Opposing views about coach on the hot seat
Vigneault should
Like the expiration date on a milk carton, there is a best-before date on most NHL coaches, unless you’re Lindy Ruff or Barry Trotz. Five years is often considered an excellent run before things can turn sour.
The popular theory is that like the dairy product, the message gets old and too bitter for players to stomach. On the surface, that would suggest a stunning reversal in the taste for Alain Vigneault after six seasons of guiding the Vancouver Canucks. In the end, that arduous climb back up the Stanley Cup mountain proved just as difficult for the head coach to direct as it was for the players to digest the message and produce the points. That smacks of a disconnect that goes beyond the Cody Hodgson circus that ended with the centre’s trade-deadline exit.
However, after a second consecutive Presidents’ Trophy and coming within a victory of winning it all last June, there is statistical support that the former Jack Adams Trophy winner — who also surpassed Marc Crawford in December as the franchise leader in wins — should be passed over when the blame game is played out next week with ownership.
I don’t share that view. I’m old school. I believe if players are ultimately measured by postseason effectiveness, the same standard should be applied to the coach because he must have the collective buy-in.
And let’s be clear. This isn’t personal. I get along with Vigneault as well as any member of the media. I appreciated his occasional candour and lengthy laughing fit in Dallas when Vernon Fiddler did his hilarious Kevin Bieksa ‘Angry Face’ impersonation while returning to the bench.
But this is business and it’s about winning when it matters most. And there’s nothing funny about when it doesn’t occur or when the coach wasn’t sitting beside Mike Gillis at the general manager’s season-ending address and hasn’t been heard from since the playoffs ended with a resounding thud.
As much as Vigneault nearly directed the franchise to its first league championship and has a year remaining on his contract, he has also missed the postseason and been ousted on three occasions in the second round.
Against the Los Angeles Kings, the Canucks talked of how the experience of enduring a playoff marathon was going to benefit another long run this spring, how they were tailored to play any kind of game and would be just as happy to win 1-0. But they were never really ready and dropped the first two games on home ice.
Players are paid handsomely to be prepared but it’s the coach’s mandate to ensure they are. The season-ending 2-1 overtime loss in Game 5 left the disturbing impression that outside of a failed Mason Raymond wraparound attempt in the extra session, the Canucks were trying not to lose the game rather than pressing to win it.
Regardless of your take on the optics of the situation — Vigneault can only coach what Gillis provides and the GM did construct a roster that authored the league’s fifth-ranked offence and fourth-ranked defence — something has to give.
Francesco Aquilini is an emotional owner. He is a fan but beyond all, he’s a businessman. An early exit will grate on him and I find it hard to believe that he would simply allow a sufficient amount of time to pass and accept the status quo.
Yes, the core is intact and the Canucks will continue to contend but the window to win it all is closing. And when it slammed shut so quickly last month, it probably didn’t play out well in the owner’s box. There’s a mea-culpa card to be played here and Aquilini could very well be the dealer and toss it in Vigneault’s direction. And if Gillis feels that strongly about the coach, he could contest the decision and put his own job in jeopardy but I believe he has unfinished business here. He wants to win. Badly.
Gillis said all the right things about Vigneault, lauded the record and said he had every bit of confidence in the coach. But Gillis then referenced the dramatic Jan. 7 game in Boston and how his club never got the emotions together and didn’t play consistently down the stretch.
The Boston thriller played out like Game 7 of the Cup final. The Canucks scored four power-play goals, they killed off all seven Bruin opportunities, they survived a brutal lowbridge hit by Brad Marchand that concussed Sami Salo and resulted in a five-game suspension for the irritant. Hodgson scored the winner and Cory Schneider won in his backyard.
But nobody presented the Canucks with the Stanley Cup.
Gillis also stressed great goaltending got the Canucks through poor outings and that execution was waning despite an 8-1 record to close out the regular season without the concussed Daniel Sedin. The Canucks had to manufacture urgency with a high playoff seed secured, and seven of those eight wins came against teams that didn’t make the postseason.
They held auditions for the first line to create some competition from within and when Maxim Lapierre looked like the best fit, Vigneault started Raymond in Game 1 against the Kings and the club looked confused and out of sync without its top goal scorer.
Jannik Hansen was a first-liner the next two games but by that time the hole was simply too deep. In Game 4, David Booth made his season debut on a line with Henrik and Daniel Sedin and by Game 5, and in pure desperation mode, Vigneault didn’t reunite Alex Burrows with the Sedins when familiarity might have been the best course.
Like any team, the Canucks nursed injuries. Ryan Kesler had a bothersome hip and a shoulder injury while Kevin Bieksa had an abdominal ailment. Alex Edler wasn’t right with a bad finger but the goaltending was superb. And when a team exits early, you can usually point to the crease. Not this time.
The Canucks scored eight goals in five playoff games and the supposed comfort of playing low-scoring games cost them in the end. Gillis loves offence. The Canucks played defence.
Somebody has to pay.