Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Bill Peters/Mike Babcock/Marc Crawford/ETC

Rate this topic


Monty

Recommended Posts

I really do agree with Robin Lehner's take.

 

It's the same with history. There's good things that Hitler did (believe it or not). Yet because we focus all the negative, we fail to see the OVERALL contribution a person has done. There's also the issue with motives. It doesn't mean Hitler was right to kill all the 'crippled'/mentally disabled & Jews, as well as the Poles and other minorities.

 

We can agree/disagree on the motives. We can also interpret things differently too based on the same pieces of evidence.


If we go back far enough, we can dig up enough dirt on almost everybody, just because it came to light. Does it mean that the past should be ignored? No. But at the same time, judging people based on the past which DOES NOT NECESSARILY reflect their present is fallacious.

 

We've heard of previously racist people that have renounced their past. People DO change. But if we are to go back to what they did or said in the past, we fail to see who they have become.

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Most of the coaches I can think of that have won Stanley cups are hot heads, it seems to work. 

Most of the hothead coaches that I can think of that have won Stanley Cups haven't been the deciding factor in their runs (ex: Babcock with his all-star Detroit team).

 

Coaches who lift their players up inspire them to play hard out of love are the ones who get their team to make unexpected Cup runs. Those are the coaches that actually make a difference rather than just being carried by a cast of all-star players.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

We've heard of previously racist people that have renounced their past. People DO change. But if we are to go back to what they did or said in the past, we fail to see who they have become.

Sure, but those people also need to acknowledge their mistakes and take responsibility for them. Peters, for example, did not. Taking responsibility also means understanding that if an organization wants to sever ties with you because of your past actions (if they didn't know about them when they hired you) that's their prerogative and completely fair.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jackofwind said:

Sure, but those people also need to acknowledge their mistakes and take responsibility for them. Peters, for example, did not. Taking responsibility also means understanding that if an organization wants to sever ties with you because of your past actions (if they didn't know about them when they hired you) that's their prerogative and completely fair.

You're absolutely right. From the investigation, it didn't seem like Peters was truly "sorry" until he was caught.

 

My statement above is referring to people who have "screwed up" but have tried to make amends for their past behaviour. Let's face it. Everyone has &^@#ed up.
 

 

Edited by Dazzle
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jackofwind said:

Most of the hothead coaches that I can think of that have won Stanley Cups haven't been the deciding factor in their runs (ex: Babcock with his all-star Detroit team).

 

Coaches who lift their players up inspire them to play hard out of love are the ones who get their team to make unexpected Cup runs. Those are the coaches that actually make a difference rather than just being carried by a cast of all-star players.

Not every player is motivated by love, a good coach can identify the best way to motivate different players. Like I said a lot of the best coaches in history were hotheads, not just in Hockey. Motivating players to give that extra 10%, who are making millions of dollars and in a league were every player is already giving close to 100% every night is tough. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jackofwind said:

That's a good question - why can't they?

 

Because they're not apologizing in any meaningful way.

What could they do to convince you it was meaningful? It seems to me that no matter what they did, critics would claim ulterior motives, which of course do exists to some degree in all these situations, but it seems to me there's almost no credence given to the possibility of a meaningful, honest apology.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

What could they do to convince you it was meaningful? It seems to me that no matter what they did, critics would claim ulterior motives, which of course do exists to some degree in all these situations, but it seems to me there's almost no credence given to the possibility of a meaningful, honest apology.

The important part of my post above was ignored heh.

 

Hyperbolic bloodlust is the real problem. Rabid virtue signallers. Its gross, and dangerous.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NUCKER67 said:

Nice coaches and nice teams don't win, but as long as everyone's having fun ;)

 

But is anyone even asking for "nice" coaches? It seems like a false equivalency to say that not wanting Mike Babcock to manipulate players with no evidence that what he was doing had any improvement in on-ice performance with wanting some camp counselor to coach a hockey team. 

 

Guys want coaches that are hard on them if they also feel that that coach respects them and is doing everything to make them a better player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not, nor have I ever been a fan of Chris Chelios, but this story (if true) makes me like him just a little bit:

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nhl/chris-chelios-pounded-beers-on-bench-after-mike-babcock-benched-him-at-winter-classic/ar-BBXS831?li=AAggNb9

Quote

 

Lace up the skates and crack open a few beers. 

It's a rite of passage when a player gets benched in front of his hometown friends and family during an outdoor NHL game. 

Wait, what?

That's exactly what ex-Detroit Red Wings star Chris Chelios says happened during the 2009 Winter Classic, after being benched by ever-scrutinized coach Mike Babcock at Wrigley Field in Chelios' hometown of Chicago. 

"He tried to healthy scratch me in the outdoor game in Wrigley Field against Chicago because he knew it was my hometown," Chelios, who played 26 seasons in the NHL, including 10 in Detroit, said on Barstool Sports' Spittin' Chiclets podcast. "Just things that were so unnecessary."

The Free Press was not immediately able to verify Chelios' claim. There's no apparent video of the incident and an email to the Red Wings was not immediately returned. 

Chelios, who last played in 2009-10, said he played the first shift before being benched. 

And then he said he started pounding beers.

"Again, and you know it’s funny," Chelios continued. "I’m sitting there. Second period and my two sons were about 40 feet, you know, sitting on the boards and they’re looking at me going, 'What’s going on?'

"And I look at them. I tip my glass like you know my cup, to get me a beer. So my two boys were handing me beers the whole game. And then (Brad) McCrimmon tried to get me to go out there with a minute left to kill a penalty. I said, 'Not a chance.' "

 

I've heard stories about Guy Lafleur smoking a cigarette in the penalty box, but Chelly drinking beer on the bench takes the prize.

 

One problem with the story though: Where wer his kids getting the beer from? Was Mom in on it?

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

What could they do to convince you it was meaningful? It seems to me that no matter what they did, critics would claim ulterior motives, which of course do exists to some degree in all these situations, but it seems to me there's almost no credence given to the possibility of a meaningful, honest apology.

Showing an understanding of the severity of their actions and apologizing publicly and directly to the person(s) without the addition of legalese, excuses that detract or deflect blame, or hiding behind a corporate curtain.

 

I'm all for giving people another chance when they demonstrate that they understand the errors they've made and own up to them fully, without trying to worm out of them at all, and show that they've changed the way that they conduct themselves. None of the coaches so far have done those things.

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...