Arguendo, you and
@navery12 are right. What, therefore, accounts for both of you using the laughing emoji and repeated, self-certain, heavy-handed language?
Further still, for what imaginable positive purpose, would you jump first to "end of the bench," and subsequently to Andrew Hurley to counter well-meaning arguments that playing Jaylin Stewart in such a game couldn't result in things being any worse than what we saw?
I assert that you weaken your argument in both cases, and my cursory understanding of what your spouse does for a living leads me to imagine that she would agree, or at least disagree respectfully. The confidence that you have in your unyielding opinion ought to provide a firm foundation for at least a measure of open inquiry on suggested options that were not offered as pie-in-the-sky fantasy. What harm would there be in that?
Not all suggestions could be dismissed in toto as "revisionist nonsense," (not your phrase, but Navery's), but there is a heft to such rhetoric that might shut down additional discussion. In a more simplified sense, such quoted language strikes me as attempts to control the discussion and own the preferred point of view, as though it's the 'one true conclusion.' It might just be pugilistic posturing.
The remaining unaddressed question I have concerns perceivable reticence* to bring in Stewart expressly for the opportunity to preserve being able to work with an 8-man rotation after it was clear that Clingan would not be returning. Do you have any thoughts on this singularly-focused angle?
I don't claim any knowledge or speculation that an extended absence of Clingan (or not) was determined within the game, so I can't push my question as foundation for a hard opinion, but the question did occur to me. One way or another, we are likely to get some clues on the matter on Saturday in the St.John's game.
NB - My opening paragraphs sought to insulate me from complete dismissal by laying a foundation for an unasked & unanswered question. In my experience, it is unlikely that I am the only one to whom this line of thinking has occurred. That alone makes it worthy of consideration by a knowledgeable and respectful ally, which is somewhat of a base stance I impute to my fellow Husky fans.
* Finally, I noticed elsewhere in a Boneyard thread this morning, that the word "reticence" appeared as "redescence." I feel no need to 'dump on' the person (likely in non-aggressive ignorance) simply went with what the word sounds like, and might benefit from a gentle redirection. And here, I am offering this instance an example of an error that is verifiable, but avoids derision. My suggestion is that nearly all, "You're wrong, and you're an idiot"-type arguments deserve a longer leash among presumed cohorts, and that not to be so accommodating weakens the bonds that are needed among teammates.
I'm unthreatened by the possibility that down the line my posed question will unmask me as a fool. To be certain, I've already exposed myself to those so inclined as a tiresome, garrulous pedant, so, really, "How much worse could it get?"
