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.
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.
Vigneault is terrible.I may be in the minority’s but Vigneault is probably my top choice.
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.
Vigneault is terrible.
Just say no to tired old re-treads.
Vigneault is another Carlyle. No clue how to coach the modern game. Would be one of the worst things the team could doIf 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
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Really good break down.
The obvious topics can range from hard bike rides, celery and carrots instead of donuts,