Not true. Despite the fact I support him I think a failure to make the playoffs this year or perform well (at least win 1 round in the playoffs)should likely result in a change in my opinion. Some others feel the same way.
However, some of his detractors for the most part make comments that show a complete lack of hockey acumen or experience in coaching. PLEASE NOTE that I said some. Not all. Too many absolutes on the CDC.
I still support AV. Newell Brown, not so much.
The problem I have with this is that it is simply more of the same......how many times should AV get a reprieve based on winning one round in the playoffs?
It is not that the Canucks lose in the playoffs that should make firing AV a real legitimate option......it is HOW they lose in the playoffs that should be the main reason.
As a supporter of AV, I will ask you this: Looking at how Ballard played last game as an example (including setting up Garrison for a beauty one timer which is obvious our PP could use right now and being the only guy really playing solid D), do you agree that the right move tonight is scratching Ballard in favor of Alberts and Barker?
Do you not think that sends a negative message to guys when they work hard, play a good game, and then get told they are somehow what needs to be changed for the team to get going?