Timråfan
-
Posts
4,755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Timråfan
-
-
On 9/12/2023 at 7:59 PM, Down by the River said:
I think the thing that most drives me nuts is when people talk about Babcock as an old school coach. Petty lying, psychological manipulation, and abusing the trust of teenagers has never, in the history of time, been an 'old school' philosophy.
Old school means being harsh, tough, and honest. Old school means letting people know where you stand and giving things to people straight.
Babcock's tactics have never been part of the old school tradition. He literally went and got a degree in psychology to make him better at manipulating other people.
But the tough side is what the sociopaths use and they can fluorish in old school systems because no one dare to call them out.
But in a modern society players wonder what the heck he is doing and call him out.
-
3 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:
Loui set the franchise back a literal decade plus now with the OEL buyout.
Hardly, he played like a 3 mill but that was on Benning that hadn’t got a clue what players the coach needed.
It seems he asked around and was happy with ghat. Not any serious analyse how Loui played and if that style fitted how the coach played.
Ferland was over three mill right down the toilet at once.
But I chosed Messier due to the overall negative impact he had on the team.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, canuck73_3 said:
It was a calculated risk that didn't work out or really affect the team at all. Players on the roster like Loui Eriksson did far more damage than Ferland ever did.
Loui isn’t even close to Ferland.
But since Benning didn’t defend Loui after Loui spoke to the swedish journalist Loui was screwed here since you canadians have a soft spot for the chief in command.-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:
Tell me you don't understand concussions and the CBA without telling me.
Benning hired Ferland withouth insurance due to Ferlands earlier concussions.
Isn’t that kind of desperate?
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:
Ferland was outside his control and he was great at his role when he played here, holding his health against him when he was otherwise fine is just silly. He's not even in the top 100 in most disappointing Canucks as far as I'm concerned
So a player that was aquired to give the team a bit of grit, failed the medics and got no insurance, played only a handful of games and got injured as soon as he fought.
The blame is Bennings but the same can be said about Loui, OEL, Juolevi, Virtanen… All players were ultimately Bennings fault.
-
I wanted to say Ferland because I’ve never seen anyone be as beloved coming here as a saviour and then poof, concussion and LTIR and gone.
Then I realised you had Messier and even if I wasn’t around back then I realise that he’s behaviour is much worse and on a level Ferland can’t reach.
-
On 8/2/2023 at 5:33 PM, BabychStache said:
As much as I'd like to disagree with this, I can't. I was hopeful Horvat was that guy, then he went soft.
Even our BEST teams had a few of those guys: Linden, Luongo, Burrows, Hamhuis, Mitchell.
Maybe it's Beauvillier?
D-Petey take one of those spots.
-
Here is a local track(for Petey I mean) with a great message. Old track though
-
49 minutes ago, -DLC- said:
Honestly, he had every right to give reasons for his actions though and that was a legitimate concern he had. Our fanbase demands and deserves answers to decisions that are made and he was often damned if he did/didn't.
We've had players here before who've cried about ice time/deployment and that generally gets you nowhere. Actions and showing you're ready vs proclaiming that you are.
That's MUCH different than what's reportedly playing out here...can't even compare the two.
One is being honest/frank and the other is seemingly quite predatory and harmful. At least the follow up that I'm reading about seems intentional and targeted and goes beyond stage one in all of this. Not even remotely compareable to Benning saying "some" young players didn't want to pay their dues. He was bang on with that.
But he wasn’t honest.
he protected the coaches and structure at Utica that was bad for prospects development.
You might have noticed that the former regime is gone like the wind.
PA has probably heard from Dahlen directly to make a judgement himself.
So all the changes that led to Abbysford may be from how Dahlen was treated there.
No more prospects that falls through the cracks like that.
So while Benning was dishonest he saved his own face so he didn’t get so much critic from fans and led them to hate a young prospect.
That is completely wrong and I’m perplexed that you don’t see it.
Alex wife and Dahlen suffered from online harassment due to words from someone that clearly doesn’t know how words affect people.
That kind of people isn’t fit to be in a leader position.-
2
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, -DLC- said:
What words did he use? I forget...can you please quote them for me to give me some context here?
He talked about young players not willing to(play in AHL or something like that)
So he talked about both Dahlem and the finnish prospect that went back to Finland instead of Utica.
The worst bit was that the hate from Canucks fans forced Dahlen to stop using internet and in the process his family had to go through it all.I hope you see the hypocary from Cancuck73.
For me it’s worse when a GM direct hate towards a young prospect that hasn’t any experiance of how NHL is compared to an experianced NHL player that is extremely good loocking and has a lot of admirers.
Alex have a problem everywhere he goes and that is something a lot of the players got.
Some cheat and some don’t take the offers available.
Groupies has been a reality for many years.
The new bit there seems to be that they attack the wives and that is really bad.
-
1
-
-
Just now, canuck73_3 said:
Nope, because he is a boss not a bully or harassing anyone, so nope no hypocrisy here.
He was the GM and very much responsible for what words he use.
No GM should throw a prospect under the bus in that way. Especially since he knew how passionate the Canucks fans are.
But you continue helping him trying to save his face.
A girl online isn’t even close…
-
1
-
-
Just now, canuck73_3 said:
Your victim complex with yourself and Dahlen is ridiculous.
I would say your defense of Benning still while you’re being a hypocrite in this case.
-
37 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:
I would not be surprised to find out that you're an online stalker.
Only the Canucks…
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, -DLC- said:
I don't know that I'd call that "sweet talking".
Anyhow, the video itself...meh, whatever. Lots of people talk like that and it's to be taken with a grain of salt and ignored mostly. When you up the game like what's reportedly happened here, it's over the top and needs to stop. You just don't do that stuff without backlash.
As I said, I only talked about the short vid and we seem to have a mutual understanding of that.
The fun part, or sad…, is that when I brought up this subject(harassment online) regarding Benning throwing young prospects under the bus I was ridiculed. Posters like Dazzle still mock me for it.
Dahlen was harassed online and none here talked about Benning as a bad person still he was the guy starting the hate online.
-
1
-
-
Just now, zimmy said:
Ask Alex and his wife and family.
As I said to 73, my words are regarding the vid posted here that was short and a girl sweettalking about Alex.
Not the whole story about Alex and comments online regarding his family.
You should have known that if you read my first post.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:
Freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences...
so you want to punish a girl for say how much she likes a guy?
I hope you realise I talked about the short vid posted here. Not the whole bit about Alex and his family.
-
7 minutes ago, zimmy said:
But this has gone beyond following her or not on line. If you can’t see the collateral damage here I don’t know what to say. And yes, I would like to stifle her persona and I’m not 70.
What is the collateral damage here with the girl posting a fanvid?
-
19 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:
Just because guys did it, doesn't mean it should be a free for all for women to do it. It's wrong no matter who is doing it.
18 minutes ago, Maninthebox said:So blame "guys" for this individual's behaviour? Agree or disagree with how she chooses to present herself to the world, her choices are her own.
And I let her be a person while you want to change her and stifle her persona.
How would you like to be nutered?
You two have to accept that the can is open.
Woman has free speech also.
If you disagree with her don’t follow her online. So hands up, do you two love Alex eyes as she does?
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Rubik said:
that doesn't mean we should normalize those things on mainstream/social media
That girl was harmless… Think about it for a while.
Boys have lured girls into almost everything for ages(some girls does it also)
Her way of doing it is to reclaim her part of the universe where she can be who she wants.
No one can say to her her feelings are bad.
If you can fix the small problem that guys want to have sex a lot we maybe can solve this situation.
The sexualisation of society is guys want to get laid.
So please don’t blame this girl for a guy issue.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
I think it is huge.
I cant believe/understand parents that allow unsupervised access to the internet for children.
It is one of the most dangerous things modern day breeders do in my opinion.
Parents don’t have a chance.
How do you think they can stop children from using Internet or meet a friend using internet.
If adults learn about burner phones children most definately catch up instantly.
The only thing that can regulate it is through the gates into the net.
But if so the adults get pissed it seems…
-
12 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:
I am a fan of stand up comedy.
I have seen many, many, performers say things that are far more extreme than this lady in that vid and I have enjoyed it.
However, the problem I have is that tictok goes out to all ages. The comedy shows I speak of are for adults. If she had said this stuff on stage somewhere I dont think there would be any backlash. I mean thats what she was trying to do, be funny and crudely sexually charged.
I
I believe we all should understand how the world is for those under 20 years.
They have access to everything online.
They have seen everything before they are 12 years nowadays since there are no regulations online and everyone has a friend that can show everything if someone has parents trying to regulate.
This is something no one seems to talk about.
-
1 hour ago, Alflives said:
Could this be a player’s wife who is jealous so she responded and then got her husband to respond too?
Everything is on the table
-
41 minutes ago, Alflives said:
It’s hard to understand what the girl is saying in the posted video. The player wrote about how things were said about his wife and about their kids.
Can someone translate what the girl was saying? I’m pretty sure I heard her say she wants to bed the player. Beyond that it was just garbled.Oops, I thought she talked Alfish.
Super positive about a player she likes.
-
1
-
-
44 minutes ago, Rubik said:
I wouldn’t call it harmless. First of all, as you can see it already caused some problems and distress for the Wennberg family.
Second, it’s harmful for the younger audience who might watch that trash of a woman and get the idea to imitate it later on.
I mean, do you really want to condone that type of behavior? My golden rule is the following: would I want my son/daughter to behave like that? That’s a very easy answer for me, a resounding no. How about you? Would you be okay with that type of behavior if it was your daughter doing that? (or perhaps directed at)
I’m 31 btw, but I don’t think this has anything to do with age. More like values, upbringing and having some class.
I don’t want my kids to act that way but I’m not stopping them.
Do you get my drift?
I can just hope that they learn from their mistakes.On the other hand you got the autism spectre, ADHD etc that can affect how kids act/react.
This girl can have some frontal lobe issues and then comes a lot of old geezers and condemn her online and force her to feel bad when she just express happiness.
I don’t get it.
If she had talked about suicide, murdering, mutilating etc I would have understand your point.
And, my final point is, Alex looks good and makes a lot of cash.Do you really think he has a problem with only one woman?
-
1
-
1
-
[discussion] forum closure
in Canucks Talk
Posted
2027?