I went back and reviewed the article again, and suggest you do too. I believe it is a complete hatchet job, hell bent on making Hauck look as bad as possible. That’s the “gist” of it, and I don’t even think Mr Alger would deny that, so why are you? I would at least hope you could admit the overall theme was more negative than positive in tone. Which proves my point.argh! wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:52 ami can read just fine, thanks. alger called hauck's record remarkable and said how hard he works, which you don't point ou. instead you wrote "if any of that got mentioned" as if it was a hypothetical, and then you added to your hypothetical by saying it would be 'setting him up to take a shot at him'. if he even wrote the praise, which you don't directly acknowledge. that's the gist of what you wrote. seems like you were the one who didn't read what you were commenting on, being too busy denigrating the work of a (then) kid, who did indeed praise hauck on those accomplishments.garizzalies wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 11:56 amApparently, you can read about as well as Alger writes. I did point that exact thing out.argh! wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:44 amapparently you didn't notice how alger did point out how remarkable hauck's record was, how hard he works, etc....garizzalies wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2019 10:12 amHopefully Mr Alger aged better than that hit piece. The stank of sour grapes. So the coach didn’t like talking about injuries and negative press? Most good coaches are like that. Who’s team was Alger supporting anyway? Good gracious why not just send Mariani’s Xrays to the opposing team so they know where to target him?
And Hauck was so evil to take a better job for him and his family; but holy cow, that’s exactly what Alger did, and everyone else. So?
The pejorative theme of the article is simply an Alpha hot-take—Hauck couldn’t win the chipper—which I am sure Alger lifted from here. I guess that must have been the best slant he could come up with to fit the overall negative tone. Because, although the positives of Hauck’s tenure were unprecedented, if any of that got mentioned it was simply to set up another shot taken. Why torch that bridge; what happened to taking the high road.
And not getting a chipper is not Hauck’s legacy; to hack on that seems so cheap, especially looking back now. 80 wins is unbelievable, and I would have traded anything to suffer thru more lost chippers instead of the disastrous last decade, especially Hauck’s refusal to comment on dumb things. I wonder if Mr Alger looks back at that article and cringes like most of us.
You must have totally skipped this part of my post: “...if any of that got mentioned it was simply to set up another shot taken. Why torch that bridge; what happened to taking the high road.”
Hell the first para is really the only one to address the positives, and it includes this shot: “with no hardware to show for it.” It only gets worse from there.
Why? The greatest coach in the history of the BSC was moving on and that’s the article you want to run? So cheap. Like I don’t even think the Bobcat beat writer would stoop so low. I actually thought Alger was above that shit, but maybe he was just a “kid.” Ha! Meanwhile, PR is getting heat for calling him “immature.” So which is it?
I counted 39 paragraphs in the article and every one of them had a negative tone or took or set up some shot at Hauck, except this one paragraph (arguably) did not: “And it was.” Please point out another paragraph that doesn’t, or kindly apologize for being a dumbass.