While we do lack a finisher, it is a little more than just finishing. We would be beating teams for xG if that were the case. We don’t create enough chances for the amount of possession, and quality possession in attacking third. As Rey says, a quality finisher should come with real ideas on movement and chance creation. Since we lack a 10 or a 9, I think we need a really good 9 1/2 like Cucho Hernandez who doesn’t wait on service.
I see your Junqua and raise you an Ngwenya! PS Hell, I'd even take a Will Bruin at this point instead of all these "Caraccios"
dude, i've explained it to you before. i even argued -- when we had crap defense -- that we should pursue at least the current mediocre defense. but i explained at the time an average defense gets you the red line. which is improvement relative to where we were but good for standing on the cliff edge every year. i argued for it at the time because we were a half decade in the wilderness and every bit helps. but you can't have a freaking clue if you're saying it's fine. we want to move up you need to have a tight defense where the weak offense only has to beat a zero. or we need to get back to last season or 2017 numbers. you can do it either way. diss me all you like but the crew can barely score this year and they are 6th on 13 GA. charlotte has fewer GF than us and is above red on 16 GA. cincy is top 2 conference on 16 GA with a few more GF. dude, you're a clown if you're pretending like 2-5 GA fewer doesn't matter. over a 34 game season that will get doubled. and every goal matters or do you not get the difference from the last game of whether the opposition manages 0, 1, or 2? you get to the whistle on 1 and we win. you ship the second and we tie. that's 2 points. and that's the potential meaning of EACH GA. 2 goals could mean 4 standing points fewer. f*cking clown argument. seriously arguing who cares if we give up fewer goals. serious bs. OR miami gives up 50% more than we do but scores a sh*tton. most of the west is good offenses with ok defenses. i've argued before what we need most is the defense because we get outspent and will not keep up that way. a better defense negates the opposing spend. we then just need the proverbial one goal. it got us finals in 12 and 13 and we just didn't have enough offense because we made dumb bets on ching and carr. and i am not saying do no offense. i might even use all 3 DP there. i made it pretty clear, the current defensive personnel isn't good enough and needs upgrades. that alone might do it.
i think you're also missing the lesson of 17 and 23 which was that decent offense plus ok defense, eventually we lose in the rounds since we can't hold good teams. are we trying to win league or are we trying to put on a show then lose? address the reason you get eliminated, cut the guys who cost you. GM 101. you want to beat miami or RSL on offense vs. offense you better bring in some stars and not the usual value players. the second coming of messi or arango. i don't trust we have the money or that pat can pick em good enough. i do trust if we sign enough good defenders we compete. and then pat needs to sign 1-2 good attackers to get it done.
i also think offense vs. defense suits the GM. we are carrying sebas for no good reason. sebas makes the same amount arango does. you ditch one for the other last winter/summer and that alone fixes many problems. we discussed "continuity" in preseason. i noted members of the team were old, we were back leaning on the unreliable sebas, and that last year was more then the sum of its parts, which often falls off year 2. plus people simply ignored it's not harmless to lose your 9, or assumed sebas would be like for like somehow. the quality of the team was allowed to erode, particularly on the offensive side. if your GA is moderate as opposed to great, you turn into even GD mediocrity. i still think the long term answer is be a defense in a conference of offenses. unless we intend on spending more. and bringing back sebas off the loan, like it was an answer as opposed to paralysis, was just criminal.
7 is essentially arguing if we got offense back we'd get where we were, except he's not acknowledging that wasn't 1st place -- and might not ever be a championship strategy. he and rey are then also ignoring that a MF consisting of a very old HH and journeymen 6s might not be long for its success. it didn't work 22. it's ok in 24. we didn't sign some kid and vault to the front a la elis. we got a career year from an old fart who proceeded to hurt himself and have low output again this year. it's to at least some extent like the 2017 defense that was already falling apart end of the year when delagarza hurt himself. it was sufficiently propped up for a single run at playoffs. it was exposed by seattle. and it had no window beyond that. this was not a plan, it's a patch. you are stuck back with last year's confetti in your eyes. brush it off and see where we rank right now. is that working? can we be honest what 23 was? we kept a lot of the same players and hired a new coach who got better results. i would then not assume i am sitting on a goldmine. as i said in the offseason, give or take bassi a lot of it was scheme. common sense is then better staff up the scheme so it's less of a luck factor. i feel like i have been listening to this, sell out on offense rubbish, since roughly 2015, with all that implies if you know the history. that if we just bought better attackers we'd be in for it. which to me is a spending critique posing as a personnel strategy.