Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Pet Peeves


josh

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Referencing sports teams as "we."

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

Why is that weird? We fans pay to watch and to be a part of the organization/club, why shouldn't we call it we? Players and coaches comes and goes (and get payed), we fans use our own money to support and watch the team + we stay forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that weird? We fans pay to watch and to be a part of the organization/club, why shouldn't we call it we? Players and coaches comes and goes (and get payed), we fans use our own money to support and watch the team + we stay forever.
Because you're not ON the team.

 

"We need to shoot more."

 

Well, you can't. So there's not a "we". It's a "they".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is that weird? We fans pay to watch and to be a part of the organization/club, why shouldn't we call it we? Players and coaches comes and goes (and get payed), we fans use our own money to support and watch the team + we stay forever.

 

Uh, the fans are not a part of the team the last I looked. Also, they are fickle and come and go just like players do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the same goes for coaches and GMs?

 

Quinn: "We need to shoot the puck more and go to the dirty areas"

Hayes: "Ehm, sorry coach. You can't do anything. Please refer to the team as "you"".

 

Yea, those are exactly alike. It's this type of thinking that just doesn't even warrant a reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the same goes for coaches and GMs?

 

Quinn: "We need to shoot the puck more and go to the dirty areas"

Hayes: "Ehm, sorry coach. You can't do anything. Please refer to the team as "you"".

 

The coach is directly responsible for the effects on the ice, so no. Ditto the GM, who brings in players for the coach to use. They both have viable imprints. Fans don't. At all. They're purely spectators.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, those are exactly alike. It's this type of thinking that just doesn't even warrant a reply.

 

Well, I replied to your argument. I can't say "we need to shoot more" because Im not on the ice and cant shoot, so if that's your only argument, the same goes for coaches.

 

The coach is directly responsible for the effects on the ice, so no. Ditto the GM, who brings in players for the coach to use. They both have viable imprints. Fans don't. At all. They're purely spectators.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

Ofcourse fans have. Do you think there would be a NYR if 0 people watched the game and not a single person in the arena? We(the fans) pay for everything. No us, no NYR, no hockey. We're all a part of this, so I don't see a problem with saying "we" when talking about something I've invested a helluva lot money and time in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand why fans want to say we. They feel a part of it. But they're the least connected, and least relevant to what happens on the ice. From a pragmatic perspective, it's a reach to suggest that we, not they, is the proper verbiage. For exactly that reason. They have no literal affect. Only a domimo, like protesters hoping to exact change by booing or not buying tickets, etc.

 

Again, I understand why fans say it. I just don't agree they should. Or should I say we? ;)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand why fans want to say we. They feel a part of it. But they're the least connected, and least relevant to what happens on the ice. From a pragmatic perspective, it's a reach to suggest that we, not they, is the proper verbiage. For exactly that reason. They have no literal affect. Only a domimo, like protesters hoping to exact change by booing or not buying tickets, etc.

 

Again, I understand why fans say it. I just don't agree they should. Or should I say we? ;)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Blueshirts Brotherhood mobile app powered by Tapatalk

 

I wouldn't say that the crowd doesn't affect what happens on the ice. Thats why there is home field/ice advantage in sports. Fans can pump up a team and can give them confidence or crucify them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fans that can’t spell players names correctly.

 

ie: Staal/Stall, Lundqvist/Lundquist

Just wait for that Russian goalie kid

and which Lundkvist are you talking about?

 

Look at the freakin names Zibanejad, Zuccarello Aasen, Fast. I cant spell that shit... and you can tell when I'm on a new devise because it wont autocorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...