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

#31 snucks

snucks

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,720 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 03

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:39 AM

Ok so AV won't use players Gillis gives him ? Then AV should be fired. If Edler is plaing with a back problem then AV should be fired. If Gillis lets all this go the owner should fire Gillis. If the owner doesn't fire Gillis the fans should not go to the games.
  • 2

#32 Italia2006

Italia2006

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:40 AM

So any time you fire a coach, whose contract has been extended or signed by the GM, you must also fire the GM?

?

?

Gonna be a lot of turnover in NHL upper management...


I think the owners of the Canucks have a lot of say on what Gillis does. Lets not forget the owners are big Canucks fan and I can't see them not putting pressure on him.
  • 1

#33 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:41 AM

Just curious, are you guys hoping Gillis fires AV during this season, or should he wait until after the playoffs?



Ruff guided the Sabres to the playoffs twice in the last five years. This would have been twice in the last six had he not been fired. I'm not suggesting he's a bad coach, but obviously something went south in the Sabres dressing room.

Gillis inherited AV, as in he chose to keep AV back in 2008. Since then, Gillis has extended AV's contract (twice, I believe).

If anyone has a problem with AV's coaching style, then you also have a problem with Gillis, for it is Gillis who is keeping AV here. If AV has to go, then so should Gillis.

There are some who would view this as a good thing, and who knows, they may well get their wish. Perhaps it happening sooner rather than later will be a good thing, so we can all get started on threads about the good old days when Gillis and AV were running the team. :)

regards,
G.

I think teams win from the goal out. Teams are getting too many great scoring chances in fron of our goalies. Bowness is our defensive coach and unless he can figure out our defensive woes. or get the players buying into his system..he should be first coach to leave.
  • 0

#34 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:42 AM

The other problem with AV is his lack of being able to groom our young talent.


Bieksa, Burrows, Edler, Hansen, Kesler, Raymond, Schneider, Sedin, Sedin, Tanev. An argument can even be made for Hodgson. Works in progress: Kassian, Schroeder, Weise.


If we don't get Ruff I'd be very dissapointed but another guy I'd consider is Crawford. He has a real team here that he can coach. He won a cup with the Avalanche.


With Ruff, I'm not sure he could do any kind of a Sutter-like mid-season turn around. Crawford had a real team he could coach when he was previously here. And then he got axed for AV. I don't expect to see him back here any time soon.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#35 BedBeats™2.0

BedBeats™2.0

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,315 posts
  • Joined: 04-March 03

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:44 AM

Lidstrom retired and Stuart left plus all of the injuries on there back end.
They've lost their best 2 defenceman and haven't replaced them with anyone. They were hopping to get Suter or Webber and failed at that.
We lost Salo and replaced him with Garrisson. I'd like to see the Canucks lose the Sedins and see how we do.


Yet Maclean is a hero (which he is, amazing job with the Sens), but you absolve Babock.

The thing is..all 3 coaches are saddled with the same issues. 2 of them are making the best of it. 1 is struggling a bit.

Yet here in Vancouver...the clear solution is to fire the coach.
  • 1

1znsn4k.jpg

Every "Burrow's Special", to Date.


#36 Italia2006

Italia2006

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:47 AM

Bieksa, Burrows, Edler, Hansen, Kesler, Raymond, Schneider, Sedin, Sedin, Tanev. An argument can even be made for Hodgson. Works in progress: Kassian, Schroeder, Weise.




With Ruff, I'm not sure he could do any kind of a Sutter-like mid-season turn around. Crawford had a real team he could coach when he was previously here. And then he got axed for AV. I don't expect to see him back here any time soon.

regards,
G.


I think Kassian should be playing in a spot where he can succeed not on a 3rd line. He looked good with the twins. Schroeder obviously has some skill set but we all feel he's too small at centre, that's great, so why not use him on the wing?
  • 0

#37 rkoshack

rkoshack

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,444 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 03

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:54 AM

The question isn't is it time for a new coach because the answer is obvious. The real question is, is it too late? Would a coaching change even matter with this core anymore?

BTW, no to Lindy Ruff
  • 1

#38 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 09:56 AM

AV had 3 killer centres and he couldn't make it work.
Henrik, Kesler and Hodgson.


Correction, AV had two killer centers (one of whom was injured). Henrik and Kesler. And he also had Lapierre, who was pretty darn good. Malhotra was very injured. Hodgson wasn't even on the radar for that Cup run.

For the season following, Hodgson was played in very sheltered situations, something which helped his personal development, now to Buffalo's benefit.


Gillis has given him Ballard, Garrison and Booth and all 3 to this point haven't succeeded.


Garrison has played very well. Four goals without a lot of power play time. +8 playing against a lot of the opposition's better lines.

Ballard and Booth have turned into projects, mostly due to injury. This is sad as they are both quite good players. On a happy note, neither of them cost the team any significant assets, other than perhaps the 1st which was used to get Ballard.

Otherwise, Gillis has given AV guys like Hamhuis, Higgins, Lapierre, Tanev...

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#39 Yotes

Yotes

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 08

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:04 AM

If what rhett Warriner says is true, then im sure other teams are looking at Ruff to replace their current coach. Philly, Rangers and who knows how many other teams.

Thats exactly what our team needs, someone behind the bench that can read how the game is being played and make in game adjustments, sure didnt see that last night or during the Boston series or last year against LA. And that is AV biggest downfall.

I think Ruff could change things up here and do a good job. Ruff is a good coach, hes probably at home scout teams he would have an interest in coaching and watching how they are playing. Its like pre scouting to see where his next job would be. He can see what the opposition team is doing that is allowing them to win, or shutting down the other teams. See how certain players are being used or not utilized properly in certain areas such as PP

I think Lindy Ruff would be a great choice to shake things up, which I think is the first step for the Canucks. From their they look at the players, address that in the off season and then go from there
  • 0

#40 Gross-Misconduct

Gross-Misconduct

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,163 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 07

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:05 AM

I would wait till the end of the season then fire AV. Why wait? Because although I believe AV is making bad decisions and isn't getting effort out of the players he does have, I also think Gillis hasn't assembled a good team around the core players. The fact that we still have both Lou and Schneider is incredible.

So I would wait till season's end, hire a new coach ( a younger coach, not just another retread) give Gillis a very short leash to grow some balls and make some deals....REAL deals. Then if the team doesn't turn it around quickly, fire Gillis.
  • 2

HpkJUPw.jpg

Credit to KingAlex for the sig. R.I.P.


#41 rkoshack

rkoshack

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,444 posts
  • Joined: 17-October 03

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:12 AM

Correction, AV had two killer centers (one of whom was injured). Henrik and Kesler. And he also had Lapierre, who was pretty darn good. Malhotra was very injured. Hodgson wasn't even on the radar for that Cup run.

For the season following, Hodgson was played in very sheltered situations, something which helped his personal development, now to Buffalo's benefit.




Garrison has played very well. Four goals without a lot of power play time. +8 playing against a lot of the opposition's better lines.

Ballard and Booth have turned into projects, mostly due to injury. This is sad as they are both quite good players. On a happy note, neither of them cost the team any significant assets, other than perhaps the 1st which was used to get Ballard.

Otherwise, Gillis has given AV guys like Hamhuis, Higgins, Lapierre, Tanev...

regards,
G.


I don't know what AV is doing not having Garrison out there for more 1st unit PP time. What's the point of having that big shot if you're not going to use it?
  • 0

#42 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:23 AM

Lindy Ruff hasn't had a hockey team forever. They haven't had any talent there forever.


So those 1st and 3rd in the east finishes (in 2006 - 07 and 2009 - 10) were due merely to Ruff coaching the other team into the ice night after night? I would have thought there'd have to be a bit of talent there.

And what about the seasons after those two high finishes? After the 2006 season where they finished 1st in the NHL (tied for points with Detroit), they had back to back 10th place finishes in the east. After the 2009 3rd finish, the Sabres dropped to 7th, and then 9th and finally this season they were at 13th. Is Ruff only able to be a great coach once every few years, or did he have some talent on his teams?

As to there not being any talent there, there's guys like Miller, who is a pretty highly regarded goalie. Pominville has put up some pretty good numbers, as has Vanek, Stafford, and Roy. There's even some guys on their defense that a lot of people here would dearly love to have on the Canucks' roster.

It would appear to me that Ruff just hasn't been able to consistently put it all together season after season (like AV), or if an untimely injury has come up, then Ruff (and perhaps the Buffalo management) haven't been able to adjust to the situation (like AV and Gillis).

regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#43 Italia2006

Italia2006

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:38 AM

So those 1st and 3rd in the east finishes (in 2006 - 07 and 2009 - 10) were due merely to Ruff coaching the other team into the ice night after night? I would have thought there'd have to be a bit of talent there.

And what about the seasons after those two high finishes? After the 2006 season where they finished 1st in the NHL (tied for points with Detroit), they had back to back 10th place finishes in the east. After the 2009 3rd finish, the Sabres dropped to 7th, and then 9th and finally this season they were at 13th. Is Ruff only able to be a great coach once every few years, or did he have some talent on his teams?

As to there not being any talent there, there's guys like Miller, who is a pretty highly regarded goalie. Pominville has put up some pretty good numbers, as has Vanek, Stafford, and Roy. There's even some guys on their defense that a lot of people here would dearly love to have on the Canucks' roster.

It would appear to me that Ruff just hasn't been able to consistently put it all together season after season (like AV), or if an untimely injury has come up, then Ruff (and perhaps the Buffalo management) haven't been able to adjust to the situation (like AV and Gillis).

regards,
G.


Didn't they lose Briere and Drury?
  • 0

#44 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:42 AM

So any time you fire a coach, whose contract has been extended or signed by the GM, you must also fire the GM?

?

?

Gonna be a lot of turnover in NHL upper management...


Well, the point being made, and perhaps it escaped you, is that Gillis has had opportunites in the past to get rid of AV (fire AV when he took over the team, not extend his contract, etc), and he hasn't done it. Right?

?

?

This says to me that Gillis is in favour of how AV has been, and currently is running this team. So if you don't like the job which AV is doing then you have to blame Gillis as he is the guy who keeps extending AV's contract.

Is that clear?

?

?

AV is coaching in a style which Gillis wants. If Gillis didn't like how things were going, there would likely be a meeting. In this meeting, Gillis would explain to AV that there had to be changes made in how AV coached the team, or there would be a change in the coach. From what the various critics of AV's coaching style have to say (and there are some valid points in what they say), does it look like AV has changed up his ways? I think these critics would say that the answer is no. This leads me to believe that Gillis has not made any such demands on AV.

Maybe there should be a high turnover in the management of NHL teams, but Vancouver isn't a place where it will happen any time soon.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#45 smurf47

smurf47

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,948 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:49 AM

Well, the point being made, and perhaps it escaped you, is that Gillis has had opportunites in the past to get rid of AV (fire AV when he took over the team, not extend his contract, etc), and he hasn't done it. Right?

?

?

This says to me that Gillis is in favour of how AV has been, and currently is running this team. So if you don't like the job which AV is doing then you have to blame Gillis as he is the guy who keeps extending AV's contract.

Is that clear?

?

?

AV is coaching in a style which Gillis wants. If Gillis didn't like how things were going, there would likely be a meeting. In this meeting, Gillis would explain to AV that there had to be changes made in how AV coached the team, or there would be a change in the coach. From what the various critics of AV's coaching style have to say (and there are some valid points in what they say), does it look like AV has changed up his ways? I think these critics would say that the answer is no. This leads me to believe that Gillis has not made any such demands on AV.

Maybe there should be a high turnover in the management of NHL teams, but Vancouver isn't a place where it will happen any time soon.

regards,
G.

You are correct, AV is a defensive style coach who has changed to an offensive style in response to MG's preference .
  • 1

#46 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:52 AM

Lidstrom retired and Stuart left plus all of the injuries on there back end.
They've lost their best 2 defenceman and haven't replaced them with anyone. They were hopping to get Suter or Webber and failed at that.
We lost Salo and replaced him with Garrisson. I'd like to see the Canucks lose the Sedins and see how we do.


Well, in the 2009 - 10 season, Daniel Sedin played in only 63 games, Bieksa in 55, Mitchell in 48, Salo in 68, Demitra in 28 and so on.

The team got to 5th overall.

Cry me a river about Detroit's woes.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#47 Kevin Biestra

Kevin Biestra

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,869 posts
  • Joined: 31-October 08

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:57 AM

Well, the point being made, and perhaps it escaped you, is that Gillis has had opportunites in the past to get rid of AV (fire AV when he took over the team, not extend his contract, etc), and he hasn't done it. Right?

?

?

This says to me that Gillis is in favour of how AV has been, and currently is running this team. So if you don't like the job which AV is doing then you have to blame Gillis as he is the guy who keeps extending AV's contract.

Is that clear?

?

?

AV is coaching in a style which Gillis wants. If Gillis didn't like how things were going, there would likely be a meeting. In this meeting, Gillis would explain to AV that there had to be changes made in how AV coached the team, or there would be a change in the coach. From what the various critics of AV's coaching style have to say (and there are some valid points in what they say), does it look like AV has changed up his ways? I think these critics would say that the answer is no. This leads me to believe that Gillis has not made any such demands on AV.

Maybe there should be a high turnover in the management of NHL teams, but Vancouver isn't a place where it will happen any time soon.

regards,
G.


The point did not escape me.

Setting aside the snide manner of the reply, the moment at which Mike Gillis fires AV, whether or not he has extended him in the past, he will have proven that he is no longer approving of the manner in which AV runs the team. Thus, it does not automatically follow that Gillis must also be fired along with AV. He would have obviously demonstrated a changed perspective on AV's effectiveness.

Regards,

K.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image


Biestra speaks. Biestra educates.

Let Canucks management know you want King Richard Brodeur in the Ring of Honour with no further delay! He's been retired for 25 years!

http://forum.canucks...e-king-richard/

#48 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,073 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:05 AM

I would wait till the end of the season then fire AV. Why wait? Because although I believe AV is making bad decisions and isn't getting effort out of the players he does have, I also think Gillis hasn't assembled a good team around the core players. The fact that we still have both Lou and Schneider is incredible.

So I would wait till season's end, hire a new coach ( a younger coach, not just another retread) give Gillis a very short leash to grow some balls and make some deals....REAL deals. Then if the team doesn't turn it around quickly, fire Gillis.


You took the words right out of my brain ..
  • 0

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#49 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:08 AM

I think teams win from the goal out. Teams are getting too many great scoring chances in fron of our goalies. Bowness is our defensive coach and unless he can figure out our defensive woes. or get the players buying into his system..he should be first coach to leave.


I wouldn't say that we are in disagreement here. Perhaps Bowness should do something to tweak how the team is playing in front of their own goal, and/or how the defensemen move the puck out of their own end. But once again, If Bowness didn't like what he was seeing then he would have said something to the players. If AV didn't like what he was seeing, then he would have said something to Bowness. If Gillis didn't like what he was seeing, then he would have said something to both AV and Bowness. And if ownership didn't like what they were seeing...

They're all still here.

As to the team's current woes, there is something to the observation that injuries are a significant reason why the team isn't doing as well as hoped. As noted on a recent broadcast, the Canucks' recent record while Bieksa was out was pretty bad. This being said, it's not a comfortin thought to see that the defense is that fragile that losing just one guy can cause a collapse.

That there wasn't a training camp and pre-season is also a factor in how things have gone. I believe Garrison's improved play of late is an example of important the pre-season is to some players.


regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#50 Canucks_Hockey_101

Canucks_Hockey_101

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 12

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:09 AM

I think teams win from the goal out. Teams are getting too many great scoring chances in fron of our goalies. Bowness is our defensive coach and unless he can figure out our defensive woes. or get the players buying into his system..he should be first coach to leave.


Certainly agree with that. A goaltender can hope to shut the door as much as they would like to but without an efficiently managed defense whatever caliber it's comprised pieces are, the goaltender has no hope.
  • 0

#51 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:12 AM

I think Kassian should be playing in a spot where he can succeed not on a 3rd line. He looked good with the twins. Schroeder obviously has some skill set but we all feel he's too small at centre, that's great, so why not use him on the wing?


I believe the observation about Kassian was, while he was doing good with the Sedins, the Sedins were not doing good with Kassian. Maybe (hopefully) this will change as time goes on.

I thought Schroeder has been tried at wing, last season down in Chicago. To my recollection, the results were not good. Hopefully he can expand his game, otherwise I wouldn't be surprised to see him traded.

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#52 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:18 AM

I don't know what AV is doing not having Garrison out there for more 1st unit PP time. What's the point of having that big shot if you're not going to use it?


I'm sure he's explained it somewhere, sometime. I would have to agree with you that if I had my druthers I'd be putting Garrison out there a bit more often.

Perhaps it's just a getting familiar with the system thing. Or maybe the coaches are aware that Garrison was limited in his effectiveness in the latter part of last season with Florida by the penalty killers keying on him to take away the big shot from the point.


regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#53 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:23 AM

Ok so AV won't use players Gillis gives him ? Then AV should be fired. If Edler is plaing with a back problem then AV should be fired. If Gillis lets all this go the owner should fire Gillis. If the owner doesn't fire Gillis the fans should not go to the games.


What do you mean "won't use the players Gillis gives him?"

If you are referring to Ballard then he has played him regularly. Ballard himself said he understood the situation when he was benched (I admit he may have just been shown his class.....again)

Part of the problem seems to be that AV seems unable to cope with all these injuries, without chopping and changing. We have to wait until the team is fit again. We have been trying to cope with some hellish injuries compounded by a compressed season.

So NO I don't want a successful coach fired in favour of someone who quite likely would not match his record. If anyone needs to watch out it is Gillis for me. He just hasn't delivered the calibre of player one would expect for this team.
  • 2
Kevin.jpg

#54 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:25 AM

Didn't they lose Briere and Drury?


Yup, good observation. This speaks to my point about Buffalo having had some talent in Ruff's time with the team. When he had a stacked team he was a great coach. When the talent with which he had to work diminished, he became a less than great coach.

Funny how that happens. :)

regards,
G.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#55 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:30 AM

Yup, good observation. This speaks to my point about Buffalo having had some talent in Ruff's time with the team. When he had a stacked team he was a great coach. When the talent with which he had to work diminished, he became a less than great coach.

Funny how that happens. :)

regards,
G.


AV says hi!..........I saw what you did there. <_<
  • 1
Kevin.jpg

#56 Italia2006

Italia2006

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:32 AM

I believe the observation about Kassian was, while he was doing good with the Sedins, the Sedins were not doing good with Kassian. Maybe (hopefully) this will change as time goes on.

I thought Schroeder has been tried at wing, last season down in Chicago. To my recollection, the results were not good. Hopefully he can expand his game, otherwise I wouldn't be surprised to see him traded.

regards,
G.


I don't believe the Sedins are doing that good right now anyways. Are we winning? NO. Would it hurt to play Kassian with the Sedins again? NO.
Coaches are suppose to make adjustments and in my opinion he hasn't made them. He could of tried Schroeder on the wing with the Canucks as a pose to putting him in a lose sittuation on the 4th line. Wouldn't Schroeder of been served better playing with players that may help him succeed?
  • 0

#57 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,063 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:33 AM

The point did not escape me.

Setting aside the snide manner of the reply, the moment at which Mike Gillis fires AV, whether or not he has extended him in the past, he will have proven that he is no longer approving of the manner in which AV runs the team. Thus, it does not automatically follow that Gillis must also be fired along with AV. He would have obviously demonstrated a changed perspective on AV's effectiveness.

Regards,

K.


However, you are ignoring the fact that AV is coaching in a style which AV wants. As smurf noted, AV is a defense first kind of coach. When Gillis took over the team he impressed on AV his desire to go with a more offensive approach. So, if anyone doesn't like how AV is coaching the team, then they have to lay some of the blame on Gillis' doorstep.

regards,
G.

PS - I give snide for snide.

PPS - I have that "regards" thing copyrighted. Just saying.
  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#58 Italia2006

Italia2006

    Comets Star

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

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:34 AM

Yup, good observation. This speaks to my point about Buffalo having had some talent in Ruff's time with the team. When he had a stacked team he was a great coach. When the talent with which he had to work diminished, he became a less than great coach.

Funny how that happens. :)

regards,
G.


Lets not carried away. He's never had a stacked team. He's had a good team but not stacked.
  • 0

#59 Kevin Biestra

Kevin Biestra

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,869 posts
  • Joined: 31-October 08

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:38 AM

However, you are ignoring the fact that AV is coaching in a style which AV wants. As smurf noted, AV is a defense first kind of coach. When Gillis took over the team he impressed on AV his desire to go with a more offensive approach. So, if anyone doesn't like how AV is coaching the team, then they have to lay some of the blame on Gillis' doorstep.

regards,
G.

PS - I give snide for snide.

PPS - I have that "regards" thing copyrighted. Just saying.


Two question marks fulfills your requirement for snideness?

Whatever. Last thing I need to do with my weekend is argue with strangers on the internet.
  • 0
Posted ImagePosted Image


Biestra speaks. Biestra educates.

Let Canucks management know you want King Richard Brodeur in the Ring of Honour with no further delay! He's been retired for 25 years!

http://forum.canucks...e-king-richard/

#60 whytelight

whytelight

    K-Wing Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 12

Posted 17 March 2013 - 11:41 AM

The other problem with AV is his lack of being able to groom our young talent.
If we don't get Ruff I'd be very dissapointed but another guy I'd consider is Crawford. He has a real team here that he can coach. He won a cup with the Avalanche.


Ricky Lake could have coached the Av's to a cup that year....
  • 1




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.