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

#241 WL Canuck Fan

WL Canuck Fan

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,703 posts
  • Joined: 21-June 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:03 AM

I didn't read any of this thread.

C'mon, seriously man, was it time for another thread on this topic?
  • 0
Sig too big.

#242 Ride the red Pony

Ride the red Pony

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 13

Posted 18 March 2013 - 08:46 AM

I didn't read any of this thread.

C'mon, seriously man, was it time for another thread on this topic?


I for one am appreciative that the topic was raised, some very good conversation and some good points raised no matter which side of the fence you are sitting.
Bodee made a good point, you don't want to turn it into a revolving door, you have to sit down and take inventory of your assets and utilize that knowledge to make an informed decision when replacing the current head coach.
As of this moment I don't think they have an identity, with all the juggling AV does, and under utilization of certain assets I believe they are having a hard time finding it.
Get mad AV, stick to a gameplan, have some conviction, stop giggling, man up grab the bull by the horns, give these guys some direction, LEAD, LEAD, LEAD.
  • 0

#243 WL Canuck Fan

WL Canuck Fan

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,703 posts
  • Joined: 21-June 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:39 AM

I for one am appreciative that the topic was raised, some very good conversation and some good points raised no matter which side of the fence you are sitting.
Bodee made a good point, you don't want to turn it into a revolving door, you have to sit down and take inventory of your assets and utilize that knowledge to make an informed decision when replacing the current head coach.
As of this moment I don't think they have an identity, with all the juggling AV does, and under utilization of certain assets I believe they are having a hard time finding it.
Get mad AV, stick to a gameplan, have some conviction, stop giggling, man up grab the bull by the horns, give these guys some direction, LEAD, LEAD, LEAD.


My point was rather not that the topic does not need to be discussed, but that threads get opened nearly daily to do so. As fans on a forum we have every right to voice and express, but the threads are abundant. Yup, I know you can make a thread any ol' time you want as well.

http://forum.canucks...ng-a-free-pass/
http://forum.canucks...with-this-team/
http://forum.canucks...eds-a-shake-up/
http://forum.canucks...ying-favorites/
http://forum.canucks...ciation-thread/

just sayin.
  • 0
Sig too big.

#244 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,587 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 18 March 2013 - 09:59 AM

My point was rather not that the topic does not need to be discussed, but that threads get opened nearly daily to do so. As fans on a forum we have every right to voice and express, but the threads are abundant. Yup, I know you can make a thread any ol' time you want as well.

http://forum.canucks...ng-a-free-pass/
http://forum.canucks...with-this-team/
http://forum.canucks...eds-a-shake-up/
http://forum.canucks...ying-favorites/
http://forum.canucks...ciation-thread/

just sayin.


There is some truth in what you say and if you had posted ont he first page of the thread it would have had merit but after 9 pages of comments, it appears somewhat misplaced.

Just sayin.
  • 0

#245 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:04 AM

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


You couldn't be further from the truth, Doctor.
  • 1
Posted Image

#246 L'Orange

L'Orange

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: 12-November 11

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:13 AM

Alain Vigneault's style of coaching has gone stale with this team. They no longer look to him for guidance. From failing to strategize with his lines and plays to using the media scrums to criticize his players, AV has effectively alienated himself from his team.

This team, which has enough talent to be playing far better than they are, is tuning him out. He has always been a predictable coach, and it was only a matter of time before other teams would figure his methods out. Now they have, and yet he still hasn't adjusted and tried new plays. He is played out and has nothing more to offer this team. They are regressing now and will continue to do so unless a coaching change is made.

He has served the team well and should be remembered fondly. However keeping him on will only be an exercise in nostalgia.
  • 1
Posted Image

#247 Vansicle

Vansicle

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,605 posts
  • Joined: 24-August 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:15 AM

For someone who supposedly has all this coaching experience I find it hard to believe that you do not even understand that a player's role, confidence (both self and from the coaching staff), opportunity, and linemates will all have an impact on their offensive production. This is especially true for defencemen.

If a player knows that any chance he takes that does not work out will result in a benching, how likely is he going to be to take any chances at all? Not very.

Ballard has never been given any opportunity to even see if he can contribute offensively to this team. That is not on Ballard but on the coaching staff.

This is one of the bigger complaints I have with AV. He plays it safe at almost all costs. And anyone who takes a chance can count on paying the price, be it playing a physical, on the edge game, taking offensive risk (by not sticking to the dump and change or predictable chip and chase/ad nauseum cycling). But takes stupid risks by destroying chemistry with impetuous line juggling.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. AV takes the wrong kind of risks (line juggling) and plays the wrong kind of safe (no offensive variety).
He needs to go. The time is now.
  • 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.

 


#248 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,794 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 18 March 2013 - 11:50 AM

Please.

The Sedins are creditted to Crow, they were 1st line players before AV had anything to do with them.

Schneider developed into the best goalie in the AHL, but not with AV. I don't see how that can be credited to him either.

And if anything he stalled Cody's development.

The rest of the list you could make reasonable cases for, although the thing that strikes me, is they are all great defensive guys, goes along with his system, that's why they worked, Kesler was a defensive center early on, Hansen was a defensive/grinding forward, Raymond was playing a secondary role early on, while being relied on for the PK. Ditto to Burrows. Edler and Bieksa are both good defensively.

Although with guys like Cody, and even perhaps we are seeing it with Kassian. He can't develop the offensive side and teach them defense, he just parks them on the end of the bench. We saw it with Shirokov too.

He has been alright at developing players, but I will take Crow over him as a developmental coach.



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

#249 Quoted

Quoted

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,295 posts
  • Joined: 17-September 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:08 PM

The problem with firing any coach is "then what"? The only option people put up is Ruff and i just don't see that he is going to offer anything that substantially different. A new voice might help for a bit, but the team is missing some critical pieces and you simply can't coach your way out of that. After a bit, a new coach is going to have to deal with these gaps in the lineup too. Of course, someone might do better than AV, but that is just hoping so at this point. Multi-million dollar business don't generally make decisions based on hope.
  • 1

#250 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,620 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:17 PM

And for someone who likes to go on about how good coaches "find a way" and there are no excuses, you sure make a lot of them when it comes to Ballard.

I like him too, but the fact is, he hasn't seized any of his opportunities to take over a top four role. He hasn't showed an ability to play in the right side, so sits behind Hamhuis and Edler on the depth chart. If the Canucks decide they want more physicality or less high-risk play, he drops behind Alberts, just as he did Rome.

Please spare me about him not being given a chance. He played 21 games and averaged 15 minutes per game. That should be ample time for a veteran defenseman.

BTW: Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I had a hockey game of my own last night. (some of us actually play the game)


Have you watched Ballard this season? Your argument about not playing well on the right side certainly applied his first year here and, to a lesser degree last year, but not this season. He has been much better on the right side this season and has been leaps and bounds better on the right than Garrison and Edler..........

If you have watched Edler play this season you would realize that no one should be below him on the depth chart. I don't care how many points he scores his defensive play more than nullifies that .......

And to be fair, to succeed you need a REAL opportunity. Ballard has not been given any real chance at a top 4 job in Vancouver at all since he has been here. Look at his total PP time in 3 years in Van and then tell me he has been given an opportunity to contribute as a top 4 D (all top 4 D on this team regularly play the PP so that is an excellent benchmark to prove you wrong).
  • 0

#251 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,633 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:21 PM

Have you watched Ballard this season? Your argument about not playing well on the right side certainly applied his first year here and, to a lesser degree last year, but not this season. He has been much better on the right side this season and has been leaps and bounds better on the right than Garrison and Edler..........

If you have watched Edler play this season you would realize that no one should be below him on the depth chart. I don't care how many points he scores his defensive play more than nullifies that .......

And to be fair, to succeed you need a REAL opportunity. Ballard has not been given any real chance at a top 4 job in Vancouver at all since he has been here. Look at his total PP time in 3 years in Van and then tell me he has been given an opportunity to contribute as a top 4 D (all top 4 D on this team regularly play the PP so that is an excellent benchmark to prove you wrong).


1 pt in 21 games. That's an excellent benchmark to prove you wrong.
  • 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!

#252 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,620 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:23 PM

The problem with firing any coach is "then what"? The only option people put up is Ruff and i just don't see that he is going to offer anything that substantially different. A new voice might help for a bit, but the team is missing some critical pieces and you simply can't coach your way out of that. After a bit, a new coach is going to have to deal with these gaps in the lineup too. Of course, someone might do better than AV, but that is just hoping so at this point. Multi-million dollar business don't generally make decisions based on hope.


The flip side of that argument is also true though. Keeping a coach because the next guy might not do better is just as irrational.

To succeed in business you have to take calculated risks. There is also such a thing as self preservation as a GM.

AV has been the coach for many years and has made it out of the 2nd round of the playoffs once. The players on the team are pretty much the same for the last several years too so his message is likely getting stale. They are certainly playing like it.

If it was my business and it could mean my job (as in Gillis) I would certainly take the calculated risk of trying a new coach before falling on my own sword.

On a side note, I have seen several suggestions for new coaches. Ruff is the most accomplished I think but there are many other possibilities out there.
  • 0

#253 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,620 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:25 PM

1 pt in 21 games. That's an excellent benchmark to prove you wrong.


As I said, you have to have an opportunity to succeed. And you have to know that if you take chances to do so you are not going to be stapled to the bench or put in the press box.

It is funny how some non AV favorite players are very productive elsewhere until they come here and get no opportunity to be. Then they suddenly lose their ability to play the game and it has nothing to do with all the factors I mentioned before? That is your argument as a supposed coach? Seriously AV should hire you as his assistant. You are just as clueless as he is.

Again, as someone who has coached do you not understand how all those other factors I mentioned impact a defenceman's offensive production? Or even their overall game?

Edited by wallstreetamigo, 18 March 2013 - 12:31 PM.

  • 0

#254 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,633 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:30 PM

As I said, you have to have an opportunity to succeed. And you have to know that if you take chances to do so you are not going to be stapled to the bench or put in the press box.

It is funny how some non AV favorite players are very productive elsewhere until they come here and get no opportunity to be. Then they suddenly lose their ability to play the game and it has nothing to do with all the factors I mentioned before? That is your argument as a supposed coach? Seriously AV should hire you as his assistant. You are just as clueless as he is.


Oh yes, anyone who doesn't agree that AV is an "assclown" is "clueless".

Remember back when you were arguing that Bieksa was garbage and I was disagreeing with you? Who turned out to be "clueless" that time?
  • 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!

#255 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,633 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:40 PM

As I said, you have to have an opportunity to succeed. And you have to know that if you take chances to do so you are not going to be stapled to the bench or put in the press box.

It is funny how some non AV favorite players are very productive elsewhere until they come here and get no opportunity to be. Then they suddenly lose their ability to play the game and it has nothing to do with all the factors I mentioned before? That is your argument as a supposed coach? Seriously AV should hire you as his assistant. You are just as clueless as he is.



In an effort not to derail this thread with a series of "I know you are, but what am I" posts with Wallstreet, I'll repost my thoughts on Ballard from another thread:

"As I have said, I would like to see Ballard back in the lineup on a regular basis. I see a lot of the same things that you and Wallstreet see. KB4 is the best skater on the Canucks' defense and he plays bigger than he actually is. It's actually a bit of a mystery to me why Alberts started against a not particularly physical team in Nashville.

However, where you guys decide that this sort of decision is "past the point of ridiculous", or as Wallstreet says, makes AV an "Assclown", I take another tack.

I consider myself a knowledgeable hockey person and I think I am able to interpret what I see on the ice as well as anyone on this board, but I also realize that I don't have access to the hours of game film that AV does. I'm not out there at every single practice, seeing which combinations seem to be working best. I don't have the daily player personnel advice of a team of professional hockey people like Mike Gillis, Laurence Gilman, Dave Gagne, Lorne Henning, Darryl Williams, Newell Brown, Stan Smyl and Rick Bowness who make their living in the game of hockey...

I also don't have over 600 NHL games as a head coach under my belt.

So maybe, just maybe, the coaching staff has seen something, either on film or in practice that I haven't seen, or did not notice at game speed. Or maybe my fervent hope that Ballard becomes a regular again, clouds my vision of his possible shortcomings. I'm sure we can all admit that we sometimes see what we want to see...."

Edited by RUPERTKBD, 18 March 2013 - 12:42 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!

#256 Nashi

Nashi

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,898 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

I would love to see Ruff coaching the Canucks.
  • 0

canucks141.png


#257 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,620 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:48 PM

Oh yes, anyone who doesn't agree that AV is an "assclown" is "clueless".

Remember back when you were arguing that Bieksa was garbage and I was disagreeing with you? Who turned out to be "clueless" that time?


I love insecure people who point out an irrelevant past argument to supposedly provide some sort of validation that they are right about this one......pathetic actually. You can't answer anything I have pointed out regarding Ballard's opportunity here so you go back to Bieksa? Really? That is just sad man.

And I never said Bieksa was garbage, so you must have me confused with someone else.........I pointed out issues I had with him as a player and with his penchant for only showing up in contract years but also always have recognized he is a good player in some ways. Just not perfect like you seem to think.

And if you want to know my take on it, Bieksa had one season....his last contract year.......where he was used with Hamhuis as a shutdown pairing that they provided what this team actually needed. That year he was very valuable. But we also had Ehrhoff at the time so did not have to rely on him to carry the team offensively. Unfortunately, he has been again been bad defensively since that year though because your favorite coach decided to mess with what was the right role for him........the same goes for Hamhuis too. They get their 40 points now but they are not capable of shutting down anyone anymore as they are always pinching and rushing up the ice leaving odd man rushes in their wake. That has had as big a role in this team's slide the last few years as anything else.

So really, they are just other examples of how a players role, opportunity, confidence in themselves and from the coaching staff, and level of risk they are allowed to engage in on the ice all have an impact on their play.

I find it ironic that you think defencemen should produce points on the 3rd pairing playing with plug forwards and getting no PP time......what kind of expectations do you have for players you coach? That is simply unrealistic man.
  • 0

#258 Claiborne55

Claiborne55

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 332 posts
  • Joined: 25-February 13

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:52 PM

If we were to get rid of AV, Lindy Ruff would be my choice as new coach.


I'd like to see what Lindy Ruff could do with this team too.
  • 0

#259 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,633 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:53 PM

I love insecure people who point out an irrelevant past argument to supposedly provide some sort of validation that they are right about this one......pathetic actually. You can't answer anything I have pointed out regarding Ballard's opportunity here so you go back to Bieksa? Really? That is just sad man.

And I never said Bieksa was garbage, so you must have me confused with someone else.........I pointed out issues I had with him as a player and with his penchant for only showing up in contract years but also always have recognized he is a good player in some ways. Just not perfect like you seem to think.

And if you want to know my take on it, Bieksa had one season....his last contract year.......where he was used with Hamhuis as a shutdown pairing that they provided what this team actually needed. That year he was very valuable. But we also had Ehrhoff at the time so did not have to rely on him to carry the team offensively. Unfortunately, he has been again been bad defensively since that year though because your favorite coach decided to mess with what was the right role for him........the same goes for Hamhuis too. They get their 40 points now but they are not capable of shutting down anyone anymore as they are always pinching and rushing up the ice leaving odd man rushes in their wake. That has had as big a role in this team's slide the last few years as anything else.

So really, they are just other examples of how a players role, opportunity, confidence in themselves and from the coaching staff, and level of risk they are allowed to engage in on the ice all have an impact on their play.

I find it ironic that you think defencemen should produce points on the 3rd pairing playing with plug forwards and getting no PP time......what kind of expectations do you have for players you coach? That is simply unrealistic man.


When you resort to calling me "clueless", I'm going to point out an incident where it was you that was shown to be clueless. Don't like it? Stick to stating fact, or your usual slanted opinions.

And I'm not asking for a bunch of points from the 3rd pairing. However, if someone is lobbying for PP time, they should be able to put up more points than Andrew Alberts and Cam Barker after playing three times as many games.
  • 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!

#260 Quoted

Quoted

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,295 posts
  • Joined: 17-September 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:58 PM

The flip side of that argument is also true though. Keeping a coach because the next guy might not do better is just as irrational.

To succeed in business you have to take calculated risks. There is also such a thing as self preservation as a GM.

AV has been the coach for many years and has made it out of the 2nd round of the playoffs once. The players on the team are pretty much the same for the last several years too so his message is likely getting stale. They are certainly playing like it.

If it was my business and it could mean my job (as in Gillis) I would certainly take the calculated risk of trying a new coach before falling on my own sword.

On a side note, I have seen several suggestions for new coaches. Ruff is the most accomplished I think but there are many other possibilities out there.


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.
  • 0

#261 Snake Doctor

Snake Doctor

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,825 posts
  • Joined: 30-September 08

Posted 18 March 2013 - 12:58 PM

I for one am appreciative that the topic was raised, some very good conversation and some good points raised no matter which side of the fence you are sitting.
Bodee made a good point, you don't want to turn it into a revolving door, you have to sit down and take inventory of your assets and utilize that knowledge to make an informed decision when replacing the current head coach.
As of this moment I don't think they have an identity, with all the juggling AV does, and under utilization of certain assets I believe they are having a hard time finding it.
Get mad AV, stick to a gameplan, have some conviction, stop giggling, man up grab the bull by the horns, give these guys some direction, LEAD, LEAD, LEAD.


STFU
  • 0
Posted Image


#262 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,620 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 01:47 PM

When you resort to calling me "clueless", I'm going to point out an incident where it was you that was shown to be clueless. Don't like it? Stick to stating fact, or your usual slanted opinions.

And I'm not asking for a bunch of points from the 3rd pairing. However, if someone is lobbying for PP time, they should be able to put up more points than Andrew Alberts and Cam Barker after playing three times as many games.


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.......
  • 0

#263 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,620 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 March 2013 - 01:51 PM

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.


A coach being better is all relative though.

Better at what? Motivation? Holding all players accountable? Changing strategies on the fly? Offensive strategies? Defensive ones? Special teams? Getting the most out of all players on the roster?

To me any coach who can bring back accountability and motivate this team to want to be the best will be a better coach for this team right now. If he can get all of our players on the same page and believing they are part of any success this team has (unlike AV who only does so with his favorites).......then this team will be much better off.
  • 0

#264 DaMacNamedDre

DaMacNamedDre

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 18 March 2013 - 02:05 PM

Step 1) Gillis gives AV the 2-3 upgrades necessary for this team to even have a sniff
Step 2) AV gets till the end of this season (48 game season and all)
  • 0
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Posted ImageBodee, on 18 April 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

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

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

#265 Ride the red Pony

Ride the red Pony

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 13

Posted 18 March 2013 - 02:10 PM

STFU


Lol, nice work, well thought out, and I'm sure the other 6,000 posts had just as much insight.
Again, Well done.
  • 0

#266 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,633 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 18 March 2013 - 02:14 PM

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.......


***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.
  • 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!

#267 Not Alain Vigneault

Not Alain Vigneault

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,401 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 09

Posted 18 March 2013 - 02:18 PM

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.
  • 0

#268 Ride the red Pony

Ride the red Pony

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 438 posts
  • Joined: 09-March 13

Posted 18 March 2013 - 02:34 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

#269 CanucksJay

CanucksJay

    Canucks Prospect

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

Posted 18 March 2013 - 02:38 PM

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.


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.
  • 2

#270 snucks

snucks

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,707 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 03

Posted 18 March 2013 - 02:53 PM

AV must go. He had his chance and blew it. Now he is stifling decent players.
  • 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.