Hey, seems like a dumb question, but really, compared to other sports, especially the Big 3 (football, baseball, and basketball) where decisions made by coaches can affect the game profoundly (see Grady Little, game 7 ALCS, a move that got him fired today) soccer coaches don't and can't do as much to affect the outcome of games once the kickoff has taken place. It seems that quantifying the value of a coach in soccer is a little more difficult. They don't make any moves on the field, other than late substitutions, so really, the only tool to evaluate them with is how they line their guys up each game, after that, it's really the players on the field doing the work. Certainly, we recognize good coaches based on their results (and maybe that's how they really should be evaluated, Hanki's aren't good). Examples that come to mind, guys that have consistently succeeded in MLS would be Bruce Arena (with DC United) and Bob Bradley. Those guys get the job done. Heck, just thinking about how Arena lined up the US Nats against Mexico. He didn't necessarily put the strongest team on paper on the field, but looked at how we best matched up against Mexico. How else did Josh Wolff get on the field, (made the assist on McBride's goal, really the key play that allowed the US to sit back and counterattack the rest of the game)? So the question becomes (and I'm kind of piggy backing on the IS IT TIME TO GET RID OF HANKI? THREAD) how much responsibility is on the players and how much is on the coach? Given the Rapids streaky play this year, why? Why 6 losses to start the season? Why win 9 out of 10 in a streak during the regular season? Why end dubiously with no wins in the last 6 games? Who gets the blame, or maybe a better question, what percentage of the blame lies with the coach and with the players? Fire away, I'm not sure there are any right or wrong answers, just compelling arguments.