Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

AV getting a free pass


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#61 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,618 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:39 PM

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.


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?
  • 2

#62 MJDDawg

MJDDawg

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,313 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 11

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:40 PM

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.


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.
  • 1

1zchaix.jpg

 

 

Always vigilant and on the lookout for Tiger Singh,The Stork, Shamu101, Mangoes, Cucumbers, Proballhockeyplayer, Dal Colle, DontTradeEdler, RespectYourEdlers23, D.T.E. and...

 


#63 Noheart

Noheart

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: 01-June 12

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:40 PM

Even if AV is fired, this team won't magically improve.

We have ONE legit center in our lineup!


The shorter the response the more impact it has.

Ladies and gentleman give the man at least 2 centers before we start firing people.


  • 0
Posted Image

BEASTLY!!!

#64 Aladeen

Aladeen

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,461 posts
  • Joined: 22-September 07

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:42 PM

The shorter the response the more impact it has.

Ladies and gentleman give the man at least 2 centers before we start firing people.

Ebbett!
  • 0
Posted Image

#65 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,618 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:45 PM

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).


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?
  • 2

#66 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:15 PM

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?


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.
  • 0

#67 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,618 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:19 PM

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.


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.....

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 12 March 2013 - 02:22 PM.

  • 1

#68 Riviera82

Riviera82

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,615 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 11

Posted 12 March 2013 - 02:30 PM

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.


What fan in their right mind honestly cares so much about "game 7 and 2 PTs"?
We lost game 7 and no amount of goddamn PTs equate to a Stanley Cup, so who F'ing cares?
AV and this core of team have been together for far too long and his messages have clearly expired. The Canucks are going nowhere in one hell of a hurry and Gillis cant get rid of the whole roster, but he can get rid of the gum chewing dead weight behind the bench, and should.
  • 1

#69 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:00 PM

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.....


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.

Edited by Barry_Wilkins, 12 March 2013 - 03:03 PM.

  • 0

#70 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,618 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:16 PM

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.


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.
  • 3

#71 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:39 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

#72 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,618 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:45 PM

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.


Of course, you are also of the opinion that Edler with his 25 minutes per game is still worthy of a top 4 spot at the moment, am I correct?

You NEVER think Ballard has a good game, so I am not overly surprised by your assessment.

And I think it is pretty obvious that Ballard will not be a Canuck after this season. He should have already been traded because no player is untradable. Someone has offered something for him I am sure somewhere along the way. So it could also be that like with Luongo, Gillis won't give Ballard up for nothing.

To me, giving Ballard to another team for whatever they can get is a good move for both Gillis and AV. Gillis can then finally not have to answer for the trade and AV does not have to be forced to bench him in favor of plugs. Ballard also gets a fresh start with a team that wants him there.

I can't think of a single reason for Gillis to NOT trade Ballard right now for whatever he can get. And anyone who thinks his contract amount is a huge issue to other GM's they are simply hating on the guy. In the right environment he could flourish and another GM with cap room would likely be willing to take that chance. The thing is, guys know Vancouver eventually has to move him for what they can get so why offer more?

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 12 March 2013 - 03:47 PM.

  • 0

#73 CrazyAL

CrazyAL

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,967 posts
  • Joined: 10-March 03

Posted 12 March 2013 - 03:50 PM

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.
  • 0

#74 Captain-Canuck2562

Captain-Canuck2562

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 10

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:42 PM

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.


  • 0

#75 TheCammer

TheCammer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,614 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 08

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:45 PM

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?

I don't mind the decision to play Barker. He has moved the puck quite well and seems to get pucks through from the point. He also was part of a pretty solid PP in Chicago a few years ago(admittedly he hasn't been nearly as good in Minnesota or Edmonton).

I also tire a little of Ballard being the coach's whipping boy. However, I have watched him pretty closely and even when he has a solid game defensively(in terms of his pairing not being scored) he is often found chasing the puck carrier and putting everyone else out of position that is defending an area. This often results in some good chances for the opposition. To the average fan it doesn't look like he did anything wrong but to a coach and the team's defensive system this can be detrimental.

I'm not too keen on Alberts either but I'm guessing they are hoping he provides a little size that they are sadly missing on the D with Bieksa out and Rome in Dallas.

As far as the reprieve, given a pretty successful track record I could see him surviving if the team makes the playoffs and wins one round because Gillis likes what he brings. That might not fly with the Aquilini's though.

I think Av has had enough success to warrant finishing a season rather than getting fired in the middle of it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#76 TheCammer

TheCammer

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,614 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 08

Posted 12 March 2013 - 04:49 PM

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.

Just reread your original post. Sorry misread your point that the Ottawa coach is still successful depite injuries and thought you were among those throwing AV under the bus for using that as an excuse.

Reading is comprehension (or so someone told me in elementary school).
  • 0
Posted Image

#77 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:05 PM

fire AV
  • 0
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

http://forum.canucks...in-this-change/

#78 Mustapha

Mustapha

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,052 posts
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:11 PM

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.
  • 0
Posted Image

What are you talking about? The Flames are one of the teams that gets good value contracts


#79 kassian 09

kassian 09

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 396 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 09

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:40 PM

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.

This
  • 0

#80 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,473 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 12 March 2013 - 05:46 PM

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.


You continually want to turn every argument into one involving your favourite Canuck.

I've never said Ballard has never played a good game. You're confusing me with someone else. At the least, you're putting words in my mouth. I think he had a decent start to the season, but when Ballard's play goes south, it goes to Antarctica, not Seattle.

As for Edler, when Edler poops the bed, he gets more leeway because of his track record here. Also, because we'll need an energized, consistent-minute Edler to do anything here long-term. Also, because Edler is the more talented Dman, and you automatically keep playing him so he can play out of his current funk.

Again, to stay with our original argument, this isn't about what you or I think about Ballard, or whoever else. It's about the speculation as to whether or not Gillis agrees or differs with AV's assessments and decision-making. And the only point I'm making is that none of us, certainly not you or I, know the answer to that.
  • 0

#81 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 12 March 2013 - 06:52 PM

AV owes Luongo seven years of his life.
  • 0
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

http://forum.canucks...in-this-change/

#82 cc_devil

cc_devil

    Comets Star

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

Posted 14 March 2013 - 07:04 AM

Av almost blows it against the blue jackets.
He just needs to go.
  • 0

#83 TheTruthHurts

TheTruthHurts

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 980 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 13

Posted 14 March 2013 - 07:08 AM

You should ask the players why AV is getting a "free pass".
  • 0

#84 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,627 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 14 March 2013 - 07:11 AM

Av almost blows it against the blue jackets.
He just needs to go.


The same Blue Jackets that had won five straight before the Canucks came to town? Who had just beaten the Red Wings twice in a row?

I suppose Mike Babcock needs to go as well?

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 14 March 2013 - 07:11 AM.

  • 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!

#85 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,618 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 14 March 2013 - 08:08 AM

The reason AV needs to go is not about a handful of games or a specific loss to this team or that. It is about a habitual and consistent inconsistency with this team.

Anyone who watches other teams on a regular basis will know exactly what I am talking about.
  • 2

#86 Lulover88

Lulover88

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,986 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 14 March 2013 - 08:28 AM

Everyone here is talking about whether A.V s a good or bad coach .. .You dont win this many games in the N.H.L if your not a good coach . I personally have never been a fan of him and have questioned alot of his decision making . I just dont think its simply about him being good or bad at what he does at this point .. Perhaps hes a very good coach who's due date ahas past with this particular team .. If he is relieved from this job Id be shocked if he didnt go on to be a successful coach with another team .. I think its time he moves on
  • 0

#87 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 14 March 2013 - 08:36 AM

Really?? There would be no spin. I guess you hate young talent as well, still holding onto the dream that you could make the NHL and be an AV favourite? All you need to be is an aging plug for that, so keep the dream alive.


Show me the young talent and we can discuss.

Hodgson was decent but unspectacular, his two way speed was average to say the least and he was not suitable for the wing. I thought he got the minutes on this team he was able for.

Kassian started off well and then fell away. Now he looks like he did last season.......more maturing in the AHL I think.

Schroeder showed promise, that was all. If I could get 5 minutes with him I would tell him he needs to "play bigger" all small sportsmen do this to be successful..........he has not learned that.....yet.

There are many in the team that AV has nurtured, Tanev, Raymond, Edler, Burrows etc. If they are good enough and (probably more importantly) they listen, he develops them.

Edited by Bodee, 14 March 2013 - 08:37 AM.

  • 0
Kevin.jpg

#88 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,618 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 14 March 2013 - 08:40 AM

As for Edler, when Edler poops the bed, he gets more leeway because of his track record here. Also, because we'll need an energized, consistent-minute Edler to do anything here long-term. Also, because Edler is the more talented Dman, and you automatically keep playing him so he can play out of his current funk.


Exactly my point....it is called favoritism and it the likely reason this team has no chemistry and no heart.

Who cares what a player did in the past? It is what they re doing NOW that should determine their opportunity or whether or not they are held accountable.

All you are saying is you support a country club atmosphere from this coach where past achievements are good enough to not ever hold the favorites accountable. Well, you have your wish. That is EXACTLY what we have now and it is a bigger factor in why this team collapses in the playoffs than you might think.

Over a 7 game series there is not enough time to let Edler play out of his extended funks unfortunately. Same with Kesler. Or any other player. That is why successful playoff coaches have back up plans and have all 23 guys playing with confidence and feeling like they are part of the team......so they don't have to just rely on what worked previously and can come up with new strategies to win when their go to guys are playing badly.

You are describing AV's biggest and most crucial weakness as a playoff coach.

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 14 March 2013 - 08:45 AM.

  • 0

#89 DaMacNamedDre

DaMacNamedDre

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,032 posts
  • Joined: 13-October 11

Posted 14 March 2013 - 08:42 AM

AV has 2 months left to get it done, Gillis has 2 weeks.
Both could be unemployed within 3 months.
  • 0
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posted ImageBodee, on 18 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

I haven't been a supporter of the Canucks for long. Mainly because firstly I know nothing about NHL and secondly ESPN America only started showing NHL 3 years ago.

http://forum.canucks.com/topic/328055-whats-wrong-with-me
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

#90 ice orca

ice orca

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,441 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 10

Posted 14 March 2013 - 08:45 AM

AV has 2 months left to get it done, Gillis has 2 weeks.
Both could be unemployed within 3 months.

Ok since you know so much who are you going to replace them with?
  • 0




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.