After 16 Games ...

I was focusing on the draft itself. And trying to evaluate trades that involved draft picks gets complicated.

I would say that gaining just three starters (measured by minutes played; the top eleven are the "starters") from seven drafts (1999-2005) is not a great result regardless of what other teams have done.

I wouldn't be surprised if other teams have done worse. Someone reminded me that Steve Sampson's housecleaning in LA has left them with few players that pre-date his arrival.

I mentioned NE because, it seems to me, that they define, for the moment, what doing well in the draft looks like.

If you want to get to the bottom line -- an overall measure of DC's ability to identify and develop players, you just have to look at the standings. Obviously more than a few other teams do it better than DC.

 

Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but in this statement, you're telling me that United has indeed drafted ....decently....over the last several years.

I think the true thrust of your argument is that the team has been fairly lousy at holding on or having patience with the younger players. Especially in the age group that we're looking at.

Hopefully, the team will have the patience to allow Van Sicklen, Merritt, Kuyk., Boz, et al to flourish and develop. But I think the environment is a little better for it (expanded rosters, and reserve matches) than in past years. It seems like United got caught up in a 'win now' mode, when it really didn't have the tools to do so.

 

But this is exactly what I mean. This way of looking at it excludes Nelsen, for example; he's definitely not among our top 11 in minutes played this season. So was drafting Nellie an example of DC using its draft picks poorly? After all, we drafted him, and he's not among our "starters" now. It seems pretty hard to make that case. If anything, we drafted too well, and that's why he's not here anymore. I really don't think you can consider the draft picks in isolation like this. You have to consider what we got for them -- what the player picked did while they *were* here, what we got for trading the player later or the pick beforehand, etc.

To illustrate in a reductio ad absurdem fashion, if we'd dealt away every single one of our draft picks, we wouldn't have *any* players now that we'd drafted. But that wouldn't signal a poor use of the draft to me if through those deals we'd picked up a stellar lineup that was winning the cup year after year.

It just seems more complicated to me.

 

Being a comparative newcomer I don't feel able to agree or disagree with this; but I just want to say that I personally can't stand Lisi or Ziadie (two past picks that were named) and am glad they aren't among our starters now.

 

Which would you prefer? an analysis based on 46 games (a season and a half) or on one year's playoffs (7-8 games)?

 

Something I was thinking about recently. For a couple of years, it was the role of NE to have a mediocre season, go on a late tear, run the table in the playoffs, and lose MLS cup.

I know that as DC fans, we expect success to look like the early DC teams, dominate the conference, smack the Crew/Mutts around in the playoffs and then win MLS cup.

I would say that our first season and this past season offer a different model of success. Play competent ball, acquire the right piece midseason (moreno, gomez), run the table in the latter part of the season and overachieve in the playoffs. This isn't to say that this is Nowak's plan, nor is it to say that this is the optimal way to win that 5th championship. But based on our team and recent history, it isn't an impossible outcome.

 

The schedule has not been kind so far. Aside from the fixture mess early in the season, here's how many times we've played teams (matches left in parentheses) -- teams are listed in order of total points.

CHI - 3 (1)
FCD - 1 (1)
NE - 3 (1)
SJ - 1 (1)
KC - 3 (1)
LA - 0 (2)
NJ - 1 (3)
COL - 0 (2)
CREW - 3 (1)
RSL - 0 (2)
CHIVAS -- 1 (1)

Of our remaining 16 matches, all but four are against teams that are no better than a game (three points) ahead of us. We play six matches against teams with worse records, three against the Metro, and three against KC/LA.

The second half schedule will as favorable as possible. No excuse not to improve upon the first half.

 

It's been somewhat of a "conventional wisdom" (especially by non-DCU fans) that DCU was a middle of the road team last year then "got hot" at the right time and this year proves we're a middle of the road team.

I want to challenge that assumption. B/c I think Nowak's approach is absolutely counter to the idea of "play competent ball". Nowak is all about "live for today--who knows what tomorrow brings?".

Instead, here is MY explanation for last year and this.

1. Nowak started out with his hands tied last year. Lots of factors: Convey was on the roster but would be gone soon, Hudson traded away picks (the Cerritos deal), salary increases that came due in 2004 meant we had to offer Reyes, Kovalenko and Petke to people and couldn't make major additions. And the team was really raw. Eskandarian, Stokes and Carroll were basically rookies. Despite that, the team played VERY well most of the season (midseason slump b/c of injuries, failure to get results which obviously affects confidence, loss of Convey, absence of Nellie).

2. Nowak plays a system that demands everyone works and truly requires a team effort. This isn't "lets kick the ball out to Marco and he'll hit someone" or "let Donovan get it and see if he can create some magic." It's about triangles and spacing and movement off of the ball and supporting each other. You can make a reasonable argument that Nowak's system may not be a good fit for MLS (with smaller rosters and lots of missing players). But it means that there are times where the players work hard and they look like crap out on the field--b/c they aren't playing the system or aren't working togother.

3. This year, the team has consistently worked hard. Consistently been in every game--either been the equal or better of play than everyone other than the FC Meatlover's match at RFK. But we've got a raw backline (not by design, but b/c plans A, B, C, D, E and F fell through so we had to wait for August and our AAAA to join us). And b/c of injuries to Eskandarian, we've had poor finishing.

Now I'm confident that we'll get finishing from someone. Maybe Eskandarian, maybe Quaranta, maybe even Adu if the first two guys suffer more injury problems. And if we don't develop a finisher, than we're going to struggle to make the playoffs this year--it will likely be between us and KC (who'd have thunk that at the beginning of the season?), maybe Metro. That's IF a finisher doesn't develop.

That has nothing to do with peaking at the right time or getting hot. That has to do with not having a finisher. Look at how Metro and Columbus both struggled earlier without having a primary goal scorer. Ditto for Colorado last year.

If Eskandarian had been healthy and had scored 6 goals to-date (not an impressive total but would turn out to be 11 or 12 for a season), we'd likely:
--have beaten Columbus in Columbus instead of losing 1-0 (3 extra points).
--tied NE in Gillette (the 0-1 loss) and tied them here at RFK in the 4-3 loss (2 extra points).
--beaten KC at RFK in the recent 0-1 loss (3 extra points)
--beaten Metro in NJ (2 extra points instead of the 0-0 draw).
Heck--all of those results assume just FIVE goals from Eskandarian. Or Quaranta. Or some other finisher.

All of those are games where we generated a lot of chances and didn't finish. Our season, our playoff standing, our record, our evaluation of how our team had played--all would look radically different with those results.

 

The world does not revolve on what if's. You people need to face the facts and stop thinking and praying that things will turn out like last year. This is this year, different team, yes, same players for the most part, but also new players. How many other professional teams win back to back championships? It's a very difficult thing to do.

 

Absolutely true. But my post isn't engaged in wishful thinking or praying or even expecting things to turn out like they did last year. My arguments are two-fold:

1. DCU last year and this year wasn't just an average team that got hot.
2. Our biggest problem (last year and again this year) has been the lack of a finisher. When we've gotten only semi-consistent finishing, this team (regardless of the personnel) wins games. I didn't say "when we score goals" b/c sometimes Gomez or Gros or Kovalenko pushes forward and we get the ball in the net. But when we have someone on the frontline who scores a goal every 3 games, someone who sees their role as being primarily a goal scorer--then this team wins.

Now, it remains to be seen whether Eskandarian gets healthy and in-form, Quaranta continues to progress or someone else (Adu) can step in. If not, we'll struggle to get the 4th spot in the playoffs. If we do get that consistent finishing than regardless of our playoff spot, we'll be the team everyone wants to avoid in the playoffs. It's really that simple.

 

JoeW - my post was not directed directly at you- I am just tired of hearing the same old SH!!!!!! from people (last year this and last year that) No matter who stays or who has left this team from last year - it is not the same team. Individuals themselves change over time - Some good and some bad.

DC United has got to put their best 11 on the field and play aggressive soccer - which up to this point I don't believe has been done.

 

Pretty good thread with lots of intelligent posts.

I didn't see anyone post our actual records for the past 2 seasons at midway point so here's what I figured:

2005
6W 4T 6L 22GF 20GA

2004
5W 5T 6L 22GF 23GA


Comparing Nowak's 2005 team with Hudson's 2004 team (full seasons):

2005
11W 9T 10L 43GF 42GA 3rd place in East, won MLS Cup

2004
10W 9T 11L 39GF 38GA 4th place, lost to Chicago in 1st Rd


Statistically speaking we're marginally better than we were at the midpoint last season. The biggest difference is that the Eastern Conference is considerably better this year. The strength of the conference is significant enough that we could improve our regular season point production from last season and still miss making it into the playoffs.

 

If you read the sports pages in Britain, particularly in the "better" papers, you will see more than a few accounts of soccer games that read like ballet reviews: Charlton played attractive soccer; Aston Villa and Middlesborough slogged through an unimaginative match and so on. Obvisously someone likes to read this stuff or the papers wouldn't publish it. But you know what, soccer is not like ballet. Style doesn't count for anything in soccer. In soccer, unlike ballet, they keep score and you can tell, at the end of every game, which was the better team. The sad truth is that DC was, and is, a mid-table side as they say in the olde country. And you can tell simply by looking at the MLS standings.

If you are saying that, if DC had a more personable version of Carlos Ruiz, for example, instead of Jamil Walker, (or even a less personable version) it would be a better, more successful team, who would argue with you? But that doesn't change the fact that the current team is quite rightly mired in the middle of the standings. DC has earned its place among the mediocre and no amount of spin will change that.

 

I think you're wrong. Style DOES count. Soccer IS ballet. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that we've won titles, but I think they're BECAUSE we've played with style and grace, not in spite of it. I wouldn't be as much of a fan if we'd ground our way to 4 titles with a grim, dour, negative style of play.

To be honest, I watch our team because I love watching our players and their different skills. I love seeing the kids grow up before our eyes. I almost (I said 'almost') don't care about the score.

If we play with style, the wins are inevitable, and they're generally beautiful when they come.