Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

(Poll) Who should be the next head coach of the Vancouver Canucks?


Roger Neilsons Towel

(Poll) Who should be the next head coach of the Vancouver Canucks?  

768 members have voted

  1. 1. Who should be the next head coach of the Vancouver Canucks?

    • Gerrard Gallant (NO LONGER AVAILABLE - LAS VEGAS)
    • Travis Green
    • Ken Hitchcock (NO LONGER AVAILABLE - DALLAS)
    • Marc Crawford
    • Lindy Ruff
    • Doug Jarvis
    • Kevin Dineen
    • Paul MacLean
    • Bob Hartley
    • Other (please explain below)
    • Patrick Roy (added post poll creation)
    • Ralph Krueger (added post poll creation)
    • Michel Therrien (added post poll creation)
    • Darryl Sutter (added post poll creation)
    • Dave Lowry (added post poll creation)
    • Dallas Eakins (added post poll creation)
    • Kirk Muller (added post poll creation)
    • Sheldon Keefe (added post poll creation)
    • Brad Larsen (added post poll creation)
    • Todd Reirden (added post poll creation)

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, WestCoastDave said:

Yeah, I could see how an experienced coach would not agree to such a format.  However, it could still attract those who are desperate enough since there is only a limted number of head coaching spots in NHL and it could be their only chance to do it.

The downside for them though would be if they have no NHL experience but are considered good AHL, NCAA, etc coaches it would not help their future marketability to bomb out in a small sample size. Rookie NHL coaches often need some time to get their feet under them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Wouldn't work because no coach worth having, experienced or not, would agree to it. Plus, the success of the next coach is about developing young players and building systems that can work to get the best out of all the players. That takes more than a handful of games to judge.

 

This hire is very important. Green is really worrisome to me about not having the ability to develop top pro players. As he has not really shown it yet.

this right here. Everyone is on the Green bandwagon but i'm very hesitant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, oldnews said:

In response to wondering why they didn't take a lot more time before making the decision - that could have a lot to do with not wanting to miss out on a particular candidate or candidates in the process.  Green, for example, could be a time sensitive decision - if they're looking to promote him, waiting may not have been a very prudent move.  Also, season's end is when teams start liquidating head coaches - meaning there is demand in the market - so if you wait, you wait while a number of candidates sign elsewhere.

I think the swiftness of their timing was fine - if they were going to do this, the time to do it was promptly imo.

Or, the decision to let Willie go was made some time ago.  We know that the team changed tack when they decided to trade Hansen and Burrows so some serious discussions on the direction the team was taking had been going on.

 

Why the delay firing Willie?  Because there would be many more candidates for his replacement available after the season ended.

 

None of this goes against the notion that word for the move came straight from ownership.  I don't have a problem with this honestly.  It's not micro-managing or meddling if they think that it will adversely affect sales.  That's a fair criticism from ownership imo.  Ownership and management may meet formally once or twice a year.  Frank, open and honest discussions would be expected and strategies or the way they're implementing the strategy may be adjusted.  I think this is completely normal and expected

 

6 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I can see the logic to questioning whether it was ownership involvement.  And more easily seeing it as a Linden call, meddling or not.

 

The market, certainly if you read CDC, or the local papers, was loud and clear that Willie is a tough sell at this stage.  The ability to sell tickets would trump anyone's argument that Bo, Tree & Granlunds development under Willie's watch had us heading in the right direction. The market was blaming Willie. Loudly! Why waste time with reviews?

 

I would not be the least bit surprised? If that is what was told to our coach when he was let go. Possibly even confided that they were happy with the job he did, but had to pull the trigger. Which may have contributed to Willie having had such a positive send off meet the press finale'? 

 

Me personally; I think fans should question the coach less. CDC hated AV playing Rome and called for his head too. I can understand WD playing Megna over Goldobin. I learned my lesson questioning why AV did not put Hodgson in more. AV gave playing time to guys who played harder, faster, back checked & won puck battles. And look at the talent players in NY, say Zucarello? Buchnevich had to earn his spot with AV. They're all in! Play the game right. Ultimately, I learned this later, because Hodgson got away with that for a while? It cost him his career. And a very talented top ten pick (he led a NHL team in scoring) became a write-off for us.

 

Megna plays harder than Goldobin.  OK, he can't score? Too frickin bad!  

 

Goldy can have his job as soon as he jumps over the boards playing with the ferocity the game deserves!   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I'm really puzzled by this firing.  It's inconsistent with how this management has been operating.

  1. They are usually methodical and do full reviews and discussions before making big decisions.  Benning always seems to pull the trigger on decisions at the latest date possible.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Why the delay firing Willie?  Because there would be many more candidates for his replacement available after the season ended.

 

This doesn't make much sense to me.

You appeared to be wondering why they made the decision so quickly - without waiting to do a full review, etc - which is what I responded to - suggesting that making the decision when they did enables them to be in the market for a coach when there are more on the market - as in right now.

 

Your response wonders why there was a "delay'.

 

?

 

I imagine they fully 'reviewed' their reasons for and against keeping him - and made the decision without delay.

Not much point firing before the season ended - or waiting a whole lot longer once it did if the conclusion was to move on to another coach.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

This doesn't make much sense to me.

You appeared to be wondering why they made the decision so quickly - without waiting to do a full review, etc - which is what I responded to - suggesting that making the decision when they did enables them to be in the market for a coach when there are more on the market - as in right now.

 

Your response wonders why there was a "delay'.

 

?

 

I imagine they fully 'reviewed' their reasons for and against keeping him - and made the decision without delay.

Not much point firing before the season ended - or waiting a whole lot longer once it did if the conclusion was to move on to another coach.

 

 

I can see your confusion.  It occurred to me, reading your response that the decision was probably made months ago.  I hadn't thought of this.  Then I remembered what Willie said in his final press conference, that he felt that his days were numbered a couple of months ago.  So it makes more sense I think.  I still think that ownership is getting involved.  If this is the limit to their involvement, then I'm ok with it.

 

I use CDC to try and figure things out with the Canucks and through beating these topics back and forth, maybe we can get closer to the truth.  That's why my opinions can change a bit over time.  I try to be open to other peoples input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I can see your confusion.  It occurred to me, reading your response that the decision was probably made months ago.  I hadn't thought of this.  Then I remembered what Willie said in his final press conference, that he felt that his days were numbered a couple of months ago.  So it makes more sense I think.  I still think that ownership is getting involved.  If this is the limit to their involvement, then I'm ok with it.

 

I use CDC to try and figure things out with the Canucks and through beating these topics back and forth, maybe we can get closer to the truth.  That's why my opinions can change a bit over time.  I try to be open to other peoples input.

I hope not, but who knows - and if it is the case, I agree - hopefully this is the limit of it (a business optics decision) and they leave the next stage to Benning et al.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bp79 said:

What I meant by loyalty was how he reacted after the duck's gig flew south :lol:  I can;t remember the exact comment, but it was along the lines of how going back to Utica was a huge disappointment and that he wants to be in the NHL. I get that but obviously he needs to take a step back and say k well ill go do the assistant thing learn how things are done in the Nhl and then if I'm good enough ill get my chance. How many times have we seen the assistant coach promoted to the main coach after a firing? It's a lot If he would have taken the spot offered to him I bet he would have been our coach by the tdl that was all I meant. Cheers            

Yes I understand I was just pointing out that he probably would have lost some of the appeal if he failed while coaching another dude's system. I think Green could be a good coach bringing up young guys and developing them. I think when you want to have a NHL coach, the best candidates are guys that have been in the NHL, coached by someone great themselves and also have a good resume as a coach. 

 

 Seems to me those make the best coaches as they can relate to the players and have maybe seen some legend coaches work their magic during games. Willie was not a bad coach, his systems were solid but he seemed out of his element and lacked diversity and the ability to make adjustments on the fly. At times he almost seemed star-struck. I think Green and Carbonneau would be great coaches as they've "been there before" and have both shown some solid coaching. Willie had a great resume coming in but had never really sniffed the NHL before. If he goes elsewhere I'd bet he can maintain but he won't be a world beater and won't go far in the playoffs if he stays stubborn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get a funny feeling that if the rangers lose out to Montreal that Alain V, might be on the hot seat and could get fired. 

If this happens he could be a good fit for Vancouver. Sedins had their best season under him and could really teach the young kids something. 

Probably not likely, but you never know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Nessnuck27 said:

I get a funny feeling that if the rangers lose out to Montreal that Alain V, might be on the hot seat and could get fired. 

If this happens he could be a good fit for Vancouver. Sedins had their best season under him and could really teach the young kids something. 

Probably not likely, but you never know. 

NAFCIH.  (It's an Alf acronym:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Nessnuck27 said:

I get a funny feeling that if the rangers lose out to Montreal that Alain V, might be on the hot seat and could get fired. 

If this happens he could be a good fit for Vancouver. Sedins had their best season under him and could really teach the young kids something. 

Probably not likely, but you never know. 

I get the same feeling. If they lose to Montreal in say 5 games, he might get fired.

 

The question is, would he be a good fit here? He definitely knows how to optimize the deployment of the Sedins. Is he going to be willing to work for a team that is rebuilding though? He definitely has done this with us when youngsters like Kesler, Hansen, Edler, and even Bieksa, Sedins, and Burr were only like 25. At his age, wouldn't he be more inclined to take on a team that is more ready to compete...?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shot in the dark here, but what about Scott Arniel? His first tenure as an NHL head coach didn't go swimmingly, but he's been an assistant with the Rangers for a few years now, undoubtedly soaking up knowledge under AV. 

 

I seem to recall that, when he was coaching the Moose, whenever somebody was called up, they pretty much already had an understanding of the system in Vancouver, and were able to adapt quite seamlessly into the lineup. That always hit me as incredibly impressive, especially considering that at that point we were one of the better teams in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Shot in the dark here, but what about Scott Arniel? His first tenure as an NHL head coach didn't go swimmingly, but he's been an assistant with the Rangers for a few years now, undoubtedly soaking up knowledge under AV. 

 

I seem to recall that, when he was coaching the Moose, whenever somebody was called up, they pretty much already had an understanding of the system in Vancouver, and were able to adapt quite seamlessly into the lineup. That always hit me as incredibly impressive, especially considering that at that point we were one of the better teams in the league.

Sorry, how many cups has AV won? Might as well ask for Kevin Dineen or Mike Kitchen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, the_impersonator13 said:

Yeah, benching kid and playing him for :38 the rest of the game after he scores a beautiful breakaway goal is great for his confidence. 

How long have you watched hockey? You actually think a kid scoring a breakaway goal entitles him to ANYTHING? No wonder WD got canned with people like you whispering BS like this in "not so clever" Trevor's ear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Shot in the dark here, but what about Scott Arniel? His first tenure as an NHL head coach didn't go swimmingly, but he's been an assistant with the Rangers for a few years now, undoubtedly soaking up knowledge under AV. 

 

I seem to recall that, when he was coaching the Moose, whenever somebody was called up, they pretty much already had an understanding of the system in Vancouver, and were able to adapt quite seamlessly into the lineup. That always hit me as incredibly impressive, especially considering that at that point we were one of the better teams in the league.

Yes and he was SOOOOOO GOOOOOD in Chicago with the Wolves.:lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alfstonker said:

How long have you watched hockey? You actually think a kid scoring a breakaway goal entitles him to ANYTHING? No wonder WD got canned with people like you whispering BS like this in "not so clever" Trevor's ear. 

Scoring a goal should entitle a player to something. Scoring in the NHL isn't easy, just ask Gaunce, that's why players typically get rewarded when they score. 

 

It's funny you're asking the poster how long they've watched hockey and then believing that somehow fans were able to convinced Linden to fire WD.  Linden, a person who played in the NHL for 19 seasons and now as a NHL president of 3 season.  I'll take Trevor and JB's opinion (who have over 40 years combined of NHL involvement) over yours and WD's any day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, khay said:

I get the same feeling. If they lose to Montreal in say 5 games, he might get fired.

 

The question is, would he be a good fit here? He definitely knows how to optimize the deployment of the Sedins. Is he going to be willing to work for a team that is rebuilding though? He definitely has done this with us when youngsters like Kesler, Hansen, Edler, and even Bieksa, Sedins, and Burr were only like 25. At his age, wouldn't he be more inclined to take on a team that is more ready to compete...?

 

Will be interesting to say the least with him. Similar to Van may be a victim of his own success. I would love to see AV come back- great systems guy, plays a structured aggressive, past paced game. 

 

I don't know what his desires would be but if the Nucks get 1/2nd overall, with their young core coming now, I can't see him not considering it if he's let go -Really would LOVE to see him back.

 

As someone who's been a fan since the late 70's he's really a very close second to Pat Quinn as our best coach ever imho. And I do prefer him over someone like Crow (who's game I do love but played too loosey goosey for my liking-exciting to watch but a hard system to win with. AV is a better coach in my view).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...