The irony here is you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing.
You say I only focused on negatives, yet I specifically said Milan and Hampton were big gets and that they were good starts toward correcting recruiting concerns.
At the same time, you're only listing positives while completely ignoring the concerns I brought up. If acknowledging recruiting wins isn't enough for you to say I'm being fair, then why is acknowledging top-15 wins enough for you to say Pope has proven himself?
The entire point of my post was that people are drawing conclusions before we have the full picture.
You responded with roster construction, top-15 wins, and notable victories. Great. Those are positives. I never denied any of them.
What you didn't address were the actual questions I raised:
- Substitution patterns
- Defensive adjustments
- Timeout management
- Offensive flexibility
- Player discipline
- Team response to adversity
Saying "every coach has flaws" doesn't answer any of those concerns.
As for the Gettysburg Address comment, I wrote a few paragraphs. If that's the Gettysburg Address, then your response isn't exactly Cliff Notes either.
My position is pretty simple: I want Pope to succeed. I'm glad we landed Milan and Hampton. I also think there are still legitimate questions about whether he can consistently maximize talent and coach at the level Kentucky expects.
That's not being a hater. That's waiting for more evidence before declaring the case closed.