Ridiculous it may be, but even an opinion based on faulty reasoning is still just an opinion.
From most critical comments I've read about this album (or any other, for that matter), I get the impression that people have certain expectations going in - before they hear a song or an album - about what they are hoping it will sound like. If it isn't what they expect to hear, they think the artist didn't give it their best shot or they copied someone else or they were chasing a hit or ... whatever explanation justifies to them why it isn't what they wanted, or thought it would be.
I first noticed it in comments about AOTL, when I read stuff like, "I thought Richie wanted the freedom to do what he wanted. It's clear that Jon wasn't holding him back, because this album doesn't rock any harder than anything Jovi has done" or similar criticisms. While it's true that the album may not be any more "rock" than stuff he did with the band, it's the premise that could be the problem, not his music.
The
assumption, in this example, seemed to be that Richie wanted the freedom to "rock", and as a result, some fans were disappointed in the album and thought Richie was just lazy or didn't have the chops anymore. But, iirc, what Richie said was that he wanted the freedom to
express himself in the way he wanted, in a way that he couldn't do when he was restricted to writing or recording only that which Jon could give feel or give voice to. And I think that's exactly what he did, regardless of whether it "rocked" or not.
In the same way, I think ppl expected more from THINFS because they thought it would be filled with anger or true gut reactions (similar to their own) and that it might possibly be the best thing they've done to date, if for no other reason than Jon would be hell bent on proving that he doesn't need Richie. When it didn't meet their own expectations - whatever they were - they were set up to be somewhat disappointed.
Someone posted, on another thread I think, that BJ is like every other band. They released 4 or 5 "great" albums and everything else is "okay" at best (paraphrased).
Whether that is true or not, it seems to me that it has more to do with the fans' expectations than it does with the band's output. It's like they want the band to stay true to themselves and maintain that recognizable 'sound' - so don't stray too far; but they also want something new and fresh - so don't stay too close to home, either. It's kind of a catch-22. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
This isn't meant to offend anyone, and I don't have particular posts in mind. It's just a general observation and obviously just my opinion. But that's the way it looks from where I sit anyway.