Player Discussion Alexis Lafrenière

[Edge]

Maybe don't accuse people of mental illness, though?

And this is not the first time we've heard his spiel about dying on the cross to save the board he created. Get a f***ing grip.

Honestly, though, when we start talking about people who lose an eye, or who need to take dirt naps, shit's going beyond dying on a cross.

It's not funny. It's bordering on sick. Seriously.

That's not venting or blowing off steam. That's serious personality deficiency. That is f***ing illness at that point, and I'm not sorry for calling it what it is or speaking on behalf of the list of people who said, "Eww. What the hell was that?"

Permanent disabilities that will impact someone until the day they die? Wanting someone to die? (Which wasn't your comment) Come on now. We ARE better than that.

Yeah, I do die on this cross. Because a lot of hours went into building this place and working to be more than the typical message board and sports outlet of the time. People worked hard and sacrificed to build this place. They built the groundwork for you to have a forum to enjoy, not the other way around.

So yeah, when the toxicity is spreading, and really getting into dark places, you're damn right I'm gonna say something. Because it's so unnecessary.

Let's debate deployments. Let's debate what the numbers tell us. But Jesus, let's not repeat some of the shit we've seen on here lately.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Honestly, though, when we start talking about people who lose an eye, or who need to take dirt naps, shit's going beyond dying on a cross.

It's not funny. It's bordering on sick. Seriously.

That's not venting or blowing off steam. That's serious personality deficiency. That is f***ing illness at that point, and I'm not sorry for calling it what it is or speaking on behalf of the list of people who said, "Eww. What the hell was that?"

Permanent disabilities that will impact someone until the day they die? Wanting someone to die? Come on now. We ARE better than that.

Yeah, I do die on this cross. Because a lot of hours went into building this place and working to be more than the typical message board and sports outlet of the time. People worked hard and sacrificed to build this place. They built the groundwork for you to have a forum to enjoy, not the other way around.

So yeah, when the toxicity is spreading, and really getting into dark places, you're damn right I'm gonna say something. Because it's so unnecessary.

Let's debate deployments. Let's debate what the numbers tell us. But Jesus, let's not repeat some of the shit we've seen on here lately.

This is particularly well said. And very much needed.

 

[True Blue]

This is particularly well said. And very much needed.

Yes. And at the end of the day ,it's all Quinn & Gorton's fault anyway.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Yes. And at the end of the day ,it's all Quinn & Gorton's fault anyway.

Well, yeah....

 

[Captain Monglobster]

I come here because of the knowledge base we have here, and because there is real discussion. The opposite of twitter. There are def twitter vibes here. Please go back to twitter.

 

[TheDirtyH]

I've been here since 09 (went to a boarding school with no internet junior year so I had to make a new account after losing the login) and while I can find the hyperbole eyerolling and annoying (especially during the corsi saga of 2012-2015) what really pushes me from the boards is the constant devolution and digression away from talking hockey to talking manners. Things started to really spiral into long conversations about the board itself which I find exhausting. Just ignore people. I don't read most comments on here; I know who I want to hear from and I know who I don't.

It's been really frustrating this season to have so much of the legit critical takes be met with 'well the board wouldn't like Gallant any better' or 'well how would the board feel if Zibanejad was scoring' or 'we don't know what goes on behind the scenes'.

First off, duh.
Second, there is no homogenous 'board' anyway. Whenever we say that we're always talking about specific posters, each of us.

Wish we could all just stick with the sport and the team and not try to police each other so much. It's a free country and a free forum and if people want to say things I find ludicrous, offensive, disrespectful, or asinine, that's they're business and I'll take my conversation to those who actually have something to say about it.

 

[duhmetreE]

I can't even begin to describe Quinn hockey and this is his third season.

Neither can the players

 

[Edge]

I've been here since 09 (went to a boarding school with no internet junior year so I had to make a new account after losing the login) and while I can find the hyperbole eyerolling and annoying (especially during the corsi saga of 2012-2015) what really pushes me from the boards is the constant devolution and digression away from talking hockey to talking manners. Things started to really spiral into long conversations about the board itself which I find exhausting. Just ignore people. I don't read most comments on here; I know who I want to hear from and I know who I don't.

It's been really frustrating this season to have so much of the legit critical takes be met with 'well the board wouldn't like Gallant any better' or 'well how would the board feel if Zibanejad was scoring' or 'we don't know what goes on behind the scenes'.

First off, duh.
Second, there is no homogenous 'board' anyway. Whenever we say that we're always talking about specific posters, each of us.

Wish we could all just stick with the sport and the team and not try to police each other so much. It's a free country and a free forum and if people want to say things I find ludicrous, offensive, disrespectful, or asinine, that's they're business and I'll take my conversation to those who actually have something to say about it.

The problem with that is starts to take over like weeds. So it's get to the point where you can't ignore it, because it permeates every conversation.

You can't have conversation about hockey when people are wishing death on someone or the conversation digresses into a series of hot takes and one liners. That's the Twitter element we've also worked to avoid on here.

As for the Gallant and Zibanejad things you don't like, those are actual hockey discussions that were explained in greater detail (shooting percentages being far apart, Gallant's locker room approach and how it compares to Quinn, etc.)

You say "well duh" but that's most conversations on here, isn't it?

I mean do we really think, "wow Johnson looks like shit again" is somehow a profound statement?

Of course not. But is is part of the board and it relates to hockey.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

The problem with that is starts to take over like weeds. So it's get to the point where you can't ignore it, because it permeates every conversation.

You can't have conversation about hockey when people are wishing death on someone or the conversation digresses into a series of hot takes and one liners. That's the Twitter element we've also worked to avoid on here.

As for the Gallant and Zibanejad things you don't like, those are actual hockey discussions that were explained in greater detail (shooting percentages being far apart, Gallant's locker room approach and how it compares to Quinn, etc.)

You say "well duh" but that's most conversations on here, isn't it?

I mean do we really think, "wow Johnson looks like shit again" is somehow a profound statement?

Of course not.

I haven't been here that long, but the Flyer thread after the game last night was just an absolute joke. Mob mentality at its finest. Calling guys a cancer on the team, ripping players, coaches, awful takes... after a win mind you. There was no hockey being discussed. Zero.

 

[Edge]

I haven't been here that long, but the Flyer thread after the game last night was just an absolute joke. Mob mentality at its finest. Calling guys a cancer on the team, ripping players, coaches, awful takes... after a win mind you. There was no hockey being discussed. Zero.

And to be clear. I would love nothing more than to stick to talking about hockey.

I don't wake up in the morning and say to myself, "Hey, I really wanna go on the board have to ask people to stop wishing death on others, accusing the staff of having sexual relations with one another, and making jokes about people who nearly lost an eye while playing for our team."

Trust me. Would much rather debate who gets exposed in the expansion draft.

 

[Pawnee Rangers]

And to be clear. I would love nothing more than to stick to talking about hockey.

I don't wake up in the morning and say to myself, "Hey, I really wanna go on the board have to ask people to stop wishing death on others and making jokes about people who nearly lost an eye while playing for our team."

Trust me. Would much rather debate who gets exposed in the expansion draft.

It's funny, before the season started it was pretty much universally accepted that making the playoffs in this division would be a tall order. I'm not sure why people are surprised, or so damn angry. Obviously, there were things no one could foresee, Zib, Laff, Kreider, the injuries, but losing it after a win? Jesus, go outside, get some air, find something else to occupy your time with.

 

[TheDirtyH]

The problem with that is starts to take over like weeds. So it's get to the point where you can't ignore it, because it permeates every conversation.

You can't have conversation about hockey when people are wishing death on someone or the conversation digresses into a series of hot takes and one liners. That's the Twitter element we've also worked to avoid on here.

As for the Gallant and Zibanejad things you don't like, those are actual hockey discussions that were explained in greater detail (shooting percentages being far apart, Gallant's locker room approach and how it compares to Quinn, etc.)

You say "well duh" but that's most conversations on here, isn't it?

I mean do we really think, "wow Johnson looks like shit again" is somehow a profound statement?

Of course not.

I get it wears on you differently than it does on me--that may be a personality thing, an age thing, as well as a very different investment level in the board at large between us. I suspect all of the above (I was in high school when twitter came out). So, fine if you can't ignore it and I'm sorry to hear it bothers you to such an extent.

At the end of the day, yes, it is just 'duh' since we're all just fans, not actually influencing or deciding anything. Just observing and commenting. But like, my point with Gallant or Zibanejad this year is not that those things aren't ever addressed with some hockey takes as you point out. For example with Zibanejad: yes the shooting percentages are way worse (but what about the shot locations); yes the team would have a better record (but would we be a better team, or better positioned with respect to the 'build'). It dies on the vine of whether 'we' would still be unhappy or dissatisfied with something else.

Patience, restraint, 'grey' areas are important. But it's a conversation killer to just preach it endlessly to people who won't listen to it anyway. Grey areas and nuance should be sites of further exploration and investigation, not just relegated like 'Dark Matter' as that which can't be known but establish the order of the few things that can.

I appreciate devil's advocacy, and ironically, on this board that often means taking an optimistic or measured stance. And I understand the frustration that that's the case as I'm usually doing just that around here. I just like to stay on the hockey not on the talk I guess.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

who wished death on who

 

[Edge]

I get it wears on you differently than it does on me--that may be a personality thing, an age thing, as well as a very different investment level in the board at large between us. I suspect all of the above (I was in high school when twitter came out). So, fine if you can't ignore it and I'm sorry to hear it bothers you to such an extent.

At the end of the day, yes, it is just 'duh' since we're all just fans, not actually influencing or deciding anything. Just observing and commenting. But like, my point with Gallant or Zibanejad this year is not that those things aren't ever addressed with some hockey takes as you point out. For example with Zibanejad: yes the shooting percentages are way worse (but what about the shot locations); yes the team would have a better record (but would we be a better team, or better positioned with respect to the 'build'). It dies on the vine of whether 'we' would still be unhappy or dissatisfied with something else.

Patience, restraint, 'grey' areas are important. But it's a conversation killer to just preach it endlessly to people who won't listen to it anyway. Grey areas and nuance should be sites of further exploration and investigation, not just relegated like 'Dark Matter' as that which can't be known but establish the order of the few things that can.

I appreciate devil's advocacy, and ironically, on this board that often means taking an optimistic or measured stance. And I understand the frustration that that's the case as I'm usually doing just that around here. I just like to stay on the hockey not on the talk I guess.

I hear ya. Unfortunately, this board's survival has always counted on a degree of self-policing or establishing/re-establishing boundaries. Otherwise, there really are some people who will take the boards down with them. In some cases, as unpleasant as it is, they usually end up shutting up or getting the message --- at least for a while. And that does keep the board moving forward.

I feel like 90 percent of these topics die on the vein to be honest with you. From player usage, to firing coaching, to the best players to draft. Most people's annoyances usually comes to down whether it re-affirms or challenges their previously held views. But there's actually very little influence anyone has on anything. If we stuck to that, we'd pretty much limited to "I liked this, I didn't like this. This is what happened." It would be pretty bland. So all of those topics are necessary.

On the topic of liking Gallant, I think the crux of the argument is that if you don't like what you're seeing from Quinn, Gallant probably isn't going to change that based on his approach in Florida and Vegas.

Now if we were to say, the board wouldn't like Boudreau based on what Quinn does, that's much less of a parallel to draw. But it's really no different than saying, "if Skjei drove you nuts, Hanifin would probably do the same."

 

[duhmetreE]

I hear ya. Unfortunately, this board's survival has always counted on a degree of self-policing or establishing/re-establishing boundaries. Otherwise, there really are some people who will take the boards down with them. In some cases, as unpleasant as it is, they usually end up shutting up or getting the message --- at least for a while. And that does keep the board moving forward.

I feel like 90 percent of these topics die on the vein to be honest with you. From player usage, to firing coaching, to the best players to draft. Most people's annoyances usually comes to down whether it re-affirms or challenges their previously held views. But there's actually very little influence anyone has on anything. If we stuck to that, we'd pretty much limited to "I liked this, I didn't like this. This is what happened." It would be pretty bland. So all of those topics are necessary.

On the topic of liking Gallant, I think the crux of the argument is that if you don't like what you're seeing from Quinn, Gallant probably isn't going to change that based on his approach in Florida and Vegas.

Now if we were to say, the board wouldn't like Boudreau based on what Quinn does, that's much less of a parallel to draw. But it's really no different than saying, "if Skjei drove you nuts, Hanifin would probably do the same."

That's up in the air. MAYBE, the team would buy into his system and perform with the urgency they did in 2019.

I don't know whats going on with Zibs and Kreider, but sometimes it looks like they're moping/uninterested and other times, Zibs motor skills look like he's inebriated

As much as people would hate it, Babcock might be a 'good fit' in that regard.

 

[Off Sides]

Wow, Johnson looks like shit again


I get it's exhausting, yet when many posters were saying he would look like that at the time of the signing, they were replied to with many posts intending to placate their anger/bewilderment.

I think the naturally reaction for those who were replied to with placation would be to continue to point out that they were correct.

 

[Edge]

That's up in the air. MAYBE, the team would buy into his system and perform with the urgency they did in 2019.

I don't know whats going on with Zibs and Kreider, but sometimes it looks like they're moping/uninterested and other times, Zibs motor skills look like he's inebriated

As much as people would hate it, Babcock might be a 'good fit' in that regard.

A lot of it for me is timing.

I get the desire to get Quinn out of here --- and to be clear I don't think he's for the next several years.

But there is something to be said about the right guy at the right time. Just like there's a concern about hanging onto Quinn too long and watching it all go down the toilet, there's also the counter-concern about hiring the right guy at the wrong time.

Is the timing right for a Babcock or Torts type? Eh, I'm not too sure about that.

A little further down the road? Yeah, quite possibly.

It's the timing for this year I am less sure about.

 

[Crease]

Let's debate deployments. Let's debate what the numbers tell us. But Jesus, let's not repeat some of the shit we've seen on here lately.

Good post Edge, and I agree.

 

[TheDirtyH]

I hear ya. Unfortunately, this board's survival has always counted on a degree of self-policing or establishing/re-establishing boundaries. Otherwise, there really are some people who will take the boards down with them. In some cases, as unpleasant as it is, they usually end up shutting up or getting the message --- at least for a while. And that does keep the board moving forward.

I feel like 90 percent of these topics die on the vein to be honest with you. From player usage, to firing coaching, to the best players to draft. Most people's annoyances usually comes to down whether it re-affirms or challenges their previously held views. But there's actually very little influence anyone has on anything. If we stuck to that, we'd pretty much limited to "I liked this, I didn't like this. This is what happened." It would be pretty bland. So all of those topics are necessary.

On the topic of liking Gallant, I think the crux of the argument is that if you don't like what you're seeing from Quinn, Gallant probably isn't going to change that based on his approach in Florida and Vegas.

Now if we were to say, the board wouldn't like Boudreau based on what Quinn does, that's much less of a parallel to draw. But it's really no different than saying, "if Skjei drove you nuts, Hanifin would probably do the same."

I think we're more likely to get better results if we stay with the content rather than the form. That's all I'm saying.

At it's best this board can be a great mixture of personalities, preferences, insights, and favored perspectives. We have an international community across a handful of generations at this point.

To me saying 'If Skjei drove you nuts, Hanafin would probably do the same' is the beginning of a point, not the end of one. It could be at least. Maybe you don't convince anyone of anything, but I don't think that conversation is about concluding anything, but about opening things up. We can talk about what Gallant's approach is in Florida and Vegas. We can talk about the results he gets. We can talk about examples of who coaches that are of a different 'genre' than Quinn/Gallant. Maybe that opens up into more sophisticated takes about just what we talk about when we talk about coaching... IDK.

You're right that 90 percent of things die on the vine here. My opinion is that that's because not many are interesting in exploring anything for it's own sake, just invested in arguing, persuading, agreeing/disagreeing. But that's life as much as the board or twitter. People don't really interact much differently in person IMO.

 

[Crease]

who wished death on who

I keep my threats to @Thirty One to DM

 

[duhmetreE]

A lot of it for me is timing.

I get the desire to get Quinn out of here --- and to be clear I don't think he's for the next several years.

But there is something to be said about the right guy at the right time. Just like there's a concern about hanging onto Quinn too long and watching it all go down the toilet, there's also the counter-concern about hiring the right guy at the wrong time.

Is the timing right for a Babcock or Torts type? Eh, I'm not too sure about that.

A little further down the road? Yeah, quite possibly.

It's the timing for this year I am less sure about.

I think the Torts and Babcocks of the world evolved their styles. They can still be hardasses but they are no where as intense as they once were.

I can't speak for Babcock but I know Torts has the balls to bench his vets, if and wehn deserved. IMO Torts setup this org for its runs. He implemented the 'complete games' Quinn is trying to instill. Albeit we did not have anywhere close to this skill or youth

The biggest concern remains the glaring need for an 'Alpha-type' leader... getting that from the coaching staff seems to be the easiest/quickest path imo. I'm hoping it's something that's addressed sooner, rather than later.

or is the issue a organizational/HR one? Is an 'alpha-type' considered toxic this day and age? ( I'm not being facetious )

 

[Edge]

I think the Torts and Babcocks of the world evolved their styles. They can still be hardasses but they are no where as intense as they once were.

I can't speak for Babcock but I know Torts has the balls to bench his vets, if and wehn deserved. IMO Torts setup this org for its runs. He implemented the 'complete games' Quinn is trying to instill. Albeit we did not have anywhere close to this skill or youth

The biggest concern remains the glaring need for an 'Alpha-type' leader... getting that from the coaching staff seems to be the easiest/quickest path imo. I'm hoping it's something that's addressed sooner, rather than later.

or is the issue a organizational/HR one? Is an 'alpha-type' considered toxic this day and age? ( I'm not being facetious )

There is some belief that they need some more Type-A personalities in the room. Even before what we've seen this year, there was hesitation to name Zibanejad and Kreider as captain.

Frankly, under different circumstances, someone like Toews is probably who they'd be looking at for right now.

 

[True Blue]

Wow, Johnson looks like shit again

I actually think that you are giving him too much credit here. But I had to laugh when on his first shift back he took a penalty.

 

[The New Russian Five]

I wish I had something good to say about him. I really do. I am not a fan of noticing Rooney and Blackwell more than Lafreniere in a game where half of their opposing forwards aren't NHL players.

Yeah yeah I get it there's a forcefield around the net for the Rangers but like, I hate to say it but there are a nice handful of players that have been way more victimized by that forcefield than Lafreniere.

He's just boring. He's like Kakko last year without the worst-in-the-league level defending. At least Kakko actually scored a little, lol

Kakko also had the benefit of playing on a rangers team that was an well-oiled machine offensively last year. The team this year has lost its mojo and Laf has to play through it right now.

 

[The New Russian Five]

Honestly, though, when we start talking about people who lose an eye, or who need to take dirt naps, shit's going beyond dying on a cross.

It's not funny. It's bordering on sick. Seriously.

That's not venting or blowing off steam. That's serious personality deficiency. That is f***ing illness at that point, and I'm not sorry for calling it what it is or speaking on behalf of the list of people who said, "Eww. What the hell was that?"

Permanent disabilities that will impact someone until the day they die? Wanting someone to die? (Which wasn't your comment) Come on now. We ARE better than that.

Yeah, I do die on this cross. Because a lot of hours went into building this place and working to be more than the typical message board and sports outlet of the time. People worked hard and sacrificed to build this place. They built the groundwork for you to have a forum to enjoy, not the other way around.

So yeah, when the toxicity is spreading, and really getting into dark places, you're damn right I'm gonna say something. Because it's so unnecessary.

Let's debate deployments. Let's debate what the numbers tell us. But Jesus, let's not repeat some of the shit we've seen on here lately.

Well said