Coaching decisions

[stawns]

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.

[canuck73_3]

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.

[CanucksJay]

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.

[stawns]

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

[CanucksJay]

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

[stawns]

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.

[CanucksJay]

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?

[VanIsleNuckFan]

@/user/87702-kack-zassian/">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.

[Canada Hockey Place]

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.

[one night]

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.

[wallstreetamigo]

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.

[one night]

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?

[Barry_Wilkins]

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

[stawns]

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.

[CanucksJay]

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

[stawns]

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.

[CanucksJay]

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.

[stawns]

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?

[CanucksJay]

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.

[CanucksJay]

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.