Rup, it's getting past the point of ridiculous now. It's not about getting a chance for Alberts and Barker to cycle in and get some starts.
It's about the fact that the coach hasn't done that with a single one of his other top 5 D all season. The only reason Barker got any games at all was because Bieksa got injured. In a short season like this there's no reason not to give another player a night off in a back-to-back if they seems to be fatigued or struggled the previous game. If AV's only answer to cycling the D is to sit Ballard then he has no more tools in the toolbox.
They didn't even rest Bieksa, coming off of an injury , to play LA. They sat Ballard in favour of Alberts and Bieksa got pushed too far and re-injured himself. It's absolutely brutal personnel management. I can't understand how anyone would defend it, and I can't see a single coach in the NHL doing the same thing under the same circumstances.
If our D is tired for Round 1 this will be the primary cause. Our only rested D will be Barker, Ballard and Alberts. Do you see AV suddenly switching it up and leaning on them if our legs aren't there? I don't and it wouldn't be wise to expect those three to be able to step into the role when they haven't had any minutes doing it all year.
There are a lot of points in this post, but I'll concentrate on the main one (I believe): Scratching Ballard in favor of Alberts.
As I have said, I would like to see Ballard back in the lineup on a regular basis. I see a lot of the same things that you and Wallstreet see. KB4 is the best skater on the Canucks' defense and he plays bigger than he actually is. It's actually a bit of a mystery to me why Alberts started against a not particularly physical team in Nashville.
However, where you guys decide that this sort of decision is "past the point of ridiculous", or as Wallstreet says, makes AV an "Assclown", I take another tack.
I consider myself a knowledgeable hockey person and I think I am able to interpret what I see on the ice as well as anyone on this board, but I also realize that I don't have access to the hours of game film that AV does. I'm not out there at every single practice, seeing which combinations seem to be working best. I don't have the daily player personnel advice of a team of professional hockey people like Mike Gillis, Laurence Gilman, Dave Gagne, Lorne Henning, Darryl Williams, Newell Brown, Stan Smyl and Rick Bowness who make their living in the game of hockey...
I also don't have over 600 NHL games as a head coach under my belt.
So maybe, just maybe, the coaching staff has seen something, either on film or in practice that I haven't seen, or did not notice at game speed. Or maybe my fervent hope that Ballard becomes a regular again, clouds my vision of his possible shortcomings. I'm sure we can all admit that we sometimes see what we want to see....
What I do know is that the Canucks have won their last two games with Alberts in the lineup. I also know that a large percentage of CDC was lambasting AV for sending Schroeder down and bringing up Andrew Ebbett, who like Alberts, is regularly referred to on CDC as a "plug". While I realize that the Canucks benefited from a sub-par game by Rinne, that decision still makes CDC look like what they are: Amateurs.
Finally, I have said all along that I don't agree with everything that AV and the rest of the coaching staff does, but I disagree that they have been "out-coached" in the playoffs. They have been consistently out-goaltended and have not been healthy enough to win. I'd point to Baggins' last couple of posts, as they pretty much echo my thoughts on the last two playoff exits for the Canucks.
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!