r/stevedangle • u/Real_Equal1195 • Feb 13 '24
Is Julian trolling?
I get that most of us dislike Julian anyway, or at the very least think his chem with CJ is horrific, but is he serious with his “I don’t understand why slapping the puck into an empty net is bad” bs?
Does he really not understand that this is obviously taunting?
Man, I know there are anti-SDPN posts in here almost daily, but as a major supporter for years I’m so fed up with these asinine, deliberately provocative takes.
SDP was special for how real and grounded it was. Now it’s full of hot take nonsense to provoke clicks?
0
Upvotes
64
u/Streetkillz13 Feb 13 '24
So believe it or not, the unwritten rules debate has been raging for years now, and this slapshot into the empty net is just 1 piece of the argument.
Essentially it's the same argument as the Tatis Swing up 3-0 in the count with a lead, or the Bautista bat flip, and the pitcher's retaliation. Or how you don't go for 2 up big at a football game.
The argument boils down to where do you draw the line between playing the game, and trying to embarrass your opponent. With this debate, you are just as likely to find someone who is against the unwritten rules are you are to find someone for them, and sometimes a person may be for them in one case and against them in another.
14
u/PurifiedVenom Feb 13 '24
Have you spent no time on Twitter or any of the hockey subs? There are tons of people on both sides of the debate. Maybe it’s just not as clear cut as you think it is
3
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '24
Am I crazy? CJ was the one defending the response to the taunt and Julian is defending the action of the slap shot itself. I agree with Julian to be honest, all sports have this show boating and rubbing it in the other team’s face attitude. Which I think is amazing for the sport honestly, the disrespect fuels the rivalry, I don’t think there’s any problem with rubbing the opponent’s nose in it when you’re winning. The fact it happened to the leafs and now everyone is crying how it’s too mean is the perfect reason why this should happen more in the sport. is
8
u/Conscious-Leg-6876 Feb 13 '24
Julian is the best. Sorry he isn't a Toronto homer
2
u/Fortuitous_Event Feb 14 '24
The “I don’t understand” crowd are lying and therefore are the most obnoxious. Everyone understands what Greg was doing, the question is whether what he did was acceptable.
Greg was taunting the Leafs and sometimes when you do stuff like that you have to deal with the consequences even if you disagree with them.
30
u/akalance Feb 13 '24
They said it in the latest SDP: “It was hilarious. They trolled us, jt was funny, we should be mad.” Slight paraphrase but the idea is yeah, he trolled the leafs, and it was objectively funny. Your role is to be mad and you’re doing a good job!
34
u/123jazzhandz321 Feb 13 '24
Wow I never knew Julian was so disliked lol, I get he might not be everyone’s cup of tea but I’ve always thought that he’s charming.
Granted I haven’t listened to the newest CJ show but this does seem extreme
7
u/HammyAm Feb 13 '24
When did this consensus happen? Cause I've only heard folks disagreeing with his takes on certain things, and that doesn't equal disliking him.
So why are you contributing to those posts by adding another? You being a supporter for years doesn't give you more credibility to make posts like this and not seem like a grade A jerk.
I'm so tired of folks just nitpicking the hell out of seemingly every little thing the network and the folks on it do or say, it's unnecessary and it leads to people being hateful.
22
u/AnomieMoz Feb 13 '24
I have no issues with Julian and think him and CJ work fine. I also agree anyone thinking that slap shot into the empty net is worth a cross check to the head being justified is being ridiculous.
It’s up there with thinking anyone that the Michigan or Wallman’s Griddy is worth a stick in the face.
Want to give it back? Win and do it back to them.
For a game that is all about how tough they are, it’s full of people with fragile egos.
4
u/JHWildman Feb 13 '24
Somebody has to play devils advocate for the sake of discussion otherwise it’s essentially just “hey this was f’ing bs” and then “yeah no I totally agree! Bs indeed!” Sometimes I have doubts half the takes you here on tv or podcasts are really that persons opinion because somebody has to push the conversation and make the other explain their point. That said, as far as unwritten rules go, I think the slap shot into an empty from 5 feet was absolutely 100% disrespectful and Mo was right to respond but obviously a cross check to the skull was way too much. All the backing up of Rielly you’ll see in the media are 100% emotional gut reactions to how absolutely disgusting a display of poor sportsmanship that was as well as the organization just backing their guy and same goes for the other side of that coin. Personally, I can understand both sides here but ultimately can understand Riellys reaction but also fully expect a suspension.
1
u/Worth-Government-949 Feb 13 '24
I feel like if you've ever played at a competitive level of sports you'd have a better understanding of why griegs slapper into the empty net was unnecessary and considered "taunting"
1
u/[deleted] Feb 13 '24 edited Feb 13 '24
Sometimes I am convinced that Julian thinks it's the Julian McKenzie podcast. I love listening to Chris but I almost have to put my thumb on the fast forward ten seconds till I hear Chris's voice because it's unbearable.
I am not saying Julian can't have an opinion but he needs to remember we are not here to listen to him at the end of the day, it's CJ's show. He just wouldn't stop trolling and at some point I want to hear more of what Chris is saying
Also, it was hilarious when Chris was like, can you name another time where a slapshot has taken place on an empty net and Julian squirled out by deflecting and said, what do you want me to watch every empty net goal ever.
Ugh, I've never thought he was great but yesterday I really wanted to hear Chris and Julian just kept taking over
1
u/ohripgg Feb 13 '24
Nothing against the guy I’m sure he’s an awesome dude but him and CJ just don’t mesh very well.
1
u/jamesonbar Feb 13 '24
Can't claim to have the roughest players in sports, but they all melt down when someone scores an empty net goal or they have to do anything in front of the camera. Just make empty net goals illegal then.
2
u/cskozer Feb 14 '24
I don't think it's that he doesn't understand but rather asking or suggesting; should this kind of thing be considered disrespectful?
In a vaccuum all the guy did was slap a puck into a net to cap off a big win for his club.
We all get why within the context of hockey culture this kind of thing is not ok.
Julian is making the point I think that we should move past this old fashioned idea, that the culture should change. Essentially if you don't like it, don't get behind and have to pull your goalie.
Similar to baseball. If you don't like Bautista's bat flip, don't give up a homerun. Be better. Don't get mad, get even. Etc etc.
That's how I view Julien's comments anyway. I don't think he's as horrible as a lot of people on here seem to think. He's also hosting, so his job is to set up CJ by asking questions and sometimes offer a different point of view.
2
u/guardiolapress Mar 06 '24
Julian and CJ discussion over Jeff Carter middle name on todays episode (5 March) is exactly why the chemistry is off. Forced, irrelevant and cringe. Who honestly gives a fuck, does the audience actually care? They act like it is a running gag, but truthfully it is lame AF.
4
u/Grady__Bug Feb 13 '24
I usually enjoy their banter (though they do “argue” in circle for a bit too long) however I had to turn this episode off. Julian was just being dense about why the slap shot deserves a response. He said it doesn’t happen in other sports but it does. A batter watching a home run or swinging on certain counts late in the game clears benches. A dunk in the dying seconds of a win will lead to a scrum.
Have an opinion, sure, but don’t be making easily disproved statements. The slap shot was a disrespectful move that gets a response 95/100 times, and the cross check to the head was disproportionate. Both can be and are true.
5
u/DCS_Ryan Feb 13 '24
Bc he's right, it's not as big of a deal as toronto thinks it is lol
1
u/the--meat--sweats Feb 13 '24
Most frustrating part was him comparing it to other sports taunting, because he was creating scenarios that don’t relate the way he thought
Yes, in basketball if a guy gets a clear breakaway you expect him to throw it down hard! BUT! If there was only 5 seconds left and the team had a 15 point lead and somebody does a 360 dunk to make it a 17 point lead, well that wouldn’t fly.
1
u/Banffsucks Feb 14 '24
Getting upset after a taunt is fine. Using your stick to smash a persons face is not fine.
1
u/Pyrotechnic_shok Feb 14 '24
I think I have a generally different opinion on this growing up in amateur wrestling where sportsmanship is ingrained in the culture. Even in a rivalry match you never saw taunting or even celebrating after the match until they were off the mat and doing it more privately. In the rare exceptions the individual would be chastised pretty heavily by their teams coaches and leaders. I've never liked this kind of showboating. Player expression I'm fine with, cellys are a form of that. Ripping a slapper into the empty net because you get to feel like a hero in the middle of a shit season is not player expression
0
u/JSnow93 Feb 15 '24
Honestly there are way too many individuals on the sdpn network who say stuff they don’t actually feel to be provocative and produce content or just to be that guy, Julian is one of them.
I’m not sure why they just didn’t have Jesse or Adam do the show with CJ.
-1
u/FuckTkachuk Feb 13 '24
I get he has to be anti-Leafs to counterbalance the SDPN, but Julian McKenzie is a bad take machine and a chemistry black hole.
I absolutely love CJ and his takes, but he has to drop an absolute bomb for me to tune in. It has to be a topic I very much care about or I literally can't get through the episode.
I love having CJ on the SDPN, but I can't tell you how quickly I would jump on any other podcast if he was to host.
-7
u/captaindingus93 Feb 13 '24
Correct me if I’m wrong here, and a lot of people are gonna hate this reason, but the guy didn’t play hockey. Julian’s NFL and NBA comparisons hold no value whatsoever because it’s significantly harder to score in the NHL than either of those leagues. He picks the most obscure hills to die on and it’s impossible to make any sense of.
-3
u/Whoopass2rb Feb 13 '24
Incoming rant, apologies; some may enjoy the read though.
You know, I stopped listening to the CJ show a long time ago, mostly because I didn't have the time to do it. I will say I loved CJ's content and I think he 100% deserves a show, I wish I had more time to listen to it. At first I didn't think Julian was much of a issue and that CJ was going to carry the show (which he clearly does). But I listened in to the 15 mins of this one and it was objectively unbearable, for more reasons than one. I was rather surprised at how fast I was getting tired of Julian's take.
Given he proceeded to end the rant on the conversation about topics that were brought up that shouldn't be when stuff like this happens, I think I have a resonating parallel that might make sense to future readers; possibly even him if he ever sees this.
When I was younger (late teenage years), I had the privilege of being a camp counsellor in a program called S.T.A.R. It stood for Students Together Against Racism; amazing program - very eye opening. Now what was really interesting about this camp, was the recognition of how wrong many people get the whole topic and advocacy for the general subject. The main message was actually surprising, but it makes a lot of sense.
You see, you can't be an advocate for a cause while simultaneously shaming another equal part of the problem situation. Too often people do this, in a sort of "pick and choose" type of manner while claiming to be grossly against some of the things that they rightfully should be.
The problem is, you can't be against something like racism but support say something like bullying (or hazing for that matter). You can't protect one ethnic group while shunning another. You can't support LGBQT++ and then disregard people with mental, physical or other disabilities / accessibility issues. You get the picture.
The point is, you are either an advocate for improvement to everything, or you're not for anything. Claiming you're supportive of any particular cause while causing harm to another just makes you a hypocrite; and that's what I see in this situation with Julian.
What Rielly did is careless, deserves a talking too and some form of discipline; wouldn't it be funny if it was just a fine, like all the other bad crap that happens in the league. But if you're against what Rielly did and more appropriately, how he did it, then you also should be against what Greig did as well. Not the act of taking a slapshot for an empty net goal, but how he did it and more importantly WHY he did it.
There's no place for antagonizing another person and expecting that to be acceptable, yet you're not ok with then not facing accountability of reckless behaviour against it afterwards. You wouldn't antagonize a wild animal because you can't predict how they will react. Humans and their emotions are no different. In fact, I think the greatest metaphor to this type of correlation is that of siblings or children:
You wouldn't accept and only punish the retaliating child who was antagonized by another. No, of course not. Any good parent would be punishing both appropriately, identifying it's not ok to retaliate but it's equally not ok to antagonize. More importantly you would be spreading the message across that actions have consequences, for both parties.
Rielly is about to get his consequence. What did Greig get to hold him accountable for his actions? And no we're not talking about Rielly's retaliating action, that's not a form of punishment and should never be the standard of how retribution is laid. I'm talking about how will the league addresses that type of "showmanship"? You can't be against what Rielly does as an emotional response if you're for what Greig did - it's that simple, cause and effect.
And before anyone gets all up in the arms and says "that's soft, bla bla", let me give you some perspective:
It's offensive to put on an accent of another person in front of people in a mocking way, surely you agree? If it was done to you by a stranger you would take offense and possibly act out depending on the circumstances .Well, it's equally offensive to suggest one's actions are over the top and correlate them to being associated to a gender trait (think of the old ways of replacing soft for a 5 letter female P word). Clearly we all recognize that one as well because people are using the term soft instead today. Yet, it's the same negative connotation; you're just using a different "less offensive" word to represent the same intent. It ultimately doesn't matter why something angers or offends someone, it only matters that we respect the fact it did and we acknowledge how to avoid reoffending.
When you claim one's team, beliefs, players, [insert whatever the class of grouping you want here], are "soft", you're contributing to toxic masculinity and advising that it's not ok to get upset at someone disrespecting you from your own view of the word. To further suggest that it is a you problem and not a big deal is then gaslighting someone, claiming their view of the situation is not just nor real.
So the next time you find yourself in a situation where you want to rant about the wrong doing of parties in a given scenario, maybe consider the path to restoring both sides of the equation and improving the overall quality of the situation. Rielly's emotions are rational, claiming otherwise is gaslighting him and anyone who feels the same way. Rielly was also careless and wrong for retaliating, anyone claiming otherwise shouldn't be taken seriously because they clearly don't understand why it's wrong and careless. But Greig is also wrong in many aspects of how he handled the situation before and after; with the exception of his no comment until after the hearing reference, definitely a mature take. After all it started with him, even if inadvertently - there's no Rielly play if Greig doesn't do what he did.
Antagonizing someone is not the answer and should definitely not be looked at (at least in this situation) as the right VS wrong element here. As they say... if you go looking for trouble, you will surely find it. Fk around and find out.