[Report] Canucks fire Rachel Doerrie

[canuck73_3]

42 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Pictures speak a thousand words, but her tweets and podcasts say more than that. It is unfair to say she doesn't know anything, yet her personality (whether or not it's her online persona remains to be seen) is being questioned. Her unsubstantiated hot takes about Luke Hughes, which make her seem like she's an insider, mixed in with her opinions about Miller, Pettersson, and much more show that she has a lot of growing up to do.

 

Even if she was good at the coaching level, someone didn't put her in a position to succeed, evidently. Part of that responsibility falls on someone else's shoulders.

 

In all honesty though, she will always have "hot takes". There is a time and place to do it, but not when you are holding a professional job where you are expected to hold professional standards. Her claims (which she didn't elaborate on) suggest that Luke Hughes was some kind of cancer. She is not a tabloid journalist, so it is highly inappropriate to comment on stuff like this. Yet the Canucks hired her anyway.

Your need to validate Benning is tired af give it a rest, no one cares. Literally no one. 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Pictures speak a thousand words, but her tweets and podcasts say more than that. It is unfair to say she doesn't know anything, yet her personality (whether or not it's her online persona remains to be seen) is being questioned. Her unsubstantiated hot takes about Luke Hughes, which make her seem like she's an insider, mixed in with her opinions about Miller, Pettersson, and much more show that she has a lot of growing up to do.

 

Even if she was good at the coaching level, someone didn't put her in a position to succeed, evidently. Part of that responsibility falls on someone else's shoulders.

 

In all honesty though, she will always have "hot takes". There is a time and place to do it, but not when you are holding a professional job where you are expected to hold professional standards. Her claims (which she didn't elaborate on) suggest that Luke Hughes was some kind of cancer. She is not a tabloid journalist, so it is highly inappropriate to comment on stuff like this. Yet the Canucks hired her anyway.

I dunno. I’m an old man who doesn’t really do social media, so I’ll likely never “get it.”

 

But I think if you did a deep dive online on any bright, opinionated 20-something these days, especially one with a substantial social media presence and 100+ recorded podcasts, you’re bound to find a few “hot takes” and a handful of off-the-cuff remarks that might ruffle a few feathers, especially with over-sensitive hockey fans.

 

And if the Luke Hughes stuff was her greatest sin, it’s worth mentioning that she wasn’t even the only person with that “hot take.” It was definitely a bit of a fringe opinion, but I can remember hearing it from a few different people. 
 

Also, if offering up “unsubstantiated hot takes” about a prospect’s rumoured “character issues” is somehow disqualifying for employment in the hockey world, you’d probably have to fire a **** ton of amateur scouts and a sizeable chunk of the pundits/media who cover the NHL Draft.  
 

(Only half kidding here. I can’t count the number of times I’ve read or heard scouting reports that suggested a player might have “character issues,” with little to no actual evidence to back it up, beyond just rumours and “whispers.”)

 

I’m sure there are things Ms. Doerrie has said online that she wishes she could take back. But I don’t really buy into the idea that her “hot takes” are so problematic as to disqualify her from NHL employment, or call her character or professionalism into question.

 

What I’ve seen of Rachel Doerrie is a very talented young woman who’s accomplished a great deal in her young adult life. And one who’d amassed what I consider to be well-beyond the necessary qualifications for the job she briefly held in Vancouver. It’s anyone’s guess why she was let go. But when it comes to her social media persona, she seems to me to be merely someone who’s very representative of her generation. And I really doubt those podcasts and tweets (which were IIRC all made while she wasn’t employed in the NHL) were a factor in her dismissal.

Edited October 4, 2022 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME
Typos

[Dazzle]

4 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

I dunno. I’m an old man who doesn’t really do social media, so I’ll likely never “get it.”

 

But I think if you did a deep dive online on any bright, opinionated 20-something these days, especially one with a substantial social media presence and 100+ recorded podcasts, you’re bound to find a few “hot takes” and a handful of off-the-cuff remarks that might ruffle a few feathers, especially with over-sensitive hockey fans.

 

And if the Luke Hughes stuff was her greatest sin, it’s worth mentioning that she wasn’t even the only person with that “hot take.” It was definitely a bit of a fringe opinion, but I can remember hearing it from a few different people. 
 

Also, if offering up “unsubstantiated hot takes” about a prospect’s rumoured “character issues” is somehow disqualifying for employment in the hockey world, you’d probably have to fire a **** ton of amateur scouts and a sizeable chunk of the pundits/media who cover the NHL Draft.  
 

(Only half kidding here. I can’t count the number of times I’ve read or heard scouting reports that suggested a player might have “character issues,” with little to no actual evidence to back it up, beyond just rumours and “whispers.”)

 

I’m sure there are things Ms. Doerrie has said online that she wishes she could take back. But I don’t really buy into the idea that her “hot takes” are so problematic as to disqualify her from NHL employment, or call her character or professionalism into question.

 

What I’ve seen of Rachel Doerrie is a very talented young woman who’s accomplished a great deal in her young adult life. And one who’d amassed what I consider to be well-beyond the necessary qualifications for the job she briefly held in Vancouver. It’s anyone’s guess why she was let go. But when it comes to her social media persona, she seems to me to be merely someone who’s very representative of her generation. And I really doubt those podcasts and tweets (which were IIRC all made while she wasn’t employed in the NHL) were a factor in her dismissal.

It's simply the way she presented herself. She was the one who brought up Luke Hughes' character and how undraftable he was. Rumour has it that she was kicking and screaming when the Devils did it, and she pouted when she wasn't being listened to. For me, I consider this to be immature.

[AV.]

Very telling that the bulk of criticism aimed toward RD is centered around things/opinions said about the Canucks, or in one rare case, a sibling of a Canucks player.

It becomes more and more obvious that this gripe has nothing to do with the use of social media, professionalism, etc.  Just bitter, oversensitive Canucks fans that need to mature themselves, or at the very least, come to terms with the reality that the Canucks have been a shitshow for quite some time now.

[AV.]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

It's simply the way she presented herself. She was the one who brought up Luke Hughes' character and how undraftable he was. Rumour has it that she was kicking and screaming when the Devils did it, and she pouted when she wasn't being listened to. For me, I consider this to be immature.

Was she kicking and screaming from her home?  Or maybe a park?  Oh, oh, maybe she was right outside the Prudential Center?  Just wondering because she wasn't even employed by the Devils when they drafted Jack Hughes, let alone two years later when they drafted Luke.

Might want to find a new "rumour" guy.

[JM_]

9 hours ago, Dazzle said:

No, unfortunately, you are making excuses. They may be going through a hard time, as she acknowledged she has had a "mental health" situation that caused her to leave. Yet all we can observe is that she has a tendency to antagonize. It's something she doesn't realize, and so she essentially ends up making the same mistake, over and over. Hence we are seeing the red flags here.

 

Let's cut the crap. We have more than enough of a sample to see that her social media personality is bleeding into her daily life. THAT is a problem that she has to fix.

I thought mental health issues were things we were supposed to help others with?

 

not sure why you're so angry about her or keen to see her suffer for something. It's almost personal with you. 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

4 hours ago, Dazzle said:

It's simply the way she presented herself. She was the one who brought up Luke Hughes' character and how undraftable he was. Rumour has it that she was kicking and screaming when the Devils did it, and she pouted when she wasn't being listened to. For me, I consider this to be immature.

So sometime between December of 2017 and April of 2019, when Rachel Doerrie was actually employed by the New Jersey Devils, she was observed “kicking and screaming” about the team drafting Luke Hughes 4th overall in 2021? And then she “pouted” because she “wasn’t being listened to,” 2+ years before that pick would actually be made?

 

That’s some rumour. 

 

Or are we talking about the comments she made about Luke Hughes in 2021, some two years after her last day working for the Devils?

 

If that’s the case, I find it hard to imagine she was “kicking and screaming” or “pouting” because she wasn’t “being listened to.” I highly doubt the Devils were reading-in any of their former employees on the team’s draft preparations. Or that Doerrie, now two years removed from the organization, expected to have any sort of input on their draft selections. 

Edited October 4, 2022 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

3 hours ago, AV. said:

Was she kicking and screaming from her home?  Or maybe a park?  Oh, oh, maybe she was right outside the Prudential Center?  Just wondering because she wasn't even employed by the Devils when they drafted Jack Hughes, let alone two years later when they drafted Luke.

Might want to find a new "rumour" guy.

Oops, didn’t see your post when I wrote mine (above), and basically repeated what you’ve said here.

 

Quite the rumour. 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

 

And if anyone wants to say, “sure, but that was just at the USports level,” the first pic is of Rachel working on the ice with the Toronto Maple Leafs at their development camp.

That was part of the Maple Leafs mentorship program where they bring in all the students from the school where Rachel got her sports diploma, isn't it?  Laurentian University. 

 

https://laurentian.ca/program/sports-administration/details

 

Let me know if you find anything more then the basic introductory statistics in that program.  I didn't see any intro calculus courses either, let alone higher level ones or vector calculus.  

 

As I said before, I want us to hire some PhD level people that have lots of experience in research.  Our analytics staff is lacking in this department compared to many other teams around the league.  

 

It's easier to teach hockey to mathematicians then to teach math to hockey players. 

[BureBurrito]

Hot take - what if Doerrie was the cause of the leak with Lou/NYI trade this draft ....gets a clear warning from upper management...

 

Then Mikheyev injury gets leaked/likes a comment about Aqua's court case/allegation...

 

(FIRED).... with or without cause.

Edited October 4, 2022 by BureBurrito

[tas]

37 minutes ago, BureBurrito said:

Hot take - what if Doerrie was the cause of the leak with Lou/NYI trade this draft ....gets a clear warning from upper management...

 

Then Mikheyev injury gets leaked/likes a comment about Aqua's court case/allegation...

 

(FIRED).... with or without cause.

what if she picked off jfk from the grassy knoll? what if she knows where jimmy hoffa rests eternally?

[DS4quality]

All I know is we haven't won a game since she left!

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

2 hours ago, DS4quality said:

All I know is we haven't won a game since she left!

The Canucks Curse: Dory’s Revenge

 

[Canucks_fo_life]

Man, let it go....

[Gurn]

3 hours ago, tas said:

what if she picked off jfk from the grassy knoll? what if she knows where jimmy hoffa rests eternally?

What if she was the pilot of an jet liner that ran out of fuel and hit a school full of bunnies?

 

[WalkWithElias]

What happens if she slept with a couple of the boys……

[Goal:thecup]

21 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

“Director of Advanced Performance.”

I might could take that job.

[JeremyCuddles]

11 minutes ago, WalkWithElias said:

What happens if she slept with a couple of the boys……

Can we lock this thread? It's getting stupid now.

 

Edit: Scratch that, it's been stupid. Now it's just getting flat out ridiculous.

Edited October 5, 2022 by N7Nucks

[StanleyCupOneDay]

Rachel Doerrie was eminently qualified to be hired by the Canucks for the position she held.

 

Rachel Doerrie had a bit of an abrasive social media presence.

 

Sometimes new hires that are qualified on paper for a job don’t work out in reality for whatever reason.

 

All can be true at the same time. This is just normal business world stuff that happens all the time each and every single day. Canucks fans are just starved for topics to talk about because the season hasn’t started yet.

Hopefully our new hire works out better.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, StanleyCupOneDay said:

Rachel Doerrie was eminently qualified to be hired by the Canucks for the position she held.

 

Rachel Doerrie had a bit of an abrasive social media presence.

 

Sometimes new hires that are qualified on paper for a job don’t work out in reality for whatever reason.

 

All can be true at the same time. This is just normal business world stuff that happens all the time each and every single day. Canucks fans are just starved for topics to talk about because the season hasn’t started yet.

Hopefully our new hire works out better.

Was she hired as an analytics person?