Quote:
Originally Posted by calgARI
Agree to disagree but saying I "don't seem capable" seems unnecessary. I don't think there is anything wrong with being unwilling to change my position on something.
|
Not really what I am getting at. There is a big difference between expecting or suggesting that someone change her/his opinion and asking him to recognise the pretty clear interpretative leaps that he makes in forming that opinion, and to make room in the absence of CLEAR evidence for the possibility of other options. I get that people do not like Feaster and have determined that overall he was not a good GM in his time with the Flames. It is both understandable and warranted, but to characterise him as utterly incompetent and to so casually dismiss his managerial successes is to construct a caricature. It exaggerates his flaws and his virtues to such an extreme as to produce a wholly disingenuous summary of the collective body of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgARI
You and others are welcome to disagree but as Feaster would say, it is "academic" at this point because the people making decisions felt he didn't do a good enough job to stay on.
|
I don't disagree, but as with all things in "academics", there is a whole lot of room between perfection and rubbish. I've said it before and I maintain that Feaster was a very average GM. I'm probably being a bit charitable, and am willing to concede that he was marginal or substandard, but that is a far, far cry from the summation of his tenure as an unmitigated disaster.