Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Vin Tanner wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:41 am
Hartley was in Calgary before the GM got there so he inherited him. And Bill Peters is a bit of a unique situation. So Treliving had Gulatzan, the interim fella and now Sutter. SKYO thinks these GM’s should get 4 or 5 chances to get the coach right. Doesn’t usually happen like that especially when your team is 2/7 in playoff appearances and stumbling out of the gate in year 8.
SKYO wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 7:53 pm
Canucks gotta snatch up Julien before another team does.
Like Vin and Mëds said, they'd have to re-tool a decent portion of the lineup, and they're not exactly overflowing with those types of players in Abby.
While I can't say with 100% certainty in Vin's case, I am pretty sure neither of us were saying that was a reason NOT to fire and hire someone else.
Right, I interpreted your posts as it's something to keep in consideration with Julien as a candidate.
A look at the roster and there's only a few names I think would be problematic. We have too many midgets for sure, like 7 or 8 guys that are 5'10" or smaller. Hughes, Motte, Garland, and Hoglander, can stay. The rest would need to be replaced with bigger, scrappier, harder, players. Most of our top-6 fit.....honestly the only guys that I see not being a players that could thrive under a Julien-type system would be Pettersson and maybe Boeser. The former is too pouty and the latter maybe a bit too casual. But both might actually do well with that type of coach.
No doubt and in keeping those four, it's even more critical they have a few significantly larger, tougher players to balance thing out and a 6'8" Myers or a 6'4" Chiasson or Bailey just doesn't cut it. The way they've constructed the team is baffling to me and as you hint at in referencing a Julien-type system, the replacing of some players needs to occur regardless of who the next coach is.
Vin Tanner wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 10:41 am
Hartley was in Calgary before the GM got there so he inherited him. And Bill Peters is a bit of a unique situation. So Treliving had Gulatzan, the interim fella and now Sutter. SKYO thinks these GM’s should get 4 or 5 chances to get the coach right. Doesn’t usually happen like that especially when your team is 2/7 in playoff appearances and stumbling out of the gate in year 8.
These teams since 2013/14 are onto their 3rd head coach+, Benning should be able to get another coach.
Do all those teams have the same GM over that time period? Are all of those teams 2/7 in playoff appearances? Has any of those GM’s kept his gig after missing the post season so frequently?
“I don’t care what you and some other poster were talking about”
Zedlee wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:32 am
Yes. Same with Benning (he should have been gone a long time ago).
How Acquilini can stick with Benning this long is just beyond me. "Jim has a plan" supposedly. What a friggin mess...
A handful of bounces their way over these 9 games and theyre rocking a 6-3 record and nobody is criticizing anything though.
They are close Z
We don’t want to be a team that needs bounces to win. The Habs did that all the way to the finals last year…..now the bounces are gone and look where they are.
Zedlee wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:32 am
Yes. Same with Benning (he should have been gone a long time ago).
How Acquilini can stick with Benning this long is just beyond me. "Jim has a plan" supposedly. What a friggin mess...
A handful of bounces their way over these 9 games and theyre rocking a 6-3 record and nobody is criticizing anything though.
They are close Z
Maybe. The forwards have had terrible luck...I would expect that has to change eventually.
But they are pretty bad 5 on 5 and are giving up too many shots.
It's just so tiring being a Canucks fan...
Zedlee wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:32 am
Yes. Same with Benning (he should have been gone a long time ago).
How Acquilini can stick with Benning this long is just beyond me. "Jim has a plan" supposedly. What a friggin mess...
A handful of bounces their way over these 9 games and theyre rocking a 6-3 record and nobody is criticizing anything though.
They are close Z
Maybe. The forwards have had terrible luck...I would expect that has to change eventually.
But they are pretty bad 5 on 5 and are giving up too many shots.
It's just so tiring being a Canucks fan...
I think the road trip was more or less a successful showing. Not perfect but they got some tough wins in with the one stinker in Buffalo.
The 3 home games have all been close with the Minny game being their worst showing of the 3. You can maybe give them a Mulligan due to first game back but it was a poor showing.
The Philly and Edmonton games they played sound hockey and had terrible luck. Poor starts continue to plague but they aren't getting run out of dodge by any stretch.
We all expect more, we all need more but they have taken strides. I listened to the post game show out of Edmonton and the consensus is they snuck out Van with an undeserved win. every interview I heard had them complimentary towards Vans game and how they are a damn good team. It was more than just bullshit too. The boys did a helluva job on maybe the best team in the league and are unfortunate they couldn't get one earlier.
No the nux aren't the best team yet but they're digging deep here and pushing play. I'm not ready to give up on them
I'm prepared to give Benning a bit of Mulligan. He inherited a mess with no trade contracts, and unfortunately contracts for the Sedins that ran well past their best before dates, with no draft picks ready to step in save for Horvat. Linden was stuck on past glory and insisted that the Sedins were owed another shot at the cup and was definitely pulling in a different direction than Benning. As I recall one day Benning would say one thing e.g. we are exploring the possibility of moving some of our veteran players and the next Linden would announce the team was not going to ask any players with NTC's to waive, which was pretty much all the veteran players. Said changes did not occur with any regularity until after Linden's departure. Add to that Kesler's public announcement that he would only waive his NTC for Anaheim and what you have is 3 to 4 lost years.
Where I do have problems is the apparent disconnect between Benning and Green. Benning has stated that the goal is to get bigger and faster, and while the Canucks have certainly gotten faster, they are still not particularly physical, and that doesn't fit with playoff hockey. I don't understand Green stating that it takes a lot for a forward to stand in front of the net, and yet he cuts two young players who were willing to do just that in MacEwan and Gadjovich. Somehow I can't see them losing a player like Chiasson on waivers, who is present at camp by virtue of a PTO which is in itself a fairly good indication that he probably won't get claimed if waived, and even if he is at least one or both of the former remain. While I understand not interfering with a coaches lineup decisions surely some discussion is necessary when those decisions seem to contradict what management has stated as their perceived direction for the team ie bigger and faster.
I watched part of a Kraken game and asked myself why we are not any better at this point. Give her ten more games and if the clusterfuck continues, make the change.
Arbour wrote: ↑Tue Nov 02, 2021 1:47 pm
I'm prepared to give Benning a bit of Mulligan. He inherited a mess with no trade contracts, and unfortunately contracts for the Sedins that ran well past their best before dates, with no draft picks ready to step in save for Horvat. Linden was stuck on past glory and insisted that the Sedins were owed another shot at the cup and was definitely pulling in a different direction than Benning. As I recall one day Benning would say one thing e.g. we are exploring the possibility of moving some of our veteran players and the next Linden would announce the team was not going to ask any players with NTC's to waive, which was pretty much all the veteran players. Said changes did not occur with any regularity until after Linden's departure. Add to that Kesler's public announcement that he would only waive his NTC for Anaheim and what you have is 3 to 4 lost years.
Where I do have problems is the apparent disconnect between Benning and Green. Benning has stated that the goal is to get bigger and faster, and while the Canucks have certainly gotten faster, they are still not particularly physical, and that doesn't fit with playoff hockey. I don't understand Green stating that it takes a lot for a forward to stand in front of the net, and yet he cuts two young players who were willing to do just that in MacEwan and Gadjovich. Somehow I can't see them losing a player like Chiasson on waivers, who is present at camp by virtue of a PTO which is in itself a fairly good indication that he probably won't get claimed if waived, and even if he is at least one or both of the former remain. While I understand not interfering with a coaches lineup decisions surely some discussion is necessary when those decisions seem to contradict what management has stated as their perceived direction for the team ie bigger and faster.
For the most part I agree with this, but I'm a bit confused by the bold text. Benning is the one who built the roster, it's not Green who has gone and scooped up this many small players.
