Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Italia2006

Is it time for a new coach?

Recommended Posts

Absolutely. My main point is if they are going to fire the coach, they had better have something of a plan to move forward that at least has the potential to be better. Making change for change sake is not a strategy. Not making changes to avoid risks is just as bad (and sometimes worse), yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen nothing to suggest I was clueless about Bieksa at all actually. He has gone back to one way play and shaky defence along with not playing with any urgency at all. But to someone who sees him as perfect I can see how you would be mistaken there.

Again, do you deny that other players (including Alberts and Barker) get more leeway with AV to take risks? Alberts routinely gets out of position defensively trying to hit or gets walked around defensively. Or he takes stupid penalties. But he does not get immediately benched for that, does he? No he doesn't. Do you deny that perhaps Ballard does not take those offensive risks because he knows what will happen if he does and they don't work?

Higher risk/reward players can only play their style if the coaching staff accepts the consequences might not turn out as planned.....sort of like he allows Bieksa, Hamhuis, Edler, etc. to do. He obviously does not want Ballard to play that way for whatever reason......again that is coaching. Blaming Ballard for doing what the coach demands he do? That is rich.

If you can't actually answer these questions and earlier ones then just don't answer me.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following two elements must work together if a team is to be successful and win a Stanley Cup.

1. Coach = Philosophy(logic, knowledge, ways of aprroaching success)

2. Team = Essence (identity, who they are, how they play, etc.)

When a coach is fired, it is implied that the team wants to follow a new direction, changing how they want to win and what they want to do to obtain success. This is the trend we see most teams take but how much of it works? You'll cite Darryl Sutter and LA but let's relate back to the two aforementioned elements.

Sutter's philosophy (system) of winning games and being successful relies on heavy forechecking, tight defense, and outworking the opponent phyiscally in all three zones of the ice, thus creating chances and capitalizing on the opponents mistakes. There is also the expectation that each of his players will put emphasis on playing strong defence, both individually and as a team.

Now let's look at some of Sutter's players from his 2012 win:

Kopitar, Brown, Richards, Doughty, Scuderi, Williams, Mitchell, Greene, Carter, Voynov, Stoll, Lewis, Nolan, etc.

How many of those guys are physical? How many of those guys can wear down the opposition into creating tunrnovers, gaining possession, and capitalizing on mistakes? How many of those guys can play two-way hockey?

To me, it's simple: Philiosophy coincides with the identity.

Look at 2004 for Sutter: Iginla, Regher, Donovan, Lombardi, Warrener, Nieminen, Gelinas, Gauthier, Commodore, Lydman, Conroy, Yelle. All of those guys fit Sutter's criteria for winning games and that's why that team nearly won.

-----------------

The alleged problem we have here is that we seem to have a "disagreement" between our philosophy and essence. Now ask yoursleves these questions:

1. What is AV's coaching style?

2. What is the team's identity?

AV doesn't assemble the team(with the exception of who dresses), MG does. Is it AV's fault if his philosophy doesn't work with the team he's given from MG? In some respects, yes, he must be accountable for why his team is not succeding(he is supposed to be our guidance after all) but would anybody place blame on Ken Hitchcock, Mr. Defensive Trap himself, for not having his system work with a team like the Blackhawks, where Stan Bowman has assembled a team made to play explosive offensive hockey?

It all comes down to MG. Does he chose to create a team in favour of the philosophy, or does he chose to change the philosophy to favour the team? Dean Lombardi changed the philosophy to fit the team and you could argue that Chairelli changed the team to fit the philosophy. Based on the transactions MG's made(getting rid of Ehrhoff, Samuelsson, Hodgson, bringing in Kassian, Garrison, Pinizotto, acquiring bigger players), it seems he's taking the latter route and he doesn't view AV as the problem(a few contract extensions for the coach would also suggest that too)

I could be completely wrong, however. Just my $0.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following two elements must work together if a team is to be successful and win a Stanley Cup.

1. Coach = Philosophy(logic, knowledge, ways of aprroaching success)

2. Team = Essence (identity, who they are, how they play, etc.)

When a coach is fired, it is implied that the team wants to follow a new direction, changing how they want to win and what they want to do to obtain success. This is the trend we see most teams take but how much of it works? You'll cite Darryl Sutter and LA but let's relate back to the two aforementioned elements.

Sutter's philosophy (system) of winning games and being successful relies on heavy forechecking, tight defense, and outworking the opponent phyiscally in all three zones of the ice, thus creating chances and capitalizing on the opponents mistakes. There is also the expectation that each of his players will put emphasis on playing strong defence, both individually and as a team.

Now let's look at some of Sutter's players from his 2012 win:

Kopitar, Brown, Richards, Doughty, Scuderi, Williams, Mitchell, Greene, Carter, Voynov, Stoll, Lewis, Nolan, etc.

How many of those guys are physical? How many of those guys can wear down the opposition into creating tunrnovers, gaining possession, and capitalizing on mistakes? How many of those guys can play two-way hockey?

To me, it's simple: Philiosophy coincides with the identity.

Look at 2004 for Sutter: Iginla, Regher, Donovan, Lombardi, Warrener, Nieminen, Gelinas, Gauthier, Commodore, Lydman, Conroy, Yelle. All of those guys fit Sutter's criteria for winning games and that's why that team nearly won.

-----------------

The alleged problem we have here is that we seem to have a "disagreement" between our philosophy and essence. Now ask yoursleves these questions:

1. What is AV's coaching style?

2. What is the team's identity?

AV doesn't assemble the team(with the exception of who dresses), MG does. Is it AV's fault if his philosophy doesn't work with the team he's given from MG? In some respects, yes, he must be accountable for why his team is not succeding(he is supposed to be our guidance after all) but would anybody place blame on Ken Hitchcock, Mr. Defensive Trap himself, for not having his system work with a team like the Blackhawks, where Stan Bowman has assembled a team made to play explosive offensive hockey?

It all comes down to MG. Does he chose to create a team in favour of the philosophy, or does he chose to change the philosophy to favour the team? Dean Lombardi changed the philosophy to fit the team and you could argue that Chairelli changed the team to fit the philosophy. Based on the transactions MG's made(getting rid of Ehrhoff, Samuelsson, Hodgson, bringing in Kassian, Garrison, Pinizotto, acquiring bigger players), it seems he's taking the latter route and he doesn't view AV as the problem(a few contract extensions for the coach would also suggest that too)

I could be completely wrong, however. Just my $0.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following two elements must work together if a team is to be successful and win a Stanley Cup.

1. Coach = Philosophy(logic, knowledge, ways of aprroaching success)

2. Team = Essence (identity, who they are, how they play, etc.)

When a coach is fired, it is implied that the team wants to follow a new direction, changing how they want to win and what they want to do to obtain success. This is the trend we see most teams take but how much of it works? You'll cite Darryl Sutter and LA but let's relate back to the two aforementioned elements.

Sutter's philosophy (system) of winning games and being successful relies on heavy forechecking, tight defense, and outworking the opponent phyiscally in all three zones of the ice, thus creating chances and capitalizing on the opponents mistakes. There is also the expectation that each of his players will put emphasis on playing strong defence, both individually and as a team.

Now let's look at some of Sutter's players from his 2012 win:

Kopitar, Brown, Richards, Doughty, Scuderi, Williams, Mitchell, Greene, Carter, Voynov, Stoll, Lewis, Nolan, etc.

How many of those guys are physical? How many of those guys can wear down the opposition into creating tunrnovers, gaining possession, and capitalizing on mistakes? How many of those guys can play two-way hockey?

To me, it's simple: Philiosophy coincides with the identity.

Look at 2004 for Sutter: Iginla, Regher, Donovan, Lombardi, Warrener, Nieminen, Gelinas, Gauthier, Commodore, Lydman, Conroy, Yelle. All of those guys fit Sutter's criteria for winning games and that's why that team nearly won.

-----------------

The alleged problem we have here is that we seem to have a "disagreement" between our philosophy and essence. Now ask yoursleves these questions:

1. What is AV's coaching style?

2. What is the team's identity?

AV doesn't assemble the team(with the exception of who dresses), MG does. Is it AV's fault if his philosophy doesn't work with the team he's given from MG? In some respects, yes, he must be accountable for why his team is not succeding(he is supposed to be our guidance after all) but would anybody place blame on Ken Hitchcock, Mr. Defensive Trap himself, for not having his system work with a team like the Blackhawks, where Stan Bowman has assembled a team made to play explosive offensive hockey?

It all comes down to MG. Does he chose to create a team in favour of the philosophy, or does he chose to change the philosophy to favour the team? Dean Lombardi changed the philosophy to fit the team and you could argue that Chairelli changed the team to fit the philosophy. Based on the transactions MG's made(getting rid of Ehrhoff, Samuelsson, Hodgson, bringing in Kassian, Garrison, Pinizotto, acquiring bigger players), it seems he's taking the latter route and he doesn't view AV as the problem(a few contract extensions for the coach would also suggest that too)

I could be completely wrong, however. Just my $0.02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The for a new coach was last year. Get on with it already MG or you'll be gone instead.

Afterall what has MG done since the cup failure??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post.

That's also where I see MG as a failure. I mean he's the guy that assembled the talented team with having puck moving d-men like Ballard as our 5th or 6th d-man but AV is going the other way by dressing guys like Alberts and Rome over Ballard. MG gives AV Schroeder for offence and AV uses him on the 4th with Weise and Sestito...

MG should recognize that his team is not being coached the way he assembled it.

But then he offers an extension?

Fail for MG when it comes to evaluating his coaching staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, correct me if I'm wrong but don't Babcock, Hitchcock, and Sutter all have "Stanley Cup winning coach" on their resumes? Does AV? Oh ya, he has one good playoff run in 7 years.....and he got outcoached there too.

And Detroit, LA, and ST Louis are all playing with a hell of a lot more heart this season than this Canucks team.....and their coaches are all changing things on the fly when their standard go to strategies don't work any more.

You are right that all teams have adversity. But how they handle that adversity is the difference. And let's be honest, the Canucks are not handling it well from any possible angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

***Sigh*** You say "don't answer if you're not going to answer my questions", yet you have to say silly things like "you see him as perfect". Why can't you carry on a debate without turning into an 11 year-old?

So, here's your answers:

Yes, I deny that Alberts and Barker get more leeway than Ballard did. I believe that the coaching staff want steady, low-risk play from the third pairing. You may disagree that Ballard wasn't providing that at the time he was benched, or that Alberts isn't providing that now, but that is just your opinion.

Edler, Bieksa, Garrison and Hamhuis are given more leeway because they're top 4 defensemen. I actually agree with you that Ballard is more suited to the top four, but I just don't see him supplanting either of the top two on the left side. I'm also not "blaming" him for not producing offensively, I'm just pointing out that his lack of production doesn't really strengthen his case for being give a shot on the PP.

I actually just quoted a rather long post where I stated my feelings about Ballard vs AV, (you may be surprised at my personal feelings about it, actually) but for some reason, the mods decided that it needed to be deleted.

Anyway, if you're interested, it's post #126 in the "What can AV even do with this team" thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are making my point though.......WHY are those 4 guys considered the undisputed top 4 on this team? Because the coach believes them to be without ever considering that someone else might be able to supplant them if given the opportunity to do so.

The top 4 should be earned just like every other role on the team. Was Ballard deserving of an opportunity of a more offensive role two years ago? Absolutely not. When Ehrhoff left? I think maybe they could have at least tried him but they chose not to. This season - when the other left side D were struggling so much that he was one of our two best dmen most of the season? I absolutely think he earned a chance at an increased role.

Instead, AV has waited over half the season for his guys to figure things out and get on track. Do you think that is is even possible - even a tiny possibility - that if Ballard was given that much leeway and opportunity for half the season as those guys gt he might have worked his way out of his confidence issues? Top coaches would absolutely say yes. And when your top 4 is playing like crap anyway there is little risk in tryingit imo.

When the PP is this bad and all of our supposed top 4 look pathetic on it what possible reason would there be to not try - even if you think as a coach it is a complete flier - Ballard on the PP? To not do so is simply stubbornness and ultimately amounts to a self-fulfilling prophecy for AV......Ballard can't produce so let's not even give him any chance to try to. Losing teams are made in such ways I'm afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back online, and i see RUPERT has answered this with a good post a few down from yours, but I'll add to it.

You give high marks -- exclusive marks? -- for a coach who wins the Stanley Cup, yet you frequently tout Lindy Ruff as a possible AV replacement, so I'm not sure what your argument is here. Or does Ruff get a pass because he had to deal with "inferior" teams? If that's what your angle is, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think you've stated as much, then let's take a closer look at Ruff's long tenure with the Sabres.

In 14 complete seasons as head coach of Buffalo, and with 8 seasons of playoff results, Ruff has outperformed his regular season results in 2 out of those 8 seasons. And those successes were in his first 2 years where Buf finished 6th in regular season, then won 2 playoff rounds, followed up by next season where he finished 7th, then won 3 rounds. Good jobs, both years. Then? Finished 8th, bounced 1st round; finished 4th (5th seed), won 1 round; finished 3rd (4th seed), won 2 rounds; finished 1st, won 2 rounds; finished 4th (3 seed) bounced 1st round; finished 7th, bounced 1st round.

So, the other post-seasons after his first two years -- 97-98 and 98-99 -- he either performed to regular season expectations, or worse. That's 12 years of coaching. So I'm not sure how Ruff is the saviour for this team.

And to add to RUPERT'S point, would you call Julien a great coach? Someone who had to come back from a 3-0 series deficit? Because you've used this same argument against AV when the Canucks blew a 3-0 lead. Both teams won, but it seems as though your arguments are inconsistent, and used to fit your own biases even when the evidence works both ways.

You also mention those other coaches -- Hitchcock, Sutter, Babcock -- against AV, praising them for switching things up when things go bad. I don't know what this means. It's vague and meaningless as it stands. Do you mean switching goalies? Quick stunk the joint up, and so did Elliott, and they switched goalies with much better results from Bernier and Halak/call-up respectively. But AV has done the same thing. When a goalie struggles, he goes to his other guy. Problem is lately, his other option isn't playing nearly as well as Bernier or the non-Elliott choice. So does this strategy bringing different results become AV's fault, the play of the goalie in a situation identical to those other 2 teams?

By the way, you may have mistaken my tone in my original post in which you responded. I'm not dumping on Hitch, Sutter, or Babcock necessarily, though I think the former two always have a relatively short shelf life because of their relationships with players. I'm just calling for consistency in those who shout "fire AV!" after every Canucks loss. Seems as though many other coaches are "underperforming", to use the same metrics defined by the anti-AV crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, I sure would like to see Keith Ballard get a shift on the pp at some point during his time here in Vancouver.

For the bucket list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I just think time and again all of those coaches have proven to be superior playoff coaches to AV and their results have ultimately proven it. My point about the cup winning coaches is simply that Rupert was suggesting that AV deserves the same latitude as those guys even though he has done nothing in the playoffs unlike them. Even Ruff has done a lot more in the playoffs with worse teams.

Just like AV is doing nothing now while all of them are trying different things to get their teams going......which for all 3 is working if you look at their results recently. And from what I have seen it has not simply been goalie changes or line juggling with any of those coaches (unlike AV). It has been getting more from the other players when the usual suspects are not performing.

Being a better coach does not necessarily mean a better won lost record to me though as that relies on too many variables to really be compared fairly side by side from coach to coach. It is about HOW the guy coaches. What are his strengths and weaknesses. That kind of thing. Ruff holds players accountable.....and that is job 1 for a coach on this country club type team right now.

If you are suggesting that one loss is the reason for me calling for AV to be fired then you are not actually reading anything I am saying and are therefore not even worth having a discussion with about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good take on it, but can AV adjust his coaching style to suit the new philosophy? I don't believe he can, he is what he is.

Unless the league decides to make the ice surface bigger and replicate the european arena's, I believe the bigger, stronger teams will continue to dominate the playoffs and IMHO this works against AV's coaching philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are making my point though.......WHY are those 4 guys considered the undisputed top 4 on this team? Because the coach believes them to be without ever considering that someone else might be able to supplant them if given the opportunity to do so.

The top 4 should be earned just like every other role on the team. Was Ballard deserving of an opportunity of a more offensive role two years ago? Absolutely not. When Ehrhoff left? I think maybe they could have at least tried him but they chose not to. This season - when the other left side D were struggling so much that he was one of our two best dmen most of the season? I absolutely think he earned a chance at an increased role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's these kinds of dismissive replies that destroy any credibility you may have otherwise garnered. Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically or inevitably "not worth your time". I'm not sure why you can't separate debate, where differences of opinion are the defining characteristic, from personal affront and attack. The "one loss" comment was a general comment made to the anti-AV crowd in general. It's good to take things in context. Not everything is associated to you particularly. Surely you must acknowledge the many mouth-breathers who get on these boards whenever the Canucks lose and spew "AV is losing on purpose to spite his players!" or "he chews gum!" or "he doesn't use his time-outs effectively!", or "he plays for a 0-0 tie!"

As to the rest of your post, I asked for specific ways in which those three coaches you mentioned "change things up" in ways that AV doesn't. First, if there ARE specific differences, it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference, has it? The records are close to identical. But your answer to that is that those teams are playing better "recently". So it's a matter of small sample sizes, then. Where were you early in the year when LA was bombing? And where will you be when Vancouver goes on another winning streak this year? After all, to use your convoluted logic, you'd have to agree, to be consistent, that AV then "switched things up" successfully. But no. Currently the Canucks are in a slump, so AV has somehow completely lost it now. But I can't follow the bouncing ball because you've already contradicted that by saying elsewhere that AV's faults shouldn't be diminished when the Canucks go on another winning tear.

Ruff "holds players accountable" to you. Yet I've already displayed how Ruff's playoff record, in the last 12 seasons, has been below par. So I'm not sure how accountable the Buffalo players have been. Maybe "accountability", here, takes a page from Alice in Wonderland where "words have whatever meaning I want them to have".

The remainder of your post is just as vague, though a little more wordy, than your previous one. You say those coaches get "more from the other players when the usual suspects are not performing". Specifics is what I'm after, because these kinds of blanket, general statements are not informative, and certainly not convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am frustrated with the PP. Whether Ballard would be the answer is anybody'a guess. I suppose it couldn't get worse ;)

In answer to your question regarding the top 4, I suppose the simple answer is that they've earned it in the past (Garrison notwithstanding)

Say what you like about Bieksa, (I think we've agreed to disagree about him) but I absolutely think he's demonstrated that he deserves his top four status.

When he first joined the Canucks' defense, the team overall was offensively challenged. Juice was asked to provide offense from the back end. He did so. yes, his defensive game suffered for it, but he provided what the Canucks needed most.

Fast forward to 2011 and he is asked to play the shut-down role along with Dan Hamhuis. Again, he delivers. The two post top 10 plus/minus numbers, despite playing against high quality opposition. The role of offense from the back end is passed on to Ehrhoff and Edler, who exceed expectations.

Last season, with Ehrhoff gone, the burden of offensive numbers from the Canucks' D becomes more of a "by committee" situation. All defenders are asked to step up. (with the exclusion of the third pairing who are told to keep it simple) The result? Edler 7th among defensemen and Bieksa tied with Dion Phaneuf for 12th.

In short, I'd say you are partially correct in your statement that these guys are AV favorites. However, I believe they have earned that position.

Garrison is another story. He could be in the 4 spot because of his size or his shot. I honestly don't know. What I will say is that I believe Ballard performed well early this season when paired with Tanev.

I think the right side is still an issue for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.