Well, maybe the "same shit" concerning commentary wouldn't happen if Taz stopped playing shit so often.
There are two issues I have with this line. Firstly I don't think he plays poorly half as much as some on here think. And secondly, I think people fail to see what he does well because it doesn't suit the narrative they have created for him.
Against Adelaide he is shit: Black and Petrie do **** all as well and the mids are well held. But only Taz is shit.
Against Geelong he is shit: Tasked with keeping Harry Taylor away from the contest, he does this so well the only time Taylor is noticed is in the last quarter when he is shipped forward. But again, Taz is shit.
Against Melbourne he is shit: Has a bad day in front of the sticks but makes former golden boy Pedo look like a chump, has 9 score involvements and 3 goal assists. Kicks straight and he is BoG. But again, Taz is shit.
Against Carlton he is shit: He is, but does as much as Black but only Taz is shit.
Now I am not saying that he does not have poor games and I am not saying that he is going to be a freaking champion of the game. What I am saying is that his efforts when good are glossed over or ignored because they don't support the narrative that he is a crap footballer. The reason for this it seems is that for some there must be a fall guy and now that Hansen is playing well down back we need a new one.