"I'm even more worried about sitting in the back with people sitting in the pointy end who call any criticism "Monday morning Quarterbacking" and refer to anyone who refuses to automatically join the "well done to the crew" coir as "skygods."
Everything that made aviation a safe and respected industry is now being thrown out of the window. "
I think you are misunderstanding what I and others are saying.
In my case, I responded to those that seem to know exactly what the aural and visual cues were on the aircraft when in fact we don't know. How did the tires depart? Loud and quickly? Quietly over a longer period? Did the crew ignore loud noises and a quick right settling of the aircraft with reduced braking effectiveness? Did they ignore a Tower call about a tire loss and smoke? "Hell, bubba, let's just go to the gate and rite-R-up in the 'book" (If so, I would join with the criticism).
From my observations in flying the -300, the list might not have been noticeable if it was subtle. The noise may have not been heard and the FA's might not have relayed anything they heard or saw. It also appears to be moving with two engines. On one video, one can see the heat plume from the left engine briefly. Why is this important? For one, the -300 when light in this case doesn't need much power to taxi. In the video, the engines sounded at idle to me which would be typical for that weight. Some here seem to think it was using more power than normal. I disagree. The right truck, although ugly, seemed to be rolling fine and might have not had the drag that some seem to think it might have. I doubt it sounded very good to those sitting overhead, but did the noise make it to the cockpit?
There are plenty of unknowns looking at the situation and the video. As I said, I'll wait for the report to see what happened from touchdown to taxi in from all parties involved.