USSoccer

Defensive, rebounding force with an average offensive game. He's long, has an amazing vertical leap, is incredibly quick off his feet, has excellent hands (unlike Chandler) and timing, and is a bulldog. He'll alter a lot of shots. So on a team that is pretty good defensively, but lacks low post scoring and a big guard, you'd want them to take a guy that will be average at best offensively in the frontcourt? At best? Huh? You asked for the worse case scenario, and I think he has an excellent chance at being better than that. Almost no NBA prospects make their "best case" projection. Most end up on the lower end of middle case. Using your worst case, middle case is a really, really good defensive player who can be explosive around the basket, and occasionally hit a jumper, like Shawn Kemp. It's not a stretch to think he'll end up between my worst case and Shawn Kemp. It is a huge leap of faith to think he'll end up at his ceiling.

Defensive, rebounding force with an average offensive game. He's long, has an amazing vertical leap, is incredibly quick off his feet, has excellent hands (unlike Chandler) and timing, and is a bulldog. He'll alter a lot of shots. So on a team that is pretty good defensively, but lacks low post scoring and a big guard, you'd want them to take a guy that will be average at best offensively in the frontcourt?

You don't think he's as good as people think he can be? What a colossal understatement. Your outlook is worse than the worst case scenario, and you ignore all of his obvious strengths. I think you'd be very, very hard pressed to find a single scout in the country that agreed with you. Not much else to say on this topic. Wow. What do you think the worst case scenario is for him? EDIT: His obvious strengths are all physical traits. He doesn't have much polish on his basketball skill. I think his physical gifts will allow for him to be, as I said, at best, a plus defender with little offensive skill. I won't believe in any offensive game outside of putbacks and garbage dunks until I see him make shots from midrange and beyond in a game situation.

Why wouldn't you try and minimize your risks? Also, why would you value individual workouts and interviews with coaches more than actual game performance? Why should it be different than how we expect the Cubs to draft? If Thomas were a baseball player, no one here would want him. He wreaks of "toolsy" and potential. He's a scouts dream, but we have such limited proof of his ability to perform in game situations. It's not that I lack faith in Paxson. It's that I lack faith in one year wonders and athletic wonders actually turning out to be impact players. I'd rather go with a more proven commodity. Paxson has drafted Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Duhon so far - a combination of "one-year wonders" (i.e. a freshman who turned pro) and proven college commodities. This particular athletic one-year wonder has quite a game already. You have to have faith that you have the coaching staff to turn him into a star. The only 1 yr wonder on that list is Deng. Gordon was always a good shooter at UConn; he happened to have a great Big East and NCAA tournament. Hinrich was a solid performer at Kansas. Duhon was a starter at Duke. I believe in the coaching staff, but I don't think Thomas is as good as people think he can be. I don't think it will be even close. I see a player who won't be able to get his own shot, struggle from the outside, is undersized for a 4, will get pushed around defensively, and will put up the occasional Chandler-esque 12 and 15 game.

Why wouldn't you try and minimize your risks? Also, why would you value individual workouts and interviews with coaches more than actual game performance? Why should it be different than how we expect the Cubs to draft? If Thomas were a baseball player, no one here would want him. He wreaks of "toolsy" and potential. He's a scouts dream, but we have such limited proof of his ability to perform in game situations. It's not that I lack faith in Paxson. It's that I lack faith in one year wonders and athletic wonders actually turning out to be impact players. I'd rather go with a more proven commodity.

I don't think the Bulls can find a player in this draft that will turn them into title contenders next season. I think their window opens 2, 3 years down the road. Right when Thomas is becoming a Stoudemire-like force, I hope. For every Amare Stoudemire there are how many Swifts? Players like Thomas carry with them a tremendous risk. He only came out because of his family's financial situation. You're talking about a very immature 18 year old getting millions of dollars. Who's to say he's not going to lose that work ethic and drive?

Rightly so. Many believe he has the highest ceiling in the draft. But he also seems to have the competitive drive and work ethic to reach it. Based on one season at LSU, and one good NCAA tournament? What did people say about Stromile Swift before he came out?

Well, 1908, I hope you and everyone else are right about Thomas...I can't see Toronto drafting him.

He did show a nice mid-range game in college games, actually, according to scouts. He played his role on LSU, and that didn't include taking his game outside. Deng certainly didn't use all of his skills during his Freshman year at Duke. Do you read a lot of the draft coverage materials? Your opinion of Thomas is definitely in the minority in those circles. Did you make up your mind watching him play in the NCAA tournament? My opinion is certainly less informed that those who follow the SEC seriously, but pro scouts are enamored with upside, athleticism and potential. I wouldn't shock me to think that the majority see him as an athletic beast with a high ceiling. I personally feel that he's not going to be an impact player. I think he might end up being Tyson Chandler redux. I think we can do better with that pick.

Deng was not very polished offensively. He was drafted on potential. Thomas' offensive game is a lot better than you think. He's shown a nice mid-range game in workouts and 3-pt range on his shot. I'd be fine with the pick if Pax decided to take Roy. I wouldn't be happy if he took Morrison, though. I meant more polished relative to Thomas. Showing midrange jumpers and 3 point range in a controlled workout means nothing. He didn't show the ability to do that in college, in game situations. Drafting Morrison would mean you could use Deng or Noc in a big deal. Not advocating it, but it would open up that possibility.

Roy is more athletic than I thought, but Thomas is still my guy at number 2. 7-3 wingspan, 9-0 standing reach, 40-inch vertical, plays with a chip on his shoulder. How many college games has he played? Do we have a good enough sample size to know anything other than he is "toolsy" (to use a baseball term)? He looks to be more of an athlete than a basketball player. From what I have read, it sounds like Pax prefers him. If he does, I am disappointed, but I'll hope to eat crow come next season. How many college games did Deng play? Deng was far more polished offensively, and coming out of a better program as far as fundamentals go. I think Thomas is a bust waiting to happen. I'd take my chances on Roy or even Morrison before rolling dice on Thomas.

The last time Aramis did this was like last May. I think people can stop bringing it up like he does it every single time he pops out like Manny Ramirez. In fact-he's hustled out several plays this season into hits. Also, for Aramis to get a triple it would take a bizarre turn of events. He's very slow. As far as Wood pitching through his "little bit of pain"...he had shoulder surgery. It's not as if that's the easiest thing to come back from. If you were making the argument that counting on Prior/Wood is stupid, I'm with you, but that's a Hendry problem and not so much a Baker problem. What's hilarious is that we've tried "Clubhouse Chemistry". and "Speedy-Leadoff Guys + defense" and neither worked at all. Might as well try the next cliche on the list, which is evidently "Manager Who Yells and Is Intense and Fired Up". What the Cubs need are better players. Whoever replaces Baker means less to me than getting better players. And for the record, I'd want them to have nothing to do with Piniella.

I think Italy have progressed in the past by drawing of lots..... how else could they do it? Flip coins, as in Friday Night Lights? (I don't know if that's the way to do things in the States) Yeah, we flip coins. It's too bad there can't be a replay...

The Official FIFA release on US advancement scenarios: Drawing of lots is a tiebreaker??

I know it's not likely, but what if the Czechs win by more than 2? Wouldn't we have to win by less than 4 goals then? If the CZR win and the US win, then the combined margin of victory for both teams must be at least 5. Considering Ghana can go through with a win, they're not just going to roll over and die like if we were playing Togo. We really need ITA to win that game.

Scenarios for Advancing: Current Goal Differential: ITA +2 CZR +1 GHA E USA -3 USA must beat GHA to advance. -If ITA beats CZR and USA beats GHA, ITA and USA advance. -If ITA and CZR tie, USA must beat GHA by 5 since CZR owns head to head tiebreaker with USA. -If CZR beats ITA, USA must beat GHA by at least 4, depending on margin of victory of CZR v ITA. For example, if CZR win 2-0, a 4 goal win v GHA puts the US up 1 on GD. If they beat them 1-0, 4 goals ties them on GD, head to head is even, and the US advance on goals scored with 5 to ITA 3. So basically the 2 best scenarios for the US are a win and a CZR loss, or a win and a CZR blowout win. So we control our destiny, but only in theory. Another example of how the ref screwed us yesterday. We were going to win that game, and he made it all but impossible to do so.

theoretically, probably. but i dont think anyone outside of the camp is really sure if hes 100% yet. he hasnt played 90 minutes in almost forever, and against a fast, physical team like ghana, fitness will be key. and really, it comes down to the fact that pablo was one of the best players on the field last night before he got himself sent off- we could have used that performance vs ghana matching up against appiah and essien. I'd not be shocked to see O'Brien in for Mastro, but I'd prefer to see Reyna play in Masro's spot, Landon play in the attacking midfield spot and Eddie Johnson start up front. Keep in mind we have to win the game, and if possible, win by multiple goals. That means we need our goalscorers on the field, and our best offensive lineup possible.

When I posted that blurb about the ref a few pages back before the game, I never dreamed that he would be that clearly biased and terrible. He completely dictated how the game was going to end. Given that he's already been suspended by FIFA in 2002 for "irregularities", he should probably get a lifetime ban. The foul disparity at one point was 20-7. I'm not sure how it ended, but I'm sure it didn't narrow much if at all. Mastro shouldn't have been given a hard red, but it was an overly aggresive play. It definetly deserved a yellow. Pope shouldn't have been booked either time. The US played exactly how they needed to. They came out intense, tough, and won just about every 50/50 ball. The entire team played a strong game. Every single played out there deserves praise. My only offensive quibble is with Reyna. He had a clear chance before the Beasley non goal to slip the ball to Donovan in the 18 (and Donovan would have scored, just based on his pace and the angle he would have had the entire left side of the net to slip the ball into) and instead he fired a pretty poor shot from 20 yards. He is supposed to be a playmaker, not a goal scorer. The insane thing was that we had 3 clear opportunities to score once we went down 9v10, but bad luck, poor decision making by Reyna and a terrible shank by McBride cost us. The DMB goal was called to the letter of the rule, but I guarantee if that had been an Italian player passivly offsides in the keeper's line of sight it would have been overlooked. Cherundolo and Boca played really well, and so did Conrad, for that matter. Donovan was sketchy in the attacking third during the first half, but overall played pretty well. Rappin' Clint proved why he should have started the first game. He was really strong in his time on the field. Convey played ok, too, although he had an open shot early and flubbed it, and also didn't position himself well as the "wall" on Italy's goal. I was screaming for Eddie Johnson, but I get why Arena kept that sub in his back pocket. If someone had been hurt, and we'd been out of subs, we'd be 10v8. Finally, that crowd was the best I've ever, ever seen for a US game. They were loud during the anthem, were loud and sang, and I think they kelt our energy high on the field late. The way they were screaming at the Italian player late in the game during the corner was unbelievable. This was the first game I've seen maybe ever where US fans made a clear difference and were wildly passionate and intense. It was a really special game. We outplayed them straight up, 11v10, 10v10 and 9v10. It's too bad the ref decided we couldn't win.

This is encouraging... .

Okay, keys to tomorrow: -Lineups. Johnson, Dempsey in. Beasley and Mastroeni out. Donovan in the middle. -Intensity. Must play like you mean to be a top team. You have to want to beat the holy hell out of Italy. I didn't see a team that wanted to win on Monday. -First 15 minutes. Do not let them score. If you get a goal, outstanding. But, DO NOT LET THEM SCORE. -Midfield. Must control it. The mids need the game of their lives. Control tempo, attack with pace, counter attacks need to be 10000% faster than they were vs CZR. Having Donovan in the mid will help, since Reyna is incapable of doing anything quickly. I think they can catch the Italians in a quick counter, but they have to counter with speed. On the wings, Convey and Dempsey (my preferred wings at this point) need to play to their strengths and run aggressively at the Italian defense. Service needs to be sharper to McB and EJ. -Gooch and Pope. Must play better. Must contain the wings, and keep Totti from ripping them apart. They have to be inpregnable, and make no mistakes with clearances. -The Crowd. We're 1-0 in K-Town in 2006. With the US Air Force base there, I'm hoping there will be a big pro-US crowd. They need to be heard, because a 12th man will mean something in this game. This might be the most important US game in a very, very long time. This will be a defining moment for most of these players, and I really, really hope they rise to the occasion. Arena needs to coach a great game tomorrow, and the players need to play with those cliche buzzwords like heart and intensity. It would also help if they finish off a couple goals. Given all that, I'll predict US are 2-1 winners. Here's hoping for a US win and a Ghanian upset vs CZR.

Angola earned that point. Their keeper played out of his mind.

Holland are really, really good.

If anyone can beat Brazil its their hated Argentinians. Any chance we see Andres Nocioni at any of the games :lol: If there was ever a charity soccer game amongst Chicago atheletes, I'd die to see Noc and Z on opposite teams. That would be the most intense matchup ever.

Probably not. Maybe there will be a replay on ESPN2 or something. I'm going to have to watchi t TiVo'd again, if it's any consolation. EDIT: XM have exclusivity for radio, I think.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=371218&root=worldcup&cc=5901 Carlisle speculates that benching Donovan is a possibility, albeit a remote one. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/soccer/specials/world_cup/2006/06/15/usitaly.warcomments/index.html?cnn=yes Looks like Italy woke up.