![]() |
Being okay with the way the franchise has been run since 1998 is basically wanting your team to lose.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Its like saying because you don't enjoy Rush you don't like 80's Rock N Roll. No I just don't like Rush. If you don't like Rush you must hate 80's Rock because Rush is an 80's rock band. No idiot I don't like Rush. Simplistic thinking. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Please explain this comment. Quote:
|
I think where keg is coming from is that from about 98 to say 2008, the franchise was always ran in the present, never looking towards the future. It was always "scrap together what we can, to try and win now, we can deal with tomorrow later".
Once Carl was gone, Pioli was brought in and that was just disaster after disaster. Now the new FO has come in, trying to win now, but also seems to have an eye towards the future. Which is refreshing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Especially after you said this: Quote:
|
Quote:
And as O.city mentioned, the franchise has also operated in their version of "win now" mode over that time frame, with very little in terms of real commitment given to team development through the draft. Marty/Gun and Vermeil all basically killed the future (now present) of the franchise from the mid-90s through the mid-00s, and without the aberration that's marked by a few solitary draft picks between 2006 and 2008 things would be even worse now, as hard as that is to believe. So I also was saying that being okay with the way the franchise was operated from 1998 until now is being okay with losing. Because that's ultimately what you'll get. Now, I hope they're trying to change the approach. You'd think they would, particularly with Dorsey (Reid's activities the last couple of years are frightening, on the other hand...). But the reality is that they haven't, yet. They also haven't really had time to. |
Quote:
Anyway, maybe we can stop sniping at each other and talk about the topic. |
Quote:
I'm sure even the strongest pessimist will say they're hopeful, but I don't get the ire at homers. People that don't say things like, I'm done with this team, I can't take it, and then look at those that stay positive, even maybe naively so, and say you're part of the problem. No. Totally wrong. Are the Royals fans that have stuck it out and held on to hope for 28 seasons part of the problem? The real pessimistic fans might get annoyed at homers, but homers aren't okay with losing, I get really angry and frustrated, but at the start of every season I hit a reset button, especially in seasons involving a lot of changes. Thinking homer or "true" fans are okay with losing, and thinking they make the team sit on their hands is as wrong as thinking SOC was the reason Hunt cleaned house. Both are not true. When I see footage of 10,000 fans sitting in the stands in the early '80s I don't say, fools! I think those are the good solid fans. |
I think the real problem is that we're all so hyper-worried about what other people think about what we have to say. But that's the internet: a wacky environment where people are sort of aggressively defensive. And narcissistic. So many things seem to be taken as personal effrontery.
|
Quote:
GO CHIEFS |
Quote:
Yet on here, when you do that some (not you specifically) start throwing insults at you and put a stop to a lot of football talk. As much as some want to argue the pessimist have ruined football talk, it goes the other way as well. "Homers" don't like to read negative stuff and take it as a personal insult. Again, I don't have a problem with "homers" but that's just not the way I view sports. Hell, I'm as diehard of a stl cardinals fan as there is, fifth generation, first word was Ozzie, season tickets when we live hours away kind of fan. They're one of the most successful organizations in sports an I still question moves they make. I don't think that makes me any less of a fan. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:19 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.