I wasnt replying to an opinion. I was replying to a smug remark meant to illicit a reaction from people. You asked for it and you got it.
I make a point about the board being anti-Hakstol, which it is, to the point of picking and choosing when to use Corsi numbers and when to ignore them to suit their agenda, and you call me "full of shit." Well, actually, it was a completely legitimate point; you just didn't like it, probably because it highlighted hypocrisy; and if you want to talk about smug, you should start with yourself.
Everyone knows you can't handle opinions that are different than your own. You're so caught up in your own brilliance that you can only assume, with me, that when my opinion differs from yours it must be because I'm being intentionally contrarian just to rile people up.
I said Weise was a terrible signing and that people were overrating the impact he and Gordon would have on the team. That was "being contrarian." (No, it was being correct.)
I said Filppula was a declining player and was against the trade for him. That was "being contrarian." (No, it was being correct.)
I said the Flyers were "thin" on offensive depth. That was "being contrarian." (No, it was being correct.)
I said I liked the idea of moving Giroux to wing and playing with Couturier. That was "being contrarian." (No, it was being correct.)
Instead of being unable to comprehend different thought processes than your own and turning things into personal attacks, maybe recognize that when a person expresses something you disagree with, they might be right.
And I think many on this board try to twist everything against Hakstol, which my point about reading AMac's Corsi numbers to bash Hakstol at the STH conference, but ignoring Patrick's putrid Corsi numbers to bash Hakstol for not playing him was meant to illustrate.
But I get it. You think everything Hakstol does is wrong and anyone who offers any kind of defense of any single thing he does is a moron who is "full of shit."