Based upon Dakich’s surprisingly decent play and based upon Simmon’s surprisingly poor play—It is clearly debatable whether or not it would be to our advantage for us to have Dakich instead of Simmons, as a backup to our backup. Nobody here has made a claim that Dakich, if he were here, would be beating out z or Brooks for minutes. To the contrary, even the pro Dakich side has admitted that Dakich’s “meaningful and positive” impact, if he were still here, would most likely come in the form of off the court mentoring and all the things that come along with him being universally known as a great teammate.
Also, after being asked, an answer was given by Silverblue to the side question: “Out of curiosity, why do you not like it when players are criticized?” He answered. Does it make sense to put on a big show pretending Silverblue is guilty of non sequitor thought processes when he is answering a side question about his personal policy to not criticize players?
Silverblue’s objection to disparaging Dakich seems to have been born out of not only his general distaste of criticizing players generally but also because the disparaging comments were being passed off as valid stand-ins for actual reasons. Arguments are only reasonable insofar as they contain actual reasons. Makes sense to me.
If people have reasons for why Dakich over Simmons is not even debatable, I think people would be open to hearing those reasons. FWIW, the people on OSU message boards have mostly been pleasantly surprised how Dakich has been playing defense and helping the team win games.