Quote:
Originally Posted by kehatch
I hate to be the one to bring it up. But isn't that the problem? I mean if this was the first song and dance then I might agree with the whole over reaction thing. Have the naysayers and doomsday prophets been wrong? Because my perspective is they have been pretty darn accurate over the past few seasons.
If Aristotle predicted there would be an outbreak of green dancing midgets before the world ended. And all of a sudden there were four green dancing midget on my doorstep. I might just stop making fun of Aristotle and cash in my RRSPs to live it up for the next few weeks.
Just saying.
|
A lot changed this off season. The context is entirely different. There are big adjustments being made and this often does not happen overnight.
There are also a lot of assertions that are errant.
Here is a classic - Iggy has always been a slow starter. Hm. Really that is 2 of the last 3 years, under Brent. Not so much any of the other years, but let's not let facts get in the way. Reality is that he has played pretty well this year, gotten chances, and we all know he is streaky. But consensus is what it is.
The question about how many games Hartley gets. The Keenan crap. How did the team start under Brent? Awesome for about 40 games, until he fixed their problems and drove them in to the ground, where they stayed for years. This is where the doomsayers claim being right the past few years. Some people think Brent was a dumbass. "If you're gonna be an upper ethelen (sic) team, it's gonna be thrived on hard work".
Point is, this year offers a few new things that are not common to the last few seasons.
Hartley deserves more than 5 games before people are jumping out of windows. This team has generated a lot of good chances.
Deleting Olli and adding Cervenka, Hudler and Wideman... that is an upgrade.
As for Aristotle, he was a bugger for the bottle anyhow