Archived

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

miles.p

Coaching decisions

Recommended Posts

I assume your'e referring to Boston. If so there are some differences regarding their respective 1st round series in 2011.

Boston and Montreal was a 3/6 matchup.

Boston obviously wasn't the PT winner that year.

Boston did not have a 3-0 series lead.

Yes, that series went to 7 games OT as well, but it would not have been nearly the upset that Vancouver/Chicago almost was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are guaranteeing a cup win this year from AV? What if he doesn't win one this year? Or next year? Or the year after that? Where is the guarantee that keeping him means we will finally get a cup because we tried the same thing for 10 years instead of 7?

There is no guarantee no matter what happens with the coaching. but it is pretty obvious that something needs to change to get this team motivated to play at a higher level come playoff time. The easiest solution that is likely to have the biggest impact is a new coaching staff.

Arniel sucks as a coach....just to be clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. I didn't mean I wanted a coach who would run out onto the ice and mcsorley the ref. I personally would prefer to see a new coach who is more consistently emotional and has all of the other criteria a successful candidate would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from all the useless squabbling, I am interested (minus the personal attacks and other BS) to really hear what you guys think.

Do you guys supporting AV really honestly believe that the Canucks are playing well this year? Or that they played well the last half of last year? Do you really see no issues with the motivation, effort, and execution by the players AND by the coaching staff? Yes, it is on all of them, not just the coach. But he is not immune either.

That is usually what happens when players tune out their coach. And the players should absolutely be expected to shape up but it is up to the coach to get them to buy in as well. It is very unlikely that core players are going anywhere due to long term big money contracts (many times with NTC attached) being handed out like candy and by the strong historical evidence that big player changes will not be coming from MG. So if changes need to be made to shake things up, what alternatives do you have to a coaching change? I am very interested in hearing what you see as needing to be done to improve things.

If you do not think AV is responsible at all for how this team is playing listless and unmotivated hockey then you must also not believe that a coach really has much bearing on the success or failure of a team. In that case, why is AV so important to keep anyway if he has so little impact on things? A coach cannot get all the credit for success and none of the responsibility for failure. That is completely flawed and unrealistic.

We have waited a long time and there has been no real improvement in the flaws and weaknesses of this coaching staff. It has actually gotten worse and now even the players seem tired and unmotivated. What is the real risk after this long to make a change and see what happens with a new coach before the team has to rebuild?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aside from all the useless squabbling, I am interested (minus the personal attacks and other BS) to really hear what you guys think.

Do you guys supporting AV really honestly believe that the Canucks are playing well this year? Or that they played well the last half of last year? Do you really see no issues with the motivation, effort, and execution by the players AND by the coaching staff? Yes, it is on all of them, not just the coach. But he is not immune either.

That is usually what happens when players tune out their coach. And the players should absolutely be expected to shape up but it is up to the coach to get them to buy in as well. It is very unlikely that core players are going anywhere due to long term big money contracts (many times with NTC attached) being handed out like candy and by the strong historical evidence that big player changes will not be coming from MG. So if changes need to be made to shake things up, what alternatives do you have to a coaching change? I am very interested in hearing what you see as needing to be done to improve things.

If you do not think AV is responsible at all for how this team is playing listless and unmotivated hockey then you must also not believe that a coach really has much bearing on the success or failure of a team. In that case, why is AV so important to keep anyway if he has so little impact on things? A coach cannot get all the credit for success and none of the responsibility for failure. That is completely flawed and unrealistic.

We have waited a long time and there has been no real improvement in the flaws and weaknesses of this coaching staff. It has actually gotten worse and now even the players seem tired and unmotivated. What is the real risk after this long to make a change and see what happens with a new coach before the team has to rebuild?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot to cover in that post, so instead, I'll just state my case for not replacing the coach at this time.

I disagree that the team has been playing poorly since the half way point of last season. In fact, I thought the final 10 games or so of last season were quite good, especially considering that Daniel was out. I believe that they just ran into a buzzsaw in the Kings, including yet another Conn Smythe goaltending performance.

I disagree in what you call "coaching flaws" and that the team has "tuned him out". I believe this perception stems from the fact that like most fans, AV detractors are too close to the situation.

I maintain that what you all describe as "unmotivated" or "listless" play on the Canucks' part is in fact, the normal ebb and flow in the on-ice performance of a professional hockey team. If you look around the league, there are far more teams doing what the Canucks are doing than there are doing what the 'Hawks are doing.

I don't believe that changing the fortunes of a team is as simple as "showing emotion", "making an impassioned pre-game, or between period speech" and I've never been an advocate of change for change's sake. If there were truly someone out there that I saw as an upgrade, I would be okay with the change, however, I still maintain that it would be as likely to backfire as it would be to work.

Finally, I believe that the time to consider a coaching change is later in the season, if and when the team is plauying poorly and in danger of missing the playoffs. I would also conside it, if the team had clinched a playoff berth, but were on a losing streak. Neither of those is the case at present.

I would suggest revisiting this topic around game 35, or so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't bother quoting your post, I'm pretty sure we'll all know what I'm responding to.

Firstly, I think this whole bit about "playing favorites" and "guaranteeing ice time" is another CDC misconception. Coaches play the guys that they believe give them the best chance to win. Not because they think they're great guys, or because they like their hair...

The rest of your post is pretty much your opinion of what you are seeing. I disagree, for reasons already mentioned several times.

BTW: How much time would you consider sufficient to "turn things around"? Would 30 games do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all this discussion is a bit wasteful. The AV hate seems to build whenever we have a few crappy games.

Unless they go into a full-on downward spiral I don't think there is any need to fire Av and the rest of the coaching staff before the end of the year. Mid-season change generally isn't healthy. (yes, there are examples where it has been positive namely Pittsburgh and LA).

I think AV and gang will be evaluated at the end of the year based on our season and playoff performance.

Even though I generally like the way AV coaches and carries himself I believe an early playoff exit will likely mean it is time for a change. It's hard to fire a coach with his success. A snap decison in the middle of a season would be a recipe for disaster. I seriously can't even make a list of strong mid-season possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another night, another horrible coaching decisions. So many things wrong with this game that I don't know where to start.

But this is no surprise at all. This effort is expected from the Canucks. The coaching staff looking clueless and continue to chew his gum, looking like he has no trump card left.

Kassian is showing why he's still a "prospect" with "untapped potential" and he will get it eventually.

Kesler will never be what he was in 2010. One fluke year and nothing else to show besides that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am starting to think it may be time to at least get Kassian back in the top six. Put Shroeder back with Raymond and Hansen, and get Kesler to center the third line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I keep hearing the word success. What success? At this point no Stanley Cup with this coaching group. I've never said they a bad coaching group, I'm saying they're a stale group.

At one point Vancouver's game was out front. Now it's predictable. Other teams know what they're getting when they play Vancouver.

How exciting is a Canucks home game? It's better watched at home. It's just more fun.

One can blame M Gillis. But has AV used what Gillis have given him to the max?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.