dlbalr Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Well, Wayne Gretzky was THE greatest player ever and he stunk out the joint as a coach. Now Roy is more qualified than Gretzky was; what I'm saying is that his 20 years of playing are completely irrelevant to the question of whether he'll make a good coach or GM. His only valid qualifications are his junior credentials. These are good, but it's quite a leap to infer that he must therefore make an awesome coach in the NHL, let alone coach + GM, a position that is widely agreed to be unsustainable in today's NHL even for experienced professionals. I wouldn't entirely discount his playing experience. Having been around the block, particularly in the Montreal media market, will give him a bit of an idea of what he's walking into. Would I hire him for that reason? Heck, no. But I wouldn't hire him right now anyway. It is something I'd check off in a checklist of criteria in determining the best guy for the job though; I'd rather have someone who has been in the NHL in some capacity over a career coach from the junior ranks...I'd just rather that NHL experience have some sort of coaching aspect to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Honestly, at the moment I'd prefer either: Coach: Vigneault GM: Roy or Coach: Roy GM: Bervegin Either way, Roy in this organization is important. He's unproven at an NHL level but every tangible Roy has I want in this organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Honestly, at the moment I'd prefer either: Coach: Vigneault GM: Roy or Coach: Roy GM: Bervegin Either way, Roy in this organization is important. He's unproven at an NHL level but every tangible Roy has I want in this organization. I like that first configuration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I'm of the opinion that Roy needs to be a part of this organization going further but I don't know which role I want him in. Whatever role he might have, it would make for super entertainment and the total opposite of Martin and Gathier/Gainey. Has there every been a superstar player who was also a great GM/Coach (Lamaire would be one eh)? Seems the grinders and plumbers of the league tend to make better coachs dont they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commandant Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 he's got 20 years experience at the NHL level, was a leader and one of the greatest player ever he's got nearly 10 years of coach+GM experience at the junior level what do you want more? do you think Roy will ever be an asst coach/GM? That would be to deny who he is and what his qualities are. That guy is no 2nd fiddle. He's either the captain of the ship or he's captain of another ship. The question is, do Molson/Savard wants him to captain their ship? I think he can do one of the two jobs as a rookie. But its too much to put him in both jobs right off the bat. Give me Roy as GM, a good Cap Guy as an assistant GM, keep Larry Carriere and Trevor Timmins around, and put Vigneault as coach, and I'm very happy with that type of set up. I think one of the two jobs GM or Coach needs to be an experienced NHL guy. I don't even want something where we have a Bergevin - Roy combo because even that is too inexperienced for my liking. I believe that just like players, coaches and GMs develop with experience. Claude Julien is not the same coach in Boston that lost the dressing rooms in Montreal and New Jersey. Vigneault is a better coach today than when he left. Babcock is better in Detroit than he was in Anaheim.... etc.. etc... These guys learn every day. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I think he can do one of the two jobs as a rookie. But its too much to put him in both jobs right off the bat. Give me Roy as GM, a good Cap Guy as an assistant GM, keep Larry Carriere and Trevor Timmins around, and put Vigneault as coach, and I'm very happy with that type of set up. I think one of the two jobs GM or Coach needs to be an experienced NHL guy. I don't even want something where we have a Bergevin - Roy combo because even that is too inexperienced for my liking. I believe that just like players, coaches and GMs develop with experience. Claude Julien is not the same coach in Boston that lost the dressing rooms in Montreal and New Jersey. Vigneault is a better coach today than when he left. Babcock is better in Detroit than he was in Anaheim.... etc.. etc... These guys learn every day. Agreed. The organization cannot afford to muck this up - another decade of losing is simply not on - and that is why a combination of judicious risk-taking (Roy) counterbalanced by experience (Carriere, Timmins, Vigneault) is just what the doctor ordered. The scenario you paint here is ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Course this means Vigneault, who is loved by Canuck fans, is fired. I live in Vancouver and I just do not see this happening at all. Especially not after they won last night. I see Vancouver keeping their overhead, GIllies and Vigneault and the rest. They will move one of their keepers get a big return maybe move some depth guys around or try and get a top d-man. They won't fire Vigneault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DON Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Course this means Vigneault, who is loved by Canuck fans, is fired. I live in Vancouver and I just do not see this happening at all. Especially not after they won last night. I see Vancouver keeping their overhead, GIllies and Vigneault and the rest. They will move one of their keepers get a big return maybe move some depth guys around or try and get a top d-man. They won't fire Vigneault. I agree, cant see him being fired, even if lose in 1st round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Well, I also live in Vancouver. My sense is that, if the Canucks come back in this series and make it close, Vigneault will stick around. If they go down in 5, then he's probably a goner. Understandbly so, since his team will have grossly underperformed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Well, I also live in Vancouver. My sense is that, if the Canucks come back in this series and make it close, Vigneault will stick around. If they go down in 5, then he's probably a goner. Understandbly so, since his team will have grossly underperformed. Vancouver has all of the elements of a Stanley Cup winning team but are just missing... something. I don't know what it is. I guess they are missing Trevor Linden basically. I don't see who is the Trevor Linden of that team is. Ryan Kesler? Daniel Sedin? Kevin Bieksa? They are missing that one guy who gels everyone together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 Vancouver has all of the elements of a Stanley Cup winning team but are just missing... something. I don't know what it is. I guess they are missing Trevor Linden basically. I don't see who is the Trevor Linden of that team is. Ryan Kesler? Daniel Sedin? Kevin Bieksa? They are missing that one guy who gels everyone together. Off topic, but... You could be right. It should be noted, though, that they probably would have won last season if they hadn't been decimated with injuries by the Finals. And the reuniting of the Sedin twins makes an enormous difference, as last game proved. Just as it's fundamentally unfair to judge the Markov-less Habs as the real thing, you can make the case that the Canucks without a Sedin are a compromised item. In the end, though, to my mind that team generally lists as Ryan Kesler does. When he brings his 'A' game they have two devastating lines. He has been pretty quiet down the stretch and into this playoff, and therein lies a big part of the their problem. They also dealt away crucial offensive depth by moving Hodgson in return for a non-factor in Kassian. This was supposedly to beef the team up, but you can make the case that they'd have been better off sticking with the script that got 'em to the Finals last season: talent, talent, talent. Finally, having lost Erhoff, they really need Edler to eat minutes and he has been shaky. That's just part of the X-factor of the cap system, you have to rely on pretty young guys and hope they mature quickly enough to be able to be key cogs in crucial situations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machine of Loving Grace Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I agree that losing a Sedin makes a difference. I guess I just look at how the Canucks team has evolved in the last several years and wonder who keeps this team together when the rough stuff starts happening. I mean at one point they made Luongo captain. When you see decisions like that it makes you wonder. I've always liked the Canucks D but I think it's missing a leader. I just don't see it in Bieksa/Edler/Ballard/Hamhuis/Salo. Maybe they should have got Hal Gill for their bottom six. I agree with you on the Hodgson trade. I liked the trade because I think Kassian will bring an element to Vancouver they've missed since Bertuzzi left but he isn't bringing it for another two to three seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbp Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I agree that losing a Sedin makes a difference. I guess I just look at how the Canucks team has evolved in the last several years and wonder who keeps this team together when the rough stuff starts happening. I mean at one point they made Luongo captain. When you see decisions like that it makes you wonder. I've always liked the Canucks D but I think it's missing a leader. I just don't see it in Bieksa/Edler/Ballard/Hamhuis/Salo. Maybe they should have got Hal Gill for their bottom six. I agree with you on the Hodgson trade. I liked the trade because I think Kassian will bring an element to Vancouver they've missed since Bertuzzi left but he isn't bringing it for another two to three seasons. On the Hodgson trade remember they swaped Suzer and Gragani... that is a great aspect of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chicoutimi Cucumber Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 On the Hodgson trade remember they swaped Suzer and Gragani... that is a great aspect of it. Has Gragani even dressed during these playoffs? If so, I haven't noticed. That trade might turn out to be great for Van in the long run, but it's not helping right now. Of course, whether Hodgson himself would have been much help is an open question. Honestly, I think Vancouver slipped into cruise control for much of this season, not unreasonably wishing to hoard their energies for the playoffs after enduring last year's ordeal. Problem is, it's notoriously hard to 'flip that switch' and start playing at 100% after falling into that habit. I think they've flipped the switch now, but it may be too late. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.