Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * - - 6 votes

If the mediocre play continues will big changes be on the horizon?


  • Please log in to reply
218 replies to this topic

Poll: If the mediocre play continues will big changes be on the horizon? (345 member(s) have cast votes)

if the canucks continue their mediocre play which is most likely to happen

  1. one of the goalies are traded (91 votes [26.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.53%

  2. a coaching change (92 votes [26.82%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.82%

  3. nothing, gillis will not have the guts to make a major change (160 votes [46.65%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.65%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:28 AM

Kesler benefit the most from ehrhoff, most of keslers tips were off an ehrhoff shot


Kesler benefitted a lot from being put on that 1st PP unit.
  • 0

#62 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 08 March 2013 - 02:37 AM

I was saying that both the trade for Ballard and the signing of Garrison were needs.....but the coach does not utilize them properly so they are pretty much wasted as well.

Keeping Bieksa/Ballard over Ehrhoff was a colossal mistake imo because Ehrhoff fit extremely well with the Sedins especially on the PP. It is not a coincidence they went back to PPG players after he left and only broke 100 while he was here. If the plan had been to keep Bieksa and Hamhuis playing shutdown defence and Ballard, Salo, Edler, etc. picking up the slack offensively for Ehrhoff that might have been a different story, But turning Bieksa and Hamhuis into the ones driving the offense instead of playing that shutdown D is what I consider a major reason the team has fallen this far this fast. If they could not get rid of Ballard, he could have filled Bieksa's two way role adequately while Ehrhoff surely would have made the offense much better.


Nah Bieksa was the right choice, he was a far more important part of our teams success and on that run and it wasn't even that close IMO, I am one of the biggest Bieksa haters perse (even though I like him, I just am overly hard on him when he plays bad) you can see what he brings to the team when on his game, is just as important if not more important than what Ehrhoff brought.

Part of it too was having Edler, who was on pace for more points than Ehrhoff and has proven himself capable of being a 50+ point defenseman, it hasn't worked out quite as well, but then again I think it is easier to fill the PP hole then all the things Kevin can bring.

Plus that is one less RH d-man which we were already short on. Given everything I think it was the right move, it would have been great to have Ehrhoff right now for sure but I would do the same thing over.
  • 0

zackass.png


#63 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:02 AM

Nah Bieksa was the right choice, he was a far more important part of our teams success and on that run and it wasn't even that close IMO, I am one of the biggest Bieksa haters perse (even though I like him, I just am overly hard on him when he plays bad) you can see what he brings to the team when on his game, is just as important if not more important than what Ehrhoff brought.

Part of it too was having Edler, who was on pace for more points than Ehrhoff and has proven himself capable of being a 50+ point defenseman, it hasn't worked out quite as well, but then again I think it is easier to fill the PP hole then all the things Kevin can bring.

Plus that is one less RH d-man which we were already short on. Given everything I think it was the right move, it would have been great to have Ehrhoff right now for sure but I would do the same thing over.


It wasn't just the PP though. Our entire transition game left with Ehrhoff.

I get all the Bieksa love on here because he is tough - although he really doesn't play that way much anymore - but honestly he floats through a lot of games and has gone back to being ahead of forwards in the offensive zone. His "value" during the cup run was staying back and shutting other teams down. Now he is a liability defensively again most nights. He scores some goals but he is not as good for this team as he was playing shutdown D.

I am not the biggest Ehrhoff fan but losing him basically destroyed the roles we had for our D. And for a team that supposedly has such a top end defence, they suck defensively this year.

When Bieksa can help the Sedins become 100 point players like having Ehrhoff here did, then we can talk about which one was more valuable.

People let their love of fighters overshadow what the team really needed at that time and even now. A talented offensive D who could make things happen on his own.
  • 4

#64 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:04 AM

Will we get the above? I doubt it. It doesn't seem like anyone on the Canucks thinks there is anything wrong with the team as it is now or with the effort they put in......that is what is MOST wrong with them though. They don't even understand that they really aren't good enough to float like this.
  • 1

#65 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:31 AM

It wasn't just the PP though. Our entire transition game left with Ehrhoff.

I get all the Bieksa love on here because he is tough - although he really doesn't play that way much anymore - but honestly he floats through a lot of games and has gone back to being ahead of forwards in the offensive zone. His "value" during the cup run was staying back and shutting other teams down. Now he is a liability defensively again most nights. He scores some goals but he is not as good for this team as he was playing shutdown D.

I am not the biggest Ehrhoff fan but losing him basically destroyed the roles we had for our D. And for a team that supposedly has such a top end defence, they suck defensively this year.

When Bieksa can help the Sedins become 100 point players like having Ehrhoff here did, then we can talk about which one was more valuable.

People let their love of fighters overshadow what the team really needed at that time and even now. A talented offensive D who could make things happen on his own.


Hmmm.. I dont know about that, I think really it has as much to do with this team making personnel changes all across the board, and AV still trying to play a style that doesn't suit them.

Losing him hurts yes in certain areas, but we have players that can bring what he brings. I think we just need to adjust and we haven't been able too yet and I think part of that is due to the coaching, the PP has to make adjustments, the overall game has to change a bit.

As for Bieksa. I'm not even the biggest fan of his, I criticize him alot, probably among the most on this board, but he brings alot to this team Ehrhoff doesn't.

He is a much better matchup guy, you would far rather him in big moments (barring he is on his game) He kills penalties, he can play the PP, he can join and lead the rush with some similarities to Edler, he is a character guy that brings some grit, I mean he brings what we need and I think we saw that in the playoff run, he was much more beneficial to the run than Ehrhoff was.

Another things with Ehrhoff is the contract, we already have Luongo's lifelong contract do we want another 10 year one in Ehrhoff? No. MG would get crucified here if he did that.

To me we just need to adjust, without Bieksa what would our pairs be like? 5 LH shots? Who would play the right side? Edler?

You can say Bieksa needs to do what Ehrhoff did to be more valuable, but odds are if we kept Ehrhoff and Bieksa moved on and we thought we were missing what Bieksa brought we would be saying the same thing the other way?

Edit: Also sorry for saying so much, I'll try to cut down next time

(This part is more replying to your points)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(This part is more talking about what we need and where we need improvements to win)

For example, you look at Bill Torrey's model, and this ties in with the recent winners. You have to get through 4 rounds.

1) Your going to run into a fast/skilled team
2) your going to run into a big/defensive team
3) your going to run into a team that counts on PP/PK and being opportunistic
4) Your going to run into a team that is a hybrid and brings all those.

So you have to have all those components to your team, and we failed against the big team.

We have top end skill, we have had PP/PK (And I think we have the personnel to still succeed in those areas) We had to add the big element to become that hybrid that wins, thats what Boston was, thats what LA was, thats what Chicago was.

We did that with bringing in a big guy in Booth, with did that going with the big defenseman in Garrison. Our defense now is alot bigger, alot more defense oriented, while still bring alot of puck moving qualties and some offense too.

Like to me the winners can play all those styles. But the constant is being able to do that and having some size and grit.

we now almost have that (with a move like adding a two-way 3rd line center, and a guy that brought what Manny brought) we are just running through the mud and need a spark. That spark as we seem to agree needs to come from coaching and we agree a change is needed.

Edited by Smashian Kassian, 08 March 2013 - 03:36 AM.

  • 0

zackass.png


#66 John.Tallhouse

John.Tallhouse

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,576 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 12

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:39 AM

like a spelling coach? :P

Zingg!
  • 0
Posted Image

#67 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 09:18 AM

Smashian.......Keeping both Bieksa and Ehrhoff and getting rid of Ballard would have been the preferred solution. There was obviously a belief by MG that Ballard would be used to replace some of the game they were losing with Ehrhoff. Had he been, that may have mitigated the loss of Ehrhoff at least some. but AV doesn't roll that way and changed the entire strategy and roles on the defence.

That has had the biggest negative impact on this team's results. The only thing good defensively about this team now is the goalies. None of the pairings are really any good consistently (maybe Tanev and Ballard so far) and they switch too often to be effective anyway.

It all comes down to how AV is using the guys that are here. Its like he sees a guy and has to needlessly completely change their game to somehow validate himself as a good coach. Why not take the easy road and play guys to their strengths?

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 08 March 2013 - 09:25 AM.

  • 0

#68 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,584 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:04 AM

Another Higgins and Lappy deadline you say.... If we lose to CBJ again in a couple games I say that it's over for AV

Gillis has the nuts to lose AV but not pick up a marquee player by the deadline? I think you give him too much credit.
Something has to give, but won't.
AV keeps his job, thick or thin. Luongo trade continues to linger as interest wanes. No-one of any interest is grabbed by the deadline.
My 2¢
  • 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.

 


#69 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,584 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:07 AM

Smashian.......Keeping both Bieksa and Ehrhoff and getting rid of Ballard would have been the preferred solution. There was obviously a belief by MG that Ballard would be used to replace some of the game they were losing with Ehrhoff. Had he been, that may have mitigated the loss of Ehrhoff at least some. but AV doesn't roll that way and changed the entire strategy and roles on the defence.

That has had the biggest negative impact on this team's results. The only thing good defensively about this team now is the goalies. None of the pairings are really any good consistently (maybe Tanev and Ballard so far) and they switch too often to be effective anyway.

It all comes down to how AV is using the guys that are here. Its like he sees a guy and has to needlessly completely change their game to somehow validate himself as a good coach. Why not take the easy road and play guys to their strengths?

That's a myth. The sun shines directly out of AV's rectum.
  • 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.

 


#70 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,462 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:13 AM

We have the (correct me if I'm wrong) the highest cap % in the nhl in goaltending.... We will not... I repeat NOT win a cup without using our cap space well. One of our goalies has to go or the season is a wright off. The cap is so important in today's NHL. Fire AV as well, never liked him.

It's frustrating, we spend to the cap and don't even have a second line.
  • 2
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#71 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,568 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:20 AM

It's frustrating, we spend to the cap and don't even have a second line.


As disappointed as I am with Canuck management, I can't really fault them on this point. Injuries happened and screwed us bigtime.
  • 0
Posted Image

#72 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,568 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:30 AM

Sorry Wallstreet, I misread your post. I hope this ninja edit keeps me from looking too stupid :)

Edited by Kryten, 08 March 2013 - 11:34 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#73 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,462 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:33 AM

Actually, much like the Kassian trade. Garrison and Ballard were both needs, and Ballard could have been what we expected had AV used him right, so much like the Kassian one you can chalk that up to AV too.

Garrison was a need, Salo had already signed that monster deal which we were never ever going to be able to match, Garrison was the best defenseman avaliable aside from Suter, we needed a top 4 defenseman, the Garrison signing was really a must aswell, and there were no other options.

As for Ehrhoff, he wanted out. Bieksa was the guy I would have choose too, we couldn't really move Ballard it was a short time frame, plus I think MG believed Ehrhoff would buy in and re-sign at a reasonable price.

At that contract I don't want him.


I had thought that originally too but why did we go get another LD instead of RD so he could play with Edler in the top 4?
  • 0
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#74 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 11:48 AM

I had thought that originally too but why did we go get another LD instead of RD so he could play with Edler in the top 4?


This goes back to what is a major weakness with the team and especially the coach in regards to putting players in the best position to succeed. They think they can reinvent any left side D to play the right side and be immediately successful. And they are attempting to dumb down the team strategy even further to support this....which is obviously not working out well.

So we sit and watch while guys are obviously frustrated (Edler, Ballard, Garrison) at being expected to constantly switch back and forth.

Edler and Garrison especially suck on the right side. Ballard has been better this year after two years of doing it but he previously sucked at it too. Square peg, round hole.

Maybe AV will get lucky and find another Burrows who fits in the oddest of places. But how long should we be willing to wait for lightning to strike twice in the absence of any real positive decision making by this staff regarding player roles?

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 08 March 2013 - 11:52 AM.

  • 2

#75 CHIPS

CHIPS

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,787 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:03 PM

The first move would be trading away one of our goalies, for a star player that still have 3 years left on their contract. And if that doesn't help, AV is gone.

Most of our current core players would stay for now I think.

But as it is, we have no chance of getting the Cup this year. Even making the playoffs is questionable.

Edited by CHIPS, 08 March 2013 - 12:08 PM.

  • 0

CanucksvsBruinsPollsmall-1.jpgRogerNeilsonSmall.jpgSig too big. 


#76 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:04 PM

*
POPULAR

You want to compete to win a cup? Here is what needs to happen.

Step 1: Fire AV. Get a new coaching staff who will instill hard work and accountability from all 23 players as being staples of team success. Get rid of the country club atmosphere and sense of entitlement from AV's favorites. Get them hungry again.

Step 2: Get the new coach on the same page as the GM regarding player personnel. If a guy does not fit (like Ballard in AV's system) dump him. This hoarding of depth by Gillis that does not even get used as intended by AV is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen from a professional sports team.

Step 3: Clearly define roles for all players, set D pairings and roles for them, and give these guys a chance to gel. Mistakes will happen but expecting perfection is why these guys can never get even close to it. Every player is expected to do everything........it is not realistic and setting them up for failure.

Step 4: Gillis gets on the phone and moves out any guys who do not fit the above or who have a redundant role here in order to fill holes that are not addressed by the current personnel. Waiting for the perfect trade or for the team to play a perfect game is futile. This includes solving the goalie issue too.

This team has no direction right now.......and if Gillis can not do the above, then he needs to be fired too.

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 08 March 2013 - 12:05 PM.

  • 11

#77 Commercial Canuck

Commercial Canuck

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Joined: 02-August 11

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:10 PM

I just thinkn our management thinks there's nothing wrong with this team, and needing of no change whatsoever. Yes, they understand they should move a goalie, but they're not overly concerned with doing it anytime soon.

We won't make any substantial change unless we're out of a playoff spot for more than a week. The last week of March is 5 games in 7 days. 4 of those games are against our division and can and should be won, but, we've said that quite a lot already so far, with unfortunate results.
  • 0

#78 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,568 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:15 PM

This goes back to what is a major weakness with the team and especially the coach in regards to putting players in the best position to succeed. They think they can reinvent any left side D to play the right side and be immediately successful. And they are attempting to dumb down the team strategy even further to support this....which is obviously not working out well.

So we sit and watch while guys are obviously frustrated (Edler, Ballard, Garrison) at being expected to constantly switch back and forth.

Edler and Garrison especially suck on the right side. Ballard has been better this year after two years of doing it but he previously sucked at it too. Square peg, round hole.

Maybe AV will get lucky and find another Burrows who fits in the oddest of places. But how long should we be willing to wait for lightning to strike twice in the absence of any real positive decision making by this staff regarding player roles?


I think this also ties into his defend a lead system, which does more harm to certain players stats ie those who see less (if any) PP minutes than others.

Something that also really bugs me: we sit on leads (and ties) in the second and third but we are 28th in blocked shots in the NHL? Are we just that bad at blocked shots or do we just not care? Considering the effort level of most of the games this year, I believe it is the latter. AV's done what he can for better or worse, but there are just too many players underperforming for trades to make a difference. The coaching staff needs to go.
  • 2
Posted Image

#79 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:24 PM

I think this also ties into his defend a lead system, which does more harm to certain players stats ie those who see less (if any) PP minutes than others.

Something that also really bugs me: we sit on leads (and ties) in the second and third but we are 28th in blocked shots in the NHL? Are we just that bad at blocked shots or do we just not care? Considering the effort level of most of the games this year, I believe it is the latter. AV's done what he can for better or worse, but there are just too many players underperforming for trades to make a difference. The coaching staff needs to go.


It looks like the team strategy is to get out of the way of shots rather than try to block them. Gillis specifically brought in guys like Hamhuis and Ballard that were noted shot blockers and hitters.....do they do that stuff anymore? No. And everyone expects me to believe that is NOT being coached into them? Come on.

And any team that tries to defend a one or two goal lead for 30 minutes every time they get one deserves to lose imo. Playing not to lose is different than playing to win......AV should learn that.

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 08 March 2013 - 12:26 PM.

  • 3

#80 coastal1

coastal1

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 12

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:28 PM

We just lost to what-was the crappiest team in the league. Now Florida is the worst team, with by far the worst goals against average. The Panthers GM will be making a play for Lu soon, and hopefully we'll get a piece or two to help get us back on track.

Absolutely zero chance of that. The Markstrom era has started in Florida, earlier than wanted but its on now, that market has closed. Again, Luongo is a salary dump, period.
  • 0

#81 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:31 PM

Sorry Wallstreet, I misread your post. I hope this ninja edit keeps me from looking too stupid :)


no harm done....didn't even see it....:)
  • 0

#82 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:34 PM

Absolutely zero chance of that. The Markstrom era has started in Florida, earlier than wanted but its on now, that market has closed. Again, Luongo is a salary dump, period.


Does anyone else think Gillis is now hoping that Markstrom's body does not hold up? Because like with everything.....the Canucks could very well end up being a day late and a dollar short on getting something useful back for Luongo.....
  • 0

#83 Kryten

Kryten

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,568 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 08 March 2013 - 12:36 PM

no harm done....didn't even see it.... :)


Sweet. I was basically saying the exact same thing you were saying but I was thinking you meant the opposite (concerning Ehrhoff). I am not exactly on my game today.
  • 0
Posted Image

#84 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,462 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:30 PM

It wasn't just the PP though. Our entire transition game left with Ehrhoff.

I get all the Bieksa love on here because he is tough - although he really doesn't play that way much anymore - but honestly he floats through a lot of games and has gone back to being ahead of forwards in the offensive zone. His "value" during the cup run was staying back and shutting other teams down. Now he is a liability defensively again most nights. He scores some goals but he is not as good for this team as he was playing shutdown D.

I am not the biggest Ehrhoff fan but losing him basically destroyed the roles we had for our D. And for a team that supposedly has such a top end defence, they suck defensively this year.

When Bieksa can help the Sedins become 100 point players like having Ehrhoff here did, then we can talk about which one was more valuable.

People let their love of fighters overshadow what the team really needed at that time and even now. A talented offensive D who could make things happen on his own.


I agree 100%. You have two players that both sucked defensively but Erhoff put up more points, has a better shot, is faster, a smoother skater, way bigger, and a better outlet passer. Bieksa basically brings more timely goals and has a better smirk. Smashian is off on this one.
  • 0
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#85 Legend Killer

Legend Killer

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,175 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:37 PM

Phoenix, St.Louis, Ottawa and Anaheim all have at least 14 million in cap space and are playing just as good as us. Is our management an issue?
  • 3
Posted Image
For the first time in a long time.. the future looks bright..

#86 CanuckianOne

CanuckianOne

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,403 posts
  • Joined: 02-December 11

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:39 PM

I just don't see them going anything big before the off season.
  • 0

g3HKFnX.png


#87 Dogbyte

Dogbyte

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,462 posts
  • Joined: 31-March 07

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:58 PM

You want to compete to win a cup? Here is what needs to happen.

Step 1: Fire AV. Get a new coaching staff who will instill hard work and accountability from all 23 players as being staples of team success. Get rid of the country club atmosphere and sense of entitlement from AV's favorites. Get them hungry again.

Step 2: Get the new coach on the same page as the GM regarding player personnel. If a guy does not fit (like Ballard in AV's system) dump him. This hoarding of depth by Gillis that does not even get used as intended by AV is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen from a professional sports team.

Step 3: Clearly define roles for all players, set D pairings and roles for them, and give these guys a chance to gel. Mistakes will happen but expecting perfection is why these guys can never get even close to it. Every player is expected to do everything........it is not realistic and setting them up for failure.

Step 4: Gillis gets on the phone and moves out any guys who do not fit the above or who have a redundant role here in order to fill holes that are not addressed by the current personnel. Waiting for the perfect trade or for the team to play a perfect game is futile. This includes solving the goalie issue too.

This team has no direction right now.......and if Gillis can not do the above, then he needs to be fired too.


Great posts. It appears like you say that MG and AV have no contact whatsoever. The hoarding of depth as you have gracefully stated is probably the thing ticks me off most. It's great to have all this depth but it's almost like he assigns a player a number value and then crunches the numbers to get the highest number of high numbers on his own made up chart. Then he just walks away and assumes they will all play somehwere in the line-up ... but that's not his job right?

I've played for many years now and I'm basically the assistant GM and Coach on our team. At the start of every year we sit down and pencil in the line-ups. The biggest of which is who is going to score on your top two lines. We may have to turn down a decent player that's not a grinder if we have a top 6 already.

When you look at the Canucks, we purposefully have no second line RW. Then, we just throw one of our four 3rd liners on there and revolve them constantly throughout the year (great for chemisty ... not). The stupidity of this mentality is that it only really benefits us when we have injuries. We can have a key guys out and we will still win a fair number of games. The point being it's very hard to be succesful when you need to have injures for the depth to start paying dividends. Same thing with the D. It might work in baseball but I have serious doubts when it comes hockey.

Edited by Dogbyte, 08 March 2013 - 02:05 PM.

  • 0
There are things known and unknown ... and in between are the doors.

#88 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 08 March 2013 - 03:06 PM

I had thought that originally too but why did we go get another LD instead of RD so he could play with Edler in the top 4?


I'm pretty sure we thought he could play the right side.

And he has looked good there. Either way who else was available? not really anyone.
  • 1

zackass.png


#89 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,584 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:22 PM

Great posts. It appears like you say that MG and AV have no contact whatsoever. The hoarding of depth as you have gracefully stated is probably the thing ticks me off most. It's great to have all this depth but it's almost like he assigns a player a number value and then crunches the numbers to get the highest number of high numbers on his own made up chart. Then he just walks away and assumes they will all play somehwere in the line-up ... but that's not his job right?

I've played for many years now and I'm basically the assistant GM and Coach on our team. At the start of every year we sit down and pencil in the line-ups. The biggest of which is who is going to score on your top two lines. We may have to turn down a decent player that's not a grinder if we have a top 6 already.

When you look at the Canucks, we purposefully have no second line RW. Then, we just throw one of our four 3rd liners on there and revolve them constantly throughout the year (great for chemisty ... not). The stupidity of this mentality is that it only really benefits us when we have injuries. We can have a key guys out and we will still win a fair number of games. The point being it's very hard to be succesful when you need to have injures for the depth to start paying dividends. Same thing with the D. It might work in baseball but I have serious doubts when it comes hockey.

Great point.
I think this tendency (stop-gap line building) comes from AHL and QMJHL. Coaches in these leagues are used to needing to adjust lines, as the big club needs call-ups for various reasons (injuries, cap issues, etc), and send downs (conditioning stints, burying contracts, etc). It seems like the only trick up AV's sleeve is to change lines, since you never see different offensive looks, and almost never see different defensive looks. So what you have is a combination of chemistry issues and stale strategies.
Further, in another thread, it was pointed out, and statistically confirmed, that the Canucks regular season record is inflated and that they seed higher in the playoffs due to being disproportionately successful against the NW division, while hovering around the .500 mark against non-division teams. It occurs to me that this perfectly explains why they can be so successful during the regular season while being knocked out in early rounds of the playoffs (2011 not included). It may also explain Presidents and Jack Adams trophies.
This is not to say they aren't a good team. They truly possess an embarrassment of riches. The problem is, there aren't, as you succinctly point out, there aren't enough complimentary pieces and the other pieces are underutilized.
  • 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.

 


#90 BigRedMachine

BigRedMachine

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 06

Posted 08 March 2013 - 05:51 PM

Gillis will lose his job before AV does.
  • 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.