would have done something. Draft picks and waiver-wire pickups do not build championship teams, if that's all you use. As for the game and season as a whole, when I saw Barnes in place of Tyranny, I knew we were done. That is the second time Heaps has benched him in an important do-or-die game. Unless he's hurt, there is no reason to make that change. And of course Chicago scored in the 9th minute (with Barnes at fault) and they continued to threaten, and looked like the better team overall. When we all of a sudden came to life in Sept., some people were pointing to our schedule--KC at home, Columbus and Chicago away and Montreal at home--as a pretty good shot at making the playoffs. But when you only win 2 away games all year and can't beat the two worst teams in the league, you don't deserve to even be mentioned in the same sentence as "playoffs." To answer the Burns/Heaps choice, firing Burns would be a change in culture, but it won't do any good unless his replacement is someone competent who will change things. If it's Burns II, why bother? Heaps has shown time and time again that he can't make the necessary personnel decisions. The roster was better than their results. And while it may seem shocking, Burns actually did a few good things, notably going out and getting Koffie immediately after Kouassi went down with a serious injury. And getting Kamara was a bold deal, one that should have produced better results (that's largely on Heaps), and the fact that he didn't give up any player assets to get him should count for something. This season is more Heaps' fault than Burns.
Hey wait we are still in the playoff hunt why are you so glum?? Just need to win, have Philly lose AND make up a 12 goal difference differential. What's the problem? Once again we had moments, but not enough of them. And I pick the get rid of Burns and let the new GM pick his coach.
My preference would be to fire them both and use the $$ bring in someone who can actually perform both roles. Let the cook shop for the groceries to paraphrase the Tuna.
http://www.espnfc.us/major-league-s...linch-playoff-places-dallas-leads-shield-race Are the Revolution the most disappointing team in MLS this season? Probably not, but only because preseason darling Vancouver and defending Eastern Conference champion Columbus Crew SC woefully underachieved as well. The Revs were effectively eliminated from the playoffs thanks to a 2-1 loss in Bridgeview to the last-place Chicago Fire. The only thing that can save the season, and maybe Jay Heaps' job, is a win next week combined with a Philadelphia Union loss, while overcoming a 12-goal goal differential in the process. Ouch.
Not to continue beating a dead horse, but in what universe, when you need a goal, does a straight up swap of a DMid for an AMid make sense. Did anyone understand the Koffee for Rowe sub? Maybe Jay was getting Gershon ready for the playoff run?
I think heaps wanted to let Caldwell push forward because he's really sacrificed his offense to play a safe, defensive role for the team this year. From a tactical standpoint, I also think someone told Heaps they needed to push more players forward, and for that he was better off with a DMid with more range than Caldwell.
Kudos for the inference that Heaps is not thinking for himself! I applaud your subtlety, good sir. Doubly if it was a subconscious choice of words.
The score was tied when Koffee entered - I thought Heaps was getting cold feet and was trying to not lose.
I thought Rowe had a poor game. I'm not convinced he's fully fit since his hospital stay. Or maybe he just happened to have a clunker.
This is not, repeat not, an attempt to excuse the Rev performance, but can I request a little abuse for that aging, arthritic pederast Baldy Toledo?
How's this for a try: Toledo was almost as bad as we were. I believe this is the exact opposite of damning him with false praise. Both red's he missed were pretty much textbook, and that was about the most extended definition of "goal scoring opportunity" I think I've ever seen. As opposed to many of his previous crappings of the bed, he at least sucked pretty much equally in both directions (I still think he has a voodoo doll of Shalrie that he likes to stick pins in).
Apropos of nothing, our starting right back has two assists across four years of play. Meanwhile, Harrison Afful has three goals and three assists this year alone.
Andrew Farrell needs to cross the ball 100 times every day with each foot for every day of this offseason. A player defending Farrell simply has to show him outside. Farrell can be dangerous on the overlap when he cuts inside, then jukes back to the right to get the ball on his right foot for a shot from around the corner of the PK box. If he's not allowed to do that, then his options are to put in a bad cross from the endline (which he can get to every time due to his speed, he just can't do anything once he gets there) or play it square.
OK, I'm sold. First order of business is canning Heaps. He's been head coach, what 4-5 years? This is as good as he gets, and it's not good enough.
I don't think it's a coincidence that the Revs scoring woes with Kamara in the lineup coincided with Farrell's move back to RB. Watson and even Woodberry are better at providing service from the right. I know it's a small sample size, but the attack looked really good early on when Kamara first joined the team against Chicago (a very bad team) and Dallas (a very good team). It was the dumpster fire of a defensive performance against Dallas that eventually had Heaps move Farrell back to RB against Seattle (a game where the Revs looked listless for most of it but got 3 points thanks to a somewhat out of nowhere Femi goal). And the summer slump and scoring drought came only a couple of games later. And despite Farrell moving to RB to "shore up" the defense, the defense didn't really improve at all. When you have two big strikers like Kamara (who is deadly in the air, as seen last year) and Agudelo, but you can only provide them good service on one side of the field with pretty much zero threat on the other side, it's not surprising that the offense struggled to find consistency and at times was predictable to defend against.