Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

DING

Vigneault's Trickle Down Effect

54 posts in this topic

we need a really good defensman who is gifted both defensively and offensively , this is what we lack .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much it.Lu will most likely split now,Raymond needs to go least have to fight for a job and show he will go to the net next training camp.On the fence with manny if he can get back to form or not..

I'd be happy to see AV replaced he's a good coach but a defense style coach only.We have to many offensive style players for that to work.Bring in a coach that loves to have goals scored first of all.Everyone in the league says we have some of the best D at jumping up in the play.Lets go with it and give Booth a full year and everyone else a year with the same line mates and see how they do.I think just the final point would make a huge improvement in goal scoring under pressure.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we need a really good defensman who is gifted both defensively and offensively , this is what we lack .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ding pointed out that we may already have that player in Ballard and a new bench boss may pull this diamond from the rough. My opinion is that we have a solid player in Ballard who I hope is given a major role with this club.

Edit: Good post Ding, keep 'em coming.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do have Gragnani now too. We can't forget that. As undersized and deficient he is on his own side of the ice currently, he's definitely got an "outside the box" feel for offense.

It'll be interesting to see if he gets a shot next year. The team didn't play him and retain his RFA rights for nothing.

PS. Bourdon would've likely been that D man. Our Letang maybe? So sad. RIP.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the optimism and the different point of view. A lot of things really do depend on AV's future with us. Hopefully that is figured put before the draft so that MG and our scouting staff can have a real game plan going in, involving trades etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's this about Ballard not being played?................who was that with 4 on his back that played over 50 games for us. The truth of it is that once KB swapped to his natural side he has been sensational. He has shone and AV has liked him.

All this AV not playing players is a load of crap. He plays them when they're ready and he plays them when they're fit. Unlike some on here, he looks at their whole game not just the bits that do or don't stand out.

Hodgson was not fit enough to play longer minutes. He started to make mistakes after 10-12 and fade out the game. He got more in Buffalo and he was blowing out his ass when I watched him. His overall game was poorer than under AV too.

AV is a great coach. MG needs to start getting him players who are in form and ready to play instead of rehab cases and good young players not ready to play in an elite team.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

Ding pointed out that we may already have that player in Ballard and a new bench boss may pull this diamond from the rough. My opinion is that we have a solid player in Ballard who I hope is given a major role with this club.

Edit: Good post Ding, keep 'em coming.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "LUONGOS TEAM", the "Canucks are "AQUALLINIS TEAM"!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, some of you with avatars of Clowns and Leaukimia patients I just wonder why, why? Quite pathetic.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DIng, I agree and hope we have a coaching change in the near future. These guys need change. Some will say "look at AV's record" but I say consistent playoff appearances are just that, consistency. The talent this team has is slowly being wasted, AV's had enough time to tweak the lines. Time for a new captain to steer this battleship...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>Who are you going to take ice time away from to give Ballard a "major role"? Do you take away from the 50 point Edler or our best shutdown d-man Hamhuis? The truth is Ballard's cap space could be better used than on that 3rd pairing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that AV's legacy is whether or not he can create roles & make use of secondary players. It seems to me he determines roles for the Sedin's, Keslers & Edlers of the world & the Ballards of the world have to play whatever is left.

Ballard for example, Booth also, has specific physical attributes and skills. But he spent much of his time playing the offside & not rushing the puck. Because our game was the breakout pass behind Hamhuis, Edler (even Tanev). But we could not breakout & it looked like we needed a guy to lug the puck up the ice.There have been players like Ballard who AV has simply not found the right role for. And because AV had a preconceived notion of what a 3rd line center should be, we ended up giving away a guy who certainly had the skills to craft A role. In short, AV is a systems coach.

Its funny, because he lets his top players create very distinct roles? There is no line like the Sedins anywhere in the league. But there are underutilized players. With Booth, he probably just needs a play maker, MG's responsibility. With Ballard, with Hodgson, you might think the coach could have done better with them. At the end of the discussion you most certainly are right; MG has to decide if another guy can create complimentary roles before he starts shuffling the line up.

Hey CDC, thanks for taking my post. Long time reader, 2144th poster.

Gillis' most critical call this season isn't going to be which goalie he trades, what he does with Pahlsson, Booth, Kesler, or Salo.

It's going to be whether or not he retains our longtime bench boss, Alain Vigneault. Everything depends on it.

Personnel decisions aren't made alone by the GM in his office. He consults with the rest of the staff to determine what they feel they lack. If AV is gone, the new coach may indicate to MG that he wants certain players to stay.

First, Luongo's team next year depends heavily on who the Canucks coach is next year. He lives here, loves the city, and moving away isn't going to be easy for him. In the end, it might not be his decision, but rather Gillis'. AV gave his vote of confidence to Schneids. If AV stays, Roberto's gone. It's clear. If a new coach comes in, MG can have the option. I'd be shocked to see any players get moved before the coach for next year is set in stone. I don't necessarily believe that Cory has more value than Roberto on the open market either. One thing that I think everyone overlooks is that Cory is unsigned going into next season. A team is trading for his rights, not a guaranteed contract. That comes with risk. What if Cory decides to hold out or has his sights set on another team? I know RFA rights don't grant the player the same latitude as UFA rights, but it's still a factor to consider. This alone discounts Cory's fair market value.

Second, for all the people demanding for Booth, Ballard, and others to be gone, you can't completely judge next year's Booth, Ballard or etc. based on this year's version of them. We all know that AV has his favorites and dogs. Raymond plays game after game, while Ballard never sees ice. If AV is gone these players might receive different roles. Imagine if a coach like Tortorella was brought in and got on Booth's ass like he did on Gaborik to "stop in front of the net for once". Maybe Booth gets a few more black eyes but bangs in 25 garbage goals. What if he encourages Ballard and plays him game after game until Keith has the confidence to dominate offensively like we've seen him do and he notches 40 assists? If the new boss can motivate and assign roles correctly, we might see Booth and Ballard revive their careers in major ways. Then we'd all love them on CDC. Raymond of course would no longer be sucking up top-6 minutes.

Thirdly, I like the Kassian trade. For all the hype around Cody's vision, Kassian doesn't seem to be too far off as we've seen him make some really nice passes. No one knows how much Cody would have contributed this playoffs, but the ironic thing is that AV was the main factor for Cody's departure and now he might be on his way out, only a few months later. Food for thought: if MG never rushed the trade, Canucks still lost in the first round, and AV got canned, Cody might have been slotted onto the 2nd line, been the playermaker between Kesler and Booth next year, and loved it.

Ok I'll hit submit now and listen to what you guys have to say.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AV will probably stay but I want all of his assistant's heads to roll. Bowness did a terrible job managing the defence, who were gambling too often, playing a stupid free-wheeling style of hockey and were victimized for being out of position against the league's 2nd worst offence. Our goalies made our defence look much better than it really is, and we have some great pieces on the blueline minus one big physical defenceman, so it all comes down to defensive coaching.

Bowness has to go.

Then there's Newell Brown who has done a good job of the PK, but has to go because this powerplay cannot sink as low as it did in the regular season. From 1st overall to 27th after the half-way mark of the season, you can't have a 10% powerplay with the 2 best playmakers in the world. This guy has probably the best pieces in the league to work with on the powerplay and still can't get anything done.

Brown has to go.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the grand plan was to trade Edler for Weber. Suddenly we need a left side guy? More likely, getting Hamhuis just after Ballard was a bit of an accident.

I do agree that $4.2 sitting behind Edler and Hamhuis is a bit of a waste. But so is not letting Ballard rush the puck.

<p>Who are you going to take ice time away from to give Ballard a "major role"? Do you take away from the 50 point Edler or our best shutdown d-man Hamhuis? The truth is Ballard's cap space could be better used than on that 3rd pairing.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yes MAG certainly has his offensive prowess dialed in and with careful tutelage, his defensive acumen will improve."

- He's no kid, so why do you think his 'defensive acumen' will improve? It sure hasn't so far. The only hope for him is a move to forward... but I expect it's a bit late in the day for that.

- why did they keep playing him? To save themselves from embaressment over the trade. I can't imagine he'll ever play with the Canucks again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yes MAG certainly has his offensive prowess dialed in and with careful tutelage, his defensive acumen will improve."

- He's no kid, so why do you think his 'defensive acumen' will improve? It sure hasn't so far. The only hope for him is a move to forward... but I expect it's a bit late in the day for that.

- why did they keep playing him? To save themselves from embaressment over the trade. I can't imagine he'll ever play with the Canucks again.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's so much coaching change that will turn Raymond and Ballard into different players. I mean we watch the games too right? Ballard's problem wasn't his lack of confidence and Raymond's problem wasn't his role on the team. I don't agree with AV on some coaching decisions, but he's proven more right than wrong.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.