Archived

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

miles.p

Coaching decisions

Recommended Posts

AV isn't the problem. It actually is amazing to me the Canucks are doing as good as they are this year with the injuries and lack of talent.

The problem is Gillis. He has officially failed now. Almost every significant move he has made has failed and the best players on the team continue to be leftovers from the Burke/Nonis days.

Gillis is the problem here, the classless way he handled the Hodgson trade and the classless way he forced Malholtra to retire reflect who he is. A classless thug. But he just reflects the Canucks classless ownership group who gauge the fans and send berry pickers out to Pitt Meadows on unsafe buses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AV isn't the problem. It actually is amazing to me the Canucks are doing as good as they are this year with the injuries and lack of talent.

The problem is Gillis. He has officially failed now. Almost every significant move he has made has failed and the best players on the team continue to be leftovers from the Burke/Nonis days.

Gillis is the problem here, the classless way he handled the Hodgson trade and the classless way he forced Malholtra to retire reflect who he is. A classless thug. But he just reflects the Canucks classless ownership group who gauge the fans and send berry pickers out to Pitt Meadows on unsafe buses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it sounds like you are advocating that AV's style doesnt fit this team...

Shouldn't that mean we should be looking for a coach that better fits this team? Because after all, we added more talent as you admitted but he was able to achieve more with a bunch of grinders.

It sounds like you are calling AV a one trick pony. One that only knows how to work with a defensive system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's been phenomenal defensively, as stawns and others have pointed out. Then, when our scorers evolved, and with Ehrhoff aboard and a focus on the Dmen being the 4th man on rushes, the Canucks finished 1st in the league, and tied for first in the West the following year, in goals-for. I'm not sure what level of perfection you're looking for, but I'd call that amazingly adaptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've bitched about it numerous times.......explain how AV can utilize a different style with the lineup he's given. He certainly can't play any sort of physical style, in any way. He could sit back in a defensive mode, as that has proven to work with this club before, but then people complain about boring hockey........so, you want him to change his approach, explain how

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did it work?

What year? I still don't see a Stanley Cup banner

It gets a certain amount of success.

The farthest we've gone with that strategy was a 2nd round exit to Anaheim in game 6.

You call that working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Barry. welcome back.

it feels like I have deja vu evertime I talk to you because you keep rehashing regular season records and I keep refuting it with actual stats

here's a refresher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you under the impression that if you just keep boring everyone by reposting that 28 times the "light" will finally go on and most of the rest of us will finally shout "eureka!"?

I'm talking about 82 games, which, obviously, but not obviously to you, is the benchmark of a season. Not cherrypicked mini-groupings where the Canucks didn't fare badly anyway. The Canucks, again, finished with more points than all of those teams. I'm really having a hard time understanding why simple math comparisons are beyond you. You want the Canucks to have won every single series against every opponent within the season. That doesn't happen, with any team, for a variety of reasons outside of mathematical probability -- travel, comparable schedule spacing, current injuries, luck (yes, luck -- hockey is the prime game for one team dominating, and getting beat by posts or a hot goalie, then having a winning goal-against go off someone's derriere.) The point is, over an 82 game season, all that stuff evens out. So your little examples means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also those records I posted was not "cherry picked".

I honestly thought of the best coaches in our conference and then looked up the Canucks stats against those teams.

Are you saying that if we keep this team in tact, we would be challenging for the Pres Trophy next year if the re-alingment goes through and we are in the same division as the Ducks, Sharks, Kings, Coyotes, Oilers and the Flames?

No? You're not confident anymore? why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem isn't that the coaches can't think of a different style or approach. The problem is it isn't getting across to the players.

I'm sure the D has been warned about getting burned jumping in. I'm sure they've all been told to be careful of reputation diving calls. I'm sure everything that fans can criticize, the team is aware of. What I'm not sure of is if the current coaches are the best option moving forward with this group of players.

They play "not to lose" because the coaches want to keep their jobs. It's understandable. IMO to see this team "play to win" a change is needed to a coach much like Vigneault when he started, someone trying to prove something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're sure of that, are you? Aside, perhaps, from Ballard and Tanev, the opposite is true. The D are encouraged to jump into the play, but only if it makes sense in that situation. There are certain coaches, winning and respected ones, too, who would put the brakes on Bieksa, for example. But there's our #3, caught up ice many times, but still seeing 22 minutes a game. So, if anything, Vigneault and Bowness are actually a little too lenient with certain players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're sure of that, are you? Aside, perhaps, from Ballard and Tanev, the opposite is true. The D are encouraged to jump into the play, but only if it makes sense in that situation. There are certain coaches, winning and respected ones, too, who would put the brakes on Bieksa, for example. But there's our #3, caught up ice many times, but still seeing 22 minutes a game. So, if anything, Vigneault and Bowness are actually a little too lenient  with certain players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're sure of that, are you? Aside, perhaps, from Ballard and Tanev, the opposite is true. The D are encouraged to jump into the play, but only if it makes sense in that situation. There are certain coaches, winning and respected ones, too, who would put the brakes on Bieksa, for example. But there's our #3, caught up ice many times, but still seeing 22 minutes a game. So, if anything, Vigneault and Bowness are actually a little too lenient with certain players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait till we win a game so we can go 2 days without any anti canucks management threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wait till we win a game so we can go 2 days without any anti canucks management threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that would help except I was also mega pissed the day MG re-signed AV

my feelings have been consistent in this matter but you are right, its easier to voice displeasure when the team is not performing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.