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

#601 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:34 AM

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.


Winning is all that matters but winning in my opinion is the stanley cup.

Do you feel like for the amount of talent we have on this team, AV has won enough? (a bunch of 1st and 2nd round losses and a finals appearance)
If so, what would be required for us to take the next step and win the cup?
  • 0

#602 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,572 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:07 AM

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.


What is the concern we should be having then?
  • 0

zackass.png


#603 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,572 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:12 AM

Winning is all that matters but winning in my opinion is the stanley cup.

Do you feel like for the amount of talent we have on this team, AV has won enough? (a bunch of 1st and 2nd round losses and a finals appearance)
If so, what would be required for us to take the next step and win the cup?


Exactly my questions.

Winning regular season games like this, where we get lucky against good teams. (Quick has a bad game, or whatever it may be) means nothing.

We could lose this game and it means nothing.

This W really means nothing.

This team is going to make the playoffs, the division is that bad. This team has shown they are capable of carrying themselves in the regular season.

But what matters is playoffs, what matters is the cup. Where AV has failed, when this team has needed him, and when coaching has been at a premium (in the regular season and playoffs) he has failed us.

My worry is that this team will go down the same road we did last year, maybe win a round this time or maybe not, but either way be outsted early in the 1st few rounds, then we make a coaching change.

But by then, our team won't be as good. As we will have looked back on it later on and seen the opportunity there, but knowing a change was need to perhaps get the best out of the group.

And it will be that classic look back and "what if" that has happened so many times in our 41 seasons without a cup. Then this core and opportunity passess, and we have wait another 20 or so years perhaps before we are this strong again?
  • 2

zackass.png


#604 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,149 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:18 AM

I agree with Bedbeats.

Good game tonight.Exciting.

Sestito fit in well and showed up for his mates.

Hansen and Raymond played well together.Burrows and the twins were on fire.

Very enjoyable game.
  • 0

#605 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,320 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:16 AM

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.


The point is Lu was perforated last week, and you alluded to Quick being off. When really, the Canucks were pretty darn good against a red hot team. Thru all the lines, and of course Schnieds had a good bounce back game.

They found ways to win. Cant say those were soft goals at all. You were.

It wasnt perfect, but it was markedly better than what we have seen recently, even with so much that happened the past week swirling around the team.

They looked like they were playing more to their strengths, even with glaring holes down the middle of the roster.

Its astonishing the whole team, coaches and all, are getting poo-pooed on. And they won for chrissakes.
  • 2

1znsn4k.jpg

Every "Burrow's Special", to Date.


#606 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,320 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:17 AM

What is the concern we should be having then?


2 centers that are money at the dot.
  • 1

1znsn4k.jpg

Every "Burrow's Special", to Date.


#607 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,572 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:24 AM

2 centers that are money at the dot.


Faceoffs aren't why we aren't playing well....
  • 0

zackass.png


#608 Maninthebox

Maninthebox

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:27 AM

They are playing well...
  • 1

#609 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,320 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:30 AM

Faceoffs aren't why we aren't playing well....


We played excellent tonight.

Even with out a hallmark of this team, winning at the dot and holding onto the puck, the team played so much better tonight than the last few games.

Its like you want them to lose or something. I dont get it.
  • 2

1znsn4k.jpg

Every "Burrow's Special", to Date.


#610 Nordiques_fan

Nordiques_fan

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 851 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 08:43 AM

Funny how I see some of you referencing Philadelphia as being a team well coached, and being able to adjust to every situation.

Anyone forgot they're barely in the playoffs right now and that they haven't won a Cup in about 40 years?

Where is the grass greener?
  • 0

#611 SamJamIam

SamJamIam

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,592 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 11

Posted 03 March 2013 - 12:31 PM

Faceoffs aren't why we aren't playing well....


Dude, just stop. I read your posts in a Droopy Dog voice you whine so much about AV. The game is evolving, and the coaching staff and team are finding the best way to win in it. On PP or PP-like 5 on 5 situations, the guys are collapsing and putting tons of pressure on. They're also getting the puck deep in the slot instead of sticking to the perimeter. That's how we got the Hamhuis goal and that's all coaching changes.

Meanwhile the Sedins vs Kopitar looked like a bad match up for us the first few shifts. Then AV had a word with the 1st line and Henrik is beating on Kopitar, dangling through his legs and looking basically untouchable. A couple words and we see our best player play his best game this year? Yeah, must be bad coaching.
  • 0

Keswho.jpg


#612 higgyfan

higgyfan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,349 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 12:43 PM

What is the concern we should be having then?


Other then last night:
The team doesn't play for 60 mins. (Long off-season and of the team not playing during lockout)
We do not have a second line (injuries and no RW)
Many of the D are not playing up to par or can't switch sides
The C's are not good at faceoffs (no Kes, no Manny)
Goalie controversy (forced to play both goalies to keep them game ready)
Lack of 'push back' against bigger teams

Really don't think you can blame AV for all of that.
  • 1

#613 cc_devil

cc_devil

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 07

Posted 03 March 2013 - 12:59 PM

AV's new lineups are freakin ridicullious just like his tired system.
  • 0

#614 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:17 PM

The point is Lu was perforated last week, and you alluded to Quick being off. When really, the Canucks were pretty darn good against a red hot team. Thru all the lines, and of course Schnieds had a good bounce back game.

They found ways to win. Cant say those were soft goals at all. You were.

It wasnt perfect, but it was markedly better than what we have seen recently, even with so much that happened the past week swirling around the team.

They looked like they were playing more to their strengths, even with glaring holes down the middle of the roster.

Its astonishing the whole team, coaches and all, are getting poo-pooed on. And they won for chrissakes.


The "team, and all" isn't getting poo-pooed. Just the coaching.

My money come playoffs is that Quick would make the saves on Hansen, Raymond and Daniel. I would LOVE it if Quick's post season save percentage is .823 (like last night) but fact of the matter is, it wont be.

So yeah the players played well last night but you also have to take it with a grain of salt and understand Quick's less than usual performance last night was also a key factor to the win.

Also, how many posts/ crossbars did the Kings hit last night? Combine that with Quick's less than average play and the score/ end result albeit great for our team, is skewed in our favour when it could have gone the other way.

(I guess I'll wait for the " but they didn't and we won which is all that matters" argument which pretty much brings this to a circle...lol)
Again, what does Lu and the rest of the team playing horribly aginast Det have anything to do with last night? The team quit on Lu for criss sakes.
The Kings were not horrible against us. They just didnt get the goaltending that they usualy do.

Edited by CanucksJay, 03 March 2013 - 01:27 PM.

  • 0

#615 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:24 PM

staff and team are finding the best way to win in it. On PP or PP-like 5 on 5 situations, the guys are collapsing and putting tons of pressure on. They're also getting the puck deep in the slot instead of sticking to the perimeter. That's how we got the Hamhuis goal and that's all coaching changes.

Meanwhile the Sedins vs Kopitar looked like a bad match up for us the first few shifts. Then AV had a word with the 1st line and Henrik is beating on Kopitar, dangling through his legs and looking basically untouchable. A couple words and we see our best player play his best game this year? Yeah, must be bad coaching.


I removed your first sentence because that kind of discussion is more of a personal attack and believe me, I've been through enough of those to understand its really not worth going that route.

I don't think the PP was great at all. We were pressured everywhere and didnt generate any quality scoring chances which reminded me of last playoffs and our lack of answers then (while also giving up some shorties).
I was actually angry that AV had 3-4 days off to look at Special Teams and we did the same thing we did last playoffs against them and as a result, they were all over us.

As for PK? I believe Kings scored on us on the PP. Yeah we played well on the PK for the most part but still, we did give up some chances and a goal.
  • 0

#616 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,824 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:43 PM

Ballard out
Lapierre on 2nd.
Schroeder on 4th...

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 ridiculous post.

Every single one of those moves worked out exactly as they intended, but somehow the CDC anti-AV crowd tries to spin it as a negative. :picard:

This was the best balance we've seen from the lines all season. Schroeder's speed made the 4th line far less of a defensive liability and Lapierre looked good between Kassian and Booth. Starting Raymond between Hansen and Higgins pretty much speaks for itself. It might have been fodder for the CDC whiner squad if it hadn't worked out, but it did. Spectacularly.

[size=4]

If this is the case.

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

Because Tanev is a right handed shot. The Canucks' corps of lefties has had considerable trouble adapting to playing on the right side. The only other possibility might have been Garrison, but he's bigger and stronger than Ballard. Plus he's got the better shot from the point.

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?

No he doesn't. However, the two previous games for Luongo and Schneider were also sub-par. You didn't seem to have any problem complaining about the coaching after those games. Why is it only an excuse for the opposition?

I will say that this is only one game and declaring the ship righted is as premature as was declaring it sunk after the two previous outings, however, I believe that it did address many of the complaints that have been written in this thread over the past few days.

1 -Too much line juggling/Not enough time to develop"chemistry": As I said above, last night was the most balance we have seen from all four lines. The necessity of playing Raymond at center meant that changes were required throughout the lineup and the team responded well, despite being somewhat unfamiliar with their linemates.

2 - Lack of physicality: During the game, CBC showed a graphic listing the "biggest" teams in the league and to no-one's surprise, the Kings ranked at the top. To help counteract this, the coaching staff decided to go with the bigger, stronger Alberts on defense and the Canucks responded by surrendering only a PP goal (on which Lapierre was caught completely out of position.... twice) and a gift wrapped Schneider puck-handling mistake.

People can whine about AA's "stupid" penalty all they like, but it was a borderline call and the kind of physicality that Alberts and Sestito brought to the game had the Kings "keeping their heads up" all night.

Besides, it's pretty hypocritical to be criticizing Alberts for a big hit on one hand and praising Daniel Alfresson for a cross-check to the head on the other...

3) Taking Kassian off the first line and replacing him with Burrows: It's interesting to note that posters are crediting the Sedins with "bailing AV out" last night. A couple of days ago, he was an idiot for not leaving Kassian on that line. Well, the way the first line played last night, the Kings were probably hearing "Sweet Georgia Brown" playing in their heads.

The move was about getting the twins going more than anything to do with Kassian and the benefits have been obvious to anyone who is watching without a preconceived bias...
  • 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!

#617 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,572 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:05 PM

We played excellent tonight.

Even with out a hallmark of this team, winning at the dot and holding onto the puck, the team played so much better tonight than the last few games.

Its like you want them to lose or something. I dont get it.


We were better, not excellent.

Although we did put together a much better overall preformence, but at the same token we got lucky Quick had a rough start cause LA really came on in the 2nd and could have come back.
  • 0

zackass.png


#618 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,824 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:16 PM

We were better, not excellent.

Although we did put together a much better overall preformence, but at the same token we got lucky Quick had a rough start cause LA really came on in the 2nd and could have come back.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda....

We were unlucky with the way Quick played in the playoffs last season, to say nothing of the performance by Tim Thomas the year before....

...but in those cases, it was "bad coaching"... :rolleyes:
  • 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!

#619 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,572 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:24 PM

Woulda, coulda, shoulda....

We were unlucky with the way Quick played in the playoffs last season, to say nothing of the performance by Tim Thomas the year before....

...but in those cases, it was "bad coaching"... :rolleyes:


Alright.

If you are all content with one regular season win, against a team that's goaltender didn't play up to par. Then so be it.

When it matters in the playoffs, and everyone picks up there game, then we will see what happens.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 03 March 2013 - 03:24 PM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#620 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,824 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:31 PM

Alright.

If you are all content with one regular season win, against a team that's goaltender didn't play up to par. Then so be it.

When it matters in the playoffs, and everyone picks up there game, then we will see what happens.

Hilarous. You can't come up with anything better than "if you're satisfied with one regular season win"....?

Talk about bias. When we win, it because we're lucky and it had nothing to do with the coach. When we lose, it's all because of the coaching....

How do you even take yourself seriously?
  • 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!

#621 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,572 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:39 PM

Hilarous. You can't come up with anything better than "if you're satisfied with one regular season win"....?

Talk about bias. When we win, it because we're lucky and it had nothing to do with the coach. When we lose, it's all because of the coaching....

How do you even take yourself seriously?


Okay look.

It is great we won, I am happy, but yet again the Sedins carried us, and Cory made big saves when we need him too, LA began to takeover the game, and could have come back, but Quick failed and the Sedins pounced.

The issues though don't magically go away after 1 win, cause we could lose tonight and suddenly they are back in the fore-front.

The line combinations were terrible, Lappierre brought next to nothing to the 2nd line, as did Schroeder the 4th.

The PP continues to struggle, our PK wasn't great, and our systems are still getting picked apart. And AV still isn't changing and adapting.

Meaning in the playoffs, I expect the same thing to happen last year. when we saw LA just exploit our age old systems, and come out way more motivated & focused than us.

But if you want to take this win, and act like everything is suddenly fixed. That's fine. A team this good is going to win, and going to play atleast 500 hockey, but this team is capable of so much more. That's why I am not sure why everyone is so content with leeching off the division, and then scraping by agianst playoff teams like we have been so far this year.
  • 1

zackass.png


#622 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,600 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:42 PM

Alright.

If you are all content with one regular season win, against a team that's goaltender didn't play up to par. Then so be it.

When it matters in the playoffs, and everyone picks up there game, then we will see what happens.


Well, I guess we'll have to downgrade Anaheim and Detroit then. They blew out Schneider and Lu respectively, but we'll let that one-sided inconsistency go. It's not like it's the only one obscuring your perspective.
  • 0

#623 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,572 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 03:43 PM

Well, I guess we'll have to downgrade Anaheim and Detroit then. They blew out Schneider and Lu respectively, but we'll let that one-sided inconsistency go. It's not like it's the only one obscuring your perspective.


So? We got blown our by ANA and DET. What's your point?
  • 0

zackass.png


#624 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,600 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:04 PM

Okay look.

It is great we won, I am happy, (1)but yet again the Sedins carried us, and Cory made big saves when we need him too, (2)LA began to takeover the game, (3)and could have come back, but (4)Quick failed and the Sedins pounced.

The issues though don't magically go away after 1 win, cause (5)we could lose tonight and suddenly they are back in the fore-front.

(6)The line combinations were terrible, Lappierre brought next to nothing to the 2nd line, as did Schroeder the 4th.

(7)The PP continues to struggle, our PK wasn't great, and (8)our systems are still getting picked apart. And AV still isn't changing and adapting.

(9)Meaning in the playoffs, I expect the same thing to happen last year. when we saw LA just exploit our age old systems, and come out way more motivated & focused than us.

But if you want to take this win, and act like everything is suddenly fixed. That's fine. A team this good is going to win, and going to play atleast 500 hockey, but this team is capable of so much more. That's why I am not sure why everyone is so content with leeching off the division, and then (10)scraping by agianst playoff teams like we have been so far this year.



(1) That's what they're paid to do, and they delivered big time. Rather than moping around after that entertaining game like you, I was rejoicing. Extremely fun and exciting start to finish, and against a team that's usual successful game plan is to smother the opposition and play boring Sutter-style hockey. Glad I don't have to watch that paint-dry "system" every game.

If the Sedins DIDN'T deliver, we'd be hearing it big time from all you constant whiners, too. So we can't win no matter what the Sedins do.

(2) yeah, for about 5 minutes early in the 2nd period. Other than that, they had no sustained pressure. Did you even watch the game, or is your anti_AV, anti-Canucks bias so prevalent you just make things up in the hopes no one will notice your BS?

(3) yes, but they didn't lose, did they? In fact, they won. You could make that argument about every game. "We coulda lost!!" Brilliant.

(4) We made him fail. Daniel's goal was a perfect mini-slapper to the far corner, Raymond's wrister was quick and out-quicked Quick, Hansen's wrister he maybe should have had but then that'll happen often once a game, and on the Hamhuis' goal he had no chance because of the beautiful cross-ice pass, as usual, from Henrik.

(5) see (3). You're desperate, and repeating your non-arguments.

(6) The same line combos that controlled LA's more established lines? Or are you going to cry now about the 4th line as if it had any difference on the game?

(7) 0-2, meaningless sample size. Our PP is slowly getting better, in case you hadn't noticed. It's crept up the charts over the season, and I expect it will continue to do so, especially since Garrison is getting used to the PP system and his new personnel with their unique preferences.

(8) What does this mean, specifically? Seems as though it was Sutter who couldn't adjust to anything the Canucks were throwing at them.

(9) Ah ha. We play well, so it's fall back to the "just wait till the playoffs" mantra. I can just imagine you guys cheering for Phx or whoever in the first round vs the Canucks, hoping we go out in 4 straight in order to get your desired coaching change.

Maybe we'll get bounced early, maybe we'll win the Cup. But let's wait a few months before all that useless and premature speculation.

(10) Scraping by? Hilarious. You're like most other whiners. A convincing win isn't good enough. It has to be a 7-0 ice-tilting romp, and it has to be every game. The other teams the Canucks play have some pretty decent players, too. Sometimes they even compete and make a game of it! Imagine that.
  • 1

#625 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,824 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:06 PM

Okay look.

It is great we won, I am happy, but yet again the Sedins carried us, and Cory made big saves when we need him too, LA began to takeover the game, and could have come back, but Quick failed and the Sedins pounced.

The issues though don't magically go away after 1 win, cause we could lose tonight and suddenly they are back in the fore-front.

The line combinations were terrible, Lappierre brought next to nothing to the 2nd line, as did Schroeder the 4th.

The PP continues to struggle, our PK wasn't great, and our systems are still getting picked apart. And AV still isn't changing and adapting.

Meaning in the playoffs, I expect the same thing to happen last year. when we saw LA just exploit our age old systems, and come out way more motivated & focused than us.

But if you want to take this win, and act like everything is suddenly fixed. That's fine. A team this good is going to win, and going to play atleast 500 hockey, but this team is capable of so much more. That's why I am not sure why everyone is so content with leeching off the division, and then scraping by agianst playoff teams like we have been so far this year.

If you'd bothered to read my first post today, you'd see that I said one game does not mean everything is rosy. No more so than two games mean the sky is falling. It seems like you can't refute my point, so you resort to attributing something to me that I haven't even said.

As far as you interpretation of the lineup, I couldn't disagree more. I thought the lines were very well balanced and I'm not even a little bit sold on the idea that the little bit of push back we saw from the Kings in the 2nd, was anything close to a "takeover". In fact, Anze Kopitar talked about the second as a bad period for the Kings.

As far as I'm concerned, without Schneider's puck-handling gaffe, the Canucks win that game going away.

Finally, I've responded to your "playoffs" opinion many times, in this thread and others. The point remains that when you credit the Canucks for being "lucky"with the way Quick played last night, it's only fair to consider their bad luck in having to face the Conn Smythe winning goaltender in two consecutive playoffs, as well as the bad luck of injuries/suspensions in both of those series.

But we all know the thought process of AV haters: Victories are in spite of the coach and losses are because of him...

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 03 March 2013 - 04:08 PM.

  • 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!

#626 Hamhuis Hipcheck

Hamhuis Hipcheck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 07

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:12 PM

I hope we hire mike keenan.
  • 0



#627 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,358 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:24 PM

But we all know the thought process of AV haters: Victories are in spite of the coach and losses are because of him...


To be fair, AV supporters do the exact opposite of this......;)
  • 0

#628 Chip Kelly

Chip Kelly

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,020 posts
  • Joined: 17-May 10

Posted 03 March 2013 - 04:25 PM

If you'd bothered to read my first post today, you'd see that I said one game does not mean everything is rosy. No more so than two games mean the sky is falling. It seems like you can't refute my point, so you resort to attributing something to me that I haven't even said.

As far as you interpretation of the lineup, I couldn't disagree more. I thought the lines were very well balanced and I'm not even a little bit sold on the idea that the little bit of push back we saw from the Kings in the 2nd, was anything close to a "takeover". In fact, Anze Kopitar talked about the second as a bad period for the Kings.

As far as I'm concerned, without Schneider's puck-handling gaffe, the Canucks win that game going away.

Finally, I've responded to your "playoffs" opinion many times, in this thread and others. The point remains that when you credit the Canucks for being "lucky"with the way Quick played last night, it's only fair to consider their bad luck in having to face the Conn Smythe winning goaltender in two consecutive playoffs, as well as the bad luck of injuries/suspensions in both of those series.

But we all know the thought process of AV haters: Victories are in spite of the coach and losses are because of him...


I agree on the part about the Sedins carrying the team and being over reliant one one line to produce offense. We all know in the playoffs the rules change the games get more tighter and teams are allowed to hammer the Sedins and get away with it.

Teams like St.Louis and L.A are built for the playoffs. The Canucks and Sharks pile up the points in the regular season.


  • 0

fyo3s9.jpg

 

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


#629 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,824 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 03 March 2013 - 05:25 PM

To be fair, AV supporters do the exact opposite of this...... ;)

Disagree. You're pretty well acquainted with my posting history regarding the coach. Do you deny that I've admitted that AV has his faults and that I'd support a change if I considered it an upgrade?
  • 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!

#630 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,600 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:02 PM

To be fair, AV supporters do the exact opposite of this...... ;)


Certainly doesn't include me, either.

My view on coaching is to get out of the way of the players. Let them do their thing. AV has a knack -- or call it a philosophy if you like -- that allows the Sedins to be creative, and which also allows offensive creativity on the PP and with the trailing D on the rush. So the "defense only" anti-AV crowd doesn't know what it's talking about, as also evidenced by their top goals-for stats last two years.

But AV also holds players accountable defensively. To some, that's "stifling" them offensively. But AV (and I agree with him 100%) doesn't want one-way players. Run-and-gun hasn't worked since before 1995 when Jacques Lemaire's NJ Stanley Cup sominex win changed the way the game has been played ever since.

Coaches are often overrated or underrated. They're like refs, in a way. When you don't notice them, it's usually a good thing. When I disagree with AV, I mention it. No coach can make all the right calls.

But AV's record speaks for itself. What I find so remarkable is his longevity. And consistency. Gillis isn't stupid. If AV had lost control of the room, the media here would have been, and would be, all over it.

In any case, the anti-AVers will one day get their wish. But remember that old saying, careful what you wish for.

Edited by Barry_Wilkins, 03 March 2013 - 06:04 PM.

  • 1




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.