Dazzle

So players continue to turn right into the boards - it's up to these players not to put themselves in vulnerable positions

So this is why our PK is so dreadful. The collapse system is just too static.

I don't understand what the coaches see in Chiasson that they expect different results from what we're seeing. If coaching doesn't have the gonads to spark change, they have to go.

The ineffective Chiasson is once more put into the PP. The coach has got to go.

Then hire a well respected coach.

Found the Sekeres defender, despite claiming not to like Sekeres earlier. I base my observations on reputation. Sekeres has none, given his refuted reports of Hughes in IV, as well as the dubious claims of Horvat/Miller hating each other. If reputation means nothing to you, then by all means, believe what you read.

A Canucks diarist could be interpreted as one who is in charge of writing propaganda for a team (aka, part of the 'yes' men). Why should Sekeres care that Imac is not able to do HIS job when Imac has a Toronto studio? Friendship? Then you have to understand that Sekeres had 'leaked' out a story that Hughes was on IV, before being discredited. Imac lamented that Sekeres was once a "serious journalist". That is a statement that speaks VOLUMES about what Imac thinks of Sekeres (that he's not a serious journalist). You add the pieces together and you'll realize that Sekeres attempts to stir up stories for a living.

Not our first offside either. That leg should have been fully extended. Details like that seem to be absent from a coach that claims to demand for details.

So why is Chiasson on the PP again?

And that's why I thought there was some kind of misunderstanding between the two of them to begin with. You talk about drama, but what about the dude who called someone a 'diarist'? If someone said you are cozy with your boss, while talking about how unfair it was for people to do their job, is this an unreasonable thing to ask in public rather than doing it in public? Seems like you're condoning one action, but also smiting the reaction.

If someone references you in public, like I did, you reacted, yes? You could've just not replied to me. See how unreasonable you sound?

Imagine a coach that plays a dump and chase type game with puck possession players. (Garland, OEL, Hughes, Pettersson, Boeser). And then imagine a coach that dumps players who COULD play that type of game (Bailey, granted that he has next to no offense, and Macewen, also a waiver wire pickup). So we've established that there's no foundation for that type of game. Then imagine how a coach takes away any kind of toughness from his players. I don't know if he teaches it out of him or what. Finally, imagine being a coach that thinks it's on the players to accept a coach who only knows how to scramble lines from his practices. This coach CLEARLY doesn't know how to utilize his players. And only now is management 'considering' firing him. This should've been dealt with shortly after that horrendous preseason.

Carbonnaded, are you Matthew Sekeres? I think you don't know what you're talking about

Haha, Provost, this is entertainment. You were the one talking about the so-called bigger story and how the Twitter quotes were basically taken out of context. Oddly enough, you completely glossed over the manner at how Imac responded to Sekeres. Better still, you have condoned how Sekeres called Imac "a diarist", which many people in this thread have mentioned was problematic/provocative. You've also accepted the perspective (not necessarily reality) that Imac could be a company guy (or a Canucks lackey). On the other hand, I have NOT taken any such position. I have merely said that there is toxicity surrounding Canucks hockey, and I demonstrated it through the exchanges of Imac/Sekeres. There is OBVIOUSLY a bigger story between the two, especially since Imac chose to take this publicly (as did Sekeres). If Sekeres had intended to rile up Imac, he did his job. Imac obviously saw the need to respond in a hostile way. But wait, you've taken Imac's response as some kind of proof that he's a 'company man'? You claim not to defend Sekeres, but you sure are doing a whole lot of it with ZERO proof. Show some quotes that suggest that Imac was overreacting, given how his NAME was brought up into this discussion. Was Sekeres REALLY going to bat for Imac? If so, why didn't he make this discussion about how sports journalists can't do their job? Here's the breakdown of events: Sekeres LITERALLY (through text) provoked the situation, which Imac responded to in a hostile way. I already mentioned in my original post that I think there's some kind of misunderstanding between the two. So what narrative am I spinning? You sound like you're trying really hard to defend Sekeres without saying you are defending Sekeres.

Can't be any worse than Jason King.

Here's the thing: you can not like Sekeres and see that he provoked iMac, who in turn responded the way he did. Contrary to your explanations, it is not "out of context" when iMac responded in a hostile manner. This overall message of Sportsnet being Toronto-centric, if that was the original intention, was clearly lost in the larger story. I find it rather ironic that it is you who doesn't see the bigger picture. If things were not tense, whether it was misunderstanding or otherwise, iMac would not have lashed out at Sekeres. We can also not like Sekeres and see that his choice of words/language was provocative. You can literally see it. You can also like Sekeres and literally see that all of the above is still true.

It's not out of context when iMac himself responds in a way that is decidedly combative. There's more that is going behind the scenes for him to respond like that, instead of diplomatically answering in a normal way.

I thought your message was referring to the iMac/Sekeres exchange, but it seems you were talking about the Horvat/Miller one.

Did he not get Hughes and Pettersson? Every GM is gonna whiff on a first round pick. Moreover, the 2nd rounders have been Highlander and Demko. It's not expected that the lower round drafts would likely produce an NHL player. That being said, we do have some nice prospects in the system. Are they enough? I'm not sure.

This. I just don't get why some fans think Green is 'better' than what the Canucks are showing. There's ZERO evidence to show that he can coach at this level, at least not anywhere at the same level as Babcock/Boudreau. Green is such a mediocre coach, and it's sickening to read about people giving excuses for this coach.

Ted Nolan got a raw deal. I hope he gets a coaching position sooner rather than later.

Benning did everything one could reasonably expect from a GM in the modern day environment. The biggest negative from this offseason was extending Green, plain and simple. Firing the GM does nothing short-term. Meanwhile, firing a coach could change the way the team operates from day to day. Think of it this way: if your car isn't operating properly, changing the suspensions for an engine problem is the wrong approach.

Green wasn't the reason for why your lover boy Dahlen couldn't get a shot in the NHL until a solid two years later.

Is there really not a potentially toxic exchange going on? I am confused because my original post believes that the two have had a misunderstanding with each other. We can read what the words say. And because of that, we can see what eventually led to Imac's response. You're overreacting.

Every single player is gonna make a mistake if you scrutinize them long enough. Why are you not pointing out that Green has been trying to coach the same way as he has the same bubble team? Moreover, he doesn't know how to use the players he has. Playing dump and chase when you have puck possession players is trash coaching.