edit: lovin this change!

[RUPERTKBD]

Okay, seeing as AV’s detractors have somehow missed all of their points addressed, (or more accurately, ignored) I’ll attempt to do so one more time:

AV never talks to his players: Absolutely untrue. This is a myth perpetuated by the anti-AV crowd, based loosely on the fact that he allows his veteran players a certain level of autonomy. Everyone conveniently ignores the comment made by Ballard that the coaches had been talking to him about his game “for a while”. Just because he isn't seen yelling and screaming at his players on the bench like Tortorella, it doesn't mean that he doesn't ever talk to them. The very idea is ridiculous.

Schroeder was playing great. He never should have been demoted: No he wasn’t and yes he should have. After a good start, his play had tailed off and with Kesler and Booth returning to the lineup, it made sense to move him to the 4^th line. (If people bother to go back and check boxscores, they would see that the Schroeder-Hansen-Raymond line was putting up consistent minus ratings for three consecutive games, starting with the mid-February loss to Dallas)

After some games on the 4^th line, the correct decision was made to send him back to Chicago to play bigger minutes and regain his confidence. This decision was made easier by the fact that Andrew Ebbet had been playing extremely well for the Wolves. In his first game with the big club, Ebbett picked up three points and his line with Hansen and Raymond was the best on the ice.

When Schroeder returned to Vancouver, he was back to playing the way he did early on, showing that the demotion had worked exactly as the coaching staff had intended. People seem to forget that his first point upon returning (and probably his biggest highlight so far this season) was a pass to Dale Weise; Not Raymond or Hansen.

AV “hates” Keith Ballard: It’s funny. People who complain about AV accuse his supporters with “making excuses” for him. Yet the excuses for Ballard are unending. ”He doesn't use him right”. “He doesn't give him a chance to play with the right players”, etc., etc..

To date, Ballard has played in 27 of the team’s 34 games, (even being given a chance at forward) averaging just under 16 minutes per game. (15:51/game according to NHL.com) He has 2 points to show for it, the exact same as Cam Barker has put up in six games. He hasn't played especially poorly. He just hasn't been good enough to overlook a couple of bad games in a row when guys like Barker and Alberts are available. He also was not top 10 in defenseman scoring last season, as Alex Edler was, or top 15 as was Kevin Bieksa. That’s why those two are given more leeway than Ballard and rightly so.

AV relies on his goaltenders to win games: All coaches rely on their best players to win games for them. Bylsma relies on Sid and Geno; Babcock relies on Datsyuk and Zetterberg; Coach Q relies on Kane, Hossa, Toews, Keith and Sharp and Boudreau relies on Getzlaf and Perry…

The Canucks have 10 million dollars tied up in the goaltending position. It should be something that they rely on.

Bear in mind that earlier in the season, when the Canucks were not getting solid goaltending, they were losing games that they would have won if their goalies had at least been as good as the opposition.

AV doesn’t get the most out of his players: Yet here he is, winning with a lineup that includes AHLers, rookies and players new to the team. Can anyone honestly say that he hasn't gotten the most out of guys like Chris Tanev, Jannik Hansen, Chris Higgins, Max Lapierre or Alex Burrows?

AV throws his players under the bus: One of things that a coach needs to be aware of is what motivates his players. It isn't the same for all players. Some guys need a public dressing down, while others may need propping up.

Think back to some of the public criticisms AV leveled at his players.... Wellwood, O’Brien, Kesler…

....can anyone say that these guys didn't respond with improved play afterward?

The Sedins are “never” called out by the coaching staff. Can anyone honestly say that they don’t always work their way out of the doldrums?

AV knows his players. It’s one of the things that makes him the right coach for the team.

AV is not a playoff coach: In every postseason loss, (with one exception) the Canucks have bowed out to the eventual Cup Champion. The Ducks team that knocked them out, as well as the two Blackhawks teams, was simply better than the Canucks.

The other two series losses were at the hands of a Conn Smythe winning goaltender, compounded with the fact that the Canucks dealing with significant injuries to offensive players (and defense, against the Bruins) IMO, he did as well as could reasonably be expected.

AV never makes adjustments. He just does the same things over and over: How many times have we seen complaints about AV's “line juggling”? Changing up the lines is done league wide and is a time-honored method of improving a team’s fortunes in-game.

All players all have good nights and bad nights. Changing up the combinations is an attempt to put together the players that are “on” in that particular game. Yes, there is an element of luck involved, but this is league-wide. How many people think that Crosby-Kunitz and Dupuis was an obvious combination to succeed?

AV only knows how to coach defense: Dead wrong. He has coached the team to top 5 offensive records in the past two seasons. This season, due to injuries and lack of powerplay production, (part of which is due to the injury to Kesler, BTW) it has been necessary for the team to revert to the more defensive style of play that he coached when he first joined the Canucks. The team has responded well and currently sits tied for the 6^th overall position in the entire league. It’s this kind of adaptation to two totally differing styles of play, with positive results in both areas, that makes the argument that "AV can’t adapt", a laughable one.

So many people want AV fired, there must be something to it: Let’s examine the reasons people dislike AV..

Too much line juggling - Not enough adjustment.

Throws players under the bus - Not “emotional” enough.

Never lets players develop “chemistry”.- Refuses to change things when they aren't working.

Won’t give young players “a chance” - Can’t see that player X is “a useless plug”.

Ruins players’ confidence by sitting/demoting them - Ruins the goalies’ confidence by not pulling them from games.

Sure, you all agree that AV should be fired but from what I can see, that is the only thing you all agree on.

Sorry for the long read. There was a lot of chaff to sift through...

[BedBeats™2.0]

@Rupert. I actually had a summary i was working on for Vansicle. It was a massive merging of all the non-issues in one post. You beat me to it.

The thread can probably end now.

It wont, but there is all afternoon to invent new myths to argue about.

[Baggins]

1. identified weaknesses to exploit on the other team

2. actually put a plan in place that could realistically be expected to exploit them.

[RUPERTKBD]

@Rupert. I actually had a summary i was working on for Vansicle. It was a massive merging of all the non-issues in one post. You beat me to it.

The thread can probably end now.

It wont, but there is all afternoon to invent new myths to argue about.

[Bananas]

<snip>

[RUPERTKBD]

A good read, and thanks for posting some actual content. I just want you to know that I did read it. I'll respond to it in a little bit, as I'm a little busy at the moment.

[Baggins]

@Rupert

All points I've previously made over the years but never put them all together like that. Excellent post. Sadly because of the length those that need to read it the most likely won't. Simple minded syndrome will kick in when faced with adversity of reading more than a few sentences.

[Baggins]

A good read, and thanks for posting some actual content. I just want you to know that I did read it. I'll respond to it in a little bit, as I'm a little busy at the moment.

[wallstreetamigo]

I said be specific did I not? That's about as specific as "AV was out coached". You'll have to do much better than simple vagaries to be convincing.

[wallstreetamigo]

That's fine. I don't expect anything I wrote to change your mind, or that of any other of AV's detractors. I just wanted you all to know that your points can and have been addressed. Whether you agree, or disagree with my points really comes down to matters of opinion and I realize that none of those is ever likely to change.

[Samuel Påhlsson]

[Bananas]

AV never talks to his players:

There was a specific interview where I believe it was Henrik Sedin who said that during the intermissions, the coach isn't even there. This is where this "myth" came from. The reason this is an issue is because in between periods is a very important time for a coach to talk to his players; whether to get them into a game in which they had a rough start; or to keep them in a game where they need to keep up the pressure.

Rather, the intermission is left to the players to talk among themselves. The coach isn't doing his job. He's leaving the players to do it all for him.

He gives the players way to much autonomy. He doesn't execute his authority over these players in the way that he should sometimes -- unless it is one of a few specific players. Too many players on this team have no leash because they are in some kind of secret circle with AV. Every player on this team needs to be held accountable sometimes, but instead, he picks favorites.

The fact that Ballard is the only player coach talks to and holds accountable doesn't exactly reinforce your argument.

Schroeder was playing great. He never should have been demoted:

The scoresheet was not very indicative of Schroeder's play. He was one of the few players on this team that put out a lot of effort and a decent forecheck. His tenacity created a lot of plays when he was on that line. He's also made a lot of very good defensive plays.

The reason people don't like how AV sent him down to the 4th line and then the wolves is because he is a rookie. He's allowed to make a few mistakes, but AV never seems to realize this. If AV honestly thinks that Ebbett is a better fit on the patchwork second line, that alone should be a serious red flag.

AV “hates” Keith Ballard:

At the start, Ballard was never given a fair shake. Perhaps AV learned his lesson with Garrison and just let him play it out? Or perhaps Garrison didn't get on AV's bad side like Ballard did. This season was different. Ballard was actually playing good defensive hockey. Was he putting up points? No. Why? Because the coach didn't want him for that. All AV wanted out of Ballard at this point was some good defensive hockey. And he got it. Two bad plays and he's back in the doghouse ever since? How can you not see that this is completely ridiculous behavior from a coach.

Has Ballard been putting up points? No. But he has played solid defensively. Isn't that what AV wants right now, with his current conservative style of play because of injuries? Why is AV benching his healthy players when we are stricken with the injury bug? Is this not complete ass-backwards thinking?

AV relies on his goaltenders to win games:

If this were entirely true, why are the Sedins never held accountable when they go invisible? Because they've garnered too much respect? You would think that during a time in which the team was battling the injury bug, that the Sedins would be told to pick up some of the slack. But no, that is entirely left on the shoulder of the goalies.

Anyone and their dog knows you can't rely on a goaltender to win you a play-off series. AV needs to hold the correct players accountable instead of Ballard and rookies all the time. Last year, it was Hodgson. It's no different.

AV doesn’t get the most out of his players:

He gets the most out of some players, sure. But then there are players who are given way too many chances that they don't deserve. Players who are getting way more special attention than they deserve, while others undeservedly suffer because of it.

AV throws his players under the bus:

The problem people here have is when he throws the same players under the bus all the time while others get off scott free. It's blatant favoritism, and that is what gets people rattled.

There are way too many players on this roster that he refuses to hold accountable for a single thing they do.

AV is not a playoff coach:

He's not. We keep losing to the cup winners because somebody has to. This is hardly a legitimate argument. Why couldn't AV coach his team past a single one of these teams? Their line-ups weren't better than ours every time.

AV never makes adjustments. He just does the same things over and over:

When people refer to this, they are specifically referring to the fact that he only juggles lines. He doesn't adapt his actual system. Yes, he finally did that this time after a big (for a shortened season) slump. You know what that slump was? 1-6. That's a lost play-off series. He should be able to adjust quicker than that, and this is why people get pissed off when he can't adjust mid-series when the need arises. Opposing coaches, on the other hand, do.

All AV does is juggle lines that, quite often, shouldn't be.

AV only knows how to coach defense:

He is very lucky to have had the offesive powerhouse that were the Canucks those two years. The Sedins are two very special players. Having said that, yes he did manage to bring some good offense out of that team. Of course, it was all system-based. The problem with his ability to adjust is not whether or not he can do it, but how quickly. He never seems to recognize when a team has solved his system. He thinks it is perfect and impenetrable. He needs to realize that sometimes he's got to think fast. That is a big part of what coaching is.

[BedBeats™2.0]

I decided to make it after TheGame suggested that we hadn't addressed their points, "because we couldn't". You and I both know that we two, as well as others like baggins and Barry have been doing so forever.

I therefore surmised that the other side required a "reader's digest" summation and gave then one.

But you're correct. This will change nothing.

[AllEyezOnMe]

How little I know? Stop looking at stats and scoresheets, guys! The play on ice is still a complete joke. Yeah, we have injuries. Why are we winning? Could it have something to do with 4 of those wins being against the bottom teams in the west? What about Schneider the brick wall?

Have none of you seen that the hockey this team is putting on the ice is exactly the same as it was during are losing streak (6 losses in 7 games, broken by one win, whoopie)?

If our goalie weren't standing on his head these last 6 games, they would have all been losses. The Canucks were severely outplayed in every one of these games except for the last Columbus game.

You guys are all just high and mighty because we've won 6 games. None of you are paying any attention to the games. None of you are seeing just how poorly this team is being coached. We are so lucky we have Schneider playing the way he is.

If you think AV's doing a good job because of the broken line-up, think again. Thank Schneider, not AV.

Ebbett has been terrible.

Sestito has been expectedly useless.

Gordon has been decent, but he was also the Wolves' best player. We should hope he isn't a complete liability.

Schroeder has been the best "call-up", and he keeps getting benched.

The Sedins only have looked good when playing with Burrows, yet he constantly splits them up.

Yea, our line-up is broken, but look at who is out:

Kassian - was on the downtime of his inconsistency.

Booth - uselss

Kesler - the 7 games he played were nothing short of disappointing anyways.

Wiese - 'nuff said

Malhotra - management's treatment of him has had worse effects to the team than the fact that he isn't playing has...

Don't act like I'm the stupid one because I want a bad coach out of here. You can sunbathe in our team's undeserved win streak while you all sit in your circles, making daisy chains, and singing your praises to a coach when the rightful recipient of said praises is Cory Schneider.

You act like I have nothing to add to the discussion. That's not entirely true. Maybe if you read some of my posts rather than the topic title, you'll find my content.

You guys, on the other hand, have nothing to say besides:

"you're dumb"

"typical Joe Schmo"

"AV bashers"

"stupid"

"#winning"

Watch some damned hockey.

[Bananas]

That's fine. I don't expect anything I wrote to change your mind, or that of any other of AV's detractors. I just wanted you all to know that your points can and have been addressed. Whether you agree, or disagree with my points really comes down to matters of opinion and I realize that none of those is ever likely to change.

[Bananas]

Weise was playing great for a 4th liner before he got injured. And Kessler broke his foot the FIRST game he got back so you can't even put him on your list

[Ride the red Pony]

What i drafted for Vansicle, because he was earnest and asked some great questions, included what i felt were some mistakes or shortcomings instead of being short and somewhat transparent.

It hammered home that the detractors keep on bringing up the same things. Even when there is solid evidence, statistical (and no, not relying on the fact he has been the best coach in this teams history) truths. But my grievances are different and few.

So by proxy of your post ill expand, to be fair to the detractors.

Vansicle commented that i usually remark that "coaching is not the problem" as an absolute. I still feel that way because the teams major and tangible problems in the past are not "coachcentric". He then asked if i felt if AV has made mistakes that have costed the team games/series. Or if it falls on the players. He then stated that he is bothered by the lack of playoff success or what is percieved as that.

To the point:

I do think AV has made some mistakes. Certainly not as many as CDC'ers like to heap on him. It may appear that i feel that he can do no wrong, but thats not really the case. It seems that way by the nature of who i may be replying to. (usually the knee-jerking, TEAM 10Suicide, negative types that never really have decent, tangible Hockey related reasons for wanting the coach fired.).

I never have felt that AV has been the de facto reason for losing a series. I do believe he made one head scratching error during Game 6 of the final. He should have started Cory Schneider. For a coach that has good gut instincts about his roster, i think he absolutely failed in not letting Cory rise to the occassion in his home state. While that may make no sense, it may stand to reason that ultimately health and out of this world goaltending from that bastard Tim Thomas, led the way.

Previous to that, there had been some very unlucky health problems that hampered the team to advance, there have been goaltending issues, and even before that AV worked with rosters with serious holes. He did the best he could with the players supplied, but failed. And it is absolutely fair to point that out as a negative. But i rarely see the transparency in the criticisms. Even so, IMO that does not warrant a coaching change. Now if the Canucks had been perennial chokers and never made the playoffs in AV`s time here, you darn rights id be hollering for a coaching change. But that has not been the case.

This season, my only contention has been with MG, Gilman, and Arnie not supplying AV with no more pivot options outside of J-Schro, and Ebbet. But thats moot, as they have been a great help to the team.

The negative feelings about coaching are strictly a CDC, local newspaper, TEAM 1040 phenomena. The only time when good, well respected Hockey analysts have ever commented on AV`s job on the line was when MG came aboard and was appraising the organization in the off season. After that he has never, ever been mentioned by the same respected analysts as someone who is the one to blame for any of the team`s woes.

Even that fact does not shape my opinion of AV. I usually take part in these threads because its no big thing to debate it, because the team's results just are not good enough for the "opposition" to comment on.

Even on HF you just do not see users in winning team's forums (except of course only the Canucks forum) lambast a winning coach/team as much as on CDC.

I fully understand a knee jerk, freaked out coaching criticism when the team loses. Its natural. But while winning, the criticism isnt warranted. Even so, if folks pay attention, and maybe do some digging, the team has a history of righting itself when things go sideways. Its what good coaches do to help the team, by any means necessary.

While this is a Canucks forum, how come no mention of Trotz, who, because of the lack of solid talent, has to guide his team to play defensive, dull Hockey. Even Babs went the same route. Maclean too. Conversely the folks that want the coach gone, want him replaced by guys that cannot do what AV has done with more complete rosters. Because ill tell you right now, Boucher is not the damn answer. Nor is Ruff. Great examples of how good coaches can lose their way with good team and not get the best out of them. To be fair to those 2, their respective GMs should shoulder more blame for not making any moves to support the coach.

These types of threads tend to take a life of their own.

[Ride the red Pony]

AV never talks to his players:

There was a specific interview where I believe it was Henrik Sedin who said that during the intermissions, the coach isn't even there. This is where this "myth" came from. The reason this is an issue is because in between periods is a very important time for a coach to talk to his players; whether to get them into a game in which they had a rough start; or to keep them in a game where they need to keep up the pressure.

Rather, the intermission is left to the players to talk among themselves. The coach isn't doing his job. He's leaving the players to do it all for him.

He gives the players way to much autonomy. He doesn't execute his authority over these players in the way that he should sometimes -- unless it is one of a few specific players. Too many players on this team have no leash because they are in some kind of secret circle with AV. Every player on this team needs to be held accountable sometimes, but instead, he picks favorites.

The fact that Ballard is the only player coach talks to and holds accountable doesn't exactly reinforce your argument.

Schroeder was playing great. He never should have been demoted:

The scoresheet was not very indicative of Schroeder's play. He was one of the few players on this team that put out a lot of effort and a decent forecheck. His tenacity created a lot of plays when he was on that line. He's also made a lot of very good defensive plays.

The reason people don't like how AV sent him down to the 4th line and then the wolves is because he is a rookie. He's allowed to make a few mistakes, but AV never seems to realize this. If AV honestly thinks that Ebbett is a better fit on the patchwork second line, that alone should be a serious red flag.

AV “hates” Keith Ballard:

At the start, Ballard was never given a fair shake. Perhaps AV learned his lesson with Garrison and just let him play it out? Or perhaps Garrison didn't get on AV's bad side like Ballard did. This season was different. Ballard was actually playing good defensive hockey. Was he putting up points? No. Why? Because the coach didn't want him for that. All AV wanted out of Ballard at this point was some good defensive hockey. And he got it. Two bad plays and he's back in the doghouse ever since? How can you not see that this is completely ridiculous behavior from a coach.

Has Ballard been putting up points? No. But he has played solid defensively. Isn't that what AV wants right now, with his current conservative style of play because of injuries? Why is AV benching his healthy players when we are stricken with the injury bug? Is this not complete ass-backwards thinking?

AV relies on his goaltenders to win games:

If this were entirely true, why are the Sedins never held accountable when they go invisible? Because they've garnered too much respect? You would think that during a time in which the team was battling the injury bug, that the Sedins would be told to pick up some of the slack. But no, that is entirely left on the shoulder of the goalies.

Anyone and their dog knows you can't rely on a goaltender to win you a play-off series. AV needs to hold the correct players accountable instead of Ballard and rookies all the time. Last year, it was Hodgson. It's no different.

AV doesn’t get the most out of his players:

He gets the most out of some players, sure. But then there are players who are given way too many chances that they don't deserve. Players who are getting way more special attention than they deserve, while others undeservedly suffer because of it.

AV throws his players under the bus:

The problem people here have is when he throws the same players under the bus all the time while others get off scott free. It's blatant favoritism, and that is what gets people rattled.

There are way too many players on this roster that he refuses to hold accountable for a single thing they do.

AV is not a playoff coach:

He's not. We keep losing to the cup winners because somebody has to. This is hardly a legitimate argument. Why couldn't AV coach his team past a single one of these teams? Their line-ups weren't better than ours every time.

AV never makes adjustments. He just does the same things over and over:

When people refer to this, they are specifically referring to the fact that he only juggles lines. He doesn't adapt his actual system. Yes, he finally did that this time after a big (for a shortened season) slump. You know what that slump was? 1-6. That's a lost play-off series. He should be able to adjust quicker than that, and this is why people get pissed off when he can't adjust mid-series when the need arises. Opposing coaches, on the other hand, do.

All AV does is juggle lines that, quite often, shouldn't be.

AV only knows how to coach defense:

He is very lucky to have had the offesive powerhouse that were the Canucks those two years. The Sedins are two very special players. Having said that, yes he did manage to bring some good offense out of that team. Of course, it was all system-based. The problem with his ability to adjust is not whether or not he can do it, but how quickly. He never seems to recognize when a team has solved his system. He thinks it is perfect and impenetrable. He needs to realize that sometimes he's got to think fast. That is a big part of what coaching is.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

I figured I'll post this during a win streak so that nobody can accuse me of being a bandwagoner who "shuts up" until the Canucks are losing. Why? Because I'm right.

Let's set the first, and incredibly obvious thing straight right off the bat:

We've won 6 games in a row because of Schneider, and a few great plays by defensemen here and there (lolHamhuis)

Now we can take a look at how, apart from goaltending, absolutely nothing has changed since our losing streak. Good job AV, you somehow got Schneider playing like a 6x4 wall of bricks.

There's still no scoring (besides empty netters), there's still no powerplay, and there is still stupid line-up choices.

Schroeder still gets benched half way through a game even though that line carried our diminutive offense for several consecutive games. That is the last line that needs a shake-up right now!

Do I really have much else to add? No. It's all been said. All I'm adding this time is that AV is still doing a horrible job, and yet again his ass is being carried by a hot goaltender while AV's team sits on one-goal leads. This will NEVER win a Stanley Cup. Ever.

Fire AV.

[Red Light Racicot]

AV relies on his goaltenders to win games: All coaches rely on their best players to win games for them. Bylsma relies on Sid and Geno; Babcock relies on Datsyuk and Zetterberg; Coach Q relies on Kane, Hossa, Toews, Keith and Sharp and Boudreau relies on Getzlaf and Perry…

The Canucks have 10 million dollars tied up in the goaltending position. It should be something that they rely on.

Bear in mind that earlier in the season, when the Canucks were not getting solid goaltending, they were losing games that they would have won if their goalies had at least been as good as the opposition.