Dryden in US politics

Don't know if this goes in the hockey forum or here, but Dryden wrote an op-ed in the WSJ today.

It was very well written and a good story about the mid-70s Flyers and their intimidating tactics. But then he got political with claims about Trump. Regardless of the political stance, to me it brings kind of a sour feeling that a Canadian--a Canadian politician especially--needs to get involved in US politics.

Actually, though, even if he were American, I would be uncomfortable with this. Athletes have the same right to speak as the rest of us, but I like to separate my sports/entertainment from my politics.



EDIT: there is already a post about this in the hockey forum. I can't seem to delete this or move it over. If someone knows how, please feel free to do so.

This is the right place for it. Keep this thread and kill the other one.

2
Actually, though, even if he were American, I would be uncomfortable with this. Athletes have the same right to speak as the rest of us, but I like to separate my sports/entertainment from my politics.

I am thoroughly annoyed when actors and athletes and such mouth off about political issues. Not that they don't have the right to speak their mind. But these people have earned the spotlight for something completely different than politics. There's no reason their opinions should carry any more weight than in the political realm than the guy sitting at the end of the local bar.

Now Dryden is a successful politician, so in that sense his opinions have a bit more value to me than your average goalie. I mind less that he's using sports metaphors from his experience.

Whether I should give a damn what a Canadian thinks about presidential elections in this country is a different question.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the article. It looked like most of it was behind a pay/subscribe wall.

KeithK
I am thoroughly annoyed when actors and athletes and such mouth off about political issues.

They know 1/100th as much as an actual expert in the field, but they get 100,000x the impact when they say something. So the idea is to take one of these robots and load it with the real data and have him spout it.

The sad fact is Matt Damon will get more impact on an issue than somebody smart. So use Damon as a hood ornament.

Dryden is in a unique position, being both a HOF athlete and a successful politician. We commonly justify collegiate sports by saying they teach important life lessons, so it's a small stretch to say Ken's pro experience also taught him life lessons. At some point, probably recently, he must have seen parallels between the 73-4 Flyers and Trump. So he wrote about the parallels. Not many people can write from this perspective, so I don't mind it.

I also don't think what Dryden says requires extensive political expertise, in the conventional sense of the term. He's simply describing parallels in unconventional winning strategies, although admittedly in this case the parallels include bullying and intimidation. But as I read the piece, I thought the bigger message was about those unable to win in conventional ways finding ways to stretch the rule and win in unconventional ones.

In general, if intelligent celebrities can say intelligent things with a greater chance of being heard, I don't begrudge them that. Jack Kemp or Bill Bradley both added to the political conversation, although few would not strongly prefer one over the other and both fell within the relatively narrow scope of mainstream U.S. politics.

It's also true that one's views of the world will likely color what one considers "intelligent." People who consider remarks by Dennis Miller or Victoria Jackson to be "intelligent" are less likely to view remarks by Bill Maher or Dick Gregory the same way. And vice-versa.

What's really offensive is the load of BS that passes for valid political opinion/discourse without any concern for facts or logic.

Swampy
What's really offensive is the load of BS that passes for valid political opinion/discourse without any concern for facts or logic.

+1.

A good argument can come from anywhere. Bad arguments OTOH seem to come from everywhere.

Dryden has earned the right to comment on the political scene from her perch as a person of some interest. This is not like finding in an interview that Melanie Griffith did know about the Holocaust and should not be commenting on anything with more complexity than her preferred yogurt.

There is paywell. But from a PC that does not keep the history of my WSJ subscription, I googled Dryden Flyers Trump and got this [www.wsj.com] which on my PC at least did not mask the story.

I posted his op ed a few days ago under Hockey: Alumnus in the Pros - 1971-79.

Here it is -

Swampy
Jack Kemp or Bill Bradley both added to the political conversation, although few would not strongly prefer one over the other and both fell within the relatively narrow scope of mainstream U.S. politics.

One of my favorite moments of the 1996 Presidential election season was when Bob Dole picked Jack Kemp as his running mate. Both fundamentally decent men as far as I could tell, though I disagreed with them on a wide array of policy matters. Anyway, someone dug up and published a remark that Dole had made on the record several years earlier, along the lines of: "I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, a bus full of supply-siders just drove off a cliff. The bad news is, Jack Kemp wasn't on board."

No offense to Dryden, but this article is mostly a collection of bullshit tropes about the 70s Flyers that are demonstrably untrue. They beat people because they were better than everyone else. The team under Shero had tons of future hall of famers, and when they were swept by the Canadians in the finals, it was without their reigning Vezina trophy goalie, and one of their previous season's leading scorers. So Dryden can act self righteous about being the valiant Canadian saviors on a white horse coming in at the last second to save hockey from the evil hooligans on Broad Street, but its all just self-serving bullshit.

For more that reflects my view

Politics completely aside

The Flyers were goons. They may have been a very smart organization, but I watched those teams, and they were goons. The only team even on the same sheet at the time was the Bruins, and it wasn't very close.

There were individual cementheads on every team, but only the Flyers went out with the strategy, "beat them up, then beat them." They were a throwback team to the days of Howe and Geoffrion when everybody played like that. But in the 70s everybody didn't play like that anymore. Only Philadelphia.

Trotsky
The Flyers were goons. They may have been a very smart organization, but I watched those teams, and they were goons. The only team even on the same sheet at the time was the Bruins, and it wasn't very close.

There were individual cementheads on every team, but only the Flyers went out with the strategy, "beat them up, then beat them." They were a throwback team to the days of Howe and Geoffrion when everybody played like that. But in the 70s everybody didn't play like that anymore. Only Philadelphia.

Oh stop acting like the team won because they rolled out Andre Dupont and Dave Schultz on the fourth line. They won because they had a legitimately talented lineup, up and down, and they played system hockey under a hall of fame coach when everyone else was still letting the Bobby Orr's of the world improvise for 30 minutes a game. The reason you hate them isn't because they were tougher than your team. It's because they were tougher than your team, AND they were better too.

css228

Trotsky
The Flyers were goons. They may have been a very smart organization, but I watched those teams, and they were goons. The only team even on the same sheet at the time was the Bruins, and it wasn't very close.

There were individual cementheads on every team, but only the Flyers went out with the strategy, "beat them up, then beat them." They were a throwback team to the days of Howe and Geoffrion when everybody played like that. But in the 70s everybody didn't play like that anymore. Only Philadelphia.

Oh stop acting like the team won because they rolled out Andre Dupont and Dave Schultz on the fourth line.

Never said that. They won because they were excellent and intimidating. They were also goons. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Some good teams are also asshole teams. My own beloved 86 Mets are one such team. The 70s Flyers were assholes. They also deserved to win.

Trotsky

css228

Trotsky
The Flyers were goons. They may have been a very smart organization, but I watched those teams, and they were goons. The only team even on the same sheet at the time was the Bruins, and it wasn't very close.

There were individual cementheads on every team, but only the Flyers went out with the strategy, "beat them up, then beat them." They were a throwback team to the days of Howe and Geoffrion when everybody played like that. But in the 70s everybody didn't play like that anymore. Only Philadelphia.

Oh stop acting like the team won because they rolled out Andre Dupont and Dave Schultz on the fourth line.

Never said that. They won because they were excellent and intimidating. They were also goons. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Some good teams are also asshole teams. My own beloved 86 Mets are one such team. The 70s Flyers were assholes. They also deserved to win.

Okay. But it is almost exactly what Dryden is saying. Which is why the article is a lazy, trope-reliant, piece of garbage.

css228

Trotsky

css228

Trotsky
The Flyers were goons. They may have been a very smart organization, but I watched those teams, and they were goons. The only team even on the same sheet at the time was the Bruins, and it wasn't very close.

There were individual cementheads on every team, but only the Flyers went out with the strategy, "beat them up, then beat them." They were a throwback team to the days of Howe and Geoffrion when everybody played like that. But in the 70s everybody didn't play like that anymore. Only Philadelphia.

Oh stop acting like the team won because they rolled out Andre Dupont and Dave Schultz on the fourth line.

Never said that. They won because they were excellent and intimidating. They were also goons. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Some good teams are also asshole teams. My own beloved 86 Mets are one such team. The 70s Flyers were assholes. They also deserved to win.

Okay. But it is almost exactly what Dryden is saying. Which is why the article is a lazy, trope-reliant, piece of garbage.

Or, you know, true.

Trotsky

css228

Trotsky

css228

Trotsky
The Flyers were goons. They may have been a very smart organization, but I watched those teams, and they were goons. The only team even on the same sheet at the time was the Bruins, and it wasn't very close.

There were individual cementheads on every team, but only the Flyers went out with the strategy, "beat them up, then beat them." They were a throwback team to the days of Howe and Geoffrion when everybody played like that. But in the 70s everybody didn't play like that anymore. Only Philadelphia.

Oh stop acting like the team won because they rolled out Andre Dupont and Dave Schultz on the fourth line.

Never said that. They won because they were excellent and intimidating. They were also goons. The two things are not mutually exclusive.

Some good teams are also asshole teams. My own beloved 86 Mets are one such team. The 70s Flyers were assholes. They also deserved to win.

Okay. But it is almost exactly what Dryden is saying. Which is why the article is a lazy, trope-reliant, piece of garbage.

Or, you know, true.

Or you know, ignorant. There's a reason Gretzky wanted to be like Clarke growing up. The 70s Flyers revolutionized hockey. The fighting was ancillary to the fact that they brought Soviet style system hockey to the NHL while the Bruins were trying to ride Orr 30+ minutes a night. And before you say it was just the system, Shero never did get the same results with the Rags.