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

#481 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,891 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:39 AM

I honestly don't think lack of motivation is a problem with Vancouver, Even by going through the motions, we will make the playoffs. Once playoffs start, there is no denying that Vancouver is highly motivated.
I mean think about the 1st play in last year's playoffs with Booth and Kes flying in on the forecheck making a huge hit on Doughty.

The problem I have with AV is his lack of answers once a team finds a way to neutralize his strategy.
My problem is that he does the same thing over and over again when it's clearly failing.
1
Thats why we need an Xs and Os guy rather than a cheer leader on the bench.


To be fair, MG has done a poor job of getting him options. He has the same pieces year after year and when MG does make a change it's more of the same. I think MG is wearing out his welcome as much, or more than AV. He started out with big, bold plans, but has been, imo, a lame duck for 3 years.
  • 0

#482 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,600 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:45 AM

To be fair, MG has done a poor job of getting him options. He has the same pieces year after year and when MG does make a change it's more of the same. I think MG is wearing out his welcome as much, or more than AV. He started out with big, bold plans, but has been, imo, a lame duck for 3 years.


Can't say I disagree with you and IMHO Gillis has a shorter leash with me than AV does at this point. All the talk of bold moves and all we've got are ok moves and longshot projects, not much more AV can do with that. He's an improvement over Nonis but beyond that I'm not sure.
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#483 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:54 AM

To be fair, MG has done a poor job of getting him options. He has the same pieces year after year and when MG does make a change it's more of the same. I think MG is wearing out his welcome as much, or more than AV. He started out with big, bold plans, but has been, imo, a lame duck for 3 years.


I disagree, people were asking for secondary scoring last year and so, MG pulled off a great trade (on paper) by trading Samuelsson for Booth. We were ALL happy.
On paper, a 2nd line of Booth Kesler and Kassian/Raymond/Hansen is a solid 2nd line. The problem is, they are not playing up to their potential.

We have a great top 6 in terms of talent.
Additionally, when you look at our bottom 6, it can also run with the best in the league.
I mean we have guys like Raymond, Hansen, Higgins, Kassian on our 3rd and 4th lines while some of them could challenge for 2nd line on other NHL teams.

On top of that, look at our top 6 defencemen
Edler, Bieksa, Hamhuis, Garrison, Tanev, Ballard

Then we have 2 elite goalies.

What else does AV need? A super star sniper and an elite d-man like Chara?

If that was the case, I might as well coach the Canucks because the Stanley Cup would be all but giftwrapped
  • 0

#484 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,891 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:19 AM

I disagree, people were asking for secondary scoring last year and so, MG pulled off a great trade (on paper) by trading Samuelsson for Booth. We were ALL happy.
On paper, a 2nd line of Booth Kesler and Kassian/Raymond/Hansen is a solid 2nd line. The problem is, they are not playing up to their potential.

We have a great top 6 in terms of talent.
Additionally, when you look at our bottom 6, it can also run with the best in the league.
I mean we have guys like Raymond, Hansen, Higgins, Kassian on our 3rd and 4th lines while some of them could challenge for 2nd line on other NHL teams.

On top of that, look at our top 6 defencemen
Edler, Bieksa, Hamhuis, Garrison, Tanev, Ballard

Then we have 2 elite goalies.

What else does AV need? A super star sniper and an elite d-man like Chara?

If that was the case, I might as well coach the Canucks because the Stanley Cup would be all but giftwrapped


the point was that all the players AV has brought in are more of the same.......there's no variety of players who birng a different kind of game to the table. kass was a move in the right direction, but he's still developing. He came to a team with a good core of skilled players, but not much toughness or grit and has supplemented them with skilled players with no toughness and little grit.

Where AV gets roasted, MG seems to get a free pass, when the truth is, he's hamstrung AV with the lineup he's given him
  • 0

#485 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:39 AM

the point was that all the players AV has brought in are more of the same.......there's no variety of players who birng a different kind of game to the table. kass was a move in the right direction, but he's still developing. He came to a team with a good core of skilled players, but not much toughness or grit and has supplemented them with skilled players with no toughness and little grit.

Where AV gets roasted, MG seems to get a free pass, when the truth is, he's hamstrung AV with the lineup he's given him


You keep calling AV a lame duck coach but think about what I just said and think about all the changes and adjustments made i n the past few years.

In the past, we had guys like Pettinger, Bolduc, Bliznak, Hordichuk. Glass, Desbiens, Wellwood, Shirokov (thats an actual roster from 1 year)
We then replaced them with guys like Samuelsson, Maholtra, Higgins, Lapierre, Hodgson
We got rid of Sammy and Hodgson and now have Booth, Kassian, Shroeder, Tanev, Garrison

We've been getting rid of our non performing guys and added better players.

We're doing that while still remaining cap compliant which is a very difficult task.

Like I said, if it takes the addition of a super star sniper and a premium d-man to win the cup, you might as well make me the coach and save paying AVs salary...

Pick any team in the NHL and compare Van's lineup compared to theirs.
While we may be lacking in some areas, there will also be other areas where we are stronger.

So at the end, that comes down to coaching. Utilizing your team's strengths and getting the best results out of what you have.
In my opinion, AV hasn't done that.

Edited by CanucksJay, 28 February 2013 - 11:39 AM.

  • 0

#486 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,891 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:05 PM

You keep calling AV a lame duck coach but think about what I just said and think about all the changes and adjustments made i n the past few years.

In the past, we had guys like Pettinger, Bolduc, Bliznak, Hordichuk. Glass, Desbiens, Wellwood, Shirokov (thats an actual roster from 1 year)
We then replaced them with guys like Samuelsson, Maholtra, Higgins, Lapierre, Hodgson
We got rid of Sammy and Hodgson and now have Booth, Kassian, Shroeder, Tanev, Garrison

We've been getting rid of our non performing guys and added better players.

We're doing that while still remaining cap compliant which is a very difficult task.

Like I said, if it takes the addition of a super star sniper and a premium d-man to win the cup, you might as well make me the coach and save paying AVs salary...

Pick any team in the NHL and compare Van's lineup compared to theirs.
While we may be lacking in some areas, there will also be other areas where we are stronger.

So at the end, that comes down to coaching. Utilizing your team's strengths and getting the best results out of what you have.
In my opinion, AV hasn't done that.


Well, two president's trophies tells me he does ok with what he's given. The problem is that MG hasn't built a team that is able to play a style other than the one it plays. AV just doesn't have the variety of player styles to alter the game plan.

explain to me what you think AV can do differently with the lineup he has?

Edited by stawns, 28 February 2013 - 12:06 PM.

  • 0

#487 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:14 PM

Well, two president's trophies tells me he does ok with what he's given. The problem is that MG hasn't built a team that is able to play a style other than the one it plays. AV just doesn't have the variety of player styles to alter the game plan.

explain to me what you think AV can do differently with the lineup he has?


I have talked numerous times about it...

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.


For instance, Daniel's goal against Det where Henrik ices the puck is not an AV play. That's a smart Sedin play.

If it was AV's play, we would have faster guys like Raymond, Hansen, Shroeder doing that as well when the opposing d-men are cheating.

The only good strategy/set play I've seen from AV was the play in the SCF against Boston where Higgins was hiding/sitting on the boards at the bench to catch Boston's d-men offguard.

Edited by CanucksJay, 28 February 2013 - 12:19 PM.

  • 0

#488 VanIsleNuckFan

VanIsleNuckFan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,566 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 06

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:16 PM

@Kack Zassian
so what do you suppose the problem is then? Continue to sit back and hope that they will get it and turn it around and become a juggernaut.

I wish the Cancuks do that. But they're always playing uninspired hockey. They lose to bottom dwellers, they lose to teams that hav e a winning record, and they feast on the weak NW division. Sure they get in the playoffs with that, but this team is never battle tested when it comes to the real dance, and they have no idea on what to do.

There's a difference between a good team and a stanley cup champion. They're stuck in the good team mode.


"Always playing uninspired hockey" ummmmmmmmmmmmm..... For two games when a cold/flu is circulating around the locker room...

I thought the way you've presented yourself in this thread was a bit childish at times... Take a breath.
  • 0

#489 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,559 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:23 PM

I wonder how many recent coaches have outlasted GMs?



I can only think of 2 coaches (Quenneville and Vigneault) that have outlasted the GM.

Quenneville stayed when CHI changed GMs. But that was after his 1st year. Ruff, I think was hired by Regier. Trotz by Poile. Babcock by Holland.

Just an observation. No point. Just a trivia question.
  • 0
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#490 one night

one night

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,770 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 05

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:57 PM

You're Hockey IQ has already been established... The bolded statement is, as AV would put it, just stupid. The likelyhood of something going wrong with 20+ moving parts vs one part in anything is much greater from sports, to computers, to mechanics... you should take your own advice and think about what you post before you post it.

You say at first blush it makes sense to blame the players - whatever the hell this means... though sadly I think I infer the meaning, Who needs to be blamed for what exactly? Leading the division? having a hiccup at the end of a road trip against a strong opponent? making the playoffs yet again under coach AV when the Canucks inevitably make the playoffs?

There is no one to blame because there is nothing to blame on anyone. Its not like they are at the bottom of the conference being outscored 8-3 every other night.

All you guys want to hang AV for your imagined slights, like he ruins young players? yet I never hear talk about their junior teams or the wolves or any other factor other than AV. Yah he ruined Shirokov? why couldn't he crack the Panther's roster but AV should have put him on the top line? give me a break.

You guys keep up your whining a bitching and at the end of the day AV will still be coach cause the bottom line is the most important thing, HE WINS GAMES, HE MAKES THE PLAYOFFS, HE IS PROFESSIONAL, THE CANUCKS HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN THEY HAVE UNDER HIS TENURE...... EVER.

That is what matters in hockey, that is what matters to GMs, and that is what matters to Owners. Until he starts losing and misses the playoffs his job is safe, and for you so called fans that would hope the Canucks lose and miss playoffs to have AV fired, here is a newsflash, you aren't fans.




What a joke, take the Sedins off this team and you got the first draft pick, furthermore you have nothing down on the farm to even think of of moving up in the standings. Canucks will have the 1st overall pick for the next 3 years.
  • 0

#491 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,428 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:59 PM

I honestly don't think lack of motivation is a problem with Vancouver, Even by going through the motions, we will make the playoffs. Once playoffs start, there is no denying that Vancouver is highly motivated.
I mean think about the 1st play in last year's playoffs with Booth and Kes flying in on the forecheck making a huge hit on Doughty.

The problem I have with AV is his lack of answers once a team finds a way to neutralize his strategy.
My problem is that he does the same thing over and over again when it's clearly failing.1
Thats why we need an Xs and Os guy rather than a cheer leader on the bench.


The Canucks play not to lose in the regular season AND in the playoffs. In the playoffs especially they need to play to win. There is a difference and it is a big one. Motivation is the #1 problem on this team and has been since the cup run. I don't know how anyone can insist they suddenly become super motivated in the postseason....it just doesn't hold water when you watch how they actually play. The Canucks don't seem to really care if they lose which is sad.

I think getting a combination of motivator and x's and o's is a better choice. This team needs both. And maybe new assistant coaches can bring some required elements as well. The coaching staff change should be a total package deal, imo.
  • 0

#492 one night

one night

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,770 posts
  • Joined: 10-February 05

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:59 PM

Well, two president's trophies tells me he does ok with what he's given. The problem is that MG hasn't built a team that is able to play a style other than the one it plays. AV just doesn't have the variety of player styles to alter the game plan.

explain to me what you think AV can do differently with the lineup he has?




Even you Stawns could take this team into the playoffs, all you need to know is how to chew gum.
  • 0

#493 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:29 PM

Even you Stawns could take this team into the playoffs, all you need to know is how to chew gum.


The "chewing the gum" joke got stale about three years ago. Pardon the pun, but you need a new schtick.
  • 1

#494 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,891 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:32 PM

I have talked numerous times about it...



For instance, Daniel's goal against Det where Henrik ices the puck is not an AV play. That's a smart Sedin play.

If it was AV's play, we would have faster guys like Raymond, Hansen, Shroeder doing that as well when the opposing d-men are cheating.

The only good strategy/set play I've seen from AV was the play in the SCF against Boston where Higgins was hiding/sitting on the boards at the bench to catch Boston's d-men offguard.


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
  • 1

#495 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:43 PM

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


Hey now now... let's not talk about bringing up arguments as "bitching" because that actually takes away from the argument and makes it more of a personal attack.

I DID talk about what he could do.

Did you not read the post? I talked about how he can utilize the middle of the ice with our speedier players instead of always going up the sides.

Yes it's usually a safer play to go up the sides but like I mentioned, other teams expect that from us now and cheat to the boards.

Utilizing the middle of the ice is one way to keep them honest.

And as for sitting back in the defensive zone, how has that worked? By blowing 2 goal leads?

We don't complain because it's boring. If that system worked, I'd be all for it.
  • 0

#496 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,891 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:46 PM

Hey now now... let's not talk about bringing up arguments as "bitching" because that actually takes away from the argument and makes it more of a personal attack.

I DID talk about what he could do.

Did you not read the post? I talked about how he can utilize the middle of the ice with our speedier players instead of always going up the sides.

Yes it's usually a safer play to go up the sides but like I mentioned, other teams expect that from us now and cheat to the boards.

Utilizing the middle of the ice is one way to keep them honest.

And as for sitting back in the defensive zone, how has that worked? By blowing 2 goal leads?

We don't complain because it's boring. If that system worked, I'd be all for it.


it did work, when AV first got here and I think that's his preferred style. MG gave him a team of speedy, skilled players and wanted an up tempo speed game. What he didn't factor in is that too many smallish, speedy, skilled players are easy to neutralize, as all the big, physical teams have proven. AV i splaying the hand he's been dealt, the only way he can.........unless MG can change the makeup of this team in the next calender year, they'll both be gone.

You don't want this lineup playing through the middle of the ice, players are going to get killed, and the turn over rate in the n-zone will be twice what it is now.

Edited by stawns, 28 February 2013 - 01:47 PM.

  • 0

#497 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:48 PM

it did work, when AV first got here and I think that's his preferred style. MG gave him a team of speedy, skilled players and wanted an up tempo speed game. What he didn't factor in is that too many smallish, speedy, skilled players are easy to neutralize, as all the big, physical teams have proven.

You don't want this lineup playing through the middle of the ice, players are going to get killed, and the turn over rate in the n-zone will be twice what it is now.


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?
  • 0

#498 stawns

stawns

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,891 posts
  • Joined: 10-August 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:52 PM

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?


with the lineup he had? Absolutely. Success doesn't always mean a Stanley Cup........that team played far above their skill level and never took shifts off.......to me, that's successful coaching.
  • 0

#499 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:59 PM

with the lineup he had? Absolutely. Success doesn't always mean a Stanley Cup........that team played far above their skill level and never took shifts off.......to me, that's successful coaching.


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.
  • 0

#500 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:06 PM

The Canucks play not to lose in the regular season AND in the playoffs. In the playoffs especially they need to play to win. There is a difference and it is a big one. Motivation is the #1 problem on this team and has been since the cup run. I don't know how anyone can insist they suddenly become super motivated in the postseason....it just doesn't hold water when you watch how they actually play. The Canucks don't seem to really care if they lose which is sad.

I think getting a combination of motivator and x's and o's is a better choice. This team needs both. And maybe new assistant coaches can bring some required elements as well. The coaching staff change should be a total package deal, imo.


I agree with you in that Canucks play "not to lose" but is that from lack of motivation or from the system which is designed to play "not to lose"?

You are forced to play not to lose when your coach is constantly hooting to dump the puck and line change whenever they are defending a lead in the 3rd.

Thats why Shroeder is still in the line up. He takes ZERO chances offensively. He listens to AV to perfection, makes the dump in and gets off the ice.

I feel like his creativity and skill could lead to more offence but his main priority is to stick in the line up so he does what he is told which may not be using his full potential.


I also agree that a full coaching change is needed including Newell Brown and our special teams
  • 0

#501 gradin123

gradin123

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,093 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:12 PM

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.

Edited by gradin123, 28 February 2013 - 02:15 PM.

  • 0

#502 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:30 PM

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.


Buddy, look at our roster. I understand your point that Burke, Nonis set up the core of the team but let's not shift the scope of the argument.
Are you seriously complaining that our roster right now is not good enough to compete for the cup? AV doesn't have enough talent on the team?

best goalie tandem in the league, best d group in the league, one of the top 1st lines in the league, Kesler, Booth on our 2nd line
Higgins, Raymond, Hansen, Kassian, Lapierre, in the bottom 6.

I'm honestly curious... is it possible to have an absolutely perfect team in a salary cap league?

let's look back at a few cup winners and some questionable names on their roster

Kings- Clifford, Fraser, King, Lewis, Nolan, Richardson, Drewiske, Ellerby, Greene, Muzzin, Voynov

Bruins- Arniel, Boychuk, Campbell, Caron, Hnidy, Kampfer, Paille, Thornton


it looks like the other coaches also had some holes in their line up.
  • 0

#503 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 28 February 2013 - 02:55 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

#504 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:00 PM

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.


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

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???


  • 0

#505 Canada Hockey Place

Canada Hockey Place

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,559 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 08

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:04 PM

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


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.
  • 1
Quando omni flunkus moritati

#506 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,917 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:08 PM

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?


With a team that was forecast to miss the playoffs.
  • 0
Posted Image

#507 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:10 PM

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


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.
  • 0

#508 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:11 PM

With a team that was forecast to miss the playoffs.


I remember that year very well and I completely agree that AV was able to make that team perform much better than expected.
I think Stawns raised a good point in that AV is best suited for a defensive system as it is evidenced that he was able to make the players play above their potential with that system.

Problem is, now that we have upgraded our talent, we are performing below our potential and that raises the question whether AV is still a good fit for this team
  • 0

#509 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:12 PM

With a team that was forecast to miss the playoffs.


Not only that, most analysts picked us to finish -- yep -- 15th in the conference.
  • 0

#510 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 03:13 PM

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.


yeah an 82 game season when we play Col, Cgy, Edmonton and Min 6 times each...

Oh right and then you decided to make up your own numbers and said our division contributed to an extra 5-8 points??? lol

Care to explain how you came up with that one?
  • 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.