1.)Not sure if I've seen anyone say "Kill is the reason we won today". Almost everyone gives the players the most credit after a win.
2.) But I have seen multiple times people say "Kill is the reason we lost today" or "This loss is 100% on Kill and the coaches."
It's almost never one or the other, and 3.)almost always a combination of the players and coaches regardless of the outcome.[/QUOTE]
We disagree on 1 and 2. You've never seen or remember any "Kill is why we're winning" posts. I don't remember any "This loss is a 100% on Kill" posts without a shot on Leidner in there somewhere.
We agree on 3 but Kill's share around here is always larger with the wins and smaller with the losses. He always takes his share of the blame after a loss. Here any question about him being responsible provokes an avalanche of "He is not!" posts.
Wonder why they never call him a liar.
Now look at Kill's record after 50 plus games. Take away 3 or 4 his teams ALWAYS wins when they are ahead or tied and NEVER wins when they are behind. That is not a small sample size. Taking that into account why does the very act of questioning his decisions bother people so much? Sure it gives the haters a chance to vent but interestingly enough nobody who whines about the complainers offers anything to refute it besides "he was afraid of falling further behind" ?
Me? I think they can hold a lead in the 2nd Half if they get it. The Mason "no defense" days are gone. The games they lose often come down to the Defense always having to be on the field. Others seem more worried about a potential margin of defeat then trying to win.
It's okay that they won't come right out and say it.
