Aladeen Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I used the word "could" deliberately, as it infers there may not be the desired result - could is the same as could not. And I deliberately put those two items next to each other to illustrate that changing either the coach or the players may produce a desired effect, or may not. The main point was that there are various reasonable arguments to both sides of the issue - gum chewing and AV haterz do not qualify, however, among them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 AV should be thanking his goaltender(s). AGAIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I by no means meant to offend by the above statement, I made the statement in order to give a better understanding of the reason I have chosen to take the stance I have for a coaching change, I am simply drawing from my experience in business, as well as what I have witnessed with many of my colleagues in the business world. Again, It is just an opinion, an opinion I have formed through some of the statements made by some of the posters(definitely not all), I should have made that more clear, I am not painting everyone with the same brush. I appreciate the passion that has been shown on here, and believe I share the same, just trying to bring some clarity as to why I have taken the stance I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vansicle Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Wow stuff could happen or could not? Something may happen or it may not, both sides have reasonable arguments. Your insights into the obvious are astounding. Way to sit on the fence with your main point btw... I think this picture is perfect for your post: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 That's a good start. No emo parrots, no picard facepalms. However, you did use a gif, tried to insult me with sarcasm, and added nothing to the conversation. But, it's an improvement. No emoticons. Keep reaching for the stars . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 So close! No emoticons or gifs! You even threw in a 25¢ word while taking my words out of context to make yourself look . . . sagacious. Keep swinging for the fences, little guy! I know you can do it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I by no means meant to offend by the above statement, I made the statement in order to give a better understanding of the reason I have chosen to take the stance I have for a coaching change, I am simply drawing from my experience in business, as well as what I have witnessed with many of my colleagues in the business world. Again, It is just an opinion, an opinion I have formed through some of the statements made by some of the posters(definitely not all), I should have made that more clear, I am not painting everyone with the same brush. I appreciate the passion that has been shown on here, and believe I share the same, just trying to bring some clarity as to why I have taken the stance I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownky Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 No, he's still been outcoached in every playoff series he's been in, despite the stacked roster he's been unable to get it done when it matters. Regular season outcomes are completely worthless when game one of the first series of the playoffs rolls around. As long as the team makes it in, that's what counts. President's trophy is nothing more than a trinket when compared to the Stanley Cup. To base any opinion on such a meaningless item is simply foolish. At least he stopped being *completely* retarded, and put the speedy kids back together, as we on CDC were bitching about for the last month... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5minutesinthebox Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 No AV does not deserve an appology, what has he done? The argument when they where loosing was it wasn't his fault because he isn't hands on and lets the team do their own thing. Now that they are winning it's because of his smarts?? So what instead of putting Ballard at 4+ in the press box, he uses him as O on a very depleted forward lineup? Well crap what took him so long? AV is a egotistical fool who has difficult adapting and changing(line juggling doesn't mean adapting it means confused) This guy has to go and I pray it's soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c-a-n-u-c-k-s Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 NO.. the only reason we're winning is AV was forced to juggle lines due to injuries. If everyone was healthy he'd play the same old top 2 or 3 lines all the time and the team is bored and unresponsive to that - AS EVIDENCED by all the great chemistry showing up with NEW lines and YOUNG players who he otherwise ignores when the "team" is healthy. Am I wrong? The proof is pretty apparent watching this team the last few games... and in past times of injury causing the same... then full health... causing AV to go back to same old same old lines, no inspiration, old chemistry. AV has NOT learned to go with what's working. He never has been good at that. He is self centered thinking that his plan is right... instead of the real time feedback of chemistry on the team.... or that a young rookie might be able to make a real impact and add inspiration to the whole team by their contributions. He will again MUTE all these good things... when the team is healthy. Because of that I now believe he needs to be replaced. Winning now isn't a reason to keep him. Winning now is showing WHY he needs to go. TO set in his ways to morph into a dynamic team chemistry unless INJURIES FORCE HIM TO. AM I WRONG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Some, but not all of the stupid things AV has done this year: - Scratches Ballard after a good start to the season - Elder on the right side experiment not put to rest after way too long - Never (until recently) tried Garrison on the right side, who has at least some experience there... - Edler gets a free pass, with no accountability - Took Kassian off the Sedin line permanently. Typically, I agree with Burrows being there. But sometimes, certain games dictate that Kassian should be there. There have been a few games that were rough for the Sedins. Just put Kassian up there. - Kesler comes back, and our most productive line at the time is broken up. - Kesler gets the most minutes of any forward first game back (or was it second game?) - Kesler goes down, Speed Line not reunited - Still never pulls Luongo. Can't recognize when a goalie is going to have a bad game until it's too late. That Detroit blowout, I saw Luongo was shaky after the first 2 goals, and a few saves that he made look hard. Goalies have bad days. AV should know when to pull him Then there's some other usual stuff that's nothing new that I could go on and on about. Some good things people claim AV has done this year: - Kassian with Sedins. Wait, no... that was their idea. (Why isn't AV coaching this team? Oh right, he was when he broke the line up..) - Decides which goalie to play. With a coin. - Put the speed line together. Broke it up so he could ride Kesler? ...that's all I got. AV's 2012-2013 Season in a nutshell so far. Food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ride the red Pony Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Fair enough. We all want the same thing for this team. I just think that sometime we (me included) don't understand how difficult it is to lift the top prize..........(professional sport is not really like business at all I might add) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 NO.. the only reason we're winning is AV was forced to juggle lines due to injuries. If everyone was healthy he'd play the same old top 2 or 3 lines all the time and the team is bored and unresponsive to that - AS EVIDENCED by all the great chemistry showing up with NEW lines and YOUNG players who he otherwise ignores when the "team" is healthy. Am I wrong? The proof is pretty apparent watching this team the last few games... and in past times of injury causing the same... then full health... causing AV to go back to same old same old lines, no inspiration, old chemistry. AV has NOT learned to go with what's working. He never has been good at that. He is self centered thinking that his plan is right... instead of the real time feedback of chemistry on the team.... or that a young rookie might be able to make a real impact and add inspiration to the whole team by their contributions. He will again MUTE all these good things... when the team is healthy. Because of that I now believe he needs to be replaced. Winning now isn't a reason to keep him. Winning now is showing WHY he needs to go. TO set in his ways to morph into a dynamic team chemistry unless INJURIES FORCE HIM TO. AM I WRONG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownky Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 So basically, you are wrong. AV doesn't need to be replaced. HE NEEDS TO BE REPLACED LAST YEAR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpcurtly Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'd settle for 2008. But I know that he's not truly an NHL calibre coach. I have since before he was hired. I can't in all honesty cheer for this team with him as the coach, knowing we will never win. It's too heartbreaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Part of making intelligent decisions is timing. It's already been pointed out several times that Schroeder's play on the 2nd line after a good start, was cooling off. Combine that with the return of Booth and it made sense to move him to the 4th line for a while Meanwhile, in Chicago, Ebbett was playing extremely well. The Canucks decided that it made sense to bring Ebbett up and let Schroeder play bigger minutes on the farm, in order to regain his confidence. Ebbet immediately paid dividends, picking up 3 points in his first game with Raymond and Hansen, while being an upgrade in the faceoff circle and on the PK. When Schroeder returned, his game was much improved and he is now back on the 2nd line and playing very well. (I'd like to point out BTW, that probably his best assist to date was not to Raymond or Hansen, it was to Dale Weise) IMHO, the entire situation was handled extremely well by the Canucks' coaching and scouting staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'd settle for 2008. But I know that he's not truly an NHL calibre coach. I have since before he was hired. I can't in all honesty cheer for this team with him as the coach, knowing we will never win. It's too heartbreaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I can't in all honesty cheer for this team with him as the coach, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Don't let the door hit you in the behind on your way out... ...we have plenty of whiners who don't have a clue even without you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Its all a matter of opinion I suppose. I dont think developing players should ever be on the fourth line on this team. They should be on the farm where it makes sense, rather then being given scarce minutes on the big team. You get plug linemates and plug ice time, which is counterproductive. I dont understand how a player is supposed to benefit from this; they have such a limited opportunity to show that they deserve a larger role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.