wallstreetamigo Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Not true. Despite the fact I support him I think a failure to make the playoffs this year or perform well (at least win 1 round in the playoffs)should likely result in a change in my opinion. Some others feel the same way. However, some of his detractors for the most part make comments that show a complete lack of hockey acumen or experience in coaching. PLEASE NOTE that I said some. Not all. Too many absolutes on the CDC. I still support AV. Newell Brown, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Is that necessarily a function of coaching?? Depth and personnel also are huge determining factors (as is coaching). I am as frustrated by the Canucks recent play as the others but firing a coach mid-season has not been successful more times than it has been successful (Bylsma and Sutter in Pittsburgh and LA as notable exceptions). I am also frustrated by the poor starts we seem to have a penchant for. However, I beleive that is on the players as much as the coaching staff. Regardless of how poorly we do this year AV deserves the respect of finishing the year based on his successful history as coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noheart Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Even if AV is fired, this team won't magically improve. We have ONE legit center in our lineup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 The shorter the response the more impact it has. Ladies and gentleman give the man at least 2 centers before we start firing people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 It's funny, but when one voice registers an opinion, sixteen more jump aboard to also state it, without even the IMO preceding it. I never heard this opinion before today. If, and when, Vigneault loses the room, it's Gillis' responsibility to immediately recognize it, and secondly, to immediately fire Vigneault. No one here, not I certainly, knows if Vigneault has lost the room. It's ludicrous to suggest you know something, or even strongly suspect something, that even the media can only speculate about (and wouldn't THEY love to scoop that story). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 There is no way to know.....but the usual signs of it are certainly there if you are objective enough to consider the possibility. Most supporters of AV are not willing to even consider it as a possibility. Gillis seems to have lost AV as long as we are putting it in those terms as AV refuses to use the players Gillis brings in according to the strengths they bring. This has all the makings of a Gillis or AV scenario if things keep going this way. Is Gillis so stubborn that he will lose his job before even trying the option of a new coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 But this also presupposes that Gillis and AV aren't on the same page. For all we know, Gillis and his coach sit down after every game and agree that (just as an example, I certainly don't know): 1) Schroeder needed a reduced role here, and eventually more time in Chicago; 2) There's a need to experiment with a revolving door at the 2C to try to find some sustained spark on that line; 3) Ballard needed to sit some games because they're both unhappy with his play lately. You say that AV's decisions, if they are indeed made in a vacuum, reflect poorly on Gillis. But maybe Gillis has already made up his mind, and thinks Ballard needs to go too, either at the trade deadline or in the off-season. Again, I don't know what they talk about. But neither do you or anyone else. They might have an increasingly strained relationship, they might be in agreement and "going down with the ship" together, if one takes the direst future gaze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Seriously? .................Game 7 and two PT's in the last 2 years..........that is certainly firing material. And all the time Gillis has given him nothing while all the other teams are feverishly getting better. @wallstreetamigo. "It is not an all or nothing scenario though. Why does wanting to replace the coach men that someone is saying to blow up the whole team? Have you ever once seen me say that joe?" Well if AV gets fired I can bet you a billion bucks that MG is forced to upgrade. And to do that players will have to go................So why not do the same for a coach that has given you a Game 7 and 2 PT's in the last 2 years. To do it any other way just doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 If this is them on the same page then they both need to be fired now. If Gillis wants Ballard gone and wants full value for him you would think he would be telling his coach to play him top 4 minutes and giving him PP time so that they could raise his value. Scratching him after a game he is the best D on our team is the wrong message to Ballard, the team, and anyone who might want to trade for him. So your theory is fine but does not really make sense in terms of managing assets that you want to trade..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Or on the other hand, it could be a desperate ploy to inject some (perceived) urgency into Ballard's game when they re-inserted him into the line-up. That would make more sense if the plan is to try to move him for anything at all at the trade deadline. The benching, after all, was only for 2 or 3 games. (They had specific issues with Ballard for 3 games before he was benched. Whether you or I agree on that isn't the point. We're just throwing around possibilities of what they may have been thinking.) edit: I think that if they played Ballard "top 4 minutes", it would be exposing his shortcomings. He couldn't handle it. And it appears they think that way, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 So Ballard deserves to be scratched tonight then is what you are saying? After he was CLEARLY our best d last game? With all due respect, when a guy plays a good game you reward him, not punish him. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Ballard was as good as any of our other current top 4 D when he played big minutes before coming to Van. I am pretty sure he could handle top 4 minutes here. His shortcomings are no worse than a guy like Edler at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 No, that's not what I was saying. I clearly stated that we're trying to get into AV's and Gillis' heads during this exercise, and that it's an entertaining game, though ultimately a futile one. I didn't think Ballard had a good game at all on his return from sitting a few, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Remember, AV used Ballard consistently, with increased minutes, up until he got benched. By the way, just to continue with this amusing, ever-changing, "maybe they think this" conjecture, I see that Ballard is scratched again tonight. So instead of supposing that Gillis means to try to light a fire under Ballard (his supposed thoughts, remember, not mine), we could now change it to Gillis giving up on Ballard, and just waiting till post-season to dump the 4.2 million off the books, money that we'll need to get someone else, especially if we pile on even more dough from a Luongo trade, or even just if that possible trade results in a salary wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyAL Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 MG is the one that should be worried, look at the money in that Dcore, top it off with 9mil in goalies, and now halfway through the season it looks like they'll be fighting to make the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain-Canuck2562 Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Hear me out, So i've never been a fan of AV's line juggling and mismanagement of our D, and I'm sure we all agree he should be fired. But what about the media? I'm hearing nothing on Spoetsnet,TSN or anything online about why AV should be fired. If it was any other canadian market with our skill level, or even without the skill, the media would be all over a possible coaches change. What do you guys think? Too early or are we just wrong? Sry if already posted found nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 The problem I have with this is that it is simply more of the same......how many times should AV get a reprieve based on winning one round in the playoffs? It is not that the Canucks lose in the playoffs that should make firing AV a real legitimate option......it is HOW they lose in the playoffs that should be the main reason. As a supporter of AV, I will ask you this: Looking at how Ballard played last game as an example (including setting up Garrison for a beauty one timer which is obvious our PP could use right now and being the only guy really playing solid D), do you agree that the right move tonight is scratching Ballard in favor of Alberts and Barker? Do you not think that sends a negative message to guys when they work hard, play a good game, and then get told they are somehow what needs to be changed for the team to get going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCammer Posted March 12, 2013 Share Posted March 12, 2013 Cammer, I think you misunderstood my post because that's what I'm essentially saying. I'm more laying this at the feet of MG. Just saying that if a coaching change mid-season happens, then so be it and we move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 fire AV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustapha Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 The 'not enough centres' excuse is BS, and you know why? Because one of the best centres in the NHL (Sedin) gets loads of PP time, and the PP is absolute crap. Besides, the Canucks seems to get a few goals 5 on 5. If they had any kind of PP, they wouldn't have lost as many games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kassian 09 Posted March 13, 2013 Author Share Posted March 13, 2013 The 'not enough centres' excuse is BS, and you know why? Because one of the best centres in the NHL (Sedin) gets loads of PP time, and the PP is absolute crap. Besides, the Canucks seems to get a few goals 5 on 5. If they had any kind of PP, they wouldn't have lost as many games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted March 13, 2013 Share Posted March 13, 2013 So Ballard deserves to be scratched tonight then is what you are saying? After he was CLEARLY our best d last game? With all due respect, when a guy plays a good game you reward him, not punish him. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Ballard was as good as any of our other current top 4 D when he played big minutes before coming to Van. I am pretty sure he could handle top 4 minutes here. His shortcomings are no worse than a guy like Edler at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.