We're All Honest Optimists Now
I can't remember a time when I was more excited about the Timberwolves at the start of a season - perhaps when Googs, KG, and Marbury seemed like our future (or the year we added Spree and Sam - it's a toss up)? Years of disappointment have only made the hunger for better things more pronounced. So it is not surprising that my own optimism seems to be shared by most other Wolves fans.
So here's my question: how well (or badly) do the Wolves need to play in these demanding first six games for you to remain optimistic? Would you remain optimistic if they lost all six, were blown out in several, but remained competitive in a few? Would they have to win a few for you to remain optimistic (if so, how many)? Are you one who will instead focus on the quality of play, regardless of outcome - if so, what are you looking for (e.g. team defense, penetration by the guards, etc.)?
Here's why I ask. The nature of being a fan lends itself to reactive excesses in the moment. We grow myopic so easily - one good game against a quality opponent, and we're one piece away from being World Champs. The next game we get blown out, and we're ready to tear apart the team and start over (again). So let's think it through. If we're as good as we hope we are (or, at least, on the right trajectory), what is reasonable for us to expect?
I'm the fool who posted before the draft that we should trade Love for McGee (though I proposed it with a big asterisk) - so I don't trust my own judgment, nor should you. But as the author of the question, I figure I should answer it anyhow.
If we seem to be buying into Adelman's stystem, not reverting back to old habits; if our team ethos is Love/Rubio/Barea and not Beasely/Milicic/Rambis; if we don't stop playing hard regardless of the score (which means we make a run even when we're way down - see Mavs vs. Heat 12/25/11); if we're close in two of them and win one of them . . . I'd still be optimistic after the first six games.