My guess is that they searched for coaches but then realized all the ones they wanted already had a job.
I've always felt that Colorado had the biggest home field advantage in MLS. Why they can't get a coach that will punish teams at the altitude is baffling.
Feel sorry for PM, he was pretty much in a no-win situation (literally). I am not sure who else would be willing to step into this shit-show without some sort of changes with the FO or owner's position toward winning. I don't blame them for focusing on the bottom line, but I also would think our ranking in team value would show KSE that having a winning team can dramatically improve the team's value. (using my MBA for a minute....) rod.
I think most of the CUSA Academy is going to be taken over by the Galaxy after LAFC turned down the opportunity to take it over. At the very least, one of the more prominent coaches from that academy, Brian Kleiban, is heading to the Galaxy at the end of the year and it's expected that a lot of the players will follow. http://www.thegoatparade.com/2015/4...-from-chivas-usa-academy-to-la-galaxy-academy
If you'll recall from the HBO Sports story, the last CUSA clown college owners did a pretty good job of running off coaches and players.
It would seem that to make it a real home field advantage would be to use a lot of high pressure and thus really make the opposition work to get the ball out of the back. When the Rapids win possession they need to move the ball quickly and decisively forcing the defending players to chase like crazy. If they slow play down and just go side to side the defending team doesn't have to work as much. Same with hitting a lot of direct balls.
Sure would appreciate an immediate shakeup to see what an inspired tactical manager would do with the existing players. Don't expect it though. Don't expect much anymore.
I'm sorry Tim, but this article makes you look like an idiot: http://www.denverpost.com/rapids/ci...nt-evaluate-coach-pablo-mastroeni-after-final And who's fault was that Tim? You had two damn months before you hired him and you did nothing! No, 4 years ago we were 9 months removed from lifting MLS Cup and Gary Smith was complaining about your meddling to the Denver Post and stating how he couldn't work with Paul Bravo. Are you really sure you want to make that comparison Tim? And his mealy mouth talk about how they're evaluating Pablo over the rest of the season? Typical BS double-speak.
I'd call this a victory lap except its hard to claim victory on the back of the last two seasons. Instead its just an I told you so. http://view-from-the-couch.blogspot.com/2015/08/i-told-you-so.html
How about if we evaluate Tim over the rest of the season? I'll be more than glad to start an "Official Tim Hinchey (as president) thread" if people think it would be worthwhile. IMHO, Pablo isn't the coach to lead the Rapids forward. That said, replacing Pablo means nothing unless the top half of the technical staff goes out the door, too, and Tim darned well needs to lead that parade.
Jason post from N&A: That is interesting, I figured this "run" would mean nothing will change. If they fire Pablo, and as expected that's the only change, I'd say good luck, new coach and your aging roster.
I want to echo that he was put in a no win situation and add that the people that put him in that situation should be fired first it will only add to the injustice if they get to continue to prove that they are worthless.
if Pablo goes, everyone that had a hand in hiring and "helping" him and thereby turning this club into a perennial dumpster fire should go too. this is a team that hired a rookie coach with 0 experience, gave him 0 experienced help, then sat on its hands during the flameout of 2014 (except for signing Zat Knight!), only to follow up that epically bad year by selling the only reliable goal scorer this team had before the 2015 season even started and left Pablo to run out a 4th round draft pick rookie as sole striker for what, 2 or 3 months? An absolute failure on every level of management, the coaching being merely the most obvious of a bad bunch.
Let's see. You hire a club legend that happens to be a green rookie coach and you give him a weak roster and expect miracles. Yeah, that only works in the movies. Someone should make a TIFO with a picture of Pablo up against a wall with a blindfold on, cigarette in his mouth and hands tied behind his back because he's about to get the Che Guevara treatment.
All of which is true but on top of it let's not forget Pablo is a bad coach. There's lots of reasons for that but he has to go along with the guys that put him in charge.
Pablo might not have been to blame for being in the situation (of course, he could have said no, knowing he had no experience), but he's responsible for not recognising that what he was doing wasn't working and thinking that doing the same thing each game was going to magically change things. Even if we consider the start of last year more of a result of the leftovers of Pareja's system, Pablo actually regressed in his tactics instead of improving them. I honestly don't know what coalesced to make the KC game work as well as it did, but most of the other 6 of 9 wins have been awful games on our side that could have easily been draws or losses. The sudden support for him seems overly optimistic and undeserving.
However, I seem to remember that several of the losses and draws at the beginning of the season could have been wins had the players finished easy scoring chances. That shouldn't be on Pablo.
There is no way Pablo is "gone", now. If the teams closes out the season at the same rate we've seen the last 9 games I can't believe anyone goes, and I'll have to give it more thought as well. If they split, they'll have finished 10-7. With all due respect to sources
I'm not sure anything short of the playoffs could save him. This sounds like it isn't just about the results, its about Pablo being on a different page (hell, different book) than Tim and Paul. And a split is probably not good enough to make the playoffs. That puts us at 45 and the line will probably be at 47, give or take a point. So if he takes 5 of the last 8 he's have gone 11-6 in the back half of the season. Hard to justify firing him at that point unless that run is on the back of a number of lucky breaks.
I'd keep none of them but if you forced me to choose I'd go with Hinchey (success off the field) and Bravo (success at least with domestic signings, his international signings have largely been crap). Pablo's been successful at almost nothing.
Thinking from Longmont, Pablo and Bravo both should either stay or go. If they continue the good run, then a "reasonable" argument could be made it's simply taken bringing the players (starting with Doyle) and having them work together to produce results. Throw out the idea that Pablo was playing players out of position, it was "simply" a matter of finding their best roles. (Yeah I know, fans are better at that then coaches,that's why we're fans). That logic provide cover for both Pablo and Bravo. How can you fire only Pablo, he's only had the last half of the season to coach this group of players. They need to be treated as a pair. As of 8/31, I'm waiting another month to decide.
Without the heads up choice, I say let their replacements hire the coach the replacement wants. I disagree with you about Bravo. He's past it. And the brief time that he does get half credit, I honestly believe that credit belongs to Smith over Bravo. I also believe that Hinchey is barley keeping track to the rising tide, mostly sinking. Its hard for me to assess how much KSE is hand tying him and to what degree KSE recognizes they are hand tying him. So I kind of feel bad for him. But I believe we can do much better at the gate.
if hinchey stays and pablo goes, i'd be worried that he'd just do what he's done the last two times and hire someone with no actual hc experience. i'm tired of spending every other year waiting for the new coach to figure out how to do his job