Blues 06 - For those that want to talk about it

Sped said:
speaking of bombs, ask Duggan how his top girls 2008 team looks all of a sudden (and I'll give you a . Again, nothing to do with DA or ECNL, just people.
Click to expand...

What happened to the 2008 team??

And, just so my words are clear, Pauly is a stand up guy and a great trainer. Not had him as a coach, but DD loved him as a trainer.
 
Last edited:
Cuts justified? Perhaps Blues seem to have justified their decisions with 2 early tourney wins in big tourneys (Legends Classic/Man City Cup)? Even spring EGSL was a good showing despite all the changes.
 
442precision said:
Cuts justified? Perhaps Blues seem to have justified their decisions with 2 early tourney wins in big tourneys (Legends Classic/Man City Cup)? Even spring EGSL was a good showing despite all the changes.
Click to expand...
After playing them in the Finals on back to back weekends, I would say they've put together a solid squad.
 
Question from a non-Blues parent: How many of the kids at youngers level make an impact in olders? I know that a lot of SC Blues' reputation is made on kids making USGNT/USGWT and being recruited to major colleges. I also know that they recruit heavily. So is all this winning at the youngers level part of building a brand that helps attract these same girls' replacements at olders level?
 
442precision said:
Cuts justified? Perhaps Blues seem to have justified their decisions with 2 early tourney wins in big tourneys (Legends Classic/Man City Cup)? Even spring EGSL was a good showing despite all the changes.
Click to expand...
They will almost certainly win more this year, but I'm not sure if they will be better off long-term or not. Many of those girls from last year who are no longer at Blues are very good players and are on top teams at other clubs (Beach, Slammers, WCFC at the very least from what I know). When this group goes to a big field next year, who will fill in the additional roster spots now that they don't have two strong teams? I'm sure an argument can be made that winning this year allows them to more easily recruit additional players next year (for those parents focused on winning). In comparison, SD Surf seems to be very well set-up for next year if they fill out their A team roster with some of the girls from their very strong B team. I guess only time will tell if the somewhat painful changes last year pay off in the long run.
 
BeepBeep Boop said:
Question from a non-Blues parent: How many of the kids at youngers level make an impact in olders? I know that a lot of SC Blues' reputation is made on kids making USGNT/USGWT and being recruited to major colleges. I also know that they recruit heavily. So is all this winning at the youngers level part of building a brand that helps attract these same girls' replacements at olders level?
Click to expand...

That would be correct!
 
With Pace said:
They will almost certainly win more this year, but I'm not sure if they will be better off long-term or not. Many of those girls from last year who are no longer at Blues are very good players and are on top teams at other clubs (Beach, Slammers, WCFC at the very least from what I know). When this group goes to a big field next year, who will fill in the additional roster spots now that they don't have two strong teams? I'm sure an argument can be made that winning this year allows them to more easily recruit additional players next year (for those parents focused on winning). In comparison, SD Surf seems to be very well set-up for next year if they fill out their A team roster with some of the girls from their very strong B team. I guess only time will tell if the somewhat painful changes last year pay off in the long run.
Click to expand...
Def see point, flip side is:

Some kids who play was solely based on size or/and aggression are no longer viable because they didn't develop past that point (while others grew), with no fault to the coaching. Not always the case, every kid is different. Kids that go to skills sessions don't always develop to the same level. Doesn't mean at all that they're bad kids.

Some players were never skills-based, touch, or foot-inclined to begin with--every kid is different. But you're right, everyone would like more good players.
 
442precision said:
Def see point, flip side is:

Some kids who play was solely based on size or/and aggression are no longer viable because they didn't develop past that point (while others grew), with no fault to the coaching. Not always the case, every kid is different. Kids that go to skills sessions don't always develop to the same level. Doesn't mean at all that they're bad kids.

Some players were never skills-based, touch, or foot-inclined to begin with--every kid is different. But you're right, everyone would like more good players.
Click to expand...


The girls that have been able to get by on size and aggression will have a hard time on the big field. Especially once others start growing and they no longer have a size advantage. It is all about skill, skill, skill!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top