This thread is full of posts advocating letting Sutter walk for explicitly emotional, sentimental reasons, often adding they don’t care whether it’s a good or defensible decision in practical terms.
It's also balanced with very real concerns/issues that are sort of being ignored while focusing in on the 'sentimental' with a razor-sharp effectiveness. Weird, that.
Also, the entire first page is basically people going 'plz, no' or expressing concerns regarding a potential new contract and the cost it would have on the team. The one person who expressed how he's 'representative' of everything wrong with the team certainly did not have a histrionic tone and is generally a pretty even-keeled contributor on here. I would imagine that he was using it as a shorthand to express criticism of Benning's decisions regarding personnel moves, contract signings, emphasis on 'pedigree' and so on and so forth.
Is it really that horrible if people don't provide an in-depth explanation every single time they speak about something? Actually, it probably is, given how some of the usual suspects descend into idiotic semantic arguments when the exact phrasing isn't strictly adhered to. (I am not accusing you of doing that, just FYI.)
