Confirmed with Link: Canucks hire Jason Krog as new NHL/AHL Skills Coach

[vadim sharifijanov]

i just realized three hobey baker winners in a five year span around the turn of the millennium were canucks, b-mo, krog, and ryan miller

i think one of these ladies was named krog?

 

[F A N]

Ugh, this phrase always irritates me. It's one of those throwaway phrases that people just assume has merit without ever critically examining it. It's a paraphrase of Shaw quote who was playing around with something Aristotle said.

It's on par with "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It sounds good and all until you dig a bit deeper and realize it's just a bunch of pretentious nonsense.

Maybe, just maybe, teaching is harder than simply doing, which is why doers can't necessarily teach.

Are you a teacher by any chance?

The phrase is obviously rooted in reality. You'll be hard pressed to find a hockey player in his prime whose dream or passion is to coach rather than play and quits his playing career to teach. That extends to other areas/disciplines.

I won't venture into whether teaching is harder. At the end of the day you're dealing with individuals. When it comes to athletes, there are things you can't teach no matter how good the coach is.

But more on topic, it's hard to evaluate coaching without experiencing it in person. Krog was no doubt a skilled player but if he's skilled because of natural talent combined with hard work, how teachable is that? The same with Hockey IQ. A player can have high hockey IQ as a player but instincts aren't exactly teachable. A player who was slow to process the game might actually have a good hockey mind for teaching. Maybe Krog worked on his weaknesses a lot.

It's really another topic altogether. Krog has been teaching his son so it's possible that he's actually put in a lot of time in learning how to develop hockey players. At the same time, a lot of it is respect, communications, and personality. The trend these days is to hire ex-NHL players who were great NHL players and there are tricks of the trade.

 

[Hammer79]

I remember some people fawning all over his original signing by Gillis as some brilliant moneypuck move. He only got a cup of coffee in the NHL.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

It's on par with "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It sounds good and all until you dig a bit deeper and realize it's just a bunch of pretentious nonsense.

I'd disagree on this being 'pretentious nonsense.'

 

[Ninebreaker]

Was he in NHL06 on the farm team or something? Or am I just confusing him for Jason King...

 

[Javaman]

I'd disagree on this being 'pretentious nonsense.'

It depends on the context, I suppose. Usually I see it used to deflect criticism from a claim that is not supported by evidence. YMMV.

 

[Javaman]

Are you a teacher by any chance?

The phrase is obviously rooted in reality. You'll be hard pressed to find a hockey player in his prime whose dream or passion is to coach rather than play and quits his playing career to teach. That extends to other areas/disciplines.

I won't venture into whether teaching is harder. At the end of the day you're dealing with individuals. When it comes to athletes, there are things you can't teach no matter how good the coach is.

But more on topic, it's hard to evaluate coaching without experiencing it in person. Krog was no doubt a skilled player but if he's skilled because of natural talent combined with hard work, how teachable is that? The same with Hockey IQ. A player can have high hockey IQ as a player but instincts aren't exactly teachable. A player who was slow to process the game might actually have a good hockey mind for teaching. Maybe Krog worked on his weaknesses a lot.

It's really another topic altogether. Krog has been teaching his son so it's possible that he's actually put in a lot of time in learning how to develop hockey players. At the same time, a lot of it is respect, communications, and personality. The trend these days is to hire ex-NHL players who were great NHL players and there are tricks of the trade.

It really isn't. Just because a hockey player isn't among the elite of the elite doesn't mean they can't "do" hockey.

Aristotle said: "Those that can, do; those that understand, teach." It's actually a compliment to those that are capable of teaching.

In modern times, by way of contrast, it's generally used as a cheap and lazy way to take a shot at teachers.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

It depends on the context, I suppose. Usually I see it used to deflect criticism from a claim that is not supported by evidence. YMMV.

That's sort of the opposite of what it portends.

 

[Javaman]

That's sort of the opposite of what it portends.

Pray, do tell us what it portends. Bonus points if you can tell us in a way that doesn't sound pretentious. Or calamitous. Or momentous.

 

[tradervik]

I like the one that goes “those who can’t teach criticize”.

 

[Lindgren]

I like the one that goes “those who can’t teach criticize”.

Those that can't teach, teach phys ed.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Pray, do tell us what it portends. Bonus points if you can tell us in a way that doesn't sound pretentious. Or calamitous. Or momentous.

Sorry, I've been watching Deadwood and the flowery way they talk seeps in here and there.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[F A N]

It really isn't. Just because a hockey player isn't among the elite of the elite doesn't mean they can't "do" hockey.

Aristotle said: "Those that can, do; those that understand, teach." It's actually a compliment to those that are capable of teaching.

In modern times, by way of contrast, it's generally used as a cheap and lazy way to take a shot at teachers.

Do you teach high school? Elementary school?

There are many great “doers” who are also great teachers. I say it’s rooted in reality in the context that NHL hockey players in their prime don’t quit playing hockey to go into coaching. You will find plenty others who went into coaching because they were not good enough as a player. That’s just reality. Krog isn’t now our skills coach because he simply didn’t want to play in the NHL anymore.

Personally I don’t even think of that phrase as a shot at teachers. Many teachers I know went into teaching to earn a living and it’s something they wanted to do. I certainly didn’t think my math teacher was somehow a failed mathematician, my science teacher a failed scientist, my English teacher a failed writer, or my French teacher failed anything. A good friend of mine teaches at a University and he wanted to teach at a university and had no interest in doing research and writing papers long before he got his masters.

I don’t think there is a one size fits all here.

 

[Javaman]

Do you teach high school? Elementary school?

There are many great “doers” who are also great teachers. I say it’s rooted in reality in the context that NHL hockey players in their prime don’t quit playing hockey to go into coaching. You will find plenty others who went into coaching because they were not good enough as a player. That’s just reality. Krog isn’t now our skills coach because he simply didn’t want to play in the NHL anymore.

Personally I don’t even think of that phrase as a shot at teachers. Many teachers I know went into teaching to earn a living and it’s something they wanted to do. I certainly didn’t think my math teacher was somehow a failed mathematician, my science teacher a failed scientist, my English teacher a failed writer, or my French teacher failed anything. A good friend of mine teaches at a University and he wanted to teach at a university and had no interest in doing research and writing papers long before he got his masters.

I don’t think there is a one size fits all here.

Interesting, because that's the primary context where I've seen that phrase used. That was certainly the implication in the post where the phrase first appeared.

 

[Javaman]

Sorry, I've been watching Deadwood and the flowery way they talk seeps in here and there.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hmm. Trying to figure out the purpose of you the link you've provided. My current thinking is: "I think I know the point you think you are making, but I don't think you are making the point you think you are making."

Now, I'll agree that the phrase in question amounts to an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Which is why I called it pretentious nonsense in the first place.

 

[F A N]

Interesting, because that's the primary context where I've seen that phrase used. That was certainly the implication in the post where the phrase first appeared.

The history of it might be and so but in the context of this thread, that comment is rooted in reality. I think you are being overly sensitive here. Krog is “teaching” because he can no longer “do”. It looks like Krog also went into coaching because he wanted to coach his son. Clearly, Krog didn’t need to know anything about teaching to teach kids due to his pro experience alone. Like I said, maybe as a consequence he has really gotten into learning and understanding skills development etc.

 

[Javaman]

The history of it might be and so but in the context of this thread, that comment is rooted in reality. I think you are being overly sensitive here. Krog is “teaching” because he can no longer “do”. It looks like Krog also went into coaching because he wanted to coach his son. Clearly, Krog didn’t need to know anything about teaching to teach kids due to his pro experience alone. Like I said, maybe as a consequence he has really gotten into learning and understanding skills development etc.

I think you've focused way too narrowly on teaching=NHL coaching. As a result, you're spinning away and off into inconsequentiality.

Anyways. I'm sure you'll just keep digging in, so pardon me if I no longer to bother responding to this specific thread of conversation.

 

[Hit the post]

Most Canucks fans would recognize him for his stint in the Canucks' organization. There was a time when he was among the best AHL vets, if not the best.

If there were such a thing as an elite AHLer...he would (imho) be that. Was *THAT* good at that level of hockey. For whatever reason, it just didn't translate to the NHL level.

 

[F A N]

I think you've focused way too narrowly on teaching=NHL coaching. As a result, you're spinning away and off into inconsequentiality.

Anyways. I'm sure you'll just keep digging in, so pardon me if I no longer to bother responding to this specific thread of conversation.

lol. You are the one who got all annoyed by a comment that was made in response to my post. So who is focused way too narrowly here?

No one is calling you a bad teacher or trying to insult your job. Not everyone who says those who can’t do teach is trying to insult teachers. Get over it.

 

[Javaman]

lol. You are the one who got all annoyed by a comment that was made in response to my post. So who is focused way too narrowly here?

No one is calling you a bad teacher or trying to insult your job. Not everyone who says those who can’t do teach is trying to insult teachers. Get over it.

Huh? You didn't make the post that started this. Why are you making this about you?

I genuinely don't get why you're riffing on the "bad teacher" thing. It makes zero sense to me. What has you so triggered?

Your post is just... weird.

 

[F A N]

Huh? You didn't make the post that started this. Why are you making this about you?

I genuinely don't get why you're riffing on the "bad teacher" thing. It makes zero sense to me. What has you so triggered?

Your post is just... weird.

You made a direct comment about me so I responded directly back at you. That’s usually how life works. Didn’t any teacher teach you?

I think it’s clear in this thread who got triggered here lol. Like who got triggered by alternate saying those who can’t do teach? We were talking about Krog and then you jumped in getting all upset because you felt your profession was being denigrated? Geesh.

 

[Javaman]

You made a direct comment about me so I responded directly back at you. That’s usually how life works. Didn’t any teacher teach you?

I think it’s clear in this thread who got triggered here lol. Like who got triggered by alternate saying those who can’t do teach? We were talking about Krog and then you jumped in getting all upset because you felt your profession was being denigrated? Geesh.

I started by responding to post 17. You didn't make post 17. Claiming that you were responding directly back at me is... well.. weird.

Unfortunately, you've made the mistake of assuming your assumptions are factual.

That's the problem with your recent posts in this thread.

But, yeah it's kinda clear who's actually been triggered here. I'm sure you'll make the wrong assumptions again, which is apparently your wont.

 

[F A N]

I started by responding to post 17. You didn't make post 17. Claiming that you were responding directly back at me is... well.. weird.

I was referring to post #42

Unfortunately, you've made the mistake of assuming your assumptions are factual.

That's the problem with your recent posts in this thread.

But, yeah it's kinda clear who's actually been triggered here. I'm sure you'll make the wrong assumptions again, which is apparently your wont.

Nah. I'm not the one quoting Aristotle here.

What does "which is apparently your won't" mean?

 

[Javaman]

I was referring to post #42



Nah. I'm not the one quoting Aristotle here.

What does "which is apparently your won't" mean?

FFS. Post 42? Are you deliberately trying to derail this conversation?

And I didn't say "won't"

I said "wont."

Just because you lack the vocabulary to understand the difference doesn't make it okay to misrepresent my statements.

 

[RobsonStreet]

Hmm. Trying to figure out the purpose of you the link you've provided. My current thinking is: "I think I know the point you think you are making, but I don't think you are making the point you think you are making."

Now, I'll agree that the phrase in question amounts to an attempt to shift the burden of proof. Which is why I called it pretentious nonsense in the first place.

I didn’t expect to be discussing the philosophy of science on a hockey message board, but here we are.

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is typically shorthand for falsifiability as an alternative to inductive reasoning and logical positivism. Testing a theory by looking for data that are consistent with the theory (in order to verify it) is a weak evaluation; better to ask “what would disprove my theory” and try to gather that evidence.

Falsifiability - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org