I’m not pining for a more offensive style. I know Aquilini got sort of mocked for saying he wanted the Canucks to have a “winning style”, but I somewhat agree with him. They played the exact same style the season before and it was surprisingly fun to watch them win 2-1 games over and over. Maybe it’s because I played defense as a kid, but I loved watching a healthy Vancouver defense corps shutting everything down (as long as it was winning games).

I also generally agree with the line of thought that Vigneault had to employ that style with the lack of offensive skill up front. I’m no great fan of the guy, but I don’t think he had much to work with. Upgrade two wingers on the top two lines to add an extra 20 goals, luck out with a healthy blueline to chip in with some offense, and suddenly nobody is noticing the tight defensive style at all.

Posted by Jeremy from Summerland, BC on 05/09/08 at 03:39 PM ET

Sorry, also wanted to add that I think it’s great that the new GM is thoroughly debriefing a disappointing season with the coach...but wouldn’t that be the case for all the teams in the league that aren’t still playing? It’s a good article, but maybe stretches the impact of this angle a bit.

Posted by Jeremy from Summerland, BC on 05/09/08 at 03:47 PM ET

Thanks for your thoughts, Jeremy.

I suppose what I like is that he is doing a thorough review.  I think that would be the case for all teams that had a failure, as you say, but Gillis could also have taken the easy route and not even considered the coaching situation - having a recent Jack Adams winner at the helm.  So many people seem to blame either the players or the lack of offensive depth provided by Nonis, while very few editorials (that I’ve read/heard) have questioned Vigneault’s accountability.

I guess I’m also heartened at this statement:

But what everyone wants to know is, can Vigneault coach the aggressive, up-tempo team Gillis said he will attempt to assemble?

There’s nothing wrong with tight defense and I agree that for one season they showed it could be largely entertaining. But this past season wasn’t a stellar one in that respect. That Gillis considers offense a priority is encouraging to me.

Anyway, I’ve been very cynical lately - you’ll have to put up with me feeling encouraged by small things.

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 05/09/08 at 04:03 PM ET

I need to jazz up my Brian Engblom effort.  I just wanted to toss something up quickly and didn’t put any thought into it at all.

I’m getting a chuckle seeing who takes which players.  Some blogs are assembling powerhouses. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 05/09/08 at 05:30 PM ET

Two thoughts:

1) I hear Paul Maurice is available.

2) Given the closest we’ve come in 83 years is to dress up a mannequin as Cyclone Taylor wearing a 1915 vintage Flying “V” uniform.

“The Vancouver Canucks: A team best enjoyed if you possess a great deal of patience, a tolerance for disappointment, and a fully-stocked liquor cabinet.”

Seems a little mild and understated to me.  The words masochistic and delusional seem to fit better.

Story here

Ciao,

Posted by Terry from WestVan on 05/09/08 at 07:35 PM ET

Baroque - I love the Engblom effort! But making fun of a man’s hair… now, that’s cold.

Terry - You’re in a cynical mood today (which I approve of… I’m always cynical lately). And thanks for the Millionaires story… I did actually note it here a couple weeks ago, too. I’m very intrigued by the guy’s efforts to remember that long-ago team.

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 05/10/08 at 10:45 AM ET