Alain Vigneault's Extension In Vancouver Presumably Completed In The Next Two Weeks

[RUPERTKBD]

AV is a good coach, but it's the old "change v. rest" thing.

If the coach can't change/adapt when needed - and that spans the gamut from in-game to season-to-season - to respond to threats and promote talent/streaks, then he may not be the best fit anymore.

I'm okay with him staying, but a fresh face and strategies would be welcome after this year's disappointment.

[DIBdaQUIB]

Umm, the players have told Gillis that they like AV. So umm, the players kind of know him better than we all do. Yup.

[DIBdaQUIB]

Time to dispel another myth.

I keep hearing this "AV is unable to adapt" opinion, but I heartily disagree. IMO, one needs to look no further than the last 10 games of the season.

I don't think too many people would argue with the opinion that towards the end of the season, with so many tight playoff races, that NHL referees started calling "playoff hockey" with weeks still to go in the regular season. It was evident in many of the games that I watched and it seemed apparent to the announcers as well, as I heard several comments to the effect of "That was being called a penalty last month".

So we have a situation where the clutching and grabbing is no longer being called, then Daniel is concussed by a Duncan Keith elbow.

Without his top scorer and with penalty calls suddenly at a premium, the Canucks seamlessly morph into a team that can play (and win) a tight-checking defensively responsible game.

Bear in mind that early in his career with the Canucks, Vigneault had no choice but to play defensive hockey because he didn't have the horses. However, once those players developed into legitimate scorers (or were added by MG) the team became one of, if not the best offensive team in the game.

Yet people will still say AV can't adapt....

[jigsaw99]

extention!?!?! NO!!!!! should be opposite!! FIREEEEEEEEE AVVVVVVV!!!!!

[stawns]

THis isn't a popularity contest! I"d rather the plyers hate teh coach and perform than like him and fail. I don't think the KIngs really "like" sutter, but they fear and respect him and it has made tehm go from barely making the playoffs to the favorites to win the SCF.

AV has had 6 yearsd and one of the most talented teamds inthe league who many picked 2 years in a row to win the cup. They barely escaped a collapse against Chicago and were embarrassed in the SCF last year and in the first round htis year.

AV doesn't know how to coach in the playoffs, pure and simple. His "system" and approach are effective in the regular season but he changes nothing for the playoffs which is a completely different animal.

SUtter has LA playing with less structure and more energy allowing his players to be "free" and boy does it show. AV preaches, system/structure and keep doing the same thing and you will win. Yeah right!!!

[Ghostdivision]

The AV haters need to get their complaints in order. First it's "AV rags on his players too much (Hodgson, Mitchell, Wellwood, O'Brien)", now it's "AV doesn't challenge his players enough". If you think the Kesler/AV dialogue was anything more than a media desperation article during the dog days of the hockey calendar, you'd be better off wearing a "sky is falling" sign on the street. AV made a perceptive (and obvious) point, and Kesler, being the competitor he is, bristled. Non story.

As for "losing the locker room", you have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, and it's ridiculously unfounded speculation. In six years here, AV has had very little dissension amongst the player ranks, a remarkable achievement, and one of the reasons he's had the long (for a coach) tenure here. Teams that quit on their coach don't win the President's Cup, they lose games, and lose them by lopsided scores, and lose them in bunches. Washington mid-season ring a bell?

[stawns]

I cannot speak for those who say he is to hard on players. You do realize not everyone thinks alike. I completely disagree that hes to hard on players. I think when people say hes to hard its on rookies, or certain people who are not his favorite. He certainly was not hard on kesler or bieksa at all when they were under performing.

Of course we have no idea what goes on behind closed doors, this a forum, and i shared my opinion and what i thought. Thats what a forum is about. I did not see a motivated team that responded to him all year.

[Ghostdivision]

Yes but in bostons defense they did win the cup, I kind of assumed we would be hungry to avenge our game 7 loss. It was grueling, but on boston forums they are also questioning if some of the coaching staff needs to go. That will happen when teams under achieve and dont perform.

All I thought was we were more hungry to beat boston once then to try to win the cup this year.

[RUPERTKBD]

Only in the regular season.  They have never been an offensive force in the playoffs and in fact set records last year for least goasl ever scored in an SCF.  It is the results AV has had in post-season play that lead to calls for his removal.

Few coaches have had the chance to coash a talented team like the Nucks and AV has squandered it.  Every year he says, we learned alot and will apply next year.  Give me a break!!!  BOston didn't need 6 years to learn how ti win in theplayoffs!  LA doesn't appear to have troyble figuring out how to play to be successful.  AV is not a playoff coach.  He has had more than enough time and talent.  Move him along or as fans, expect more of thea same...a team that is competitive in the regular season but that always gets beat by a "playoff ready" team..

[Red Light Racicot]

^{Bear in mind that early in his career with the Canucks, Vigneault had no choice but to play defensive hockey because he didn't have the horses. However, once those players developed into legitimate scorers (or were added by MG) the team became one of, if not the best offensive team in the game.}

[Mad Cow Disease]

There aren't any "offensive forces" left in this year's playoffs, but we'll leave that for the time being.

I have to disagree with your take on AV's playoff coaching prowess. The fact is, he coached his team to within a game of the Cup last season. Did that happen by some stroke of luck? Only in the mind of an AV hater such as yourself. A rational mind would say that it was a great run, but that the team was just too beat up by the final series to be able to close the deal.

I often wonder what people believe takes place in the postseason. Do they really believe that teams have this alternate strategy that they haven't used all season and it's up to the coach to figure out what it is and counteract it?

In general, teams play tighter defensively and the refs call less obstruction penalties. There is no magic formula for beating this. It's not something that you can scribble on a white board during a timeout.

Teams have to work harder, want it more and hopefully get some bounces. I know everone here believes that a coach can yell and scream his way into getting this sort of effort, but the truth is, sometimes the players just don't get it done.

Ken Hitchcock is the odds-on favorite to win the Jack Adams trophy, but his team fared even worse than the Canucks did against LA. Should he be fired? Why not? He certainly wasn't able to get a better effort out of his guys.

What about Babcock, or Quennville? Sure they've both won Cups, but they had great teams and what have they done lately?

[DIBdaQUIB]

That statement right there invalidates any argument you make from that point on. If you knew anything about systems hockey, it's that teams that make a strong committment to defensive hockey are the teams that have the most rigid structure and require the most discipline and committment to staying within that tight framework of the defensive system. You simply cannot play defensive hockey and play a less structured system, allowing players more freedom. Every play has a very specific role to play, and if one play is even remotely out of position, or does not buy into the style, the machine breaks down. They are at complete opposite ends of the system spectrum.

[RUPERTKBD]

Their teams don't exactly stack up with ours in the standings though do they?

[stawns]

What I posted was from the mouth of Sutter himself. But then, maybe you know more about what he's doing with LA than he does. One can still play a tight system while allowing a team some flexibility. Too tight a system can be scouted and countered. A system that is "moving" or flexible, is much tougher to coach against. I hope you are not also arguing with his comment about htem playing with more emotion?

[DIBdaQUIB]

There aren't any "offensive forces" left in this year's playoffs, but we'll leave that for the time being.

I have to disagree with your take on AV's playoff coaching prowess. The fact is, he coached his team to within a game of the Cup last season. Did that happen by some stroke of luck? Only in the mind of an AV hater such as yourself. A rational mind would say that it was a great run, but that the team was just too beat up by the final series to be able to close the deal.

I often wonder what people believe takes place in the postseason. Do they really believe that teams have this alternate strategy that they haven't used all season and it's up to the coach to figure out what it is and counteract it?

In general, teams play tighter defensively and the refs call less obstruction penalties. There is no magic formula for beating this. It's not something that you can scribble on a white board during a timeout.

Teams have to work harder, want it more and hopefully get some bounces. I know everone here believes that a coach can yell and scream his way into getting this sort of effort, but the truth is, sometimes the players just don't get it done.

Ken Hitchcock is the odds-on favorite to win the Jack Adams trophy, but his team fared even worse than the Canucks did against LA. Should he be fired? Why not? He certainly wasn't able to get a better effort out of his guys.

What about Babcock, or Quennville? Sure they've both won Cups, but they had great teams and what have they done lately?

[-Vintage Canuck-]

https://twitter.com/#!/benkuzma - Gillis, Vigneault in de-briefing sessions. Extension expected but term could be sticking point. AV has leverage, Habs still without coach.

[DIBdaQUIB]

https://twitter.com/#!/benkuzma - Gillis, Vigneault in de-briefing sessions. Extension expected but term could be sticking point. AV has leverage, Habs still without coach.

[Red Light Racicot]

https://twitter.com/#!/benkuzma - Gillis, Vigneault in de-briefing sessions. Extension expected but term could be sticking point. AV has leverage, Habs still without coach.

[stawns]

I'm not an AV hater and labeling someone who thinks he has had his chance and should move on as one, diminishes your argument.

HItchcock was note even a full season with teh Blures and turned them from a struggling, losing team inot a winning one. Pretty poor comparison to AV who has had 6 years and some of the best talent in theleague and has not got it done. This year (regular season and playoffs) was worse than last despite some of the "weaknesses" of the team supposedly having been fixed.

LIke it or not, coaches have a shelf-life and as it is easier to replace a coach than a team, it is often the coach that gets the boot when teams underachieve (which the Nucks surely have this year).

Only 2 coaches in the with more than 5 yrs tenure have won the cup with their team in the last 21 years! whiel at the same time, 9 coaches in their first year with a team have won the cup in that time-frame. IT is not likely just the caoch but a different climate, attitude, work-ethic and relationship contributes to a different product on the ice. Kesler saying "I like AV" is really sweet but hearing Doughty say "I don't want to get on Sutter's bad side" and seeing how SUtter has got him to change and iprove his game is more meaningful to me.

All I'm saying is that AV has had more than enough time with this core to get the job done, and he has not and is not. He may go somewhere else and win the cup...at the same time, a new coach may come here and do the same.

Same core with the same coach and expecting a different product/result, is being unrealistic.

[DIBdaQUIB]

whose team got swept, not just swept but completely dominated, by the same team that beat the Nucks 4-1