-Vintage Canuck- Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 The Canucks will interview former Stars coach Glen Gulutzan. LA Kings assistant John Stevens could get an interview. Dallas Eakins may get a second interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brocklovich Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 None that we know about at this point. It doesn't mean they haven't spoken with any. I don't think Ruff is a better choice than Eakins or Stevens personally, and there's something to be said about fresh ideas versus a coach that had been with the same team for so long it included pre-lockout (the first one) hockey. I'm not a fan of Torts either, but if you have any other veteran suggestions that are available, I'd be interested see them. You do realize he discusses major decisions with the management group, including the owners? He still gets final say, but they're on board with the direction and plan he has for the Canucks. I don't have any real new veteran coaches just the ones that have been bantered about - Ruff, Tortorella & Tippett - I am not a huge fan of Tippett as I think he would really emphasize the defensive aspect of the game and take us back to what we were in 06 - 07. Tortorella would just be amusing for how he deals with the media but he would have to resort to being more like the Tampa Bay coach that was more about offence and attacking than what we saw in NYR with blocking every shot and trying to win 2-1, 1-0 each game. I know lots of people don't want Ruff but I think he fits what we want out of this team which is an up tempo attacking style and up until Buffalo owners decided to do a rebuild Buffalo was a pretty good offensive team. I think what happened to him was his voice got stale and some of his top performers ended up getting traded so they thought better to bring in an AHL coach who had some experience with the youngsters from their farm club and younger players in general. I highly doubt Guy Boucher comes here as an assistant but I do wonder if Eakins would consider being an associate coach at the NHL level (might be considered a step back I suppose) if a guy like Ruff was at the helm? He would be getting NHL experience & would have a veteran coach to deflect problems from him allowing him to work with our prospects but I guess this would be a huge undertaking and he will most likely end up as a headcoach somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Eakins with Boucher handling the defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Who is Markus Naslunds agent these days? Leta hire him as head coach. Actually no ... lets hire nazzys hair dresser as our head coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks fan in chicago Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Who's John Stevens and why does everybody want him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I am interested to hear why a veteran coach would automatically be less of a fit with a veteran core group of players. I mean, a young coach with no NHL coaching experience (Eakins) and one that seemingly had difficulty controlling a veteran locker room previously (Stevens) could very well get pushed around by a core group that is used to running the show like the Canucks have. Well clearly we are trading all of our veteran players this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Just because they apparently haven't interviewed any veteran coaches yet, doesn't mean they won't and/or don't plan to. A lot of conclusion jumping here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Who's John Stevens and why does everybody want him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stevens_(ice_hockey) He was head coach of the Flyers for two seasons. In 06/07 he led the team to a franchise worse record, but the year after, led them to an impressive run to the conference finals. He was fired with an above .500 winning percentage the year after. He is currently an assistant with the Kings, and has been since 2010. So he has won a Cup and he has been a head coach in the NHL. It is also key to note that he coached the Philadelphia Phantoms to a Calder Cup and made the playoffs 4/6 times. So he has also won a championship as a head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I am interested to hear why a veteran coach would automatically be less of a fit with a veteran core group of players. I mean, a young coach with no NHL coaching experience (Eakins) and one that seemingly had difficulty controlling a veteran locker room previously (Stevens) could very well get pushed around by a core group that is used to running the show like the Canucks have. Well clearly we are trading all of our veteran players this year. If you look at the proposals forum, it certainly seems like that. But I never said a veteran coach would automatically be less of a fit, veteran core or not. I did say there's something to be said for fresh ideas a younger coach might provide versus a coach that has spent a significant amount of time coaching in the old NHL. My opinion is that Eakins or Stevens would have more of an impact than Ruff, so that holds as mch wieght as your opinion that Stevens would have trouble controlling our veterans or Eakins lack of NHL (head) coaching experience will be too much of a detriment. I don't have any real new veteran coaches just the ones that have been bantered about - Ruff, Tortorella & Tippett - I am not a huge fan of Tippett as I think he would really emphasize the defensive aspect of the game and take us back to what we were in 06 - 07. Tortorella would just be amusing for how he deals with the media but he would have to resort to being more like the Tampa Bay coach that was more about offence and attacking than what we saw in NYR with blocking every shot and trying to win 2-1, 1-0 each game. I know lots of people don't want Ruff but I think he fits what we want out of this team which is an up tempo attacking style and up until Buffalo owners decided to do a rebuild Buffalo was a pretty good offensive team. I think what happened to him was his voice got stale and some of his top performers ended up getting traded so they thought better to bring in an AHL coach who had some experience with the youngsters from their farm club and younger players in general. I highly doubt Guy Boucher comes here as an assistant but I do wonder if Eakins would consider being an associate coach at the NHL level (might be considered a step back I suppose) if a guy like Ruff was at the helm? He would be getting NHL experience & would have a veteran coach to deflect problems from him allowing him to work with our prospects but I guess this would be a huge undertaking and he will most likely end up as a headcoach somewhere Tippett is one I would go for, I just don't think he'll be available so it'd be a risk to try and wait until the end of June to see what he wants to do. He has coached from an offensive perspective before as well it just that his current position dictates a defensive style considering the resources he has. I could care less about Torts and his media interactions - I just want the team to win - but the distraction and potential for negative impact when we've already had that to a lesser extent here is just too much. The debate on what style he'd coach and how effective he'd be at either takes a back seat to the chemistry he would have (or lack) with the players. Ruff, well, he's coached defensive and offensively as well. I don't see the upside to him with player deployment in the new NHL as much as other options, and that's illustrated to a point when you consider Thomas Vanek and Steve Ott had nearly the same offensive zone start rates. Compare that to Henrik and Lapierre (or Malhotra when he was playing). Someone like Babcock is such a good coach because he never stops learning and is always open to adjusting depending on what the team needs. No one here, including myself, would bat an eye at hiring Babcock if he came available, but that doesn't mean all veteran coaches are automatically better than the rookies. Gulutzan might fit as a good assistant, but Eakins and Stevens have both been NHL coaches (assistant for Eakins) and then had opportunity since to gain experience and improve. Eakins has taken his NHL experience and turned it into a successful AHL head coaching run. Stevens has by many accounts done wonders with the Kings as an assistant after some good and bad as a head coach with Philly. They all have their merits, rookies and veterans alike, but it'll be something I'm sure Gillis and Co. look very hard into and assess before making any decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks fan in chicago Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 http://en.wikipedia....ns_(ice_hockey) He was head coach of the Flyers for two seasons. In 06/07 he led the team to a franchise worse record, but the year after, led them to an impressive run to the conference finals. He was fired with an above .500 winning percentage the year after. He is currently an assistant with the Kings, and has been since 2010. So he has won a Cup and he has been a head coach in the NHL. It is also key to note that he coached the Philadelphia Phantoms to a Calder Cup and made the playoffs 4/6 times. So he has also won a championship as a head coach. Appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 But I never said a veteran coach would automatically be less of a fit, veteran core or not. I did say there's something to be said for fresh ideas a younger coach might provide versus a coach that has spent a significant amount of time coaching in the old NHL. My opinion is that Eakins or Stevens would have more of an impact than Ruff, so that holds as mch wieght as your opinion that Stevens would have trouble controlling our veterans or Eakins lack of NHL (head) coaching experience will be too much of a detriment. That was my point. There is no way of knowing at this point whether a veteran coach like Ruff or a total newbie like Eakins are the best fit. The word so far is that Gillis has focused on young coaches with limited head coaching experience as his main candidates. That must be taken with a grain of salt of course. But I do think having such a narrow focus this early on is a mistake if that is indeed the case. I am simply hoping that some veteran guys are being at least talked to. I do not see either Arniel or Gulatzan as a good fit as the head coach with the roster we have. Stevens maybe but is he good cop to Sutter's bad cop in LA? Or does he have the ability to be bad cop himself - because this team needs a dose of that once in awhile. Same with Eakins. Convincing a prospect or a fringe NHL'er to work their ass off for what they get is infinitely easier than taking that approach with a veteran group that has had control of the room for a long time. Will they respect and listen to a guy who has never been an NHL head coach? Or will they know better about what they need like we heard from Bieksa recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Vanderhoek Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Thanks Av but it was time to move on and I couldnt stand the decision to start Schnieds over Lu in game 3,4. Even though i have the suspect that decision came from Gillis it's time for a new voice in the room. I'm happy Newell Brown is gone that guy turned our pp into a JOKE. Gillis, you should carry as much blame as AV for horrrible decisions and putting the team in a bad situation. You have 1 year to change things or you're next. That was the only coach who was supposed to be fired, we took the others for granted just like the good team playing in this city for the past several years. Gillis had to do somethin, sorry not a fan of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueberries Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I think any of those three (Eakins, Gulatzan, Arniel) will end up being a mistake with this core group of players. You cant say that about Eakins. He has the potential to be a really great coach and already is a great coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robongo Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 1 Tippett 2 Stevens 3 Eakins 4 Gulatzan 5, Arniel That seems to be the Canucks managements order of interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_fo_life Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Tippett would be a HUGE mistake, another defensive minded coach. Dallas Eakins is getting a second interview, and Stevens already woulda had an interview if it wasn't for the Kings making it to round 3. These two are the Canucks best options, and I wouldn't mind either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 WOOHOO! No more AV! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apples Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 WOOHOO! No more AV! Nice to see you back Bananas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik Kesler Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Tippett would be a HUGE mistake, another defensive minded coach. Dallas Eakins is getting a second interview, and Stevens already woulda had an interview if it wasn't for the Kings making it to round 3. These two are the Canucks best options, and I wouldn't mind either. I think Tippett would play a much more open game than he does in Phoenix. The biggest upside to Tippett is he is a master of developing young guys. Having said that, Stevens and Eakins also have good records with developing and playing young players. Stevens has done a masterful job with the young defensemen the King have, but I don't think developing young defensemen is as much of a concern here as developing the young forwards is for the post-Sedin era. I think with the particular group, Eakins is the guy for developing the young forwards since our defensemen seem to make the steps all by themselves (Tanev and Corrado, who saw THAT two years ago?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorevat Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 didn't wanna make a whole thread on this butwho do you guys think are solid assistant coaching candidates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Relfk Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 If the Pens get swept, do you think Bylsma will be fired? He could be a solid option for head coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.