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

[Ossi Vaananen]

 

 

[Crabcakes]

2 hours ago, Canuck Surfer said:

I do agree a coach should not be insulated from blame when he could not get through to a player.  

 

But I dont agree a Goldobin should be allowed to be a goal leach, void of effect in other area's of the game.  Not that he is going to, in either instance? Or even that he was not telling Willie that he would...  But he hasnt put in the work yet? and you can pick that off watching him. And he does not have a mature game that helps in all areas, also noticed by Conacher in Utica. After having him for just a cpl games he commented that he was going to have to improve to be a NHL forward. Its not just Willie with Goldobin.  

 

And here are some of my notes;

 

 

But some guys just "get it." Horvat has been credited with that.  McAvoy or Carlo in Boston?  WD in his exit interview mentioned he could trust Boeser, in a similar way to how he trusted Horvat almost immediately.  Because he had a "maturity." A guy like Goldobin may even want to be a good defensive player?  However, these mature players like Boeser and Horvat had already spent years in the gym know how bad they wanted it. Horvat's weakness was skating, already looked like a bull athlete, but went to work with a power skating coach who fixed his stride. He's now among the fastest Canucks?  Did not wait till a coach ragged on him for having twiggy pipes, like Shinkaruk.  Boeser arrives, and he's being given the same credit the moment he gets here? He already back checks, gravitates to open zones, skates hard into puck battles. Horvat worked on face-off's, and killing penalties when he was 16 to round out his game...

 

A guy like Goldobin has some great skills, but has waited till age 21 to start learning these finer details?

 

He's only 6 months younger than Horvat, and look at the difference that maturity makes!

Bang on Surfer.  It only takes a couple of shifts for a trained eye to see this.  I wish Tony Gallagher would read this because I yell at my radio every time he says that Willie was inconsistent and unfair with the young players.  He thinks you just throw a kid into the deep end of the pool and if he floats, great.  If he sinks, then that's a damn shame.  What a simpleton!

 

When Wille can see that a player is doing the right things and keeps on doing them, he is showing us that he has earned ice time.  Maybe he even earned it before he got here.

 

If a player doesn't do the right things, he shows that he has something to learn.

 

It's not being random or playing favorites.  

 

When Goldy is watching Boeser and wondering why he's getting more ice time than him, he'd better be watching what Boeser does and start doing the same if he wants more ice time, or to stay with the big club.

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

17 minutes ago, oldnews said:

What utter nonsense though.

Wadr, you have no idea what they are "stuck" on - neither in terms of who or why they will hire a particular person.

 

And who is to say that Green isn't the best candidate available in any event?  People here know next to nothing about him or the other candidates for that matter - most analyses of the candidates stops at a couple thoughts on the matter - and most people here couldn't name a single system this team employed or the preferences of other candidates.  Wadr, I trust Benning's judgement on the matter far more than any armchair here - and pretending to know what they're going to base a decision on - before it's made - is basically just straw.

 

Btw, that idiot Dale Tallon evidently considers Green a serious candidate - with no 'loyalty' involved - simple experience of having built a Stanley Cup Champion.  Something to consider before writing off Green or reducing him to a mere 'loyalty hire'.

Who is to say Green IS the best candidate though? That knife cuts both ways. 

 

The Canucks are not in a place where a rookie coach with zero NHL coaching experience following another rookie head coach is a risk-free move.

 

Green is a good coach. I just don't think he is the right kind of coach for the Canucks at this point. Would he be a good fit in Florida? Perhaps (although I actually think a guy like Fesjardins would probably be better). But Florida also aren't in the same position as Vancouver where they would need to quickly develop 3/4 of their NHL roster, build a new culture, and phase out aging players who are franchise icons. That's a tall order for any NHL coach let alone one who has no experience coaching in the NHL and will effectively be developing too. 

 

Look at our front office again and tell me the Canucks aren't loyalty employers. That's laughable. Linden, Benning, Smyl, Delorme, etc etc etc. all former Canucks. Weisbrod worked in Boston with Benning iirc. Desjardins was a Medicine Hat coach where Linden happened to be closely connected to.

 

The Canucks have continuously made hires based on something other than the best person available for the job. All organizations do to a certain degree. But the Canucks are one of the teams who overwhelmingly does so.

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

6 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Bang on Surfer.  It only takes a couple of shifts for a trained eye to see this.  I wish Tony Gallagher would read this because I yell at my radio every time he says that Willie was inconsistent and unfair with the young players.  He thinks you just throw a kid into the deep end of the pool and if he floats, great.  If he sinks, then that's a damn shame.  What a simpleton!

 

When Wille can see that a player is doing the right things and keeps on doing them, he is showing us that he has earned ice time.  Maybe he even earned it before he got here.

 

If a player doesn't do the right things, he shows that he has something to learn.

 

It's not being random or playing favorites.  

 

When Goldy is watching Boeser and wondering why he's getting more ice time than him, he'd better be watching what Boeser does and start doing the same if he wants more ice time, or to stay with the big club.

 

 

So you think it's a fair evaluation period for a young player to get two shifts to convince a coach that they will catch on right away and not struggle at all at the NHL level in order to "earn" the right to play?

 

Good thing we fired Desjardins if that's how fast he gives up on a kid. 

[MJDDawg]

4 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If he doesn't get a head coaching gig in the NHL he should take an assistant coach job to get some tangible NHL coaching experience on his resume. Taking his ball and going home only works if there is actual

NHL interest in him as a head coach.

I don't think we see many assistant NHL coaches move directly to getting their own NHL team anymore,  do we? 

 

I think most "new" NHL head coaches come directly from being a head coach either in junior,  the AHL,  the national team, or Europe.  If he doesn't get an NHL head coaching offer this summer, getting his own team in Europe is the next best option, IMO. 

 

 

 

 

[Crabcakes]

I'm finding Krueger intriguing.  He's a great communicator and reads people very well.  He's a European guy, so he probably gets Russians etc.  He's a good hockey man and he coached the Swiss past Canada in the Turin Olympics and Team Europe to a Silver in the Worlds last year.

 

I say kick the tires on this guy.  Maybe Green is better, maybe not.  Let's not assume anything.

[Crabcakes]

3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

So you think it's a fair evaluation period for a young player to get two shifts to convince a coach that they will catch on right away and not struggle at all at the NHL level in order to "earn" the right to play?

 

Good thing we fired Desjardins if that's how fast he gives up on a kid. 

No, you're not understanding me.  If you see a player doing the right things, and he keeps doing them, then he's building some trust.  If he comes out in the 2nd period and starts doing the wrong things, then he's back to square one.

 

The guy has to keep it up obviously.  But you can tell right away when they know what to do.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, MJDDawg said:

I don't think we see many assistant NHL coaches move directly to getting their own NHL team anymore,  do we? 

 

I think most "new" NHL head coaches come directly from being a head coach either in junior,  the AHL,  the national team, or Europe.  If he doesn't get an NHL head coaching offer this summer, getting his own team in Europe is the next best option, IMO. 

 

 

 

 

The combination of AHL and NHL assistant coach (or head coach) experience seems to still be a fairly widely valued combo in terms of guys getting head coaching jobs in the NHL. 

 

Sullivan in Pittsburgh, probably Stevens in LA, Desjardins when we hired him, Cassidy in Boston. There are still a lot of examples. I am not sure who the most recent coaches without any NHL coaching experience are. It would be interesting to find out.

 

 

[Crabcakes]

6 minutes ago, MJDDawg said:

I don't think we see many assistant NHL coaches move directly to getting their own NHL team anymore,  do we? 

 

I think most "new" NHL head coaches come directly from being a head coach either in junior,  the AHL,  the national team, or Europe.  If he doesn't get an NHL head coaching offer this summer, getting his own team in Europe is the next best option, IMO. 

 

 

 

 

No, because it's completely different being a head coach than being an assistant.  

 

Most young coaches who have success as an NHL assistant, first have to be a head coach at the AHL level before they get a head coaches job at the NHL

[Crabcakes]

10 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

So you think it's a fair evaluation period for a young player to get two shifts to convince a coach that they will catch on right away and not struggle at all at the NHL level in order to "earn" the right to play?

 

Good thing we fired Desjardins if that's how fast he gives up on a kid. 

And I wouldn't say Willie gave up on anybody.  It's a matter of needing more work

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

No, you're not understanding me.  If you see a player doing the right things, and he keeps doing them, then he's building some trust.  If he comes out in the 2nd period and starts doing the wrong things, then he's back to square one.

 

The guy has to keep it up obviously.  But you can tell right away when they know what to do.

That's a fair point. With the caveat that at the stage we were and are at, management needs to get much more of an idea about guys like Goldobin than a few shifts and a benching. Young players are not all at the same point of "getting it". So done patience with mistakes and the learning curve are a necessity. The heavy handed approach also doesn't apply to vets who still make the same mistakes and display the same apathetic approach to defense they always have. The sword needs to cut both ways for that approach to work long term.

[wallstreetamigo]

9 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I'm finding Krueger intriguing.  He's a great communicator and reads people very well.  He's a European guy, so he probably gets Russians etc.  He's a good hockey man and he coached the Swiss past Canada in the Turin Olympics and Team Europe to a Silver in the Worlds last year.

 

I say kick the tires on this guy.  Maybe Green is better, maybe not.  Let's not assume anything.

I would be pretty happy with Krueger. Seems like a very good fit for where we are at.

[Crabcakes]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

That's a fair point. With the caveat that at the stage we were and are at, management needs to get much more of an idea about guys like Goldobin than a few shifts and a benching. Young players are not all at the same point of "getting it". So done patience with mistakes and the learning curve are a necessity. The heavy handed approach also doesn't apply to vets who still make the same mistakes and display the same apathetic approach to defense they always have. The sword needs to cut both ways for that approach to work long term.

Ya, I was only talking about his handling of the kids.  Now, for Willie, he gave the vets too much rope.  There was too big of a difference between how he coached veterans and how he coached the kids.

[oldnews]

16 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Who is to say Green IS the best candidate though? That knife cuts both ways. 

 

The Canucks are not in a place where a rookie coach with zero NHL coaching experience following another rookie head coach is a risk-free move.

 

Green is a good coach. I just don't think he is the right kind of coach for the Canucks at this point. Would he be a good fit in Florida? Perhaps (although I actually think a guy like Fesjardins would probably be better). But Florida also aren't in the same position as Vancouver where they would need to quickly develop 3/4 of their NHL roster, build a new culture, and phase out aging players who are franchise icons. That's a tall order for any NHL coach let alone one who has no experience coaching in the NHL and will effectively be developing too. 

 

Look at our front office again and tell me the Canucks aren't loyalty employers. That's laughable. Linden, Benning, Smyl, Delorme, etc etc etc. all former Canucks. Weisbrod worked in Boston with Benning iirc. Desjardins was a Medicine Hat coach where Linden happened to be closely connected to.

 

The Canucks have continuously made hires based on something other than the best person available for the job. All organizations do to a certain degree. But the Canucks are one of the teams who overwhelmingly does so.

 

Spinning pointlessly.

You simply don't know what they're looking for.

All you're doing is attempting to pre-emptively pretend that you can disqualify them - with a dismissive one-liner concept about a loyalty hire - just a pretentious attempt to reductively dismiss them up front - as if you can represent what they're thinking or why. 

That's not crtiical thinking - or even engaging with anything real - you're not actually representing Benning -  you're simply attempting to prop yourself up relative to a strawman. That's pointless wallstreet and it's just disrespectful - you can't speak for Benning, it's really that simple.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Spinning pointlessly.

You simply don't know what they're looking for.

All you're doing is attempting to pre-emptively pretend that you can disqualify them - with a dismissive one-liner concept about a loyalty hire - just a pretentious attempt to reductively dismiss them up front - as if you can represent what they're thinking or why. 

That's not crtiical thinking - or even engaging with anything real - you're not actually representing Benning -  you're simply attempting to prop yourself up relative to a strawman. That's pointless wallstreet and it's just disrespectful - you can't speak for Benning, it's really that simple.

I'm not speaking for anyone. I am giving my opinion on criteria that from a very long historical list of hires certainly points to a much higher than average rate of hiring former players and associates.

 

Dont forget the fact that of all the coaching candidates available Green has by far the weakest resume in terms of coaching experience and track record developing impact NHL players.

 

I think that's an important thing to remember. Being an AHL coach is not the same as being an NHL coach. Just ask Dallas Eakins or even Willie Desjardins.

[wallstreetamigo]

I am pretty comfortable suggesting there is huge risk in hiring Green at this point. Both from a coaching and a business standpoint.

[oldnews]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

I'm not speaking for anyone.

 

'The Canucks are stuck on loyalty hires.'

 

That's exactly what you're doing.   They're nowhere near as simple as you make them out to be.

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

'The Canucks are stuck on loyalty hires.'

 

That's exactly what you're doing.   They're nowhere near as simple as you make them out to be.

Like I said, that's my opinion.

 

If I said, "In my opinion, the Canucks are stuck on loyalty hires" would it make you feel better?

[oldnews]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

Like I said, that's my opinion.

 

If I said, "In my opinion, the Canucks are stuck on loyalty hires" would it make you feel better?

 

7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 there is huge risk in hiring Green at this point. Both from a coaching and a business standpoint.

this is your opinion - which is distinct from where you also pretend to speak for Canucks management motivation and reasoning, as if you have any idea what they are.

 

Where you pretend to foretell and reduce the decision Benning will make to a mere loyalty hire - that's a pretentious attempt to reduce and speak for someone else.  Call it what you want.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

this is your opinion - which is distinct from where you also pretend to speak for Canucks management motivation and reasoning, as if you have any idea what they are.

 

Where you pretend to foretell and reduce the decision Benning will make to a mere loyalty hire - that's a pretentious attempt to reduce and speak for someone else.  Call it what you want.

No it's an opinion based on the onservation that other than the fact that he is our AHL coach there is really nothing about his coaching experience or track record that screams out "best possible candidate for the job"