brinoch

From his reaction, it was clear that Pearce thought the ref was going to show him a straight red.

Mrs. brinoch and I were at the game... fourth row in the supporters section almost at midfield -- really very close to the action. Honduras was really physical -- dangerously so -- and the ref simply wouldn't call a foul. He was really quite awful. I don't know how well you could see on television, but there were some yellow card fouls that were ignored (red card fouls in South Africa). The physical nature of the game really hurt Adu, but he was pretty poor all in all. I think that the physicality of the game took us out of our rhythm, as well. We played with more fire and grit in the second half, and it showed. Other thoughts: -- Dolo didn't really impress me. He was okay, but in my mind, Spector has passed him. -- Pearce was okay. He does a lot of things really well... he just needs to get it all together (and that yellow card tackle was *right* in front of me -- it probably was a red in South Africa). -- Feilhaber made a *huge* difference in the game when he replaced Pause, who didn't impress me at all. -- Davies shredded the Honduras defense in about 35 seconds, flat. He did immediately what Ching and Adu couldn't do for 60 minutes. I don't blame Ching... Freddy was the problem. He disappeared and had no touch on the ball. He needs to get playing time somewhere, because he looks terrible. Davies looked great. -- Marshall is a giant and looked solid. He did a very credible job on Costly. Parkhurst wasn't quite as good, but I didn't really notice him, so that means he did his job well. -- Quaranta impressed in front of the home crowd. He was solid, made good decisions, and should see further looks down the road. Great story. -- I love me some Robbie Rogers. He's good. Very good. -- Cooper. Glad he got on the field; wish he had more time. He was impressive against a tired defense. Good touch, *very* good runs. Looked dangerous. -- Perkins made two nice saves, but otherwise wasn't tested all that much. -- Beckerman is off my ugh list. He's better than Kljestan on the ball right now. His work rate was really very high, and he made up for a disappointing Pause.

As I've mentioned before, it would be great for the USA if Mexico finished fourth and won the playoff with CONMEBOL's fifth place team. It means that it would be really tough for FIFA to put CONCACAF in a pot with AFC. Assuming New Zealand loses to the Bahrain/Saudi Arabia winner. The seeds will be Brazil, Italy, Spain, England, South Africa and three of Argentina, France, Portugal and the Netherlands (depending on who qualifies and such). Keeping in mind the amazing run of luck giving Host nations easy groups, I think we're unlikely to get drawn with South Africa (but I do think that Sepp and company will want SA facing a CONCACAF team rather than a CONMEBOL team). So, if we're to advance past the group stage it would be good to have as many factors as we can in our favor. One of these is having a team from AFC rather than CAF as the fourth team. Our group would then be: Seed pot / UEFA pot / USA / AFC and CONMEBOL pot. Even better would be to be drawn with Brazil/Argentina. In that case, we could get a group like: Brazil, Switzerland, USA, N. Korea.

It's Bolland that's irking me, I guess. He's not a bad No. 2, per se, but he's not exactly elite at that position either. He's sneaky good. Seriously, the team will be fine, offensively, with lines that are going to look something like: Sharp-Toews-Hossa Versteeg-Bolland-Kane Ladd-Madden-Byfuglien Eager-Kopecky-Brouwer Bench: Burish, Fraser, Bickell?, Beach?, Skille?, There is definitely excess talent here... the Hawks could make a deal. I worry more about the defense: Seabrook-Keith Campbell-Barker Hjalmarsson-Sopel? Bench: Hendry, Johnson I'd look for a deal that trades a forward for a defenseman.

I think the Hawks are pretty much set at center with Toews, Bolland, Madden, Kopecky and Burish.

I'm very happy with our performance as a team. The one thing that upset me was Bradley's substitutions... terrible. Both in personnel selection and in timing. At minute 60, we were gassed. Bradley waited too long AGAIN -- 15 more minutes. Plus, I would not have brought in Kljestan or Casey. They were the wrong guys. What we needed was possession, possession, possession. I will grant that the depth isn't there yet -- and losing Michael Bradley to a cheesy red card really, really hurt the team. In fact, I think if we'd had him, we win the game. With Rico and Mike in the midfield, Bradley could have brought in Feilhaber in the 60th for Jozy, shifting Dempsey up top. In addition, with the available subs, I'll grant that Bradley's selections were limited... there's no way that Pearce, Wynne or Beasley see the pitch. Personally, I would have subbed in Torres for Feilhaber and Bornstein for Jozy, shifting Dempsey up top into a free role. At the end, needing a goal, the guy to bring on was Adu, not Casey.

There hasn't been a single credible source that's discussed the alleged confrontation. I'm calling bs.

Neither did the Cubs...

I tried not to learn about this result until I could watch it tonight... but given that it's all over the major papers, yeah I failed. BUT WHO CARES!!! =D> Dos a cero!!!

After the terrible red, there really was no hope. Italy are just too good -- you can't deny them for 60 minutes if you can't control the ball.

Some thoughts: o Adding Feilhaber in at the half was the right move. He should have started (or Torres or Adu), but better half a loaf than none. o Coaching still sucks. We got pretty lucky, in some ways. Now, good play tends to make its own luck, in a sense, but running out crappy players like Mastroeni and Casey just isn't going to cut it. Subbing in Beasley made no sense. He didn't do a whole heck of a lot out there, and he was woefully exposed (again) when he tried to play defense. o DeMerit was really very good. *Very* good in his time out there. I was really impressed. o Spector should be in the starting XI. o With Spector, Cherundolo, Bocanegra, Onyewu and DeMerit, you have a good selection for the back four. Left back is still questionable, but those are the best five defenders. Question is health, of course, but I'd go with Boca-DeMerit-Onyewu-Spector. You could also go Spector-Boca(DeMerit)-Onyewu-Cherundolo. Bornstein was decent today, but he's not to the level of the others.

Defense looks okay. Onyewu was shaky on the goal, but Spector and Bornstein have been solid. Actually, on second thought, they've been been better than that. Midfield is the first problem. The empty bucket strikes again. Mastroeni looks old, out of shape, and worthless. Clark looks better, but he's no Torres. We have no possession in the middle, which means that whenever we run into trouble, we get a backpass and a long ball from Bocanegra. Additionally, there's no linkage to the forwards except when Altidore comes all the way back into a CAM role. Donovan's been in the game and is making things happen. Dempsey really hurt us with that turnover which led to the goal, but then again, both Clark and Mastroeni were stuck on the left and neither came over to the right to widen the attack or provide a decent square. Forwards aren't terrible, but that's nothing to recommend them. Jozy looks okay, but the lack of a central midfield is forcing him to come back to get any service. I've seen him make some links with Dempsey that have been interesting. Casey is worthless and should be subbed. Coaching=fail. No Adu? No Torres? Give me a break. It's like without his precious Mikey in the mix, he won't give anyone else an opportunity to shine. Going to the bucket was an awful decision. Going to Casey when you have little service from the wings is also awful (and Casey's just not an international player). Consequently, I hope we're going to see Sacha or Benny here in the middle for Pablo, along with Davies for Casey. That's what I'd do with the subs as they are. Too bad that Bob screwed the pooch and left our guys with touch out of the mix. Terrible.

Total PK.

That was just awful. Beasley? Seriously? I re-watched several defensive sequences, and Beasley was constantly out of position and pulled Boca too far to the left. Gooch and Boca are too slow to cover the center as well as push out to help on the wings. Wynne and Beasley were awful, awful, awful and made everyone else look that much worse. Howard: 4. Nothing he could do. At least showed emotion and tried to coach his defense. Wynne: 1. Worthless. Out of position. Pulled Gooch out of the middle. Gooch: 3. Terribly disappointing. Boca: 3. Exposed as slow. Needed to step up, but didn't. Beas: -5. Should have been subbed at about 10 minutes. Bradley: 4. Had energy, but no help. Bad yellow (shouldn't have been one). JFT: 5. MOTM. Of course Bradley subbed him out. What a joke. Pablo: 0. If I comment I'll need to ban myself. Demps: 3. Tried to make too much happen, but that's better than... Landon: 2. Sitting back and letting CR take you out of the game. Jozy: 5. I thought played fairly decently, but there was nothing for to work with. Adu: 5. Who knew that this guy would run at defenders and try to make things happen? Huh. Sasha: 1. Who? Davies: n/a. In his short time, I liked what I saw, but that was too short for a grade. Bob Bradley: 0. Terrible coaching job. The team looked ill prepared, slow, weak and was constantly chasing. Keeping Beasley in was a huge mistake (playing Beasley was a HUGE mistake as well). No Spector? Subbed JFT? No visible adjustments at halftime other than taking out the team's best player to that point. If the effort isn't there on Saturday, and we continue to see lineups, formations and tactics my 11 month old son would scoff at, he should be fired.

That would be a lot of fun. But I don't see those guys signing short-term and definitely not at that low price tag. That's one hell of a team. But yeah, the Sedins could get $7.5M each for 5 years. Hawks obviously can't do that. Not many teams can. I know. It would be a lot of fun to watch, but yeah, it's unrealistic. But what are offseasons for other than unrealistic dreaming?!?

I should point out that I can't imagine that the Sedins will leave Vancouver. That's just crazy-talk by me. More realistic is targeting Saku Koivu and keeping Havlat.

He better be dominate and with a very cap friendly contract. Also depth on defense doesnt look so deep when you would have Campbell or Barker on the top pairing. Honestly I cannot think of a situation where this is a good move for the Hawks. I just don't see Bolland or Pahlsson as the No. 2 center on a legit threat to win the Cup, and I like Barker as a No. 2 defenseman with another year under his belt. I do think the Hawks are going to have to make some gambles if they plan on reaching the next level. Another thought is...since they have solid depth at wing, trade Kane for a dominate 2nd line center. Let Havlat walk and make a run at the Sedins. See if you can get them both at $4.5M-$5M (but don't go long-term -- maybe two years). Between the Havlat and Khabibulin money -- 12.75M total -- you get a top center, replace Havlat (more or less) and save a little cash. It would be more complicated, because we're a little over-loaded at LW and would need additional help on the right, but that could be dealt with. I'd probably look to trade Ladd for an equivalent RW. You could also flip Sharp to RW, I suppose. 1. Sharp - Toews - Kane 2. D. Sedin - H. Sedin - Byfuglien 3. Versteeg - Bolland - Brouwer 4. Beach - Pahlsson - Burish

The Hawks have lots of flexibility in how they approach this offseason. They have a bunch of restricted free agents (Bolland, Brower, Eager, Fraser, Versteeg, Dowell, Barker, Niemi and Crawford) with small number of unrestricted free agents (Khabibulin, Walker, Johnson, Brent, Pelletier, Pahlsson, and Havlat). The key is to keep the core together and perhaps find a way to unload Campbell or Huet, if possible (quite unlikely). I think the Hawks will resign Walker inexpensively. He's not that impressive in any event, but he is filler. Remember, they still have Sopel under contract. They'll need another D-Man or two in addition, probably someone young who won't mind bouncing back and forth. 1. - Seabrook (3.5) and Keith (1.9) 2. - Barker (RFA) and Campbell (7.14) 3. - Hjallmarsson (.666) and Sopel (2.5) 4. - Walker and ?? Also under contract: Hendry (.650) Figure that once everything is done -- Barker resigned, Walker and another couple of low-grade D-Men are signed, the Hawks will spend about $20M here, (Barker's cap number was higher than his salary because of his bonus...) maybe about $2M more than this year. I'd try and keep it about the same at $18M if possible. Cap figures can be deceptive since they don't take into account minor league service. On the Goalie front, Khabibulin is gone. Huet is good enough, though over priced for what he does. The Hawks need to make a decision between Crawford and Niemi, but I suspect they'll sign them both and let them compete for the #2. 1. Huet (5.625) 2. Crawford (RFA) 3. Niemi (RFA) That's a savings of 6.75M. Big money.

I'm pretty sure that won't happen. Two of the top ten I listed would have to miss qualification. I could see France missing, but they are probably a favorite to make it out of the second place head-to-head round robin -- of course they could get a tough draw...

We've never won at Estadio Ricardo Saprissa. Not that this will happen, but the projected seeds for WC10 are: 1. Germany 2. Brazil 3. Italy 4. Spain 5. England 6. Argentina 7. France x. (South Africa) ----- 8. Netherlands 9. Mexico 10. USA There's a very real chance that France will not advance to the WC next year. They are currently sitting second, and I think they'll have a tough time passing Serbia to win the group. Likewise, Mexico are playing with fire. I could see them placing 4th and losing the play-in. They shouldn't fail, but it's not inconceivable. That said, there's basically no way that Germany, Brazil, Italy, Spain, England, Argentina and the Netherlands fail to qualify. Which would leave us one out of the seeding. It would take an epic collapse for any of these 7 to miss qualification at this point. So, if they continue to use confederations to determine pot size, the best way to avoid getting stuck in the same pot (again) with Asia is for a CONCACAF team to win the playoff against CONMEBOL and for the Asian #5 to defeat New Zealand. If this happens, you'll have: Pot A -- 5 UEFA, 2 CONMEBOL, Host - South Africa Pot B -- 8 from UEFA You'll then need to cobble together two pots from: 2 - CONMEBOL 4 - CONCACAF 5 - CAF 5 - AFC Otherwise, if New Zealand and CONMEBOL #5 win, you'll have: Pot A -- 5 UEFA, 2 CONMEBOL, Host - South Africa Pot B -- 8 from UEFA You'll then need to cobble together two pots from: 3 - CONMEBOL 3 - CONCACAF 5 - CAF 4 - AFC 1 - New Zealand I suppose they could pair CONCACAF and CAF together this time, but I tend to doubt it. That might make things tougher for the UEFA teams.

I think you have to assume that games in Azteca and Saprissa are extremely likely to be losses. Getting a draw or a win against Costa Rica on the road would be phenomenal. If, somehow, the USMNT manages to win against both CR and Honduras, they've basically qualified for South Africa. Seriously, a draw against CR would be a great result.

Meh. They should still be favored in their first four. The first 3 teams they faced (CLE, DET, SF) all finished in the bottom 7 in rushing offense last year, which is where teams might be able to expose them without the Williamseseses. They get GB in week 4, but it's in the Metrodome. It's pretty irritating that they weren't punished during the season.

I was just thinking about that. Pretty amazing.

I don't care who the Hawks play. Whoever it is will be a good team, and will make for tough match-ups. In terms of watching good hockey, the Wings are the team you want. Me? I just want the Hawks to win.

I swear Pat Foley was crying at the end of the game there.