hands11 wrote:montestewart wrote:What they post. They smile in your face, all the time they rebut your case, the EG haters.
Come on hands, no one has any problem with you predicting that EG would be extended. No matter what happens, everyone knows you predicted it. It's EG being extended that's hard to grapple with. It's not always about you. Let the others have some punch.
First, I wasn't talking about me predicting he would get extended, I was talking about that he was going to stay for the two year term of the contract extension. That was never in doubt once Ted extended him. But now that you bring it up, you are right. I did predict they would extend him before they did and kept that view into the off season. I said the same for Randy. I predicted it would be for two year terms. But my posted wasn't about all that.
You know I'm just playing, hands. I love this thread, and it's a good thread for us, as fans and as a country.
There are a lot of veteran basketball watchers on this board, a lot of veteran Wizards/Bullets watchers. When I compare Wizards fans among my family, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, etc. (and I consider them collectively more representative of the general Wizards audience) they are not as knowledgable about basketball in general, the Wizards as a team, or Wizards/Bullets history. They like sports, and they like to see their team win, but the farther away they get from LeBJ, the harder it is for them to analyze why teams win or lose. There's nothing wrong with that; every team surely wants to appeal to casual fans and draw them in, and I can have just as much fun watching the Wizards with my wife (who mostly just follows points and which team has the ball) as I can with someone tracking fantasy stats, or even someone who wants the opposing team to win (I've attended games with friends and relatives who rooted for the opposing team: Knicks, Cavs, Celtics, Magic, Bucks, Warriors, and every years my foster son was rooting for the Lakers). We are truly a land of many peoples.
The thing about this board, and the posters on it, and the perceived negativity, is that there is a lot more information backing up these positions. Call them negative positions if you like, but for many here, they are realistic positions, based on history, statistical analysis, and regular observations of the players, coach, and others critical to the team's success. Here, naysayers may be a majority, but elsewhere, likely not. So what? Call it a loyal opposition unwilling to give in to the tyranny of the majority, and this is our union hall. They can wave flags and yell "These Colors Don't Run" all they want, we'll still say invading Iraq is a mistake.
Only history can tell if we were right. Still, given the (to me) well established level of knowledge on this board, and the widely prevailing view that EG is not a good GM, a thread called "Grunfeld a Great GM. Proves Doubters Wrong" has a couple of obstacles to overcome. The first is the name of the thread. To most here, EG has a long history of mediocrity, and that is pretty well established. To back up the title's claim, a pretty stellar case is called for. I believe the OP did not understand that, and thus does not comprehend the level of disrespect he has shown this board by making such a strong claim and coupling it with such weak support. The second is the approach to trying to support the claim. Even Wise, in his article, acknowledges the long accumulated and well documented support for a contrary claim, and merely tries to argue that perhaps the change is a little ahead of perception. OP barely pays attention to that strong case against the claim before proceeding to the reasons why negativity has clouded the perceptive faculties of the loyal opposition, and has repeatedly implied disloyalty among those who disagree. Yeah, they tried that when we said invading Iraq was a mistake.
I can't speak for everyone, but I would guess that the vast majority on this board NEVER EVER want the team to lose. Like you, I truly thought the 78 Bullets had a chance, and thoroughly enjoyed watching them propel from their underdog position and take it all. But that team was about
now, and the current team is about
future. Posters here and elsewhere have provided ample reason for believing Terd and Ernie have sabotaged and are still sabotaging the team's opportunities of becoming a real contender. There is no board rule preventing a poster from coming into the Countdown thread and saying things in EG's defense, and some posters do. There is likewise no rule preventing a poster from coming into this thread and making their case that EG is pretty far away from a great GM, and the majority of the posters here have done just that. That's what the board's for, that's what the threads are for. The title was a challenge (which, I suppose, is behind all the troll accusations), so it shouldn't be a surprise that on this board, people jumped right in. To expect otherwise is truly un-American.
As for the "troll" issue, that is an issue for mods, not for me. I like this thread, and don't find anything milie111 posted upsetting, just off base. My own negativity is generally not dour and glum, but more of a gleeful negativity. Nothing we write here is actively preventing our team from winning now, and we believe our agitation is in the interest of the team's future. It would be nice to see some respect shown for the many years of Bullet and Wizard scars, to the annals of history which inform the prevailing view, rather than blithely dismissing all such as mere "negativity," but this is America, and I believe in free speech. If fanatic positivity be the food of victory, rave on.
Come on.
