What hockey team was built solely through analytics? To date, I don't believe there's been a single team (including the Gillis-era Canucks -- we can start with Gillis' decision to rely on old clients {Demitra, Sundin and I think Hordichuk} as being an early example, but also point to the continued existence of Delorme {who is very much an old school 'meat and potatoes' guy} in the Canucks hierarchy as another example if you want to really press that point.
A lot of the criticisms towards Benning stems from him coming across as an anti-intellectual and a lot of things have become a shorthand on here. So yeah, Benning = dumb is lazy, but this is a message board and there are a lot of tired arguments that don't need to be retread.
That said, within the context of what you're arguing about, the problem some folks have on here is that Benning seems to really minimize analytics and other data while going with more old school approaches. I say minimize because there's a quote floating around out there where Benning says that they're a nice thing to have, but he seemed to equate it to having parsley on a steak -- nice to have, but not necessary for the meal (my paraphrasing, not his, just FYI.)
Old school approaches include things like 'gut feelings', 'eye tests', 'physicality',
the Art Donovan test , whether or not the guy is a Euro, etc.
Lots of folks view this approach as outdated, even if there are valid things to be looking for within that sort of context. You want to be impressed by a big guy with mobility or a smaller dude who has an ass like Martin St. Louis or a guy who is a sparkplug like Matt Cooke.
There is frustration with Canucks fans because the Canucks are seemingly getting burnt at every turn using this philosophy and approach, while teams who are placing more of an emphasis on analytics are doing better than the Canucks. It's especially contrasted when the Canucks did have a forward thinking GM who did make use of this type of data and there was such a huge philosophical shift in the front office that it was jarring.
Boeser looks promising. Demko looks promising. But Andrew Raycroft was a Calder winner and Cody Hodgson had 'future captain' written all over him. And after that, there's a pretty steep drop off, with the corpses of guys like Mackenzie Stewart, Linden Vey and Adam Clendening strewn about the bottom.
And just because there are 1 or 2 players looking like they have potential, it doesn't excuse the fact that Benning's batting far below .500 with his personnel moves and that is cause for concern. Moreso because he's touted as a 'master scout' or an excellent judge of talent or whatever he was billed as when coming to Vancouver.
It hasn't instilled a lot of confidence.
EDIT: Also, it should be noted that statistics are just that: numbers on a sheet. They can tell you things and provide you with insight you might not already have, but using statistics as the end-all, be-all is just as bad as taking the Benning approach and shunning said data. The ability to properly interpret data and pull the information you need from it is just as useful as having the knowledge and experience to be able to 'eye test' a guy (which is something hundreds of posters on these very boards do every day...how many times have folks asked for updates on the Comets from Utica Canuck by asking something like 'how did So and So look?')
It just seems right now the Canucks are way over on one end of the spectrum.
