Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLuck4Chuck
This same point was argued about Grigson in his first 2 years.
I guess it's wrong to question a guy until hindsight is 20/20.
|
Not sure what you mean here. You’ve got to read my post in context. I was making the point, and perhaps not as clearly as I could have, that Omaha was being hypocritical. When I earlier challenged him to set forth how he would have done things differently than Ballard, he refused and said it wasn’t his job and he didn’t have access to the same info that Ballard does. Yet only a few posts later, he’s back to railing against Ballard’s decisions.
He can’t have it both ways - if he’s going to fall back on the “Ballard’s got more info than me so you can’t expect me to have better ideas” defense, then in my mind you have to live with that position and it’s pretty hypocritical to then start questioning Ballard’s decisions a few posts later.