It's not about winning the games. It's about talking about players that were there. Not sure why people can't handle that. And by the way, I don't know why people keep saying it's meaningless. Do you think the management don't take those games into account when it's time to invite guys to the main camp or let them play a preseason game?
The great part about people defending players having bad games would be the first to praise them if they would have great games. Suddenly, the meaningless games wouldn't be so meaningless after all.
Yes, those games don't say who will have a career or not. You shouldn't define a player's future based on that. But if you already had an idea on this or that player, it's possible that those games were added to what you already thought of those guys good or bad. I personnally always loved Cale Fleury. From the day he was picked and before. Those games make me think that I'm not wrong to like it. Should I be punish for it? Or because it's positive, everything is good? At the same time though, while I didn't like Fondstad and McShane progression good enough....to see them be so invisible this weekend dissapoint me. Am I allowed to? I also believed Leguerrier was a stupid pick based on his play and stats. And this weekend, he did look out of place. Though, pretty normal for a 1st year player. He clearly didn't make me change my position on him though...that' sfor sure. Yet, Fairbrother made me want to look at him more this year...etc.
In the end...why creating a thread on a game if we can't discuss it?