Willie D needs to pipe down.

[BLEUetVERT]

If Tryamkin can interpret WD's comments in the proper light, he would understand that the coach sees in him the potential to single-handedly change the game in our favor.  I don't think WD is blaming him for the loss or throwing him under any bus.

 

The rest of this 'lost' season is best spent teaching and motivating our young talent, who are no sure deals to become impact players. Our inevitable losses are best put on the shoulders of our declining vets and outgoing coach, rather than gifting minutes to the young guys, then blaming them for ineffective play. It is demoralizing and potentially makes them complacent with losing.

 

"If you learn from defeat, you haven't really lost" --- Zig Ziglar

 

[wallstreetamigo]

For all of those who want to give Desjardins full credit for developing Horvat, they should watch the video on Bo and improving his skating.

 

He clearly recognized his skating was holding him back and proactively sought out a renowned skating instructor in his offseason to work on it. Not Willie telling him to. ON HIS OWN.

 

It is clear from the instructors comments about Horvat that he is self motivating and has the burning desire to get better. He has developed largely in spite of the ceiling placed on him first by scouts before the draft and then by his own coach for the better part of two years.

 

Sounds like a guy I would want showing other young players what it takes to make it at the NHL level and improve once you are there. He is already our captain imo because he leads by example not by talking or suggesting others need to be better. But by recognizing he needs to be better himself then doing what it takes to actually be better.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/help-skating-instructor-bo-knows-skating/

[Barry_Wilkins]

On 3/19/2017 at 5:17 PM, Salmonberries said:

Our style of play, such as it is, is what kept us in the playoff hunt into February. A strategy of containment is our only option. You can't run for the roses with a pack of plow horses.

Indeed.

 

The best chance to win that any inferior team has in the NHL is to try to make the game a low-event affair, so that the outcome has a higher than normal chance to be settled by single-issue events: a great goaltending display; a lucky bounce; an early goal. 

 

If we opened things up, we'd get smoked most games, and we'd have the unity of our 20 game disaster with Bill LaForge at the helm in the 80s.

 

Losing 2-1 is boring. Losing 6-3 isn't any more entertaining, to me, and it also effs up any chance at cohesion.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 minutes ago, Barry_Wilkins said:

Indeed.

 

The best chance to win that any inferior team has in the NHL is to try to make the game a low-event affair, so that the outcome has a higher than normal chance to be settled by single-issue events: a great goaltending display; a lucky bounce; an early goal. 

 

If we opened things up, we'd get smoked most games, and we'd have the unity of our 20 game disaster with Bill LaForge at the helm in the 80s.

 

Losing 2-1 is boring. Losing 6-3 isn't any more entertaining, to me, and it also effs up any chance at cohesion.

In theory this is true. However, when employing that strategy routinely leads to not only 30-40 shots against but also multiple quality shots from dangerous areas the team really isn't gaining that advantage. 

 

You dont have to trade end to end chances to play a more puck possession style. You just have to hang onto the puck instead of dumping it in or out and giving away possession. The absolute best way to limit other more talented teams is to not give them the puck every time you get it. Or make damn sure you are effectively employing the defensive shell strategy if you are going to do it. Unfortunately we really aren't all that effective at it. We collapse but still give up the middle of the ice far too often.

[Barry_Wilkins]

On 3/19/2017 at 5:34 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

That's my point though. We really don't know how much better put forward group could be by putting young players in roles that fit their skill set. We may be worse like the coach and most of his supporters seem to think. Has anyone considered the possibility we might actually be better? I mean, you guys are all saying Desjardins is a wizard because our team sucks, so if we suck as things are why wouldn't the coach want to try something new to see if we suck less?

For the record, I don't fall into this neat equation. 

 

I want WD gone, while still realizing that our team, as currently constituted, is right about where we should be in the standings. 

 

WD should be using Tryamkin more, including the 2nd unit PP. Megna should be parked or on the 4th line. And Sutter should be scaled back to 15 minutes a game. Trouble is, those forwards getting the increased minutes aren't players who are going to be future Canucks in any meaningful way, anyway, so it's much ado about nothing. Shore? Boucher? LaBate? (Goldobin hasn't been available.)

[Barry_Wilkins]

On 3/19/2017 at 10:53 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

In theory this is true. However, when employing that strategy routinely leads to not only 30-40 shots against but also multiple quality shots from dangerous areas the team really isn't gaining that advantage. 

 

You dont have to trade end to end chances to play a more puck possession style. You just have to hang onto the puck instead of dumping it in or out and giving away possession. The absolute best way to limit other more talented teams is to not give them the puck every time you get it. Or make damn sure you are effectively employing the defensive shell strategy if you are going to do it. Unfortunately we really aren't all that effective at it. We collapse but still give up the middle of the ice far too often.

Well, that's the problem. Our D is too inexperienced and/or inept to make crisp and quick break-out passes. The only way we have decent puck possession are the rare occasions we can trap the opposition into long shifts, or when Horvat or Baertschi circles, or even rarer now, when the Sedins can pull a few declining tricks out of their battered rabbit hat. We're just not fast enough or (on the back end) experienced enough to keep the puck (or, less of a problem, to get it back).

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, Barry_Wilkins said:

For the record, I don't fall into this neat equation. 

 

I want WD gone, while still realizing that our team, as currently constituted, is right about where we should be in the standings. 

 

WD should be using Tryamkin more, including the 2nd unit PP. Megna should be parked or on the 4th line. And Sutter should be scaled back to 15 minutes a game. Trouble is, those forwards getting the increased minutes aren't players who are going to be future Canucks in any meaningful way, anyway, so it's much ado about nothing. Shore? Boucher? LaBate? (Goldobin hasn't been available.)

You may be right. Or you may not. We won't know that unless they get the chance to play those roles though. And the ones who do get those minutes are even more likely to not be part of our future so what's the downside to trying it?

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, Barry_Wilkins said:

Well, that's the problem. Our D is too inexperienced and/or inept to make crisp and quick break-out passes. The only way we have decent puck possession are the rare occasions we can trap the opposition into long shifts, or when Horvat or Baertschi circles, or even rarer now, when the Sedins can pull a few declining tricks out of their battered rabbit hat. We're just not fast enough or (on the back end) experienced enough to keep the puck (or, less of a problem, to get it back).

Those are fair points. The transition game is lacking significantly which obviously impacts consistent possession. The D need to be better for sure. Having said that, the forwards need to be able to take those passes too. A lot of the time the D makes a reasonable choice on the outlet but the forward is not in the right position to accept it. Its either missed or not cleanly handled. Both groups need to be better there. I think Tryamkin has been one of our better transition defensemen while Edler has been one of our worst. Which one gets 25 min and which one gets 15? Deployment is a definite and significant issue both with our lack of a cohesive transition game and with maintaining sustained offensive pressure. 

 

Thats my point though. It's a good idea to get the kids experience now when the games don't matter in the standings. So they can make a difference when the games do.

[Salmonberries]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Who? Boucher? He is 23 years old. That's not an AHL veteran. It's a young player still trying to earn an NHL role. He has a lot of potential upside which makes him more than an AHL journeyman like Megna.

 

Anyone who sees guys like Goldobin and Boucher as comparable to Megna or Skille etc  is really not worth having a conversation with. Prospects are called prospects for a reason. There are actually upside to them unlike AHL fill in players.

Boucher has played on what, four teams this year? And we acquired him on waivers. What exactly would you call him? If Boucher had played as much and in all the same situations here this year as Megna has I have the feeling you'd think of Boucher about what you think of Megna. Not very much. And why do I feel this way? Perhaps because a chronic shortage of legitimate NHL roster players and the resulting issue of being forced to use players in situations that are above their pay grade has been an ongoing theme around here for the past couple of years. It's a crazy carousel of sub mediocrity that we won't be getting off of for a while I'm afraid. No relief in sight.

[wallstreetamigo]

10 minutes ago, Salmonberries said:

Boucher has played on what, four teams this year? And we acquired him on waivers. What exactly would you call him? If Boucher had played as much and in all the same situations here this year as Megna has I have the feeling you'd think of Boucher about what you think of Megna. Not very much. And why do I feel this way? Perhaps because a chronic shortage of legitimate NHL roster players and the resulting issue of being forced to use players in situations that are above their pay grade has been an ongoing theme around here for the past couple of years. It's a crazy carousel of sub mediocrity that we won't be getting off of for a while I'm afraid. No relief in sight.

How many teams he has played for isn't relevant though. The Canucks picked him up and he plays for them now. Considering where the team is at there is literally no risk to seeing what he has.

 

Baertschi and Granlund were both cast offs from Calgary. Sometimes it takes the right situation for a player to move forward in their development.

 

I am not suggesting Boucher is our offensive saviour. I am suggesting that since he is here anyway why not find out if it's possible that he can be a piece of our offense going forward. It's not like we have a ton of options at this point.

 

For the record, I like Megna for what he is. He is fast, pretty decent defensively, and works hard. I just don't think the coach expecting him to punch above his weight class as a top 6/pp option is best for the team nor do I think it does Megna any favors when he can't deliver offensively.

[SilentSam]

6 hours ago, Salmonberries said:

Our style of play, such as it is, is what kept us in the playoff hunt into February. A strategy of containment is our only option. You can't run for the roses with a pack of plow horses.

Oh yes you can.     ... and if you literally want to see it,.  I recommend the 2011 Stanley Cup Championship, the plow horses won.

 

.. but when the lights are on, and there's no one home.... who is going to buy tickets?

Dont worry SB,  Next year will prove to be far more entertaining,  plow horses included  

 

 

[Salmonberries]

23 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

How many teams he has played for isn't relevant though. The Canucks picked him up and he plays for them now. Considering where the team is at there is literally no risk to seeing what he has.

 

Baertschi and Granlund were both cast offs from Calgary. Sometimes it takes the right situation for a player to move forward in their development.

 

I am not suggesting Boucher is our offensive saviour. I am suggesting that since he is here anyway why not find out if it's possible that he can be a piece of our offense going forward. It's not like we have a ton of options at this point.

 

For the record, I like Megna for what he is. He is fast, pretty decent defensively, and works hard. I just don't think the coach expecting him to punch above his weight class as a top 6/pp option is best for the team nor do I think it does Megna any favors when he can't deliver offensively.

I don't really disagree with much of that Wally. I'm sure what we end up seeing next will be, well, different.

[Qwags]

I know it's the cool thing to hate on Willie, who no doubt has made many questionable calls, but there is another way of interpreting his comments. Willie could essentially be calling Tryamkin a game-changer.  

[alfstonker]

9 hours ago, Salmonberries said:

I'm actually beginning to relish the inevitable coaching change now in a schadenfreude kind of way.

 

Bring it on!

Yes but it's the decent fans who can see further than the end of their nose who will likely suffer (along with the careers of the young players - how many prospects in the Oilers, Buffalo or Florida wasted years of their careers because they played in a rebuild far more extended than it needed to be?)

 

Considering where we were, our progress has been outstanding due to the JB/WD combination and we look like we are about to throw it away. There are only the Twins, Edler and Tanev left from the team Torts had. All these changes in 3 seasons AND we were still able to ice a team that had the much vaunted Oilers on the back foot for most of the game.

 

Of course there are other good coaches out there who might match WD or even better him but will we find him out of those available? The answer is the whiners and the media don't really care.

They need constant change just to sell airtime/newspapers and to suit the chronically short attention span of some of our self entitled fans, who are so dumb they don't even realise how long it took to arrive at the 2011 team.

 

It's just a 3 ring circus where the fans who are invested don't really matter because it is much harder to have patience, appreciate the good things that are happening and show some faith than to just spin the wheel and go through the cluster--k all over again.

 

 

[alfstonker]

10 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

It's one game. I tend to form my opinions on the entire body of work rather than cherry pick one game to make sweeping statements about our overall style of play like you are doing here.

You talk like he has an established team instead of a team which has only 4 players from the one the coach inherited. Do you see how silly that makes you look saying guff like "entire body of work"

 

A team composed of a frontline pair who are well past their sell by date, a number of projects who the coach has transformed to a game that makes them effective, a couple of waiver grabs on their last chance, some low and undrafted youngsters who under Willie have steadily improved, 3 or 4 strong vets, a sprinkling of AHL lifers and a close to elite young centre.

 

Does that even come close to a roster that is likely to have an "entire body of work?" Do you read that cr-p in the newspapers?

[alfstonker]

4 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

How many teams he has played for isn't relevant though. The Canucks picked him up and he plays for them now. Considering where the team is at there is literally no risk to seeing what he has.

 

Baertschi and Granlund were both cast offs from Calgary. Sometimes it takes the right situation for a player to move forward in their development.

 

I am not suggesting Boucher is our offensive saviour. I am suggesting that since he is here anyway why not find out if it's possible that he can be a piece of our offense going forward. It's not like we have a ton of options at this point.

 

For the record, I like Megna for what he is. He is fast, pretty decent defensively, and works hard. I just don't think the coach expecting him to punch above his weight class as a top 6/pp option is best for the team nor do I think it does Megna any favors when he can't deliver offensively.

Sometimes it takes the right COACH for a player to move forward in their development.

 

Fixed that for you.

[Quinn12]

This is what the Canucks management should be saying "Please Hockey Gods, I know we messed up HUGE by not drafting Tkachuk last year, but now we'll at least do something half decent by exposing Sbisa for the expansion draft."

 

Please please please please let this be the case, OP is right, he's absolutely dreadful out there every night... How has Willie D neglected to mention him... EVER!

[wallstreetamigo]

3 hours ago, alfstonker said:

You talk like he has an established team instead of a team which has only 4 players from the one the coach inherited. Do you see how silly that makes you look saying guff like "entire body of work"

 

A team composed of a frontline pair who are well past their sell by date, a number of projects who the coach has transformed to a game that makes them effective, a couple of waiver grabs on their last chance, some low and undrafted youngsters who under Willie have steadily improved, 3 or 4 strong vets, a sprinkling of AHL lifers and a close to elite young centre.

 

Does that even come close to a roster that is likely to have an "entire body of work?" Do you read that cr-p in the newspapers?

I talk like he has a lot more young players with offensive potential then he had when he got here. Just because you think every prospect and young player we have is garbage doesn't mean I do. 

 

The main problem is the coach has, like you, decided that these young players can't do the job without ever putting them in the spot to see. So he defaults to a garbage boring style of hockey that fits with what his preferred vets and AHL plugs can do. 

 

We have enough players now that could possibly be more effective in a more uptempo offensive style. But we won't see what that could look like under this coach. It doesn't fit with the Sedins lack of speed or the AHL guys lack of offensive skill.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 hours ago, alfstonker said:

Sometimes it takes the right COACH for a player to move forward in their development.

 

Fixed that for you.

Once again, all the credit for what goes right Development wise goes to Willie in your mind. But no responsibility for what doesn't go right is on him. You can't have that both ways unless you are a clueless Willie homer. He has actually failed with more project players and prospects than he has succeeded with. Many more actually. He has 3 who are progressing. He has McCann, Virtanen, Clendening, Vey, etc that have essentially been ruined developmentally not to mention the slew of prospects who we have no idea if they can live up to their potential and become anything useful because he won't give them any opportunity to show it either way.

 

One size fits all in a development approach is bound to produce some hits but will by its very nature also produce significant misses. 

 

You cant credit Willie for the successes without also putting responsibility for the failures on him too. It isn't all Willie when a player finds success and all the player when they don't, something you and other coach supporters like to expound often on here.

[nuck-lifer]

9 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

For all of those who want to give Desjardins full credit for developing Horvat, they should watch the video on Bo and improving his skating.

 

He clearly recognized his skating was holding him back and proactively sought out a renowned skating instructor in his offseason to work on it. Not Willie telling him to. ON HIS OWN.

 

It is clear from the instructors comments about Horvat that he is self motivating and has the burning desire to get better. He has developed largely in spite of the ceiling placed on him first by scouts before the draft and then by his own coach for the better part of two years.

 

Sounds like a guy I would want showing other young players what it takes to make it at the NHL level and improve once you are there. He is already our captain imo because he leads by example not by talking or suggesting others need to be better. But by recognizing he needs to be better himself then doing what it takes to actually be better.

 

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/help-skating-instructor-bo-knows-skating/

Agreed , it doesn't matter who coached Bo , he is extremely self motivated and we're lucky to have this great example for everyone else.. I will give credit to Willie on Tram and Baer's developement. He has shown patience and tough love depending on what they need at the time, and it has paid off.

Granny, Hutton, and Gaunce probably would have developed as much or more under a different coach. Many can point to Granny improving so much, but he is a smart, confident player that had the drive to prove himself after Calgary so you really can't really credit that to Willie IMO.