Lindy Ruff - on the hot seat?

[fan2456]

Therefore, he is part of the problem in my opinion. It's not as much about his coaching, but his being willing to put up with the composition of this team. I assume he is onboard with our selections. I won't give him a pass and blame it all on Regier. THey ARE A PACKAGE! That is my theme, but many seem to miss it!

[Eleven]

Therefore, he is part of the problem in my opinion. It's not as much about his coaching, but his being willing to put up with the composition of this team. I assume he is onboard with our selections. I won't give him a pass and blame it all on Regier. THey ARE A PACKAGE! That is my theme, but many seem to miss it!

 

I see. You prefer quitters. Scientific quitters!

 

I'm pretty close to a dream job situation myself. I don't have the people under me that I want, and I'm not in control of that, but I'm not quitting, even though I could easily go elsewhere for more money and with more talented people under me.

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't know if he has any information, or any sources left, or any credibility for that matter....but today on twitter Matt Barnaby said he'd be really surprised if Regier and Ruff survive not making the playoffs. I personally fall on the Hamilton side of things where I'd be quite shocked if they got the boot, but figured I'd toss this out there.

[fan2456]

I see. You prefer quitters. Scientific quitters!

 

I'm pretty close to a dream job situation myself. I don't have the people under me that I want, and I'm not in control of that, but I'm not quitting, even though I could easily go elsewhere for more money and with more talented people under me.

Okay, we can agree to disagree. But, what is a scientific quitter? He doesn't like chemistry, physics and changes his major to psych, sociology or the all encompassing journalism? Or he can't handle the course load and goes the easy route?

[Weave]

Wow, this conversation went condescending in a hurry.

[darksabre]

I don't know if he has any information, or any sources left, or any credibility for that matter....but today on twitter Matt Barnaby said he'd be really surprised if Regier and Ruff survive not making the playoffs. I personally fall on the Hamilton side of things where I'd be quite shocked if they got the boot, but figured I'd toss this out there.

 

I'm not quite sure Barnaby has a real great grasp on reality anyways.

 

Excuse me, but I read scientific literature in my profession. Not the existential books many like to quote on ‘What are your reading" thread. In my language, all NHL coaches means all NHL coaches. If she meant the average of NHL coaches, she should have said so. And where is the study? You can’t make unsubstantiated statements in my world. She was quoting the WGR log-in poll and that’s Bullshite. Sorry, nice try!

 

 

And yes throw in Marv Levy, players make the coach. So, after 15 years he doesn't know Darcy isn't giving him the players? He's not on board with Regier and the composition of this teamr? He should have some nads and quit! He's respected and can move on to a winner. So why doesn't he, if that's an option?

 

No one gives a sh*t.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

 

No one gives a sh*t.

 

Actually, 89.4% of the population does at least once a day.

[TheChimp]

Wow, this conversation went condescending in a hurry.

Are Eleven and d4rksabre talking? :P

[Bmwolf21]

Actually, 89.4% of the population does at least once a day.

 

83% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

[...]

 

No one gives a sh*t.

 

Actually, I find this argument somewhat fascinating. Each side is playing their Queens.

 

Eleven has a strong point on the effects of the coach on teams that dumped their coaches, but didn't improve the roster. Off the top of my head, the only recent counter is Pittsburgh, but that roster was about as good as it gets.

 

Fan, meanwhile, has a great point in that LR and DR have been quite out of the closet with their partnership - Darcy reaffirming that partnership this past Friday on WGR. It stands to reason, then, that if the players are the problem, these players were selected mutually by DR and LR.

 

I think both threads serve to reaffirm what I think is the concensus here, which is that DR needs to be replaced.

 

The debate over Ruff, however, rages on.

[Weave]

Actually, I find this argument somewhat fascinating. Each side is playing their Queens.

 

Eleven has a strong point on the effects of the coach on teams that dumped their coaches, but didn't improve the roster. Off the top of my head, the only recent counter is Pittsburgh, but that roster was about as good as it gets.

 

Fan, meanwhile, has a great point in that LR and DR have been quite out of the closet with their partnership - Darcy reaffirming that partnership this past Friday on WGR. It stands to reason, then, that if the players are the problem, these players were selected mutually by DR and LR.

 

I think both threads serve to reaffirm what I think is the concensus here, which is that DR needs to be replaced.

 

The debate over Ruff, however, rages on.

 

His comment was about the part he bolded.

 

Just sayin'...

[Eleven]

Actually, I find this argument somewhat fascinating. Each side is playing their Queens.

 

Eleven has a strong point on the effects of the coach on teams that dumped their coaches, but didn't improve the roster. Off the top of my head, the only recent counter is Pittsburgh, but that roster was about as good as it gets.

 

Fan, meanwhile, has a great point in that LR and DR have been quite out of the closet with their partnership - Darcy reaffirming that partnership this past Friday on WGR. It stands to reason, then, that if the players are the problem, these players were selected mutually by DR and LR.

 

I think both threads serve to reaffirm what I think is the concensus here, which is that DR needs to be replaced.

 

The debate over Ruff, however, rages on.

 

Thanks. And that's with the coaches that Fan23954823405 selected. Take a real league-wide sample, and wow. Teams with good players and at least good coaches succeed. Teams without, don't. It's not hard.

 

I won't assume that everyone here is a Bills fan just by virtue of their Sabres fandom (fanhood? fanishness?). But look at that team. Coach after coach after coach won't win with crappy players.

[...]

Thanks. And that's with the coaches that Fan23954823405 selected. Take a real league-wide sample, and wow. Teams with good players and at least good coaches succeed. Teams without, don't. It's not hard.

 

I won't assume that everyone here is a Bills fan just by virtue of their Sabres fandom (fanhood? fanishness?). But look at that team. Coach after coach after coach won't win with crappy players.

 

Not a Bills fan, or football fan for that matter, but their story is unavoidable around here (WNY, that is). The entire "coach thing" is terribly interesting; Sabres fans have really no choice but to give this matter some serious thought. The facts and reasoning surrounding the issue seem to take a while to fully manifest, while under "normal" circumstances, people and/or organizations are quick to shoot from the hip.

 

The evidence seems to suggest that a coaching change and winning a championship are not directly related. However, that does not mean a change and championship can NOT be related.

 

So, what makes for a championship level team? I propose that coaching + roster + assorted variables = championship.

 

We need to break this down further: would average or lesser coaching + an all-star level roster (if you average the skill and talents of all players) + assorted variables = championship? I don't have the data to come a conclusion on this. I'm sure others here who are more into collecting this kind of information could be most helpful and illuminating.

 

Would genius or near-genius level, or brilliant, or inspired coaching + an average-level roster (if you average the skill and talents of all players) + assorted variables = championship? I have my guesses, but no real data for NHL teams.

 

On the second question, I would say the statement earlier "none of (the coaches) would be winners without great players" strikes a chord, but I have to wonder how true this is.

 

I'm sure many would opt for the coaching + roster + assorted variables = championship where "coaching" and "roster" are equally weighted, with a heavier emphasis on the "assorted variables", being the most reasonable.

 

Okay, let's leave that alone, and use the latter as the way forward for now.

 

What do the Sabres have?

 

Coaching: arguable, subjective. I think people either believe Ruff can bring a cup here or don't. The question of coaching is confounded by an average roster (again, averaging the skill and talents of all players), if not below average in some aspects, over the course of his tenure. I think you can heavily weight "assorted variables" for Ruff during the post lock-out season(s) thanks to the game changing for those few seasons.

 

Some like Ruff's style, others do not, but I think it's safe to say no one knows with absolute certainty what type of coach or style of coaching directly leads to a championship.

 

Roster: arguable, much less subjective than coaching. Player stats play a strong role here. Hindsight, as well, is very helpful, although anecdotal. I think it's very safe to say the roster this season is of no help in moving toward the goal of winning a championship. Of course, anything can be debated, but even the most foolish of us all would have a difficult time defending THIS particular roster.

 

Now, when the roster featured more strong elements (but the average may have been brought down by a counterbalance of sub-par players), it is safe to say, in my opinion, that the Sabres were "closer" to a championship. We can see that as the roster fluctuated (demonstrated by player stats), the "closer" to a championship the team was (as demonstrated by team stats), all under the same coach.

 

Is the latter reasoning the subject of debate here? I don't think so. This is too...elementary. Right?

 

Now comes an interesting question: are the performance of the roster and the coach mutually exclusive? If that's too black and white, maybe it's better, then, to ask if a coach can raise or lower the performance of a roster. On the latter, I can not see how one does not answer in the affirmative.

 

A coach MUST raise or lower the performance of a roster, correct? Otherwise what is the point of a team coach...unless...unless, maybe there is a misunderstanding of what the coach does at the professional level.

 

I think this latter point is what REALLY causes the arguments around here (and elsewhere). Perhaps we all have different ideas of exactly what to expect from a coach and, thus, we're all coming from a different perspective and are trying to make pieces fit together that are really from so many different puzzles.

 

As I write this, I think it's very important to establish a consensus on what to expect from a NHL coach. For myself, I have always looked at the coach as someone who teaches, criticizes, and guides players individually, who has to understand who the players are and what they bring to the team, who must then put together a plan per game that leverages his roster's talents against the opponent's weaknesses. But I have never really "thought" about it much, I always just assumed this is what the coach does. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Very interested to read what others have to say on this. Unless the point is not interesting to anyone else. Wherein I'll just shut up.

[waldo]

This cherry-picking is so flawed, it isn't even funny. So is your sarcastic "please cite the study." But I'll play along.

 

How many people in Montreal wanted Julien fired? He was, and the team hasn't won anything since. He wasn't the problem.

How many people in New Jersey wanted Julien fired? He was, and the team hasn't won anything since. He wasn't the problem.

 

How many people in Anaheim wanted Babcock fired? He was, and Anaheim added Getzlaf, Bertuzzi, Marchant, Selanne, Pronger and the good Niedermayer before winning the Cup. I don't think Babcock was the problem there.

 

Tampa has won nothing since firing Tortorella. How many people wanted him fired in Tampa?

 

Carolina has won nothing since firing Laviolette. How many people wanted him fired in Carolina?

 

Montreal has won nothing since firing Vigneault. How many people wanted him fired in Montreal?

 

Hitchcock never won a Cup; his team was awarded one. And none of the three teams that have fired him since have won anything since they fired him. How many people in how many different cities wanted him gone?

 

Some of these guys are very good coaches. Not all of them are, and none of them would be winners without great players.

 

A well made argument..all valid points but consider the possibility that Lindy has been a key guy in the room with Darcy on all the key decisions. Probably more so than any of the coaches on your list because of his joined at the hip relationship with Darcy.. The point being Lindy has a little more exposure in this case than any of them. He played a key role in the lack of sucess on the ice and the falures on the retention and recruitment end.

[TrueBlueGED]

To save everyone's eyes I'm not going to quote Sizzle's post, but, I think it was quite excellent and raises a lot of points worth discussing. Note: I'm not going to go around fact-checking and collecting a bunch of hard data tonight, although I may be moved to in the future if for no better reason than to satisfy my own curiosity on the matter. So anything I say may turn out to be factually incorrect, but these are my general feelings on the matter.

 

What exactly do we expect out of a coach, what makes great coaches great and great coaches bad? I think this definitely varies across sports, and I think relative coaching importance varies as well. In the absolute grand scheme of things I'd rather have great players and an average coach than a great coach and average players because it is the players, after all, who actually do the winning and losing. Football certainly isn't a direct parallel (and I think coaching matters more in the NFL than NHL), but Bill Belichik is a better coach in my opinion than Tom Coughlin. But the Pats just lost to the Giants because the Giants simply had the better roster from top to bottom. On the flip side, I still firmly believe the Bills had better talent than the Giants in Super Bowl XXV and we all know how that turned out. Overall though, I think it's easier for great talent to overcome mediocre coaching than the other way around. Brilliant schemes can only go so far if the players can't execute. I'm pretty sure Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen were good enough to win championships without Phil Jackson. Would they have had multiple three-peats if it wasn't for Jackson's influence? Maybe, maybe not. The Zenmaster was supreme at juggling egos and getting players to have the right mental approach.

 

In the NHL, during the regular season, I think the coach's biggest task is to just try to keep a positive morale in the locker room when things are bad and to keep the team grounded when things are good. It's a long season, and every single team has ups and downs, and it's the coach's task to not put too much stock into any particular streak. Certainly game planning matters at times, but often there simply isn't time to implement specific game plans as in the NFL. If a team has 3 games in 4 nights, back to backs, and so on, keeping the team as fresh as possible and mentally focused I think is more important than Xs and Os. Every once in awhile players surely will need a kick in the pants, but if I need my coach to motivate them too much I think that says a lot (of bad things) about the players. The playoffs on the other hand I think become much more of a chess match, and the better coach has a higher probability of swinging a series. Then again if we look at the Finals last year, I don't think Julien really out-coached Vigneault.....Luongo simply melted down and the Sedins went MIA. I don't think that was coaching, I think that was on the players themselves.

 

I think like a lot of things in sports, chemistry is important. You can have great players and a great coach and still fall short. To keep with the Phil Jackson example (the man won 11 championships, so why the hell not), his Lakers failed at the end of the Shaq/Kobe era and last season as well. I don't think Shaq and Kobe forgot how to win, and I don't think Jackson forgot how to coach...something else was wrong. To use an NHL example, MIchele Therrian got fired because his Crosby and Malkin-led Penguins were in danger of missing the playoffs. Then we know what happened after that. Clearly that's a case where coaching was important....maybe not for Xs and Os reasons, but for chemistry reasons. The Caps this season were definitely trying to get Boudreau fired, which they did. But they're not any better without him...maybe the effort is more consistent, but the results are no better. The Red Wings are apparently a model because they are always in the mix as real contenders. But what happens when Lidstrom retires and Datsyk/Zetterberg really decline? If the success falls off, does that mean that Babcock suddenly forgot how to coach? They have the perfect players with the perfect coach right now, it fits, it works.

 

I guess what I'm trying to get it is that maybe above all else, what matters most is chemistry or fit. To win championships you need great players, and at least a decent coach. But perhaps importantly, even if you have the right players, you need the right coach for that collection of players. Is it so far-fetched to think that even a lesser coach might get more out of a certain group of players? Is Bylsma so much better than Therrian that he can take a team from missing the playoffs to winning the Cup? Or was it simply a matter of chemistry?

 

Personally I think Ruff is a good, but flawed, coach. And I think most NHL coaches have flaws, even the best ones. In my opinion, the best argument against Ruff is that he's simply run his course, that the message is stale with the players who have been around long enough and it's time for something fresh. Even if a new coach isn't as good technically, maybe it would be a better fit. I'm certainly open to that possibility (just as I am that we could get an actual better technical coach....just as I am open to the possibility that a coaching change is false gold). The reason I'm so on the fence about Ruff is that I think this roster is so flawed, that it's hard to evaluate. This isn't like we're finishing last with Crosby and Malkin and a very good to great supporting cast. If we had what I considered to be a Cup-contending roster, than you'd have to look at the coach, there would be no other logical option. But that's not the case here. The injuries mattered and made things worse, but that's like pulling open the wound after you've already been stabbed: the main problem isn't pulling it open, it's the wound itself. When we were starting 8-9 guys from Rochester, I didn't expect us to beat the top teams. But there's still no reason to lose to Columbus. I think Ruff failed miserably at keeping things positive and refusing to let the injuries bring down morale. For every time he said "don't feel sorry for us" there was always a "yea but..." statement. I don't care if injuries ARE an excuse, you can't let them psychologically impact your team. Mike Tomlin (the Pittsburgh Steelers' coach) held his team together through a rash of injuries, always said next man up, injuries were part of the game and they had to be dealt with accordingly. I don't think Ruff handled this well, at all. And that is on him.

 

The other thing is, none of us know for sure how much influence Ruff has on personnel decisions. Did Ruff actively lobby to extend Stafford, or was that a mangement/ownership decision primarily? It isn't Ruff's job to scout Ville Leino to determine if he can play center, that's the pro scouts' and GM's job. It isn't Ruff's job to trade a locker room cancer off the team....but it is on him that he gave notorious slackers and bad examples As on their jersey. Even if he asks Darcy to try to move Roy and Stafford, he's not the one actually pulling the trigger. He can't force Regier to take less than perceived value just to be rid of them. But he made them team captains, which never in a million years should have happened. That's within his power, and that he messed up. I'm not going to hold the coach responsible for the GM's failures....the problem is we don't know how many of the GM's failures are shared with the coach. We don't, and can't, and I'm not going to pretend to.

[...]

Is it so far-fetched to think that even a lesser coach might get more out of a certain group of players? Is Bylsma so much better than Therrian that he can take a team from missing the playoffs to winning the Cup? Or was it simply a matter of chemistry?

 

Nice response. We're going to turn people off with our garrulousness, so I'll selectively respond. I have to point out, though, that unlike the rest of your post, I can't buy the scenario you suggest in the last paragraph. But I think it takes too much of a tangent right now, so, more than likely, we'll get to coaching and managing - let's stick with the player/coach realm.

 

As for the above quoted, I definitely do not discount happenstance; or being-in-the-right-place-at-the-right-time-ism; or the proper alignment of time, space and/or frequencies; as an influence on the outcomes of all extant activity. The "need for certain conditions for a something to occur" is the basis of the theory of evolution, it most certainly applies to the activities of life, even the outcomes of a hockey season.

 

Of course, then, a good coach, no matter what they do, might adversely affect the performance of the team.

 

 

 

In my opinion, the best argument against Ruff is that he's simply run his course, that the message is stale with the players who have been around long enough and it's time for something fresh. Even if a new coach isn't as good technically, maybe it would be a better fit.

.

 

 

My thought, here, is that what if you significantly alter the team instead? Would the new players' presence affect the message in such a way as to somehow make it fresh for themselves, the remaining players, and the (same old) coach?

 

Is this likely? Because this is what you're banking on when you decide to keep Lindy Ruff around (proverbial you throughout, of course).

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

At the highest levels of any profession, the best LEADER wants to surround himself with other LEADERS who are able to think on their own two feet, not have to be micromanaged, and be able to and feel comfortable in challenging THE leader. A good General wants quality Sargeants and Lieutenants under him who don't need to be told what to do, who are able to lead those under them, and who can add to the battleplan and find potential flaws. The order comes from the General and the General takes the responsibility for the results, but if he trusts strong leaders around him to do their part, he can focus on the big picture and winning the war instead of micromanaging every little battle.

 

The same goes for big business. Weak leaders either show a false sense of bravado in order to show who is in charge, or insecure ones will surround themselves with passive circles and yes-men. The best leaders find guys they can trust, and let them do "their thing".

 

This is where I think both Regier and Ruff fail. Since we are speaking of Ruff, I think he has always fancied himself a teacher and looks at his players as underlings who need to be watched over. Instead of focusing on the big picture, I feel he thinks he adds more value to micro situations than he really does. The way he tinkers constantly with lines. The way he treats individual players who have been here for years and are 30 year old men. His systemic approach where players seem to have to think instead of play off of instinct.

 

The fact that there hasn't been a true captain on this team since Drury speaks volumes. It's almost impossible to assemble a group of 23 wussies at this level. There has to be a tone coming from the top that leaves a void underneath. It's almost a relationship like a master and his dogs....who need to look for their master's approval before they do something. The mental makeup of this team is something you would almost expect from a juniors team, yet that shouldn't be shocking given that Ruff "teaches" this team, instead of administrating it.

 

There's a saying, "Those that can't Do, Teach." I think that may ring true for Ruff. While there have been plenty of good coaches over time in sports who do consider themselves teachers and who may get in the faces of their players, the best structures are usually those that are loose enough to allow for the flow to dictate actions because everyone has enough confidence in their own ability and in each other.Having and instilling discipline is one thing. Having a starched structure and repitition however is a poor substitute for not having strong leaders surrounding you who are able to adapt to any situation.

[billsrcursed]

While there have been plenty of good coaches over time in sports who do consider themselves teachers and who may get in the faces of their players, the best structures are usually those that are loose enough to allow for the flow to dictate actions because everyone has enough confidence in their own ability and in each other.

 

Didn't he try that once? He ended up with Rivet voted as Captain.

 

I think that dictated what kind of Coach he needed to be going forward. Sometimes, those underneath you show their cards...

 

I don't want Ruff to go unscathed in all of this, but allowing these guys to just go out and do their thing isn't going to make guys like Stafford/Roy any better, IMHO.

[kishoph]

Good coach, bad coach, happy coach, mad coach, whatever coach Lindy may be, I think the bottom line is he has lost his team, it seems that they no longer buy into what he is selling and are looking for a change. No matter how good you are, if your players don't want to play for you any longer, there's no chance for success.

[Eleven]

A well made argument..all valid points but consider the possibility that Lindy has been a key guy in the room with Darcy on all the key decisions. Probably more so than any of the coaches on your list because of his joined at the hip relationship with Darcy.. The point being Lindy has a little more exposure in this case than any of them. He played a key role in the lack of sucess on the ice and the falures on the retention and recruitment end.

 

But I happen to know that one very key decision (Briere) was made over Ruff's strenuous objection. So I can't really think that he has a ton of say in personnel decisions. I'm sure he has some say. I think there's more detail/analysis of this upthread.

[Ghost of Dwight Drane]

But I happen to know that one very key decision (Briere) was made over Ruff's strenuous objection. So I can't really think that he has a ton of say in personnel decisions. I'm sure he has some say. I think there's more detail/analysis of this upthread.

 

And how do you know this?

[Eleven]

And how do you know this?

 

We've been through it before, haven't we? I'll send you a PM.

[TrueBlueGED]

My thought, here, is that what if you significantly alter the team instead? Would the new players' presence affect the message in such a way as to somehow make it fresh for themselves, the remaining players, and the (same old) coach?

 

Is this likely? Because this is what you're banking on when you decide to keep Lindy Ruff around (proverbial you throughout, of course).

 

I think half the reason good coaches get fired is it's simply easier than turning over half the roster. Firing Randy Carlysle was probably a much easier (and likely better) solution for the Ducks than somehow trading Getzlaf and/or Ryan for equal value to shake things up. I don't think there's any coach out there who could get a consistent effort and physical play out of this particular Sabres team. I also don't think the entire roster has managed to tune out Ruff, or even if they have, they still play hard because those are the types of players they are. THOSE are the players we need to hang onto, regardless of what happens with the coaches. I think Ruff can still be successful here with significant roster turnover and the right pieces added. That's not to say I think our only option is to keep him--a new coach and smaller roster turnover could certainly yield equal or better results.

 

In the grand scheme of things I don't want quitters on my team. I don't care if you hate the coach, you still have a job and teammates to play for, maybe even some sense of individual pride in your performance. I don't think a guy like Pominville has tuned out Ruff at all, but even if he did, I think he'd still give 100% because that's just his character. If there's guys who have quit because of Ruff, I want them gone. That's not to say that I want them gone for the purpose of keeping Ruff, just that they aren't the kind of players I want to build my team around. If a coach loses his team, that reflects very poorly on the coach. But I also don't think it reflects particularly well on the players. I don't think the Capitals had any choice but to fire Boudreau...however, you don't fire him AND keep the same players that quit. I'm not advocating 100% roster turnover and firing a coach, but when a team quits I feel there's other problems in the room besides the coach's message getting stale/old/lost.

 

Regardless of Ruff's fate, most would agree the roster needs some changes. But if Ruff stays, I think the changes almost have to be larger than if we bring in a new coach. I don't know exactly how the numbers would work out. Maybe the options are keep Ruff with 40% roster turnover, or jettison him with 25% roster turnover? But yes, in general, if you're keeping Ruff then you are banking on two things essentially: 1-his message is not lost on everyone, and 2-those who his message is lost on, can be moved and replaced with pieces which will be receptive to Ruff.

[Randall Flagg]

 

 

But I happen to know that one very key decision (Briere) was made over Ruff's strenuous objection. So I can't really think that he has a ton of say in personnel decisions. I'm sure he has some say. I think there's more detail/analysis of this upthread.

Sorry, but could you explain the Briere part to me?

[Eleven]

Sorry, but could you explain the Briere part to me?

 

I've explained it before (and I'm sure I'll do so again), as long as I'm keeping names out of it, I don't mind pasting in most of the first paragraph of my message to Drain:

 

An in-person conversation I had with someone VERY close to the situation. I asked him point blank who was responsible for personnel decisions, and he responded with Briere as an example. He told me that Quinn didn't want the team to pay the money, that Ruff REALLY wanted the team to pay the money, and that Regier sided with Quinn.

 

Please understand that I will not disclose the person with whom I had the conversation. It wasn't the mail room guy, though. A few people might be able to put two-and-two together and figure it out; please keep that pleasure to yourself--thanks. And please also understand that I'm not fabricating this conversation and would resent any implication to the contrary (that last bit isn't directed at you or anyone else in particular, arc).