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

#571 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,588 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:19 AM

Fire AV. Hire Ruff.


If Sutter can win a cup, anyone can. This team needs a change in coaching staff.


Wouldn't AV be anyone? Derp...
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#572 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,588 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:23 AM

Alberts takes a stupid penalty -> LA scores
Alberts / Schneider screw up - > LA scores

This game could've easily been a loss.


But it wasn't . Whiners gon' whine.
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#573 {nhl}

{nhl}

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 06

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:59 AM

But it wasn't . Whiners gon' whine.


But it wasn't . Whiners gon' whine.

It's not about whining. It is AV's idiotic way of treating Ballard. Ballard has been one of our best defenseman since the end of last season and he continues to scratch him because of his biased view.
Yes its good that we won but you don't go scratching players that have been very consistent
  • 0
NOBODY BEATS WILLIE

"Give Willie Mitchell a tough assignment and he’ll
treat it like life and death." - Alain Vigneault

#574 {nhl}

{nhl}

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,244 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 06

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:00 AM

@FarhanLaljiTSN: AV re scratching Ballard, "I felt the other guys gave us a better chance to win."


What an idiot
  • 0
NOBODY BEATS WILLIE

"Give Willie Mitchell a tough assignment and he’ll
treat it like life and death." - Alain Vigneault

#575 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:21 AM

[size=4]
It's not about whining. It is AV's idiotic way of treating Ballard. Ballard has been one of our best defenseman since the end of last season and he continues to scratch him because of his biased view.
Yes its good that we won but you don't go scratching players that have been very consistent


I agree.
Ballard deserves better. He's pissing away the prime of his career by being treated like sh!t here. He is too classy that its hurting himself. He takes AV's crap, loses confidence for no reason and when his contract ends, rest of NHL will think he's useless when in fact, he can easily play top 4 on another team, be their QB on the PP and put himself in a nice position for his next contract.

Before his final year of contract, he really should ask to be moved to save his career
  • 0

#576 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,588 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:23 AM

[size=4]
It's not about whining. It is AV's idiotic way of treating Ballard. Ballard has been one of our best defenseman since the end of last season and he continues to scratch him because of his biased view.
Yes its good that we won but you don't go scratching players that have been very consistent


You do when you need size in the lineup Alberts is bigger so Ballard is out, it was just one game and we won.
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#577 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,513 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:27 AM

Win or no win, I still think a coaching change could be beneficial to this team. Yes, the team has had success with AV.. but if they don't get it done in the playoffs this year a coaching change should be considered. It's easier to replace the coaching staff then it is to ship out and bring in players.
  • 0

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted Image


#578 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:30 AM

You do when you need size in the lineup Alberts is bigger so Ballard is out, it was just one game and we won.


Pretty much why i thought he was scratched as well.

It was a good win over a surging team.
  • 1

Posted Image

Henrik breaking records.Kes approving.


#579 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:33 AM

didn't see any failure tonight. True Canuck fans don't make threads like these. Enjoy your bandwagon


Check the OP, this thread isn't new, and wasn't made tonight. Been around for awhile.

That would be like beating up a handicapped person


Lol, good on you. I've felt the same way before on here, it has a means of doing that too you. This cracked me up though. Keep on going!

Yes, but we scored more goals than them. Therefore, we won. And therefore, according to the logic in CDC la-la land, that means that we won despite AV's poor performance. Didn't you see him working on that gum? I'm sure the players get really annoyed with that. I bet it makes it harder for them to concentrate on the game with all that lip-smacking and popping. And no time-outs again tonight! What kind of strategy is that?


What it means is.

In Playoff hockey when Quick would have been at his best and the Kings would have been tighter defensively.

We would have lost.

If we lost, AV would be chastised for this garbage. But because the Canucks bailed him out like the rest of his career, this gets swept under the rug.

AV owes the Sedins a hell of a lot. They run the show for AV.


Absolutely, everytime this team bails him out, the AV lovers can come on here and act like a million bucks, and like it is all AV, and all our success is due to him. But really it is due to goaltending and the Sedins carrying us offensively 99.9% of the time.

Oh and he also owes Luongo for winning him a Jack Adams.

Ballard plays leaps and bounds more physical than Garrison, Tanev, Edler, and most of the time Hamhuis.

If we are talking about size, Tanev gets benched. He's the softest.

If we are holding players accountable for one bad game, there are many more games to look at than Ballard vs Phoenix.


If we are talking about Ballard's point production, Alberts? Not Barker?

If we are talking about cliquey bull**** and favoritism, then Ballard gets benched.


Pull your head out, dude, seriously.


I think this is the logic some AV lovers don't understand.

If it wasn't a biased decision in anyway and he just wanted size.. Then why the hell did Tanev dress?

If it was about a sub-par preformence, which happens.. Then why the hell did alot of other guys still stay in the line-up? And why the hell didn't other guys like Bieksa get a seat in the press box earlier on?

Now what options does that ultimately leave to justify this benching?

Knowing the history of AV/Ballard. The theory that the decision was based on some sort of hate for Ballard is likely the most plausible one after examining all the variables of the other theories.
  • 0

zackass.png


#580 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:35 AM

Win or no win, I still think a coaching change could be beneficial to this team. Yes, the team has had success with AV.. but if they don't get it done in the playoffs this year a coaching change should be considered. It's easier to replace the coaching staff then it is to ship out and bring in players.


I agree. Many people say MG needs to build a better team but I really think AV is not the right coach for this team.
When our team sucked and was full of grinders, AV was great in that he played a defensive system that covered our weaknesses. As a result , we over achieved that year.

MG started adding more and more talent on this team and we've seen the opposite happen. We've been under achieving.

Maybe AV's style is more suited for defensive systems in which he doesnt have much talent to work with. When we are looking at guys like Tippett and thinking how awesome he is...maybe AV is just like that. You put him on a crappy team and he will get better than expected results.

The problem is, I can't think of a clear better option for a coach who I know can work with our offensive players. I just don't want AV being replaced with another AV
  • 0

#581 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:36 AM

You do when you need size in the lineup Alberts is bigger so Ballard is out, it was just one game and we won.



Pretty much why i thought he was scratched as well.

It was a good win over a surging team.


If this is the case.

Why the hell did Tanev play? He is a tooth pick compared to Ballard.
  • 0

zackass.png


#582 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,588 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:37 AM

Check the OP, this thread isn't new, and wasn't made tonight. Been around for awhile.



Lol, good on you. I've felt the same way before on here, it has a means of doing that too you. This cracked me up though. Keep on going!



What it means is.

In Playoff hockey when Quick would have been at his best and the Kings would have been tighter defensively.

We would have lost.



Absolutely, everytime this team bails him out, the AV lovers can come on here and act like a million bucks, and like it is all AV, and all our success is due to him. But really it is due to goaltending and the Sedins carrying us offensively 99.9% of the time.

Oh and he also owes Luongo for winning him a Jack Adams.



I think this is the logic some AV lovers don't understand.

If it wasn't a biased decision in anyway and he just wanted size.. Then why the hell did Tanev dress?

If it was about a sub-par preformence, which happens.. Then why the hell did alot of other guys still stay in the line-up? And why the hell didn't other guys like Bieksa get a seat in the press box earlier on?

Now what options does that ultimately leave to justify this benching?

Knowing the history of AV/Ballard. The theory that the decision was based on some sort of hate for Ballard is likely the most plausible one after examining all the variables of the other theories.


Or you could think logically and realize we need size for this game so Alberts>Ballard. AV has given Ballard more ice time when he has played well which until this season has been few and far between.

He's not "playing favorites" as you Ballard fans like to think he is going with the lineup that gives us the best chance to win. And yes that shockingly means playing Ballad more or less depending on how he has been playing or iwhether or not we need muscle in the lineup. And the majority of the time he is right in his decisions.
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#583 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,588 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:39 AM

[size=4]

If this is the case.

Why the hell did Tanev play? He is a tooth pick compared to Ballard.


He's been our most steady defenseman. Having Tanev AND Ballard when you need size is redundant so he picked the better performing one to stay in the lineup.
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#584 Coconuts

Coconuts

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,513 posts
  • Joined: 06-July 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:46 AM

I agree. Many people say MG needs to build a better team but I really think AV is not the right coach for this team.
When our team sucked and was full of grinders, AV was great in that he played a defensive system that covered our weaknesses. As a result , we over achieved that year.

MG started adding more and more talent on this team and we've seen the opposite happen. We've been under achieving.

Maybe AV's style is more suited for defensive systems in which he doesnt have much talent to work with. When we are looking at guys like Tippett and thinking how awesome he is...maybe AV is just like that. You put him on a crappy team and he will get better than expected results.

The problem is, I can't think of a clear better option for a coach who I know can work with our offensive players. I just don't want AV being replaced with another AV

Agreed. He did well with a less talented team, though it could be argued a lot of that early success rested on the shoulders of Roberto Luongo and Willie Mitchell.

I also agree that AV is likely not the coach best suited for the assortment of players we've got on this team. This team is a more talented team, and I would go as far as to say better suited to attacking. We've proven that we can play a sound defensive game, and we've got some grit that allows us to grind out games, but we've also got the talent needed to go for the jugular. If we could get ourselves a more offensive minded coach I believe we could have more success, as I fail to see why we couldn't focus more on the offensive end of hockey while also playing sound defense. AV likes to shut things down a bit after we get a lead and it's frustrating.

But like you said, I wouldn't want to replace him with another AV and replacing a coach with someone who isn't an improvement is pointless.
  • 0

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted Image


#585 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:47 AM

Or you could think logically and realize we need size for this game so Alberts>Ballard. AV has given Ballard more ice time when he has played well which until this season has been few and far between.

He's not "playing favorites" as you Ballard fans like to think he is going with the lineup that gives us the best chance to win. And yes that shockingly means playing Ballad more or less depending on how he has been playing or iwhether or not we need muscle in the lineup. And the majority of the time he is right in his decisions.


Alberts > Ballard
Alberts >>> Tanev
Ballard >> Tanev

Alberts > Ballard > Tanev

So if it was for size, why did Tanev play... but Ballard didn't... I have a tough time understanding that?

Since according to that theory it was about size, and not bias or preformence, in which case Ballard wouldn't have been the only one sitting.
  • 0

zackass.png


#586 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,423 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:49 AM

He's been our most steady defenseman. Having Tanev AND Ballard when you need size is redundant so he picked the better performing one to stay in the lineup.


Ballard has been just as good, Tanev has made some bad errors the last few games too, recently he hasn't been any better than Ballard has.

Then since the size theory indicates: Ballard > Tanev.

And since Ballard and Tanev have been playing just as well lately, and Ballard has been playing an unfamiliar side with lesser partners to boot, that would indicate there is some other reason. No?
  • 0

zackass.png


#587 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,588 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:51 AM

I can see you have the Ballard blinders on big time not worth even discussing Ballard has been good this year Tanev has been better it really is that simple, if you watch objectively.
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#588 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:51 AM

I just find it amusing how the AV lovers come here after a win like tonight.
Like some have posted, Quick had an off night.
How many times do you see players beat him from 20 ft out with no screen?
Well, we managed to do that 3 times tonight. Try ZERO in the playoffs

I watched the game in CGY with non Vancouver fans and we were all commenting on how bad Quick looked tonight Even Quick felt this way as after those goals, you can see him cursing behind the mask, pissed for letting those in.

Moreover, what was our strategy on the PP tonight? We were pressured all over the ice and had ZERO productivity.
Expect more of the same in the playoffs except this LA will fine tune their PK even more and prob score a couple shorties in the series.

We got dominated last year on special teams in the playoffs against them, why didn't we have a plan for tonight (especially with 3-4 days off?)

Now its not all gloom and doom. Our guys came out with passion tonight and even Henrik was mixing it up. We got secondary scoring.

I just wanted to point out that tonight however is not a great example for AVs fans to gloat about his coaching.
  • 0

#589 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,588 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:54 AM

I just find it amusing how the AV lovers come here after a win like tonight.
Like some have posted, Quick had an off night.
How many times do you see players beat him from 20 ft out with no screen?
Well, we managed to do that 3 times tonight. Try ZERO in the playoffs

I watched the game in CGY with non Vancouver fans and we were all commenting on how bad Quick looked tonight Even Quick felt this way as after those goals, you can see him cursing behind the mask, pissed for letting those in.

Moreover, what was our strategy on the PP tonight? We were pressured all over the ice and had ZERO productivity.
Expect more of the same in the playoffs except this LA will fine tune their PK even more and prob score a couple shorties in the series.

We got dominated last year on special teams in the playoffs against them, why didn't we have a plan for tonight (especially with 3-4 days off?)

Now its not all gloom and doom. Our guys came out with passion tonight and even Henrik was mixing it up. We got secondary scoring.

I just wanted to point out that tonight however is not a great example for AVs fans to gloat about his coaching.


I find it funny how every win has nothing to do with AV and the goalie looked bad, defense played poor yet every loss is his fault...
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#590 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:54 AM

[size=4]

If this is the case.

Why the hell did Tanev play? He is a tooth pick compared to Ballard.


Right hand shot to compliment his defensive assignments.

He also has been getting very good at absorbing hits and eluding checks from bigger players.

I expect Bally to play tomorrow.
  • 0

Posted Image

Henrik breaking records.Kes approving.


#591 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:02 AM

I find it funny how every win has nothing to do with AV and the goalie looked bad, defense played poor yet every loss is his fault...


I wouldn't go that far...
If the Canucks produce many solid chances and score on great opportunities, i wouldnt say that the opposing goalie played badly.
Fact is however, based on what we've seen of Quick in the past, he had a sub par game.

Do you disagree?

Does Quick normally post a 0.823 save percentage and lets in 4 goals on 23 shots?
  • 0

#592 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,588 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:09 AM

I wouldn't go that far...
If the Canucks produce many solid chances and score on great opportunities, i wouldnt say that the opposing goalie played badly.
Fact is however, based on what we've seen of Quick in the past, he had a sub par game.

Do you disagree?

Does Quick normally post a 0.823 save percentage and lets in 4 goals on 23 shots?


Goalies have bad games, Patrick Roy let in 8 before, good teams take advantage of good goalies having poor games. Doesn't make this win any less significant it's a W that's all that matters.
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#593 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:13 AM

I just find it amusing how the AV lovers come here after a win like tonight.
Like some have posted, Quick had an off night.
How many times do you see players beat him from 20 ft out with no screen?
Well, we managed to do that 3 times tonight. Try ZERO in the playoffs

I watched the game in CGY with non Vancouver fans and we were all commenting on how bad Quick looked tonight Even Quick felt this way as after those goals, you can see him cursing behind the mask, pissed for letting those in.

Moreover, what was our strategy on the PP tonight? We were pressured all over the ice and had ZERO productivity.
Expect more of the same in the playoffs except this LA will fine tune their PK even more and prob score a couple shorties in the series.

We got dominated last year on special teams in the playoffs against them, why didn't we have a plan for tonight (especially with 3-4 days off?)

Now its not all gloom and doom. Our guys came out with passion tonight and even Henrik was mixing it up. We got secondary scoring.

I just wanted to point out that tonight however is not a great example for AVs fans to gloat about his coaching.


The problem is that the naysayers unfairly, and without even any substantial points, point the finger at AV. No matter what.

Its comical.

The last concern that anyone should have is coaching.
  • 1

Posted Image

Henrik breaking records.Kes approving.


#594 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,310 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:14 AM

I wouldn't go that far...
If the Canucks produce many solid chances and score on great opportunities, i wouldnt say that the opposing goalie played badly.
Fact is however, based on what we've seen of Quick in the past, he had a sub par game.

Do you disagree?

Does Quick normally post a 0.823 save percentage and lets in 4 goals on 23 shots?


Does Lu?

It happens from time to time.

Personally i would have played Bernier over a goalie just recovering from injury.
  • 1

Posted Image

Henrik breaking records.Kes approving.


#595 Chip Kelly

Chip Kelly

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,179 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:18 AM

A,V can't adjust in the playoffs he has been out coached in the past. All he is a coach who loves his grinders like Burrows and Hansen and Higgins and will never give skill guys a chance to develop.

The only guys that develop under A.V. are the ones who are solid defensively who he trusts enough to then put in offensive situations.

Why would not play Schroeder at center with Kesler out? He is a natural centre damnnit and what about Kassian?

I know it worked tonight with Raymond but how long can he get by like this?

They need a coach who understands offence and nurtures offensive talents while being patient with their defensive games.

The only guys exempt from worrying about being benched for their poor play in the d-zone is the Sedins because he gives the latitude to them to freelance in the offensive zone as 1st liners.

The other guys like Kassian and Schroeder are languishing not getting playing time to develop.

The Canucks aren't going to do anything in the playoffs this year the way the team is currently constructed.

Fire Vigneault and hire Lindy Ruff.
  • 0

fyo3s9.jpg

 

Credit to Mr.DirtyDangles for the find and Twilight Sparkle for making a sick siggy!


#596 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:19 AM

Goalies have bad games, Patrick Roy let in 8 before, good teams take advantage of good goalies having poor games. Doesn't make this win any less significant it's a W that's all that matters.


The idea that a W is all that matters is precisely what's wrong with our attitudes and why we always get a rude awakening when playoffs come.

Unless we think Quick will have those games once or twice a round in the playoffs, our chances to win are greatly diminished.

It's about being real in your assessment of the team and understanding why we won or lost, recognizing deficiencies and working to improve it.

Despite the success the Sedins have had, they say that they are their own toughest critics and thats what continues to drive them to improve. This is the same idea when evaluating a team. No team is perfect but you still should look at areas of improvement instead of sitting on your laurels and say, hey, we got the W.

Champions arent made that way
  • 0

#597 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:21 AM

Does Lu?

It happens from time to time.

Personally i would have played Bernier over a goalie just recovering from injury.

Sorry maybe its because its late but I have NO idea what your point is.

Yeah Lu has some bad games. Whats your point?
My point is still consistent, if we lost because Lu played poorly, I wouldn't give that other team more respect for beating us. I would say they beat us on Lu's off night.

Now if this was to happen often, we would need to find a new goalie.

But if its a rare occurrence then yeah I would chalk up the loss to Lu having a bad night. The other team wouldn't necessarily gain more respect or props by beating our goalie on an off night.

Edited by CanucksJay, 03 March 2013 - 03:24 AM.

  • 0

#598 Ghostdivision

Ghostdivision

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts
  • Joined: 25-March 11

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:22 AM

Av said tonight ballard did not play because there were 6 other defense men who played better then him, he would have put barker in before ballard.

He kept putting alberts and bieksa pairing out despite many close near goals, schneider bailed them out. Finally he went back to tanev alberts, tanev covered for alberts well.

I dont know what av's thought process is. He is alot more popular here then other canuck areas on the internet.

By the way there are other options then just recycling former coaches from around the nhl.

Alot of people are high on jon cooper.

http://theahl.com/co...he-year-p177029

Edited by Ghostdivision, 03 March 2013 - 03:31 AM.

  • 0

#599 canuck73_3

canuck73_3

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,588 posts
  • Joined: 11-May 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:27 AM

The idea that a W is all that matters is precisely what's wrong with our attitudes and why we always get a rude awakening when playoffs come.

Unless we think Quick will have those games once or twice a round in the playoffs, our chances to win are greatly diminished.

It's about being real in your assessment of the team and understanding why we won or lost, recognizing deficiencies and working to improve it.

Despite the success the Sedins have had, they say that they are their own toughest critics and thats what continues to drive them to improve. This is the same idea when evaluating a team. No team is perfect but you still should look at areas of improvement instead of sitting on your laurels and say, hey, we got the W.

Champions arent made that way


Winning is all that matters, obviously some things need to be worked on but that is what practice is for, game time getting the W is all that matters.
  • 0


credit to canuckforever00 for the sig :)

RIP Luc Bourdon

#600 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,386 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:31 AM

Av said tonight ballard did not play because there were 6 other defense men who played better then him, he would have put barker in before ballard.

He kept putting alberts and bieksa pairing out despite many close near goals, schneider bailed them out.

I dont know what av's thought process is. He is alot more popular here then other canuck areas on the internet.


I dunno... there's no way to paint AV fans all with a same brush. I thought initially that they were superfans who cant say anything negative about the team but thats not it either because they throw other players and MG under the bus.

They truly believe that he is a good coach...

It's funny because people evaluate whether a player is good by their stats like points, corsi, etc.
People evaluate coaching by their record and AVs is solid.

Problem is, coaching such a talented team like the Canucks, you'll never know whether another coach can do a better job because 2 coaches can't coach the same team at the same time. So it will be a futile and endless debate

The only question for AV lovers is, when will it be enough to warrant a change?
  • 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.