GoaltenderInterference Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Interested in #4 and #6. Can you elaborate please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortorella's Rant Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 On mobile so I can't post the tweets, but its from News1130. Speculation is that he'll ask for a trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 AV HATES BALLARD! AV WON'T LET BALLARD PLAY HIS SYSTEM! AV IS DUMZ!! Oh wait. Rick BOWNESS deals with the defense. Not AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksJay Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 #4 AV: Kesler's reply: http://sports.nation...aults-critique/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 You would root for him? I guess you defending every negative post about him as if you feel some personal responsibility to stand up for him wasnt obvious enough. Your not a Canucks fan, your just in love with Ballard, do you have 4.2 Million laying around, we will trade him to you and you can brush his hair and praise him in the comforts of your own bedroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 #4 AV: Kesler's reply: http://sports.nation...aults-critique/ Kesler's agent (not related to the comments above): http://sports.nation...lain-vigneault/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 After re-looking at the Detroit/Phoenix games, it's fairly easy to determine why Keith got spanked. -On the pk he was a goalie-screening pylon. So he got taken off the pk. With Bieksa out we should've been able to rely a bit on Keith to pk. Then our tired pk got blitzed. -He was slow to react on various 5-on-5 plays. -He lazily stuck his stick out on a shot going wide, deflecting the puck into his own net. Next game... -Bad reads on 4th line types -Looks sluggish again, even though he played a defense-low 12mins -Nail in the coffin: Makes a strange decision to chase an arbirary, uninvolved player around the back of his own net, resulting in a guy being left wide open in the slot. HIS guy. This is a mega no-no and doing so isn't acceptable in bantam, let lone the bigs. This was Phx's go-ahead goal. AV sees enough by then. And even though Alberts and Barker aren't a lot better, they are a bit less ridiculous than Ballard played in the last two games. Simply, Ballard was well-covered by Tanev, when it should be the other way around. And without Tanev by his side, he's awful. He also can't handle more minutes, while Tanev so far has. It's disappointing that Ballard has not progressed enough to become trusted by the coach here, but part of this lack of progress might be lack of motivation. Tanev is playing for a new contract, while Ballard is comfortably signed for a couple more years. Why SHOULD Ballard 'tolerate this crap' when his salary dictates he's a proven vet? Instead, just wait for the inevitable trade. In Ballard's defense, maybe he's hurting again. Because he appears to be a step slow recently. But more likely it's just that he's not a fit. More like a stop-gap until our prospects start arriving. More like a serviceable depth vet for when Salo was predictably injured. But NEVER a decent top-4 fit. Now...Somebody suggested that he play forward. Hell, Ballard even suggested that he play forward. IS that such a bad idea? We're depleted up front. Turn him into a banger? But even this move carries risk as he won't know what to do there either. It would be hunky-dory if Ballard panned out on defense where we need him. But you can't keep your hopes up after season upon season of failure. We needed him to get better. He has shown that he can play with Tanev, but that pairing isn't permanent. We need him to play a MUCH safer and smarter game when he's not paired with Tanev. So far no go. His agent can whine all he wants. The benching is plainly justified at least until our top-6 is fully healthy. And he can demand a trade all he wants. What GM out there is going to trade for an unreliable bottom-pairing d-man with commitment issues. It's not impossible to work a trade, but we'd essentially be giving him away. So you might as well keep him unless somebody else becomes available. My personal prayer is that Andersson or K-Con is ready for the bigs sooner rather than later. (Likely Andersson) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 It's the players that we watch not the coach or GM. ONe can't help but get attached to these guys who do battle on our behalf and provide us with som much entertainment. When you see gusy trying hard and not getting treated fairly, it can be tempting to want them to exact a little revenge against management. I don't think the previous poster wants Ballard to be the reason the Nucks would lose against any team he is traded to just to send a message to AV that he was wrong and should have given him a chance. I think those emotional reactions are more prevalent because of what appear to be a number of poor player decisions lately by this management group...Lu and Cory, Manny, Cody, Ballard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Keep in mind Shane O'Brien was a 'top pairing' dman for TB before we got him. That designation on an awful team is WORTHLESS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugli Fruit Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Ballard has not been playing very well as of late, no denying that. HOWEVER, it doesn't merit two healthy scratches while the others get nothing IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nlife Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Rick Bowness is not the 'Head Coach' of the defense. Rick Bowness is an Assistant Coach. He assist the Head Coach (who is referred to as such for specific reasons). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phamda Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Lots of different opinions here and when the heck did talk about Shirokov start? For what it's worth I'm okay with AV scratching Ballard as his thinking of "the 6 players gave us the best chance" Imo made a lot of sense. Here my understanding of the coaching staffs thinking: -Barker took the pregame skate incase Bieksa couldn't go because he was a game time decision. -in both games the coaching staffs line of thinking for subs/scratches was Alberts for Ballard, a LH for a LH and Bieksa for Barker, a RH for a LH who has played on the right side before. Bieksa was okay to play vs LA not CGY. So the next night vs CGY with Bieksa out Barker drew in. Ballard was never an option to play the right side because the most recent example was the last time he played the right side he played poorly vs PHX. AV doesn't play Ballard because 1) the team won the game before with an alberts-tanev pairing, no reason to tweak a pairing that worked the night before. 2) the available spot on the backend was not a position Ballard would have excelled at because he had struggled on the right side. The argument for 2) might be put Edler on the right side with Ballard. Well Edler is still adjusting to the right side and that would make 2 pairings in the top 4 with 2 LH playing on the right side that aren't comfortable there. Instead the coaching staff played a LH who is comfortable on the RH (Barker) with Edler. Yesterday's backend was: Hamhuis-garrison Edler-Barker Alberts-tanev Vs what could have been: Hamhuis-garrison Ballard-edler Alberts-tanev Or hamhuis-garrison Alberts-edler or edler/alberts Ballard-tanev Or the lineup that got burned vs phx Hamhuis-garrison Edler-tanev Alberts-ballard Looking objectively, the decision makes sense. Not sure if I explained it very well. Now that I put that out, I think Ballard should be traded. He was acquired as a backup in case we didn't get Hamhuis and since then he's been getting the raw end of the deal. He's a quality player and should be given more chances to succeed unfortunately because of our depth on the LH he won't get that chance here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Seriously TO....I think your blind hatred is showing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoneypuckOverlord Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 After re-looking at the Detroit/Phoenix games, it's fairly easy to determine why Keith got spanked. -On the pk he was a goalie-screening pylon. So he got taken off the pk. With Bieksa out we should've been able to rely a bit on Keith to pk. Then our tired pk got blitzed. -He was slow to react on various 5-on-5 plays. -He lazily stuck his stick out on a shot going wide, deflecting the puck into his own net. Next game... -Bad reads on 4th line types -Looks sluggish again, even though he played a defense-low 12mins -Nail in the coffin: Makes a strange decision to chase an arbirary, uninvolved player around the back of his own net, resulting in a guy being left wide open in the slot. HIS guy. This is a mega no-no and doing so isn't acceptable in bantam, let lone the bigs. This was Phx's go-ahead goal. AV sees enough by then. And even though Alberts and Barker aren't a lot better, they are a bit less ridiculous than Ballard played in the last two games. Simply, Ballard was well-covered by Tanev, when it should be the other way around. And without Tanev by his side, he's awful. He also can't handle more minutes, while Tanev so far has. It's disappointing that Ballard has not progressed enough to become trusted by the coach here, but part of this lack of progress might be lack of motivation. Tanev is playing for a new contract, while Ballard is comfortably signed for a couple more years. Why SHOULD Ballard 'tolerate this crap' when his salary dictates he's a proven vet? Instead, just wait for the inevitable trade. In Ballard's defense, maybe he's hurting again. Because he appears to be a step slow recently. But more likely it's just that he's not a fit. More like a stop-gap until our prospects start arriving. More like a serviceable depth vet for when Salo was predictably injured. But NEVER a decent top-4 fit. Now...Somebody suggested that he play forward. Hell, Ballard even suggested that he play forward. IS that such a bad idea? We're depleted up front. Turn him into a banger? But even this move carries risk as he won't know what to do there either. It would be hunky-dory if Ballard panned out on defense where we need him. But you can't keep your hopes up after season upon season of failure. We needed him to get better. He has shown that he can play with Tanev, but that pairing isn't permanent. We need him to play a MUCH safer and smarter game when he's not paired with Tanev. So far no go. His agent can whine all he wants. The benching is plainly justified at least until our top-6 is fully healthy. And he can demand a trade all he wants. What GM out there is going to trade for an unreliable bottom-pairing d-man with commitment issues. It's not impossible to work a trade, but we'd essentially be giving him away. So you might as well keep him unless somebody else becomes available. My personal prayer is that Andersson or K-Con is ready for the bigs sooner rather than later. (Likely Andersson) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad_Duck Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 AV HATES BALLARD! AV WON'T LET BALLARD PLAY HIS SYSTEM! AV IS DUMZ!! Oh wait. Rick BOWNESS deals with the defense. Not AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 What bothers me the most is that he hasn't been tried as an offensive option. The knock on him from AV is that he isn't consistent enough in the defensive zone.... fine, ok.... then at least try him out as the puck carrier on the PP. Edler has looked so slow and plodding, eating up PP time by going back behind the net and lackidasically bringing it out, while Ballard is a much better skater and passer. This is AV's real failing... putting players in positions for them to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Keep in mind Shane O'Brien was a 'top pairing' dman for TB before we got him. That designation on an awful team is WORTHLESS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Speculation is that he'll ask for a trade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIBdaQUIB Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Now that I put that out, I think Ballard should be traded. He was acquired as a backup in case we didn't get Hamhuis and since then he's been getting the raw end of the deal. He's a quality player and should be given more chances to succeed unfortunately because of our depth on the LH he won't get that chance here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicky Posted March 5, 2013 Share Posted March 5, 2013 Please stop using the recent St Louis/Chicago/Detroit games as a reason to single out any one player. Our team got dismantled by teams that showed up to play, wanted to win more, and lets face it were better prepared than the Canucks. To make it sound like Ballard's play during any one of those games was a reason for scratching him just rings hollow to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.