Oilers hire Stan Bowman as GM and Executive VP

[Elias Pettersson]

4 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

I mean you can't just gloss over the Sexual Abuse thing. Period. 

 

I'll try and be as clear as possible since you are giving me confused emojis and I actually like and respect you as a poster so I'll try and clear this up for you.  Based on what we know today, I wouldn't hire Bowman to run an ice cream truck.  He should be permanently banned from the NHL and it is Bettman's fault that he is back in the league.  I hope this is clear to you.  In terms of what I was trying to say earlier, I don't have a problem hiring an incompetent GM like Benning who would trade Petey for a bag of pucks if it meant we won 3 cups.  Hope that clears things up for you.  

[canuck73_3]

13 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

I'll try and be as clear as possible since you are giving me confused emojis and I actually like and respect you as a poster so I'll try and clear this up for you.  Based on what we know today, I wouldn't hire Bowman to run an ice cream truck.  He should be permanently banned from the NHL and it is Bettman's fault that he is back in the league.  I hope this is clear to you.  In terms of what I was trying to say earlier, I don't have a problem hiring an incompetent GM like Benning who would trade Petey for a bag of pucks if it meant we won 3 cups.  Hope that clears things up for you.  

Obviously but that is completely baseless and hypothetical. I would prefer a competent leadership team that are not rape apologists, which we currently have. I hope that clears things up.

Edited July 25 by canuck73_3

[canuck73_3]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

But would you knowingly hire someone like Bowman knowing what you know now about him?

Yup and regardless of Bettman allowing him back or not that does not mean you have to hire him. Sure, he deserves a second chance. It doesn't have to be in the NHL though. 

[IBatch]

On 7/24/2024 at 1:02 PM, Jess said:

I have yet to see a single person who thinks this idea is even okay, never mind good. Even Oiler fans are losing their minds.

 

I have a really hard time seeing the org going forward with this decision. When you have so much intense backlash, including from your own fanbase, it should be a glaringly obvious sign that you fucked up.

Worst case is they actually win a cup.  

[Snoop Hogg]

[Bob Long]

4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

I would gladly hire someone like Benning who was incompetent and traded away Petey if it meant winning 3 cups.  When Bowman was hired he wasn't covering up sexual assaults.  If it was today after what we know now, I wouldn't hire Bowman to run an ice cream truck.  He should be banned permanently from the league.  Which is why if you go to my very first post in this thread I said this was all Bettman's fault.  Bettman should never have allowed Bowman back in the league, period...

 

 

 

but you're letting EDM off the hook with that. 

[PureQuickness]

6 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

My entire point was that I would gladly take winning 3 Stanley Cups over having an incompetent GM. Couldn’t care less if he traded Petey for a bag of pucks if we won the cup 3 times. 
 

The fact that you have to keep going to the “you’re defending a rape apologist” card to try and demean me means my point is valid and you have nothing else to counter with. 

 

That's exactly what you're doing. It doesn't matter how much effort of a charade you're playing here. We ALL can see what you're doing. Aside from the non-hockey scandal, many of us have been talking about Bowman's lack of success as a GM. You are solely highlighting the three cups, but I mentioned in another post directly to you, which you conveniently glossed over that Hawks fans have been writing off Bowman for YEARS as being a competent GM.

 

Very clearly, you are emphasizing on the cups portion without even bothering to find out more detail. You're either defending a rape apologist, or you're being deliberately obtuse about evidence that you don't want to see. Either way, you do not look good in this discussion. Maybe you should stop posting about how great Bowman is because the majority of Hawks fans DO NOT think he's a good GM. It's hilarious that you're basically the only one who thinks Bowman is worth of being hired.

[PureQuickness]

4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

I'll try and be as clear as possible since you are giving me confused emojis and I actually like and respect you as a poster so I'll try and clear this up for you.  Based on what we know today, I wouldn't hire Bowman to run an ice cream truck.  He should be permanently banned from the NHL and it is Bettman's fault that he is back in the league.  I hope this is clear to you.  In terms of what I was trying to say earlier, I don't have a problem hiring an incompetent GM like Benning who would trade Petey for a bag of pucks if it meant we won 3 cups.  Hope that clears things up for you.  

 

So this raises the question here: was Bowman really the reason for why the Hawks won the cups? He VERY CLEARLY inherited a core from the predecessors. Bowman has been widely panned by Hawks fans as being bad at his job. They DO NOT emphasize the cups at all. They see the entirety of his tenure and all they see are bad or mediocre moves that barely move the needle.

 

But since you CLEARLY seem to be more knowledgeable than the Hawks fans who have watched their teams for years, what's really the point of a discussion? You are deadset on praising Bowman as a GM, despite the fact that he had little to nothing to do with the cups, according to Hawks fans. Like many don't even UNDERSTAND why the Oilers have hired Bowman.

That is some serious shit LOL.

[Elias Pettersson]

18 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

That's exactly what you're doing. It doesn't matter how much effort of a charade you're playing here. We ALL can see what you're doing. Aside from the non-hockey scandal, many of us have been talking about Bowman's lack of success as a GM. You are solely highlighting the three cups, but I mentioned in another post directly to you, which you conveniently glossed over that Hawks fans have been writing off Bowman for YEARS as being a competent GM.

 

Very clearly, you are emphasizing on the cups portion without even bothering to find out more detail. You're either defending a rape apologist, or you're being deliberately obtuse about evidence that you don't want to see. Either way, you do not look good in this discussion. Maybe you should stop posting about how great Bowman is because the majority of Hawks fans DO NOT think he's a good GM. It's hilarious that you're basically the only one who thinks Bowman is worth of being hired.

 

I don't care if we hire a monkey to be the GM.  If that monkey wins us 3 cups, that monkey gets a statue in front of Rogers Arena.

 

And yes, considering I've been watching and following hockey since the 1980's, I probably know more about hockey issues than most Hawks fans to be totally honest with you.

 

I've already clarified my position in my other posts in regard to Bowman, so please stop calling me a "rape apologist".  At this point it's going to be considered a personal attack...

[PureQuickness]

12 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

I don't care if we hire a monkey to be the GM.  If that monkey wins us 3 cups, that monkey gets a statue in front of Rogers Arena.

 

And yes, considering I've been watching and following hockey since the 1980's, I probably know more about hockey issues than most Hawks fans to be totally honest with you.

 

I've already clarified my position in my other posts in regard to Bowman, so please stop calling me a "rape apologist".  At this point it's going to be considered a personal attack...

 

Regarding the bolded, I am not gonna comment further on that, so consider that a dead issue that won't be revived.

 

However...the second part is absolutely disturbing with arrogance. A fan from a non-original six team claiming to watch hockey in the 80s is "probably" more knowledgable than most Hawk fans? Are you kidding me?

 

That doesn't sit well if some other fanbase reads this. This is the kind of crap that makes Canuck fans look bad league wide when fans say stuff like this. I beseech you please to not comment about Bowman being a good GM. That is until you do more research. Firstly, you have a lot of evidence against you (hockey reasons). Secondly, you have fans who celebrated the cups who don't think Bowman is a good GM. Thirdly, the first statement you made above is absolute nonsense. You are willing to turn a blind-eye on a bad performing GM (overall), simply because he was GM at the time who inherited assets from previous GM's work? What does this really say about you as an analyst?

In fact, going back to your original claim that you "probably" know more hockey than most Hawk fans, this is essentially proof that you don't know about hockey as much as you think. Again, it's not meant to be a personal attack. I am simply calling a spade for what it is - a spade.

Do not force yourself to die on a hill needlessly. This is not a hill where you're going to come out on the winning side at all. Hawks fans think Bowman was a SHIT GM, with or without the cups. Many of them think they won IN SPITE of what Bowman did. And you're saying you know more than they do? That's so ridiculously arrogant.

Edited July 25 by PureQuickness

[Elias Pettersson]

12 hours ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Regarding the bolded, I am not gonna comment further on that, so consider that a dead issue that won't be revived.

 

However...the second part is absolutely disturbing with arrogance. A fan from a non-original six team claiming to watch hockey in the 80s is "probably" more knowledgable than most Hawk fans.

 

That doesn't sit well if some other fanbase reads this. This is the kind of crap that makes Canuck fans look bad league wide when you say stuff like this. I beseech you please to not comment about Bowman being a good GM. Firstly, you have a lot of evidence against you (hockey reasons). Secondly, you have fans who celebrated the cups who don't think Bowman is a good GM. Thirdly, the first statement is absolute nonsense. You are willing to turn a blind-eye on a bad performing GM (overall), simply because he was GM at the time who inherited assets from previous GM's work. What does this really say about you as an analyst?

In fact, going back to your original claim that you "probably" know more hockey than most Hawk fans, this is essentially proof that you don't know about hockey as much as you think. Again, it's not meant to be a personal attack. I am simply calling a spade for what it is - a spade.

 

Why would I care about what other fanbases think about me?  I've watched thousands of hockey games since the 1980's, know actual former NHL hockey players, been around the game since the 1980's but according to you I don't have a clue about hockey?  No, I'm actually not really arrogant, I'm just really smart and I consider myself an expert when it comes to hockey and the NHL in general.  Following the game for 35+ years does that to people.

 

You claim that Bowman is a terrible GM.  You base that on what, his trades and free agent signings?  You consider me a bad analyst.  Why?  Because I don't agree with you and some Chicago fans?  Why do GM's made trades and sign free agents?  What's the end goal?  It's to win a cup.  So, it doesn't matter how those trades worked out, if you win cups, then you've accomplished your mission.  Not sure why this is complicated for you to understand.  You think grading a GM based on each and every trade and free agent signing they made is how you evaluate performance?  I don't agree with that.  If you win cups, that supersedes any trade or free agent signing you made.  How many GM's in history are considered great GM's who have never won a cup?  Probably zero?  Maybe one or two?  

 

You keep saying all these smart Chicago fans don't consider Bowman to have been a good GM.  Unfortunately for them, the Hockey Writers don't agree with them.  You know, the people that follow hockey for a living.  The hockey writers consider Bowman to be the 2nd best GM in the NHL since 2010.  Better than David Poile, Jim Rutherford, and Dean Lombardi.  The only guy ahead of him is Doug Wilson, which I don't agree with because he never won a cup.  But he's probably the only guy who hasn't won a cup that should be in the top 5.  I disagree with this but these guys are the "experts", so who am I to argue?

 

NHL's Top Five General Managers from 2010-2020 (thehockeywriters.com)

 

At the end of the day, it's all about winning.  Those who win the cups are looked at as the guys who are the best at what they do.  Winning is all that matters.  If you don't believe me, ask Connor McDavid what he thinks.  If McDavid doesn't win a cup, he won't be looked at in the same breath as Gretzky or Lemieux.  Not even in the ballpark.  However, if he wins 3-4 cups, he will be in the conversation.  That's how it works.

 

I never said that Bowman was a "great" GM.  He wasn't because he never won a GM of the year award and yes, his drafts, free agent signings and trades are not "great".  However, he was a "good" GM because at the end of the day he was able to win 3 cups.  You think it's easy to win 3 cups?  How many GM's have won 3 cups?  Can you name them?  Only 12 teams in the NHL have won at least 3 cups.  So, I can guarantee you the list of GM's who have won 3 cups is really small.  Pollock, Torrey, Sather, Lamoriello, Rutherford, Holland are the other guys in the modern era that I can think of.  That's a total of 7 GM's since like 1970 who have won 3+ cups.  Bowman is a part of that group.  He is obviously #7 on that list in terms of the best GM's, but he's still a part of a very small group of GM's who have won at least 3 cups.

Edited July 26 by Elias Pettersson

[spook007]

28 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Why would I care about what other fanbases think about me?  I've watched thousands of hockey games since the 1980's, know actual former NHL hockey players, been around the game since the 1980's but according to you I don't have a clue about hockey?  No, I'm actually not really arrogant, I'm just really smart and I consider myself an expert when it comes to hockey and the NHL in general.  Following the game for 35+ years does that to people.

 

You claim that Bowman is a terrible GM.  You base that on what, his trades and free agent signings?  You consider me a bad analyst.  Why?  Because I don't agree with you and some Chicago fans?  Why do GM's made trades and sign free agents?  What's the end goal?  It's to win a cup.  So, it doesn't matter how those trades worked out, if you win cups, then you've accomplished your mission.  Not sure why this is complicated for you to understand.  You think grading a GM based on each and every trade and free agent signing they made is how you evaluate performance?  I don't agree with that.  If you win cups, that supersedes any trade or free agent signing you made.  How many GM's in history are considered great GM's who have never won a cup?  Probably zero?  Maybe one or two?  

 

You keep saying all these smart Chicago fans don't consider Bowman to have been a good GM.  Unfortunately for them, the Hockey Writers don't agree with them.  You know, the people that follow hockey for a living.  The hockey writers consider Bowman to be the 2nd best GM in the NHL since 2010.  Better than David Poile, Jim Rutherford, and Dean Lombardi.  The only guy ahead of him is Doug Wilson, which I don't agree with because he never won a cup.  But he's probably the only guy who hasn't won a cup that should be in the top 5.  I disagree with this but these guys are the "experts", so who am I to argue?

 

NHL's Top Five General Managers from 2010-2020 (thehockeywriters.com)

 

At the end of the day, it's all about winning.  Those who win the cups are looked at as the guys who are the best at what they do.  Winning is all that matters.  If you don't believe me, ask Connor McDavid what he thinks.  If McDavid doesn't win a cup, he won't be looked at in the same breath as Gretzky or Lemieux.  Not even in the ballpark.  However, if he wins 3-4 cups, he will be in the conversation.  That's how it works.

 

I never said that Bowman was a "great" GM.  He wasn't because he never won a GM of the year award and yes, his drafts, free agent signings and trades are not "great".  However, he was a "good" GM because at the end of the day he was able to win 3 cups.  You think it's easy to win 3 cups?  How many GM's have won 3 cups?  Can you name them?  Only 12 teams in the NHL have won at least 3 cups.  So, I can guarantee you the list of GM's who have won 3 cups is really small.  Pollock, Torrey, Sather, Lamoriello, Rutherford, Holland are the other guys in the modern era that I can think of.  That's a total of 7 GM's since like 1970 who have won 3+ cups.  Bowman is a part of that group.  He is obviously #7 on that list in terms of the best GM's, but he's still a part of a very small group of GM's who have won at least 3 cups.

 

This is the truth.... win a cup, nothing else you do (while legal obviously) matters...

 

If Benning had won a cup (yes I know that was never going to happen, but if the stars aligned and all the opposition went down with Covid or whatever), he would have been hailed a hero... 

 

Gillis splits peoples opinion, but if the Sedins led Canucks had won game 7.... A statue of Gillis would probably have been erected in front Rodgers or GM place as it was.... Winning is the name of the game, and whether they leave the cupboards empty, makes zillion poor trades, inherited the squad or whatever, win the cup and nobody cares.... it's that simple...

Edited July 26 by spook007

[PureQuickness]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Why would I care about what other fanbases think about me?  I've watched thousands of hockey games since the 1980's, know actual former NHL hockey players, been around the game since the 1980's but according to you I don't have a clue about hockey?  No, I'm actually not really arrogant, I'm just really smart and I consider myself an expert when it comes to hockey and the NHL in general.  Following the game for 35+ years does that to people.

 

You claim that Bowman is a terrible GM.  You base that on what, his trades and free agent signings?  You consider me a bad analyst.  Why?  Because I don't agree with you and some Chicago fans?  Why do GM's made trades and sign free agents?  What's the end goal?  It's to win a cup.  So, it doesn't matter how those trades worked out, if you win cups, then you've accomplished your mission.  Not sure why this is complicated for you to understand.  You think grading a GM based on each and every trade and free agent signing they made is how you evaluate performance?  I don't agree with that.  If you win cups, that supersedes any trade or free agent signing you made.  How many GM's in history are considered great GM's who have never won a cup?  Probably zero?  Maybe one or two?  

 

You keep saying all these smart Chicago fans don't consider Bowman to have been a good GM.  Unfortunately for them, the Hockey Writers don't agree with them.  You know, the people that follow hockey for a living.  The hockey writers consider Bowman to be the 2nd best GM in the NHL since 2010.  Better than David Poile, Jim Rutherford, and Dean Lombardi.  The only guy ahead of him is Doug Wilson, which I don't agree with because he never won a cup.  But he's probably the only guy who hasn't won a cup that should be in the top 5.  I disagree with this but these guys are the "experts", so who am I to argue?

 

NHL's Top Five General Managers from 2010-2020 (thehockeywriters.com)

 

At the end of the day, it's all about winning.  Those who win the cups are looked at as the guys who are the best at what they do.  Winning is all that matters.  If you don't believe me, ask Connor McDavid what he thinks.  If McDavid doesn't win a cup, he won't be looked at in the same breath as Gretzky or Lemieux.  Not even in the ballpark.  However, if he wins 3-4 cups, he will be in the conversation.  That's how it works.

 

I never said that Bowman was a "great" GM.  He wasn't because he never won a GM of the year award and yes, his drafts, free agent signings and trades are not "great".  However, he was a "good" GM because at the end of the day he was able to win 3 cups.  You think it's easy to win 3 cups?  How many GM's have won 3 cups?  Can you name them?  Only 12 teams in the NHL have won at least 3 cups.  So, I can guarantee you the list of GM's who have won 3 cups is really small.  Pollock, Torrey, Sather, Lamoriello, Rutherford, Holland are the other guys in the modern era that I can think of.  That's a total of 7 GM's since like 1970 who have won 3+ cups.  Bowman is a part of that group.  He is obviously #7 on that list in terms of the best GM's, but he's still a part of a very small group of GM's who have won at least 3 cups.

 

Holy cow, you miss the points. At this point, I don't know if it's worth continuing the discussion. I'll be clear about this: it's not about the disagreement with ME, but rather WHO is disagreeing with you. I trust Chicago fans when it comes to talking about THEIR own team. If they all say Bowman is a garbage GM, which is what is happening, I see no reason to argue against it.

 

I'll give you an analogy: you are building a house. Some structural engineers are saying that the design is flawed and will have issues with the rain or weather. You override them and say that since you have lived on this earth, you would know more than their own trade.

 

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Elias Pettersson]

31 minutes ago, spook007 said:

 

This is the truth.... win a cup, nothing else you do (while legal obviously) matters...

 

If Benning had won a cup (yes I know that was never going to happen, but if the stars aligned and all the opposition went down with Covid or whatever), he would have been hailed a hero... 

 

Gillis splits peoples opinion, but if the Sedins led Canucks had won game 7.... A statue of Gillis would probably have been erected in front Rodgers or GM place as it was.... Winning is the name of the game, and whether they leave the cupboards empty, makes zillion poor trades, inherited the squad or whatever, win the cup and nobody cares.... it's that simple...

 

100% Spook.  It's so obvious I don't understand why it's so complicated to understand.  We watch hockey to see our team win a cup.  Players play hockey to try and win a cup.  GM's and owners run a team to try and win a cup.  Nothing else matters.  I could care less if we had a monkey running the team, if the monkey wins a cup they get a statue in front of Rogers Arena.  If Jim Benning had won a cup with Vancouver, would people be questioning his trades and free agent signings?  Would anybody care?  I know I wouldn't care.  If he traded Petey for a bag of pucks and then went on to win 3 cups, you think posters on CFF would be complaining?  I'd change my avatar from Petey to Benning if that happened.

 

Sports is interesting because everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks they are smarter than everyone else.  But at the end of the day the ONLY thing that matters is winning.  

 

Ever heard the expression, "Winning isn’t everything; it's the only thing"?  100% true and factual.  Nothing else matters...

[Elias Pettersson]

3 minutes ago, PureQuickness said:

 

Holy cow, you miss the points. At this point, I don't know if it's worth continuing the discussion. I'll be clear about this: it's not about the disagreement with ME, but rather WHO is disagreeing with you. I trust Chicago fans when it comes to talking about THEIR own team. If they all say Bowman is a garbage GM, which is what is happening, I see no reason to argue against it.

 

I'll give you an analogy: you are building a house. Some structural engineers are saying that the design is flawed and will have issues with the rain or weather. You override them and say that since you have lived on this earth, you would know more than their own trade.

 

I'll leave it at that.

 

 

Your analogy is flawed.  A structural engineer is an expert in their field.  So, of course I would consider their opinion and take their advice as I'm not an expert in engineering.

 

Chicago fans aren't necessarily experts in hockey or even their own team.  Alot of them are simply "fans" with an opinion.  Do you take every opinion seriously just because somebody lives in Chicago?  Who exactly are these Chicago fans you speak of that are supposedly more knowledgeable than me?  You think anyone on a message board is smart?  How long have you been on CDC/CFF?  You think every poster on here is smart and knows hockey and can analyze the Canucks?  How many dumb comments and posts have you seen on CDC/CFF over the years?  I've seen lots.  I know which posters on here are smart and know hockey.  And I know which ones don't.  I can easily tell just by reading their posts.  It's not rocket science...

 

I'm not claiming to be an expert on the Chicago Blackhawks.  But I am an expert in hockey in general.  I don't need a Chicago Blackhawks fan to tell me whether or not Bowman was a good GM.  The reason why is because I know he won 3 cups.  So, I don't care if Chicago fans didn't like the Panarin or Byfuglien trades.  It doesn't matter because unlike me, Chicago fans actually watched their team win 3 cups in the last 14 years.  So, if a Chicago fan says to me well, we won 3 cups, but Bowman is still an idiot and a trash GM, I would literally laugh in their face.

[spook007]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

100% Spook.  It's so obvious I don't understand why it's so complicated to understand.  We watch hockey to see our team win a cup.  Players play hockey to try and win a cup.  GM's and owners run a team to try and win a cup.  Nothing else matters.  I could care less if we had a monkey running the team, if the monkey wins a cup they get a statue in front of Rogers Arena.  If Jim Benning had won a cup with Vancouver, would people be questioning his trades and free agent signings?  Would anybody care?  I know I wouldn't care.  If he traded Petey for a bag of pucks and then went on to win 3 cups, you think posters on CFF would be complaining?  I'd change my avatar from Petey to Benning if that happened.

 

Sports is interesting because everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks they are smarter than everyone else.  But at the end of the day the ONLY thing that matters is winning.  

 

Ever heard the expression, "Winning isn’t everything; it's the only thing"?  100% true and factual.  Nothing else matters...

Agree 100%, on point...

 

 

 

 

[Bob Long]

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

 

Ever heard the expression, "Winning isn’t everything; it's the only thing"?  100% true and factual.  Nothing else matters...

 

nothing else matters? no wonder people with this attitude are capable of looking the other way. 

 

 

 

Edited July 26 by Bob Long

[Fanuck]

4 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

But at the end of the day the ONLY thing that matters is winning.  

 

Ever heard the expression, "Winning isn’t everything; it's the only thing"?  100% true and factual.  Nothing else matters...

No, it's not the only thing that matters.   If the only way we could ever win a cup would be to destroy a young man's life (who let's not forget was their own teammate),  then I would say it's definitely not worth it and definitely not the only thing that matters.  

[Gurn]

 Not that I'm a believer but I wonder what Jesus would say about an 'anything to win' attitude?

[Elias Pettersson]

25 minutes ago, Gurn said:

 Not that I'm a believer but I wonder what Jesus would say about an 'anything to win' attitude?

 

Don't worry, Jesus probably wouldn't listen to you anyways...

[Satchmo]

25 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Don't worry, Jesus probably wouldn't listen to you anyways...

Does he listen to you petey?  Was it JC who said winning is everything or is that just something you told him?

[Elias Pettersson]

1 minute ago, Satchmo said:

Does he listen to you petey?  Was it JC who said winning is everything or is that just something you told him?

 

Yes, I have Jesus on speed dial.  He takes my calls regularly.  Really nice guy actually.  He doesn't like atheists though...

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

No, it's not the only thing that matters.   If the only way we could ever win a cup would be to destroy a young man's life (who let's not forget was their own teammate),  then I would say it's definitely not worth it and definitely not the only thing that matters.  

 

Pretty sure the guy who made that quote over 100 years ago wasn't referring to sexual assault being okay in order to win.  I'm pretty sure he was a coach who was referring to things on the field only...

[Olli Juolevi]

21 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Pretty sure the guy who made that quote over 100 years ago wasn't referring to sexual assault being okay in order to win.  I'm pretty sure he was a coach who was referring to things on the field only...

So why bring that quote up in this context? It seems irrelevant to the topic at hand if what you've said here is the case.

[PureQuickness]

5 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Your analogy is flawed.  A structural engineer is an expert in their field.  So, of course I would consider their opinion and take their advice as I'm not an expert in engineering.

 

Chicago fans aren't necessarily experts in hockey or even their own team.  Alot of them are simply "fans" with an opinion.  Do you take every opinion seriously just because somebody lives in Chicago?  Who exactly are these Chicago fans you speak of that are supposedly more knowledgeable than me?  You think anyone on a message board is smart?  How long have you been on CDC/CFF?  You think every poster on here is smart and knows hockey and can analyze the Canucks?  How many dumb comments and posts have you seen on CDC/CFF over the years?  I've seen lots.  I know which posters on here are smart and know hockey.  And I know which ones don't.  I can easily tell just by reading their posts.  It's not rocket science...

 

I'm not claiming to be an expert on the Chicago Blackhawks.  But I am an expert in hockey in general.  I don't need a Chicago Blackhawks fan to tell me whether or not Bowman was a good GM.  The reason why is because I know he won 3 cups.  So, I don't care if Chicago fans didn't like the Panarin or Byfuglien trades.  It doesn't matter because unlike me, Chicago fans actually watched their team win 3 cups in the last 14 years.  So, if a Chicago fan says to me well, we won 3 cups, but Bowman is still an idiot and a trash GM, I would literally laugh in their face.

 

It's not flawed at all. It's very relevant to this. For example, I would not trust TSN to understand the Canucks history and their analysis of our rosters because of their proven bias. Are they experts? Possibly, but unless they do their research on our team (most of the time they don't), they are often criticizing other teams while praising Toronto's teams.

 

Going back to Hawks fans. I find that you're extremely arrogant to think that most Hawks fans don't have the same level of hockey knowledge as you do. This is in line with my analogy about structural engineers. You may have lived a longer life, but it certainly doesn't mean you know their team.

 

The fans are fully aware that they have three cups to their name, yet they do not associate their success with Bowman. So go ahead and "laugh in their face". You aren't very good at analyzing.