Look I hope I'm as wrong on Lemo as I was on Hujsak lol

BUT, I think it's interesting all the different logic I have being thrown at me to tell me I'm wrong. Much is contradictory.

C34 cites being ranked as proof we're good... but ignores that RPI says we suck.

DownwardDawg says "wins are all the matter" to downplay the stats, but others say we're better than our record because we "should have" won some games we lost. Well which is it- are the end results what we care about or do we get credit for being close?

I'm told the team is very talented, but doesn't the fact we racked up so many non-con loses with a "very talented" roster just look bad on Lemo? (and when I say we aren't talented I wasn't being clear, we have top end talent but also some embarrassing holes in the lineup that signal poor evaluations/development)