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

#241 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,435 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 01:34 AM

Absolutely! Just imagine we replaced Columbus, and had to play Chicago, Detroit, Nashville and St. Louis a lot more often. There is no way that we would have won a Presidents Trophy. I'm also not saying that Ruff would have won us the cup in 2011, but I am saying AV didn't. If it wasn't for Luongo robbing Sharp in game 7 against Chicago and Burrows scoring the game winner, AV would have been canned and this conversation would never take place. I'm also saying that there is no excuse for losing in 5 games to the Kings. I don't care how much they dominated other teams. We shouldn't have to make excuses for losing to anyone, as we should be able to compete with anyone. And are you really gonna say you're happy with the way the team has played this season? They lose by 4 goals to Anaheim, then beat terrible Calgary and Edmonton teams, then lose by 4 goals to San Jose, and beat lousy Dallas and Minnesota teams... This is how we win President's Trophys. We win a couple half-ass games against terrible teams and get blown out when real competition shows up. This is why AV has to go.

OMG this is too funny... Let me see if I have your last two posts straight:
1. We should have won the cup the last two years straight because we won the president's trophy and were therefore the best team - because we didn't win the cup = AV's fault.

2. We weren't good enough to win the President's trophy the last two years, we only won because our division sucks donkey genitalia, therefore we actually sucked = AV's fault.

Well there is no arguing with that logic (lack of, that is) so I will let you keep whining and just some advice every game that AV is still the head coach of the Canucks you should monitor your blood pressure, we wouldn't want to lose you to an anger induced heart attack and not get to read these amazing posts ROFL.
  • 0
Posted Image

#242 Honky Cat

Honky Cat

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,172 posts
  • Joined: 16-May 10

Posted 26 February 2013 - 04:36 AM

Wow...One big loss(does it really matter if its 8-3 or 3-1?),and it's all hands on deck,,,allegiance has flown out the window..Seriously,get a grip!....The regular season is nothing than mere posturing for the playoffs(and even at the end,the standings mean squat..as last seasons LA Kings can attest).....Lets see how it all shapes up with a healthy Kesler/Booth.
  • 0

#243 kassian's lost tooth

kassian's lost tooth

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Joined: 19-July 12

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:02 AM

That is 90% of the reasons that people state why they want to get rid of AV god you guys are a bunch of hypocrites. You are not privy to what is going on behind the scenes in the Canucks Locker room, don't speak as if you are.

AV takes all the slack when the team loses but is given zero credit to the accomplishments of this team. You think Ruff would have done a better job at the helm? Offer up some proof.


You can't have proof until he's put in the situation you moron! The team is playing uninspired hockey...has been for some time now. It's either the coach or the players. Pick one.
  • 0

#244 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,214 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 February 2013 - 08:16 AM

Hey Aladeen, I admire your perseverance, (and 36 yrs as well) but I've been around for quite a few of these threads and they're really nothing more than a circle-jerk for the resident CDC He-Man AV haters club.

What you have is a bunch of armchair experts that are so sure they've got the formula that will finally bring the Canucks that elusive Cup, they're willing to claim that they understand the situation better than actual professional hockey people like Mike Gillis. (When you point this out to them, they usually claim that Gillis really wants to fire AV, but "it would make him look bad" or some such garbage.)

The fact is, none of these naysayers have any sort of relevant hockey credentials, so anything they say should be taken with a large grain of salt.

You've fought the good fight mate and for that I give you props, but you're yelling into the wind in these types of threads. In the end just be secure in the knowledge that Mike Gillis doesn't share the heavily slanted opinions of the "fire AV" crowd.
  • 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!

#245 Yotes

Yotes

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,683 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:29 AM

The facts dont lie. Being one of the highest point totalling teams and making the playoffs for years as a top 3 seed and all we have to show for it is 1 season where we made it past the second round? That is very disappointing, and whoever the team would be i would suspect in those 7 years having a roster as talented as our they would have made a coaching change already.

Kinda hard to not win games and be the winningest coach in history when we have never had a sctrech of being an elite team in the league for this many years, and playing in a weak division for all those years. I could care less about any president trophy, division title or coaching award or player award. Im sure if you asked luo/schneider, Kesler, sedin, sedin and AV if they could all trade in their individual award for 1 stanley cup ring the answer would be unanimous.

We will have a good record because we play in a poor division, so like this year our team record is going to post better #s than it should. So if you base the teams record solely during the regular season, ya AV wont be fired for a long ass time. Problem with that is when the playoffs come our team gets out played out coached and in every year but one we fail to get passed the 2nd round. To me thats an utter failure when you ice a talented team like ours over the last number of years
  • 3

#246 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:30 AM

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.

I am a "so called" fan because I believe another coach could be the one key element to push this team over the edge.
I am a so called fan because I say it looks like AV's message may have expired.
You didn't understand one iota of my post. Not one. You saw that my opinion varied from yours and made it personal. talking about my hockey IQ, and calling me a "so-called fan". This is the tactic of someone who has nothing to offer to the conversation. There are people in the forum who disagree with me who at least present a series of reasonable explanations that make a plausible argument for why AV ought to stay. Further, I do not even ever state that AV has to be fired. I say that replacing him may be the thing that pushes this team to the next level and you go on an extended rant.

* The more you know: First blush is an idiom that refers to an initial impression. When you first examine a situation, object, problem, etc, you may not notice certain details, or you may be given an impression that does not reveal the true nature of said situation, object, problem, etc. I hope that helps.


Additionally, if you'd paid any attention to what I wrote, you would see that I have not ever said AV ruins young players. That's never been one of my complaints. Feel free to scour my comments.
Lastly, if you had comprehended anything that I posted, you would plainly see that my point about 20 things being defective vs one thing being defective refers to all 20. That odds of all 20+ parts being defective vs 1 is statistically implausible. You know what implausible means, right? Not impossible. And not the same as one of 20 being defective. Naturally the odds of one in 20 items being defective are greater when compared to just one. Any moron could see that.
I'd like to close with a quote from the great philosopher, me:

"Reading. It's fundamental." -Me


  • 1

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#247 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 26 February 2013 - 09:39 AM

Hey Aladeen, I admire your perseverance, (and 36 yrs as well) but I've been around for quite a few of these threads and they're really nothing more than a circle-jerk for the resident CDC He-Man AV haters club.

What you have is a bunch of armchair experts that are so sure they've got the formula that will finally bring the Canucks that elusive Cup, they're willing to claim that they understand the situation better than actual professional hockey people like Mike Gillis. (When you point this out to them, they usually claim that Gillis really wants to fire AV, but "it would make him look bad" or some such garbage.)

The fact is, none of these naysayers have any sort of relevant hockey credentials, so anything they say should be taken with a large grain of salt.

You've fought the good fight mate and for that I give you props, but you're yelling into the wind in these types of threads. In the end just be secure in the knowledge that Mike Gillis doesn't share the heavily slanted opinions of the "fire AV" crowd.

Isn't this nothing more than an armchair expert calling the other armchair experts armchair experts.
I get what you're saying, and usually you bring substance to the table - you're one of the guys I disagree with who makes a reasonable, persuasive argument. But when you start using terms like armchair experts, you have to remember that you're in a boat full of them.
You're not a self hating armchair expert, are you? I mean, do grains of salt get taken with what you say?
And for the record, we don't know what Mike Gillis thinks. A year ago he said he wanted this team to focus on offense and speed. Either that's true and AV hasn't delivered, or it's not and it was BS.

Edited by Vansicle, 26 February 2013 - 09:40 AM.

  • 0

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#248 Nino

Nino

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: 10-May 10

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:01 AM

Good thing the playoffs don't start in February...


But they are right around the corner. Crazy it almost feels like the season just started, oh weight they did.
  • 0

#249 cc_devil

cc_devil

    Comets Star

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

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:14 AM

Its sad they need a change. Instead of the same thing every year.
The games where they get blow out of the water. The games where their uninterested and the games where they blow leads.The same system game after game after game after game after game after game.
This is the same old song and dance under AV's leadership and the team desperate needs a new message period...........
  • 0

#250 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,435 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:15 AM

I am a "so called" fan because I believe another coach could be the one key element to push this team over the edge.
I am a so called fan because I say it looks like AV's message may have expired.
You didn't understand one iota of my post. Not one. You saw that my opinion varied from yours and made it personal. talking about my hockey IQ, and calling me a "so-called fan". This is the tactic of someone who has nothing to offer to the conversation. There are people in the forum who disagree with me who at least present a series of reasonable explanations that make a plausible argument for why AV ought to stay. Further, I do not even ever state that AV has to be fired. I say that replacing him may be the thing that pushes this team to the next level and you go on an extended rant.


* The more you know: First blush is an idiom that refers to an initial impression. When you first examine a situation, object, problem, etc, you may not notice certain details, or you may be given an impression that does not reveal the true nature of said situation, object, problem, etc. I hope that helps.


Additionally, if you'd paid any attention to what I wrote, you would see that I have not ever said AV ruins young players. That's never been one of my complaints. Feel free to scour my comments.
Lastly, if you had comprehended anything that I posted, you would plainly see that my point about 20 things being defective vs one thing being defective refers to all 20. That odds of all 20+ parts being defective vs 1 is statistically implausible. You know what implausible means, right? Not impossible. And not the same as one of 20 being defective. Naturally the odds of one in 20 items being defective are greater when compared to just one. Any moron could see that.
I'd like to close with a quote from the great philosopher, me:

"Reading. It's fundamental." -Me


Whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch... if you had a relevant point I would care but since you consistantly offer nothing but the same drivel and have shown you do nothing but whine and bitch no one cares about your philosphy.

"If you have zero hockey IQ, maybe you should watch curling Vansicle." - me
  • 0
Posted Image

#251 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:53 AM

Yah he let the goals in, he alone blew any leads. How many games has he won or the team has come from behind to win or get points out of, only you deserve :picard: :picard:

:picard:

:picard:

:picard:

:picard:

:picard: If he deserves all the blame for every blown lead then he also deserves all the credit for every win, and every come from behind win or OTL


Aladeen,

You are blinded by the past. Alain Vigneault is stale in Vancouver. You mention the Stanley Cup run of 2011, but fail to remember that we barely made it out of the first round. Av left Luongo in to get swiss cheesed by the Hawks instead of pulling him after 4.

The individual awards the players received are due to their ability, not AV's as a coach. He will never bring the Cup here. Go ahead and point to the President's trophies. It won't change the truth that you are blind to.
  • 1
Posted Image

#252 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:57 AM

Whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch... if you had a relevant point I would care but since you consistantly offer nothing but the same drivel and have shown you do nothing but whine and bitch no one cares about your philosphy.

"If you have zero hockey IQ, maybe you should watch curling Vansicle." - me

Well stated. I recant my previous claims that you have nothing to offer to the conversation.
For example, when you stated "Whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch...", I couldn't help but realize I hadn't seen it as clearly and thoughtfully as you have. And your brilliant riposte "you do nothing but whine and bitch no one cares about your philosphy[spelling incorrect]", has revealed the truth about why AV should remain the head coach. And how could I have overlooked "If you have zero hockey IQ, maybe you should watch curling Vansicle" when pondering the potential reasons for retaining AV's services? It took your astute observations and thought provoking insights to help me come to the realization that my position is clearly flawed.
Thank you, once again, for illustrating just exactly how incorrect I was.
  • 0

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#253 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:58 AM

Aladeen,

You are blinded by the past. Alain Vigneault is stale in Vancouver. You mention the Stanley Cup run of 2011, but fail to remember that we barely made it out of the first round. Av left Luongo in to get swiss cheesed by the Hawks instead of pulling him after 4.

The individual awards the players received are due to their ability, not AV's as a coach. He will never bring the Cup here. Go ahead and point to the President's trophies. It won't change the truth that you are blind to.

Dude, give it up.
It's like arguing with a developmentally disabled wall. Have fun with it. See if you can make him so mad he has a stroke.
  • 0

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#254 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 26 February 2013 - 10:59 AM

Hey Aladeen, I admire your perseverance, (and 36 yrs as well) but I've been around for quite a few of these threads and they're really nothing more than a circle-jerk for the resident CDC He-Man AV haters club.

What you have is a bunch of armchair experts that are so sure they've got the formula that will finally bring the Canucks that elusive Cup, they're willing to claim that they understand the situation better than actual professional hockey people like Mike Gillis. (When you point this out to them, they usually claim that Gillis really wants to fire AV, but "it would make him look bad" or some such garbage.)

The fact is, none of these naysayers have any sort of relevant hockey credentials, so anything they say should be taken with a large grain of salt.

You've fought the good fight mate and for that I give you props, but you're yelling into the wind in these types of threads. In the end just be secure in the knowledge that Mike Gillis doesn't share the heavily slanted opinions of the "fire AV" crowd.


And you do have relevant hockey credentials? You work for the team?

It's posters like yourself and Aladeen who take what is a discussion about the coach and make it personal. You state that people who don't share your opinion are stupid. Simple is as simple does there Rupert.

I wonder what folks like you did before the internet. How did you troll before now?
  • 1
Posted Image

#255 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:01 AM

Dude, give it up.
It's like arguing with a developmentally disabled wall. Have fun with it. See if you can make him so mad he has a stroke.


What a visual that is!
  • 0
Posted Image

#256 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:18 AM

And you do have relevant hockey credentials? You work for the team?

It's posters like yourself and Aladeen who take what is a discussion about the coach and make it personal. You state that people who don't share your opinion are stupid. Simple is as simple does there Rupert.

I wonder what folks like you did before the internet. How did you troll before now?

His argument as to why AV shouldn't be fired is that he hasn't yet been fired. In other words, he stands behind whatever MG does. So, if you follow that to it's logical conclusion, if MG fired AV tomorrow, it was the right thing to do. And I get the whole idea that "MG knows best", as he is, after all, an NHL GM. But the whole point of conversations like this is to speculate, debate, and discuss. The whole point of web forums is to debate. But if your position is "I agree with whatever MG says/does" then it's not really your position, is it? It's someone else's.
I don't think AV needs to be fired today. Necessarily. I just think it's a fools argument to say that because he hasn't been, he ought not be. Give me something better than "good thing you're not GM". That's just kid's stuff.
  • 0

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#257 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,214 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:19 AM

Isn't this nothing more than an armchair expert calling the other armchair experts armchair experts.
I get what you're saying, and usually you bring substance to the table - you're one of the guys I disagree with who makes a reasonable, persuasive argument. But when you start using terms like armchair experts, you have to remember that you're in a boat full of them.
You're not a self hating armchair expert, are you? I mean, do grains of salt get taken with what you say?
And for the record, we don't know what Mike Gillis thinks. A year ago he said he wanted this team to focus on offense and speed. Either that's true and AV hasn't delivered, or it's not and it was BS.



Funny thing about being an expert, V...

...I consider myself to be a knowledgable hockey fan, (and I think my post history backs this up) but I don't consider myself an "expert". The experts, IMO are the guys who actually get paid to make decisions by an NHL hockey team. Does it mean that they're always right, or always make the best decisions? No. However, for people to sit on the sidelines and say that someone with an impressive coaching record should be fired because he was only able to win 15 post-season games and not 16 is ridiculous in the extreme as far as I'm concerned.

Your point about Gillis kind of reinforces what I said in my earlier post. Even though Gillis has given AV a vote of confidence, you suggest that he may not have confidence in his coach. Basically, you're making something up to support your argument.

I see you as one of the more reasonable AV detractors, but using unfounded suppositions like that doesn't help your argument. Stick to the line juggling, lack of line juggling, wrong type of line juggling, wrong matchups, improper use of timeouts, etc. At least those are actually verifiable. (not anyone's opinion, just the fact that these things do sometimes happen)

I assume your not one of those who criticizes the coach for chewing gum?
  • 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!

#258 higgyfan

higgyfan

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,576 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:19 AM

Pretty risky changing up the coaching staff this late in the season. I would rather MG focus on getting a big, tough RW that can feed Kes and Booth.
  • 0

#259 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,214 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:26 AM

And you do have relevant hockey credentials? You work for the team?

It's posters like yourself and Aladeen who take what is a discussion about the coach and make it personal. You state that people who don't share your opinion are stupid. Simple is as simple does there Rupert.

I wonder what folks like you did before the internet. How did you troll before now?


Before the internet, I actually played hockey, (still do at age 52, BTW) coached and refereed and wrote a weekly column for the sports section of the local newspaper. I have been on this board for almost a decade and have never been banned, suspended, or even warned in all that time. Pretty impressive for a "troll" wouldn't you say?

I don't recall calling anyone stupid. Perhaps you could show a quote of me doing so.

Finally, I think you have the "personal" thing backwards. Go back and read the entire thread and see how many posts there are with derogatory comments towards AV supporters as opposed to vice versa.
  • 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!

#260 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,214 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:35 AM

You are blinded by the past. Alain Vigneault is stale in Vancouver. You mention the Stanley Cup run of 2011, but fail to remember that we barely made it out of the first round.


Speaking "failing to remember", maybe you can recall another team that barely made it out of the first round...

...here's a hint: They scored an OT goal to beat the Habs in game seven...
  • 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!

#261 sandlakthehouse

sandlakthehouse

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:37 AM

I agree that its time for a change. I don't know enough about the technical aspects of hockey to say AV is getting outcoached or whatever but I think this team would benefit from a new coach who brings a new perspective and different ideas. The stats support the fact that all recent Stanley Cup winning teams have coaches who had been there less than 3 or 4 years for example Tortorella, Laviolette, Carlyle, Bylsma, Queenville, Julien, Sutter, Babcock. I'm not suggesting we promote Claude Noel or bring back Crawford but the right candidate would give us a better chance to win the cup. I for one wouldn't mind a coach with some emotion as opposed to standing there folded arms with a smirk when we're getting bad calls or thumped on the scoreboard.
  • 0

#262 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,214 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:41 AM

I agree that its time for a change.  I don't know enough about the technical aspects of hockey to say AV is getting outcoached or whatever but I think this team would benefit from a new coach who brings a new perspective and different ideas.  The stats support the fact that all recent Stanley Cup winning teams have coaches who had been there less than 3 or 4 years for example Tortorella, Laviolette, Carlyle, Bylsma, Queenville, Julien, Sutter, Babcock.  I'm not suggesting we promote Claude Noel or bring back Crawford but the right candidate would give us a better chance to win the cup.   I for one wouldn't mind a coach with some emotion as opposed to standing there folded arms with a smirk when we're getting bad calls or thumped on the scoreboard.


I've been over the reasons why I disagree with the first part of your post, but the last sentence is one of those things that gets stated all the time and is not the case, IMO.

Did no-one hear Cheech mention the fact that AV was going nuts about the non-call when Kes was interfered with on the Canucks' first PP? Just because the camera doesn't show him freaking out like Torts, doesn't mean that he's emotionless.

Scotty Bowman and Al Arbour were coaches who didn't show much emotion, but they never amounted to much....
  • 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!

#263 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,435 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:44 AM

Well stated. I recant my previous claims that you have nothing to offer to the conversation.
For example, when you stated "Whine whine whine, bitch bitch bitch...", I couldn't help but realize I hadn't seen it as clearly and thoughtfully as you have. And your brilliant riposte "you do nothing but whine and bitch no one cares about your philosphy[spelling incorrect]", has revealed the truth about why AV should remain the head coach. And how could I have overlooked "If you have zero hockey IQ, maybe you should watch curling Vansicle" when pondering the potential reasons for retaining AV's services? It took your astute observations and thought provoking insights to help me come to the realization that my position is clearly flawed.
Thank you, once again, for illustrating just exactly how incorrect I was.

No problem glad I could help you out.
  • 0
Posted Image

#264 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,214 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:44 AM

His argument as to why AV shouldn't be fired is that he hasn't yet been fired. In other words, he stands behind whatever MG does. So, if you follow that to it's logical conclusion, if MG fired AV tomorrow, it was the right thing to do. And I get the whole idea that "MG knows best", as he is, after all, an NHL GM. But the whole point of conversations like this is to speculate, debate, and discuss. The whole point of web forums is to debate. But if your position is "I agree with whatever MG says/does" then it's not really your position, is it? It's someone else's.
I don't think AV needs to be fired today. Necessarily. I just think it's a fools argument to say that because he hasn't been, he ought not be. Give me something better than "good thing you're not GM". That's just kid's stuff.


You're close to the truth here, V....with a big exception.

I feel that firing AV right now would be the wrong decision, especially considering that I don't see anyone out there who would be an upgrade. I've said this many times, as (I believe) you're aware.

I mention the fact that Gillis shares my point of view to strengthen my argument, not as the basis for it.
  • 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!

#265 sandlakthehouse

sandlakthehouse

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:49 AM

I've been over the reasons why I disagree with the first part of your post, but the last sentence is one of those things that gets stated all the time and is not the case, IMO.

Did no-one hear Cheech mention the fact that AV was going nuts about the non-call when Kes was interfered with on the Canucks' first PP? Just because the camera doesn't show him freaking out like Torts, doesn't mean that he's emotionless.

Scotty Bowman and Al Arbour were coaches who didn't show much emotion, but they never amounted to much....



You're right. I didn't mean I wanted a coach who would run out onto the ice and mcsorley the ref. I personally would prefer to see a new coach who is more consistently emotional and has all of the other criteria a successful candidate would have.
  • 0

#266 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,610 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:54 AM

Funny thing about being an expert, V...

...I consider myself to be a knowledgable hockey fan, (and I think my post history backs this up) but I don't consider myself an "expert". The experts, IMO are the guys who actually get paid to make decisions by an NHL hockey team. Does it mean that they're always right, or always make the best decisions? No. However, for people to sit on the sidelines and say that someone with an impressive coaching record should be fired because he was only able to win 15 post-season games and not 16 is ridiculous in the extreme as far as I'm concerned.

Your point about Gillis kind of reinforces what I said in my earlier post. Even though Gillis has given AV a vote of confidence, you suggest that he may not have confidence in his coach. Basically, you're making something up to support your argument.

I see you as one of the more reasonable AV detractors, but using unfounded suppositions like that doesn't help your argument. Stick to the line juggling, lack of line juggling, wrong type of line juggling, wrong matchups, improper use of timeouts, etc. At least those are actually verifiable. (not anyone's opinion, just the fact that these things do sometimes happen)

I assume your not one of those who criticizes the coach for chewing gum?

Nope. I'm making the opposite supposition based on your assertion that everything is fine because AV still has his job. My "assumption" is a supposition, and is in direct retort to s position you hold. I do not say that MG finds AV to be unfit as coach. I suppose it is possible.There's a difference. My comments suggest that your assumption that all is well may not be as they seem.
I do not know. I posit my ideas based on my perspective. I do not call anyone an "armchair expert".
I resent being characterized as an armchair expert, an accusation that has inherent double edged sword implications.
  • 1

Snake Doctor, on 23 May 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:snapback.png

Miller is not on our list. It's Lack as our #1. There is no reason we would have traded both Schnieder and Luongo if we never intended to give Lack the #1 starting job.  Furthermore, the salary and term Miller is looking for is not in our favor.

 


#267 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,435 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:55 AM

You're close to the truth here, V....with a big exception.

I feel that firing AV right now would be the wrong decision, especially considering that I don't see anyone out there who would be an upgrade. I've said this many times, as (I believe) you're aware.

I mention the fact that Gillis shares my point of view to strengthen my argument, not as the basis for it.

This is the bottom line... who out there is better than AV that would take this team to the next level? Ruff? He was fired for the exact same reasons as why these people want to run AV out of town and had more than double the amount of time to do it in.
Who else is there?
Noel?
Arniel?
Keenan?
Crawford?

Change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing especially while the team has a winning record.
  • 0
Posted Image

#268 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,435 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:57 AM

Nope. I'm making the opposite supposition based on your assertion that everything is fine because AV still has his job. My "assumption" is a supposition, and is in direct retort to s position you hold. I do not say that MG finds AV to be unfit as coach. I suppose it is possible.There's a difference. My comments suggest that your assumption that all is well may not be as they seem.
I do not know. I posit my ideas based on my perspective. I do not call anyone an "armchair expert".
I resent being characterized as an armchair expert, an accusation that has inherent double edged sword implications.

LOL you post about people's spelling and then post this ROFL.
  • 0
Posted Image

#269 Kack Zassian

Kack Zassian

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 12

Posted 26 February 2013 - 11:59 AM

Has anyone proposed any coaches to actually replace AV?
(aside from Lindy Ruff)

It seems like everyone is saying "Replace AV" but have no idea who a potential replacement is...
  • 0

#270 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,435 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 26 February 2013 - 12:02 PM

Has anyone proposed any coaches to actually replace AV?
(aside from Lindy Ruff)

It seems like everyone is saying "Replace AV" but have no idea who a potential replacement is...

there is no one. if they are better than AV, they have a job.
  • 0
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.