Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

2014 World Cup: Group E


Goondal

Recommended Posts

France 2-1-0 (+6) 7

Switzerland 2-0-1 (+1) 6

Ecuador 1-1-1 (EV) 4

Honduras 0-0-3 (-7) 0

 

Arguably the weakest group in the tournament, there are a lot of possibilities her.  Are the Swiss actually as good as their FIFA ranking suggests?  Can the French put things together and make a run?  How much will playing on their home continent help Ecuador?  Will Honduras be able to pull an upset like their fellow CONCACAF member Costa Rica?

 

While I am not expecting them to go too far, I do have Switzerland winning the group.  At that point they would likely have a very winnable game in the Round of 16 before going out to Germany in the quarters.  I have Ecuador edging France for second.  Regardless of who finishes second though I do not see them being much of a threat to Argentina in the Round of 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're about to see if you are the kiss of death

Sent from my iPhone using Carolina

 

You forgot to mention my Uruguay to the finals pick, haha.  After how successful I was four year ago maybe I am about to be equally as awful.  If so I am going to change my picks to have Portugal and Ghana coming out of G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot to mention my Uruguay to the finals pick, haha. After how successful I was four year ago maybe I am about to be equally as awful. If so I am going to change my picks to have Portugal and Ghana coming out of G

Please do

Sent from my iPhone using Carolina

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Strange, every news article and tweet I just searched all mentioned waivers. It is definitely his sixth year of at least 6 games. All I was trying to think of earlier was at the vet min could he beat out Bryce in camp next year lol. He's kinda got the old Darnold issue where he can obviously launch deep balls and qb run at a level Bryce will never achieve, but it sounds like he would be content being like a Josh Allen backup who doesn't throw the whole game plan out the window if he has to come in for a series or two. If we had him and for some reason still wanted to start Bryce he would kinda do what Justin Fields was doing the other night with Dangeruss, coming in for designed runs and maybe some play action/triple option rpo things to go deep. That would be so obvious and sad though. At least Russ can still sling it 40 yards in the air with a flick of the wrist
    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
×
×
  • Create New...