Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * * * - 10 votes

Is it time for a new coach?


  • Please log in to reply
594 replies to this topic

#271 cc_devil

cc_devil

    Comets Star

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

Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:10 PM

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??
  • 0

#272 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,507 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:23 PM

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.


MG wasn't ready to fire AV last summer but couldn't afford to have a lame-duck coach so he extended him.

Looks like the team may have been expecting a change and is now playing like they've lost hope that change will come.

LIke the NHL analysts were talking about last night in regards to NYR's poor play...Sather has done a good job of bringing the personnel Torts wanted. It looks like those players dont' want to play the system Torts wants them to. Can't change the personnel, so it's time to change the coach.


AV has been given the pieces he claims have been missing and the team is playing worse than ever. FOr the entire team to be playing so poorly and with so little heart is usually a sign of them not believing in what is being told to them or asked of them.

THe Sedins believed in changes being needed and that was one reason they took Kassian under their wing and trained with him. The year stated well and in time, Kass could have added the dynamic they needed to be successful against the bigger teams in the playoffs. AV in his infinite wisdom demoted Kass (our leading scorer at the time) and has messed with his placement and role ever since. Back to the same old tricks for AV.

AV likes to stick with what he believes and what he feels has worked for him in the past. The players know that isn't going to work so they don't' execute with any level of passion. Sounds like the Nucks this year.

Edited by DIBdaQUIB, 18 March 2013 - 03:42 PM.

  • 0

#273 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:36 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

#274 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,518 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:43 PM

***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.


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.
  • 2

#275 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,507 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:50 PM

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.


If AV feels like he is on thin ice and has no answers to the team's woes, it is in his best interests to have the players fail and the more that do the better it is for him. As long as he can deflect the team's performacne onto poor player performance, injuries, travel demands, other teams being good (that's a real laugher), he can extend his time here.

If the team plays to it's abilities and within his system and loses, he's toast.

I realize this is far-fetched but in some ways, it's the only thing that can explain some of his stupid and non-sensical decisions on player placement/treatment.
  • 0

#276 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,518 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 03:53 PM

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.


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.

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 18 March 2013 - 03:54 PM.

  • 0

#277 Salmonberries

Salmonberries

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,600 posts
  • Joined: 22-November 11

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:08 PM

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.
  • 0

th_1435408476_c985b0ec75_zps489544ad.jpg


#278 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:13 PM

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.


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.
  • 1

#279 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,594 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:18 PM

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.

I can answer that for you; No. He can't. MG said a couple years ago that he believed that speed and offense were the future. He has built his team, for the most part, to fit that description. Coach AV has had almost two years to make the needed adjustments and has stayed the course.
That is the reason he must be replaced. He has shown his entire bag of tricks. The only reason the Canucks don't have an even worse record is goal tending and shear raw talent.
I believe the right coach could take the raw talent on this team all the way, and with relative ease.
  • 4

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.

 


#280 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:25 PM

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.



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.

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 18 March 2013 - 04:30 PM.

  • 0
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!

#281 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,518 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:35 PM

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.


Actually, I quite like debating with people who don't agree with me. And although it may not seem like it listening to the reasoning of those who don't agree with me actually helps me gain a better understanding of the issue being discussed. I have even been known to admit when I am wrong on the odd occasion.....;)

My point was this: Why respond to a post of mine saying that the "fire AV crowd" is reacting to one loss than? No real reason to unless that is what you are suggesting I am doing. I actually agree (and have said many times in the past) that a lot of idiots out there only look at the right now to determine that he should be fired or even kept as coach. I just think if you read my comments on the whole for the past several years you would probably see that a one or two game reaction is not really the source for me.

I have also NEVER said AV is a bad coach. EVER. Because that i just not true. He is a good coach, with strengths and weaknesses like all other coaches. I have said he has seemingly lost his effectiveness and run out of ideas here. I have said he tends to put his favorites ahead of what is best for the team at times. It is not outlandish to suggest either if you watch our team play and listen to our coach talk aftergames. That is why it is not about a coach that is "better" - whatever the hell that means anyway - but one who gives this team the things that it needs right now. When AV came to Vancouver he did that. He brought what they needed as a group and was a good fit. Now he doesn't though (imo) and I think it is time to find someone who does. It really is as simple as that. Agree or don't, as the idea is not to convince you to anyway. It is to discuss the issue....

So, I honestly don't know what else to say to you guys. If you see a team that is playing well and giving their all and a coaching staff that is trying all possible things to get them out of their current funk then I am happy for your optimism. I just don't see that though.
  • 0

#282 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,518 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 04:43 PM

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.


I agree that Bieksa becomes what he is asked to and fills the role he is asked to fill. I never said otherwise. He is one of those guys that is either excelllent offensively or excellent defensively but is not even good at both at the same time. It is what it is, the nature of how he plays. Ballard at his best is actually very similar to Bieksa in that sense.

I said though that I see it as a coaching mistake to abandon what was the PERFECT role for Bieksa, along with Hamhuis, as our shutdown pairing. The season of the cup run may not have been his highest point season but I have said all along that it was by far his best season - and most valuable one - as a Canuck. This team needs offensive D for sure and with the opportunnity they get and sacrificing some D, Bieksa and Hamhuis can provide that. The question is could Ballard or Garrison or Barker or someone else provide some of that offense if given an extended chance to grow into the role this season while Hamhuis and Bieksa get back to what shutdown defence?

I guess I would like to see if AV could try to find the answer to that before the playoffs. Because without a true shutdown pairing this team will get clobbered.
  • 0

#283 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 05:08 PM

Actually, I quite like debating with people who don't agree with me. And although it may not seem like it listening to the reasoning of those who don't agree with me actually helps me gain a better understanding of the issue being discussed. I have even been known to admit when I am wrong on the odd occasion..... ;)

My point was this: Why respond to a post of mine saying that the "fire AV crowd" is reacting to one loss than? No real reason to unless that is what you are suggesting I am doing. I actually agree (and have said many times in the past) that a lot of idiots out there only look at the right now to determine that he should be fired or even kept as coach. I just think if you read my comments on the whole for the past several years you would probably see that a one or two game reaction is not really the source for me.

I have also NEVER said AV is a bad coach. EVER. Because that i just not true. He is a good coach, with strengths and weaknesses like all other coaches. I have said he has seemingly lost his effectiveness and run out of ideas here. I have said he tends to put his favorites ahead of what is best for the team at times. It is not outlandish to suggest either if you watch our team play and listen to our coach talk aftergames. That is why it is not about a coach that is "better" - whatever the hell that means anyway - but one who gives this team the things that it needs right now. When AV came to Vancouver he did that. He brought what they needed as a group and was a good fit. Now he doesn't though (imo) and I think it is time to find someone who does. It really is as simple as that. Agree or don't, as the idea is not to convince you to anyway. It is to discuss the issue....

So, I honestly don't know what else to say to you guys. If you see a team that is playing well and giving their all and a coaching staff that is trying all possible things to get them out of their current funk then I am happy for your optimism. I just don't see that though.


Fair enough.

I think we actually agree on issues regarding AV more than what might appear to be the case on the surface. The big difference I see between us is one of timing. Every coach goes stale, and it's obvious AV has been here longer than what most coaches get as an opportunity. I guess my view comes down to a personal preference of letting the team exhaust all possibilities on the managerial and player front before pinning it on the coach. But at some point, the coach has to go, fairly or not. Again with timing, the Sutter and Bylsma switches are the exception, not the rule. I have little confidence that a mid-season coaching switch, especially if Ruff is the "go to" guy, will make any positive difference. If the Canucks have a lousy playoff, I'm all for making the change, but a change with real forethought.
  • 0

#284 Italia2006

Italia2006

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 12

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:42 PM

Take tonight as a prime example as to why I think we need a coaching change. Why would you put Schroeder on the 4th line with a bunch of plugs? He should be on the 3rd line where he has a chance to succeed. Lappiere is a 4th liner.

I did like that I heard they had Schroeder playing on the wing with the Wolves. Hopefully he can succeed on the wing.

Edited by Italia2006, 18 March 2013 - 07:46 PM.

  • 0

#285 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,507 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:46 PM

Take tonight as a prime example as to why I think we need a coaching change. Why would you put Schroeder on the 4th line with a bunch of plugs? He should be on the 3rd line where he has a chance to succeed. Lappiere is a 4th liner.


Yeah. After that great move down the boards and around the net, if he was with top 6 guys, he likely would have had a guy to pass to that could have buried it. Waste of his strengths on the 4th.
  • 0

#286 Italia2006

Italia2006

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 12

Posted 18 March 2013 - 07:53 PM

Yeah. After that great move down the boards and around the net, if he was with top 6 guys, he likely would have had a guy to pass to that could have buried it. Waste of his strengths on the 4th.


Very true.
  • 0

#287 Red Light Racicot

Red Light Racicot

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,501 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 10

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:21 PM

I have also NEVER said AV is a bad coach. EVER. Because that i just not true. He is a good coach, with strengths and weaknesses like all other coaches. I have said he has seemingly lost his effectiveness and run out of ideas here. I have said he tends to put his favorites ahead of what is best for the team at times. It is not outlandish to suggest either if you watch our team play and listen to our coach talk aftergames. That is why it is not about a coach that is "better" - whatever the hell that means anyway - but one who gives this team the things that it needs right now. When AV came to Vancouver he did that. He brought what they needed as a group and was a good fit. Now he doesn't though (imo) and I think it is time to find someone who does. It really is as simple as that. Agree or don't, as the idea is not to convince you to anyway. It is to discuss the issue....


I honestly think hes an excellent coach objectively speaking. I cant imagine he would remain unemployed very long in the event he was replaced.

But I will also say that with this team right now, hes avery mediocre coach. Its all relative. He used to be able to motivate this team more effectively, but it would seem that his shelf life has expired.

People love to bring up the fact that hes won a lot of games and has had a great deal of success in the past, but those are not valid reasons to keep him around right now if the team continues like this.
  • 0

#288 Italia2006

Italia2006

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 681 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 12

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:10 PM

I guess in I don't mind keeping AV until the end of the year and just tank this year. We could use a high draft pick this year and get some young stud.
  • 0

#289 kassian's lost tooth

kassian's lost tooth

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Joined: 19-July 12

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:20 PM

Stop the intellectualizing... YES IT'S TIME FOR A NEW COACH!
  • 2

#290 Lulover88

Lulover88

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,861 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 12

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:31 PM

I like the way the Vancouvr giants did it this year .. They knew they werent going to take it all , so they traded away some of their older players for young studs and high draft picks .. knowing that they would then get a 1st or second pick in the upcoming draft because they had traded for the future .. yeah it was an ugly year , but an incredibly fast rebuild .. we can fire the coach ,,,, and what ? just make the playoffs ?
  • 0

#291 VanNuck

VanNuck

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,180 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:33 PM

It's time for someone to make an original thread. It's not the coach, its the players.


Actually, as I had been saying before, it's not the coach or players (except for perhaps a few), but the GM.

This season should prove as much as anything that Gillis has stopped building this team. First, he stands pact behind this bunch - fine when things were going well, but now that the ship is sinking, he should know as well as anyone, it's time to take action.

Second, this team clearly has lost its respect in the hockey world. Right now, people around the league are celebrating the Canucks' fall, pating each other on the back and watching for riots to break out across Robson street again when Vancouver misses the playoffs. I could see the writing was already on the wall, the chance for a Cup is gone with the wind. Like I said before, it's time for Gillis to be fired and replaced with Linden.
  • 0

#292 canadaguy_25

canadaguy_25

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 164 posts
  • Joined: 19-April 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:41 PM

Actually, I quite like debating with people who don't agree with me. And although it may not seem like it listening to the reasoning of those who don't agree with me actually helps me gain a better understanding of the issue being discussed. I have even been known to admit when I am wrong on the odd occasion..... ;)

My point was this: Why respond to a post of mine saying that the "fire AV crowd" is reacting to one loss than? No real reason to unless that is what you are suggesting I am doing. I actually agree (and have said many times in the past) that a lot of idiots out there only look at the right now to determine that he should be fired or even kept as coach. I just think if you read my comments on the whole for the past several years you would probably see that a one or two game reaction is not really the source for me.

I have also NEVER said AV is a bad coach. EVER. Because that i just not true. He is a good coach, with strengths and weaknesses like all other coaches. I have said he has seemingly lost his effectiveness and run out of ideas here. I have said he tends to put his favorites ahead of what is best for the team at times. It is not outlandish to suggest either if you watch our team play and listen to our coach talk aftergames. That is why it is not about a coach that is "better" - whatever the hell that means anyway - but one who gives this team the things that it needs right now. When AV came to Vancouver he did that. He brought what they needed as a group and was a good fit. Now he doesn't though (imo) and I think it is time to find someone who does. It really is as simple as that. Agree or don't, as the idea is not to convince you to anyway. It is to discuss the issue....

So, I honestly don't know what else to say to you guys. If you see a team that is playing well and giving their all and a coaching staff that is trying all possible things to get them out of their current funk then I am happy for your optimism. I just don't see that though.


This is my thought exactly. AV was brought in to build a new system. When he was hired, the West Coast Express style of run and gun hockey that Crawford had coached was over. Bertuzzi was on his way out, and Naslund and Morrison were soon to follow. With the addition of Luongo and bolstering the D-core, we needed to change to a more defensive style of hockey to win games. Those were the pieces we had and AV was the right coach for that team. But this is no longer the same team.

As we brought in more offensive players, AV has been unable to keep up. That's why guys like Grabner, Hodgson, Booth and Kassian don't fit the mold. They are expected to reign in their offensive sides to focus on playing shut-down roles that they're not suited for. Kassian and Booth are most effective when they can bring a physical, offensive presence, but they can't do that because if they take themselves out of position and lay out someone with a big hit, they sit the rest of the game. We need a new coach that is on the same page as this team.

AV is a good coach. He just isn't the right coach for this group of players, IMO.
  • 0

#293 Super_Canuck

Super_Canuck

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,366 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:43 PM

it's time for a new fricken GM aswell
  • 2

#294 Noseforthenet

Noseforthenet

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 831 posts
  • Joined: 09-February 13

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:02 PM

It's pretty easy to see that something has to happen as a wakeup call!!! The players have quit on AV, from the looks of it. 5 blocked shots, never playing a full 60 minutes. This sense of entitlement has the team in cruise control. New coach needs to come in and said coach has to see what he has and communicate to Mike Gillis which of the core isn't working. That guy has to be traded. No ifs ands or buts! This team needs to awaken from its slumber and start to put the foot on the gas!!!

Edited by Noseforthenet, 18 March 2013 - 11:03 PM.

  • 0

#295 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:11 PM

This is my thought exactly. AV was brought in to build a new system. When he was hired, the West Coast Express style of run and gun hockey that Crawford had coached was over. Bertuzzi was on his way out, and Naslund and Morrison were soon to follow. With the addition of Luongo and bolstering the D-core, we needed to change to a more defensive style of hockey to win games. Those were the pieces we had and AV was the right coach for that team. But this is no longer the same team.

As we brought in more offensive players, AV has been unable to keep up. That's why guys like Grabner, Hodgson, Booth and Kassian don't fit the mold. They are expected to reign in their offensive sides to focus on playing shut-down roles that they're not suited for. Kassian and Booth are most effective when they can bring a physical, offensive presence, but they can't do that because if they take themselves out of position and lay out someone with a big hit, they sit the rest of the game. We need a new coach that is on the same page as this team.

AV is a good coach. He just isn't the right coach for this group of players, IMO.


Actually, if you read Gillis' quotes over the past two years and see his trading and drafting approach, Gillis has gone away from his own original philosophy and is starting to join the LA Kings/St Louis/Anaheim mold of tough forwards who smother the opposition. This has meant that Vigneault is caught in a floating transitional period.

As evidence: Gillis stated after the tough Boston playoff loss that the game had changed, that the refs who had earlier been instructed to call interference and hooking more strictly were now letting up on it. Remember, Gillis drafted short, skilled forwards with his first years' picks: Hodgson, Schroeder.

He also wanted the Canucks to turn the other cheek and not retaliate, except on the scoreboard during the PP. Them Gillis changed course completely, said the rules had effectively changed, saw the results the Kings and the Blues were getting, and opted to join the party. Problem is, he's been late to that party, and has made questionable trades as far as pure value goes.

So he acts further: trades Hodgson for Kassian, trades for net-crasher Booth, drafts taller, tougher players the past two years. Now, I'm not commenting on the Hodgson trade here. Time will tell. But if Gillis is still around, and he doesn't flip-flop yet again, it's ironic in that Vigneault will once again be the "right" choice, to use your argument.
  • 0

#296 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,518 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:18 PM

Even if MG does go, AV still needs to go too. His time is up.

AV has been with this group for too long that no matter what happens with the team philosophy or style of play, he will not magically become the right choice again just because it is a new GM.

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 18 March 2013 - 11:20 PM.

  • 0

#297 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:24 PM

Even if MG does go, AV still needs to go too. His time is up.

AV has been with this group for too long that no matter what happens with the team philosophy or style of play, he will not magically become the right choice again just because it is a new GM.


Oh, I agree that if Gillis goes first, we'd need a new coach, too. Couldn't see him being around to work for three different GMs. I just find it kinda funny that while some are saying AV has the wrong style for the team, we're slowly, by plan, morphing into a team AV had his most striking success with.
  • 0

#298 AllEyezOnMe

AllEyezOnMe

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,105 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 13

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:28 PM

AV's only a part of the problem not the whole problem !
  • 0

#299 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,392 posts
  • Joined: 19-January 12

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:44 PM

MG, I thought I would NEVER say this but GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!
2 options

1) Make some trades and shake up the team

OR

2) Fire AV

I suggest you start with option 2 as it is much easier than option 1 and go from there.

This board will implode if we hear that Ruff signed on as an assistant coach in Chicago/Ana/Boston going into the playoffs because nobody offered him a job lol...

Edited by CanucksJay, 18 March 2013 - 11:44 PM.

  • 0

#300 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,217 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:44 PM

I get your meaning, and I agree with you to a point, but I think you are being a bit uncharitable to AV.

I don't see how AV could not have had any input what-so-ever in the Sedin's development. I see them becoming better, more well rounded players under AV's style rather than Crawford's shoot first and maybe defend later style. (Yes, maybe I'm being a bit uncharitable to Crawford, who I do like as a coach).

Schneider would still have been influenced by what the big club wanted from him, even if he was down on the farm all season long. And wouldn't Schneider be being developed while he was up here as Luongo's back-up?

Stalled Hodgson's development how? Did Av make Hodgson a slower skater? Did AV make Hodgson a worse defensive player? Did AV make Hodgson worse in the face-off circle? Did AV make Hodgson a softer player to play against? Av certainly didn't affect Hodgson's offensive ability (the kid had a couple of pretty good goals on the weekend, but finished even on +/-).

Perhaps there is something to a lack of ability in teaching the offensive side of the game. This being said, Kesler has done fairly well for himself being (mostly) under AV's tutelage. Burrows has made his mark, but an argument can be made that this is mostly from being associated with the Sedins. Raymond was doing fairly well prior to a couple of injuries derailing his career. And seeing how Hodgson is doing fairly well (offensively at least), his time here in Vancouver with AV hasn't hurt him any.

Now what can be said for these guys who are adept at offense is that they are, as you yourself have pointed out, is that they are also good at the defensive side of the game. So, might it not be said that AV emphasized their already good defensive game, and that made them better offensive players (Raymond's current issues aside)?


regards,
G.


Pehaps, without going through the whole thing step for step. You make some solid points G.

AV perhaps didn't stall Cody's development, although I don't think he has had a great benefit on it either really. And I still by what I said about Cory and the Twins. Cory was a star in the AHL and the Sedins were 1st liners under Crow, AV came in and let them play the style they always had known under Crow. But I give Crow credit for there development and maturation as players an people.

I would just like to see him stick with players like Schroeder and Kassian and give them opportunities to succeed. Especially now we need help and they seem to be some of the only guys who haven't been given top notch opportunities.
  • 0

zackass.png





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.