As for which journalist thinks what about which aircraft and what they used to think, does that matter as much as people who appear to be serious practitioners of air power here, and who have doubts about the JSF hype? Personally, I don't think so.
In any case, if you have a functioning brain, times change and situations change. We all recall a time when a Block 1 SH didn't look very exciting... but that was also when a full-capability, $40-some-million, costs-less-to-operate-than-an-F-16 JSF was going to be on the AF ramp in 2011 and on CVs in 2012, and the C was promised to weigh slightly less than it actually does, if by "slightly" you mean 5,000 pounds, empty.
And to quote a very bright Navy guy, when the SH was revealing itself to be a bit of a dragmaster: "The baby's ugly. But it's our baby and we will make the best of it." Which they did.
Also, if your concern about your in-production aircraft is speed and range, does it make more sense to (a) give that aircraft more thrust and fuel or (b) replace it with something two tons heavier that has less thrust?
So without putting words into your mouth, are you trying to say that an aircraft can be unimpressive in development and initial service, and within just a few years it can become quite good despite the vitriol heaped on it by aviation journos?