Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Report] Canucks name Travis Green new head coach


-Vintage Canuck-

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, mll said:

Green was asked about Virtanen yesterday on TSN1040.  He sees a guy that should play in the NHL but didn't know if he was offensive enough to be a top-6.  He says he doesn't worry about that and went on to explain that there are other ways for Virtanen to impact the game.  He says in ways he's lucky, he does not need to be a 25 goal scorer to be effective, he can be a 10 goal scorer and be one of the most effective guys on the team.  He gave the example of how Kassian impacted the series early on by his aggressive play. 

yeah, and it was comical to listen to Sekeres misinterpret/twist those comments suggesting Green just 'lowered the bar from Jannik Hansen to a 10 goal scorer' - completely missed the point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

seriously. we just hired Green and your talking about making another change at the 20 game mark?? changing coaches like that isn't a sign of stability for a franchise. we need to give Green a chance to prove his worth and value as head coach. I think I'm in the minority believing that he will adapt and become one of the better coaches in the league. he seems like a guy who has the ability to make changes and seems to be a players coach. we stick with Green for a while, me thinks. 

Agree. Don't know if he will make it or not, but surely he needs to be given time. If he is sacked half way through the season, Linden and Benning should follow him out the door, as they've had 4 years to figure out if he is up for it or not. I want us to be back in playoffs contention again, but not at the expense of a new coach after half a season.

 

Also, what makes anybody so sure we will suddenly be a good team. As far as I can see, we have just become worse with 88 doing a runner...

Green will do well not to end up in the same position next season.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

It entirely depends on what management want when they say "rebuild". If they're happy to literally be in the bottom-3 of the NHL for the entire season, then go for it. For me personally, I don't think that's how you build a winning team for the future. The proper way to rebuild is to stay competitive while grooming young players and putting them into a winning environment. Even if that is 9th-10th in the Conference.

 

If we're sub-0.500 all of next season, how do you expect our future core of Horvat, Stecher, Boeser, Baertschi etc. to learn how to win in the playoffs?

 

Look at the successful rebuilds. The Leafs get a veteran coach who knows how to win in the NHL and now their young core knows what it takes to win down the stretch and in the playoffs. Massive year for them. The same can be said for a young Calgary team. These teams have quality veterans brought in to help the team win. They don't necessarily have to make the playoffs, the kids just have to learn what it takes in the league to win. Same can be said for Edmonton, although they did sort of scam the drafting system, but still they throw a veteran coach in there and some veteran NHLers to complement the young guys and now they're winning.

 

The Canucks need to take a page out of their books. Have great young guys - yes. Have decent veterans - sort of. Have a coach who knows how to win in the NHL - certainly not. Lets hope Green brings some good to the kids but they tried this with WD and this almost seems like we're not learning from our mistakes. We don't have to make the playoffs to contend and we don't have to be bottom-3 in the league to "rebuild". We just need to be competitive and get the young guys learning how to win big, close games in the NHL. 

What's the point of a veteran coach, if you don't have the tools?

We probably still need more talent before we are anywhere near the playoff. Sedins retire next year, who will fill their spots?

Funny how a team that has sucked for years, suddenly becomes the bench mark for so many of Canucks fans.

Using Oilers as a reference, while at the same time suggesting we don't have to be bottom-3... Oilers has been bottom 3 mostly for the last 10 years...

Even the best joiner can't build a house without tools.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

It entirely depends on what management want when they say "rebuild". If they're happy to literally be in the bottom-3 of the NHL for the entire season, then go for it. For me personally, I don't think that's how you build a winning team for the future. The proper way to rebuild is to stay competitive while grooming young players and putting them into a winning environment. Even if that is 9th-10th in the Conference.

 

If we're sub-0.500 all of next season, how do you expect our future core of Horvat, Stecher, Boeser, Baertschi etc. to learn how to win in the playoffs?

 

Look at the successful rebuilds. The Leafs get a veteran coach who knows how to win in the NHL and now their young core knows what it takes to win down the stretch and in the playoffs. Massive year for them. The same can be said for a young Calgary team. These teams have quality veterans brought in to help the team win. They don't necessarily have to make the playoffs, the kids just have to learn what it takes in the league to win. Same can be said for Edmonton, although they did sort of scam the drafting system, but still they throw a veteran coach in there and some veteran NHLers to complement the young guys and now they're winning.

 

The Canucks need to take a page out of their books. Have great young guys - yes. Have decent veterans - sort of. Have a coach who knows how to win in the NHL - certainly not. Lets hope Green brings some good to the kids but they tried this with WD and this almost seems like we're not learning from our mistakes. We don't have to make the playoffs to contend and we don't have to be bottom-3 in the league to "rebuild". We just need to be competitive and get the young guys learning how to win big, close games in the NHL. 

Tired of the comparison between the laffs and the Canucks. They sucked for a decade, one playoff series and out in a decade. 

 

They essentially tanked on purpose, something the league was 'cracking down on'. Do you think the Canucks could tank the same way and not get penalized. There is a double standard. 

 

The ownership still believed in the group, WD had a 100 point season in his first year.  Does a team tanking do that?  Instead of sucking for a decade, Vancouver almost won it all.  Ownership and Gillis didn't read the tea leaves after that.  They failed to stay ahead of the curve and move out players for youth. 

 

San Jose looks to be the next team that ends up in the same boat. Would you tear that team down right now, this off season?  Exact same spot the nucks were in 4 years ago, except the nucks won their second Presidents trophy. 

 

That last playoffs, WD showed that he could not adjust on the fly. For the remainder of his tenure he seemed to never be able to adjust in the game, always too little too late.  I believe this roster was better than it's record. 

 

Megna played half the season with the twins and scored 1 goal. WTF.  

 

Green doesnt hesitate to make line changes if something isn't working.  He has a 4 year deal and the last time we brought in a coach from our own feeder system went very well. The only difference is that AV had already coached in the NHL.  

 

Green has had a 3-4 year job interview.  He has shown that he can get more out a roster than the sum of its parts.  That's the coach we need. 

 

EmW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, the_impersonator13 said:

Yeah, I agree, I want him to reach his full potential here as well. I think since he's older and because he's been in college he can handle it, especially with his maturity. Also think Travis Green is going to be great mentor for him..........if Willie was still here I'd be more Leary for sure!! Nothing I saw last year stood out as real negative...granted a 82 game grind will really test him. 

It's not like he played 4 years of college.  If he was in Jr, he wouldn't be eligible for the AHL until this coming season, I wouldn't say that's "older".

 

 The need for instant gratification isn't what is necessarily good 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, oldnews said:

grow up

people that use the term 'fanboy' are a special lot for sure.

Yeah, using the term "fanboy" is like saying "I'm a childish jerk who is here for the sole purpose of trolling the fans, and I don't care who knows it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, redhdlois said:

Awwww.......no more dump and chase ?  lol    Looking forward to a more exciting team next season.

Yeah Green likes more offensive approach, Canucks has already a decent defense group minus Tryamkin and could use a couple more additions via UFA and perhaps draft and we have some offensive hungry players that were obviously held back by Willie's defense-first system, so we should be seeing more goals this year but we'll have to see how well defense works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -SN- unfeatured this topic

Pretty clear as things have unfolded that Desjardins wasn't simply a sacrifice as a result of disappointing outcomes this year nor was he simply a sacrifice so the team could make a shiny hire to attempt to sell tickets as many people projected.  In other words, Desjardins was not a scapegoat due to the teams (to be expected) poor performance under the circumstances it faced this year.  Imo, Desjardins could not have been expected to get much more out of the group (a group with 4 of 12 forwards, rookie, AHL and emergency UFA patchwork) - and for long stretches the youngest blueline in the NHL.

 

The principle consideration in firing Desjardins was clearly Green's expiring contract combined with the evident succession plan that Green was earmarked to step up to the head coaching level for this team and they did not want to lose him.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Creepy Crawler said:

Yeah Green likes more offensive approach, Canucks has already a decent defense group minus Tryamkin and could use a couple more additions via UFA and perhaps draft and we have some offensive hungry players that were obviously held back by Willie's defense-first system, so we should be seeing more goals this year but we'll have to see how well defense works.

I think there is less distinction than you perceive.  The young players aren't and weren't 'held back' by a 'defense-first' system - and if that's your impression, you're likely to be disappointed.   Desjardins own preferred systems are attacking, up-tempo, aggressive forechecking an puck pressure systems - however as any coach does, he adjusted to the reality of the personnel he had.  People can theorize - why not simply cut the kids lose if we're going to lose anyhow - but that is not how NHL coaches develop players.

 

So I think you're going to like Green's systems - but I wouldn't expect to find them that distinct fundamentally from what Desjardins did in his early time here and would have liked to see more of.  Did Desjardins err on the side of being conservative?  He himself suggested he may have and that perhaps he should have remained more aggressive - but I think that is distinct from what ideally and typically his systems look like (in fairness to him).  He didn't really have a roster at a certain point to enable him to dictate anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Pretty clear as things have unfolded that Desjardins wasn't simply a sacrifice as a result of disappointing outcomes this year nor was he simply a sacrifice so the team could make a shiny hire to attempt to sell tickets as many people projected.  In other words, Desjardins was not a scapegoat due to the teams (to be expected) poor performance under the circumstances it faced this year.  Imo, Desjardins could not have been expected to get much more out of the group (a group with 4 of 12 forwards, rookie, AHL and emergency UFA patchwork) - and for long stretches the youngest blueline in the NHL.

 

The principle consideration in firing Desjardins was clearly Green's expiring contract combined with the evident succession plan that Green was earmarked to step up to the head coaching level for this team and they did not want to lose him.

 

 

I believe they gave other NHL teams the right to talk to Travis Green last year. They could have lost him then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boudrias said:

I believe they gave other NHL teams the right to talk to Travis Green last year. They could have lost him then.

And yet he turned down opportunities - to stay with this franchise.

And when his term expired, a spot was opened for him, and the team made him the first and only option if he wanted that job - which evidently, he did.

So the point you raise is true - in isolation - but it doesn't preclude anything I've said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Pretty clear as things have unfolded that Desjardins wasn't simply a sacrifice as a result of disappointing outcomes this year nor was he simply a sacrifice so the team could make a shiny hire to attempt to sell tickets as many people projected.  In other words, Desjardins was not a scapegoat due to the teams (to be expected) poor performance under the circumstances it faced this year.  Imo, Desjardins could not have been expected to get much more out of the group (a group with 4 of 12 forwards, rookie, AHL and emergency UFA patchwork) - and for long stretches the youngest blueline in the NHL.

 

The principle consideration in firing Desjardins was clearly Green's expiring contract combined with the evident succession plan that Green was earmarked to step up to the head coaching level for this team and they did not want to lose him.

 

 

This make sense. If Green had had another year to run in Utica, I'm not so sure WD had been sacked.

I think it would have made more sense for WD to play out the last season with Sedins, and let Green start with a clean slate. Fear the same complaints people had about WD deployment, will resurface with Green regarding the Sedins playing to much, not enough playing time for youngsters, benching etc. etc. although I hope not. Give him time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, spook007 said:

This make sense. If Green had had another year to run in Utica, I'm not so sure WD had been sacked.

I think it would have made more sense for WD to play out the last season with Sedins, and let Green start with a clean slate. Fear the same complaints people had about WD deployment, will resurface with Green regarding the Sedins playing to much, not enough playing time for youngsters, benching etc. etc. although I hope not. Give him time.

I think Green addressed that.  What he said was that the Sedins will play - but he's not going to ride them or run them into the ground.  His prefence is to roll four lines and not have any forwards getting into the big minute ranges.  Regardless of whom the coach is, that depends to some extent on the health and depth of your lineup, but the team is approaching a point where it has more depth and youth than it's had in a long, long time - so it bodes well in terms of both easing off the need to rely so principally on the Sedins, and the realistic prospect of having young players (who are now more ready) to step up into those roles.

In a way I feel bad for Desjardins, who was damned if he did and damned if he didn't - literally crushed between a rock/hard place - and just when there is realistic light emerging....it's in someone else's hands.

But that's the game, that's the business - and I think he handled himself remarkably in how he addressed his firing.  My opinion is that other NHL management groups will see the context for what it is (which many/most fans here may have been too upset and disappointed to glimpse)  - and this won't be Desjardins' last opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

I think Green addressed that.  What he said was that the Sedins will play - but he's not going to ride them or run them into the ground.  His prefence is to roll four lines and not have any forwards getting into the big minute ranges.  Regardless of whom the coach is, that depends to some extent on the health and depth of your lineup, but the team is approaching a point where it has more depth and youth than it's had in a long, long time - so it bodes well in terms of both easing off the need to rely so principally on the Sedins, and the realistic prospect of having young players (who are now more ready) to step up into those roles.

In a way I feel bad for Desjardins, who was damned if he did and damned if he didn't - literally crushed between a rock/hard place - and just when there is realistic light emerging....it's in someone else's hands.

But that's the game, that's the business - and I think he handled himself remarkably in how he addressed his firing.  My opinion is that other NHL management groups will see the context for what it is (which many/most fans here may have been too upset and disappointed to glimpse)  - and this won't be Desjardins' last opportunity.

I think WD wanted the same originally, but as you say issues outwit his control dictated otherwise.

Totally agree WD was dealt a rough hand, and thus won't be around to see the youngsters flourish.

NTC's and injuries.... are unfortunately all parts of the game. Don't think anyone else would have done much better under the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Tired of the comparison between the laffs and the Canucks. They sucked for a decade, one playoff series and out in a decade. 

 

They essentially tanked on purpose, something the league was 'cracking down on'. Do you think the Canucks could tank the same way and not get penalized. There is a double standard. 

 

The ownership still believed in the group, WD had a 100 point season in his first year.  Does a team tanking do that?  Instead of sucking for a decade, Vancouver almost won it all.  Ownership and Gillis didn't read the tea leaves after that.  They failed to stay ahead of the curve and move out players for youth. 

 

San Jose looks to be the next team that ends up in the same boat. Would you tear that team down right now, this off season?  Exact same spot the nucks were in 4 years ago, except the nucks won their second Presidents trophy. 

 

That last playoffs, WD showed that he could not adjust on the fly. For the remainder of his tenure he seemed to never be able to adjust in the game, always too little too late.  I believe this roster was better than it's record. 

 

Megna played half the season with the twins and scored 1 goal. WTF.  

 

Green doesnt hesitate to make line changes if something isn't working.  He has a 4 year deal and the last time we brought in a coach from our own feeder system went very well. The only difference is that AV had already coached in the NHL.  

 

Green has had a 3-4 year job interview.  He has shown that he can get more out a roster than the sum of its parts.  That's the coach we need. 

 

EmW

I haven't felt this positive about a hiring since AV (although I am prepared to be completely wrong)....Tortorella and Desjardins are good coaches,but both were ultimately the wrong choices at the wrong time... You can always take some good out of the bad though..Torts and his antics were a farce,but did manage to get rid of management,and got us a hight pick .... also revealing massive cracks in the makeup of the Canucks..

 

I found Willie Desjardins to be one the most most frustrating coaches of the Canucks in the last few decades..slow to adapt and improvise (widely documented)..and a poor communicator to some of the younger players (one size does not fit all)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, apollo said:

Anyone know what contract he got?

 

So far from what I've seen, he seems like a likable guy. Willie was as "likable" as anyone though... let's hope this turns out well. 

Green is polite, but I don't think he is a likeable coach. According to his players he has very high expectations and will bench players that don't reach them. 

 

Other than they were both AHL coaches prior to working with the Canucks, I don't see a lot of similarities between WD and MG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Honky Cat said:

I haven't felt this positive about a hiring since AV (although I am prepared to be completely wrong)....Tortorella and Desjardins are good coaches,but both were ultimately the wrong choices at the wrong time... You can always take some good out of the bad though..Torts and his antics were a farce,but did manage to get rid of management,and got us a hight pick .... also revealing massive cracks in the makeup of the Canucks..

 

I found Willie Desjardins to be one the most most frustrating coaches of the Canucks in the last few decades..slow to adapt and improvise (widely documented)..and a poor communicator to some of the younger players (one size does not fit all)....

I agree

 

I like Greens commitment.  I feel he is a guy that will put the time in and fire up his players. WD for excited, but not fired up. 

 

 

Going to miss the stache though.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...