RUPERTKBD Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 There is certainly some risk in going that route. And more so if Edler is not traded for immediate help that can at least help replace the offense the team loses with him going. I am not sure Gillis will be willing to take another stand with Ballard though when the safer move is to keep the existing top 4 and hope th new coach can get more out of them. It will be interesting though for sure. With this level of talent on our D there is absolutely no excuse for them to look as bad as they do defensively at times though. There would certainly be a drop in production, (at least from the defense) however, I'm not one of those fans who needs to see a ton of goals scored to be entertained. It's all about winning and if the Canucks have to grind out more games, I'm okay with that. My reason for moving Edler is twofold, though. As I said, I think the team needs better prospects coming up the pipe (although I'm not with the camp who consideres Schroeder a bust, or too small to play a significant role) I think the team needs to shed more Cap than moving Luongo is going to accomplish. Yes, we could save Cap space by moving Ballard, but he'll garner us very little in return. I'd prefer to have a little less offense from the defense, in exchange for a steadier D-Corps, and some Cap space that will allow for a possible move to shore up what for the past couple of seasons has been a flagging offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Who will be our Brooksie?! I nominate Botch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 and your point is??? I can't really speak for Django, but I believe that Bill Laforge is the point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Canuck Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 The worst hiring of a coach in the Canucks history, imo!! ....not a happy camper here! Bill LaForge best to know a little history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tocnhockey Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I can't really speak for Django, but I believe that Bill Laforge is the point... Yes, you're absolutely right, I stand corrected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3aL Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 now whats most important is who will be our assistant coaches, they need to filter and complement torts and will be key to our teams success Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Who will be our Brooksie?! There will be two of them... Botchford and Gallagher. OMG, I can't wait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tocnhockey Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Bill LaForge best to know a little history Was it really necessary to repeat what Rupertkbd just posted? "torts" will be no. 2, imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Was it really necessary to repeat what Rupertkbd just posted? "torts" will be no. 2, imo TBH, I'm not high on Torts either. However, as with most things about this game, I tend to take a "wait and see" attitude. When the Habs hired Michel Therrien, I thought it was a typical case of Montreal forcing a French Canadian into the mix, rather than finding the best coach. There was nothing on MT's recent resume that suggested it would be a good move... ...but the Habs responded to Therrien's message. Count me as one of the surprised. I'm hoping that Torts will surprise me as well. EDIT: BTW, my friends around here just call me Rupert... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Oh my. Fasten your seatbelts. The idea that the Canucks core players will be afraid of Tortorella is moronic though. Some of the dumbest drivel on these boards. Any decent coach is capable of adapting gameplans - and I sure as hell hope that is the case here, because if the Canucks start playing Rangers (of recent) hockey, I'm going to be shaking my head as long as the experiment lasts. But of course, a big Suck it!... you morons in the Vancouver media. Yeehaaaaaa! Obviously the upside here for the fans. Province scribes gonna be an even bigger sideshow! You are obsolete. Not sure that's much consolation for having to settle for a guy who certainly wasn't at the top of my list, but at least the Canucks waited until the Tippett decision was known, and who knows... it's appears it's time to 'give Tortorella a chance'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Botchford is likely welcoming Torts with open arms, because he'll poke the bear with dumb questions, try to acheive TSN media star status so TO lets him back in. Tony G? Not so much. "And imagine the media wars here if this guy were to come in. Given how popular hockey is in this town, and how prominently it’s played compared to its relatively minor status in the Big Apple, people would be going out of their way to ask him questions that would tick him off, just to get the video on the show. Judging by how little it takes to get Tortorella to act like an immature goof who doesn’t seem to realize that dealing with the media is part of his job, some guys could set him off without even trying." I don't think the G Man will last too much longer. He's not looking forward to having to deal with a strong personality. He doesn't have the energy anymore to play this media game. imho Torts will outlast him here. But we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 There would certainly be a drop in production, (at least from the defense) however, I'm not one of those fans who needs to see a ton of goals scored to be entertained. It's all about winning and if the Canucks have to grind out more games, I'm okay with that. My reason for moving Edler is twofold, though. As I said, I think the team needs better prospects coming up the pipe (although I'm not with the camp who consideres Schroeder a bust, or too small to play a significant role) I think the team needs to shed more Cap than moving Luongo is going to accomplish. Yes, we could save Cap space by moving Ballard, but he'll garner us very little in return. I'd prefer to have a little less offense from the defense, in exchange for a steadier D-Corps, and some Cap space that will allow for a possible move to shore up what for the past couple of seasons has been a flagging offense. I would agree. Many do not want "boring" defensive style hockey but if this team wants to win the ultimate prize it might be a necessity to some degree. It certainly has to be better at clamping down on leads than it has been the last year or two. I think in terms of asset management Ballard + the return for Edler + the cap space savings + the no NTC easily trumps keeping Edler + the minimal return for Ballard. I actually feel a similar way about Luongo and Schneider though as well. Both goalies are good enough to win us a cup when the team plays the way they should. One could bring in a good return and the other won't. There would certainly be a monetary element to that decision though but a few long playoff runs and a cup win would go a long way generating more revenue for the team too. I think in both cases it comes down to solid asset management in the face of cap constraints that will likely only last a year or two at most before the cap shoots back up. If Luongo wins a cup here and the cap goes up does anyone really believe other teams would not want to take him on at that point if the Canucks had to get rid of him? This is all predicated on Luongo actually wanting to stay as the #1 guy in Van which is anything but a sure things at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tocnhockey Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 TBH, I'm not high on Torts either. However, as with most things about this game, I tend to take a "wait and see" attitude. When the Habs hired Michel Therrien, I thought it was a typical case of Montreal forcing a French Canadian into the mix, rather than finding the best coach. There was nothing on MT's recent resume that suggested it would be a good move... ...but the Habs responded to Therrien's message. Count me as one of the surprised. I'm hoping that Torts will surprise me as well. EDIT: BTW, my friends around here just call me Rupert... You know what, I'm going to take your wait and see approach as well...thanks. and of course I always have the option to use the mute button Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 If this was truly a Gillis decision, I think it could work. If not, I don't like the implications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Just a note of interest: When Tampa won the Cup under Tortorella, they were the second highest scoring team in the EC and 4th overall in the NHL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grandmaster Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I am real excited and know this will put us back into being contenders. Our team is so stale and these guys need a kick in the arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hockeyville88 Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 He's here! Wonder if he and AV just switched condos lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I think Tortorella as a coach can adapt to the type of roster he has. He expects all players to work hard which will not hurt this team. This will only work if Gillis and Tortorella are on the same page about the type of players they bring in and the type of style they want to play though. Too many times we saw Gillis go out and get players who AV simply did not trust much or who did not have the style of game that AV liked. I hope Gillis has learned that his job is also to know the coach and understand his preferences so he can get the coach the type of players he can be successful with. That is just as important as the coach's responsibility to get the most out of the players he has to work with. When both are on the same page things go much smoother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Some people compare Bill Laforge to Tortorella which is totally incorrect. Laforge had no pro coaching experience while Tortorella has a proven track record. A more suitable comparison is Mike Keenan vs Tortorella. Saying Torts is the 2nd worst coach behind Laforge is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunningWild Posted June 21, 2013 Share Posted June 21, 2013 1) Tampa certainly didn't buy that cup win 2) The league wasn't competitive. Really? 3) There's no doubt the Rangers improved when Torts took over 4) Lighting a fire under the guys butts? No I think a lot of fans here want to see the team work harder and be more accountable. Sick to death of them saying We will be better next year, after every playoff defeat and I will mention the country club atmosphere. 5) He doesn't call his players out ALL the time, he can be quite protective and I think he deflects the attention on himself to support that. 6) you are assuming Schneider will say that. Schneider appears to have a winning mentality and doesn't accept second best ( see his interview when he said the team ain't good enough ) 7) We didn't attract the best free agents anyway but a lot of the players go where the money is not who the coach is 8) loses his cool EVERY post? No 9) Sideshow? Well maybe if the last coach was a little bit stricter the players wouldn't of brought a lot of it on themselves. The diving etc. 10) I agree with you on the shot blocking ( although I believe this is part of the game) not all of it but I would like to think he won't have the Sedins doing that and I have heard a few posters here mention that MG has said about The style of the play would not be the dump and chase game in relation to if Torts gets hired. The only other coach out there is Stevens. I don't know if you are a fan of his but Torts fans can look at his record as a head coach and say he won't fit here. I like The way Torts speaks to his team. On the HBO winter classic thing one particular thing stood out for me. There was a video of the previous game and he was talking through it with the team and just said Michael (Del Zotto ) you were our best defenseman last night . Imagine how good Del Zotto would of felt after that and imagine how the other D's would think I want that to be me. That's motivational. 1) I didn't say they did. 2) The last few years, the league is the most competitive as it's ever been. Looks at the year end point totals and compare to when Torts won Cup. 3) Didn't say they didn't. Said "what good did his 2004 Cup win do for the NYR". I've still got no answer/ 4) So he has a magic ingredient that AV didn't? He's going to make the team work harder than Av and staff did? 5) He calls out players publicy more than any current coach in the NHL. Including young players, ask Kreider 6) You're right I'm assuming. Of course, most people were 'assuming' Lunqvist would never leave NYR cause he's been there his entire career. Yet he stood in front of the media and 'wasn't sure' about his future there. 7) Hamhuis, Garrison, Lain, the new goalie kid. Those aren't highly attractive free agents at the time? Yes, they were. 8) True, 'every' post game isn't likely. More likely is 'every' loss or '90% of losses". Either way, none is acceptable. 9) Oh, so now you're linking Av's lack of strictness to the players diving? I have no words 10) Agreed. We don't know what type of system he'll implement in Van. I've said, historically he hasn't produced great puck possesion teams. And great puck possesion teams don't even make the dance. Both are accurate. You're using edited, 30 second clips from a video to justify hiring Torts? You don't know what happened before, you don't know what happened afterwards - but somehow Torts looks good enough to be the Van coach cause of it? How do you knpw AV didn't say similar things to his players? K, what's his record vs. Stevens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.