Meme or Dream? Mono-Blue Mill (Historic)

A couple of months ago, Wizards started publishing decklists from Magic Arena. To qualify for publication, a deck needs to win at least six matches in a row at platinum rank or better. This sounds simple on its face, but every time lists are published, some incredibly janky lists end up being published. This has led to speculation that a bug in the system allows decks that didn't actually win six matches in a row to be published, or, for the most tin-foil-hatted crowd, the idea that Wizards just publishes whatever it wants to make the metagame look more diverse than it really is. 

However, another possibility exists: maybe the decks really did get six wins in a row due to some combination of luck and perhaps being more competitive than they look on paper. Well, Meme or Dream? is a series where we'll take the meme-iest of the lists Wizards publishes and try them for ourselves. Are they a dream hiding behind a janky external shell, or are they as dysfunctional as they look, falling into the meme category?

This week, we have one of the most normal looking of all the decks we've played on the series so far: Mono-Blue Mill for Historic. It actually has the proper number of cards in both the main deck and sideboard. Most of the card choices make sense for what the deck is trying to do. However, there is still one big reason I'm skeptical of the deck: we've had some horrible experiences with mono-blue mill decks in the past. In fact, when we played  a Modern mono-blue mill deck on Much Abrew a few years ago, it was deemed the worst deck we had ever played (apologies to Vintage Kobolds). The Historic version can't possibly be as much of a disaster as the Modern version, or can it? That's what we're trying to find out on this week's Meme or Dream?