What do you all think? If given the chance wouldn't Quaranta and Quintanilla work well off from each other. Wasn't that the original idea of bringing Eliseo to the team? Let the two of them develop together, form a bond, build an understanding... The type of connection that only comes from playing together. DCU should keep Santino, Eliseo, Bobby, Justin, and Ben together for as long as possible. Form the team around the future. What better way to do so then with a team developed scoring tandem? I am about the future. I am about building the future, and I feel that Santino and Eliseo are the type of forwards that could play off each other and build that future......... What do you think?
Ray cannot afford to do that because he is probably on a one year leash. he needs to produce this year or he is gone. That is why he is looking for an experienced goal scorer to team with these guys up front.
From what I saw Q2 is a junk player. Now that is not a bad thing - he reminds me of Rammel who would get all the junk goals but not create his own chances. I am not sure if that type of player would work well with Q1. I think Q1 needs someone to get open and create chances for him. I also think Q2 is slow as molasses
Re: Re: Q1 and Q2 up top together? I would have to disagree, Q2 should be listed as a midfielder, he has great vision and can pinpoint passes pretty well, and has a nice outside shot from what I've seen so far. He is too slow unfortunately to run the wing. So he either needs to challenge Convey for that a-mid spot, or he is going to be put up at forward where I don' thave high hopes of him producing a ton of goals, he seems more of a provider type player than goalscorer. I remember being very impressed with his decision making and passing last season that's what stuck out the most about Eliseo. He will always be a good option off the bench or a 3rd forward and has the possibility to become a decent middle of the pitch player.
Re: Re: Q1 and Q2 up top together? you may think he is slow, but I have seen him run guys down from behind, so he can't that slow.
I have to admit that because of my present locale I only got to see Q2 play once. In that game he didn't look too bad, so JH6 thank you for your insight on the issue. GoDC, what you said makes some sense to me. I guess I was thinking that if the higher ups saw some promise in there development that they would give some more leash. Then again here I am thinking that Hudson might magically learn to develop a young player. Sundevil9, I am guessing you probably got to see the two of them more than I did so I will trust you on their lack of speed.
Re: Re: Re: Q1 and Q2 up top together? Somebody writhing on the ground doesn't count. Q2 has a horrendously slow first 3 or 4 steps. I don't know how many times a midfielder played a ball behind the defense, and Q2 just could not get to it.....despite the defender being farther away. I think he might do better in midfield, or as a withdrawn forward.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Q1 and Q2 up top together? exactly, a good sub for Bobby when away at Nats duty or for an ailing Marco.
If Tino is motivated, he can run a guy down. Heck, as he demonstrated in NC, if he's motivated, he can run a guy down and maliciously hack him down.....
Re: Re: Re: Q1 and Q2 up top together? In this instance wouldn't the two of them work well together, with Santino getting into the box and Eliseo withdrawn a bit to receive from Marco and Bobby, who I envision playing in tamdom centrally, then turning and looking for Santino or the outside shot?
I think a problem with having the two Q's as forwards is that Olsen will be looking behind himself to receive passes from the forwards. Though it does help Bobby and Benny making the overlapping runs.
I think the original plan for 2003 was, assuming Etcheverry re-signed, pair Etcheverry and Convey in the center of the pitch as A-mids of sort (which was pretty successful at the end of the season). Then use Quintanilla as a sub for either of them. for what it's worth, I thought that Quintanilla played at midfield as a schemer/A-mid for his club team most of the time. As for speed, I think Quintanilla is faster than he looked. He wasn't in match shape (and he admitted that) when he reported and has talked about how he'll be in much better shape for 2003. Additionally, there is physical speed and there is mental speed. Mental quickness (or it's reverse) can really affect how fast or slow you look. I think young players often tend to look slower than they are--b/c they react, they don't anticipate. Or they sometimes hesitate or play out of control (in which case, people go flying by them and you go "geez, Quintanilla is slow--look how far Donovan is ahead of him"). I think the more experience both of these guys get, the "faster" they'll start to look.
It's a floor wax! It's a dessert topping! He's a forward! He's a midfieldfielder! He's an okay guy to have on a short MLS bench.
Both good young players, but I probably wouldn't pair them together unless we had the lead. Neither is an aerial threat, so against bunkered teams and on set pieces they wouldn't team well. Santino has some speed but isn't a blazer, and I'd say neither is a good counterattacking forward. Both would do nicely if we had the lead and wanted to kill clock though. Santino has good foot skills and Eliseo is very good at both posession and passing, so it might work. But I'm an attacking mentality guy, and when I have a lead I want a fast forward staying high up top and allowing a quick counter-strike when the opposing team throws numbers forward. So I'd probably sub in Ali Curtis at that juncture. -Tron
I was thinking Q2 might be best coming into the game as an offensive catalyst late in the game (in a forward, midfield or hybrid role), when his alleged lack of quicks might be masked by the burning legs of defenders who have been chasing the top-quality forward that Ray needs to sign. I don't know if Curtis or Q2 will ever be Championship-caliber forwards and I think/hope Convoy will keep Q2 out of the primary A-mid role. . . . or what Joe W said, if we have a pair of attacking mids.
Q2 might not be fast, but he did do something that didn't happen a lot last year. SHOOT. Granted he only scored 3 or so goals last season, but if you don't shoot, you don't score. Plus he's young and new to MLS. I hope to see him play a lot better this year. As for being a junk player... that be great if we had someone else down front to clean up the blocked shots. I don't care how we score. If you clean up rebounds or score from set plays, it all counts as a goal. I don't really know how well the Q's would do up front together. Q1's not that fast either. Since he was out most of the season, I'm really not sure what he he's capable of. I'd like to see Hudson pickup someone who has some speed up front, but that doesn't really matter if the person can score.
I think people are being entirely too closed-minded about Quintanilla. I"m not arguing he's going to be great. 1. He showed up out of season and not ready to play his best. Rusty and not in top shape. Despite that he earned praise for his work and hustle and he's promised we'll see the "real him" next year when he shows up in-form. 2. He's young. That meant he had a tendency to hesitate, to lack confidence, to defer--especially since this is a new league and new country. Was he a bit "wide-eyed" at times? Wouldn't surprise me. Bottomline with young players though--they may develop, they may not. It's premature to evaluate this guy on the basis of half a season with a mediocre team. 3. It was a new league. Remember how Reyes (who has played outside of Honduras, has international experience and is only about 7-8 years older) had trouble initially adjusting to MLS? BTW, all 3 of these reasons would make someone look slower than they actually are (b/c they lack that great 1st step when they're in-form and b/c they react). I'm not saying I expect Quintanilla to be an all-star and a force this coming season. He showed me enough to be invited back and get a chance to be part of the mix. He may surprise us. If 2003 is a repeat (in terms of performance from 2002) then he isn't back in 2004 or he's a sub at best. But I think we'll see a significant improvement in 2003--for the reasons I mentioned above.