Player Discussion David Quinn: Part II

[RGY]

It’s funny to me how the last 5 or so games have been a display of exactly the type of hockey a few of us thought this team was capable of all along and how the “everyone is young so just give them excuses for why they make mistakes” crowd seems to have disappeared from this thread. Those who called me crazy for thinking this team had the talent to be a contender for a playoff spot are watching what I knew this team was capable of. I’m glad Quinn seems to have finally gotten his team to defend responsibly and be more aware of making sound choices with the puck. Now the question is, can he get this team to play this way for the next 10, 20,30 games?

Can he get this team to play this way next year when the roster will have some new faces. It cannot take more than half a season to play responsibly. This wasn’t just on the rookies. The whole team played irresponsible and undisciplined defensively all season long. A lot of them were here last year. Panarin, a guy who wasn’t has not even been one of the new guys to worry about.

But there is also still something to be said about the rookies too. Some have been great like Fox. Others like Kakko have been atrocious defensively. I will give Kakko a slight pass, but he needs a ton of work in the offseason. He will have a season under his belt, he will know what the NHL is like. He needs to work on his skating, his conditioning especially, and his cuts back and forth for when he is own end defending the point man and winger playing catch with the puck. Those are just a few things. He is strong but needs to get his conditioning up to be able to exhibit that strength. The same can be said in the offensive zone.

DQ finally, FINALLY, scratched Smith and played DiGiuiseppe. It is clear as day who is a forward and who is not. DiGi is way more capable of producing a competent shift and handling the puck just enough to at least get a shot off and not fumble it every single time. But I know this wont last long because DQ has some love affair going on with Smith.

I have said it all along...i like DQ. There is a lot to like with how he handles himself, the media, the team, etc. Says all the things you really want to hear. But then makes so many questionable decisions with personnel and in-game management. And that isnt to complain about his recent shuffling of the lines, i think he needed to look at different things as they were looking stale. But DQ’s future here could go either way. The team still runs around a bit at times in their own end but they are improving. There rest of this season and the first 20 games of next will determine his fate.

 

[JHS]

You realize the point about their youth was that they needed to be given time to learn what Quinn was trying to teach, right? That they’ve improved backs this up. There’s no way he changed what he was coaching. So we didn’t disappear, we thought our point was made for us by the team. They might stay improved, they might step back and improve again. Because progress on young teams isn’t always unbroken.

By the way, his timeout last night was brilliant. A team that has gotten rattled late in games gives up a goal with just a few minutes left, but still leads by 1. Call a timeout to settle the boys down. It worked perfectly.

Right I agree but I maintain this improvement we are watching should have and could have occurred much earlier in the season. The light did not suddenly go off with these guys overnight. They were capable of this from the start of this season.

 

[Shesterkybomb]

It’s funny to me how the last 5 or so games have been a display of exactly the type of hockey a few of us thought this team was capable of all along and how the “everyone is young so just give them excuses for why they make mistakes” crowd seems to have disappeared from this thread. Those who called me crazy for thinking this team had the talent to be a contender for a playoff spot are watching what I knew this team was capable of. I’m glad Quinn seems to have finally gotten his team to defend responsibly and be more aware of making sound choices with the puck. Now the question is, can he get this team to play this way for the next 10, 20,30 games?

The team is young....it takes time, everyone knew that or atleast should have, we are seeing the result of Quinn continuing to teach the kids. This is pretty much what everyone should have been expecting from a young team, I'm confused what everyone thought this year would look like and now the "Fire Quinn" crowd are somehow proclaiming that he changed his approach, which he hasn't, the kids are getting more comfortable in the league and system, all predictable by anyone who knows how the league works.

 

[Inferno]

I've been pretty steadfast. I like d.q.

 

[SA16]

Peoples dislike of Quinn stems from last year and the beginning of this year. The Rangers have been a middle of the pack team since the start of December (16th in CF%) and are vastly better defensively than at the start of the year. His deployment is great, lots of young players have been getting better, and the teams results as a whole have as well. In this time frame they've also had one of the best PP in the league. Everyone is too locked in to their first impression.

 

[True Blue]

You realize the point about their youth was that they needed to be given time to learn what Quinn was trying to teach, right? That they’ve improved backs this up. There’s no way he changed what he was coaching. So we didn’t disappear, we thought our point was made for us by the team. They might stay improved, they might step back and improve again. Because progress on young teams isn’t always unbroken.

It is rather humorous as the post to which you are responding sort of proves the point that we have been arguing all along. The team needs time to grow and learn to how to win. The reason for improvement of late, is exactly what you point it out to be.

The belief that a bunch of kids would be able to hit the ground running without any learning curve is ridiculous. Either it is just a blatant attempt to obfuscate rancor towards Quinn. Or it is an incredible showing of ignorance. The desire to judge a team that is the youngest in the league by the same identical standard as you would a legit playoff contender simply sets yourself up for disappointment.

But no fear, as I am sure there will be some steps backward that will come, I am completely sure that the narrative will live on.

 

[Tawnos]

Right I agree but I maintain this improvement we are watching should have and could have occurred much earlier in the season. The light did not suddenly go off with these guys overnight. They were capable of this from the start of this season.

I would think the metaphor would be the light turning on...

And anyway, they were likely improving the entire time and it's only recently started to manifest in games. That's not uncommon and it would make sense that it would look sudden. The reality is that it's not sudden.

 

[JHS]

I would think the metaphor would be the light turning on...

And anyway, they were likely improving the entire time and it's only recently started to manifest in games. That's not uncommon and it would make sense that it would look sudden. The reality is that it's not sudden.

My point is these players did not just all of a sudden and somehow mysteriously at the exact same time in the season all figure out exactly what Quinn's been trying to coach them. So the assumption I make is, Quinn changed his focus and that more logically explains how the team is playing more solid defense and thus winning games. Does anyone really believe that the improved defense is a result of a miraculous and improbable confluence of each and every rookie somehow developing at the exact same rate and "now we are seeing the results of how Quinn has developed these guys" or is it more probable that the coach recognized a need to shift his structure and player usage and now these same players are being utilized better and playing in a more sound system? To me the answer is obvious-- its the second one as their is just no way all of this improvement is solely because each and every player magically developed after the 40 game point of this season. Other posters have highlighted some real changes in Quinn's player usage, have illustrated how and when he's using players differently. I've highlighted that the defensive uptick coincides with the point in the season where Hank was no longer the defacto number one thus requiring the team to play more defensively concise hockey because they did not have the psychological advantage of knowing they had an elite goaltender to bail them out of their defensive issues.

I'm trying to actually give Quinn some credit here and people are still arguing that it's all about the players developing when just a few weeks ago these same people were saying we can't know how good a coach Quinn is because his roster is terrible. I'm so confused about how anyone is supposed to judge this coach based on this really confusing metric of circumstances and self serving arguments people are using around here. I'll make it known, I judge the coach based on wins and the on ice product. It makes everything so much easier that way.

 

[True Blue]

My point is these players did not just all of a sudden and somehow mysteriously at the exact same time in the season all figure out exactly what Quinn's been trying to coach them.

This presumes that there is absolutely no learning curve for young kids. Which, frankly , I have no idea how anyone can some to that conclusion.

Not speaking for Tawnos, but I think that what he is telling you (and you are blatantly ignoring) is that there is no such thin here as "all of a sudden". The improvements have been slow and gradual. And only now is it manifesting itself in better game play. And really look back at the last 15-20 games or so. Again, that far from "all of a sudden". 20 games ago, they made tangible improvement over the start of the year. Now, they have taken more steps forward since 20 games ago.

There will be missteps. There will be steps forward. But there will also be progress. And you are seeing it.

BTW, the power play has come all the way to top-10 in the league. Also progress, learning and steps forward even for veterans. And yes, also a rookie head coach. Hardly the signs of the "idiot" that some here have labeled him as. Best PP that I have seen the Rangers have in quite a while. Also hardly a sign that Quinn is over his head.

 

[Tawnos]

My point is these players did not just all of a sudden and somehow mysteriously at the exact same time in the season all figure out exactly what Quinn's been trying to coach them. So the assumption I make is, Quinn changed his focus and that more logically explains how the team is playing more solid defense and thus winning games. Does anyone really believe that the improved defense is a result of a miraculous and improbable confluence of each and every rookie somehow developing at the exact same rate and "now we are seeing the results of how Quinn has developed these guys" or is it more probable that the coach recognized a need to shift his structure and player usage and now these same players are being utilized better and playing in a more sound system? To me the answer is obvious-- its the second one as their is just no way all of this improvement is solely because each and every player magically developed after the 40 game point of this season. Other posters have highlighted some real changes in Quinn's player usage, have illustrated how and when he's using players differently. I've highlighted that the defensive uptick coincides with the point in the season where Hank was no longer the defacto number one thus requiring the team to play more defensively concise hockey because they did not have the psychological advantage of knowing they had an elite goaltender to bail them out of their defensive issues.

I'm trying to actually give Quinn some credit here and people are still arguing that it's all about the players developing when just a few weeks ago these same people were saying we can't know how good a coach Quinn is because his roster is terrible. I'm so confused about how anyone is supposed to judge this coach based on this really confusing metric of circumstances and self serving arguments people are using around here. I'll make it known, I judge the coach based on wins and the on ice product. It makes everything so much easier that way.

Your assumption is pretty likely completely wrong. Especially since Quinn has literally been talking about the same exact things since day 1.

And you aren't really trying to give Quinn credit. Look up the term "backhanded compliment"

 

[Athor]

My point is these players did not just all of a sudden and somehow mysteriously at the exact same time in the season all figure out exactly what Quinn's been trying to coach them. So the assumption I make is, Quinn changed his focus and that more logically explains how the team is playing more solid defense and thus winning games. Does anyone really believe that the improved defense is a result of a miraculous and improbable confluence of each and every rookie somehow developing at the exact same rate and "now we are seeing the results of how Quinn has developed these guys" or is it more probable that the coach recognized a need to shift his structure and player usage and now these same players are being utilized better and playing in a more sound system? To me the answer is obvious-- its the second one as their is just no way all of this improvement is solely because each and every player magically developed after the 40 game point of this season. Other posters have highlighted some real changes in Quinn's player usage, have illustrated how and when he's using players differently. I've highlighted that the defensive uptick coincides with the point in the season where Hank was no longer the defacto number one thus requiring the team to play more defensively concise hockey because they did not have the psychological advantage of knowing they had an elite goaltender to bail them out of their defensive issues.

I'm trying to actually give Quinn some credit here and people are still arguing that it's all about the players developing when just a few weeks ago these same people were saying we can't know how good a coach Quinn is because his roster is terrible. I'm so confused about how anyone is supposed to judge this coach based on this really confusing metric of circumstances and self serving arguments people are using around here. I'll make it known, I judge the coach based on wins and the on ice product. It makes everything so much easier that way.

The lines have been the same for weeks. What player usage has been changed? What specifically do you see has changed about the system? It's amazing how it either has to be one extreme end of the argument or the other. Its also flat out ridiculous you think the team is strategizing any differently based on who they have in net.

Do you judge a squirt team coach on wins & losses too? Do you judge McDavid by his inability to get the Oilers to the playoffs the past couple years despite being the best player in the league? You're still refusing to put any context into any of your judgments.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Your assumption is pretty likely completely wrong. Especially since Quinn has literally been talking about the same exact things since day 1.

And you aren't really trying to give Quinn credit. Look up the term "backhanded compliment"

It's also been pretty apparent this season that players were improving on an individual basis, but the team itself was still struggling as a unit. It's really not that crazy to think that they finally clicked and gelled after a few months of hard work.

Like you said, Quinn's message hasn't changed at all.

 

[Tawnos]

It's also been pretty apparent this season that players were improving on an individual basis, but the team itself was still struggling as a unit. It's really not that crazy to think that they finally clicked and gelled after a few months of hard work.

Like you said, Quinn's message hasn't changed at all.

And this isn't to say there's not still a lot of work to do. (How's that for a sentence? haha)

 

[JHS]

Sure happy to help with this. First, he is starting the first and second lines more often in the defensive zone which makes sense and he's also limiting the defensive zone starts of the 3rd and 4th line. He's also limiting the 3rd and 4th lines in the closing minutes of the game. Specific to Buch, he's demoted him to the fourth line during games the team is winning because he's pretty careless with the puck and turns it over a great deal. Regarding specific structural changes, I've noticed a greater propensity to close the slot more in the defensive zone and keep the puck to the outside in a real concerted way. We are seeing far less grade A scoring chances because the defense is forcing the puck to the perimeter in we see way less shots from the middle of the ice. Quinn also switched the defensive pairs recently to achieve a better balance and has found a pair that is working great ( Fox and Lindgren)--two rookies mind you that are clearly capable of defending and providing meaningful minutes, which furthers my point that it's absurd to assert that just because this is their first year in the NHL they somehow can't know how to defend.

Your questions are self serving and not really worth addressing but I'll say, I absolutely get why people equate rookie to inexperience and more likely to make mistakes. That's such an obvious conclusion that I don't know why people just can't allow themselves to move this discussion beyond that. This is the roster the Rangers have. It can't be changed and won't be significantly different for several seasons. I've been advocating for a real approach here that takes into account the young roster but also still allows for discussion about how to make this roster perform better. I get the context this roster is in but I just think we need to be real here-- these guys are rookies in the NHL, not first year hockey players.

 

[JHS]

Your assumption is pretty likely completely wrong. Especially since Quinn has literally been talking about the same exact things since day 1.

And you aren't really trying to give Quinn credit. Look up the term "backhanded compliment"

Do you not want to give the coach any possible credit for recognizing a weakness in himself and possibly changing some structural flaws so as to better utilize his players? If that's your position that he's been advocating all the same things from day one and never adjust his approach based on games/ opponents, many other factors, than you are really unaware of how coaching actually works. Game to game things change, approaches shift, player usage switches and game plans are altered to give his team the best chance to win. Don't you think Quinn has internal meetings with his staff who may provide insight into possible changes he could make, shifts in focus, ways to adjust? Of course he does. My point is, a change in coaching focus is much more likely to have occurred than a miraculously unlikely perfect storm of every rookie all of a sudden being able to develop defensive responsibility all at the same time( which you know is not how players development.)

Kindly stop putting meanings on my words that are not accurate. I am not giving a backhanded compliment-- I'm actually giving a compliment to the coach for recognizing a need to change. I've said numerous times I'm rooting for this team to succeed and this coach to succeed.

 

[Chimpradamus]

To be honest, I think Quinn is a better coach than Vigneault. That's not saying much, but yet it does. Reputation among NHL coaches is ridiculous. It's like getting a job as a vice president. As long as you've done it once, no matter how bad of a job you do, you can always get a ton of money and continue to run the next company into the ground, perpetually.

The coaching in the NHL is quite bad, to be honest, overall. It's the one part that hasn't developed much and where the xenophobia still grows strong. How many coaches have we seen from outside NA? Basically none.

Vigneault was an absolute disaster as a coach in New York. He started a rebuild that didn't even need to happen to the extreme measures it did. The team played so bad, it looked like they had to, when a huge part of it was Vigneault's asinine way of playing hockey, with the roster he had.

I'm not saying Vigneault is a bad coach, period, but he was a bad coach in New York.

 

[Tawnos]

Do you not want to give the coach any possible credit for recognizing a weakness in himself and possibly changing some structural flaws so as to better utilize his players? If that's your position that he's been advocating all the same things from day one and never adjust his approach based on games/ opponents, many other factors, than you are really unaware of how coaching actually works. Game to game things change, approaches shift, player usage switches and game plans are altered to give his team the best chance to win. Don't you think Quinn has internal meetings with his staff who may provide insight into possible changes he could make, shifts in focus, ways to adjust? Of course he does. My point is, a change in coaching focus is much more likely to have occurred than a miraculously unlikely perfect storm of every rookie all of a sudden being able to develop defensive responsibility all at the same time( which you know is not how players development.)

Kindly stop putting meanings on my words that are not accurate. I am not giving a backhanded compliment-- I'm actually giving a compliment to the coach for recognizing a need to change. I've said numerous times I'm rooting for this team to succeed and this coach to succeed.

Yeah, the whole point of your "compliment" is to criticize him for not doing it earlier. We all know how people with agendas work around here, so it's no use trying to convince people otherwise.

Also, obviously things evolve and adjustments are made, but the day-to-day adjustments have nothing to do with what you're saying.

And there's nothing miraculous about a team slowly learning and then having it click suddenly after putting in the work. This is a well understood part of team development. You ever look at theories of the 4 stages of change? Forming, storming, norming, performing (I honestly hate that they all rhyme). It's pretty common for teams of all varieties to go from one stage to another quite suddenly, even if they've been working towards performing the entire time. And that's particularly true when moving from storming to norming and from norming to performing. From my perspective, they've moved into the norming stage of development. These things often appear to happen suddenly, even though they've been building the whole time. Think of it like a dam bursting. Water builds up and builds up behind it until the dam can't take the pressure anymore. Moving from one stage to the next often works like that. It's the work put in and the individual improvements that are made that cause that burst.

While there are challenges to sports teams that are unique, there are universals for team development too. This is one of them... and I'm very aware of how those things work.

 

[JHS]

Yeah, the whole point of your "compliment" is to criticize him for not doing it earlier. We all know how people with agendas work around here, so it's no use trying to convince people otherwise.

Also, obviously things evolve and adjustments are made, but the day-to-day adjustments have nothing to do with what you're saying.

And there's nothing miraculous about a team slowly learning and then having it click suddenly after putting in the work. This is a well understood part of team development. You ever look at theories of the 4 stages of change? Forming, storming, norming, performing (I honestly hate that they all rhyme). It's pretty common for teams of all varieties to go from one stage to another quite suddenly, even if they've been working towards performing the entire time. And that's particularly true when moving from storming to norming and from norming to performing. From my perspective, they've moved into the norming stage of development. These things often appear to happen suddenly, even though they've been building the whole time. Think of it like a dam bursting. Water builds up and builds up behind it until the dam can't take the pressure anymore. Moving from one stage to the next often works like that. It's the work put in and the individual improvements that are made that cause that burst.

While there are challenges to sports teams that are unique, there are universals for team development too. This is one of them... and I'm very aware of how those things work.

Why assume I have an agenda. I don't. I want the team to win just like everyone else here. Players on teams do what coaches tell them to do. That's the most basic principle that sports have been formed on for years. If the coach emphasizes defense the team plays defense. If he emphasizes run and gun, the team plays run and gun. I'm not going to debate on the four stages of development( which seem like a psychological term and concept .)

 

[Tawnos]

Why assume I have an agenda. I don't. I want the team to win just like everyone else here. Players on teams do what coaches tell them to do. That's the most basic principle that sports have been formed on for years. If the coach emphasizes defense the team plays defense. If he emphasizes run and gun, the team plays run and gun. I'm not going to debate on the four stages of development( which seem like a psychological term and concept .)

It's the 4 stages of change, which is a concept in group development. It's not really psychological. You have an overly simplistic view of how all of this works, but it's not simple. You don't want to debate this as a more complex topic? Don't pretend you know what you're talking about then.

I don't assume you have an agenda, you've proven it yourself.

 

[JHS]

It's the 4 stages of change, which is a concept in group development. It's not really psychological. You have an overly simplistic view of how all of this works, but it's not simple. You don't want to debate this as a more complex topic? Don't pretend you know what you're talking about then.

I don't assume you have an agenda, you've proven it yourself.

I'll discus anything but you are reaching with the 4 stages of change here. I mean let's be honest, sports is really pretty straight forward and team dynamics work because coaches set the agenda for what the team focuses on. That's how it works-- how do I know, because every single coach who talks to the media speaks that way. No one is quoting the 4 stages of change.

I'm tired of defending myself against claims on this forum. Honestly, it is not even required and I won't engage with that level anymore. I have better things to do with my day.

 

[True Blue]

I'm tired of defending myself against claims on this forum. Honestly, it is not even required and I won't engage with that level anymore. I have better things to do with my day.

Then why bother to post on a message board forum? When you post anything, you open yourself up for criticism that you defend. Or people agree with what you said. Here, your views and agenda has various people disagreeing with you and calling you out on the reasoning.

 

[Athor]

First, he is starting the first and second lines more often in the defensive zone which makes sense and he's also limiting the defensive zone starts of the 3rd and 4th line. He's also limiting the 3rd and 4th lines in the closing minutes of the game. Specific to Buch, he's demoted him to the fourth line during games the team is winning because he's pretty careless with the puck and turns it over a great deal. Regarding specific structural changes, I've noticed a greater propensity to close the slot more in the defensive zone and keep the puck to the outside in a real concerted way. We are seeing far less grade A scoring chances because the defense is forcing the puck to the perimeter in we see way less shots from the middle of the ice. Quinn also switched the defensive pairs recently to achieve a better balance and has found a pair that is working great ( Fox and Lindgren)--two rookies mind you that are clearly capable of defending and providing meaningful minutes, which furthers my point that it's absurd to assert that just because this is their first year in the NHL they somehow can't know how to defend.

Your questions are self serving and not really worth addressing but I'll say, I absolutely get why people equate rookie to inexperience and more likely to make mistakes. That's such an obvious conclusion that I don't know why people just can't allow themselves to move this discussion beyond that. This is the roster the Rangers have. It can't be changed and won't be significantly different for several seasons. I've been advocating for a real approach here that takes into account the young roster but also still allows for discussion about how to make this roster perform better. I get the context this roster is in but I just think we need to be real here-- these guys are rookies in the NHL, not first year hockey players.

They've been doing all this stuff all year. The execution in the D zone is what's been miserable, and that makes complete sense because it takes time for everyone, especially new players & rookies, to get on the same page. This is true for even a veteran team. As the execution has gotten better, so have the results. The same mistakes are still happening sometimes. It wasn't some flip of the switch. They had good games & bad games which is inconsistency. The young guys have been sheltered all year and just looking at their zone start ratio will tell you that. Fox & Lingren were a pair when the team was still playing like crap.

We're all saying look at the improvement this team is making as the young core players develop. You're saying they should have been this way all year, despite having a historically green team. I think you might be underestimating the jump to the NHL from any other league in the world.

 

[JHS]

They've been doing all this stuff all year. The execution in the D zone is what's been miserable, and that makes complete sense because it takes time for everyone, especially new players & rookies, to get on the same page. This is true for even a veteran team. As the execution has gotten better, so have the results. The same mistakes are still happening sometimes. It wasn't some flip of the switch. They had good games & bad games which is inconsistency. The young guys have been sheltered all year and just looking at their zone start ratio will tell you that. Fox & Lingren were a pair when the team was still playing like crap.

We're all saying look at the improvement this team is making as the young core players develop. You're saying they should have been this way all year, despite having a historically green team. I think you might be underestimating the jump to the NHL from any other league in the world.

I think the Fox and Lingren pair is relatively new and within the past few weeks. Either way, the young guys really have not been sheltered and often this is why the team has been struggling. I've highlighted how Quinn's system especially the forecheck creates a situation where he's forcing guys to make quick decisions that are really make or break decisions( meaning if they get it wrong odd man rushes occur.) If you want a real example of how a coach is sheltering a young team, look at what Torts is doing in Columbus. He plays the trap with his team and that creates a very low risk situations for the players.

I think you are assuming that Quinn was doing the logical steps like sheltering the youth but if you go back and watch those earlier games. The biggest shift in his coaching is now he actually is sheltering the younger guys much more because he is really relying on the first and second lines even more( which he was already relying on them heavily.)

I totally get the jump to the NHL. It's huge! I just believe that if you are on an NHL roster you should be held to NHL standards, which to me include executing in all three zones.

 

[aufheben]

Fox and Lindgren have been a pairing since about the 9th game of the season.

 

[JHS]

To be honest, I think Quinn is a better coach than Vigneault. That's not saying much, but yet it does. Reputation among NHL coaches is ridiculous. It's like getting a job as a vice president. As long as you've done it once, no matter how bad of a job you do, you can always get a ton of money and continue to run the next company into the ground, perpetually.

The coaching in the NHL is quite bad, to be honest, overall. It's the one part that hasn't developed much and where the xenophobia still grows strong. How many coaches have we seen from outside NA? Basically none.

Vigneault was an absolute disaster as a coach in New York. He started a rebuild that didn't even need to happen to the extreme measures it did. The team played so bad, it looked like they had to, when a huge part of it was Vigneault's asinine way of playing hockey, with the roster he had.

I'm not saying Vigneault is a bad coach, period, but he was a bad coach in New York.

AV is the 11th winnegst coach in NHL history. AV did not start a rebuild-- the front office stripped the team away from him after leading the Rangers to a Stanley cup finals appearance an multiple years in a row of playoff appearances. How is that bad coaching??? If Quinn is half as successful with the Rangers I will be thrilled!!

There are just so many parts of your post that are just wrong. AV got the team to the playoffs and conference finals and took a team without a superstar position player, yes he had Hank, all the way Stanley Cup Finals. Please let's not foster revisionist history on this thread now too. It's not fair or authentic to people who might read this and not know any better!