Quote:
Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent
When no matter what the same lot jumps to the defense of Huska regardless of what he does, yeah, you're getting the apologists label. That's what it implies. If you aren't that, then show it?
From my perspective and others who aren't under the mysterious spell of a mediocre rookie coach, being unable to dish criticism when it's warranted (and only deviate between apology and praise) shows a certain level of closed mindedness of its own.
There were posts in the other thread that blamed the player for getting benched or scratched, and then in the same breath praising Huska when they played too well to be denied. The double standard is silly.
Not sure calling something out for what it is is the textbook definition of "closed minded". Seems like "blunt" is a better descriptor. Irritatingly impartial also works. 
And there were hurt feelings just as predicted over practically nothing, so oh well. Carry on with your Huska lovin' and lashing out at anybody who can actutally evaluate the guy by tougher than kindergarten standards. |
So double down then?
I feel I show my work with every conversation.
Just make your point on Huska, nobody is stopping you. Don't confuse people disagreeing with flawed logic as being an apologist. It's weak and screams "I don't have a leg to stand on with my argument"
Anytime you have to label opposition it screams the argument is weak from your side and you need to provide air cover.