I can't speak on Capers' adjustments or lack of this past Sunday, but in many cases the criticisms here are broad brush with little or no support, although there are several people here who present objective evidence and provide good solid basis for their arguments. There can be a herd mentality when it comes to the criticisms. It's much easier to criticize one failed play than it is to recall the circumstances of the other three that worked.
People who counter the criticisms are typically accused of being homers or trying to stifle opinion when in reality many are just trying to encourage intelligent debate as opposed to herd babble. In a lot of cases (and the harshest critics rarely see this), the people who counter the criticisms are not in total disagreement with the critic and are debating for the sole purpose of finding out whether the criticism is valid by trying to draw out objective information to support the critics argument. Unfortunately, most of the time the debates never reach that level of maturity because the name calling will start long before it gets to that point.
There's an old saying that goes around my workplace that applies here: "In God we trust. All others bring data."
Last edited by aj.; 09-18-2004 at 07:51 AM.