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

[Report] Canucks fire Willie Desjardins


-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

Feel bad For Willie.  Don't think he was as bad as some people thought.  Not sure any coach is going to change the standings too much, however I hope the next coach is a little more offensively inclined.  Just from an exciting game point of view.  I would rather watch the team lose 3-5 then 1-2. 

 

Good Luck Willie in whatever you do next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, milk and honey said:

Last job though was 2000-2001 in Calgary. Before that he made the playoffs with phoenix.

 

He is hella good with young players but he is 63years old so a bit old I guess.

 

Not a fan of Crow just yet. In 2-3years I would defo consider him tho.

Hay was terrible in Calgary and just like Willie, he made the playoffs 'that one time'. No coach is a guarantee but Crawford wouldn't be breaking ground by going back to a previous team. Its an old example, but he took a bunch of youngsters in Quebec and turned them into something special (with help from a legendary goalie after they moved to Colorado)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I never backtracked once.

 

Just because you don't understand the difference between ice-time and actual production does not mean I backtracked.

 

Sutter has been deployed like a #1 C here at times, does that make him a true #1 C?

 

Give me a break.

I applaud you for trying to bring some sense into Canucks fans.

 

I haven't posted for years but this thread has been so cancerous I had to come out of retirement.

 

Number one problem outside of management/ownership, is the fans that blindly support this management group no matter what. This management team has set the bar so low and fed the sheep with baseless statements to essentially brainwash the fanbase. 

 

I applaud you for seeing through this, but it's just a waste of your time trying to explain the truth.  There will still be fans that support the Gudbranson trade(paying 2 late firsts for a bottom pairing "tough, pushback, traditional" dman is a travesty), and will not change their minds no matter what. The thing that's most disappointing for me is that you have experienced, knowledgeable posters who still blindly support management and it really is just pathetic.

 

Benning's best moves have generated minor surpluses, whereas he has no shortage of terrible moves resulting in negative impact.  That's why we are a 29th team despite the high cap number. There are still people who will say Benning has done a great job... 2 years of being a CAP team resulting in 2 BOTTOM FIVE finishes.  The Canucks are the anti-moneyball; overpay bad players and neglect acquiring impactful players.  Benning's been nothing short of terrible outside of this TDL.


If we traded Vrbata and Hamhuis last year we might tanked harder and landed a Matthews/Laine. Let that sink in, you sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

Hay was terrible in Calgary and just like Willie, he made the playoffs 'that one time'. No coach is a guarantee but Crawford wouldn't be breaking ground by going back to a previous team. Its an old example, but he took a bunch of youngsters in Quebec and turned them into something special (with help from a legendary goalie after they moved to Colorado)

 
 

Didn't watch Calgary that season. 

 

Fair points.

 

did JB and Marc ever play with eachother?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Giordano put up 15 points in 48 games when he was 23 years-old in his first NHL season. That's more points than Gudbranson has ever put up in a full season.

 

And Kronwall was developed in the Detroit system normally. He entered the NHL a little late but they wanted him to learn the North American game in the AHL first.

 

Neither of these guys had almost 350+ before breaking out in the NHL like Gudbranson does. These two examples you've given do not fit whatsoever.

You seem to reaching quite far with your points. We are not hoping that Gudbranson comes out as a big point producer, so I don't know what your first point is even trying to make? And you have nothing on Kronwall, just stating "because its Detroit." The amount games Gudbranson has played because he jumped into the league early is not even that relevant to a discussion about defensemen making a significant jump in their later 20s. 

 

Also, Mark Streit and Brent Burns. Burns while obviously being a fairly good defensemen prior to his later 20s has made significant jump during that time becoming twice as valuable as he was previously. Ya know, the point you are trying to make that defensemen don't progress significantly in their later 20s... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NewbieCanuckFan said:

heh, except with goalies (Crawford) unless you Patrick Roy or Dan Cloutier.

Cloutier set team win records in those days, and he was quite good in the regular season. As for Roy, are you suggesting he should have benched Patrick Roy in favour of guys like Fiset or Billington?

 

If you gonna criticize Crow, at least bring up Nagano...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnTavares said:

I applaud you for trying to bring some sense into Canucks fans.

 

I haven't posted for years but this thread has been so cancerous I had to come out of retirement.

 

Number one problem outside of management/ownership, is the fans that blindly support this management group no matter what. This management team has set the bar so low and fed the sheep with baseless statements to essentially brainwash the fanbase. 

 

I applaud you for seeing through this, but it's just a waste of your time trying to explain the truth.  There will still be fans that support the Gudbranson trade(paying 2 late firsts for a bottom pairing "tough, pushback, traditional" dman is a travesty), and will not change their minds no matter what. The thing that's most disappointing for me is that you have experienced, knowledgeable posters who still blindly support management and it really is just pathetic.

 

Benning's best moves have generated minor surpluses, whereas he has no shortage of terrible moves resulting in negative impact.  That's why we are a 29th team despite the high cap number. There are still people who will say Benning has done a great job... 2 years of being a CAP team resulting in 2 BOTTOM FIVE finishes.  The Canucks are the anti-moneyball; overpay bad players and neglect acquiring impactful players.  Benning's been nothing short of terrible outside of this TDL.


If we traded Vrbata and Hamhuis last year we might tanked harder and landed a Matthews/Laine. Let that sink in, you sheep.

Hamhuis gave an impossible list and Vrbata was so lazy no contending team in their right might would want to bring him in due the attitude issues on top of the terrible play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

Hay was terrible in Calgary and just like Willie, he made the playoffs 'that one time'. No coach is a guarantee but Crawford wouldn't be breaking ground by going back to a previous team. Its an old example, but he took a bunch of youngsters in Quebec and turned them into something special (with help from a legendary goalie after they moved to Colorado)

My guess is that Crawford is seen as too old school 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

Hamhuis gave an impossible list and Vrbata was so lazy no contending team in their right might would want to bring him in due the attitude issues on top of the terrible play. 

Impossible list being Chicago and Dallas?

 

If Canucks acted faster, they could have made a deal with either team.

 

Yet they took their sweet old time eating Donuts and watching other teams make deals first.  Don't be a sheep and accept what the media gives you.  You're the epitome of the sheep fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, oldnews said:

No, not really.  In industry, a promotion means moving up into a new role, generally with new responsibilities, larger in scope - a different, higher position.

 

Green isn't moving from VP Marketing to President or whatever.  He'd be moving from head coach to head coach.

 

If you want a more accurate analogy, it would be a corporation bringing in a new CEO, who has experience as a CEO elsewhere.

 

And in the end none of this means a thing - it's mere abstraction.

 

Green's already a head coach.  The 'promotion' imo is different than in business.

 

I think it's more a hybrid of both. Coaching at the NHL level, much like playing at the NHL level, is a definite step up in terms of what it takes to be successful.

 

The focus in the AHL is also a bit different in most cases. Plus where the NHL team is at in their cycle and circumstances likely play a role too. 

 

Being a successful head coach in the AHL doesn't automatically mean you will automatically be prepared to be a successful head coach in the NHL. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JohnTavares said:

Impossible list being Chicago and Dallas?

 

If Canucks acted faster, they could have made a deal with either team.

 

Yet they took their sweet old time eating Donuts and watching other teams make deals first.  Don't be a sheep and accept what the media gives you.  You're the epitome of the sheep fan.

Dallas made a deal for Russell who they liked better (after giving an insultingly lowball offer) and Chicago made other moves.  It happens and we weren't the only seller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

Dallas made a deal for Russell who they liked better (after giving an insultingly lowball offer) and Chicago made other moves.  It happens and we weren't the only seller.

SHeeeeeppppppppppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, milk and honey said:

what does he even do?

 

Well, I'm not sure exactly... he was supposed to be our director of amateur scouting from 2000-2012 (great draft years for this franchise), and then took a back seat to Eric Crawford while Canucks killed it at the draft table for another couple years, and now he's back listed as director of amateur scouting. 

 

So, to sum it all up...I have no idea?  Which is super ironic bc that's what Ron tells the GM every draft day, when asked who they should select in round one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, King Heffy said:

Dallas made a deal for Russell who they liked better (after giving an insultingly lowball offer) and Chicago got tired of waiting and made other moves. 

I see a spoon.  I see your mouth. I see Jim Benning and Trevor Linden holding that spoon.

 

Nobody knows what went down behind-the-scenes.  What we do know, is that Hamhuis gave us 2 contenders to go to. And we couldn't even get a third/fourth round pick for him. And because were in a Willie D thread, it's not a try league, it's a get it done league.

 

JB and co. did not get it done. Period. Incoming pathetic excuses and refusal to accept blame and take accountability cooked by the media, fed to the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, J.R. said:

You guys are hilarious...bunch of vultures :lol:

It will be interesting to visit this thread next season. Assuming that the Canucks hire one of the various popular choices for head coach, and the team still has as bad a year as some suggesting (is inevitable), who will be their fall guy at that time? Linden? Benning? Ownership? Bettman? The coach?

 

                                                regards,  G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -SN- unfeatured and unpinned this topic

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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