Folks who praised the man for the better part of his tenure shouldn’t be making give your head a shake posts.
congrats to you for being able to support them through it all.
Many folks will likely need more than a hundred days and a lot more roster turnover. Cool that you can be all in on Benning and just continue it.
I do find the notion that “stiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilll being on about it” after 100 days as some unlikely occurrence silly. Not everyone just laps up what this team does but congrats you appear to be that.
Just saying but I saw but Gillis in GDT’s after 1000 days. Might’ve even been you. The irony is hilarious.
It wasn't me so there's not even a trace of irony there, but good try.
This strikes me as a tremendous amount of whataboutism.
First of all, I was never 'all in' on Benning. He was our GM, that was the reality. There was a death cult on these boards that reached ridiculous proportions where it turned him into a caricature of a human being. I pushed back on that and gave him credit where I felt it was due (good picks, some good trades, etc). But on this board, that was received as if I was saying he was a God and entirely infallible, I never felt that way and never expressed it.
It's like, if someone in Q-anon claims Tom Hanks is a pedophile without evidence and I say, "you have no evidence of that" does that mean I love Tom Hanks?
I'm not saying there's no evidence of Benning making bad moves. But to borrow from the previous example, someone could say "Tom Hanks sucks as an actor" and I could chalk it up to different opinions (I actually don't have a strong opinion on him either way).
When it gets to the hyperbole, "lol, Benning probably did X", or "he could have traded Miller for the Timo Meier pick source=my ass", or "I think the Hughes and Pettersson picks were really Brackett forcing Benning not to take whichever bust went next". That stuff is unsourced nonsense and I'm pushing against it. That's it.
And when it comes to rationality, having to complain about Benning in a GDT after a big win doesn't suggest cold hard rationality, does it?