Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

[Confirmed] Alain Vigneault's Contract Extended By 2 Years


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
299 replies to this topic

#271 dangler696969

dangler696969

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 563 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 11

Posted 24 May 2012 - 12:47 PM

AV was pissing me off in that interview yesterday.

When Taylor asked "What are you going to improve next season specifically?" (something similar] AV started with "Oh thats a good question!" and continued to ramble on and not directly answer the question. Why wouldn't he just tell us?

I would like AV if he was better at relations with the fans/media. But since he's not, he seems like somebody that I probably wouldn't want to chill with. He might be kind of a d**k

#272 newgm

newgm

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Joined: 28-May 09

Posted 24 May 2012 - 01:12 PM

If it wasn't enough that AV called out Cody Hodgson publicly and assisted in running him out of town, now he's calling out Ryan Kesler:


“Obviously, Ryan had a shoulder issue and the decision was made at the end of the season to operate on that shoulder,” said Vigneault. “That being said, though, that was not, in our mind, the reason for his diminished production.

“I'm sure if you were to ask him, the injury wasn't the reason his production fell. His rehab and the way he stayed on top of that permitted him to play at the pace he was used to playing but for whatever reason, his performance slipped this year. We've got to get on top of that and we've got to get him back to where he was before that.”

This is Kesler's agent's (Kurt Overhardt) reaction:

“I am not a doctor, I'm a lawyer, but after having conversations with the player and with the club, anyone who thinks this injury did not affect his play must have fallen off a turnip truck.”

http://www.theprovin...html?rel=837260

Why the hell does AV keep doing this??


Cause people that are self absorbed failures need turmoil while deflecting attention from their screwups, so they just can't shut the F''ck up. He's done more to hurt this club off the ice than he's done to help it on the ice. Watch he'll talk Gillis into giving Schneider the "C" now and then blame MG because the team wasn't modelled after the L.A. Kings. Pathetic.

Another 36 months? hopefully less, before the Aquilini's wake up to the sound of the window of opportunity slamming on this core.

#273 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 24 May 2012 - 01:16 PM

Fair enough. The question still stands, though.

The business has one excellent "Christmas", although Christmas Eve is not what they'd hoped for. The following Christmas is disappointing, although somewhat mitigated by the second consecutive very strong "non-seasonal" year in sales.

Do you agree with Buck that this business would be a poor investment?

BTW: I think your 90% estimate is a tad high. The accepted rule of thumb is that a franchise generates about a million to 2 million dollars per game in the playoffs. As the PT trophy winners last season, the canucks played the maximum amount of home games possible, 16.

One would hope that that 16 to possibly 30+ million was not "90%" of the team's total revenue. It would be pretty tough to pay the bills if that were so....

While you have a steady and consistent regular season/performance which is safe...does safe make you rich? And also knowing and having the potential and the means to make it big which of course will require risks but in turn could triple your profits in bonuses ie. the playoffs...and considering other business are making a solid push for the bonuses and in turn capitalizing and benefitting from the huge bonuses/playoffs and consequently resulting/showing a much more profitable term then you...as you're left in the dust, which business would you rather invest in?

Edited by Mauii, 24 May 2012 - 01:24 PM.

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#274 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,807 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 01:23 PM

While you have a steady and consistent regular season/performance which is safe...does safe make you rich?  And also knowing and having the potential and the means to make it big which of course will require risks but in turn could triple your profits in bonuses ie. the playoffs...and considering other business are in fact capitalizing and benefitting from the huge bonuses/playoffs...while you're left in the dust, which business would you rather invest in?


I've already pointed out that playoff revenue will not "triple" your profit. Any other points to make?
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#275 tocnhockey

tocnhockey

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,728 posts
  • Joined: 08-May 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 01:27 PM

As someone who has watched and cheered for this team since Barry Wilkins scored the first goal I can say with some authority that all you AV MG haters out there have NO idea how bad this team has been in the past. I have seen it all and believe me this is the best times this team has ever had. We have been the best team overall for 4 years and yes I know we haven't won the most difficult trophy in sports to win. However this year and in the past years 29 other teams are disappointed and fans blame anyone who is convenient. You can pi$$ and moan about perceived mistakes regarding young prospects who "needed more playing time" but in the cases of people like Shirokov Grabner etc the fact was /is they are not good enough... all fans tend to overrate their prospects and then when they are proven shift the blame to scouting etc. the fact is this is the best of times for this team and AV is a good choice to continue. the only one I would replace him with would be Babcock or Bylsma . Enjoy what you have because for the first time we have consistency and a chance to reload instead of always trying to rebuild ( Hello Brian out there in TO)


I'm with you, guess people can call me geezer3 ::D

Glad to hear AV's back, I'm looking forward to next season.....hope Bobby-lu is back too.

Edited by tocnhockey, 24 May 2012 - 01:28 PM.

"He'll play, you know he'll play. He'll play on crutches."

 

 linden_mclean1994.jpg

 

Kirk McLean and Trevor Linden -Game 6 1994 SC Finals


#276 Mauii

Mauii

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,156 posts
  • Joined: 28-January 06

Posted 24 May 2012 - 01:36 PM

I've already pointed out that playoff revenue will not "triple" your profit. Any other points to make?

"triple" is used to simply exemplify the big dollars/prestige to be had during the playoffs..actual figures cannot be realistically ascertained or revealed...I don't have that access. Who knows, it very well could. The costs of each seat significantly go up...the longer the run the more the mark ups keep multiplying. Nonetheless, losing out on the playoffs is a big loss to the business, which other businesses are capitalizing on which puts them ahead of the game and arguably a better investment. A solid regular season term is just like any other Canadian team which doesn't make you a great investment with exceptional return just a safe one.

Edited by Mauii, 24 May 2012 - 01:38 PM.

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil."

#277 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,488 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 24 May 2012 - 01:48 PM

Here i'll post actually numbers instead of making crap up: winning % vs NWwas 75% vs NW, 61% vs East, and 55% against Cen/Pacific. Plus four extra games against the division, it probably worked out to more like 7-10 extra points (use .55 * 20 rather then .75 * 20 - 4.0 raw points + extra games (produce at 50% so say say go 4 more points)

Also where are you getting the 8 extra games from? According to NHL.com its' 24 against against the NW, 20 against other divisions? I guess any argument is easy to swat at when you make up numbers to support your cause.....

Spelling it out - 'bland, uninspired hockey' means that they could have lost many of the games they won because they were not dominating, they were just eeking wins out. The team looked uninspired. There are many factors, but is it not the coaches job to motivate the team? Many people predicted this team could be bounced in the first round, and sure enough they were. We weren't the best... do you seriously think we would have won the presidents trophy playing in the Atlantic or Pacific?? We got a lot of bounces, we easily could have lost 7or 8 games we won.

The bottom line for the against the pro-AV argument is good coaches get fired all the time, why? Because coaches stop working for teams and it's easier to remove ONE guy then to completely revamp the team to give the team a kick start. If we go into next year the exact same as this year less a few tinker changes, we will not win the cup. Quote me on it.


24 against the same division divided by four other teams in division = 6 games per team.

20 against other divisions divided by five teams = 4 games per team.

Therefore, 2 extra games per team in same division times 4 other teams in that division = 8 games

Back to the chalkboard for you.

Of those eight games, you don't award an automatic 2 points to Canucks, and you don't automatically award losses to other opponents in a different division. A cursory look at the total standings will reveal winning percentages fluctuating between 40% - 60%. So a safe estimate, again, in those eight extra games (divided by the other division's eight extra games) is probably even less of a differential than I originally guesstimated. Maybe 3-4 points. Leaving the Canucks with about 109 points for the year in an equally weighted Western schedule. Your point again?

"Bland, uninspired" hockey where you still win is the epitome of an excellent team. (The opposite is teams who play as if it were game 7 of the SCF every single game yet still lose by one goal.) Save your energy and health (when possible) for the playoffs yet still beat the opposition anyway during the regular season.

#278 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,807 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:04 PM

"triple" is used to simply exemplify the big dollars/prestige to be had during the playoffs..actual figures cannot be realistically ascertained or revealed...I don't have that access.  Who knows, it very well could. The costs of each seat significantly go up...the longer the run the more the mark ups keep multiplying. Nonetheless, losing out on the playoffs is a big loss to the business, which other businesses are capitalizing on which puts them ahead of the game and arguably a better investment. A solid regular season term is just like any other Canadian team which doesn't make you a great investment with exceptional return just a safe one.


I've already pointed out that most estimates place the value of each home playoff date at between 1 and 2 million, depending which market it is. For example, a newpaper article in the NY Post pegged the Rangers postseason take at about 2 million per home game.

If you assume that a team has home ice advantage throughout the playoffs as Vancouver did last season, the most home playoff games possible is 16. At 2 million per, the total would be 32 million dollars.

If that's triple the teams regular season numbers, then they're in deep financial trouble.
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#279 AnInconvenienceBrah

AnInconvenienceBrah

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 12

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:05 PM

AV just can't keep his mouth shut

http://www.theprovin...html?rel=837260

Kesler camp doesn't seem too happy about AV calling Kesler out with his injury saying that it wasn't the reason why his play dropped. AV saying Luongo wants out(if true) and the whole Hodgson thing, oh yeah remember AV comments on an injured Mitchell. Maybe AV is cancer in the locker room and our great GM re-signed him.

#280 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,807 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:09 PM

AV just can't keep his mouth shut

http://www.theprovin...html?rel=837260

Kesler camp doesn't seem too happy about AV calling Kesler out with his injury saying that it wasn't the reason why his play dropped. AV saying Luongo wants out(if true) and the whole Hodgson thing, oh yeah remember AV comments on an injured Mitchell. Maybe AV is cancer in the locker room and our great GM re-signed him.


The last time AV said something that Kes didn't like, (the "he needs to use his wingers more" comment) the response was almost immediate improved play.

Perhaps he's hoping that Kes will put in extra effort to prove him wrong...
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#281 AnInconvenienceBrah

AnInconvenienceBrah

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 12

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:13 PM

The last time AV said something that Kes didn't like, (the "he needs to use his wingers more" comment) the response was almost immediate improved play.

Perhaps he's hoping that Kes will put in extra effort to prove him wrong...


Too bad our next game is like 5 months away... makes no sense for a coach to call out a player like Kesler at the end of the season, AV should've been replaced he's calling out Kesler and players to cover his ass for not getting the team ready, he talked about how not having Danny caught him off guard for the playoffs and now he's throwing Kesler under the buss. I use to like AV but this crap is getting annoying, don't throw players under the buss at the end of the season to the media to make yourself look better.

Edited by AnInconvenienceBrah, 24 May 2012 - 02:13 PM.


#282 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,807 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:23 PM

AV was pissing me off in that interview yesterday.

When Taylor asked "What are you going to improve next season specifically?" (something similar] AV started with "Oh thats a good question!" and continued to ramble on and not directly answer the question. Why wouldn't he just tell us?

I would like AV if he was better at relations with the fans/media. But since he's not, he seems like somebody that I probably wouldn't want to chill with. He might be kind of a d**k


You honestly expect him to publicly state what he specific plans are for next season? Perhaps you should tune in to any post game presser in the playoffs right now and see how much actual information coaches are disclosing.

It doesn't make him a "d**k" just because he doesn't pander to people with a twisted sense of entitlement, who think that he "owes" them specific information just because they call themsleves Canuck fans.
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#283 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,807 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:24 PM

Too bad our next game is like 5 months away... makes no sense for a coach to call out a player like Kesler at the end of the season, AV should've been replaced he's calling out Kesler and players to cover his ass for not getting the team ready, he talked about how not having Danny caught him off guard for the playoffs and now he's throwing Kesler under the buss. I use to like AV but this crap is getting annoying, don't throw players under the buss at the end of the season to the media to make yourself look better.


Disagree.

If he were "covering his ass" he be using Kesler's injury as an excuse for the team's early exit.

BTW: It's Bus.

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 24 May 2012 - 02:25 PM.

Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#284 DeNiro

DeNiro

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,860 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 24 May 2012 - 02:25 PM

The last time AV said something that Kes didn't like, (the "he needs to use his wingers more" comment) the response was almost immediate improved play.

Perhaps he's hoping that Kes will put in extra effort to prove him wrong...


Kesler needs to stop having his superstar ego stroked anways.

The guy needs to be a leader on this team, and this season he was far from it.

Posted Image


"Dream until the dream come true"


#285 AnInconvenienceBrah

AnInconvenienceBrah

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 486 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 12

Posted 24 May 2012 - 03:14 PM

Disagree.

If he were "covering his ass" he be using Kesler's injury as an excuse for the team's early exit.

BTW: It's Bus.


he is in a way, he was said that Danny's injury caught him of guard, and Kesler didn't play well and it wasn't because of his shoulder. Makes no sense to call out players now, if a player shoulder is injured enough that it needs surgery, I would think that it would prevent a players ability but Dr. AV thinks different. It's getting annoying watch AV blaming players and down playing their injuries due to his inability to get the team ready for the playoffs. Gillis can't put friendship and business aside, AV should've been replaced, all of the coaching staff should've been replaced.

#286 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,807 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 04:10 PM

he is in a way, he was said that Danny's injury caught him of guard, and Kesler didn't play well and it wasn't because of his shoulder. Makes no sense to call out players now, if a player shoulder is injured enough that it needs surgery, I would think that it would prevent a players ability but Dr. AV thinks different. It's getting annoying watch AV blaming players and down playing their injuries due to his inability to get the team ready for the playoffs. Gillis can't put friendship and business aside, AV should've been replaced, all of the coaching staff should've been replaced.


And he isn't in a way. He said he wasn't prepared for the eventuality of missing Danny for game one. That's taking responsibility in my book. He also was not using Kes' injury as an excuse. (even though it appears that Kes' agent is)

I disagree that AV should have been replaced and more importantly, so did Mike Gillis.

BTW: Gillis and AV weren't "friends" when he took over as GM. He re-signed AV because he knew it was the smart thing to do. Just as he did this time around.
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#287 smithers joe

smithers joe

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,054 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 09

Posted 24 May 2012 - 04:28 PM

we have a chance to see gillis and company, mold this team again....i'm excited about that......forget all the external crap that is team related....none of us run this team, or could we....let's get behind this team and stop trying to drive a wedge between everyone....is this who we are?....god, i hope not.....

#288 TheAce

TheAce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 05

Posted 24 May 2012 - 04:46 PM

And he isn't in a way. He said he wasn't prepared for the eventuality of missing Danny for game one. That's taking responsibility in my book. He also was not using Kes' injury as an excuse. (even though it appears that Kes' agent is)

I disagree that AV should have been replaced and more importantly, so did Mike Gillis.

BTW: Gillis and AV weren't "friends" when he took over as GM. He re-signed AV because he knew it was the smart thing to do. Just as he did this time around.


This blows me away though , how could he have not known Danny had a concussion when the rest of world knew it ? How could you not have a back-up plan in place just incase Danny wasnt coming back when entering the playoffs ? That is inexcusable in my books . AV then makes a comment that now he understands head injuries. Has he been under a rock ? Concussion issues have been front and center in this league for a couple years especially with the Crosby case. Ballard was also out for considerable time with a concussion so how can he say he didnt know much about them ? This all just confirms what many say about AV, he is a great regular season coach but not for playoffs. He didnt have the team ready and couldnt adapt to LA's style.

As far as his comments about Kesler, it was another dumb move. Did he not learn from his Hodgeson comments that this stuff should be behind closed doors ? It doesnt do any good to throw Kesler under the bus like that. Even if he believes it, he should be sticking up for his players and saying the opposite to the press. His players would respect him alot more.

#289 Millerdraft

Millerdraft

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,509 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 06:27 PM

I can see the future. Doomed to be the next San Jose. Lots of talent, but can't get it done.

Hmmm... Let's take a look at SJ:

They became respectable under Dean Lombardi, currently LA's "genius" GM, who was hired in '96 and stayed on until '03:

Al Sims head coach in '96-'97:
'96-'97: missed playoffs, coach fired.

Lombardi hires Darryl Sutter in '97, currently LA's "genius" Head Coach, and Sutter stayed on until December 2002:

'97-'98: First round exit, 4-2, to the powerhouse (Western Conference Finalists) Dallas Stars.
'98-'99: First round exit, 4-2, to the powerhouse (Western Conference Finalists) Colorado Avs.
'99-'00: Number eight seed, defeat the Quenneville-led President's Trophy Winners 4-3 in round 1 (sound familiar?), lose 4-1 in round 2 to the powerhouse (Cup Finalists) Dallas Stars.
'00-'01: First round exit, 4-2, to the powerhouse (Western Conference Finalists) St. Louis Blues.
'01-'02: Second round exit, 4-3, to the defending Cup Champions Colorado Avs.
'02-'03: Team in danger of missing the playoffs, Sutter fired, Ron Wilson hired before Lombardi gets fired himself.

Darryl Sutter 6-year tenure: One Pacific Division Title, 18-24 record with only two playoff rounds won (three 1st round exits & two 2nd round exits), and once missed the playoffs altogether.

Doug Wilson '03-present day:
Ron Wilson '02-'08:

'02-'03: missed playoffs, GM Dean Lombardi fired, GM Doug Wilson hired.
'03-'04: won Pacific Division Title, ironically lost 4-2 in the Western Conference Finals to the Darryl Sutter led Flames.
'05-'06: Second round exit, 4-2, to the (Cup Finalist) Edmonton Oilers.
'06-'07: Second round exit, 4-2, to the powerhouse Red Wings.
'07-'08: Pacific Division Title & a 2nd round exit, 4-2, to the Dave Tippett/Brad Richards' led Dallas Stars. Ron Wilson fired.

Ron Wilson 5-year tenure: One Pacific Division Title, 28-24 overall playoff record with five playoff rounds won (three second round exits & one Conference Finals exit) and once missed the playoffs altogether.


Todd McLellan '08-present day:

'08-'09: Pac Div Title, President's Trophy, & a 1st round playoff exit to the #8 seed Anaheim Ducks.
'09-'10: Pac Div Title, swept in the Western Conference Finals by the powerhouse (eventual Cup champs) BlackHawks.
'10-'11: Pac Div Title, lose in the Western Conference Finals to the Alain Vigneault led Canucks.
'11-'12: First round exit to the St. Louis Blues.

McLellan's 4-year tenure: Three Pac Div Titles, on President's Trophy, a 19-20 playoff record with four playoff round wins (two WC Finals exits & two 1st round exits) and nearly missed the playoffs altogether this year.

Clearly the formula for Cup winning success is to fire three coaches in fifteen years (a new coach every 5 seasons if you will). It seems to me that Ron Wilson had the best winning percentage, McLellan is a swing or miss type of coach and Sutter was a rather colossal flop, yet which coach is in the Cup Finals right now? Hmmm, maybe Sutter wasn't such a bad coach after all? Or was the fact that he failed to get a Cup for the Flames in '06 (after getting within one game of the Cup in '04) reason enough to hand over the reigns to Playfair in '06-'07? Remember, after that Flames run in '04 NHL pundits everywhere were picking the Flames to win it all in '05/'06, '06/'07 & '07/'08...

AV was pissing me off in that interview yesterday.

When Taylor asked "What are you going to improve next season specifically?" (something similar] AV started with "Oh thats a good question!" and continued to ramble on and not directly answer the question. Why wouldn't he just tell us?

I would like AV if he was better at relations with the fans/media. But since he's not, he seems like somebody that I probably wouldn't want to chill with. He might be kind of a d**k

Right before the NHL Entry Draft when we have a rather large goaltending decision to make & prior to the July 1st NHL Free Agency period so that competitors can sabotage the entire offseason game plan like the Yankees & Red Sox do to each other every year? Yeah, that would be most wise.

You honestly expect him to publicly state what he specific plans are for next season? Perhaps you should tune in to any post game presser in the playoffs right now and see how much actual information coaches are disclosing.

It doesn't make him a "d**k" just because he doesn't pander to people with a twisted sense of entitlement, who think that he "owes" them specific information just because they call themsleves Canuck fans.


No doubt.

Kassian.... Taylor Pyatt 3.0

Lies. He's more of a Steve Bernier. Hopefully his talent level goes up so he can become like a Taylor Pyatt.


#290 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,807 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 07:04 PM

This blows me away though , how could he have not known Danny had a concussion when the rest of world knew it ? How could you not have a back-up plan in place just incase Danny wasnt coming back when entering the playoffs ? That is inexcusable in my books . AV then makes a comment that now he understands head injuries. Has he been under a rock ? Concussion issues have been front and center in this league for a couple years especially with the Crosby case. Ballard was also out for considerable time with a concussion so how can he say he didnt know much about them ? This all just confirms what many say about AV, he is a great regular season coach but not for playoffs. He didnt have the team ready and couldnt adapt to LA's style.

As far as his comments about Kesler, it was another dumb move. Did he not learn from his Hodgeson comments that this stuff should be behind closed doors ? It doesnt do any good to throw Kesler under the bus like that. Even if he believes it, he should be sticking up for his players and saying the opposite to the press. His players would respect him alot more.

I guess I'm not part of the rest of the world, because I didn't know it either. I suspected, but it was never confirmed prior to the start of the playoffs AFAIK.

I don;t know the entire situation, but I.m pretty sure the Canucks have medical staff, so I'd have to assume that they didn't let AV know either.

Just curious as to what the "back up plan" should have been in your opinion. Put in a different 40 goal scorer?

BTW: this "Great regular season, but lousy playoff coach" stuff is ridiculous and the product of people who don't know anything about coaching a high level. Coaches don't forget how to coach once the playoffs roll around. They don't change the methods that got them there in the first place.

Take a look at the Rangers. They're doing exactly what they've done all season. If they'd given up one more goal to the Caps in the wrong situation, they'd be golfing instead of playing. Instead of a "great playoff coach" who "knows how to motivate his players", he'd be the guy who "didn't make the necessary adjustments".

At least he would in the eyes of the uninitiated...

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 24 May 2012 - 07:19 PM.

Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#291 snolan

snolan

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: 27-March 04

Posted 24 May 2012 - 10:45 PM

24 against the same division divided by four other teams in division = 6 games per team.

20 against other divisions divided by five teams = 4 games per team.

Therefore, 2 extra games per team in same division times 4 other teams in that division = 8 games

Back to the chalkboard for you.

Of those eight games, you don't award an automatic 2 points to Canucks, and you don't automatically award losses to other opponents in a different division. A cursory look at the total standings will reveal winning percentages fluctuating between 40% - 60%. So a safe estimate, again, in those eight extra games (divided by the other division's eight extra games) is probably even less of a differential than I originally guesstimated. Maybe 3-4 points. Leaving the Canucks with about 109 points for the year in an equally weighted Western schedule. Your point again?

"Bland, uninspired" hockey where you still win is the epitome of an excellent team. (The opposite is teams who play as if it were game 7 of the SCF every single game yet still lose by one goal.) Save your energy and health (when possible) for the playoffs yet still beat the opposition anyway during the regular season.


edit: fighting on the internet is stupid... so as opposed to several well thought out paragraphs all I will say is you clearly cannot math. You are caught up in a fallacy similar to the the 'missing dollar' riddle.

You said 8 MORE games, we play 24 VS our division and 20 against other divisions (although there are 2 more division in the west) It IS STILL just 8 more possible points FROM the division due to extra games regardless!!!!!! Why is this so hard to grasp? It is 24 games vs 20 games vs 20 games.. If the team was slotted into a another division they would STILL play 20 games against the NW.

Teams do not play to just squeak out wins, saying that is like saying we were just waiting to flip the switch this year :rolleyes:

Edited by snolan, 25 May 2012 - 01:10 AM.

CMON GUYS HAVE SOME FAITH! WE ARE GOING TO WIN. ANYONE CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT IF THEY WANT. YOULL SEE

-- 1st Period of Game 2 VS the Kings, 2012 Series

#292 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,488 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 25 May 2012 - 02:58 AM

edit: fighting on the internet is stupid... so as opposed to several well thought out paragraphs all I will say is you clearly cannot math. You are caught up in a fallacy similar to the the 'missing dollar' riddle.

You said 8 MORE games, we play 24 VS our division and 20 against other divisions (although there are 2 more division in the west) It IS STILL just 8 more possible points FROM the division due to extra games regardless!!!!!! Why is this so hard to grasp? It is 24 games vs 20 games vs 20 games.. If the team was slotted into a another division they would STILL play 20 games against the NW.

Teams do not play to just squeak out wins, saying that is like saying we were just waiting to flip the switch this year :rolleyes:



*sigh*

I'm not going through the math again. The bottom line, and the point I made which holds, is that being in the weaker division isn't the point panacea that so many make it out to be. A smattering of additional games against .400 teams as opposed to .600 teams will yield an additonal several points, meaning we would probably have missed the Prez Cup, but still amassed well over 100 points. Again, what is your point, then?

As to the second point, you're not seeing the bigger picture. Why bust a nut for 82 games? What's the point of that? President's Cup's not enough? We have to win every game 6-1? I'd be upset if I were a season-ticket holder and it happened that we played "uninspired" too often, but the Canucks still won those games, and in the process didn't accrue the staggering injuries they did the year before, especially to the back end. (D Sedin the victim of a cheap shot is another story.) Maybe part of the reason for LA's success in the playoffs this year is because they jacked around so much the regular season, they're fresh as daffodils and dew for the real run.

#293 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 25 May 2012 - 04:08 AM

I hope MG gives AV some better players this year.

I'm not unhappy with some of the players he has uncovered/resurrected but when are we going to see a signing that doesn't have ????'s hanging over it.
It seems to me we need to up the grit, sniping and quality of the top 6

We have two extremely good, cerebral goal/ points scorers who on prior evidence can be bullied off their game (but not intimidated)
The twins are partnered by a tenacious, brave points scorer who does not have the bulk/physique to stand up defenders and relies on speed and agility.

Our 2nd line has someone with a reputation for "crashing the net and going to the dirty areas"......unfortunately because he doesn't pass or know when or how to pass to effect he is totally one dimensional. Anyone looking at the playoffs can see that the most effective way to go to the net is usually after you have laid a pass off to a team mate. Booth is totally missing this part of the game and seems to think he needs to/is able to do it all himself.

Our centre Kesler, has the heart of a lion and on his day, is a game changer. However he is starved by Booth and has not been helped by persistent injury. I feel he would benefit by a playmaker. Despite opinions to the contrary he and Raymond were the best combination we have had and some might argue even that was not good enough to win a Cup.

It is therefore obvious to me that MG needs to give AV better top 6 tools if we are ever going to get this done in the Sedin window.

MG needs to find a big gritty sniper who can stand his ground in front of the net and an equally large gritty playmaker for the 2nd line to play with Kes and Burr.

I have thought for a while now that our tendency to depth has blinded us to the type of players we need to win playoff sets. We were great in 2010-11 but we were butchered in a series where if we had these type of top 6 players allied to a big gritty "take no prisoners" D we would have gone that extra step to the Cup

So what I'm saying is "come on MG let's get the gloves off and give AV the tools to get the job done while we have all the other pieces required" Maybe then AV won't be subjected to this unfair criticism.

Edited by Bodee, 25 May 2012 - 04:11 AM.

Kevin.jpg

#294 snolan

snolan

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: 27-March 04

Posted 25 May 2012 - 09:28 AM

*sigh*

I'm not going through the math again. The bottom line, and the point I made which holds, is that being in the weaker division isn't the point panacea that so many make it out to be. A smattering of additional games against .400 teams as opposed to .600 teams will yield an additonal several points, meaning we would probably have missed the Prez Cup, but still amassed well over 100 points. Again, what is your point, then?

As to the second point, you're not seeing the bigger picture. Why bust a nut for 82 games? What's the point of that? President's Cup's not enough? We have to win every game 6-1? I'd be upset if I were a season-ticket holder and it happened that we played "uninspired" too often, but the Canucks still won those games, and in the process didn't accrue the staggering injuries they did the year before, especially to the back end. (D Sedin the victim of a cheap shot is another story.) Maybe part of the reason for LA's success in the playoffs this year is because they jacked around so much the regular season, they're fresh as daffodils and dew for the real run.


Sigh all you want, YOUR math is WRONG!!!!! Why are you so thick-skulled? Why do you keep arguing BASIC things.

First of the whole idea of predicting actual POINTS is something you have initiated, and completely stupid. WITHOUT making a complex algorithm and comparing many different factors no prediction is even close to accurate, not even mentioning intangibles.

The easiest way to do it is to just look at winning percentages and assume the deviation that would result from a switch. Have you even taken statistics? Here I will again, show numbers that are usable. The AVERAGE position (in standings) of teams by division was: Atlantic 9.6, NE 19.2, Cent 11.2, Pacific 15.8. The NW is 18.2 WITH the Canucks and WITHOUT the Canucks the average position of competition was 22.5 !!!!!!! All that can be concluded from this is that the level of competition is weaker in the NW than at least 3 divisions.

MY POINT is that the NW has inflated the point total, and you keep coming back saying "yeah by like 4 points" and then brought me into a dummy math race, but you don't know that. ALL I know is that the Canucks performed at a higher rate against the NW (weaker competition), and I have trouble fathoming they would win the president's trophy (again, see your claim, that they are the best in the league) if they were in the Atlantic, Pacific, or Central.

All of Vancouver's injuries last year? These were the scratches for the first playoff game .... VAN SCRATCHES: R. TORRES, A. ROME, J. TAMBELLINI, MALHOTRA
Compared to :
VAN SCRATCHES: D. SEDIN, A. ALBERTS, K. BALLARD, M. GRAGNANI, A. EBBETT, D. WEISE

The point? Neither year is worse than the other injury wise. You are again presenting something as fact when it is not.

You aren't checking facts, aren't doing math correctly. The Kings didn't conserve themselves, they had to fight for their playoff lives. Only a complete fool thinks teams play just hard enough to coast by. It's not JUST about the margin of victory, it's about the quality. Put a different way, we could have easily have been 6 or 7th in ROW this year, whereas last year we were 10 ROW points AHEAD of Philly. See the difference? No team says 'we'll wait until the shoot-out to win it'. Just like waiting until the last week of the season to clinch a playoff spot right?

Look i'm disproving what you are presenting as facts, with numbers and facts. In return you are coming back with saying you are right (based on your assumptions). You are being disproven, and debating it in a nonsensical manner.

I get what your saying, and agree yes playing in the NW is not a 15 point difference. But playing in the NW AND getting a lot of bounces they did this year means it could have been. Have a nice life!

Edited by snolan, 25 May 2012 - 06:36 PM.

CMON GUYS HAVE SOME FAITH! WE ARE GOING TO WIN. ANYONE CAN QUOTE ME ON THAT IF THEY WANT. YOULL SEE

-- 1st Period of Game 2 VS the Kings, 2012 Series

#295 TheAce

TheAce

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,943 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 05

Posted 25 May 2012 - 11:05 AM

I guess I'm not part of the rest of the world, because I didn't know it either. I suspected, but it was never confirmed prior to the start of the playoffs AFAIK.

I don;t know the entire situation, but I.m pretty sure the Canucks have medical staff, so I'd have to assume that they didn't let AV know either.

Just curious as to what the "back up plan" should have been in your opinion. Put in a different 40 goal scorer?

BTW: this "Great regular season, but lousy playoff coach" stuff is ridiculous and the product of people who don't know anything about coaching a high level. Coaches don't forget how to coach once the playoffs roll around. They don't change the methods that got them there in the first place.

Take a look at the Rangers. They're doing exactly what they've done all season. If they'd given up one more goal to the Caps in the wrong situation, they'd be golfing instead of playing. Instead of a "great playoff coach" who "knows how to motivate his players", he'd be the guy who "didn't make the necessary adjustments".

At least he would in the eyes of the uninitiated...



If you have seen any of the concussions that have happened over the past couple seasons ( Backstrom, Crosby, etc) , they were from elbows that grazed the player in the head. Daniel took a full on elbow straight to his face. Not only did he stay completely away from the rink, but he complained about headaches. His dad gives an interview admitting that his son had a concussion and Gillis spoke a few times how they are following NHL protocol with him. How could anyone not know he had a concussion let alone the coach?

Back-up plan ? Maybe try designing a new PP that didnt include Danile and Henriks typical passing plays. Maybe using the last few games to let Henrik build up some chemistry with a new winger instead of waiting till game 1 to try Booth on his line.

AV is very predictable and that was part of the problem. When you play a team one every 2 months its ok to use the same PP breakout because teams dont pay as much attention. When you enter a playoff series with a team, you better have a few options and be prepared to adapt because teams will study other teams plays. Our special teams killed us because LA knew exactly what our plan was. They were aggressive on the pk and we didnt adapt. They knew that little drop pass was coming and broke it up with ease.

I agree with you that the coach cant be blamed for everything and many times too much credit/blame goes to them, but its safe to say that Sutter outcoached AV in that series. He had his team ready to go and Dustin Brown mentioned it a few times in an interview that they had spent alot of time learning the tendencies of Vancouver.

#296 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,361 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 26 May 2012 - 01:07 PM

24 against the same division divided by four other teams in division = 6 games per team.

20 against other divisions divided by five teams = 4 games per team.

Therefore, 2 extra games per team in same division times 4 other teams in that division = 8 games

Back to the chalkboard for you.


6 x 4 = 24
4 x 5 = 20
24 - 20 = 4
Posted Image

#297 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,488 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 27 May 2012 - 12:45 AM

Sigh all you want, YOUR math is WRONG!!!!! Why are you so thick-skulled? Why do you keep arguing BASIC things.

First of the whole idea of predicting actual POINTS is something you have initiated, and completely stupid. WITHOUT making a complex algorithm and comparing many different factors no prediction is even close to accurate, not even mentioning intangibles.

The easiest way to do it is to just look at winning percentages and assume the deviation that would result from a switch. Have you even taken statistics? Here I will again, show numbers that are usable. The AVERAGE position (in standings) of teams by division was: Atlantic 9.6, NE 19.2, Cent 11.2, Pacific 15.8. The NW is 18.2 WITH the Canucks and WITHOUT the Canucks the average position of competition was 22.5 !!!!!!! All that can be concluded from this is that the level of competition is weaker in the NW than at least 3 divisions.

MY POINT is that the NW has inflated the point total, and you keep coming back saying "yeah by like 4 points" and then brought me into a dummy math race, but you don't know that. ALL I know is that the Canucks performed at a higher rate against the NW (weaker competition), and I have trouble fathoming they would win the president's trophy (again, see your claim, that they are the best in the league) if they were in the Atlantic, Pacific, or Central.

All of Vancouver's injuries last year? These were the scratches for the first playoff game .... VAN SCRATCHES: R. TORRES, A. ROME, J. TAMBELLINI, MALHOTRA
Compared to :
VAN SCRATCHES: D. SEDIN, A. ALBERTS, K. BALLARD, M. GRAGNANI, A. EBBETT, D. WEISE

The point? Neither year is worse than the other injury wise. You are again presenting something as fact when it is not.

You aren't checking facts, aren't doing math correctly. The Kings didn't conserve themselves, they had to fight for their playoff lives. Only a complete fool thinks teams play just hard enough to coast by. It's not JUST about the margin of victory, it's about the quality. Put a different way, we could have easily have been 6 or 7th in ROW this year, whereas last year we were 10 ROW points AHEAD of Philly. See the difference? No team says 'we'll wait until the shoot-out to win it'. Just like waiting until the last week of the season to clinch a playoff spot right?

Look i'm disproving what you are presenting as facts, with numbers and facts. In return you are coming back with saying you are right (based on your assumptions). You are being disproven, and debating it in a nonsensical manner.

I get what your saying, and agree yes playing in the NW is not a 15 point difference. But playing in the NW AND getting a lot of bounces they did this year means it could have been. Have a nice life!


Replies to what's bolded above:

1) You can't have it both ways. You're the one who initially said the Canucks "feasted off a weak NW division", thereby "inflating their point totals". So you're making a quantifiable statement. I'm the one who's trying to pin down what this actually means. You can't make these generalizations, and then just drive by to the next argument.

2) You're trying to baffle me with needlessly complicated stats. Mark Twain's famous injunction against stats and lies immediately comes to mind.

Pretty simple, really. And baggins has made the case even more accurately (4 games difference -- I was thinking 8 games as a differential, as in 4 point games between division rivals). So you take those four games and you extrapolate a likely comparable for the result between playing a .400 team as opposed to a .600 team. You can gin those numbers in any algorithmic way you want, but the bottom line will yield the team several extra points and no more.

Your point to all of this is to challenge my claim that the Canucks would have won the Prez trophy in any event. But I already conceded that they probably wouldn't have, so you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills. My larger point in all this -- who cares? 113 points, 110 points, 108 points -- Vancouver would have had an awesome regular season as defined in the only way that matters: total points.

3) You're again misunderstanding me. My thoughts about injuries were restricted to the regular season when the Canucks piled up a mountain of injuries to the back end. We were much luckier with injuries this past year during the regular season, and my point was that by not doing what you suggest -- playing as if every regular season game was necessary to go balls out every shift -- it helped us on that important front where we've been burned so often in past years.


4) Yeah, LA had to fight for their playoff lives because they put themselves in that position by coasting almost the entire year. Myself, and many others, were very surprised at LA's poor showing during the regular season. The coaching change obviously added a spark, but they blew late leads even in their last two games against San Jose. Their hockey boards were the most morose heading into a playoff series that you could imagine. The funniest comment was "Vancouver in 3".

If you want it to be Christmas every regular season game the Canucks play, you'll continue to be disappointed. I can't imagine how you'd feel with the editions of the Canucks that played sub .500 hockey for 14 or 16 years in a row in their early years. You don't know how lucky you've got it.

Edited by Barry_Wilkins, 27 May 2012 - 12:48 AM.


#298 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 27 May 2012 - 02:43 AM

Sigh all you want, YOUR math is WRONG!!!!! Why are you so thick-skulled? Why do you keep arguing BASIC things.




regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#299 Puck'nAnimal

Puck'nAnimal

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 474 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 27 May 2012 - 06:34 PM

If you want it to be Christmas every regular season game the Canucks play, you'll continue to be disappointed. I can't imagine how you'd feel with the editions of the Canucks that played sub .500 hockey for 14 or 16 years in a row in their early years. You don't know how lucky you've got it.


I have... considering I've lived through seeing it...

HistoryVisionDrive-HeartofaCanuck_rs.jpg


#300 jigsaw99

jigsaw99

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,262 posts
  • Joined: 06-April 10

Posted 27 May 2012 - 09:12 PM

Great. Now players won't want to sign with or get traded to us this offseason knowing they have to play under this asshole. Hopefully he gets fired becuase his 2 years are over.

Edited by jigsaw99, 27 May 2012 - 09:13 PM.





Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.