I am most definitely not saying Metacritic aggregated the "wrong critics," particularly since, for the small set of episodes reviewed, I was actually in agreement with the majority of the critics quoted. Many of the critics who were high on the show at the beginning (Alan Sepinwall, Maureen Ryan, Matt Zoller Seitz, and James Poniewozik all come to mind immediately) sharply changed their tone on the show as the season went on, but of course those reviews don't appear on Metacritic.
Look at the dates for the aggregated reviews for season one. Every single one was from a period spanning only from March 31, 2011 to April 7, 2011. The series premiered April 3, 2011, and did not air a second episode until April 10.
The way Metacritic aggregates ratings for television shows is fundamentally flawed because it only takes into account reviews written very early in a season's run, and is rarely if ever updated to take into account reviews written later when a season may diminish or improve. Some progress does appear to have been made since Metacritic aggregates for subsequent seasons, but the problem is exactly the same there as well since those reviews again are taken from only an early batch of episodes.
My problem is not with critics but rather with Metacritic's aggregation. You can continue to falsely claim that I am saying "wrong critics" all you want, but your continued assertions won't make it truth.
I'm not saying these are the "wrong critics" or even that these are the wrong reviews; I'm saying that these aren't enough
reviews over a sufficient period of time for an aggregated score to actually say anything meaningful about a show's critical acclaim (or lackthereof).