I echo your sentiments exactly Wisp. Orcatown is out to lunch on this one with his revisionism.
How is anything revised.
Melanson got fired by Montreal because of his lack of success. Right?
Price played poorly under Melanson tutelage. Right?
And then way better after he left. Right?
Theodore played poorly under Melanson. Right?
Theodore apparently doesn't want to be coached by Melanson anymore. Right?
The changes Melanson tried to force on Luongo didn't work. Right?
Lack is not being successful under the changes introduced by Melanson. Right?
What's revised?
What I see is you doing is trying to sound intelligent by throwing around words like "revisionism" somehow thinking that using such words makes your point. If you really want to sound like you have anything between your ears you should try to make some reasoned and coherent argument supporting your ideas. Maybe you can although I haven't seen that in previous posts. But maybe give it a try. Go ahead and explain specifically where I'm wrong and how you believe I've revised the situation. At least that invites discussion.
What is really happening here IMO is that people really can't, in this case, think critically for themselves. Much better not to be critical and thus really never have to actually think for oneself. So let's not even examine the evidence. Let's all just know that Melanson is a wonderful coach and leave it at that. That way we don't really have to think and we can sleep soundly at night.
Problem is that there is a track record that is hard to ignore as upsetting as that may be. This record creates legitimate questions that at least deserve consideration. And the greater problem is that if you care about this team and if Melanson is screwing up an important piece of the future, namely Lack, there is a significant problem that should be addressed and not swept under the rug.
To me, Lack is struggling using the Melanson approach. If you Wisp or B-Rock have something to refute this then let's hear it. Go ahead and prove me wrong. But don't go off using some sort of authority you think you have. Instead base it upon the observations and evidence
you have developed for yourselves. And don't just name call in the hope that this somehow that gets you off the hook from actually explaining yourselves.
Really you have taken no time to really consider what I have posted and given nothing to suggest it is wrong other than to agree with each other that it is wrong and then somehow deducing that agreeing with one another makes you right.