Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Report] Gillis, Vigneault Expected To Be Back


samirjaver

Recommended Posts

MG staying is a good thing. Wouldn't want him to go.

Here's the thing about AV. He is a pretty good coach. He's kind of like Luongo, he'll consistently help us win and be strong throughout the season. But for some reason teams just dissect these guys in a series.

So I think if AV stays, we'll be fine. If he goes, well, we could have a better shot at the cup.

This is a pretty big offseason for MG. It will really define him as a GM, I would imagine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kassian, Jensen, Schroeder, Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, whoever you name will NEVER fullfill their potential with this team because AV is too set with Burrows with the Sedins, Kesler, Booth and Raymond/Higgins. Regardless of talent or production, new players won't be afforded that chance. We have the most hardheaded and moronic coach in the business and I don't see why anybody would envy us in that dept. Quenville is an excellent coach and he constantly shuffles Kane and Toews around rather than just sticking with "what works". Same with Babcock, you can't be satisfied with just past achievements. Those 2 coaches i mentioned have stanley cup rings, AV doesn't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just trying to evaluate the coaching situation. I wonder who has more success? Coaches who are 'relatively new' (>1 yr) to their teams, or coaches who've been with their teams long term (<3 yrs).

Going in to the playoffs:

- 6 of 16 coaches had >1 yr with their team.

- 6 of 16 coaches had <3 yrs with their team.

Get this:

- 4 of those 6 coaches who had >1 yr with team still remain

- Only 1 coach who had <3 yrs with team still remains

Since the lockout, the only Cup winning coach to be with their team <3 yrs was Julien (4 yrs). If AV stays, he will be going on his 7th yr. I think Canucks desperately need a coaching change. I don't think it's a fluke that, post lockout, long term (<3yrs) coaches don't have Cup success.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i dont understand why people though they wouldn't be back. Lets see what they've done for this team:

2 Presidents Trophy

SCF Appearance

Jack Adams Trophy

Selke Trophy

2 Art Ross Trophy

a few NW Division Victories

missing anything?

You can say most of this comes up to the players but without Gillis adding peices and AV having the luxury to mix up the lines and have a solid group of guys we wouldn't have any of the above. AV gave Burrows and Kesler the chance to be top 6 guys and they took advantage of that. I still remember when he split them up and put Burrows with the Sedins. I thought he was crazy, obviously not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say AV is fired. Despite all of his records, awards.. anything that makes him what he is, he is let go.

What then? Who says MacTavish is for sure to be next in line? Is he the best choice?

There is one guy out there, assiting in New Jersey, that I would like to see get a head coach spot in Vancouver: Larry Robinson.

Robinson was a great defenseman. He knows what it is like to win as a player, NHL and internationally, as well as having enjoyed success in head coaching.

Larry Robinson got the devils to the prize 2 years in a row. Won once. He is a great hockey mind that I would love to see given a chance to lead the Canucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say AV is fired. Despite all of his records, awards.. anything that makes him what he is, he is let go.

What then? Who says MacTavish is for sure to be next in line? Is he the best choice?

There is one guy out there, assiting in New Jersey, that I would like to see get a head coach spot in Vancouver: Larry Robinson.

Robinson was a great defenseman. He knows what it is like to win as a player, NHL and internationally, as well as having enjoyed success in head coaching.

Larry Robinson got the devils to the prize 2 years in a row. Won once. He is a great hockey mind that I would love to see given a chance to lead the Canucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought perhaps the canucks have given montreal permission to talk to vineault, maybe that is why the

post game press conference by vineault did not take place, as they are waiting till he finishes,

dealing with montreal, and a decision is made one way or the other.

Anyone who wants vineault fired, just wants someone else, just because.  There is absolutely no valid reason to fire him, gillis said it well at his press conference concerning vineault, listing all of

his successes, then wondered why anyone would want him fired, just doesn't make sense.

motivation for NHL players comes from 'within' and if a coach has to work on motivation, then those

players are not worth the time to bother with.

Vineault and his assistants have done a great job with the team, they prepare them well, they have

great attitudes and those who play well get better positions and better ice time, not like crawford

who played naslund and bertuzzi even though they both looked like they were skating in sand mostof their last season, he kept rolling the lines and they played and played and played, and did nothing.

Vineault would not have done that.

It is totally letting the players 'off' the hook when the coach is blamed for 'what' the players should

be blamed for.

Vineault can't go on the ice and do it for them, what has to be done next is have a great training camp,

and watch the players fight tooth and nail for a job, and start again.

I loved watching the team all season, and yes, its too bad they played such a bad first game in that

first round, and also the absence of daniel was costly.

Don't know what they were trying to prove in that first game, acting like fools, vineault would not

have suggested they play anything near that way.

And the second game, allowing the two shorthanded goals was a killer, again, not vineault's fault,

last I noticed, he had shoes on, not skates.

They have given raymond all season to truly get over his serious injury, and yes he has struggled,but defensively he is responsible and his skating is fantastic, so yes, they are going to try to get him back to a higher callibre of play.

The players are responsible for executing, they are grown men, professionals and they let their coaches

down 'big time' when they go on the ice and play like clowns.

Too late now, its over, forget it, and look forward to next training camp and season, I know I am.

GO CANUCKS GO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm ok with A.V actually. As a coach himself, he's won everything but a Stanley cup.

This year was a playoff failure, dispite a very good regular season, I thought it was epic fail, i'm not sure who told the team to "hold" back, while L.A Kings attacked in waves in game 5.

As Canucks fan, if we don't win the cup, it's a failed season. True. However 29 teams are not going to win the STanley cup, are there going to be 29 firing? We also saw that Detroit, and Chicago went out in round 1, PIttsburgh also. I'm not saying it's ok to go out, because other elite teams got eliminated in round 1, but I am ok with A.V.

But I don't think we should let him go, unless the following coahces happen to be available.

Patt Quinn

Pierre Lavolette

Joel Quinvelle

or MIke Babcock

unless these coahces become avaialble, I say we hang on to our current coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Alain Vigneault still hasn't figured out Joel Quenneville in a best-of-7. The fact that we beat them in the first round last year was due to an unlucky bounce for the 'Hawks and a split-second miscue by their goaltender. We very nearly lost that series. If not for Burrows (who has on more than one occasion saved Vigneault's bacon, the first being the shorthanded goal against Carolina years ago), Vigneault would've been fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Alain Vigneault still hasn't figured out Joel Quenneville in a best-of-7. The fact that we beat them in the first round last year was due to an unlucky bounce for the 'Hawks and a split-second miscue by their goaltender. We very nearly lost that series. If not for Burrows (who has on more than one occasion saved Vigneault's bacon, the first being the shorthanded goal against Carolina years ago), Vigneault would've been fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with him not being able to vigure out "Quenneville" if you read my sig you will know what I mean. That was a terribly officiated series, as the refs were did whatever they could to get the Blackhawks back into the series against the Canucks. WHY? I have no f ing clue. It wasn't called like this when they faced Phoenix this year, and I'm sick of it. If that series was equally officated, we would have won it in 5 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...