We probably should have been a bit more clear on our requirements for the team this season. I don't recall the typical "XXXX has to be done for this season to be considered successful". Maybe it did happen and I am just getting old-forgetful. All of the last minute new player additions and a certain mustache sort of took focus away. As such, here is my slightly late expectation on the season: Wildly Successful Season: Deep playoff run/MLS cup Strong contention for Supporters Shield (or winning it outright) Crushing FSL for the RMC. They cry tears of great embarrassment Win or compete for non-MLS league title Frisbee dogs and Mini-donuts return Successful Season: Make the playoffs Win RMC Win some non-MLS league games Frisbee dogs return Non-disastrous Season: Be in contention for playoff spot Make SLC sweat about losing the RMC Win a non-MLS league game Mini-donuts return Disastrous Season: Not be in contention for playoff spot Not compete for the RMC Be considered the "easy game" for those teams in playoff contention (sort of like how the GAL's played a 'B' team against us thinking they could easily win) Lose the first non-MLS game to a non-MLS team So, for now we are closer to Disastrous Season than we are to Successful Season. It is early, so I am absolutely not throwing in the towel. If the team can improve and integrate the new players, we have a shot at a Successful Season. We can't have another Disastrous Season and have those in leadership expect to remain (blame to be placed at the end of the season). (Note that this criteria is pretty much how I would view all seasons) rod.
Problem I have with canning PM is you still, most likely, have this clown of a FO that would be choosing his replacement with a budget coming down from Kroenke. It is litterally a no win situation for us as fans.
I hope that with the new strikers, the team can actually put the ball in the net..plain and simple. As for PM keeping his job, if this goal scoring funk doesn't end soon, his season will be done by All-Star game with Lopez as the replacement.
And Husky. (Though I do wonder if the goal hadn't been scored, would Ugo have been called for a PK on his tackle of Kandji? Probably not given what Toledo was allowing that night.) EDIT: Just re-watched it, it wasn't as bad a tackle as I remembered. More bad luck than anything. a PK would be extremely unjust.
Nah, it's appropriate that it came at the expense of the Burn? What's our post season record against Dallas again?
I don't think that the ball was on target, and John flipped it up near post to where Hartman couldn't get it. Casey was running to the back post, but the cross didn't look sharp enough to get to him.
It's appropriate because FCD continuously finds new and inventive ways to lose to the Rapids in the playoffs: 1997: Get swept in best-of-three series 2002: Lose in sudden death tiebreaker minigame 2005: FCD goes up a man in the second leg at home, gets the go-ahead goal early in extra time, concedes a minute later, misses a penalty late in extra time, loses in penalties 2006: FCD wins the first leg 2-1 in Denver, goes up 3-1 on aggregate in the first half of the second leg in Dallas, concedes two goals to send it to extra time, scores early in extra time to take the lead, concedes tying goal to Clint ********ing Mathis to send it to penalties, loses in penalties 2010: Lose on an own goal in extra time And every single time, the Burn/FCD was the higher seed.
I was there for 1997. Still have that Henderson volley almost at the death seared into my brain. Head to 0:58
Dick’s Sporting Goods Park “needs an exorcism” (Pablo Mastroeni after Pittinari’s stoppage time header vs. Quakes didn't go in). Maybe it's time to start a Memorable Quotes thread ...
Exorcise: to free (a person, place, etc.) of evil spirits or malignant influences. Though I think Hanlon's Razor rules out the evil, I wonder if KSE could be considered a malignant influence. I'm choosing to believe that this is Pablo's way of speaking out against the ownership of the club.
Funny, I just shared Hanlon's razor with a few people earlier this week. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Occam's razor (paraphrased) says when there are multiple explanations the simplest one is the one you should go with. Hanlon's is apparently a more modern corollary to it. So really no malice or stupidity -- just old school, first reference 1852 v 1990 for Hanlon's. "The adage was popularized in this form and under this name by the Jargon File, a glossary of computer programmer slang.[1][2] In 1990, it appeared in the Jargon File described as a "'murphyism' parallel to Occam's Razor".[3] The name was inspired by Occam's razor." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor