I, for one, could agree with that.
Really interesting, though, how they could achieve roughly equal net ratings (from you and me, anyway) with completely different strengths, weaknesses, and styles.
It also seems to me that each was better suited for the phase of the Canucks competitive cycle in which he worked than the other would have been. If -- as is sometimes proposed as a measurement of what other people in the hockey world thought of their work -- either of them are ever GMs again, I would be entertained to see how Gillis engineered a rebuild, or what moves Benning made to try to take an already competitive team over the top.
With other franchises, of course.