yes.

- dbot

Canucks had a good second period but the rest was typical Canucks garbage.
- LeftCoaster

Which they need to sell to the fans. I'll let Nucker explain this

HNIC ripping VAN again

EP is LE 2.0

Hopefully I didn't miss any positives?
- VanHockeyGuy

He’s really young, he’ll get better and he’ll mature.

This reminds me so much of my fav soccer team from the last decade. They declined and started over. Bought young talent but never produced results. 8 coaches in 10 years. A lot of rookie/inexperienced coaches. Finally after a very mediocre start, coach fired and a coach with experience was brought in. Stellar record ever since. 2 place in the league last year and tied for tops this year.

The Canucks need a coach.

This reminds me so much of my fav soccer team from the last decade. They declined and started over. Bought young talent but never produced results. 8 coaches in 10 years. A lot of rookie/inexperienced coaches. Finally after a very mediocre start, coach fired and a coach with experience was brought in. Stellar record ever since. 2 place in the league last year and tied for tops this year.

The Canucks need a coach.
- manvanfan

Case in point - Calgary.

I sh!t on the hiring of Sutter at the time and even this year.
I was wrong

This reminds me so much of my fav soccer team from the last decade. They declined and started over. Bought young talent but never produced results. 8 coaches in 10 years. A lot of rookie/inexperienced coaches. Finally after a very mediocre start, coach fired and a coach with experience was brought in. Stellar record ever since. 2 place in the league last year and tied for tops this year.

The Canucks need a coach.
- manvanfan

They should’ve hired Gerard Gallant when they had a chance.

He’s really young, he’ll get better and he’ll mature.
- LeftCoaster

Thanks Nucker!

Thanks Nucker!

- VanHockeyGuy

That’s insulting, you fuckin take that back

They should’ve hired Gerard Gallant when they had a chance.
- LeftCoaster

It's beyond the coach, man you're an idiot.

It's beyond the coach, man you're an idiot.
- VanHockeyGuy

Yes I am, but the coach needs to go before the players are changed out because a coaches style will dictate some of the moves made. Or at least it can. Regardless…a coaching change needs to happen as there is talent on the team. A strong experienced coaching voice in the room can really change the culture in a room, trust me, I know.

One of two things is going to happen imo.

Either Green and staff are gone or JB trades EP. He’s just awful this year. Looks completely disinterested.

Garland struggling to find words in the post mortem.

Yes I am, but the coach needs to go before the players are changed out because a coaches style will dictate some of the moves made. Or at least it can. Regardless…a coaching change needs to happen as there is talent on the team. A strong experienced coaching voice in the room can really change the culture in a room, trust me, I know.
- LeftCoaster

Bruce Boudreau

Did we win?

“The Vancouver Canucks are on pace to have the single worst penalty killing efficiency rate since the stat started being by recorded in 1963-64.”

Bruce Boudreau
- VanHockeyGuy

Too much of a players coach, they need an experienced hardass in there.

“The Vancouver Canucks are on pace to have the single worst penalty killing efficiency rate since the stat started being by recorded in 1963-64.”
- LeftCoaster

QH has no words about the game, poor bastard is locked up.

Too much of a players coach, they need an experienced hardass in there.
- LeftCoaster

Babcock-you rang?

I'll do one of these for each loss.

Too much of a players coach, they need an experienced hardass in there.
- LeftCoaster

Wrong. I think the days of pro hockey teams being managed like it was the military are over.

He is too much of a players coach but he’s experienced and he knows how to coach superstars. He’s had great success during the season and seems to always get his teams to the dance. Just can’t get that cup.

At this point, I’d accept and be happy with just being a playoff contender. My Cup aspirations are at an all time low.

Certain economists performed a statistical analysis on coaching changes demonstrated empirically that changes to coaching staff for teams performing poorly will have little impact on performance. For middling teams, the results were a bit better in regard to increased performance.

https://freakonomics.com/...-coach-really-the-answer/

If this edition of the Canucks is a poor team, the math suggests that changes to coaching will not in isolation be sufficient to drive better on ice performance. One would expect that there would be changes to coaching staff AND something else. However, this offseason a large number of players were changed. Therefore, the individual instructing the player changes is as culpable for the poor results as the coach. Ergo, the math suggests that coaches, management, and further changes to players are likely required for the performance of the on ice product to improve. The person / management instructing changes to management, coaching and players will have to be on point. This is likely ownership. Therefore, as fans, we are absolutely (frank)ed.

Green is all lip service again in the post mortem. Again.

Green = Dead man walking.

Certain economists performed a statistical analysis on coaching changes demonstrated empirically that changes to coaching staff for teams performing poorly will have little impact on performance. For middling teams, the results were a bit better in regard to increased performance.

https://freakonomics.com/...-coach-really-the-answer/

If this edition of the Canucks is a poor team, the math suggests that changes to coaching will not in isolation be sufficient to drive better on ice performance. One would expect that there would be changes to coaching staff AND something else. However, this offseason a large number of players were changed. Therefore, the individual instructing the player changes is as culpable for the poor results as the coach. Ergo, the math suggests that coaches, management, and further changes to players are likely required for the performance of the on ice product to improve. The person / management instructing changes to management, coaching and players will have to be on point. This is likely ownership. Therefore, as fans, we are absolutely (frank)ed.
- Fisticus

My, my. Who’s a grump bear.

Certain economists performed a statistical analysis on coaching changes demonstrated empirically that changes to coaching staff for teams performing poorly will have little impact on performance. For middling teams, the results were a bit better in regard to increased performance.

https://freakonomics.com/...-coach-really-the-answer/

If this edition of the Canucks is a poor team, the math suggests that changes to coaching will not in isolation be sufficient to drive better on ice performance. One would expect that there would be changes to coaching staff AND something else. However, this offseason a large number of players were changed. Therefore, the individual instructing the player changes is as culpable for the poor results as the coach. Ergo, the math suggests that coaches, management, and further changes to players are likely required for the performance of the on ice product to improve. The person / management instructing changes to management, coaching and players will have to be on point. This is likely ownership. Therefore, as fans, we are absolutely (frank)ed.
- Fisticus

That’s all fine for NHL coaches. Is there one out there for AHL coaches?