News Article: Rollie Melanson not returning

[KeninsFan]

Well, there's the guy who called Rollie's departure a week ago before the media ever reported it, citing philosophical disagreements with management. Coming from a management team that has a history of getting rid of people that are good at their jobs, like Gilman and Crawford.

It's not like they're going to present it publicly as a fractious departure. And given the massive volume of **** coming from the franchise these days, doesn't exactly seem like the biggest leap to make.

But yeah. We could keep waiting for an "official report" citing "ineptitude at the top". Because those come out oh-so-often even when it's glaringly obvious it's the case.

Or there's common sense.

I was lurking earlier this week when that post came up.

I mean on one hand it could be coincidence...but the timing of the official release combined with the alleged unhappiness on Rollie's part (Lack being traded/Marky not getting enough games) points to problems in management.

If posters are waiting for an official report" citing "ineptitude at the top" that won't come out til they're fired. The last time Friedman reported something like that he got a phone call from someone in the Nucks org.

 

[Kickassguy]

Posts of the sort that assume the Melanson issue is more proof of management incompetence are what lead to justified accusations that some simply have an anti-Benning agenda.

Too early to assume anything, but if things play out the way they're being broadcast, it's not like a track record of getting rid of competent employees doesn't exist with this group.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. But perhaps sometimes it's better to live in denial.

 

[Wisp]

from what I understand, Melanson was never comfortable in Vancouver.

so I don't blame anyone.

but losing Melanson is a huge loss.

Franchise going down the crapper.

 

[DL44]

Too bad because Rollie is good at what he does. But there are actually other goalie coaches o7t there that are actually also good. Don't think there are a wide array of schools of thought in goaltending anymore...could be wrong but seems most follow one of a couple philosophies. Not worried that we won't be able to replace Rollie with an equally competent coach, but watch for falling sky nonetheless.

The bolded is the interesting point that needs to be examined....

It really seems like over the last decade, via info from Kevin Woodley via Goaltending Magazine etc, that there are key elements of goalie techniques that are required standards of practice nowadays...
It appears from the outside looking in that the areas in need of mastering are becoming more and more standard and widespread... with individual style variance tied to individual goalie physical attributes (size, quickness, lateral movement, etc...).

Goaltending coaching now appears to be cookie cutter... with the best coaches being the ones recognizing the flawed technique and focusing on improving and tweaking those areas for their clients.. thereby taking their clients to a notch higher in performance level.

Hell, every broadcast has an intermission analyst that breaks down goalie breakdowns and successes. We have a pretty good one on ours in Cory Hirsch that does just this very well on the fly.

Like you alternate... not worried at the moment..

 

[Free Edler]

from what I understand, Melanson was never comfortable in Vancouver.

Seems a bit odd to stay in a job for five years when you're not comfortable in the city and could easily move elsewhere.

 

[Lindgren]

Too early to assume anything, but if things play out the way they're being broadcast, it's not like a track record of getting rid of competent employees doesn't exist with this group.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. But perhaps sometimes it's better to live in denial.

Waiting for the evidence isn't living in denial. As you yourself say, it's too early to assume anything.

 

[arttk]

Do you have any information to support your claim that Rollie leaving has anything to do with the current management regime or are you just making **** up? Because if there is an ounce of evidence to support that Rollie leaving is due in any way to the current regime, it sure hasn't been posted in this thread. However, links have been provided that support that this is just the natural cycle of coaching tenures...no blame for anyone, Canucks wanted him back, Rollie felt it was time to move on.

Too bad because Rollie is good at what he does. But there are actually other goalie coaches o7t there that are actually also good. Don't think there are a wide array of schools of thought in goaltending anymore...could be wrong but seems most follow one of a couple philosophies. Not worried that we won't be able to replace Rollie with an equally competent coach, but watch for falling sky nonetheless.

This is what you are responding to.

Just look at his record, every goalie he has coached has become better.
Looks like you are the only one here making **** up.

I was talking about how good of a coach Rollie is and disputing his BS about how goalie coaches don't make a difference.

If you want to talk about reason why he is leaving, you can find another post to reply to.

 

[Wisp]

Seems a bit odd to stay in a job for five years when you're not comfortable in the city and could easily move elsewhere.

He was under contract - he could not easily move elsewhere. He got good results from the Canucks and they were motivated to keep him. He stayed for exactly the terms of his contract and is now moving on.

Further, there aren't many of these sorts of jobs open in the league. Believe it was Tony Gallagher who described him as pining for the Montreal job that he lost and was unlikely to ever get back. Cannot confirm that, though.

 

[DL44]

This is what you are responding to.



I was talking about how good of a coach Rollie is and disputing his BS about how goalie coaches don't make a difference.

If you want to talk about reason why he is leaving, you can find another post to reply to.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would think that... has anyone here actually stated that?
Or are ya being hyperbolic?

 

[VanJack]

I'm with some of the earlier posters....as an isolated incident, losing your goalie coach wouldn't be a big deal...but when you combine it with everybody from the team trainer, to the guys in the executive booth like Gilman, Henning and Crawford walking the plank, and suddenly that's a huge talent drain for a an organization that's being run by neophytes to begin with....have a bad feeling we're in for a few years of the Kevin Lowe-Crag McTavish dynasty in Edmonton.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Man our one and only strength left in the org, gone. Hope they find a capable replacement. Does benning have another son working in a totally unrelated field we can bring it to coach our goalies?

 

[arttk]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would think that... has anyone here actually stated that?
Or are ya being hyperbolic?

Read the last page.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Too early to assume anything, but if things play out the way they're being broadcast, it's not like a track record of getting rid of competent employees doesn't exist with this group.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. But perhaps sometimes it's better to live in denial.

Absolutely.

It is very basic reasoning.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Here's the roster of present goalie coaches...

Wow Sean Burke, Bob essensa, wade Flaherty, Johan hedberg. Lots of canucks on that list.

 

[coldsteel79]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would think that... has anyone here actually stated that?
Or are ya being hyperbolic?

Don't you know, me "downplaying" how awesome melanson is or stating that this isn't that big of a deal is me saying goalie coaches don't matter. This thread is like a scab

 

[RobertKron]

Wow Sean Burke, Bob essensa, wade Flaherty, Johan hedberg. Lots of canucks on that list.

Canucks went through a **** ton of goalies for a while there.

 

[Lindgren]

Absolutely.

It is very basic reasoning.

Nothing has happened yet. The reasoning isn't any more "basic" than the faulty reasoning that the Canucks had screwed up with cap space and wouldn't be able to sign Tryamkin.

 

[GetFocht]

it happens in this business, that's just the nature of the NHL. It's not like there's other good goalie coaches out there whether they're established or up and coming.

Alex Auld, Cloutier, or Ranford would be excellent choices

 

[Fat Tony]

Wow Sean Burke, Bob essensa, wade Flaherty, Johan hedberg. Lots of canucks on that list.

Wow, other teams have goalie coaches?! When Benning gets the boot, I'll post a list of teams that have GMs. That should help ease things.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Nothing has happened yet. The reasoning isn't any more "basic" than the faulty reasoning that the Canucks had screwed up with cap space and wouldn't be able to sign Tryamkin.

Nobody said that. In fact, people went out of their way to say that they would surely find a way to bring Tram over. As usual, another strawman to bolster a point that isn't worth making.

It is in no way faulty to speculate on what occurred based on the information that we have. No "smoking gun" is ever going to be published that definitively tells us in fine details exactly what went down, so we are all left to speculate based on the information we have. If you don't like that, I suggest you cease posting because it's the best we will ever be able to do on any topic.

And it is very basic, in reasoning, to include, as part of the information that you have, previous actions and patterns of behavior made by the persons involved. Basic, rudimentary stuff.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Wow, other teams have goalie coaches?! When Benning gets the boot, I'll post a list of teams that have GMs. That should help ease things.

I don't ... ?

 

[DL44]

Don't you know, me "downplaying" how awesome melanson is or stating that this isn't that big of a deal is me saying goalie coaches don't matter. This thread is like a scab

That's what it appears.

 

[Lindgren]

Nobody said that. In fact, people went out of their way to say that they would surely find a way to bring Tram over. As usual, another strawman to bolster a point that isn't worth making.

It is in no way faulty to speculate on what occurred based on the information that we have. No "smoking gun" is ever going to be published that definitively tells us in fine details exactly what went down, so we are all left to speculate based on the information we have. If you don't like that, I suggest you cease posting because it's the best we will ever be able to do on any topic.

And it is very basic, in reasoning, to include, as part of the information that you have, previous actions and patterns of behavior made by the persons involved. Basic, rudimentary stuff.

You're incorrect. Numbers of posters did exactly as I summarized: criticized Benning for something that hadn't happened yet and did not in fact happen.

I disagree with you and several other posters in this thread. I'll keep posting as I choose. If you can't bear disagreement, take your own advice and stop posting.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Here's the roster of present goalie coaches...

We should hire Jim Corsi. He could double as our goalie coach and analytics department.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

You're incorrect. Numbers of posters did exactly as I summarized: criticized Benning for something that hadn't happened yet and did not in fact happen.

I disagree with you and several other posters in this thread. I'll keep posting as I choose. If you can't bear disagreement, take your own advice and stop posting.

You aren't disagreeing. You are accusing others of malice with no evidence and tilting at windmills. That isn't arguing, or at least it's not arguing in good faith.

There were concerns that they were having trouble signing him, more than they should, but nobody actually claimed they flat-out wouldn't be able to sign him. Here's a link to the relevant discussion.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2023329&page=5

And in any case, it's absolutely irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is speculation on why Rollie Melanson is not returning to the Canucks.

But please, keep on posting about absolutely irrelevant discussions in order to ostracize people who don't exist for saying things that were never said, like Family Guy cutaways. That is totally conducive to quality discussion!