How 'bout we talk coaching candidates here?

[Duck Off]

if murray doesn't go with eakins he'll probably hire alain vigneault

I may be in the minority’s but Vigneault is probably my top choice.

 

[Doothpick]

I may be in the minority’s but Vigneault is probably my top choice.

I actually forgot he's still available, I guess I was sure he would've already found him another HC position. Vigneault has his faults, but definitely one of the better coaches in the game and I think he'd be a good fit here.

 

[Bender66]

I may be in the minority’s but Vigneault is probably my top choice.

Vigneault is terrible.

Just say no to tired old re-treads.

 

[Terry Yake]

might as well just hire ken hitchcock

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

I think what could make a lot of sense is if Bob hired Eakins but also brought in Gronborg as an assistant. It gives Gronborg a chance to get his feet wet in NA and be available to step in if Eakins falters. If Eakins becomes the next Babcock then great. If not, plan B is already here.

 

[Sean Garrity]

Leave Eakins in SD for the rest of the season.

 

[LuGBuG]

Obvious answer is keep GMHCBM.... hes never even had a goal against in his coaching career.

 

[Getzmonster]

I have a hard time seeing Bob stick this out another twenty-something games. I think he'll stick around for a few more then hand it off to his assistants once he feels they have a good handle on things. He'll get a read on things, that's all he's after, and be back in the booth.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I think what could make a lot of sense is if Bob hired Eakins but also brought in Gronborg as an assistant. It gives Gronborg a chance to get his feet wet in NA and be available to step in if Eakins falters. If Eakins becomes the next Babcock then great. If not, plan B is already here.

Gronberg might have to do that if he wants an NHL job, with how risk adverse hockey is it wouldn't surprise me if most teams were very scared of hiring him now. It's one thing to come from overseas but being a national team coach and not a professional team coach is another completely.

Most of all I hope Bob stops hiring assistants for his coaches. Let the next coach fill out his own staff, even if it means missing out on a guy like Gronberg or whoever else.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

Bob is old school GM in the way Randy was old school coach. I expect that will bite us in the ass at some point, just not sure when. Things change, the league changes, players change, society changes, playing styles change. You don't have to always be on the leading edge, but at some point you have to realize it's time to put some toes in the water. It's scary that he admitted after a few days of practice the need to find a coach who could communicate better with young players. As close as he is to the team, he never saw that there was a communication problem between Randy and the young players?

I agree he should let his coach hire their own assistants but doubt he will.

 

[Duck Off]

Vigneault is terrible.

Just say no to tired old re-treads.

If you don't want Vigneault, that's fine. I realize I'm in the minority and admitted it. However I find it odd that people can clamor for Eakins but call Alain "terrible". I realize that this is HF and more often than not "the unknown" is always better than the known commodity, but let's keep it in perspective. Gronborg is my hope if we go "new blood", but he's far from a slam dunk. In fact, I'd say he's a lot riskier of a higher than someone like Vigneault or Q. I'm not opposed to this, but the HF motto where potential over everything is constantly overblown. I'd be thrilled with Gronborg, but I find him and Eakins a lot riskier than someone like Vigneault, especially Eakins. He's much further down my list than most peoples here.

 

[MMC]

If you don't want Vigneault, that's fine. I realize I'm in the minority and admitted it. However I find it odd that people can clamor for Eakins but call Alain "terrible". I realize that this is HF and more often than not "the unknown" is always better than the known commodity, but let's keep it in perspective. Gronborg is my hope if we go "new blood", but he's far from a slam dunk. In fact, I'd say he's a lot riskier of a higher than someone like Vigneault or Q. I'm not opposed to this, but the HF motto where potential over everything is constantly overblown. I'd be thrilled with Gronborg, but I find him and Eakins a lot riskier than someone like Vigneault, especially Eakins. He's much further down my list than most peoples here.

Vigneault is another Carlyle. No clue how to coach the modern game. Would be one of the worst things the team could do

 

[Duck Off]

Vigneault is another Carlyle. No clue how to coach the modern game. Would be one of the worst things the team could do

Fair enough. I still don’t understand how some can feel much more confident in a coach who’s never coached in the nhl (gronborg) or a coach who’s had 1 god awful tenure in the nhl though. Yes I realize the train wreck Edmonton was (is), and again I’m not against Gronborg at all (he’s my 1A), but I don’t get the “hell no” to proven coaches with a strong track record.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Vigneault is another Carlyle. No clue how to coach the modern game. Would be one of the worst things the team could do

The Carlyle can't coach the "modern game" takes were bad, but they're even worse for Vigneault. Like, what is it about him that's ill-suited to the "modern game"?

 

[DigiDuck]

Personally I'd prefer if Bob actually think about the way he wants the roster to look before making this decision - Are we going to start the youth movement? Does he want to remain status quo and tweak what he can for decent assets the next couple years? Because let's be real, there's no way Bob even considered other candidates in 2016. I'd wager it's highly unlikely he did anyways.

The problem I have with a guy like Vigneault is his success came when he took over established good teams, rather than build them up through a transitional time. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind a guy with his track record as well, but is he right for a re-tooling phase? My boss is a huge Rangers fan and he definitely would not endorse Vigneault if we're going the young route. I think that's the draw of an Eakins or Gronborg, they might feel like they have something to prove and might be more fluid in their coaching style whereas a Q/AV/Yeo/Dineen/etc are more set in their ways which of course is a roll of the dice.

Then again...it's all a roll of the dice!

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Fair enough. I still don’t understand how some can feel much more confident in a coach who’s never coached in the nhl (gronborg) or a coach who’s had 1 god awful tenure in the nhl though. Yes I realize the train wreck Edmonton was (is), and again I’m not against Gronborg at all (he’s my 1A), but I don’t get the “hell no” to proven coaches with a strong track record.

There's long been this mentality, in all sports really, that recycled coaches are automatically bad, and that probably goes double for a place like HF where potential is valued above all else. Probably has something to do with a guy getting fired, where the perception is that he's failed. That's why a coach like Babcock, who's never been fired, was so highly coveted among fans, or like how we got excited for someone like Boudreau where you could rationalize the firing a bit.

And it's often dumb. I remember Hawks fans being pissed they hired Quenneville, same with the Kings and Sutter, same with the Bruins and Julien, and a bunch of others that have been successful but didnt win a cup.

I guess its uninspiring, and I suppose that's why I wouldn't prefer Vigneault but I wouldnt at all be mad if they hired him. I also doubt they do but you never know.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Personally I'd prefer if Bob actually think about the way he wants the roster to look before making this decision - Are we going to start the youth movement? Does he want to remain status quo and tweak what he can for decent assets the next couple years? Because let's be real, there's no way Bob even considered other candidates in 2016. I'd wager it's highly unlikely he did anyways.

The problem I have with a guy like Vigneault is his success came when he took over established good teams, rather than build them up through a transitional time. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind a guy with his track record as well, but is he right for a re-tooling phase? My boss is a huge Rangers fan and he definitely would not endorse Vigneault if we're going the young route. I think that's the draw of an Eakins or Gronborg, they might feel like they have something to prove and might be more fluid in their coaching style whereas a Q/AV/Yeo/Dineen/etc are more set in their ways which of course is a roll of the dice.

Then again...it's all a roll of the dice!

That might be true of Vigneault and the Rangers but it's absolutely not of Vigneault and the Canucks. They missed the playoffs the year before he took over and they went from an ok team being carried by Luongo to one of the league's elite that people thought was held back by Lou.

 

[DigiDuck]

That might be true of Vigneault and the Rangers but it's absolutely not of Vigneault and the Canucks. They missed the playoffs the year before he took over and they went from an ok team being carried by Luongo to one of the league's elite that people thought was held back by Lou.

Aye yeah, I meant to imply that their core (Sedins/Kesler/Burrows/Edler/Bieksa) was already there and waiting to break out when he took over, not that they were one of the good teams in the league. But I forgot they still had guys like Naslund and Morrison post-lockout so yeah, kinda throws half my argument out the window.

 

[Anaheim4ever]

Aye yeah, I meant to imply that their core (Sedins/Kesler/Burrows/Edler/Bieksa) was already there and waiting to break out when he took over, not that they were one of the good teams in the league. But I forgot they still had guys like Naslund and Morrison post-lockout so yeah, kinda throws half my argument out the window.

I remember that 2007 Ducks vs Canucks playoff series. Luongo was their team & the Sedins accounted for like 90% of their points it seemed like. Luongo played 76 games in the regular season that year.

Luongo faced like 60 shots in the series clinching game in double or triple OT, he was like Agent Smith in the Matix when they unload 1000000s of rounds at him that all miss, just relentless save after save after save until finally he got distracted by Rob Nieds elbowing Hansen in the head to free up a puck that he passes to scotty who fires a quickshot at the net that scores.

 

[Duck Off]

Personally I'd prefer if Bob actually think about the way he wants the roster to look before making this decision - Are we going to start the youth movement? Does he want to remain status quo and tweak what he can for decent assets the next couple years? Because let's be real, there's no way Bob even considered other candidates in 2016. I'd wager it's highly unlikely he did anyways.

The problem I have with a guy like Vigneault is his success came when he took over established good teams, rather than build them up through a transitional time. Ordinarily I wouldn't mind a guy with his track record as well, but is he right for a re-tooling phase? My boss is a huge Rangers fan and he definitely would not endorse Vigneault if we're going the young route. I think that's the draw of an Eakins or Gronborg, they might feel like they have something to prove and might be more fluid in their coaching style whereas a Q/AV/Yeo/Dineen/etc are more set in their ways which of course is a roll of the dice.

Then again...it's all a roll of the dice!

Like MDM said, his time with the Canucks is a bit different, but overall this is a solid post. I don’t disagree with much of what you’re saying. It’s a good point about what the team is going to do. We’ll have more direction after the deadline but I don’t think the team is going to contain as much youth as some (members here and the media) believe. I think Eaves and one of Silf/Rico is gone next season. Despite our desires, Kesler isn’t going anywhere. Theres just not going to be as much room for youth as many believe imo.

 

[DigiDuck]

Like MDM said, his time with the Canucks is a bit different, but overall this is a solid post. I don’t disagree with much of what you’re saying. It’s a good point about what the team is going to do. We’ll have more direction after the deadline but I don’t think the team is going to contain as much youth as some (members here and the media) believe. I think Eaves and one of Silf/Rico is gone next season. Despite our desires, Kesler isn’t going anywhere. Theres just not going to be as much room for youth as many believe imo.

Yeah, that's really what I'm trying to get at. I'd be fine with one of these re-tread guys so long as we equip the roster with the right personnel for him. Or vice-versa with one of the "new" coaches. Like if they're planning to move forward with a roster that looked like how we began this year, go with Eakins. But if there's little difference from how we're currently constructed (I suspect this will be the case as well), then yeah, I don't mind seeing if AV has some magic left in him.

 

[Static]

Really good break down.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

Really good break down.

Definitely great, but one throwaway line I wanted to touch on:

The obvious topics can range from hard bike rides, celery and carrots instead of donuts,

Has anyone else noticed that this is one of the more oft-repeated stories about Eakins and is held as a shining example of why he is such a bad coach despite it having nothing to do with coaching? It kind of gives me the impression that the media was so outraged over this that their profiles might not be the most fair and accurate.

 

[Static]

Anything that comes out of Edmonton is neither fair nor accurate.

 

[Dr Johnny Fever]

That is a really rock solid article by JST. But I like pretty much everything he writes.

The comments about coaching players individually and the examples of his quickly making in-game changes are really exciting things to hear. When you factor in his experience with the organization and many of the current and future Ducks, it's hard not to think he would be a very good choice. I know Bob needs to do his due diligence, but this article sure makes me want to see Eakins get the job. He sounds like a great fit.