Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * - 8 votes

Coaching decisions


  • Please log in to reply
731 replies to this topic

#421 wendythirteenthrashers

wendythirteenthrashers

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 592 posts
  • Joined: 21-March 12

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:23 PM

Why are fans surprised by lack of team work, team effort and leadership? When the majority of the players have no clue what their roles are from 1 game to the next?

Goalie = coin toss
D pairings = mix and match
Top line = Sedins + Burrows or someone
Everyone else = lucky to have a line mate for more than a few games

Players job is to perform. Coaches job is to get all the players to work as a team.

After 6+ seasons, it's kind of hard to blame all the players and not question the guys in charge of ice time and telling them what to do.


BEAUTY!
  • 0

#422 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,137 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:26 PM

Exactly.

AV got lucky when he threw Burrows with the Sedins. now he thinks if he just tosses players around with different partners or linemates, something will "click".   By luck, he found a great, effective line in Hansen, Schroeder and Raymond.  They wer fast, putting up points and defensively responsible.  He broke them up!!!

There does not appear to be any analysis by AV other than everything isn't going great so it must be the lineup.  Maybe it's how he is asking them to play and the fact they never know where their linemate will play because thye don't even know who their linemate will be?


Ah yes, the tired old "he got lucky" argument.

He was lucky that he hit upon a couple of successful line combinations, but it wasn't bad luck when half of his roster was either out, or playing hurt in the Cup final. In that case, he "failed to make adjustments"...
  • 0
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!

#423 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,938 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:28 PM

I agree with this. I'd also go further in saying that I actually DON'T want Van to start busting a$$ the rest of this compressed regular season. For what? To win our 3rd Prez trophy in a row? Didn't seem to make much difference in our playoff fortunes.

All I care is that the players know when to crank it up when it counts. The regular season, for me, is just a way to enjoy hockey. And for all the so-called nights off the Canucks are taking, they're still more enjoyable to watch than at least 4/5ths of the league. (Rather cheer for playoff-perennial Nashville?)

Vigneault will be assessed, and rightfully so, after the playoffs. Daniel Sedin's injury last year gave AV an out. With a healthy squad, and a similar playoff showing this year, he WILL be out, and I, as an AV supporter, wouldn't have any problem with that.

You got it right Barry!
  • 0
Posted Image

#424 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,137 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:38 PM

Why are fans surprised by lack of team work, team effort and leadership? When the majority of the players have no clue what their roles are from 1 game to the next?

Goalie = coin toss
D pairings = mix and match
Top line = Sedins + Burrows or someone
Everyone else = lucky to have a line mate for more than a few games

Players job is to perform. Coaches job is to get all the players to work as a team.

After 6+ seasons, it's kind of hard to blame all the players and not question the guys in charge of ice time and telling them what to do.


I'm going to assume that you know the "coin toss" bit is AV's way of telling the media that he's not going to reveal who his starter will be before he has a chance to talk to them both. If you didn't realize that, then you should probably place that order for "Hockey For Dummies" ASAP.

The defense pairing issue is easy to understand as well. Bieksa is out. The coaching staff is looking for combinations that have guys best able to play their off side. The fact that Alberts has only played two games, means that it's a work in progress. I know Canuck fans expect instant gratification, but at least as it pertains to professional hockey, it's unrealistic.

The rest of the lines: It was stated right away that Booth was going to start on the 4th line and work his way back into the top six. This creates movement in other areas. Professionals should be able to deal with this sort of thing.
  • 1
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!

#425 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:44 PM

The thing with this is there's little to suggest this style works, long term anyway. Watching the NYR I see Torts yelling constantly yet don't see the players playing with much emotion. Sutter in LA is considered emotional, yet most nights I think he'd show more emotion if he were in a coma.

Besides, I doubt that style would go over well with the veteran group we have. And if a change to a fiery Guy were made, how long before we'd see the first "Has this team tuned out the coach" thread?


There's little that annoys me more than reading the overreactive posts about "Vigneault is a smirking gum-chewer, he needs to start yelling at players like Torts!"

That only "seemed" to work half a century ago before the players' union when players had few options, whether in their contracts or their treatment on the ice and in the dressing room.

This is a veteran group and there's a reason Vigneault has kept his job this long while guiding Vancouver through an amazing win-loss record. He obviously holds his players accountable, especially defensively, while not overreacting to a bad stretch. Remember two years back when the Canucks lost 9 in a row in January? Most everyone here was -- no surprise -- calling for AV's head. We went on to have (tied with StL) the best record the remainder of Feb and March, then beat those StL Blues in 4 straight.

If the players could hear what CDC "coaches" say about them every day, they'd tank faster than a scuba-diver with a punctured suit (well, OK, except for deserved Bieksa barbs.) I remember Orville Tessier, short-lived Chicago coach, saying one post-game after a loss, that his players had "no heart". The players quit on him for a week or two, and he was fired. Yep, that ole time fire-and-brimstone coaching really works!

edit: actually, it was worse. Tessier said they "need heart transplants".

Edited by Barry_Wilkins, 27 February 2013 - 04:45 PM.

  • 1

#426 Tokasmoka

Tokasmoka

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 11

Posted 27 February 2013 - 04:56 PM

AV is a good coach but he is not a great coach. Great coaches are able to adapt in the playoffs where you play the same team multiple times. This is where AV fails and he fails hard. Look at the 'dragonslayer' series with Chicago; Coach Quenville adapted AV did not and that almost equated to one of the worst chokefests in all of sports.
  • 1

#427 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:07 PM

Posted Image


Is this the same coach who guided the Canucks to the #1 spot in offense two years ago, then tied for #1 in the Western Conference for offense last year?

Yeah, I thought it was the same guy, too.

Edited by Barry_Wilkins, 27 February 2013 - 05:08 PM.

  • 1

#428 miles.p

miles.p

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 11

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:12 PM

Is this the same coach who guided the Canucks to the #1 spot in offense two years ago, then tied for #1 in the Western Conference for offense last year?

Yeah, I thought it was the same guy, too.


isn't he also the same guy that led the team to multiple second round losses as well as a loss against the 8-seed team while being the #1 NHL team all season. Also as I recall, he is also the same coach who almost led his team to the worst playoff loss in the history of NHL. It just seems like yesterday that the canucks gave up a 3-0 series lead and were one goal away from elimination. Also if memory serves me right, he is also the same coach who had a 2-0 series lead in the SCF and proceeded to lose 4 of the next 5 games, with the last one being on home ice. His team was also the lowest goal scoring team in the SC history.

Yeah , I thought it was the same guy, too.

EDIT: I will gladly take playoff record over regular season record any day. San Jose sharks at one point were the best team in the league in regular season. They have never even made it to the Stanley Cup.

Edited by miles.p, 27 February 2013 - 05:13 PM.

  • 2

#429 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,554 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:12 PM

Ah yes, the tired old "he got lucky" argument.

He was lucky that he hit upon a couple of successful line combinations, but it wasn't bad luck when half of his roster was either out, or playing hurt in the Cup final. In that case, he "failed to make adjustments"...


He didn't use an analysis of skill-sets to put Burrows with the Sedins. He kept throwing players on the line until magically he found one that worked. You knoe, like throwing dung at teh wall hoping some will stick.

Now he does that with every line and the D pairings. Breaking uplines that work to try and piece together other lines that aren't producing; putting D on their wrong sides even though they show they aren't effective there and juggling the pairs every game. It is no wonder the team looks disconnected and confused.

How about Kassian...the Power Forward and Sedin protector the team and management say they have always needed and were willing to trade CoHo for? He starts off on the top line and does all that is exected of him including scoring and next thing you know he's on the 4th line or benched. Sure he needs to learn things but he's not going to do that in 5 miniutes a game on the 4th. What's next, ship him to the wolves so he can get more ice time? How is that going to help him develop at this stage?
'
AV 's defenders always say it's the personnel or circumstances that are the problem not the coach. Some blame the coach for everything. Neither is correct. TO me, AV has had 7 years and while his record has been good, he has had what has been ranked., the deepest and mot talented team to work with and they have come up short every time. Only once did they go deep in the playoffs under his guidance.

Also, concerns about this team's compete level and performance go back to last February and many posters here that are discredited for knee-jerk ractions to losses have been expressing concerns on that for a year.

It's not all AV's fault but it's easier to replace the coach than the team. Right now there appears to be a serious disconnect between them.


.
  • 0

#430 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:29 PM

isn't he also the same guy that led the team to multiple second round losses as well as a loss against the 8-seed team while being the #1 NHL team all season. Also as I recall, he is also the same coach who almost led his team to the worst playoff loss in the history of NHL. It just seems like yesterday that the canucks gave up a 3-0 series lead and were one goal away from elimination. Also if memory serves me right, he is also the same coach who had a 2-0 series lead in the SCF and proceeded to lose 4 of the next 5 games, with the last one being on home ice. His team was also the lowest goal scoring team in the SC history.

Yeah , I thought it was the same guy, too.

EDIT: I will gladly take playoff record over regular season record any day. San Jose sharks at one point were the best team in the league in regular season. They have never even made it to the Stanley Cup.


In case you missed it, I wasn't responding to a typically troll-laden tactic of 24 scattered speculations. (Nice try in going off-topic, though.)

I was obviously responding to your clueless pic of Av suggesting that he clamps down on all our players for a defensive shell for 60 minutes. My response shows how this is not only untrue, but laughable.

Edited by Barry_Wilkins, 27 February 2013 - 05:30 PM.

  • 1

#431 miles.p

miles.p

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 11

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:35 PM

In case you missed it, I wasn't responding to a typically troll-laden tactic of 24 scattered speculations. (Nice try in going off-topic, though.)

I was obviously responding to your clueless pic of Av suggesting that he clamps down on all our players for a defensive shell for 60 minutes. My response shows how this is not only untrue, but laughable.


But it is true. Every team knows the Canucks game plan. Rely on the goalie and clamp down defensively. That's the ONLY way AV knows how to coach. It's been evident for the past 7 years he's been here. If the goalie has an off-night, the Canucks do not win.

Why isn't it never the other way around? How come the Canucks don't win games 6 - 5, or 7 - 4, or 8-1. Rarely does this happens. They have to grind out wins on a regular basis.

You are only remembering the good about AV. But have no arguments to back yourself against facts that he's been a horrible playoff coach. Your only way of responding was to resort to name calling and accusing me of going off topic. How? This is a topic on how bad the coaching staff has been. I'm not allowed to bring in facts on how horrible AV has been in the playoffs?

When you're ready to engage in an argument, then please call me out. Otherwise, NEXT.
  • 0

#432 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:48 PM

Why isn't it never the other way around? How come the Canucks don't win games 6 - 5, or 7 - 4, or 8-1. Rarely does this happens. They have to grind out wins on a regular basis.


What part of "best offense in the West the past two years" do you find hard to understand? This isn't an argument. It's a fact. Offenses are judged by how many pucks go behind the red line crossing from post-to-post in net. Are you familiar with the rules of this great sport? Perhaps you're a new visitor to our fair country.
  • 1

#433 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 27 February 2013 - 05:59 PM

Teams flip the switch just before the playoffs all the time. LA last year was just one of many examples.

According to their respective records, Vancouver should have beaten Nashville in 6 games. Oh, wait, that's what they did!

As for the rest of your post, you talk about Vancouver having "problems" with certain teams. Want to actually provide win-loss records for us against those teams the past two + years? (Which is the only stat that matters.)


I've already listed stats against top coaches but sure, why not...let's do it again :rolleyes:

Babcock and the Red Wings 2-1-1 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Wings record then is also 2-1-1

Hitchcock and the Blues 2-2 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Blues record on the other hand is 2-1-1 (That's better than the Nucks)


Tippet and the Coyotes 2-1-1 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Coyotes are also 2-1-1

Trotz and Nashville 2-2 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Nashville is then 2-1-1 (Betteer than the Nucks)

Quenville and the Hawks 2-1-1 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Hawks are then also 2-1-1

I think some of you guys don't realize the OT/SO wins make the Canucks look better than they actually are.
The Canucks got 23 points against those teams last year but the opposing teams actually got 25 points against us

So to recap, against the better coached teams in our conference, we were actually outperformed... what now???

Ok, so you want to look at this year?


Let's look at this year with those same teams

Det 0-1 8-3 Shallacking
Det up 1-0

St Louis 0-0-1 SO Loss
Blues up 1-0

Phx 0-1 4-2 Loss
Phx up 1-0

Nashville 1-0 1-0 win
Canucks up 1-0

Chi 1-0-1
Chicago is also 1-0-1

So Van got 6 out of possible 12 points against those teams. Those teams got 9 out of 12 points from us

Not looking so rosy now is it???

Edited by CanucksJay, 27 February 2013 - 06:03 PM.

  • 0

#434 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:05 PM

I've already listed stats against top coaches but sure, why not...let's do it again :rolleyes:

Babcock and the Red Wings 2-1-1 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Wings record then is also 2-1-1

Hitchcock and the Blues 2-2 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Blues record on the other hand is 2-1-1 (That's better than the Nucks)


Tippet and the Coyotes 2-1-1 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Coyotes are also 2-1-1

Trotz and Nashville 2-2 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Nashville is then 2-1-1 (Betteer than the Nucks)

Quenville and the Hawks 2-1-1 One of the wins came in SO/OT
Hawks are then also 2-1-1

I think some of you guys don't realize the OT/SO wins make the Canucks look better than they actually are.
The Canucks got 23 points against those teams last year but the opposing teams actually got 25 points against us

So to recap, against the better coached teams in our conference, we were actually outperformed... what now???

Ok, so you want to look at this year?


Let's look at this year with those same teams

Det 0-1 8-3 Shallacking
Det up 1-0

St Louis 0-0-1 SO Loss
Blues up 1-0

Phx 0-1 4-2 Loss
Phx up 1-0

Nashville 1-0 1-0 win
Canucks up 1-0

Chi 1-0-1
Chicago is also 1-0-1

So Van got 6 points against those teams. Those teams got 9 points from us

Not looking so rosy now is it???


It's certainly not looking as dire as you made it out to be in the post of yours I quoted. You made it seem that the other coaches knew exactly what we were doing and were highly successful in playing against us. So I'd suggest that your description and the stats show your assessment to be hyperbolic. One could also claim that those other teams' .500 records don't make them out to be any great shakes, either.

Point is, it's a small sample size and we aren't being dominated by these teams that supposedly have us "figured out"
  • 0

#435 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:15 PM

It's certainly not looking as dire as you made it out to be in the post of yours I quoted. You made it seem that the other coaches knew exactly what we were doing and were highly successful in playing against us. So I'd suggest that your description and the stats show your assessment to be hyperbolic. One could also claim that those other teams' .500 records don't make them out to be any great shakes, either.

Point is, it's a small sample size and we aren't being dominated by these teams that supposedly have us "figured out"


Small sample size?

I took all of last season and the beginning of this season. I'm sorry I can't make up more games than the NHL actually schedules...

The unfortunate thing is, we are trending downwards.

Also it is actually a pretty dire situation. We have a deep talented roster which looks great on paper but we are getting outperformed by teams like St Louis and Nashville.

I think my stats epitomizes exactly what I think of the coaching. I wasn't even trying to skew the stats. I literally thought of the best coaches in our conference and then looked up the stats and guess what? We were outperformed.

You made it seem like I was off my rockers and asked for numbers and I provided. Now you are saying it's not so bad...lol

So if getting outperformed by coaches that are working with less talent is not so bad, what exactly is bad in your world?

Edited by CanucksJay, 27 February 2013 - 06:24 PM.

  • 0

#436 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,537 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:26 PM

Wow that's amazingly witty, you burned me good man. You got me I look in the mirror and cry that I'm not so awesome like you as to randomly attack people I have never even talked to before online.

Let me ask you a question... Does attacking people on CDC randomly make you feel good? Is that how you get turned on? Give it a rest Superman... you have already displayed that you have zero to contribute to any conversation, I haven't even seen you post anything that resembles anything that is on topic of the thread you are posting in. At best you're a troll at worst you probably stalk people online.

You have sick obsession with me, you probably need to seek some serious mental help... just some advice. Grow a pair and post your opinion, or will you have a mental breakdown if someone disagrees with you?

You're a joke.


Honestly, you are probably the last person who should be making these comments, considering each accurately describe yourself and how you treat other posters here that don't share your opinion.

Classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

I live in Calgary and I find it laughable when my co-workers are scoreboard watching and hoping their team makes the playoffs because they think exactly like you do, ANYTHING can happen in the playoffs.

the LA Kings are an anomoly. Anything CANNOT really happen.

LA had Quick, Doughty, Brown, Kopitar, Richards, Carter, Gagne, Williams, Stoll, Mitchell

They were underachieving for such a stacked roster and it finally took a coaching change to make them perform.

Although they were 8th seed, clearly they were a better team that required a better coach.

The Canucks also have a stacked team on paper and I think it's pretty clear that they are not playing up to their capabilities.
So if a coaching change is not required, what is needed to make this team perform up to their potential?


Great post.

Underdog runs happen. (The team usually loses) but they happen. However LA's run wasn't one of them.

It wasn't a traditional underdog run, that team had the potential to do that and they were simply underachieving all year, a coaching change provided the focus, discipline and got them playing the way they could.

Honestly, I know that with the way the team is right now, we have ZERO chance of winning the cup so lately, I have begun to embrace the losses because the more our playoff future is in jeopardy, the better the likelyhood of the Sedins getting moved.

All you homers can point your finger at me and question my love for the Canucks but what you need to understand is that I feel this way because I do love this team and know that this team is capable of performing much better with a better top line.

Our elite talent and effort used to win games like tonight however, it should be apparent that our system has been figured out by the better coached teams in this league, our effort level has come down and now we are just relying on natural talent to win games.

We've tried tweaking this team year after year. The only thing that hasn't been done is to get a new top line. So all you Sedin lovers out there, why would you continually do the same thing over and over again and continue to fail when we can try something new in hopes that a line change might be the missing ingredient?

Do you have that much faith in the Sedins that you would rather try a minor shakeup like trading Kesler rather than trying a new top line?
If not a minor shakeup, and not replacing the the top line, what's the best plan? Little tweaks again and hope for the best???


:shock:


This issue with this. Is that the Sedins aren't the problem. At all, even through struggles they carry this team offensively.

They produce when we need them too, even in the playoffs. Yes they are playoff preformers.

The Sedins are the last players we should consider trading. They do it all for us.

And I think alot of your things you posted could be used in relation to why AV should go, and your reasoning for wanting change (for loving the team and wanting to win badly) is the same logic I have in wanting a coaching change.

We need to follow the LA and Pittsburgh model if we want a cup, considering so far, we are in the same boat. Teams capable of much more that are underachieving.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 27 February 2013 - 06:27 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#437 afesposit

afesposit

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts
  • Joined: 29-January 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:28 PM

Let's face facts, AV is no Dave Tippet....
  • 0

#438 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,537 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 06:52 PM

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...


Like wallstreetamigo I appreciate you actually contributing to the discussion from the pro-AV side with some reasoning, solid points and solid opinion.

And I agree with what allstreetamigo and you were saying, so really I am not replying to give you feedback as it has already been given, rather just thanking you for being resonable and providing reason for your opinion, rather than resulting to insults. Thank you.

Fact 1 - AV = winningest coach in franchise history
AV has also had the best team in franchise history, and has underachieved when we needed him most

Fact 2 - under AV the canucks have made the playoffs 6/7 times
Goaltending has carried us, that and being in a weak division.

Fact 3 - There is no one available BETTER than AV to coach the Canucks at this time
Lindy Ruff.

Fact 4 - If Gillis hasn't fired him he obviously doesn't agree with these emotional AV bashers
Thats because he and AV are such good friends, really the relationship they have is clouding what is good for this team thus-far. Perhaps he is open to making a change and just hasn't felt the sample size is enough to warrant it yet, I hope thats the case, as I am an MG fan.

Fact 5 - You must make the Playoffs to win the Stanley Cup
Thanks for that, can you let us know if the sun is going to come up tommorow aswell? Seriously though, you don't need to worry, our playoff spot is all but guaranteed thanks to being in such a bad division. We will make the playoffs if we continue playing like this, so if thats your goal, then I guess you will be a happy camper, although for the those of us who want a cup, we will be disapointed when this team goes out in the 1st round.

Fact 6 - The more you make the Playoffs the > the chance to win the Stanley Cup on math alone
Heres some math, there are 16 teams in the playoffs. So really this fact is the same for everyteam. Yes having regular season success (from leeching off a bad division) will offer us more opportunities, but it doesn't make us any more likely to capatilize on those opportunities. Therefore we have just as good a shot (playing like this) as a team creeping into the playoffs for the 1st time in years.

Fact 7 - AV won the Jack Adams award and is consistantly in the running (top 10) to win it each year
Luongo won AV the Jack Adams. and he is consistently in the running because this team has so much talent, in other words. He is consistently in the running because the Sedins consistently produce and because the goaltending is consistently able to keep us afloat for the majority of the year.

Fact 8 - This is a tough league and there is a professional team on the opposite side of the ice that wants to win just as bad
No, they seemingly want to win more than we do. Thats what we are saying.

Fact 9 - AV gets blamed for every loss but isn't given credit like keeping this team afloat through injuries in the past.
Not always, just when it is deserved, that goes both ways. He has done some good things, most notably in the early years, but he has done just as many bad things, actually alot more IMO. I give alot of the credit to the goaltending and the Sedins in this regard too honestly, Av deserves some aswell, but they always carry our team, even without key pieces.

Fact 10 - I don't give a crap what you guys believe anymore you hate for the sake of hating and your tired whining arguments that you keep spinning in circles is pathetic, 90% of you don't even read the post you just infer it by quickly glancing at it just like this on.
Good, if you don't care, then leave. You aren't participating in the discussion anyways. You are just slamming & trolling anyone that doesn't share your opinion.



Teams flip the switch just before the playoffs all the time. LA last year was just one of many examples.


As I said earlier. They flipped the switch when the coaching change was made, thats what flipped the switch for them, I feel the same could happen here.
  • 0

zackass.png


#439 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,938 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:21 PM

Honestly, you are probably the last person who should be making these comments, considering each accurately describe yourself and how you treat other posters here that don't share your opinion.

Classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.



Great post.

Underdog runs happen. (The team usually loses) but they happen. However LA's run wasn't one of them.

It wasn't a traditional underdog run, that team had the potential to do that and they were simply underachieving all year, a coaching change provided the focus, discipline and got them playing the way they could.



This issue with this. Is that the Sedins aren't the problem. At all, even through struggles they carry this team offensively.

They produce when we need them too, even in the playoffs. Yes they are playoff preformers.

The Sedins are the last players we should consider trading. They do it all for us.

And I think alot of your things you posted could be used in relation to why AV should go, and your reasoning for wanting change (for loving the team and wanting to win badly) is the same logic I have in wanting a coaching change.

We need to follow the LA and Pittsburgh model if we want a cup, considering so far, we are in the same boat. Teams capable of much more that are underachieving.

Classic example of you yet again whining about AV. You whine and bitch and propose nothing but Lindy Ruff who was FIRED for the same reasons you hate AV. You speak of the pot calling the Kettle black well the same goes for you (keep attacking me because I don't agree with your asinine emotional hatred for AV) , your contributions to any topics are nil, I bet you just became a fan in 2010-2011. You have already expressed on many occasions your same tired weak arguments as to why you think everything is AVs fault, they are as baseless now as they were before but at the end of the day he is still coach so I guess you will just keep crying and whining. Almost 7500 post for you... congrats... you embody the spirit of CDC crying and whining with zero hockey knowledge and you wonder why Canuck fans are a joke around the league. I wonder how many more posts you have in you before even you get sick of the complaining. Lets see if you can get another 7500 posts of useless drivel Good luck with that.
  • 0
Posted Image

#440 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:25 PM

Classic example of you yet again whining about AV. You whine and bitch and propose nothing but Lindy Ruff who was FIRED for the same reasons you hate AV. You speak of the pot calling the Kettle black well the same goes for you (keep attacking me because I don't agree with your asinine emotional hatred for AV) , your contributions to any topics are nil, I bet you just became a fan in 2010-2011. You have already expressed on many occasions your same tired weak arguments as to why you think everything is AVs fault, they are as baseless now as they were before but at the end of the day he is still coach so I guess you will just keep crying and whining. Almost 7500 post for you... congrats... you embody the spirit of CDC crying and whining with zero hockey knowledge and you wonder why Canuck fans are a joke around the league. I wonder how many more posts you have in you before even you get sick of the complaining. Lets see if you can get another 7500 posts of useless drivel Good luck with that.


That's so funny. I saw your 2000+ posts and wondered earlier today how on earth you managed that many posts when most of your posts lack substance and more time is spent attacking people rather than discussing hockey...
And this last post? nothing new. Much of the same as I've seen in the past.
  • 0

#441 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,938 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:33 PM

That's so funny. I saw your 2000+ posts and wondered earlier today how on earth you managed that many posts when most of your posts lack substance and more time is spent attacking people rather than discussing hockey...
And this last post? nothing new. Much of the same as I've seen in the past.

Wow its interesting that you say about me exactly what you yourself are doing in your own post. :lol:
  • 0
Posted Image

#442 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:36 PM

Wow its interesting that you say about me exactly what you yourself are doing in your own post. :lol:


I just found it super ironic as I was thinking this about you earlier today and noticed you wrote this about someone else...

My thought process....

This guy must be posting to get a rise out of people....
What the.... 2000+ posts? Does that mean he's actually serious? I mean no one could possibly put in that much effort to troll...
Oh gawd... he is serious...
  • 0

#443 shazzam

shazzam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,572 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:40 PM

Here is our biggest problem

2012 Goals per game
Regular Season : 2.94
Playoffs: 1.6


2011 Goals per game
Regular Season : 3.15
Playoffs: 2.32

There is a huge dip in goals per game in the playoffs. Now who takes the blame for this?

The coaches? Are they not able to expose/breakdown the other teams' style and structure
The players? Are they not executing the plan from the coaches?
  • 0

#444 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,710 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:42 PM

2 losses in a row!

Posted Image
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#445 DaMacNamedDre

DaMacNamedDre

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,032 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:49 PM

He didn't use an analysis of skill-sets to put Burrows with the Sedins. He kept throwing players on the line until magically he found one that worked. You knoe, like throwing dung at teh wall hoping some will stick.

Now he does that with every line and the D pairings. Breaking uplines that work to try and piece together other lines that aren't producing; putting D on their wrong sides even though they show they aren't effective there and juggling the pairs every game. It is no wonder the team looks disconnected and confused.

How about Kassian...the Power Forward and Sedin protector the team and management say they have always needed and were willing to trade CoHo for? He starts off on the top line and does all that is exected of him including scoring and next thing you know he's on the 4th line or benched. Sure he needs to learn things but he's not going to do that in 5 miniutes a game on the 4th. What's next, ship him to the wolves so he can get more ice time? How is that going to help him develop at this stage?
'
AV 's defenders always say it's the personnel or circumstances that are the problem not the coach. Some blame the coach for everything. Neither is correct. TO me, AV has had 7 years and while his record has been good, he has had what has been ranked., the deepest and mot talented team to work with and they have come up short every time. Only once did they go deep in the playoffs under his guidance.

Also, concerns about this team's compete level and performance go back to last February and many posters here that are discredited for knee-jerk ractions to losses have been expressing concerns on that for a year.

It's not all AV's fault but it's easier to replace the coach than the team. Right now there appears to be a serious disconnect between them.


.




i agree, The Kassian shuffling is a joke, he's playing with no confidence now, with the Sedins he was confident , now looks confused and lost, The Sedins need a power forward on their line, leave Kassian there or sign Corey Perry, even Bitz looked good with the twins, but AV made sure he broke that up as soon as Bitz produced.
very strange to me is how AV decides to sandbag the only accidental chemistry he's lucked into this year with Raymond-Schroeder-Hansen and break them up.
  • 0
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posted ImageBodee, on 18 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I haven't been a supporter of the Canucks for long. Mainly because firstly I know nothing about NHL and secondly ESPN America only started showing NHL 3 years ago.

http://forum.canucks.com/topic/328055-whats-wrong-with-me
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

#446 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,537 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:56 PM

Classic example of you yet again whining about AV. You whine and bitch and propose nothing but Lindy Ruff who was FIRED for the same reasons you hate AV. You speak of the pot calling the Kettle black well the same goes for you (keep attacking me because I don't agree with your asinine emotional hatred for AV) , your contributions to any topics are nil, I bet you just became a fan in 2010-2011. You have already expressed on many occasions your same tired weak arguments as to why you think everything is AVs fault, they are as baseless now as they were before but at the end of the day he is still coach so I guess you will just keep crying and whining. Almost 7500 post for you... congrats... you embody the spirit of CDC crying and whining with zero hockey knowledge and you wonder why Canuck fans are a joke around the league. I wonder how many more posts you have in you before even you get sick of the complaining. Lets see if you can get another 7500 posts of useless drivel Good luck with that.


Making points is whining? Why? Just cause you don't agree?

Alright whatever suits your world, just keep on going with it I guess. And yes, I keep attacking you, one post pointing out that your comments were hypocritical and suddenly I'm the one posting non-stop insults. I think you are getting us mixed up. Cause your the one with the constant personal attacks. Not me.

Its also funny how you say every anti-Av argument is weak, yet you can't formulate a strong enough argument against it, so you don't even offer any substance back. Obviously the arguments aren't as weak as you think, if you can't even formulate a logical response that doesn't involve insults.

And I have been a diehard fan since 03. And been on the boards since the summer of 10, the offseason before the 10/11 season, Although I was surfing the boards as a guest for about half a year before making an account.

Oh and for the record, I actually like AV as a person, he is a nice guy, I like how he handles the media, I always see his interviews and wish he could offer more of the coaching this team needs, cause he is a nice guy and I like how he speaks and explains things to the general public. But I just don't think he is cutting it as the coach of this club.

Now can you please stop posting just to troll and post insults, or atleast add some form of substance/argument with it rather than using every opportunity you can to take free shots at people who don't share your opinion.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 27 February 2013 - 07:58 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#447 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 27 February 2013 - 07:59 PM

Here is our biggest problem

2012 Goals per game
Regular Season : 2.94
Playoffs: 1.6


2011 Goals per game
Regular Season : 3.15
Playoffs: 2.32

There is a huge dip in goals per game in the playoffs. Now who takes the blame for this?

The coaches? Are they not able to expose/breakdown the other teams' style and structure
The players? Are they not executing the plan from the coaches?



There are only 3 options going forward
Keep everything as is and hope for the best
Make roster changes as team is not good enough
Change coaching if we feel roster is good enough

My stats above show that against well coached teams, the Canucks are outperformed even in the regular season by teams like Nashville and St Louis. That means something when we look at the talent on our roster compared to theirs.

This stat will only look worse come playoffs when these other coaches can fine tune their strategy even more throughout the course of 7 games while the Canucks continue to play their one dimensional style.

The players can't execute because our team strategy plays into the hands of the other team's strategy due to their advance scouting and planning.

It's like football. During practice, they have dummy Os or scout team offence who pretty much run the plays that the opposing team will run.

Starting D learns all their plays and already knows how they will play each formation, etc.

So during practice, the D already knows what play Scout O will run and they keep fine tuning their defence to cover that play.

Same thing is happening to the Canucks.

Phoenix knew all of the Canucks tendencies last night when it came to pressuring us in our own zone.
Thats why they sent in an aggressive forecheck and used their d-men to cheat to the boards.

We didn't react and continued our usual chip up the boards or reverse and chip up the other boards which resulted in many turnovers.

AV's shortcoming was that he didn't have another play in the playbook to escape the forecheck like catching Phoenix cheating to the boards by all of a sudden going up the middle with speed.

Our players have so been ingrained to go up the boards and stay away from going up the middle (usually the smart play) that advanced scouting tells Phoenix to just wait along the boards for a nice tape to tape pass from our D.

I hope AV switches things up but going forward against the better coached teams, just watch how many times our d-men gives up the puck because they are outnumbered along the boards and then they try chipping it up along the boards only to have the other team's d-man waiting for the puck.

AVs system is not bad. it's actually the right way to play hockey BUT the system fails when that's the only play in the playbook and the other team knows it.
  • 0

#448 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,938 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 08:14 PM

Making points is whining? Why? Just cause you don't agree?

Alright whatever suits your world, just keep on going with it I guess. And yes, I keep attacking you, one post pointing out that your comments were hypocritical and suddenly I'm the one posting non-stop insults. I think you are getting us mixed up. Cause your the one with the constant personal attacks. Not me.

Its also funny how you say every anti-Av argument is weak, yet you can't formulate a strong enough argument against it, so you don't even offer any substance back. Obviously the arguments aren't as weak as you think, if you can't even formulate a logical response that doesn't involve insults.

And I have been a diehard fan since 03. And been on the boards since the summer of 10, the offseason before the 10/11 season, Although I was surfing the boards as a guest for about half a year before making an account.

Oh and for the record, I actually like AV as a person, he is a nice guy, I like how he handles the media, I always see his interviews and wish he could offer more of the coaching this team needs, cause he is a nice guy and I like how he speaks and explains things to the general public. But I just don't think he is cutting it as the coach of this club.

Now can you please stop posting just to troll and post insults, or atleast add some form of substance/argument with it rather than using every opportunity you can to take free shots at people who don't share your opinion.

Maybe just Maybe Smashian I am sick of repeating the same things over and over again and hearing the exact same argument.... go back and read some of my posts, on many many occasions I took the time to list out all of the rational arguments for keeping AV and people would attack it. I never once jumped on any of these trolls first look and see that everything I said was in response to them doing to me what you accuse me of. I know you won't go back and look but that is the case.
  • 0
Posted Image

#449 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,545 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:13 PM

(1)Small sample size?

I took all of last season and the beginning of this season. I'm sorry I can't make up more games than the NHL actually schedules...

The unfortunate thing is, we are trending downwards.

Also it is actually a pretty dire situation. We have a deep talented roster which looks great on paper but we are getting outperformed by teams like St Louis and Nashville.

I think my stats epitomizes exactly what I think of the coaching. I wasn't even trying to skew the stats. I literally thought of the best coaches in our conference and then looked up the stats and guess what? We were outperformed.

You made it seem like I was off my rockers and asked for numbers and I provided. Now you are saying it's not so bad...lol

So if getting outperformed by coaches that are working with less talent is not so bad, what exactly is bad in your world?


Yep, small sample size. Each team the Canucks played, in your example, equals 4/7 ths of one playoff round. And they were deadlocked. If that means the Canucks "struggled" (your word in your first post), then that means that the other teams also struggled. Here's a hint. Except for Columbus and a few weak sisters in the East, this is an increasingly competitive league with thin margins between victory and loss. There are also no powerhouses any more, the salary cap has seen to that, along with league rules and oversight which still makes it a necessary and often effective option for the talent-challenged Nashville's of the world to make the playoffs every year by putting everyone into a deep sleep by the end of the first period and stealing a loser point. In essence, what you've revealed is that, were these games played in a playoff round, it would be 2 wins for each, 4 games into the series. Now I know you thought we should have beat Nashville 4 games to zip, but the mathematics of hockey don't work that way. But we beat them, which is all that matters.

You're arguing over points in the regular season which is mind-boggling. News flash: we had the best record last two years. Playoffs, admittedly, are a different story, but you seem to think we should dominate every series in the regular season. We weren't "outperformed", we were in competitive games against excellent opponents and held our own, while, obviously, beating the teams further behind us in the standings, as we should. Even Phoenix last year, look at their point totals, and then look what they did in the playoffs, beating Chicago.

Step off the ledge, we'll never have a perfect season, under Vigneault, Ruff, or Scotty Bowman.
  • 1

#450 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,938 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 27 February 2013 - 09:18 PM

Yep, small sample size. Each team the Canucks played, in your example, equals 4/7 ths of one playoff round. And they were deadlocked. If that means the Canucks "struggled" (your word in your first post), then that means that the other teams also struggled. Here's a hint. Except for Columbus and a few weak sisters in the East, this is an increasingly competitive league with thin margins between victory and loss. There are also no powerhouses any more, the salary cap has seen to that, along with league rules and oversight which still makes it a necessary and often effective option for the talent-challenged Nashville's of the world to make the playoffs every year by putting everyone into a deep sleep by the end of the first period and stealing a loser point. In essence, what you've revealed is that, were these games played in a playoff round, it would be 2 wins for each, 4 games into the series. Now I know you thought we should have beat Nashville 4 games to zip, but the mathematics of hockey don't work that way. But we beat them, which is all that matters.

You're arguing over points in the regular season which is mind-boggling. News flash: we had the best record last two years. Playoffs, admittedly, are a different story, but you seem to think we should dominate every series in the regular season. We weren't "outperformed", we were in competitive games against excellent opponents and held our own, while, obviously, beating the teams further behind us in the standings, as we should. Even Phoenix last year, look at their point totals, and then look what they did in the playoffs, beating Chicago.

Step off the ledge, we'll never have a perfect season, under Vigneault, Ruff, or Scotty Bowman.

You're logic goes unappreciated Barry, you really have a way putting into words how it is in reality as opposed to the 98-0-0 seasons these people are demanding.

Edited by Aladeen, 27 February 2013 - 09:18 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image




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.