conFABulator
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2021
- 1,798
- 1,579
I am pretty sure I will have no positive impact here and was going to post this in another thread that triggered this thought for me. I decided that would have hijacked the other thread, so I am starting this fresh. I really don't want this to be about Dubas, Treliving and their respective moves. There are plenty of threads for that, I am more interested in discussing the fans that are polarized and seemingly obsessed by the topic. I am hopeful this can be done in a productive way.
We really have to let the Dubas stuff go. For the record, I liked Dubas, but was happy he was let go. I didn't like Tre as the next guy, and now I am starting to come around.
Clearly a case can be made that Dubas built a strong and solid hockey team. Yes, both of those elements are defensible. He BUILT the team and it was/is SOLID and STRONG. A case can also be made that his teams fell short of their potential.
Debating this stuff and what could have been is fine with me. I like the discussion, it's what fans do. We are almost two years out now and the debate continues to be as much about the person as the product he produced.
It all feels a bit too Republican/Democrat to me. The identity politics of some (many) on here cause some people to feel they have to disagree with and hate on everything Dubas did, and others defend everything he did and make excuses. Neither end of the spectrum is true, it never is. He wasn't perfect and he wasn't terrible. We were one of the best teams in the NHL under him, we have the longest streak of playoff appearances, and we haven't had the playoff success we feel we should have by now.
Does anyone want to weigh on this? Do the two ends of the spectrum make this place spicy or exhausting for you? Should we try to find more common ground and take a more balanced view or are the extremes just a fact of life in every fandom? Perhaps exacerbated in our massive and passionate one?
We really have to let the Dubas stuff go. For the record, I liked Dubas, but was happy he was let go. I didn't like Tre as the next guy, and now I am starting to come around.
Clearly a case can be made that Dubas built a strong and solid hockey team. Yes, both of those elements are defensible. He BUILT the team and it was/is SOLID and STRONG. A case can also be made that his teams fell short of their potential.
Debating this stuff and what could have been is fine with me. I like the discussion, it's what fans do. We are almost two years out now and the debate continues to be as much about the person as the product he produced.
It all feels a bit too Republican/Democrat to me. The identity politics of some (many) on here cause some people to feel they have to disagree with and hate on everything Dubas did, and others defend everything he did and make excuses. Neither end of the spectrum is true, it never is. He wasn't perfect and he wasn't terrible. We were one of the best teams in the NHL under him, we have the longest streak of playoff appearances, and we haven't had the playoff success we feel we should have by now.
Does anyone want to weigh on this? Do the two ends of the spectrum make this place spicy or exhausting for you? Should we try to find more common ground and take a more balanced view or are the extremes just a fact of life in every fandom? Perhaps exacerbated in our massive and passionate one?