Rapids Dominate "The First XI"

He's right about Hankinson. I think Yallop will win but Hanki deserves a significant number of votes (along with Sarachan).

 

I agree about Hanki. I was a little pissed when they announced the coach of the year candidates and it was just the usual suspects (best records and at that time, the Rapids had more points than the Metro.) Sarachan, Bradley and Yallop.

Despite the slow start, Hanki deserves some credit, if for no other reason than learning not to tinker with the starting line up. He took a beating in this forum early in the season when the team was down, so he deserves some props now that the team has recovered.

 

Crediting Hankinson for the Rapids' turnaround this season means completely ignoring the fact that he was the one primarily responsible for the team's pitiful start to the season.

Bradley says "once Colorado got a feel for its personnel" it turned things around. With the exception of Nat Borchers, every regular starter on the 2003 Rapids was a member of the 2002 Rapids, and most of them regular starters then.

The Rapids' streak of misery began with the first game of the year in which Hankinson chose to sit many of last year's key players, and the misery didn't end until his hand was forced -- by injury and absence -- to play last year's group. Borchers too did not get his opportunity until Hankinson was left with no options.

The best decision that Hankinson made this year was to not break up a regular starting lineup in the middle of a winning streak. Hardly rocket science.

Let's not forget that as of today Colorado is only one game above .500. At least in terms of the team's record, they'll have two win two of their last three to equal last year's finish.

 

Greenie = the voice of reason.

 

Greenie = voice of someone who will never say they are wrong. We could win MLS Cup and he'll still call for Tim's head. Say he'll never lead us to success.

So he experimented in the begining. The way MLS is set up ... it doesn't matter. It ONLY matters what your form is going into the playoffs and getting into the playoffs.

To say the players weren't to blame ... that's just plain wrong.

How about giving Tim props for signing Borchers.

How about giving props for teaching Beckerman. For teaching Borchers.

Let's first look at what he did with the defense ... it took till 6/7 for the defense to be solidified into what it is now: Hart,Fraser,Borchers,Kotschau -- it took place on the 8th game.

Before that, Hart was on the back line 5 of those games. So the experimenting was basically, who to play in the middle with Fraser and who on the left side.

Left side: Kotschau played on the left 3 of those 8 games. Crawford was tried twice and it didn't work out. Rizo got one game. Schmidt seemed to start there (unless we started a 3-5-2) once. And Hart took left one time. To me, this position didn't seem to be over experimented with ill logic.

The biggest question in the defense seemed to be ... who plays in the middle with Robin. Basically, Herdsman and Stewart alternated with Stewart winning out. Until he when down with an injury ... and Borchers was put in. Borchers acutally did not win the position at this point because he had a bad game. But who can argue Hanki's demlemma of trying to figure out which expienced defender to put in Herds or Stewart. Many on these boards (not I) thought Herds was a good player.

Yes Hanki's hand was pushed on Borchers ... but I'd say that most any coach would have gone the same path.

The forwards:
well documented ... I wouldn't even have called this area experimenting. CC got a fair share of starts during our crap streak. Spennie was hurt to start the season.

So the big experiment becomes the midfield ..... which I say was caused by Grimandi NOT Hanki.

 

I'm really still up in the air about Hankinson. I still think he screwed the pooch in the beginning of the season.

Here's my complaints about the beginning the year:
- The "Black and Blue" attitude... Hankinson kept repeating that he wanted the guys to tackle hard. I perceived that the guys tried to do just that, and as a result many of the challenges were forced and clumsy. This from players who don't normally play that way. When things looked bleakest Hankinson gave the guys a day off, and told them try to have fun. My perception, once again, was that after that point they dropped the black n' blue thing, and started playing their natural game.

- Midfield... Yeah we lost Grimandi. To my mind it was clear that without Grimandi our central midfield was going to be Pablo and Beckerman. It's also clear that it was going to take several games to get them comfortable. Hankinson never stuck with anyone. This is where the "forced hand" theory comes into play. Especially in the case of Kyle, it was a case of a young player who needed some seasoning. There was never a good reason to not give him more than a game before trying: Rizo, Hart, and Borchers in the spot. There also was never a reason not to give any of those guys more than a game to see if they'd work.

- Leftback... Rizo turned out to be a bust, Crawfords young, and Kotschau sat. Why was Kotschau left on the bench? With all the other changes and shifting going on it seemed to me that getting another veteran on the field would have helped.

Hankinson switched lineups, subbed players, in a manner that signalled to me that he didn't believe in the guys he had.

Things I don't blame Hankinson for:
- Robin Fraser had a lousy start to the season.
- Stewart played alright, but got hurt.
- Not recognizing that Nat was going to be a revelation at center back, ignores the definition of revelation. Who knew?
- Hendo had a bad start... I'm not really sure he's improved a great deal either.

I'm on the fence on these:
- Grimandi quit... I can't blame Hankinson for Gilles leaving, but I don't think he handled it well. This was exactly the time to turn to his guys and say we can do it with out him. Instead he tried everyone out in a spot that Beckerman had been groomed for, and has since won.

Hankinson deserves a lot of the blame for the way we stared. He screwed up a lot. It does appear however that he's learned from these mistakes, and deserves some of the credit. Remember when things looked bleakest he gave the players a day off, told them to have fun again, and started Kyle and Trembley in the next game. We've all been having fun ever since.

Now as far as whether he can be Coach of the Year. Let's see how he handles the next game now that Powell's in the mix. That's going to be the real test.

 

You know, I'm not saying that Hankinson should be coach of the year, I think that should go to Yallop, but he should definitely be considered and wasn't... Everybody picked the Metros to be good this year, solid talent, and Bob Bradley is a good coach, but expectations were for a good season, and they haven't had a whole lot of adversity. I'm more impressed with Sarachan and Yallop, because neither the Fire nor the Quakes were really considered the best teams in their respective conferences (East - Crew and Metros, West - Galaxy) but have outpaced everybody to the two best records in the league.

And then there's Hankinson, whose team started poorly, and we were all calling for his head, but then they started winning, and kept on winning, and have been rolling for a couple of months now. Sure, the players on the field are the ones making the plays, scoring the goals, but it's not like Hanki wasn't there. He pulled the strings, gave Nat a chance, and found a lineup that worked and led to wins. He deserves some of the credit when the team does well if you plan to give him some of the s#$t when the team does poorly.

 

Whatever.

Look, if the Rapids win the Cup you'll be the first one I invite over to my house to watch me grill the crow on my Weber.

More to the point, I've long given given Hankinson plenty of credit. I was one of the few that was defending him at the end of last season -- I've always been on his side until 4 or 5 games into this season, when it became pretty clear that the guy had no idea what he was doing.

In fact, when Hankinson finished the 2001 season with a measly 5 wins, I was one of the only ones that defended his rebuilding process. One of the few that said "give a coach three years."

Well, we're just about at the end of three years, and I'm not impressed.

Hankinson deserves credit for at least building the roster to what it is today, no doubt. But just as Mooch was let go because the Rapids were not performing to the level that many felt they were capable of -- namely getting back to MLS Cup -- Hankinson hasn't displayed an ability to get the most of out his team.

Beckerman "taught" by Hankinson? You're kidding, right? Beckerman was left for dead on the bench for the past two years by Hankinson, and if Grimandi had actually played then Kyle would still be picking splinters out of his ass. Well, with the exception of Pablo's absences.

Speaking of Grimandi, no doubt the guy was a puss but if you're going to give credit for signing, teaching, discovering other players, shouldn't you also blame Hankinson for the waste of time that was Grimandi?

Sure, I'll give a little credit to Hankinson for signing Borchers. A local kid who was under his nose and training with the Rapids for the past two seasons and they threw him a developmental contract. And he never would have seen time if not for so many injuries this season.

Furthermore, preseason in when you experiment with lineups. Not the regular season. Not when you're coming off a reasonably successful year.

I'd buy the "experimenting" argument if Hankinson wound up finding success with radical changes. Instead, the lineup today is pretty much the same as it was last year, but without Valderrama and with Borchers instead of Titus.

And just what is our form right now? We've won just one of our last four, and are winless in three.

Morever, it may be your opinion that getting into the playoffs and performing at that point is all that matters, but it sure as spit ain't mine.

If how they played into the playoffs is all that mattered, why bother going to games in the first part of the season? I want to support a team and watch them play good, consistent soccer throughout the entire year.

To wit, 1997 is memorable because of the MLS Cup run, and little more. The Rapids were a miserably inconsistent team that year that barely squeaked into the playoffs. Should I believe otherwise, that they were an amazing ball club simply because they reached the final?


Finally, regardless of whether we agree on Hankinson as a coach or not, the bottom line is that in preseason most fans, including myself, thought the Rapids would be doing a lot better by this point of the season -- namely, much better than one game above .500 with three games remaining.

Certainly part of that optimism was because we felt Grimandi would make a major impact, but it was mostly because we felt the Rapids not only had talent but the deepest roster and bench that we'd ever had.

While the players have certainly disappointed on many levels -- including the performance of veterans like Hendo -- I don't see how anyone can look at where this team is at the moment and think that Hankinson has done a fantastic job, especially not compared to the kind of seasons that Sarachan or Yallop have put together for their clubs.

 

I'll give Props to Hankinson for signing Borchers (albeit only to a developmental contract). But do we give him "anti-props" for signing Grimandi who was very hohum about the prospect of coming out here from the begining, IMO.

Hanki didn't teach Beckerman, Beckerman developed by actually getting playing time with good players who demanded he get better.

To think that Hanki taught Borchers is crazy, IMO. He's playing right now with what he brought with him and, by chance, was given the moment to shine and shine he did. My guess is that if anyone had the skills and where-with-all to teach Borchers, it was Trittschuh.

I'm not a Hanki basher. But, I do think the smartest thing he did was to leave this team alone to find its own identity, instead of trying to manufacture one. I think the less he tried to tactically influence the game based upon player selection the more success the rapids had. That's just me speculating though.

 

You've got to be the most creative poster on the Rapids thread! I love that!

Agree and disagree. I agree with you about rebuilding the roster ... disagree about getting the most out of the team. Other than the recent four games (which have been affected by reds and injuires) I think this team is playing the best soccer I've ever seen in Denver.

Well I totally see your point ... what I also see though is that as Beckerman got playing time ... he played better and better and added more and more elements to his game. This could simply be a case of experience though ... so perhaps I shouldn't associate it to Hanki.

No I blame it on world politics. But without the true story ever being told who knows. The blame on world politics however ... I attribute to what's been said. My gut feeling, and this is where I think Tim totally sucks, is that Grimandi used the Iraq/France/US situation as an excuse ... and that he wanted out BECAUSE of Tim or MLS or something else. But who the hell knows? And I associate it to Tim because of past failed relationships with our foreign players.

I said experimenting because that's what I've heard two players (or read) them say. I wish I could remember who or give links ... but it's pure memory.

You and I actually agree about our form. I AM a little worried and hope it's all due to injuries/reds and personal stuff like Robin's situation.

And you are totally right ... it was my opinion about the playoffs. I actually do place a value on watching high quality soccer (I hated Mooch and his teams) ... but I don't place much stock on standings. This may be because I grew up watching hockey ... and all that matters in the end is winning the cup (or improving the team if you're not a contender). So that's where I place emphasis ... not on regular season standings. But you're right ... that's ME.

No but you've used this "Mooch wins Hanki doesn't" type argument against Hanki. This seems an about face from that.

Let me say that even if we missed the playoffs ... I've enjoyed this team MUCH more than any team Mooch has ever fielded. This has to do with MLS quality too.

I do not think that Hanki has done better than Yallop or the chicago coach who's name I can't spell and won't risk the wrath ... But I do think that Hanki has proved himself a better coach than half of the league. I think he's improved us. I think he's putting us in position to bring the Cup home. And I don't see why early season mistakes should still be held against him. He fixed the ship. Dallas/LA/Columbus/KC they have all faired far worse than us over the course of the season. Of course everyone wants those coaches fired. It seems to me in soccer ... people want coaches canned far easier than in any other sport.

Three years from when Hanki took over ... if you told me that we'd be in second in the West ... on of the favs to win the Cup ... I'd say we made the right choice and the coach has done well.

 

In regards to Borchers, Hanki signed him as a midfielder and that is where he saw his first action which was a miserable failure. He only got his chance in the center of defense because they had no other options there after Stewart went down and Herdsman quit.

And, I'd have to agree that the lineup that finally started winning was pretty much the same lineup as last year.

Plus, remember all the posts about Hanki not subbing? Well, I'm sorry but I can't label a coach a genius for not phucking with a winning lineup and keeping his best 11 on the field at all times. How many times has Hanki subbed in someone and they have made a difference, like providing an assist or goal? Only one I can think of is when Schmidt and Kingsley linked up to assist on CC's volley early in the year. And, if I'm not mistaken, we were already ahead 3-1 at that point. Brilliant piece of coaching there.

Look, Hanki has done a good job but taking a team that just got in the playoffs in 2002 with 13 wins and turning pretty much the same team into a team in 2nd place with 11 wins and 3 games remaining in 2003 is not a great piece of management. Hell, I'll argue that you could have taken this team without a coach and they could have won 10 games. In comparison with Sarachin and Yallop, Hanki is a distant, distant third. Possibly even behind Bradley for COY.

 

"Getting the most out of the team" means that despite injuries and suspensions, you still find a way to get results.

Chicago and San Jose have both had their share of injuries and missed players due to callups. And looking over their rosters in preseason, very few "experts" (OK, media boobs) predicted they would be 1-2 in the league come end of the season.

And when thinking about Hankinson signing/developing Borchers and Beckerman, I feel it compares with what Yallop, Sarachan and Bradley have done with their young unknowns.

Which reminds me, Hankinson has also traded away all of our draft picks for the next century. Hope he's got a line on some fantastic, low-round players.

Oh, I don't disagree with the word. Although I would call it "tinkering" or better yet, "fooking with the lineup." Experimenting suggests there was actually a method to Hankinson's madness.

What I'm saying is that I'd only give him credit for having put the team through this experimentation if it resulted in the team having turned out differently.

The only part of the early season "experiment" that seemed to work out is the (rumored) plan to make Kotschau work harder for his job by benching him in favor of guys like Crawford. If that's true, then I can't argue with the result as once Kotschau returned to the lineup he played ferociously well.

Hell, if the MLS playoffs took 6 weeks I'd probably care much less about the regular season.

That's never been my argument, at least not against Hankinson.

That's something I've said in criticism of Counce and AEG, who canned Mooch -- a successful coach compared to most others in MLS -- under the guise that the Rapids and their fans "need a coach who can bring a championship to Denver."

That's why I gave Hankinson a free ride despite earning only 5 wins and missing the playoffs, even though Mooch took the team to the playoffs in each of his 4 years.

And while I will fully agree that the Rapids of the past two years have been more enjoyable than ever, it's hard to compare to the past considering that MLS as a whole is infinitely more enjoyable than it has ever been.

Additionally just as it is suggested that this year's players should shoulder much of the blame for the first portion of the season, so should it be realized that the players deserve blame for all those dreary performances under Mooch. Too often people blame Mooch himself for the team playing a defensive, long-ball game -- you know, "Moochball" -- when in fact Mooch was spending more time in training focusing on possession and attacking than Hankinson ever has. Mooch was also always the fist one to roll his eyes (and pop a forehead vein) when his defenders would launch a ball well over and past his midfielders, when his forwards would not check back for the ball, and when his midfielders wouldn't come back to defend.

Everything said, the bottom line is that the Rapids today are certainly a more entertaining and attractive team then they ever have been -- most of the time. They still lack a consistency which means that even in the midst of a winning streak you'd show up at Invesco or turn on the TV and have no idea what kind of team would be present.

Second in the West, fourth out of ten in the league... tell me that any new coach has three years to make it happen and I'll show you a pet rock that'll do just that.

When Mooch was canned, he was barely a year past the time when the Rapids held the best record out of twelve teams in the league.

Which is only to say that a coach's influence on a team must take into consideration no less than an entire season, start to finish -- if not all of his seasons combined.

I look at the professional club coaching careers of Mooch and Hankinson (including Tampa Bay) and I don't see a big difference in terms of results, players that have great respect for them, or fans that love them.

And they've all won at least one MLS or Open Cup.

 

i will only give hankinson credit for sitting back and letting a consistent group play more games together.
Luck played a much bigger role with letting some young players get consistent playing time. If players hadn't gotten hurt etc. beckerman, tremby and borchers would be spending most of their time on the bench. I don't feel hankinson ever looked at his younger players the way bradley does. They got playing time all year because they have some talent whereas hankinson used his because of necessity.

Also I feel that the turnaround would of happen alot earlier than June if he would of started out the season with the players that played alot in preseason. Instead it seemed he used the beginning part of the season as his preseason!

 

everyone saying "hooray for hanki" needs to remember important things like: signing an obvious bad-apple like grimandi, and then signing a horribly unfit player like powell to replace him; wasting a valuable si spot on a player like rizo (who may be good but who knows?-he never gets to play); CAUSING herdsman to retire; creating such amazing confusion over the lineup-these guys were all here last year.

personally i am amazed that we have a record over .500 with this guy holding the reins. give frank yallop or bob bradley the talent we have and see what a real COTY candidate could do.

 

For those who say that the early part of the season doesn't matter, note that a mere .500 record in the first 8 games would have us either in 1st, or breathing right down SJ's necks, rather than fighting hard just to hold 2nd.

 

I'm not sure any of us knew Grimandi was a bad-apple. Most of the attitude on this board was excitement for his inclusion into the team, the opportunity to have a player that had played for one of the premier teams in the EPL. No one thought the Grimandi situation would turn out like it did. Who knows, maybe they should have done more homework on the guy, but it really seemed like his leaving the team was a surprise to everybody.

I do agree with your other points though, and the most frustrating aspect of Hanki's tenure has been the failure of the international players he has brought on board. We lucked out when Tampa and Miami folded, grabbing Mastro, Hendo and others. But without those guys, we have had to rely on draft picks (which have now been mortgaged for trades...) and the core of the team that was here when Hanki arrived.

As well as this team has performed since June, it's hard to believe they are only one game above .500.

 

Well for all you Hanki head callers ...

With the exception of Yallop, Sarachan, and Bradely ... what MLS coaches are considered good!!

I mean ... people are calling for the heads of or have gotten:
Andrulis
Hankison
Hudson
Gansler
Jeffries
Sigi


Not sure if people are calling for Nicol's head.

I too think that Hanki has pretty much sucked with international players ... BUT ... I'd also like to point out that in general most MLS teams have sucked with international players.

And there seems to be an misconception about Beckerman.

The boy has played from the beginning. The first 10 game of the season ... Beckerman had 7 starts. And subbed into the game twice!

Trembley was forced by injury and in my opinion ... he sucks.

There NO WAY Hanki could have seen the impact Borchers would play to this team.

I do see that there was inconsistencies in his lineups ... yes ... but the main players have been playing all damn year. (With the noted exceptions of Kotschau and Borchers) If he had kept a consistent lineup and had the record we had in the first ten games ... you think he's an idiot for NOT tinkering.

I still attribute the beginning of the season down to two things ... Grimandi left and the game plan went out the window ... and just as Tim said ... the players weren't trying to create opportunities for themselves ... they had grown too accustomed to playing with the departed Carlos. A third reason ... Spencer was hurt still at the beginning.

And this is a personal opinion ... but if you finish first in the division ... the league even ... but you fail to lift the cup ... then who cares!!! This is the AMERICAN version of soccer ... the table doesn't matter as much as playoffs. (Note that this doesn't mean winning ugly is acceptable in my opinion either).

 

That's the $64,000 question isn't it.

Looking at that list, I would say that Sigi is the only guy that shouldn't have his head called for. This is the first season where the Galaxy have struggled and they will still make the playoffs and have a good chance at winning the Cup.

As for the others, I think it is more of an indication that the US doesn't have many quality, professional coaches. With the exception of Bradley and Sarachin, who would take over the Nats team from that list? Maybe Sigi, that's it.

We've upped the level of play in MLS, now we need to up the level of coaching in MLS. That was one of the rumors as to why Grimandi left the Rapids: that Hanki's coaching methods were strange and suspect and this has been borne out by more than a few of the current Rapids in off-the-record discussions. After training one day, one Rapid said that Hanki would probably go home and surf the net for more ideas and useless drills to run the team through.

As for Beckerman, yeah, he may have played in 9 of 10 to start the season but he was left on the bench to start the season to accomodate Chung in the middle and CC on the left. This after he had an exceptional pre-season by all accounts. Not to mention that he probably would never have seen all that action if Grimandi had been around. No way Hanki gets credit for 'developing' Kyle. Everyone could see that the kid just needed time on the field to get to where he is now.

Finally, if Hanki had stuck with the lineup from preseason and not played guys out of position in the open few games, I'm pretty confident the Rapids would not have had the record they had. So the arguement of "We'd have called him an idiot if he hadn't tinkered with the lineup" moot. He had no reason to do it in the first place. All he succeeded in doing was undermining the confidence the team had built from a solid pre-season.

The only credit Hanki gets from me on the Rapids' turn-around is knowing enough to not PHUCK WITH A STREAK. Otherwise, the team's success is all inspite of his coaching.

 

Well I'll bow out of this Hanki debate that I always seem to be in ... I pretty much disagree with everyone And I'm pretty surprised how a rough spot can make you hate the coach so much that has taken a worthless team ... to becoming a contender. How you cannot give the coach credit for what has happened here with the Rapids ... its beyond me.

We here in Denver are a fickle bunch.

We've hated Tim.
We've hated Hendo.
We've hated Robin.
We've wondered if Spencer lost it.
We've questioned CC.
We're on the verge of hating Pablo.
We've hated Hart.

Good thing Chung is on this team!

 

Oh man I'd said I'd stop ... BUT I CAN'T ... HELP ME!

You can't say 5 coaches in the league should be fired because their teams aren't winning ... NOT EVERY TEAM CAN WIN!

When do we finally as a league start looking at the players? How come Columbus hasn't won an MLS Cup with McBride?

How come LA can't win a home game with players like Jones and Ruiz?

How can KC have MVP candiate Preki and have a nine game winless streak?

It's not JUST the coaches! LA and KC have both won MLS Cup with those coaches. Columbus lifted the Open Cup.

A fired MLS coach is now coaching who ... Real Madrid I think? We blame the coaches too damn much I think. It's the easiest thing to do. And to blame a coach that has made us better each year ... I just don't understand. So the beginning of the season sucked ... it's rocking right now?

Good think KC didn't fire Gansler after thier last place finish in 99 ... cuz they won it in 00. Or did they win it despite him?

When a player sucks balls and then turns it on ... dont' we fall back in love with him? AKA Spencer? Why can't we do this for our VERY OWN COACH?

WHY DO I CARE SO MUCH I have to tell my boss to give me some more work to do!

Okay ... now I'm finished.

 

Okay Tim, the Jig is up, we know it's you!

 

Oh crap ... they've got it figured!

 

Yep.

Nope, I never have.

Nope, but there are times when I've wondered if it might be time for him to retire

OK I admit it, maybe a bit last season.

Not since his hat-trick last season when he finally started showing he knew how to play

Nope, but pretty much since the day he was drafted I've questioned if he was worth the first pick in the dispersal draft. Still not sold on the idea that he was.

Never. He's a fellow Husky and he wears my lucky number, how could I hate him?

 

Look, I never said that all those coaches should be fired. I simply said that I think the quality of coaching has to improve. Now many coaches have the Metros had? How many coaches have been replaced in mid-season?

And since you brought up Queroz [sp?], how about Bora? He took, what 5 teams to the World Cup but sucked as a club manager. Does that mean he sucks as a coach? No. But that is not the point.

Coaches are supposed to get the best out of their players and that includes signing quality players, recognizing talent, and playing players in their proper positions. I think you will agree, GoRapids.

The point I was making was that this season, Hanki has not improved this team. To wit:

- He totally mucked up a lineup that pretty much set itself. You cannot judge his performance by not acknowledging this.

- We are on pace to have less wins, or the same amount of wins, as last season. Say what you will about the quality of the play, and it is exciting, but this team should have gotten more wins and challenged San Jose for the West. It was what all of us were expecting.

- He has made a mockery of the international talent he has acquired. Zizi - Jury's still out. Grimandi - nuff said. Powell - useless for 4 months. Amokachi - Please. Spencer - didn't sign him, regardless of what is written. Rizo - fat and lazy. Palacios - never allowed to settle. That is a pretty damning list.

You said earlier that Hanki should be given credit for 'teaching' Beckerman and Borchers. Please. Hanki hasn't sat down once with either of them to talk about their play, analyze game tape, or give them advice on how to improve. I know. I've asked them. Same goes for CC. Ask him and he'll tell you that he talks with Hanki at the start of the season and that's it. When he needs advice, he goes to Spencer. How am I supposed to give Hanki credit for this?

Now, I can't judge the other coaches in the league because I haven't followed them as closely or had the type of access to them as I've had to the Rapids.

But I can say that the majority of the Rapids will admit that they finally came together as a team because of the players and not Hanki. And Hanki was forced into his lineup, he didn't decide to play Borchers in central defense. Borchers was a midfielder who played central D and was the only option left when Stewart went down. How is that quality coaching?

As for assigning blame to players, hey, I'm not blind. I've written articles about how Pablo has screwed up, Fraser has played badly, and how the team gave up in games, both at the beginning of the year and way back in 2001. I'm just not so quick to tout Hanki as a COTY candidate when he doesn't deserve it.