Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Okay, Something Needs to be Clarified


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#31 CrousettCanuck

CrousettCanuck

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:17 PM

I don't know how many of you were expecting Gillis to execute or attempt a major overhaul this off season, but I can say with confidence that a fair few did as we severely underperfomed in the playoffs.

A first round exit, though at the hands of the Cup Winners, is not what anyone, even our rivals, expected.

It's becoming more and more clear that our problem in the playoffs is NOT goaltending, or lack of size, or experience. It's becoming clear that the only legitimate problem is our lack of playoff offense. Even if we don't score as much in the playoffs (since we play a tighter defensive game come April), we don't even pressure the opposition and don't even create many chances in the post-season.

If we can play a game where the puck is most often in the opponent's side of the rink, then there are zero questions to be raised about the defense or the goaltending. The lack of offensive productivity is what causes these so-called "defensive and goaltending gaffes". We pretty much play like October Canucks in the playoffs - no offense, the defense has no chemistry, Luongo and Schneider hung out to dry.

So, now we ask the question: "did we improve enough, if at all". Well, the problem we have is not something you improve by just going and buying some player. This is a chemistry issue. Our forwards are not bad players at all. We have a strong offense that can go head-to-head with any other team in the league. How do we fix the problem then, if it's not through FA or trading?

The players need to become more dynamic. We can't just play the same game over and over again, because the way the Canucks' forwards play can be shut down if we play predictably. Why?

The Canucks play based on teamwork, NOT skill. Teams like the Pens have Crosby and Malkin. They're two players who can produce points no matter who is assigned to deal with them. The Sedins? Well, the only reason that they still produce is because they just can't be consistently shut down. However, our 2nd and 3rd lines can. These lines lack superstar quality and lack chemistry. So then, how in God's name are they supposed to do anything?

You might say this is a good time to go for FA, but the only way we can fix secondary scoring issues is by overpaying. By a lot. And then we lose cap space for other aspects of the team.

Our situation is weird because our team isn't built to win if our opponents know what we're going to do, because our game is planned out and practiced, it's not based on individual skill.

A possible solution at this point is to either get AV to stop being stubborn in his stratagems or maybe even change coaches. I don't think AV is the reason for any of this, but the coach is the root of how a team plays, and if that must change, the coach must either adapt or he must be replaced.

MG built the team with multiple good players but nobody with elite individual skill. If that is the case, we have no choice but to play a passing game, with offensive and defensive support. It's an ideologically sound tactic, but only if the opposition defends reactively, not preemptively (eg. how the Kings stood up at their blue line during our incredbly predictable PPS). If they know what we're about to do, they can stop us because our strategy isn't based off of elite skill, which they can't stop.

Bottom line: Fix how we play. Our team is cup-calibre, but not how we play.


I could not say it or put it anymore better than how you and what you just wrote. That pretty much sums up everything. Chemistry and lack of the elite caliber skill is what we are lacking. Our D seems to have the chemistry, our top Offense line has the chemistry but they both under-perform when necessary. We are definitely a Cup caliber team, if we weren't we wouldn't make it to Game 7. But, with that being said, added size to the team would not hurt and would be a huge help. Not that teamwork is not the answer, as every team needs it to win anything, but we need more individual determination to want to score and put more effort into being that "standout" player.

There seems to be a lack of drive and motivation to really want to win, and with the last playoff "run" we had, that was a huge factor and a missing one at that.

The word to describe the Canucks in the playoffs wouldn't necessarily be apathy, but it would be close to it. I find that the Canucks just seem to be going through the motions of how to play a game, but need to be more willing and determined to GET crap DONE and really want to ???? win! I love the Canucks with all my heart, but too seem them not perform at the level I know they down right ???? can pisses me off. Less passing, and more nailing that ???? puck at that net with the thoughts in their head of, "This puck is going to go in that net." Period.

I love you Canucks, I truly do and will forever watch every game I can, as I watched every game of the season last season, but I want you guys to know that you can win the Stanley Cup, but too win it, you also have to know that you can and are willing to put in the ABSOLUTE effort that is needed.
  • 0

#32 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,785 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:14 AM

I agree and disagree with your post.

First, Yes we do have problems scoring in the play off's.

But no it's not all strategy. Yes, part of it is size. The Sedin's have been outplayed in the key series we lost, notably against Chicago and Boston. And a key problem was SIZE. They loaded huge players on the Twins / Burr to nullify them. A big forward would do wonders, so would a depth defensive horse who was 230 lbs and could clear the net. But also yes, our 2knd and 3rd lines had trouble picking up the slack when teams loaded their top guys on our first line.

So here is a Stratagem :P. Play Twins / Burr in key offensive situations and the PP. But also break them into these lines;

Danny/ Kes/Booth This would have a top 5 in the world passing winger, size, speed and 3 potential 40 goal snipers.
Burrows / Hank / Kassian Hank gets everybody going, anybody think playing 2knd tier match ups would not allow Kassian to get going and Burr and Danny to dangle and pick apart teams to oblivion??? Also, nobody is going to be be bigger, faster or better than those two lines! AV should mix it up, because on status quo we are predictable and teams can play match up against us. I agree with the OP, change with strategy is perhaps the biggest needed change.

Plus we can bring in Kassian and Jensen into bigger roles, and then size is a smaller factor. So size can be handled internally.

Last but most important; we miss having (Erhoff), specifically a puck rushing defenseman. While I suggested we need size (we do), our biggest need is still a defender who can break pressure by hauling the puck out of our end. Schultz would have been soooo attractive, oh well... For all the skill we have on D, THAT is our biggest need.

Bjugstad is about 4 or 5 years from now when Hank is gone. Lou may not bring us our biggest need either unless something else changes.

So we need a pow wow with AV and MG. MG; you have to deliver a puck rushing defender. And AV also has to deliver lines that match up better.

And hey, flame me for this, maybe AV can also pair Ballard with Garrison, and Ballard could then be free to roam and be our puck hauling saviour?








I don't know how many of you were expecting Gillis to execute or attempt a major overhaul this off season, but I can say with confidence that a fair few did as we severely underperfomed in the playoffs.

A first round exit, though at the hands of the Cup Winners, is not what anyone, even our rivals, expected.

It's becoming more and more clear that our problem in the playoffs is NOT goaltending, or lack of size, or experience. It's becoming clear that the only legitimate problem is our lack of playoff offense. Even if we don't score as much in the playoffs (since we play a tighter defensive game come April), we don't even pressure the opposition and don't even create many chances in the post-season.

If we can play a game where the puck is most often in the opponent's side of the rink, then there are zero questions to be raised about the defense or the goaltending. The lack of offensive productivity is what causes these so-called "defensive and goaltending gaffes". We pretty much play like October Canucks in the playoffs - no offense, the defense has no chemistry, Luongo and Schneider hung out to dry.

So, now we ask the question: "did we improve enough, if at all". Well, the problem we have is not something you improve by just going and buying some player. This is a chemistry issue. Our forwards are not bad players at all. We have a strong offense that can go head-to-head with any other team in the league. How do we fix the problem then, if it's not through FA or trading?

The players need to become more dynamic. We can't just play the same game over and over again, because the way the Canucks' forwards play can be shut down if we play predictably. Why?

The Canucks play based on teamwork, NOT skill. Teams like the Pens have Crosby and Malkin. They're two players who can produce points no matter who is assigned to deal with them. The Sedins? Well, the only reason that they still produce is because they just can't be consistently shut down. However, our 2nd and 3rd lines can. These lines lack superstar quality and lack chemistry. So then, how in God's name are they supposed to do anything?

You might say this is a good time to go for FA, but the only way we can fix secondary scoring issues is by overpaying. By a lot. And then we lose cap space for other aspects of the team.

Our situation is weird because our team isn't built to win if our opponents know what we're going to do, because our game is planned out and practiced, it's not based on individual skill.

A possible solution at this point is to either get AV to stop being stubborn in his stratagems or maybe even change coaches. I don't think AV is the reason for any of this, but the coach is the root of how a team plays, and if that must change, the coach must either adapt or he must be replaced.

MG built the team with multiple good players but nobody with elite individual skill. If that is the case, we have no choice but to play a passing game, with offensive and defensive support. It's an ideologically sound tactic, but only if the opposition defends reactively, not preemptively (eg. how the Kings stood up at their blue line during our incredbly predictable PPS). If they know what we're about to do, they can stop us because our strategy isn't based off of elite skill, which they can't stop.

Bottom line: Fix how we play. Our team is cup-calibre, but not how we play.


  • 1

#33 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,688 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 02:39 AM

So what do You suggest ? I suggested early November that Kesler should not be the Centre on the 2nd line, that Coho semed a better fit and distributor of the puck and that Booth and Kesler should be his wingers,where they both like to shoot and are strong on the Puck as well as being fast, and thought that line would have been better than it was with Coho on the wing. I even suggested Kesler could have taken some of the faceoffs and shared the position somewhat, but AV never tried it once,so we will never know.


The problem with this scenario was the fix was in for CoHo so he was never considered and therefore it was never going to happen.
Like Neely and Bure and Grabner,we will never know.
42 years and counting.
  • 0

#34 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:17 AM

So what do You suggest ? I suggested early November that Kesler should not be the Centre on the 2nd line, that Coho semed a better fit and distributor of the puck and that Booth and Kesler should be his wingers,where they both like to shoot and are strong on the Puck as well as being fast, and thought that line would have been better than it was with Coho on the wing. I even suggested Kesler could have taken some of the faceoffs and shared the position somewhat, but AV necer tried it once,so we will never know
.
Playmaking is the Centres job, not the wingers. The centre can dish off to anyone on the ice, and is also responsible for being the 3rd man defensively.
I dont understand when (a few) people say Kesler needs a Playmaker ?
I remember experts criticising Kesler in his early years as lacking vision for making plays.
He had a career year 2 yrs ago, playing with the Twins and on the 2nd line (while the Twins got all the top players and checkers)
He plays more like a winger than a Centre, so if we get a playmaking Centre again,let him use his speed and wanting to shoot and try him on the wing


I don't really think Cody was a better fit but I agree Kes at centre is not a best option. We need a big gritty passing centre. Someone like Lecavalier. Then personally having moved Booth as part of that deal I would play Raymond on the left and Kes on the right. The reason for this is passing is not a one way deal and Booth seldom returns a pass...........the same can't be said about Raymond.

Also I thought Cody was a bit slow to be 3rd man defence. Kesler at least did that job better even when he wasn't scoring. We all have different opinions though.
  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#35 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,008 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:52 AM

There's a number of factors: inconsistent goaltending by Luo, AV's mediocre coaching and lack of effective counter strategies, predicatble playing styles ie Sedins cycling, not enough size and toughness, not enough urgency and desire to win, not enough players who can elevate their game in the play-offs - too many play-off no shows, and yes lack of scoring depth too.


Or maybe, just maybe, it's not getting there healthy enough to win.


Poorly timed key injuries have hurt us more than anything else the past two playoffs. The team does not need to be blown up. The coach doesn't need to be fired. Nor does it have to do with size or desire. All they need is to get lucky enough to stay even reasonably healthy through the playoffs. Although a little puck luck wouldn't hurt.
  • 1
Posted Image

#36 dorrcoq

dorrcoq

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,037 posts
  • Joined: 12-September 05

Posted 30 August 2012 - 08:00 AM

"If we can play a game where the puck is most often in the opponent's side of the rink, then there are zero questions to be raised about the defense or the goaltending."

Oh, yeah...brilliant analyses. Like saying if we always score more goals than the other team we'll never lose.
  • 0

#37 blueliner1955

blueliner1955

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 122 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 08:01 AM

going to be no hockey this time so we stand pat no trades no better players signed o well have a good rest canucks
  • 0

#38 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,878 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:12 AM

Okay, Something Needs to be Clarified
...
Bottom line: Fix how we play. Our team is cup-calibre, but not how we play.

I'm not sure that needed to be clarified, but hey, I'll go ahead and call AV to let him know anyway...

"Hey AV, we have good players, but we need to have them play better.
...
Uh huh, that's what the guy who created a thread on CDC said.
...
Basically. Sounds easy right?
...
Cool, now tell Aquilini to get on Bettman about how stupid they're being and get this CBA sorted.
...
He tried that, eh?
...
OK, you get the point, I'll call you later."

:rolleyes:

While we lacked goal production, there were certainly times where we weren't good enough defensively or just had mental lapses that cost us. I'd say most of our players didn't adjust to overcome the other team's play in the cases where we lost, and failed to drive possession better - something LA was very good at coming into the playoffs. Capitalizing on our chances would have just been icing on the cake.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#39 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,647 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:13 AM

Let me clarify that the lack of offense was caused by your lack of size when pitted against the LA Kings.
  • 0

#40 luckylager

luckylager

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 11

Posted 30 August 2012 - 09:24 AM

In my humble opinion- though he's coached the 'nucks to their best reg. seasons in history- AV was just out coached by Suter last year. The 'Nucks seemed to lack the intensity that LA brought to the ice. Brown had more drive than the entire first and second lines. This cool, calm, relaxed and jokey AV sucks at motivating the boys, the system is tired ( if not broken ). Yes, I know he coached us to the finals, he rode Kes' coat-tails like everyone else. I'd just like to see a more angry and prototypical coach, AV: Get F'n mad!
  • 0

#41 Sbriggs

Sbriggs

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined: 25-June 12

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:34 AM

:frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic: :frantic:
its the coach no its the lack of stars, no it was the injuries, wait must have been the reg season travel, hmmm the refs? No definitely the coho trade. Wait i know its gotta be the fans.

we are a good team all this is silly we got beat by the last 2 stanley cup champs who were with out a doubt just plain better when it counted. Our time will come though.

finally a voice of reason
  • 0

#42 hockeywoot

hockeywoot

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 09

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:38 AM

I agree and disagree with your post.

First, Yes we do have problems scoring in the play off's.

But no it's not all strategy. Yes, part of it is size. The Sedin's have been outplayed in the key series we lost, notably against Chicago and Boston. And a key problem was SIZE. They loaded huge players on the Twins / Burr to nullify them. A big forward would do wonders, so would a depth defensive horse who was 230 lbs and could clear the net. But also yes, our 2knd and 3rd lines had trouble picking up the slack when teams loaded their top guys on our first line.

So here is a Stratagem :P. Play Twins / Burr in key offensive situations and the PP. But also break them into these lines;

Danny/ Kes/Booth This would have a top 5 in the world passing winger, size, speed and 3 potential 40 goal snipers.
Burrows / Hank / Kassian Hank gets everybody going, anybody think playing 2knd tier match ups would not allow Kassian to get going and Burr and Danny to dangle and pick apart teams to oblivion??? Also, nobody is going to be be bigger, faster or better than those two lines! AV should mix it up, because on status quo we are predictable and teams can play match up against us. I agree with the OP, change with strategy is perhaps the biggest needed change.

Plus we can bring in Kassian and Jensen into bigger roles, and then size is a smaller factor. So size can be handled internally.

Last but most important; we miss having (Erhoff), specifically a puck rushing defenseman. While I suggested we need size (we do), our biggest need is still a defender who can break pressure by hauling the puck out of our end. Schultz would have been soooo attractive, oh well... For all the skill we have on D, THAT is our biggest need.

Bjugstad is about 4 or 5 years from now when Hank is gone. Lou may not bring us our biggest need either unless something else changes.

So we need a pow wow with AV and MG. MG; you have to deliver a puck rushing defender. And AV also has to deliver lines that match up better.

And hey, flame me for this, maybe AV can also pair Ballard with Garrison, and Ballard could then be free to roam and be our puck hauling saviour?



I agree with parts.
The Sedins' style of play, does not match well for playoff hockey.
They've been consistently our best performers, but haven't been able to 'elevate' their play.

I for one, would like to see the Sedins split up...for an EXTENDED period of time.
Most people dismiss it, and FLAME the suggestion.

The regular season is really just prep for the playoffs.
The Sedins are elite level players, but it doesn't mean they can't improve aspects of their game.
They're excellent puck possession players. Their playmaking is unbelievable.
What they don't do is play a dynamic, uptempo, attacking game.

Forcing them to split up, would hopefully elevate their game without each other.
If they could play well without each other, it would give teams a harder time with
matchups. Its better to have more options than less. To be unpredictable.
Its not like they're suddenly going to regress at their puck possession game.

Daniel is almost as good a playmaker as Henrik.

I think lines of

Sedin Kesler Booth
Burrows Sedin Kassian

would be interesting to see. It would be worth a shot at least.
  • 3

#43 ridehard1212

ridehard1212

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 186 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 11

Posted 30 August 2012 - 01:16 PM

i hate that CDC always point to the twins as none playoff players!! Look at there stats last three runs.. henrik 42GP 41Pts... Daniel 39GP 36Pts... what more do you want from them?? 60Pts in 40 games??? Crosby 68GP 90Pts.. imagine if they had a 2nd line that was more consistent to take pressure off them?
  • 3
I dont give a rat arz about my spelling/grammer mistakes,get over it and up urs if it bothers u!!!!

#44 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,785 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 03:14 PM

All the time, for extended periods of time?

Too productive to mess with functioning parts is my thought. They do not function only when teams load large physical match ups against them (see Nashville) that successfully break their cycle. Combined with Burrows they average 185 lbs, which has its vulnerabilities. I had three purposes in cycling the Twins on alternate lines.

1) Break an opposing coaches ability to control match ups. With Twins combined with big physical and fast players on two separate lines > First teams can't load their matchups and 2knd combining a Twin with elite athleticism means they could not be nullified by physical match ups anyway!

2) The world class magic the Sedins have to offer can also be used to elevate the play of secondary players. Does anybody not believe Hank could make virtually any decent forward (u pick; Jensen, Higgins, Bitz, Kassian, Raymond, Burrows (LOL), Booth, Hansen even Lapierre) a 25 to 35 goal scorer?

3) It lets them play in more situations. They are sheltered in offensive situations partly because of their vulnerabilities. Do you want Hank jousting with Thornton in the defensive zone? But complimented properly, I have no doubt we could take advantage of their special hockey sense and passing to break players out in 3 zones. It makes us a faster more dangerous team.

And look how much better a player Burrows is now after playing with Hank and Danny?

Detroit has the model down; playing Zetterburg and Datsyuk together in the right situations, and pairing them with match up breakers as needed. They do this a lot on the road, and to muck with opposing coaches at home; then out they pop together against an exhausted match up after an icing call...

I agree with parts.
The Sedins' style of play, does not match well for playoff hockey.
They've been consistently our best performers, but haven't been able to 'elevate' their play.

I for one, would like to see the Sedins split up...for an EXTENDED period of time.
Most people dismiss it, and FLAME the suggestion.

The regular season is really just prep for the playoffs.
The Sedins are elite level players, but it doesn't mean they can't improve aspects of their game.
They're excellent puck possession players. Their playmaking is unbelievable.
What they don't do is play a dynamic, uptempo, attacking game.

Forcing them to split up, would hopefully elevate their game without each other.
If they could play well without each other, it would give teams a harder time with
matchups. Its better to have more options than less. To be unpredictable.
Its not like they're suddenly going to regress at their puck possession game.

Daniel is almost as good a playmaker as Henrik.

I think lines of

Sedin Kesler Booth
Burrows Sedin Kassian

would be interesting to see. It would be worth a shot at least.


Edited by Canuck Surfer, 30 August 2012 - 03:28 PM.

  • 0

#45 thehamburglar

thehamburglar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,282 posts
  • Joined: 21-April 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:17 PM

We just need to change our mindset of the playoffs. We're way to causal in how we play.
  • 0
Posted Image

#46 Watermelons

Watermelons

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,589 posts
  • Joined: 16-June 11

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:40 PM

I agree with the OP. And for those that are arguing about the 2010-2011 season, remember this - we had Ehrhoff.

You can argue all you want about the defensive mistakes he made in the defensive zone, but you cannot dismiss the fact that Ehrhoff had a very good first pass, and could also move into the defensive zone very very fast. Opposing defenders would simply have to cover Ehrhoff, because his speed and ability to pass the puck made him very dangerous and gave the Canucks a variety of ways to break into the offensive zone.

This way, on the PP (and on even strength) our forwards (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows etc.) had more space to move and make the plays they need because players needed to cover Ehrhoff. Now, I'm not saying Edler and Salo couldn't do this, but as we all saw in the playoffs, the only play we had to break into the offensive zone was the drop pass - which was a huge failure.

Now, once the players are inside the offensive zone, I noticed that a lot of the time the forwards would pass back to the d-men so they could make the big shot and possibly create a rebound. The problem here, is that Edler and Salo's shots were fast, but not always accurate. Many times, the opposing defenders would easily block the shots and clear it out of the zone, or the puck would just miss the net. This, in my opinion, is the reason why the Canucks began to pass and pass and pass for the entire powerplay because they needed to set up the perfect shot or the opposing team would take possesion of the puck.

In 2010-2011 however, I noticed that Ehrhoff (and Samuelsson) were good a shot on goal, that would create a frenzy in front of the goalie. Their ability to get the put on goal, IMO, was very underrated and probably the reason for our success up to the finals. As we saw in the finals, our PP went cold and just stopped scoring. Why? Well, besides the obvious reason that AV can't adapt when his strategies are solved, I think that it was because Ehrhoff injured his shoulder, limiting his ability to make that important shot on net to make a rebound.

IMO, our team shouldn't have let Ehrhoff go, but I understand that although his new contract has a nice cap hit, it isn't worth paying him 18 million in a season or two.......

Edited by monkeydluffy, 30 August 2012 - 05:07 PM.

  • 1

tumblr_lv6jbk180f1r5jtugo1_250.gif  Kirby_eats_a_watermelon.gif 


#47 PONCHE

PONCHE

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,838 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 08

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:51 PM

I think people underestimate the impact that our division has on us.

We dont have to play well down the stretch, home ice is pretty much locked up for us as of regular season game #1.
Our division sucks, whereas we do not. All we need to get a top three spot is for one of the other NW teams to have a bad/mediocre stretch.

By the time the playoffs role around the Canucks have not had to fight tooth and nail for a very long time.

Edited by PONCHE, 30 August 2012 - 04:51 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#48 RonMexico

RonMexico

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,199 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 12

Posted 30 August 2012 - 04:57 PM

Canucks need a coaching change. A new voice in the locker room would do wonders IMO. I think the message is getting a bit stale.


While I don't really care for AV's style of coaching, this statement you made is complete nonsense. There is absolutely no way anyone even knows this to be true unless you are part of the team. This team isn't winning despite AV, they are winning because he pulls decisions out of his rear end that always seem to work...until the playoffs. Nashville has done a lot of losing in the past and Barry Trotz has never been canned. Why is that? He is a good coach. So is AV. As a coach, you can only prepare your players so much and make the right calls at the right time. If the team doesn't perform when the chips are down, no amount of coaching will help. A coach cannot make a team win, they only provide the guidance to be successful. This team wins more than it loses. The coach is doing everything he can and doing it well.
  • 4

#49 canucksnihilist

canucksnihilist

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,460 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 11

Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:11 PM

imho: injuries got us. again.

the team, healthy, would have given the kings a run for their money (d. sedin and kesler were hobbled or out, bieksa too? can't remember...). could have easily won if healthy. might have won the cup or gone to finals again. but not with ds and rk out, we had no chance, everyone knew it going in.

2nd line hole was noticeable though... m. raymond was still a good player, almost 2nd line material, not a perimeter player anyways when we went to the finals. he was not last year though, noticeable against the kings for the wrong reasons.

so, getting tougher long-term seems to be the plan. right away, we need that 2nd line player who can step in and shine, ideally who brings toughness. everyone wants that player though.

options:
1. raymond returns to form, finds the middle of the ice and the tough areas again.
2. doan comes and completes the 2nd line
3. young player from the nucks makes the team cause we can't send him down. schroeder? maybe...
4. return for rl or cs

oh, and malholtra getting back to even 75% of what he once was would really gel everything nicely wouldn't it? unfortunately, a player on the 3rd line needs to be going at 100% to really make a diff, so not sure if it can happen. if he is anything like last year i wouldn't be surprised to see him bought out.

oh, and btw: the only thing that is going to get kesler back to form is a lockout until jan or so... (remember selanne, bad knee, declining, a lockout did him wonders). also, a lockout and shortened season seems like the only way the team can actually stay healthy come playoffs!!!!! lol
  • 1

#50 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 30 August 2012 - 05:55 PM

stupid thread
  • 0
Posted Image

#51 Konman

Konman

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 10

Posted 30 August 2012 - 06:06 PM

I kinda agree with you where you say that we need to fix how we play our game.
I believe with all sports, mixing it up ultimately keeps the opposition on it's toes.
Forming and keeping our lines the same translates into other teams figuring you out.

As with the twins, hit Hank & Dank up a little too much and they pretty well shut down
& don't know what to do. They get frustrated and do nothing.

Every once in a while I would like to see them separated. They are both incredible players
and as good as they are together, they are just as good alone as well.

Time to repair both the 1st and 2nd lines. Separating the twins is a good start.
  • 1

#52 Hockey Fever

Hockey Fever

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,808 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 09

Posted 30 August 2012 - 06:23 PM

The players can't let little thing get to them in the playoffs, just go in with focus and killer instinct. Don't get thrown off their game by anything, even the refs. Play every game like it's an elimination game.
  • 0

Posted Image

NHL Wikipedia : Operates Major Ice Hockey League known for predetermining Stanley Cup winners and rampant corrupt officiating

"I would love for (the Canucks) to win the Stanley Cup because that would put to bed all the talk about 1994", he says facetiously".
Nathan Lafayette on hitting the post in game seven of the Stanley Cup.


#53 TotesMagotes

TotesMagotes

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,273 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 30 August 2012 - 11:44 PM

AV has been out coached in the playoffs more often than not. I do like AV, he is a good coach, i don't think they should let him go just yet, mainly because there is no one else out there who is better.
I just think, no matter how good of a coach he might be, that getting a new message across to the players, maybe a few changes could help freshen the team up a bit, give them a new focus. Just my opinion. You don't have to agree with it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#54 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:39 AM

While I don't really care for AV's style of coaching, this statement you made is complete nonsense. There is absolutely no way anyone even knows this to be true unless you are part of the team. This team isn't winning despite AV, they are winning because he pulls decisions out of his rear end that always seem to work...until the playoffs. Nashville has done a lot of losing in the past and Barry Trotz has never been canned. Why is that? He is a good coach. So is AV. As a coach, you can only prepare your players so much and make the right calls at the right time. If the team doesn't perform when the chips are down, no amount of coaching will help. A coach cannot make a team win, they only provide the guidance to be successful. This team wins more than it loses. The coach is doing everything he can and doing it well.


I agree with this.

Also I would put more blame(?) on MG for not elevating the standard of the team where it counts...........physicality/pushback.
I really think with the tryout of Nolan, MG realised we needed a big scoring body in the 2nd line and when he was not up to it ........MG seemed to give up on the idea.

It was the same with Bitz, the idea and the realisation was there...........he just got the wrong guy.

What will happen if we don't get Doan (I don't think he fits anyway) are we going to call it a day again. Arnott is available, we should snap him up at least as a "Nolan" type who would still be able to do a decent job for the team. He could always drop back to 3rd line centre if we land a "game changer" later.
  • 2
Kevin.jpg

#55 Sensemaker

Sensemaker

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 12

Posted 31 August 2012 - 09:18 AM

Canucks need a coaching change. A new voice in the locker room would do wonders IMO. I think the message is getting a bit stale.


This. Not because AV is a bad coach; his resume speaks for itself, but because all 29 other teams have the books on the Canucks.

A team's style must periodically change so as to keep it fresh against the opposition.

All L.A. Had to do is watch 100s of hours of tape in the Canucks and see common trends in their game and take advantage of those trends and it showed.

But... Who?

With Diver Kesler and Fingerbiter Burrows on the team, with the sisters (as skilled as they are, let's face it the Sedins are as soft as marshmallows), with a new Bertuzzi prototype and a possible Doan signing, with the choice of Luongo and Schneider in net, I... am kinda... intreagued by the idea of... no one will like it... Keanan.

But truly, it was MacT's next move.

Edited by Sensemaker, 31 August 2012 - 09:25 AM.

  • 0

#56 hockeywoot

hockeywoot

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 520 posts
  • Joined: 12-May 09

Posted 31 August 2012 - 09:24 AM

All the time, for extended periods of time?

Too productive to mess with functioning parts is my thought. They do not function only when teams load large physical match ups against them (see Nashville) that successfully break their cycle. Combined with Burrows they average 185 lbs, which has its vulnerabilities. I had three purposes in cycling the Twins on alternate lines.

1) Break an opposing coaches ability to control match ups. With Twins combined with big physical and fast players on two separate lines > First teams can't load their matchups and 2knd combining a Twin with elite athleticism means they could not be nullified by physical match ups anyway!

2) The world class magic the Sedins have to offer can also be used to elevate the play of secondary players. Does anybody not believe Hank could make virtually any decent forward (u pick; Jensen, Higgins, Bitz, Kassian, Raymond, Burrows (LOL), Booth, Hansen even Lapierre) a 25 to 35 goal scorer?

3) It lets them play in more situations. They are sheltered in offensive situations partly because of their vulnerabilities. Do you want Hank jousting with Thornton in the defensive zone? But complimented properly, I have no doubt we could take advantage of their special hockey sense and passing to break players out in 3 zones. It makes us a faster more dangerous team.

And look how much better a player Burrows is now after playing with Hank and Danny?

Detroit has the model down; playing Zetterburg and Datsyuk together in the right situations, and pairing them with match up breakers as needed. They do this a lot on the road, and to muck with opposing coaches at home; then out they pop together against an exhausted match up after an icing call...


Pretty much agree.
By an extended period of time, I simply meant a period longer than a couple shifts here and there.

I strongly believe it would help round out the deficiencies in their game.
At first, there may be a dip in production, but over time they could really benefit.

I feel the Zetterberg-Datsyuk is an appropriate one to make.
While they obviously don't have Sedin-level chemistry, they're able to perform well
separately and together.
  • 0

#57 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 31 August 2012 - 09:57 AM

"If we can play a game where the puck is most often in the opponent's side of the rink, then there are zero questions to be raised about the defense or the goaltending."

Oh, yeah...brilliant analyses. Like saying if we always score more goals than the other team we'll never lose.


Well, keeping the puck 200' away from your goal really helps in getting a shutout. :)

regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#58 Ugli Fruit

Ugli Fruit

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,862 posts
  • Joined: 23-June 09

Posted 31 August 2012 - 11:49 AM

I'm not sure that needed to be clarified, but hey, I'll go ahead and call AV to let him know anyway...

"Hey AV, we have good players, but we need to have them play better.
...
Uh huh, that's what the guy who created a thread on CDC said.
...
Basically. Sounds easy right?
...
Cool, now tell Aquilini to get on Bettman about how stupid they're being and get this CBA sorted.
...
He tried that, eh?
...
OK, you get the point, I'll call you later."

:rolleyes:

While we lacked goal production, there were certainly times where we weren't good enough defensively or just had mental lapses that cost us. I'd say most of our players didn't adjust to overcome the other team's play in the cases where we lost, and failed to drive possession better - something LA was very good at coming into the playoffs. Capitalizing on our chances would have just been icing on the cake.


So you insult me for having a seemingly dumb reasoning and then you pretty much reiterate - play better.

I made this post because so many people were saying the team did not have enough skill. I clarified that the team is good enough, but is not playing optimally. What's so wrong about that?
  • 1

Formerly known as LordofBrussels

There we have it folks, we have literally blamed everyone for everything at this point


Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image
Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image Posted Image


#59 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,627 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 31 August 2012 - 12:33 PM

I agree somewhat with the ideas behind the OP but disagree that adding skill is not the answer. In my opinion adding a bonifide threat to the second line opens up everything. In the playoffs you see guys score by making hockey plays, beating others to the front of the net, putting shots on net, making big hits, etc. It's not often you are going to see the skilled guy break through and score on a breakaway (unless it against the Canucks shorthanded) but it's that threat that allows others, everyday pluggers like Hansen and Higgins an extra step to beat a guy one on one with heart and score big goals. This would also make it hard for teams to match lines against so easily.

During the regular season guys get too tired of playing their hearts out individually to chase the Sedins around so their cute little plays work great, however, in the playoffs no one quits on that stuff. That's when you need to go Redwings style, shoot the puck off the half boards, go for rebounds, play hard assed D, and get in front of the net. As was mentioned this is not AV's style, he doesn't seem to be able to get the team to swtich styles. I'm sick of watching the Sedins pass the puck around and us getting no good shots on net. It's hard for the rest of the team to adapt to playoff hockey when they stick with their old tricks.

What also hurts is that our two skill guys, the Sedins can't play on different lines so it makes us very one dimensional, it's like playing against the Flames. They try hard but they have nothing that really worries you.
  • 0
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#60 thad

thad

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,184 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 31 August 2012 - 01:58 PM

We need killer instinct every game in the playoffs.


This is exactly it.. We can beat any team by just coasting it seems. We rely on our systems and calculated play and it works great all year but when things fall apart the team looks lost trying to get back to that perfect systematic play. we need to get that intensity and go on instincts more come playoff time.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.