[Official] Canucks coach talk. Keep all talk here.

[Hockey Fever]

Tippett just feels like Vigneault 2.0 , I think they need a more offensive minded coach, not saying Tippett can't change but defence just comes natural to him.

[RUPERTKBD]

You make it sound like you're the senior or Vice President of hockey operations or something. But hey, I'll take your word for it, genius.

You don't have to be a Sr. VP or a genius to know that you have a poor understanding of what an NHL coach's role is.

[Barry_Wilkins]

I think this whole idea that any NHL coach can't coach offense is ridiculous. Hockey players and coaches grow up with the goal of putting the puck in the net. It's how they're built.

It's the defensive side that's the difficult thing. It's why you see talented rookies spending time in the minors. It's not because they need to learn how to play in the offensive zone, it's because they need to learn how to play in their own end.

Coaches have similar challenges. To implement an all-around defensive structure and have all 20 guys buy in is the tough thing. Allowing your offensively gifted players to do what comes naturally is not.

Give any NHL caliber coach a talented offensive team and he'll be able to adapt to a more offensive style.

Exactly. Coaches like Tippett and Vigneault aren't unyielding, philosophically "anti-offense", to use the simplistic logic of so many. If you do your job defensively, you can create however you see fit in the O zone.

Plus, the defensive schemes that good coaches use are more sophisticated than "oh, he plays the trap." Tippett's current team smothers because that's what he has to work with. But they also transition well, and are more offensive when tied or, of course, down a goal or two.

I'd also agree with what some other posters have said. Not knowing what the team will look like in October, currently we don't have the personnel to play a Chicago or Pittsburgh game. Our offense declined last year, but that was more understandable than our often troubling defensive play.

[Vansicle]

I think this whole idea that any NHL coach can't coach offense is ridiculous. Hockey players and coaches grow up with the goal of putting the puck in the net. It's how they're built.

It's the defensive side that's the difficult thing. It's why you see talented rookies spending time in the minors. It's not because they need to learn how to play in the offensive zone, it's because they need to learn how to play in their own end.

Coaches have similar challenges. To implement an all-around defensive structure and have all 20 guys buy in is the tough thing. Allowing your offensively gifted players to do what comes naturally is not.

Give any NHL caliber coach a talented offensive team and he'll be able to adapt to a more offensive style.

Agreed. Although there are some coaches who can do more with less, and I would add that there are systems that are more offensively aggressive. Not being a coach of any league, I'm not familiar with a lot of them, but there are some systems, run and gun, for example that employ a higher risk and higher reward, and when paired with a solid defensive scheme, tend to produce more goals. The trade-off, predictably, is always giving up goals.

Tippet would be fine with me, as his knowledge of how to build a strong powerplay would almost certainly translate into improvement in offensive production; this team's biggest problem.

[aqua59]

Mike Kitchen

Current role: Chicago Blackhawks assistant coach (3rd season)

Here's why he will be named our next head coach, imo:

1) He is Chicago's #2 behind Joel Quenneville, and as we all know, the Blackhawks just recorded one of the most successful seasons in NHL history. It was ridiculously dominant. I don't care how talented they are, to win that many games in a row, and overall, you need extraordinary coaching. In fact, it actually made some of those "Be a GM" seasons you dominate on XBOX seem a little more realistic.

2) All the noise says Ruff and Tippett, or even Eakins, but when has Gillis ever gone with the crowd and made the obvious decision? He's too arrogant to pick one of the front-runner candidates; he wants to pick someone out of the lesser-known crowd, not who the media talks most about.

3) The Blackhawks play exactly the style of game that Mike Gillis and ownership wants. Despite his flip-flopping between "big, physical, dump-and-chase hockey", to "up-tempo, puck possession, offensive hockey"...(the guy can't make up his mind), he has said time-and-again that at his very core, he will always believe in offensive hockey. Kitchen, despite the fact that he was a defenseman in his playing days (not sure how much that matters anyway), has been part of the group that has set the offensive standard, and he has been together with Quenneville for most of their coaching careers. It would be a big blow to our biggest rivals to steal Kitchen away.

4) Kitchen and Gillis played together for the Colorado Rockies, and in case you're wondering why Ron Delorme still has a job as our Chief Scout despite his below-average results, he was on that team as well. Gillis has shown that he lets personal relationships and emotions interfere with his ability to make hard business decisions, being loyal to a fault, imo. Don't be surprised to see his ex-teammate behind the bench.

With the tremendous success of the Blackhawks in recent years, Kitchen is in line for another head coaching gig in the near future, and I'm putting my money on Gillis to be at least setting up an interview, and wouldn't be surprised in the least if Kitchen was named our next coach.

That's hard to argue with. I think Kitchen has been patient and is due for a head coaching job. Does any one know how long he's been an assistant in Chicago?

I'd not heard his name in the mix until now and frankly the names being tossed around ,aside from Robinson's name, didn't have a lot of appeal.

[canucklesmith]

Curt Fraser

[Plum]

Just win. Don't care who is coaching or how they play.

[RUPERTKBD]

@ RyanKeslord17:

Looking back over those two posts, I was unnecessarily harsh. I apologize.

I still think your take is not quite accurate, but there was no reason to be so flippant in the way I worded my disagreement with you.

[Salmonberries]

Tippett coaches kinda boring doesn't he? I'd greatly prefer Guy Boucher.

Meanwhile Tom Gaglardi just hired Jim Nill.

Doggone that court case!!

[VanGnome]

I dont care about any of these tools and there opinion columns , Give me info and i can form my own opinion .

These guys are nothing more then a journalist that went to school to get that degree to write and does mean there opinion is any better then any other person and could easily be very jaded when it comes from a journalist that has been in the same market for so long as there are good chances there are underlying history of ups and downs with love and hate in the relationship between players or management or even ownership with the writer that will spew out in there columns

I suppose you won't be venturing forth on too many journalistic endeavors in your future.

[Barry_Wilkins]

The only requirement I have in a coach is one who doesn't line juggle 500 times per game. Let guys have some time to develop chemistry. Let the young guys makes mistakes but keep them with the same linemates for an extended period of time and then decide if a change is needed. Not after one failed shift. This has always been my biggest AV gripe.

It's not a matter of coaches not allowing players to develop through mistakes. It's a player willfully or stupidly not doing simple things defensively, fundamental things that their coaches in lower levels of hockey also haven't been getting them to do. Things like not sliding cross-ice passes inside your own blue line, lazily waiting for the puck to get to you on the D zone half-boards rather than going down lower to get to it, not covering someone else's check when your teammate goes deep, etc etc etc.

It's one thing to screw up, it's quite another thing to make fundamental no-nos over and over again. Just throwing a young player out there time after time is just going to cement that type of play, the opposite of development. That's why Kassian got frequently demoted, for example. It's a long process, it's not like development stops because you get 10 minutes of ice instead of 17 on the top line.

Also, current darling Quenneville has always juggled more frequently than Vigneault. Babcock is no slouch at mixing his combos, either.

[Hyzer]

Unreal. People here are so uninformed.

Tippet is the epitome of an amazing coach. He can coach any style and get results. Not enough talent? Play a trap style like in Phoenix. Have more run-and-gun offensive guys? Play a more offensive style like he did in Dallas. He also was the PP coach for the LA Kings and turned it around.

Tippet for head coach, Boucher/Eakins for assistants would be my dream.

[RyanKeslord17]

@ RyanKeslord17:

Looking back over those two posts, I was unnecessarily harsh. I apologize.

I still think your take is not quite accurate, but there was no reason to be so flippant in the way I worded my disagreement with you.

Haha okay, no harm done

[CanucksFanMike]

Yes, please. I have been saying all along that he is our best option and we should definitely go after him

[skyfall]

I think this whole idea that any NHL coach can't coach offense is ridiculous. Hockey players and coaches grow up with the goal of putting the puck in the net. It's how they're built.

It's the defensive side that's the difficult thing. It's why you see talented rookies spending time in the minors. It's not because they need to learn how to play in the offensive zone, it's because they need to learn how to play in their own end.

Coaches have similar challenges. To implement an all-around defensive structure and have all 20 guys buy in is the tough thing. Allowing your offensively gifted players to do what comes naturally is not.

Give any NHL caliber coach a talented offensive team and he'll be able to adapt to a more offensive style.

Every coach can coach offense... but how well they do it is the question. The reason there seem to be bad coaches in the league and endless debate is that some seem to hinder more than help; they demotivate and suffocate players who might actually do better without a coach. It seems to be an exercise in risk tolerance and some seem to be more risk adverse than others. If the Canucks have great goaltending, would you as a coach let players take more offensive chances even if that means more defensive breakdowns or do you want to see as minimal defensive breakdowns as possible even if that means fewer scoring chances? If your gifted offensive young players are lacking on defense, how do you handle it? I guess that's why there's great debate right now.

[Alex Burrows 14]

There's a reason why you wouldn't last as (or even get to be) a GM in the NHL.

Wow ok bud, you don't have to be a dick about it. I'm just suggesting it. Why wouldn't it work in your opinion?

[Undrafted]

Guy Guy Guy! Haha, I would love to see Carbo behind the bench, the guy coaches an exciting offensive style, he led an average Habs team to 1st in the east, and the year he got fired his replacement did worse than he did! He deserves another shot. Eakins would be an interesting choice too, he seems like a good up and comer.

As for that Burrows interview, if it was the one shown on RDS, then I really question where the team 1040 got that quote. Rough translation when asked about whether they had tuned AV out: "despite the short season his message was definitely still getting through, it was still very well delivered, the problem was in the application by the players, not Alain's fault". They very well could be talking about a different interview but from what I watched it seemed like Burrows had nothing but good things to say about the guy.

I don't know why Carbo hasn't been mentioned as often as a legit candidate. If the Canucks brought him in, I wouldn't be unhappy with that choice at all. Carbo got jobbed by the worst GM in Habs history and considering how long Habs history actually is, that's saying something.

[Alex Burrows 14]

There's a reason why you wouldn't last as (or even get to be) a GM in the NHL.

And actually I am a very good gm in nhl 13, so take that!

[spliced]

Coaches do a lot of things that don't go over well with players. It happens all the time.

However, to believe that anyone who's ever been called out by their coach carries some sort of grudge years after the fact, is naive.

Lots of players do hold grudges and to say that because some don't that all don't is naive. Also being called out for "faking" an injury is different from being called out for poor play.

[Mad_Duck]

I was originally on the Boucher bandwagon, but if there's a chance that Gallagher and/or B!tchford could have an aneurysm if we get Tippet/Ruff, let's sign both of 'em.