Let's Do it! Stars vs NEFC vs Everyone Else

[Unregistered]

BTDT, how much cred do you think you have when you start a new bash Stars thread every other day? Do you think it's possible you might have made your points by now? And do you think it is more than a little duplicitous when a question about NEFC is raised you duck and refer everyone to a website?

An uneducated bitter man? Interesting. And how do you presume you are viewed by the clientele here?

Since you are here, what exact words would you use to describe your role here vis-a-vis NEFC? Impartial observer? #1 Cheerleader? Full-time employee? Don't even like NEFC but hate Stars so much you can't sleep at night? Please, put it in your own words.

The hysterical thing is that wasn't BTDT and you are basically having a conversation with a revolving door. Perspective you have made yourself and the Stars into a plaything with irrational outburst like this. You obviously think you are talking at one specific person when the reality is you are screaming at just the next person that shows up on in the door opening. The effect is you make yourself and that club look like raving lunatics.

[Unregistered]

Once again Perspective - you have the wrong person, but that is standard for you. You just keep reinforcing what a whack job you are, and I will contend that you are doing Stars a major DISSERVICE with your vitriol and warped sense of who's who. Keep up the good fight and keep swinging for the fences!

Why even get into it with Perspective for the millionth time? You know where that's going to get you. Nowhere! The only way to shut him up is to talk about his Messiah.

Now let's see what has Obama said after the election.. Oh ya,

"To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday--I hear you, too."

Or in other words, to those who actually turned out to vote - who gives a sh*t. I'm gonna do whatever I want. Let's see you try to stop me.

[Unregistered]

This guy just doesn't get the harm HE does. What specifically does he feel has been made up in this particular thread? There is nothing that has been posted here about them that is anywhere near controversial. If he just stayed on topic half the time and stressed his club's merits they would have a much different public image than what they have. He is the one that keeps going back and talking about threads that are years old at this point. Does he really want to go back a couple of years to repost Suzie's comments yet again and deny that stuff happens? Does he really want to deny the more recent situation that the Stars are promoting an anti-high school agenda and argue that cutting a kid after they follow that agenda isn't wrong? As far as the other clubs are concerned he can go ahead and rehash all of those things as much as he likes, because those "fictions" as he likes to call them actually are quite true and his continual harping on them actually helps the rest of the clubs educate potential customers why they don't want to join that one specific club. None of that changes the fact though that he is the one who keeps making the Stars look so bad because he keeps bringing all of the conversations back to them and reintroducing long dead discussions that actually showed them in a negative light. He's a cancer to the Stars cause.

LOL. What happened to the non-derogatory pledge, BTDT???

[Unregistered]

BTDT, thanks for #s 118 thru 121. Keep it coming. You have no agenda and only mean well, so the more from you the merrier. Time for a Felger rant? Or a criminal harassment post? Let's watch you yet again go through your entire cycle. How about another new thread like this one? WHy DID you start this new one? How about listing those 7 distorted key points again differentiating the two clubs? Maybe that will jumpstart your latest effort.

[Unregistered]

Not going to answer? Hardly seems fair, but you're not about fair when there are agendas to feed, I guess.

Since you are here, what exact words would you use to describe your role here vis-a-vis NEFC? Impartial observer? #1 Cheerleader? Full-time employee? Don't even like NEFC but hate Stars so much you can't sleep at night? Please, put it in your own words.

[Unregistered]

BTDT, thanks for #s 118 thru 121. Keep it coming. You have no agenda and only mean well, so the more from you the merrier. Time for a Felger rant? Or a criminal harassment post? Let's watch you yet again go through your entire cycle. How about another new thread like this one? WHy DID you start this new one? How about listing those 7 distorted key points again differentiating the two clubs? Maybe that will jumpstart your latest effort.

Yawn! Continuously wrong P.

BTW - you still makes Stars look bad with your ranting.

[Unregistered]

Not going to answer? Hardly seems fair, but you're not about fair when there are agendas to feed, I guess.

Since you are here, what exact words would you use to describe your role here vis-a-vis NEFC? Impartial observer? #1 Cheerleader? Full-time employee? Don't even like NEFC but hate Stars so much you can't sleep at night? Please, put it in your own words.

Wow! Perspective recycled a post that was less than a year old....and he was able to bullet it so that everyone could see that he's still unstable and swinging at the wrong person.

[Unregistered]

Perspective - you really are doing Stars a disservice with your irrational thoughts. The thread was started to compare both clubs. People have put forth decent arguments, but you, on the other hand, have to go on the attack constantly. You are the master of deception, but any educated person would view you as an uneducated bitter man. If you think Stars are doing things differently than what has been posted, then be a grown man and prove to the masses that was is being said is incorrect. By going on the attack, it appears that you have nothing valid to say about the topic and you come off as someone who is blinded by his loyalty - basically a foot soldier; however, you just swing at about every post that does not look favorably on Stars. You've been doing it for years and you have lost just about any ounce of credibility you had.

There have been very few Stars supporters posting on this thread. They may be tired of being bashed, or already know how that the discussion isn't really a discussion. For the most part, they don't seem to be engaging you on constant bashing. And just because no one is bothering to fire back on every one of your 465 points slamming the club, doesn't mean that they are all "facts," "indisputable," "truths" or whatever other BS terms you elect to employ.

[Unregistered]

So frustrating to have a forward who holds the ball too long, not seeing (or choosing not to pass) to players in a better position who are open or making a run, and then losing the ball or killing the momentum of the play away by passing to a player in the back. Kid has been doing it all last year and every game this year. Just won't change. So many potentially great plays are squashed because of this one player. Coaches still give him lots of minutes. Frustrating.

I follow your point, but what I was driving at was less about how the team's style of play affects things, and more about how the overall quality of the play the team is capable of affects the evaluator's perception of the individual.

Take a situation where a strong 3/5 tool player player is worried about showcasing up to their potential/skill/ability level because few other comparable talents are present on that player's team. How does the evaluator effectively correct for that, when what they see on the surface at least, is a kid who may never get the ball fed to them in anything approaching an advantageous position, or on the other side of it, a kid who creates a play that very quickly dies on the vine because his teammates were incapable of building further on the opportunity? Are those things easily apparent to most evaluators such that they can correct for that in their assessments, or is it more tricky? That was the other part of the question.

In an effort to get this thread back on track, I would like to marry these two posts and talk about how individual players get recruited and then by extension how the different clubs develop their players. You often read these above types of posts here on TS and I think that they really underscore how delusional the thinking is in club soccer. One big misconception seems to be that college coaches need to see players play well with each other to recruit them. These two posts sum this up.

I would contend that there are a lot of coaches out there who would walk away from a striker at the club level who passed up a shot to be a nice teammate. When they are looking for a striker they are looking for a unique talent who is driven to finish. They don't actually want to see them pass, they want to see them jam the ball down the other teams throat and score. True strikers know that they are evaluated on their ability to put that ball in the net and that there are thousands of would be strikers out there that can miss perfectly well. That is why they hang on to the ball, because it is their job. The only question with an actual striker comes down to whether or not they do it well enough.

I think when you come right down to it there are actually very few positions on the field that require the 5 tools that other poster cited in equal measures because there are just different characteristics and skills that coaches end up valuing for each one. For example what a lot of coaches look for in a center mid is a kid that keeps their head up and distributes the ball to open players like this second poster is hoping but that usually is very different from what that coaches might be looking for in an outside mid or center back because not only are the playing roles different but the builds and athleticism required for each position are actually quite different as well.

One of the problems that I see with the various clubs is that they have particular playing philosophies and train their players to fit that particular style rather than train well rounded soccer players. You often see teams built around kids that ultimately are playing a position that they might never be successful in. As a result I think understanding the individual teaching philosophies of each club is actually way more important than the success of their individual teams and certainly more important than all of this ego stuff we continually get bombarded with.

[Unregistered]

In an effort to get this thread back on track, I would like to marry these two posts and talk about how individual players get recruited and then by extension how the different clubs develop their players. You often read these above types of posts here on TS and I think that they really underscore how delusional the thinking is in club soccer. One big misconception seems to be that college coaches need to see players play well with each other to recruit them. These two posts sum this up.

I would contend that there are a lot of coaches out there who would walk away from a striker at the club level who passed up a shot to be a nice teammate. When they are looking for a striker they are looking for a unique talent who is driven to finish. They don't actually want to see them pass, they want to see them jam the ball down the other teams throat and score. True strikers know that they are evaluated on their ability to put that ball in the net and that there are thousands of would be strikers out there that can miss perfectly well. That is why they hang on to the ball, because it is their job. The only question with an actual striker comes down to whether or not they do it well enough.

I think when you come right down to it there are actually very few positions on the field that require the 5 tools that other poster cited in equal measures because there are just different characteristics and skills that coaches end up valuing for each one. For example what a lot of coaches look for in a center mid is a kid that keeps their head up and distributes the ball to open players like this second poster is hoping but that usually is very different from what that coaches might be looking for in an outside mid or center back because not only are the playing roles different but the builds and athleticism required for each position are actually quite different as well.

One of the problems that I see with the various clubs is that they have particular playing philosophies and train their players to fit that particular style rather than train well rounded soccer players. You often see teams built around kids that ultimately are playing a position that they might never be successful in. As a result I think understanding the individual teaching philosophies of each club is actually way more important than the success of their individual teams and certainly more important than all of this ego stuff we continually get bombarded with.

What a shock. BTDT again trying to revive his own thread. And never answered the questions posed to him that he obviously has seen since he is right here posting (along with his other 500 cronies apparently, lol).

[Unregistered]

What a shock. BTDT again trying to revive his own thread. And never answered the questions posed to him that he obviously has seen since he is right here posting (along with his other 500 cronies apparently, lol).

Guess you would prefer this.

Facts:

The Stars are discouraging players from playing high school soccer.
The Stars cut and move players around to maximize their team/club success.

Opinions:

Some one is bound to get hurt by this plan to eliminate high school soccer participation so it is a bad idea.
When the turnover of players is more about club goals than what is best for the individual members of the club it is a bad idea.

[Unregistered]

In an effort to get this thread back on track, I would like to marry these two posts and talk about how individual players get recruited and then by extension how the different clubs develop their players. You often read these above types of posts here on TS and I think that they really underscore how delusional the thinking is in club soccer. One big misconception seems to be that college coaches need to see players play well with each other to recruit them. These two posts sum this up.

I would contend that there are a lot of coaches out there who would walk away from a striker at the club level who passed up a shot to be a nice teammate. When they are looking for a striker they are looking for a unique talent who is driven to finish. They don't actually want to see them pass, they want to see them jam the ball down the other teams throat and score. True strikers know that they are evaluated on their ability to put that ball in the net and that there are thousands of would be strikers out there that can miss perfectly well. That is why they hang on to the ball, because it is their job. The only question with an actual striker comes down to whether or not they do it well enough.

I think when you come right down to it there are actually very few positions on the field that require the 5 tools that other poster cited in equal measures because there are just different characteristics and skills that coaches end up valuing for each one. For example what a lot of coaches look for in a center mid is a kid that keeps their head up and distributes the ball to open players like this second poster is hoping but that usually is very different from what that coaches might be looking for in an outside mid or center back because not only are the playing roles different but the builds and athleticism required for each position are actually quite different as well.

One of the problems that I see with the various clubs is that they have particular playing philosophies and train their players to fit that particular style rather than train well rounded soccer players. You often see teams built around kids that ultimately are playing a position that they might never be successful in. As a result I think understanding the individual teaching philosophies of each club is actually way more important than the success of their individual teams and certainly more important than all of this ego stuff we continually get bombarded with.

So by passing the mid field and playing directly to a forward would be a bad thing? :)

[Unregistered]

Have a nice day, BTDT. I'm out for now. I am very glad to see your pledge not to engage in anything derogatory.

[Unregistered]

Have a nice day, BTDT. I'm out for now. I am very glad to see your pledge not to engage in anything derogatory.

Hey Perspective, before you leave, ponder this:

"It is now undeniable that no Democratic president in the last century has had as devastating an impact on his party as has Obama. When he took office in 2009, any political map of the United States was much more Democratic blue than Republican red. That was true across the board from the White House, to the Senate, the House, governorships, and state legislatures. Today, in the wake of Tuesday's defeats, all those maps are predominantly crimson.

The numbers are sobering for Democrats, demonstrating both how far the party has fallen and how difficult it will be to climb out of the current hole. Almost all the attention has been focused on the loss of the Senate. But the damage to the party is considerably deeper than the top of the ballot and considerably dispersed from Washington.

The numbers tell the story: In 2009, Democrats had 60 senators, when you include the two independents who caucused with them; in 2015, they will have 45. In 2009, Democrats had 256 members of the House; in 2015, they will have 192. In 2009, Democrats had 28 governors; in 2015, they will have 18. In 2009, Democrats controlled both legislative chambers in 27 states; in 2015, they will control only 11. In 2009, Democrats controlled 62 legislative chambers; in 2015, they will control only 28 (with one tie and two still undecided).

The impact of the carnage in state legislatures on Obama's watch is hard to overstate. This is where the future classes of mayors, governors, and members of Congress are bred. This is where the boundary lines are drawn for congressional and legislative districts. This is where party leaders come from. And this is where the rules are made for party primaries and election laws are set. According to Tim Storey at the National Conference of State Legislatures, what we saw on Tuesday was an almost unprecedented "Republican wave," which he said, leaves "Democrats at their lowest point in state legislatures in nearly a century."

All thanks to Perspective's Messiah! Thank you Lord!!!

[Unregistered]

P.S. To those of you annoyed by my political posts, just be aware as long as Perspective brings up the BTDT c rap, I will follow with a political posting until that idiot quits or leaves. Sorry, that's just how it's going to be.