I've heard lots of opinions on this game but who cares? My opinion is superior because I'm old. And cranky. Deal with it.. First, I didn't think that the Eagles were "soft", I didn't think that they displayed any less intensity than Canada. I did think Canada was the better team and that the score was a pretty accurate reflection of the difference between them. Better team, yes. Better M-E-N? Not on your life. WE are 'muricans and that still counts for something... like the American dollar... oh, it is? Never mind, then.

Besides the clear fact that the Canucks excel in what they call "gamesmanship", slowing US ball down by lingering just a bit on the ground, or being ever so slightly in the way of a supporting runner, or cheating on their income tax, they were better organized on defense and offense, they were more patient and they were persistent in attacking the weak side of the ruck which ultimately paid off in some long breaks and (I believe) a couple of scores.

What impressed me most was how quickly they covered the field when a ruck was formed and how well they reorganized around the few breaks the US made through their defensive line. The US was continually tackled as soon as they received a pass and their kicking, which pissed off every American in the stands except me, was aimless but understandable because its what most of you do when you're caught with no support and a coach who doesn't string you up by your thumbs for kicking directly to the other team's back 3 with plenty of field in front of them. to me, it wasn't THAT they kicked but how poorly they kicked.

In my view, and this is an almost pre-historic, dark age primitiveness, but the Eagles problems offensively could have been solved with a few basic adjustments.

1. When your back line is under pressure, stand deeper... I know that having a pod of forwards standing flat is supposed to commit/confuse the defense, but the Canucks were unfazed. I know this alignment is the thing now-a-days, but all it managed to do was move the ball in the wrong direction with our support on the wrong side of the tackle.

2. When your back line is covered up and your opponent is stopping you behind the gain line EVERY friggin' time (OK, maybe not, but pretty darn close), a rolling maul is an effective way to collect a few extra defenders and give your backs some room. I guess the rolling maul is passé as well.

3. When the defensive back line is coming up hard and flat, all we geezers who were formerly backs would try to lay a little grubber kick just behind them, not so far that the fullback can get there first, it take a gentle touch but done properly it causes enough uncertainty in the defense that they have to come up slower . (Hall of Famer Paul Kyserling, aka the Human Spear, made a nice career out of just that... that and managing to to make full body contact from the ball carrier's waist down...) Any way, back then, no farther back, your parents are too young to remember, it's just what we (backs) did.

Sooo, until the US figures out how to beat a more skillful team, it's going to be along time before we're going to be able to stand against the northern horde.