PDA

View Full Version : Donn Clark



Triton
02-28-2006, 10:08 PM
What would you like to see done with Donn Clark?

Triton
02-28-2006, 10:20 PM
should have had anholt on there

Should have Manson as coach and either move someone up to the GM position or hire someone else for that job.Bring Rick Valette back.

Dwight Schrute
02-28-2006, 11:34 PM
i am sure we could lure somebody here to be the gm.
BRING BACK TERRY SIMPSON !
thanks for making the poll canadien eh
raider brass take note of it.

Zookeeper
03-01-2006, 12:00 AM
No doubt in my mind he should be gone. He is not well liked by PA fans. Give Anholt one more year and see what happens. IMO

Triton
03-01-2006, 08:49 AM
No doubt in my mind he should be gone. He is not well liked by PA fans. Give Anholt one more year and see what happens. IMO

I'm tired of seeing Anholts mind games,example being when they had to sit ont he bench at the intermission with 7 minutes still on the clock.Usually they come out with 2 minutes left.As well as killing the younger guys confidence.I seen him on quite a few occasions literally booting some of the players in the a$$ as well as constant fits,tirates,and any other scare tactics.Anholt..man these are kids and it's still only a game,good job putting fear into your players..that we'll sure make em wanna play harder.

I just don't like that method of coaching..scare tactics.

FELIX17
03-01-2006, 09:12 AM
There should be separate polls for Clark and Anholt. Clark to me, is a no brainer. Either he should have dumped the 19 year olds on this team or he should have acquired some help. He did really nothing but a couple of minor deals. Clark has to share in the blame along with Anholt. Somewhere along the way the guys have decided to tune Anholt out. His message is no longer getting through to the boys. But if you fire the both of them, where do you go from here? PA needs stable, experienced people in both positions. As we all know, we can't go out and hire a guy like Molleken, the city can't afford it. If it turns out that Clark and Anholt are both gone, the BOG better hire the right person and it better not be Parry Shockey. Moose Jaw caught a glimpse of Shockey-Hockey and it better not come to PA. Right now I'm on the fence when it comes to Anholt. I have always liked Anholt, as a player, a coach, and as a person. But it comes down to what is right for this team. The players are no longer listening, I'll reserve my decision on Anholt at the end of this season. As for Clark, it's time for him to go.

westbeach55
03-01-2006, 11:33 AM
I'm tired of seeing Anholts mind games,example being when they had to sit ont he bench at the intermission with 7 minutes still on the clock.Usually they come out with 2 minutes left.As well as killing the younger guys confidence.I seen him on quite a few occasions literally booting some of the players in the a$$ as well as constant fits,tirates,and any other scare tactics.Anholt..man these are kids and it's still only a game,good job putting fear into your players..that we'll sure make em wanna play harder.

I just don't like that method of coaching..scare tactics.


These kids are not babies, they need to hold some accountability in this. Anholt was simply trying something different to get the team going. if your talking about constant fits, tirates and other tactics your wheatkings have the king of it kelly mcrimmon he throws more fits and tirates he would never be able to catch up to kelly. last year we make a run on the playoffs and everyone is all happy, now we have a bit of a slump, lets blame anholt. I think everyone needs to calm down and let things play out.

Triton
03-01-2006, 11:49 AM
These kids are not babies, they need to hold some accountability in this. Anholt was simply trying something different to get the team going. if your talking about constant fits, tirates and other tactics your wheatkings have the king of it kelly mcrimmon he throws more fits and tirates he would never be able to catch up to kelly. last year we make a run on the playoffs and everyone is all happy, now we have a bit of a slump, lets blame anholt. I think everyone needs to calm down and let things play out.

But Kelly's fits aren't at the players.Usually the refs.Kelly goes to war for his players,unlike Peter.The kids aren't babies but they are teenagers,and we sometimes tend to forget that.Peter expects that they will provide NHL calibre effort every night which isn't going to happen and when things don't go Peter's way he resorts to his "mind games" which aren't going to work on a bunch of kids who don't want to listen to some old guy who bullies them around.

Triton
03-01-2006, 12:04 PM
I do think that Both Peter and Donn are responsible for the teams failure this season but I think it's more Donn's fault.Peter can only do his job accordingly to what he has to work with and honestly there isn't as much to work with in terms of skill and talent,other than a few players.You aren't going to win a ton of games based on a couple players.So when Clark didn't shore up the future for the next few years at the deadline,he was forced to go out and make a few minor deals prior to the deadline.So since the Raiders will be hard pressed to be a serious contender for a few years thanks to Clark,it's Clark who should get the finger pointed at first.I know he said he tried to deal players like Chipchura,but did he try or was it more or less "we have star players,and that sells tickets"type attitude?

I agree with Westbeach55 on that maybe we do get ahead of ourselves and tend to point fingers at people based on a season that didn't go the way we wanted.But,if anyone should go first it will and should be Clark.Than the new GM can decide whether or not Anholt is in the teams future plans.

Zookeeper
03-01-2006, 02:03 PM
I agree with Westbeach55 on that maybe we do get ahead of ourselves and tend to point fingers at people based on a season that didn't go the way we wanted.But,if anyone should go first it will and should be Clark.Than the new GM can decide whether or not Anholt is in the teams future plans.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this, get rid of Clark and leave it up to the new GM if Peter goes or stays.

Dwight Schrute
03-01-2006, 02:14 PM
I agree with Westbeach55 on that maybe we do get ahead of ourselves and tend to point fingers at people based on a season that didn't go the way we wanted.But,if anyone should go first it will and should be Clark.Than the new GM can decide whether or not Anholt is in the teams future plans.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this, get rid of Clark and leave it up to the new GM if Peter goes or stays.
sounds like a good plan except for one thing. personally i think anholt deserves one more shot but, what about these kids are they going to come back and play for him next year ? is it going to be like lethbridge where we have guys quitting ? are these kids going to want to play for anholt next year ? the new gm has a tough decision to make.

wango tango
03-01-2006, 03:47 PM
sounds like a good plan except for one thing. personally i think anholt deserves one more shot but, what about these kids are they going to come back and play for him next year ? is it going to be like lethbridge where we have guys quitting ? are these kids going to want to play for anholt next year ? the new gm has a tough decision to make.

in my mind the toughest thing will be evaluating the play of this years 17 yr olds. have doucet, ottman, depape, and elder underperformed this season, or did they overperform during the playoffs last year? if the answer is underperformed what has to be done to get them playing up to expectations next season, and perhaps next season is not going to be as bad as i fear. if the answer is overperformed in last seasons playoffs... it could be a very long year next season.

why is the offence on this team so brutal? the raiders top scorers only have 46 points. moose jaw has six players with more points than byers and chipchura.

some very tough questions have to be asked and answered is there the will to do it among the BOG, GM, and coaching staff?

FELIX17
03-01-2006, 04:34 PM
in my mind the toughest thing will be evaluating the play of this years 17 yr olds. have doucet, ottman, depape, and elder underperformed this season, or did they overperform during the playoffs last year? if the answer is underperformed what has to be done to get them playing up to expectations next season, and perhaps next season is not going to be as bad as i fear. if the answer is overperformed in last seasons playoffs... it could be a very long year next season.

why is the offence on this team so brutal? the raiders top scorers only have 46 points. moose jaw has six players with more points than byers and chipchura.
some very tough questions have to be asked and answered is there the will to do it among the BOG, GM, and coaching staff?

The 17 year olds have been a disappointment. I thought Doucet and Depape were going to have great years. They both have struggled. Doucet has so much promise for a player who can skate and make plays, he seems to have struggled most of the year. Depape has challenged a few guys this year and I'm proud of him for that. When his team has been down, he has stepped up and dropped the gloves to spark the team. You would expect a lot more from a 4th overall Bantam pick. This kid still does have promise, power forwards seem to develop a little slower, I'm hoping this is the case for Depape. Ottman, Elder have been hurt of late, but when they have played they have been OK.

The sytem Anholt plays is defence first, trap, left wing lock, whatever you want to call it. It doesn't promote any offence. The dump and chase routine hasn't worked either. If Anholt does stick around, I'm hoping that he instills something that promotes a better system and eventually, a winning team. The fans of PA deserve a lot more than they received this year. No question about it!

number9
03-01-2006, 04:43 PM
So, elsewhere in the pa thread there is some talk about peter undermining the play of the younger kids, playing head games with archie and pretty much being a do nothing know nothing coach. I'm just curious as to how that translates into firing DC. Also, if peter is in charge of developing the young talent and you are on here questioning the production of that talent and the development of that talent, how does that, again, translate into keeping peter and giving him "one more shot" and getting rid of DC? Also, if one does give peter "one more shot" with an even YOUNGER team and he is proving that he has trouble with the younger players and helping them develop, can we as raider fans watch that happen to more kids? So how does the coach playing head games, the coach not developing the talent, the coach not doing what the coach is supposed to do which is WIN with the guys he has and help the guys he has to a winning outcome mean that the gm should be fired? The talent we have hasn't been realized, the team we have has underachieved, the players we have are capable of doing more, but since when do any of those things fall on the gm to take care of? Last I checked, coaching the game and practices and player development is the COACHES JOB. Oh, and about the shorter bench, wasn't there some complaining last year about guys not getting enough ice time through the stretch and in the playoffs because we had too many guys on the team? I'l leave it at that for now.

Triton
03-01-2006, 04:57 PM
So, elsewhere in the pa thread there is some talk about peter undermining the play of the younger kids, playing head games with archie and pretty much being a do nothing know nothing coach. I'm just curious as to how that translates into firing DC. Also, if peter is in charge of developing the young talent and you are on here questioning the production of that talent and the development of that talent, how does that, again, translate into keeping peter and giving him "one more shot" and getting rid of DC? Also, if one does give peter "one more shot" with an even YOUNGER team and he is proving that he has trouble with the younger players and helping them develop, can we as raider fans watch that happen to more kids? So how does the coach playing head games, the coach not developing the talent, the coach not doing what the coach is supposed to do which is WIN with the guys he has and help the guys he has to a winning outcome mean that the gm should be fired? The talent we have hasn't been realized, the team we have has underachieved, the players we have are capable of doing more, but since when do any of those things fall on the gm to take care of? Last I checked, coaching the game and practices and player development is the COACHES JOB. Oh, and about the shorter bench, wasn't there some complaining last year about guys not getting enough ice time through the stretch and in the playoffs because we had too many guys on the team? I'l leave it at that for now.

All I have to say is..that was painful to read.And Clark should be gone because he didn't make any deals to better the team,didn't trade some of the guys who won't be here next year,so were stuck with another 5 years of rebuilding.Basically almost everyone thinks that both Clark and Anholt should be let go and start fresh(it wouldn't hurt).

FELIX17
03-01-2006, 05:17 PM
So, elsewhere in the pa thread there is some talk about peter undermining the play of the younger kids, playing head games with archie and pretty much being a do nothing know nothing coach. I'm just curious as to how that translates into firing DC. Also, if peter is in charge of developing the young talent and you are on here questioning the production of that talent and the development of that talent, how does that, again, translate into keeping peter and giving him "one more shot" and getting rid of DC? Also, if one does give peter "one more shot" with an even YOUNGER team and he is proving that he has trouble with the younger players and helping them develop, can we as raider fans watch that happen to more kids? So how does the coach playing head games, the coach not developing the talent, the coach not doing what the coach is supposed to do which is WIN with the guys he has and help the guys he has to a winning outcome mean that the gm should be fired? The talent we have hasn't been realized, the team we have has underachieved, the players we have are capable of doing more, but since when do any of those things fall on the gm to take care of? Last I checked, coaching the game and practices and player development is the COACHES JOB. Oh, and about the shorter bench, wasn't there some complaining last year about guys not getting enough ice time through the stretch and in the playoffs because we had too many guys on the team? I'l leave it at that for now.

My problem with Clark is the fact that at the trade deadline he did really nothing. With players like Chipper, Aki, Thelen, Schafer, Byers etc. not coming back next year, he should have either traded them for prospects or acquired some help for these guys. These players deserved a chance at playing on a winning team and Clark decided to sit on the fence at the deadline and only make a couple of minor deals. Also, the small roster drives me nuts! Why have such a small roster, especially towards the end of the season when guys are banged up? I don't know how many times in the last while the Raider's were playing with 16 skaters. And probably some of those guys shouldn't have been playing either. Also, if a player isn't playing up to standards, sit them. Because of the small roster, PA didn't have that luxury. Doesn't make sense at all!

Dwight Schrute
03-01-2006, 06:58 PM
All I have to say is..that was painful to read.And Clark should be gone because he didn't make any deals to better the team,didn't trade some of the guys who won't be here next year,so were stuck with another 5 years of rebuilding.Basically almost everyone thinks that both Clark and Anholt should be let go and start fresh(it wouldn't hurt).
fresh young team fresh gm sure. maybe anholt is just having an off year but maybe he has lost the respect of the players too.

number9
03-01-2006, 07:18 PM
What trades are you talking about? I challenge you to go to this link - http://whl.ca/about/?id=671 and phone all of the GMs and ask them what exacly they were offering for our top end guys. Because I doubt you even know what he could have done or didn't do or refused to do. Those supposed trades are all in everybody's head and wishful thinking. This is the team we have now and this is the team that is underachieving and underperforming. Why is that? Why with guys that were mentioned does our team keep losing? If DC would have traded big guys people would be complaining he didn't get enough or didn't give peter enough to work with or was giving up when we were just turning the corner - just like last year. At trade deadline this year we were not any different than we were last year. But again, the trades are all rumours and speculation because none of us on this board really knows what happened on those phone calls to other gms. But again, feel free to use the link and phone around. Hell, call DC. His number is public knowledge.

"fresh young team fresh gm sure. maybe anholt is just having an off year but maybe he has lost the respect of the players too."
THANKS for the Laugh. Yeah, with the fresh young team coming in - brought to you by none other than DC - fire him, keep the coach. Fresh young players, old school coach - seems to be working well this year. In another thread y'all talk about the great guys coming up, their stats, their impact, their potential. You talk about the young guys we're seeing now and how great it is to watch them. Who scouted them, drafted them, recruited them and brings them in? Think about it.

Dwight Schrute
03-01-2006, 07:40 PM
What trades are you talking about? I challenge you to go to this link - http://whl.ca/about/?id=671 and phone all of the GMs and ask them what exacly they were offering for our top end guys. Because I doubt you even know what he could have done or didn't do or refused to do. Those supposed trades are all in everybody's head and wishful thinking. This is the team we have now and this is the team that is underachieving and underperforming. Why is that? Why with guys that were mentioned does our team keep losing? If DC would have traded big guys people would be complaining he didn't get enough or didn't give peter enough to work with or was giving up when we were just turning the corner - just like last year. At trade deadline this year we were not any different than we were last year. But again, the trades are all rumours and speculation because none of us on this board really knows what happened on those phone calls to other gms. But again, feel free to use the link and phone around. Hell, call DC. His number is public knowledge.

"fresh young team fresh gm sure. maybe anholt is just having an off year but maybe he has lost the respect of the players too."
THANKS for the Laugh. Yeah, with the fresh young team coming in - brought to you by none other than DC - fire him, keep the coach. Fresh young players, old school coach - seems to be working well this year. In another thread y'all talk about the great guys coming up, their stats, their impact, their potential. You talk about the young guys we're seeing now and how great it is to watch them. Who scouted them, drafted them, recruited them and brings them in? Think about it.
well fellow whlfans.ca members it looks like we found the first don clark fan. if we were going to not make the playoffs, or lose the first round why not just trade some of the vets and bring in some youth ? if you say nothing was offered i find it hard to believe that nobody would want to give a prospect or first round bantam pick for team canada's captain. clark doesnt make many deals. he seems to be of the mentality that he can get something for nothing. flip the coin and think maybe clark was asking too much ? like the supposed plante dansereau and 1st for chipper rumour. that is an overpayment. but would clark ask for something like that ? the scouting staff scouts the players and run the table at the draft. would tradeing some guys have given these kids a wake up call ? just watch the poll and let the #'s speak for themselves.

Triton
03-01-2006, 08:29 PM
well fellow whlfans.ca members it looks like we found the first don clark fan. if we were going to not make the playoffs, or lose the first round why not just trade some of the vets and bring in some youth ? if you say nothing was offered i find it hard to believe that nobody would want to give a prospect or first round bantam pick for team canada's captain. clark doesnt make many deals. he seems to be of the mentality that he can get something for nothing. flip the coin and think maybe clark was asking too much ? like the supposed plante dansereau and 1st for chipper rumour. that is an overpayment. but would clark ask for something like that ? the scouting staff scouts the players and run the table at the draft. would tradeing some guys have given these kids a wake up call ? just watch the poll and let the #'s speak for themselves.

Well put Danno. :thumb:

number9
03-01-2006, 09:37 PM
1)DC Scouts prospects and actually runs the table at the bantam draft. Ask. I did. He spent last weekend in Trail, BC looking at the Bantams.

2)DC was not offered anything but 3rd line guys and draft picks which wouldn't be realized for another few years. Ask. I did. So in your eyes, trading Capatain Canada for a bantam would have been a fair trade. Good to know that's how much you value the Captain of the Canadian Jr Team and the Captain of the Raiders. I personally think he has greater value.

3)Did you know we were going to suck this bad this late in the season? Cuz I want you buying stocks for me if you have that kind of forethought and are that much of a psychic.

3)I am not a DC "fan." I'm just the only one with balls enough to stand up to the people who want to talk smack to just to hear themselves make sound. And besides, I could give a rats behind whether DC is the gm or not, I just don't think your arguments for firing him have any validity.

4)10 people, BFD. Show me something I don't know. I could find 10 people who want your ass fired too, strange enough, I know 10 people who want my ass fired too - go figure.

The point I've been trying to make, is that it's NOT the gm to blame for the poor playing on the ice. Once he gets the players to the coach, they have to do the work. Firing any gm at this point is pretty short sighted because besides NOT trading Chipper for a Bantam what the hell else do you have? Firing the coach - look at the record, look at the team play, look at the development of the young players. Tough call, but one I would be willing to make.

wango tango
03-01-2006, 10:19 PM
well fellow whlfans.ca members it looks like we found the first don clark fan. if we were going to not make the playoffs, or lose the first round why not just trade some of the vets and bring in some youth ? if you say nothing was offered i find it hard to believe that nobody would want to give a prospect or first round bantam pick for team canada's captain. clark doesnt make many deals. he seems to be of the mentality that he can get something for nothing. flip the coin and think maybe clark was asking too much ? like the supposed plante dansereau and 1st for chipper rumour. that is an overpayment. but would clark ask for something like that ? the scouting staff scouts the players and run the table at the draft. would tradeing some guys have given these kids a wake up call ? just watch the poll and let the #'s speak for themselves.

i hear you danno. i wonder if some forget chip will not be back next season. if he would have been dealt he would have been a rent a player. this hurts his trade value. anything credible i heard regarding any thelen, seitsonen, and chipchura talk was a player and potentially a draft pick for any one of those three, because they all would have been rent a player. for byers clark may have been able to get a slight bit more (not necessarily anything to make you drool though) because there is the potential dane could be in the league next season as a 20.

pa beats brandon in ot tonight. 3 points back. how many games left? does it matter?

Dwight Schrute
03-01-2006, 10:19 PM
bantam picks can be good, these 3rd liners ? are they 16 17 18 19 ? maybe 3rds this year but next year or the year after ? why do they have a scouting staff if dc does all the scouting and makes all the picks ? in my eyes as a season ticket holder and raider fan i feel that clark has not done a very good job this year or the past few. yes they went on a run last year but i dont think that was really all clark. i think clark is an average to sub par gm at the whl level (that is just my humble opinion). we dont run the show and dont have a say but this is the team i've cheered for since i was 5 and i will continue to for years to come regardless. i say there is a better gm out there for the raiders they just gotta find him.

Triton
03-02-2006, 09:08 AM
Number9..your like little nugget that just won't flush,no matter how many times you flush,it just stays around and annoys.