Confirmed with Link: Adam Foote Named Head Coach of the Vancouver Canucks

[mossey3535]

This might be an all time blunder. We haven't seen a lot of great defensive coverage this last season. Lots of head scratching personnel deployment like playing Juulsen too much. Not too much improvement of guys on the blueline, or the ability to motivate guys who are stuck in funks.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Why are you constantly going on about negativity? IIRC you did this during the Benning era as well and pretty obviously, in hindsight and generally speaking, no one was being unreasonably negative then. And like, what’s the point? Calling posters’ views negative is a conclusion in the premise. And moreover, it’s largely just a semantics / subjectivity thing: you may think people are unreasonably negative and they probably think you are unreasonably positive. So, like, who cares? Why not just abandon this constant complaining about negativity and just focus on the actual issues or things being debated? And I’m not trying to personally attack you or anything, I just don’t think claiming things are negative over and over again is very productive for anyone.

Because it's so prevalent and joyless.

Again, there's a difference between, "we'll see how this goes but I would have done something different", or whatever.

And, "Allow me to be nihilistic about every single variable, act as if they have already occurred, and then spin out about it".

It brings nothing to the conversation and it's exhausting.

I'm not demanding that people be positive. But there are a number of folks on here who are relentlessly negative.

It's like having a friend who keeps talking about 'getting their shit together' so you listen to them complain and complain. But after awhile, you realize change isn't coming and you're just enabling the cycle of never changing things and venting.

Like if you hate it, spend the precious time we have on this planet doing something that gives you some joy, or some hope, or intrigues you intellectually.

Ranting and raving with vitriol, not even about what has happened, but on what you speculate might happen is not healthy to do, and it's not healthy to be around.

And it's not really subjective in the quantities we are talking about.

Like I saw posts saying, "Signing Foote was horrible (okay, fine that's an opinion), he's going to alienate Petey further and we'll never get rid of his contract, Hughes will leave anyway, and Malhotra will go to Boston and become Brind'amour, then we will be stuck in purgatory for 10 years".

Now, I'm not calling anyone out directly so this is an amalgamation of posts from the coaching thread. But do you really think I'm being subjective in calling that negative?

 

[Tinhorn1]

Complaining about how other posters complain is HFBoards in vintage form. Missed this place when it was down a while back.

 

[VanJack]

Was there really any other option? Looking at some of the remaining candidates still out there, nothing else made much sense.

But at the end of the day, it's another 'el cheapo' coaching hire by ownership. Foote is reportedly earning $1m - $1.5m to coach the Canucks. At least $4m less than Tocchet gets in Philly.

Foote could be a short leash in Vancouver anyway. If the team flounders out of the gate, Malhotra is still waiting in the wings in Abbotsford.

 

[BluesyShoes]

This might be an all time blunder. We haven't seen a lot of great defensive coverage this last season. Lots of head scratching personnel deployment like playing Juulsen too much. Not too much improvement of guys on the blueline, or the ability to motivate guys who are stuck in funks.

Yeah, and Quinn Hughes only won the Norris once under Foote. And our PK only went from 30th in 21-22 to 3rd this past season. What a bum.

 

[Vector]

i like brad shaw but his thing is running the defense. i dunno he'd be a good fit with foote

Foote and Allvin both said they are looking for someone to run the defence, although my assumption is that will be a less experienced coach.

 

[bobbyb2009]

From the Abby news today

"In other Canucks news, Malhotra said he's looking forward to working with new Vancouver head coach Adam Foote. The former assistant was introduced to the media as the team's new bench boss on Thursday. Malhotra was interviewed for the position and was believed to be one of the top candidates for the job.

"I played with Foote-y in Columbus [Blue Jackets] so I know him really well," he said. "It'll be very similar to the way things worked this year. We want the things to be seamless for the guys going up and just getting feedback from them in terms of what they want from our guys.""

 

[lawrence]

Time will tell how this plays out, but after watching his media interview, I’m feeling a bit more optimistic. And let’s not forget—some of the greatest coaches in the team’s history, like the legendary Pat Quinn and Alain Vigneault, were defensemen in their playing days.

 

[HairyKneel]

I think its a question that has to be asked in some way shape or form. Its an ugly question, but one that can't go ignored. From what I have seen as I have not had a chance to really watch the interview or listen to it, I think it was handled well.

As long as it isn't a constant theme. J- Patt is a parasite and I can see him bringing it up throughout the year. Fahan has more class in his pinky than that asshole.

 

[hellstick]

I give Foote 2 years before he's fired for Malhotra.

 

[Kickassguy]

Really? I thought he was really well spoken. Benning was a bumbling idiot

"Benning vibes" may have been a bit harsh, in retrospect. I think it's just his tendency to answer in generalities that may be throwing me off.

 

[Diversification]

The key question is whether Foote can unlock some extra offense from the existing roster. Personally, I'm not holding out much hope for acquiring an elite forward this offseason.

A pessimistic view is that Foote and Tocchet are one and the same and perhaps Foote is even a lesser version of Tocchet. The more optimistic take is that Foote respected his role as an Assistant Defensive Coach, and kept ideas to himself about improving the offense.

In other words, in the optimistic scenario, Foote... was just being a good Foote soldier.

... I'll show myself out.

 

[Vector]

Hiring Foote

• As has been discussed, the Canucks were going to go with a less experienced coach
• They wanted someone who wanted to be in Vancouver
• Coaches that get promoted from assistant to head coach when being on the same staff often have difficulties because they are going from being the “good cop” to the “bad cop”; players have told Friedman that if the coach changes their personality, the players sense that phoniness
• Points out Foote was in-charge of the Canucks penalty kill and defence last season
• Canucks were obviously aware of how Hughes feels about Foote
• Indicated to a couple of candidates that weren’t hired that last season was so difficult that having someone the players knew, liked, and were comfortable with gave Foote a big edge
• There was some concern on how the players would adjust to the personality of a new coach
• Is a three year contract

Brad Shaw

• Wonders if the Canucks see if he is interested in coming back

 

[credulous]

Hiring Foote

• They wanted someone who wanted to be in Vancouver

foote lives in kelowna in the offseason iirc so this is a pretty underrated aspect of his hiring

 

[racerjoe]

As long as it isn't a constant theme. J- Patt is a parasite and I can see him bringing it up throughout the year. Fahan has more class in his pinky than that asshole.

I don't disagree, but as this trial evolves and continues there may be times when more questions are needed again.

 

[Vector]

foote lives in kelowna in the offseason iirc so this is a pretty underrated aspect of his hiring

Foote and Myers off-season pool party.

 

[MS]

I think its a question that has to be asked in some way shape or form. Its an ugly question, but one that can't go ignored. From what I have seen as I have not had a chance to really watch the interview or listen to it, I think it was handled well.

Why?

It's nothing to do with the team or the job or the person. As someone else noted, it's like asking someone how their impending divorce will affect their job.

Moreover, it's one of those questions that you know the answer to before it's even asked (I can't comment, support my family, won't affect job here), so what's the point of asking it?

It's a question that is basically just the media version of virtue signaling.

 

[Jyrki]

Hiring Foote

• As has been discussed, the Canucks were going to go with a less experienced coach
• They wanted someone who wanted to be in Vancouver
• Coaches that get promoted from assistant to head coach when being on the same staff often have difficulties because they are going from being the “good cop” to the “bad cop”; players have told Friedman that if the coach changes their personality, the players sense that phoniness
• Points out Foote was in-charge of the Canucks penalty kill and defence last season
• Canucks were obviously aware of how Hughes feels about Foote
• Indicated to a couple of candidates that weren’t hired that last season was so difficult that having someone the players knew, liked, and were comfortable with gave Foote a big edge
• There was some concern on how the players would adjust to the personality of a new coach
• Is a three year contract

Brad Shaw

• Wonders if the Canucks see if he is interested in coming back

Sounds like it was Foote's job all along. The logic is reasonable to an extent, but it means projected head coaching quality wasn't as high of a priority as securing some order within all the chaos.

 

[pitseleh]

Really? I thought he was really well spoken. Benning was a bumbling idiot

Yeah, I’ve been pleasantly surprised listening to the press conference / interviews. He is articulate and you can see why players would like him.

The one thing that has stood out though is he has largely sidestepped questions about tactics to focus more on what individual players can do. It’s not surprising given his background in player development but it is a contrast to when you’d hear, say, Rick Bowness, Mike Sullivan, or Newell Brown speak.

 

[racerjoe]

Why?

It's nothing to do with the team or the job or the person. As someone else noted, it's like asking someone how their impending divorce will affect their job.

Moreover, it's one of those questions that you know the answer to before it's even asked (I can't comment, support my family, won't affect job here), so what's the point of asking it?

It's a question that is basically just the media version of virtue signaling.

Its much different than most divorces, which I would say are still important to ask about.

If it could affect his state of mind or is weighing on him yes that is important to know. And just because you know how someone will answer doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the question.

What was the point of asking Boeser about his dad? Petey about his injury? We know how both would answer the question.

 

[MS]

Its much different than most divorces, which I would say are still important to ask about.

If it could affect his state of mind or is weighing on him yes that is important to know. And just because you know how someone will answer doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the question.

It's a personal situation that has nothing to do with the job.

And again, obviously he isn't going to come out and say it's affecting his state of mind.

The only reason to ask the question is for the journalist to be able to say 'LOOK AT ME! I ASK HARD QUESTIONS! I DON'T LIKE SEXUAL ASSAULT!'

Show some f***ing decency. It's an awful thing for Foote to be dealing with and I'm pretty sure everyone with half a brain knows how he feels about it and how he was going to answer the question.

What was the point of asking Boeser about his dad? Petey about his injury? We know how both would answer the question.

Injuries are hockey-related and you can get wildly disparate answers from players about them.

The Boeser dad question was basically a softball to give him an excuse for a bad season. It's the exact opposite of this.

 

[supercanuck]

Don't know Foote or how he would react to situations, but I think it's fair to assume that a father would be concerned about his son's SA trial that is currently in the national spotlight. It's also pretty safe to assume that this may not be the first time Foote will have to answer questions about the trial, unless the PR department jumps in and says no.

 

[racerjoe]

It's a personal situation that has nothing to do with the job.

And again, obviously he isn't going to come out and say it's affecting his state of mind.

The only reason to ask the question is for the journalist to be able to say 'LOOK AT ME! I ASK HARD QUESTIONS! I DON'T LIKE SEXUAL ASSAULT!'

Show some f***ing decency. It's an awful thing for Foote to be dealing with and I'm pretty sure everyone with half a brain knows how he feels about it and how he was going to answer the question.



Injuries are hockey-related and you can get wildly disparate answers from players about them.

The Boeser dad question was basically a softball to give him an excuse for a bad season. It's the exact opposite of this.

So if instead the Canucks have a bad season and someone asked this question would you consider it a soft ball question to give him an excuse?

 

[MS]

So if instead the Canucks have a bad season and someone asked this question would you consider it a soft ball question to give him an excuse?

A sexual assault case is clearly not the same sort of thing as losing your dad.

Again : everyone knows what's up here. Everyone knows what the answers will be. Everyone knows that this is a terrible situation for Foote as a person and as a parent. Just show some basic human decency and don't ask these kinds of dumbass questions on what is a big/proud day for him. There are more than enough tough question you could ask that are purely hockey-related if you have the journalistic skills to formulate them instead of just going for the low-hanging fruit.

 

[Nick Lang]

Why?

It's nothing to do with the team or the job or the person. As someone else noted, it's like asking someone how their impending divorce will affect their job.

Moreover, it's one of those questions that you know the answer to before it's even asked (I can't comment, support my family, won't affect job here), so what's the point of asking it?

It's a question that is basically just the media version of virtue signaling.

Yeah so true. The key thing also is that Foote has done nothing to warrant such a question. If this was a returning coach like Tocchet who just oversaw a disanointing season, or was at the press conference to answer for shortcomings, or the team and Foote is clearly struggling, then maybe it's fair to ask if the problems are due to distraction. This guy hasn't been the cause of any problems whatsoever and is in fact just taking over the job so there is nothing yet to even criticize.

Here is a brand new coach hire which should be a day of congratulations and goodwill, not just taking an unearned cheap shot to try to mess with him, assassinate his character, cast a seed of doubt, and create controversy. Like is there any conceivable reason he would be taking the job if this was the case. Just sickening to casually bring up topic matter like this when it's completely irrelevant.