Who is the Real Whipping Boy

[ziploc]

No, we're not talking about the weekend habits of some of our more adventurous posters. We are talking about which players this year have, for better or worse, earned the undying ire of the online fan community.

This is the player who is the irrationally-chosen conduit for all our anger and frustration, the guy who if we could just get rid of would make everything better, the sacrificial lamb, the scape goat.

I have identified a number of likely candidates, but let me know if there is someone else who just has to be on there.

(Note the emphasis on "players". Yes, there are rumours out there that some of you aren't as fond of Benning as you might be. Don't care. He is not one of the options. Nor are any of the posters on here.)

Click to read more...

 

[timw33]

Ugh, the fact that all 7 of those guys are regular NHL players for our club is extremely unsettling.

 

[TraderJim]

None of the above.

Whipping boy suggests they don't deserve the criticism they are receiving.

 

[ziploc]

None of the above.

Whipping boy suggests they don't deserve the criticism they are receiving.

Not true. This is not a defense of any if the above players. The player might be terrible at hockey, so you can still be critical. Where the irrational bit comes in is thinking that they are the biggest problem, and their removal would solve the team's problem. Erik Gudbranson is not a good hockey player, on not a good contract, and I would like to see him go. My frustration with him is such that I emotionally associate him with everything that is wrong with the Canucks. Eriksson is the same for me. I don't even like it when he shows up on the score sheet. That is irrational.

 

[Shareefruck]

I would argue that Louie Eriksson is the only player on that list who doesn't deserve quite as much criticism as he gets. His contract sucks, his effort is lackadaisical and the wheels have fallen off, so he's very VERY limited and his existence isn't appreciated, but at least he knows what he's doing and has some moderately serviceable degree of polish/competence/all-around reliability in his game.

Everyone else on that list gets whipped harder, but also are outright liabilities who completely deserve it.

Beyond that, I have no illusions that getting rid of any single player would fix our problems. Replacing all of them with competent pieces might, though.

If we extend this to management, Benning gets whipped hard and is treated like the be-all-end-all fix as well, but getting rid of him actually would arguably fix a crap ton of our problems, so it's not really that irrational.

I think Travis Green is the closest thing we have to an actual scapegoat. He has the same major flaws that many other coaches have (his tendency to favor veterans, pick favorites, and make questionable lineup decisions is something that Vigneault, and to a lesser degree most coaches, shared as well), but beyond that, he's good at a lot of things that are coaching-related. If the team around him were good, there would still be frustrations, but he would not be viewed as a major problem/concern, IMO.

I can imagine a well run roster under Travis Green, but I can't fathom a well run organization under Jim Benning.

 

[Hit the post]

I would argue that Louie Eriksson is the only player on that list who doesn't deserve quite as much criticism as he gets. His contract sucks, his effort is lackadaisical and the wheels have fallen off, so he's very VERY limited, but at least he knows what he's doing and has some moderately serviceable degree of polish/competence in his game.

Everyone else on that list gets whipped harder, but also are outright liabilities who completely deserve it.

Beyond that, I have no illusions that getting rid of any single player would fix our problems. Replacing all of them might, though.

If we extend this to management, Benning might be, except that getting rid of him would arguably fix a crap ton of our problems, so it's not really irrational.

I think Travis Green is the closest thing we have to an actual scapegoat. He has the same major flaws that many other coaches have (his tendency to favor veterans, pick favorites, and make questionable lineup decisions is something that Vigneault shared as well), but beyond that, he's good at a lot of things that are coaching-related. If the team around him were good, there would still be frustrations, but he would not be viewed as a major problem/concern, IMO.

Re: Travis Green ..if he laced up the skate s right now he might be better than some of those players on this list.

 

[TruGr1t]

Goldobin is the opposite because he has large amounts of support despite not really doing much to earn it. MDZ has literally played half the games this year and basically doesn't get discussed anymore.

The rest of the guys on this list suck.

I guess Eriksson because he's criticized for his contract, mostly, which is more management's fault for offering him that much money. Though he's clearly a total slacker, so I dunno.

They all deserve to be whipped.

 

[Shareefruck]

I guess Eriksson because he's criticized for his contract, mostly, which is more management's fault for offering him that much money. Though he's clearly a total slacker, so I dunno.

But like Boeser on a much smaller scale, he has a decent enough head on his shoulders that he's still somewhat usable even when he's floating around not really asserting himself.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I have trouble criticizing Schaller. He’s a marginal NHL player who cashed in on a career year. I think he tries hard. He’s just not that good.
It was management’s mistake. Not his.

 

[Hit the post]

I have trouble criticizing Schaller. He’s a marginal NHL player who cashed in on a career year. I think he tries hard. He’s just not that good.
It was management’s mistake. Not his.

I question whether he tries hard. Seems like a poor man's L. Eriksson.

 

[Cupless44]

I would argue that Louie Eriksson is the only player on that list who doesn't deserve quite as much criticism as he gets. His contract sucks, his effort is lackadaisical and the wheels have fallen off, so he's very VERY limited and his existence isn't appreciated, but at least he knows what he's doing and has some moderately serviceable degree of polish/competence/all-around reliability in his game.

Everyone else on that list gets whipped harder, but also are outright liabilities who completely deserve it.

Beyond that, I have no illusions that getting rid of any single player would fix our problems. Replacing all of them with competent pieces might, though.

If we extend this to management, Benning gets whipped hard and is treated like the be-all-end-all fix as well, but getting rid of him actually would arguably fix a crap ton of our problems, so it's not really that irrational.

I think Travis Green is the closest thing we have to an actual scapegoat. He has the same major flaws that many other coaches have (his tendency to favor veterans, pick favorites, and make questionable lineup decisions is something that Vigneault, and to a lesser degree most coaches, shared as well), but beyond that, he's good at a lot of things that are coaching-related. If the team around him were good, there would still be frustrations, but he would not be viewed as a major problem/concern, IMO.

I can imagine a well run roster under Travis Green, but I can't fathom a well run organization under Jim Benning.

How do you figure Loui Eriksson is receiving criticism? He gets a free pass from coaches and management no matter how lackadaisical he plays and for getting no points in like 20 games before the last one. He gets criticized here on a posting board nowhere else. I would argue this market has been too easy on a guy who at this point is often going through the motions for a big fat pay cheque.

 

[Cupless44]

But like Boeser on a much smaller scale, he has a decent enough head on his shoulders that he's still somewhat usable even when he's floating around not really asserting himself.

Weird that you admit he floats around yet think he doesn't deserve criticism.

 

[WTG]

Goldobin is the opposite because he has large amounts of support despite not really doing much to earn it

Yeah, a young forward on pace for over .5PPG in his first full season.
Very deserving of being a whipping boy if you ask me, not Granlund/Sutter/Gudbranson/Eriksson.

 

[Intangibos]

Goldobin is the opposite because he has large amounts of support despite not really doing much to earn it. MDZ has literally played half the games this year and basically doesn't get discussed anymore.

The reason Goldobin isn't the opposite is because what expectations of a player like him should be. The attitude towards him is the same fans in Calgary had towards Baertschi. If Goldobin were 26 it would be warranted, but he isn't.

The large amount of supporters are the ones who take note that he's 23 in his first full NHL season.

 

[4Twenty]

How can Eriksson be a whipping boy when he can put up 6 points in 28 games going minus-10 and you don't hear a peep about it. You actually hear positives about the "little things" he does.

 

[xtra]

And I don’t agree with the irrationally hated. There’s very valid reasons all those players are disliked except maybe goldobin,

Goldobin is who he is, played like and paid to be, just cause you want him to be more doesn’t mean he is or should be a whipping boy.

It’s not like a couple years ago when granlund was getting crazy pp ice time and only inflating his stats.

 

[Shareefruck]

How do you figure Loui Eriksson is receiving criticism? He gets a free pass from coaches and management no matter how lackadaisical he plays and for getting no points in like 20 games before the last one. He gets criticized here on a posting board nowhere else. I would argue this market has been too easy on a guy who at this point is often going through the motions for a big fat pay cheque.

Weird that you admit he floats around yet think he doesn't deserve criticism.

Don't put words into my mouth-- I never said he doesn't deserve criticism. I said he doesn't deserve quite as much as he's gotten.

His play is not good but does not deserve to be lumped together with the guys he's regularly lumped together with, because he is more effective than them and can be modestly useful with limited usage, even while being as lazy and slow as he is. He's not among the biggest of our problems, nor is he a huge liability, IMO.

He's still probably a borderline NHL caliber player that you can viably use in different situations, which is more than can be said for a lot of guys on the team.

I assume that when we are talking about criticism/scapegoating, we're referring to their treatment here by us the fans, not their treatment from management/the media.

Personally, I haven't noticed much difference in fan perception between Eriksson and Granlund, Schaller, Gudbranson, and Pouliot. In fact, he seems to be the one of the few guys who's equally disliked by both the pro and anti Benning sides of the fanbase, whereas criticism of Granlund/Gudbranson tends to get rabidly defended.

That said, this is all a case of the team lowering the bar down to rock bottom. On a good team, Eriksson is the weak link.

 

[TraderJim]

Not true. This is not a defense of any if the above players. The player might be terrible at hockey, so you can still be critical. Where the irrational bit comes in is thinking that they are the biggest problem, and their removal would solve the team's problem. Erik Gudbranson is not a good hockey player, on not a good contract, and I would like to see him go. My frustration with him is such that I emotionally associate him with everything that is wrong with the Canucks. Eriksson is the same for me. I don't even like it when he shows up on the score sheet. That is irrational.

That is if you believe they are being un-fairly treated. As I already stated, none of those players you listed are "whipping boys". If anything Biega is the whipping boy because he consistently outplays his teammates and continues to sit despite it.

 

[Dab]

Ugh, the fact that all 7 of those guys are regular NHL players for our club is extremely unsettling.

Right? I was thinking damn this is a tough choice.

I think for me it has to be Eriksson and Gudbranson... I ultimately went with Eriksson because the contract and his immovability. I think push comes to shove we could dump any of the other players other than him. Could be one of the worst contracts in the league.

 

[ziploc]

That is if you believe they are being un-fairly treated. As I already stated, none of those players you listed are "whipping boys". If anything Biega is the whipping boy because he consistently outplays his teammates and continues to sit despite it.

It's not really about who deserves or doesn't deserve it. It's about who the fans fixate upon, at least how I am defining whipping boy. (And I think this is how it is mostly defined. I get that you are defining it differently.) Nobody is fixating on Biega as our huge problem, I don't think, though I do agree he doesn't deserve any scorn or blame.

 

[Intangibos]

It's not really about who deserves or doesn't deserve it. It's about who the fans fixate upon, at least how I am defining whipping boy. (And I think this is how it is mostly defined. I get that you are defining it differently.) Nobody is fixating on Biega as our huge problem, I don't think, though I do agree he doesn't deserve any scorn or blame.

A whipping boy is someone taking punishment that someone else deserves. If you deserve it, you aren't the whipping boy.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's not really about who deserves or doesn't deserve it. It's about who the fans fixate upon, at least how I am defining whipping boy. (And I think this is how it is mostly defined. I get that you are defining it differently.) Nobody is fixating on Biega as our huge problem, I don't think, though I do agree he doesn't deserve any scorn or blame.

Something tells me that most of us would have happily went along with what you're saying here, but the fact that you included the term "irrationally-chosen conduit" kind of forced everyone to look at it that way.

 

[Shareefruck]

Edit: nvm

 

[Diamonddog01]

Pouliot and Gudbranson are just god awful players who should be assistant captains on an AHL team. I feel like Granlund is at times unfairly maligned, I mean the guy is a marginal NHL'er at best but chips in a little bit on offence here and there and generally doesn't cause egregious mistakes that end up in the back of the net.

 

[ziploc]

Something tells me that most of us would have happily went along with what you're saying here, but the fact that you included the term "irrationally-chosen conduit" kind of forced everyone to look at it that way.

Fair enough. Though the irrational part, in my estimation, is not that they are good or bad at hockey, but that the fixation they recieve from fans is not commensurate with their actual impact. Gudbranson is a bad player. He could still be a whipping boy for everything that is wrong with the team, though there are many other factors at play. Does that make sense?