Sign in to follow this  
Wanless

Coaching, decisions and player usage

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Wanless said:

I feel the same way about the past. But looking forward how much rope does Green get. There is only 1 area that is lacking and that is a true top pairing dman as you suggested, but the d should no longer be a scapegoat as there two top 2-3 guys (Edler-Tanev) a legit number 4 (Myers) two number 5 guys (Benn and Stetcher) and a wild card in Hughes who is looking to be anywhere from a 1-4 guy.

 

The grace of job security due to lack of depth is gone for Green. Especially looking from Benning's point of view. The Canucks need to be in a position to make the playoffs so Benning can keep his job

On the contrary, team depth of quality (and style of play) has improved Green's job security.  The team will undoubtedly improve and will have a good chance of making the playoffs.  Even if they are out in the 1st round, nobody will be suggesting a coaching change. 

 

Fans will be filling the seats this season, excited about at team that plays the kind of hockey that peeps can get excited about.

 

The following season will be more difficult for the coach (and gm) as the team not only needs to make the playoffs, they will have to prove themselves by winning their 1st round (or going to game 7).  All the while, they will adding more depth to the team each year.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wanless said:

I never said he's terrible

 

I'm making the point that coaching might be more important that most people think and also coach green might not be deploying his players properly

 

As for Horvat, no complaints that he being used as an offensive player, but I've seen and it's been reported that his offense stays the same or increases when he plays a more defensive role.

 

As for Eriksson, he isn't being used to his strengths especially while playing with Sutter in a shutdown role. He is an offensive player. The argument is against green not about Eriksson. 

 

So clearly you missed the point that I believe Green is not deploying players to their strengths and the on ice product is suffering.

 

With this year's roster I suggested he have until December to prove he can coach. Until then I hope he wins

no I didn't miss the point   , green has been deploying his players properly   you clearly missed my point  ,  Horvat is a 2 way player  which means as you stated both good on offensive as well as defense  , if it stays the same  point wise in either role  , what is the difference ?  none        so what is the point then ?    we don't have a offensive 2 nd line center ,  so what are coaches green's options then?   come on tell us  ,       well I guess that would be Horvat then right?             

 

so since you didn't get my point about  Eriksson  , explain why coach green should give the ice time you think Eriksson deserves?  do you just hand him the ice time and go hey young guys  look at loui  float around, do lil things and ill give u top six minutes ?  is that the culture you want as a coach ? I don't think so . Like I said before loui has gone thru two coaches not one since his time here  and nothing has changed . so is that coaching and deployment  no it isn't .  Eriksson has had plenty of opportunities to show what he can do in top 6 minutes and has done nothing .

 

the on ice product is suffering  pfft  again you didn't read my post.  last year we went into the season having both our  top 2 scorers retire , injuries to key players thru out the season and we still maintained the point total from the year before  ,  injuries   , what happens when injuries occur to key players ?  a coach will have to deploy a player in position in a lineup , that a player may have play to left side when ideally he should be on the right, the coach may not have other options that are ideal , a coach has only so many pieces of the puzzle to deal with  ,and when a piece isn't there  due to a injury,  you work with what you have available .,

 

the canuck now play a more  aggressive style of hockey , it way more fun to watch  and who dictates that style  , the coach   

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All great posts above^

 

For me it’ll be interested in seeing how Green using Quinn, Because Quinn presence has the ability to change game.

 

I maybe way off but I see Green will try implementing a ST Louis Blues game style. Blue were super solid and air tight.

 

i don’t see or forecast a Coaching change in the near future. Unless a complete implode disaster of a season happens, which I find highly unlikely.

Edited by HockeyHarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Wanless said:

I agree that he has done well in the past and that he is fair. But that doesn't mean he is evaluating and deploying his talent appropriately. That is my main concern. Remember the Hutton Gudbranson pairing?

 

 

and where are they now ?   not on the canucks   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

On the contrary, team depth of quality (and style of play) has improved Green's job security.  The team will undoubtedly improve and will have a good chance of making the playoffs.  Even if they are out in the 1st round, nobody will be suggesting a coaching change. 

 

Fans will be filling the seats this season, excited about at team that plays the kind of hockey that peeps can get excited about.

 

The following season will be more difficult for the coach (and gm) as the team not only needs to make the playoffs, they will have to prove themselves by winning their 1st round (or going to game 7).  All the while, they will adding more depth to the team each year.

If green isn't successful the lack of depth isn't there to cover his ass

 

 

There are no excuses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wanless said:

If green isn't successful the lack of depth isn't there to cover his ass

 

 

There are no excuses

That's one way of looking at it.

 

As I said..in my mind, the overall team has improved in quality of players, so success will be much easier.  He won't need excuses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wanless said:

I agree that he has done well in the past and that he is fair. But that doesn't mean he is evaluating and deploying his talent appropriately. That is my main concern. Remember the Hutton Gudbranson pairing?

 

 

Who were you going to play instead?  

 

> Sautner and Biega?

> Pouliot & Phillip Holm?

>>> Sbisa & Phillip Larsen?

>>>>Andrey Pedan & Taylor Fedun?

>> Bartkowski and Janik Weber?

> Ryan Stanton & Adam Clendenning???

 

LOL, I think I might have to revisit my support for Benning... :frantic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, the grinder said:

no I didn't miss the point   , green has been deploying his players properly   you clearly missed my point  ,  Horvat is a 2 way player  which means as you stated both good on offensive as well as defense  , if it stays the same  point wise in either role  , what is the difference ?  none        so what is the point then ?    we don't have a offensive 2 nd line center ,  so what are coaches green's options then?   come on tell us  ,       well I guess that would be Horvat then right?             

 

so since you didn't get my point about  Eriksson  , explain why coach green should give the ice time you think Eriksson deserves?  do you just hand him the ice time and go hey young guys  look at loui  float around, do lil things and ill give u top six minutes ?  is that the culture you want as a coach ? I don't think so . Like I said before loui has gone thru two coaches not one since his time here  and nothing has changed . so is that coaching and deployment  no it isn't .  Eriksson has had plenty of opportunities to show what he can do in top 6 minutes and has done nothing .

 

the on ice product is suffering  pfft  again you didn't read my post.  last year we went into the season having both our  top 2 scorers retire , injuries to key players thru out the season and we still maintained the point total from the year before  ,  injuries   , what happens when injuries occur to key players ?  a coach will have to deploy a player in position in a lineup , that a player may have play to left side when ideally he should be on the right, the coach may not have other options that are ideal , a coach has only so many pieces of the puzzle to deal with  ,and when a piece isn't there  due to a injury,  you work with what you have available .,

 

the canuck now play a more  aggressive style of hockey , it way more fun to watch  and who dictates that style  , the coach   

That you think a second line center has to be offense only shows a lot. The most valuable centers in the league also happen to be excellent shut down centers. Look at this list: O'Reilly, Kopitar, Bergeron, Toews, Kesler, Datsyuk. They won the Selke the last few years and were relied on to do the heavy lifting in the defensive end of things. That is where I believe Horvat is at the top of his game and way better than Sutter at it. So why put Sutter in that role? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Who were you going to play instead?  

 

> Sautner and Biega?

> Pouliot & Phillip Holm?

>>> Sbisa & Phillip Larsen?

>>>>Andrey Pedan & Taylor Fedun?

>> Bartkowski and Janik Weber?

> Ryan Stanton & Adam Clendenning???

 

LOL, I think I might have to revisit my support for Benning... :frantic:

Them not together. 

Edler and Gudbranson showed well

Hutton and Tanev showed well but we didn't see much of those pairings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wanless said:

These last playoffs were interesting, the highly skilled teams were bounced earlier than expected and even considered to be "upset", the teams that did better than expected all had new coaches, and then theres Boston just a very well assembled team. 

 

The thing I noticed most was how teams with little player movement and new coaching did well. 

 

I'm looking at player movement and the impact of coaching the rosters

 

I'm gonna start with the hurricanes as they had the most movement

Out - Skinner, Hanifin, Lindholm

In - Hamilton, Ferland, Svechnikov, Neidereitter. 

 

In terms of actually getting better on paper, it was marginal and due to the addition of 4 to the loss of 3 main pieces. Non of the trades were lopsided  and could be argued that the flames ended up with the better players. However Rod Brind'Amour took over coaching and everyone knows about his work ethic.

 

Next are the Islanders

Out - Tavares

In - ...

The big difference is Trotz, arguably the best coach in the league. He took a team with 296 goals against (worst) and brought it down to an incredible 196 (best). Sure this was at the expense of scoring but wins resulted. Trotz is also famous for tight defensive systems but he's shown to know how to use his players to get wins and how to get offense without sacrificing defence when he has scorers to work with, see Washington Capitals.

 

Now the cup winners

Out - 

In - 

No players changed between coaches and the blues went from last place in January to winning the cup. I didn't include any of the offseason changes as I'm looking to compare rosters with coaches and how the coaches managed their groups.

 

Here we are at my point. The Canucks have a coach in his third year, in the NHL. He's never been an assistant at this level! Rod was an assistant for 7 years first, Berube has been a head before aswell as multiple years as an assistant, they've both cut their teeth. I don't think that Travis Green has the experience necessary to be able to get the team to 100% he's just to "green" of a coach.

 

I do like the style he is after though. But I feel as though he has made questionable deployment to achieve it. A big indicator of this to me is using Horvat as an offensive guy where to my eye test he has done better as a two way guy capitalizing on the other team turning the puck over in the Canucks end and neutral zone. Horvat also believes "Being below the puck and committing to playing well defensively is what is driving [his ]offense right now" https://thehockeynews.com/news/article/defensive-responsibility-leads-to-offensive-reward-for-canucks-captain-in-waiting-horvat. His shutdown of McDavid was incredible this season, with Horvat winning the comparison in all categories while on the ice together (This came from John and john during a game in mid-late season). With this it seems as soon as another defensive center is available green moves Horvat back to offense primary roles.

 

Loui Eriksson and his comments of being used in a role he's not used to being in are spot on. I'm not saying that green is causing Eriksson to suck but he's not using him in the role he's always played. It's odd that a 20-30 goal scorer 50-65 point player who has been relied on for scoring his whole career is being used as a matchup guy (once again I'm not saying green is the only reason but I'm questioning is deployment). The comment seemed more in frustration of the spotlight on Erikssons production than lashing out, understandable.

 

(There are more players but this is getting long. I'd love to hear what you all think of player deployment and their roles. Examples Jake on right side not left, Boeser playing with Pettersson and not Horvat ect ect, and how players could better be utilized)

 

i feel that Green has until the beginning of December before he is let go due to not properly utilizing the roster Benning has assemble

 

 

 

You are basically trying to come up with a theory without having a big enough sample size AND you are picking examples that seem to fit your theory.

 

Sorry but I don't buy it at all.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Wanless said:

Them not together. 

Edler and Gudbranson showed well

Hutton and Tanev showed well but we didn't see much of those pairings

your saying that because his pairings weren’t the same ones you would have deployed, that makes him a bad coach. he is a dam good coach and i hope he is here long term. 

there will always be fans who stir the pot. green is going to have  a much more competitive line up this year. i for one am excited for this team going forward. a coach has to try different combinations of the players he’s got. same as all coaches. if your going to compare green’s positive  moves compared to his negative moves, you’ll find a lot more on the positive side. i’m rooting for green and the canucks. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Wanless said:

That you think a second line center has to be offense only shows a lot. The most valuable centers in the league also happen to be excellent shut down centers. Look at this list: O'Reilly, Kopitar, Bergeron, Toews, Kesler, Datsyuk. They won the Selke the last few years and were relied on to do the heavy lifting in the defensive end of things. That is where I believe Horvat is at the top of his game and way better than Sutter at it. So why put Sutter in that role? 

lol  what are you talking about  ? really   I said bo is a great 2 nd line center  a good 2 way center that can put numbers up in any role  , your the one saying he should be put in a more defensive role , all those guys you mention put up numbers in their respective roles  as first or second line centers , sutters role lol is a defensive center as well  , he just  doesn't  put up bo's kinda numbers  and that is his  role  as a third line center  and beagle is a fourth line center .    so in coaching logic  bo is your second line scoring center would he not? bo matches up with top lines  regardless  he always plays defense , who took the most face offs this year? bo     so don't sit there and tell me coach green doesn't deploy bo the right way , that's total hogwash 

    

yep I called  bo a scoring 2nd line center  and bo puts up numbers to back that up , where else is the offense supposed to come from then?    just the first line  , well that would get shut down quick in the playoffs wouldn't it ,        yep bo is better than sutter  , and sutter job is to take faceoff,s and be a 3rd line center ,yep sutter is out there for pk and  faceoffs that what a third line center is supposed to do .   so lets talk about face offs then  . canucks are up 3 to 2 in a game 20 seconds to go faceoff in the canucks end  , which 2 centers go out ?    hmmm     bo and sutter    coach green  your terrible at deploying  centers  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I havent been a fan of green past couple seasons the way hes treated goldy and virtanens development have been trash constantly destroying there confidence trying to make offensive gifted guys like goldy a grinder lol when joel quenville was available i had wished they fired green 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wanless said:

I feel the same way about the past. But looking forward how much rope does Green get. There is only 1 area that is lacking and that is a true top pairing dman as you suggested, but the d should no longer be a scapegoat as there two top 2-3 guys (Edler-Tanev) a legit number 4 (Myers) two number 5 guys (Benn and Stetcher) and a wild card in Hughes who is looking to be anywhere from a 1-4 guy.

 

The grace of job security due to lack of depth is gone for Green. Especially looking from Benning's point of view. The Canucks need to be in a position to make the playoffs so Benning can keep his job

I mean, I agree that Green likely (and fairly) has a season and a half to get the ball rolling.  This team, on paper, should be competitive enough to fight for a playoff spot.  

 

If it isn’t clicking by then, sure maybe you look at changing the coach.  

 

If we struggle to start this season, though, I think TG gets some rope... lots of changes can make it hard to find traction early on.  

 

Still, I think we come storming out of the gate again since we’re young and hopefully hungry... the trick will be sustaining it this year. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Chickenspear said:

Was curious to look at different starting lineups through the course of the season, and came upon this chart, for anyone interested. https://hockeyviz.com/fixedImg/fLines/1819/VAN/wrap

line chart1.png

Oooohhhh So many colours!! So pretty!! Unfortunately I have no clue what the hell the colours are nor do I want to know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Viper007 said:

Oooohhhh So many colours!! So pretty!! Unfortunately I have no clue what the hell the colours are nor do I want to know!

Cool story bro. I don't care that you don't want to know, so I'm gonna tell you anyways.

 

The pretty colours you refer to are representations of starting line-up combinations. Each player has his own colour (some are difficult to differentiate from a similar colour). Each small bar represents 1 game. Left side shows which line it was (L,C,R mean left wing, center, right wing), bottom shows games played in increments of 10. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ilduce39 said:

Yeah if the coaching change comes with a top pairing, right shooting defenceman I’ll drive Green to the airport myself. 

 

It’s a common fallacy in sport that if something isn’t going well to just try something different.  Sometimes teams need time to learn and grow.. and mistakes and periods of “failure” are a part of that.

 

It’s especially true when the overall talent level is low.  They could be preforming at a (relatively) high level and still losing games.  One aspect of the last 5 seasons I’ve appreciated is the relative continuity in management and coaching.  

 

We’ve lost Willie and Linden, but overall it’s been stable considering the team’s record.  I don’t have any magic stats to back it up, but I’ve always thought this was a wise course.  Particularly if you’re transitioning in a bunch of younger players who can benefit from some familiarity rather than musical chairs with the coaching staff (and subsequently strategy, etc.) 

Excellent post! I can think of a certain team in Northern Alberta that plays musical coaches. How’s that going?

Many players have been moved out of town that have blossomed in more stable environments.

 

Green is doing a fine job and the team is growing along with him. Would Barry Trotz have squeezed out that many more wins for this team? 

 

There’s always going to be cases of player deployment that puzzle fans who are not privy to all of the facts. For example Virtanen.  Many would like to see him in the top six, but Green has made him earn his ice. I believe that this is done with long term success in mind. Will it be worth it if a 26 year old Virtanen is playing a key role in a Cup run? You bet it would.  In the meantime many will second guess the process and complain that guys like Gagner ( for example ) didn’t have to earn their ice. Thankfully the team has now improved to the point that we no longer need placeholders like Gagner to fill out the top six. 

 

LE’s lack of success isn’t on Green. I found the OP’s argument was much more compelling before the LE story was brought into it. 

 

In any event, we all want the same thing. GCG 

 

  • Hydration 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Green was brought in to develop the young guys and so far he has done a pretty good job. It would be unfair to put the blame on his shoulders for the last few seasons but at the same time he still has things he’s gotta work on. As long as he can learn from his mistakes and keeps this team ascending there will be more pressure for him to get this team to the playoffs and win some series the next few years. His job should be secure for the next 1-2 years and if this team isn’t producing I wouldn’t be opposed to finding a replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Chickenspear said:

Cool story bro. I don't care that you don't want to know, so I'm gonna tell you anyways.

 

The pretty colours you refer to are representations of starting line-up combinations. Each player has his own colour (some are difficult to differentiate from a similar colour). Each small bar represents 1 game. Left side shows which line it was (L,C,R mean left wing, center, right wing), bottom shows games played in increments of 10. 

It's just too much, need a better way to show it.  The bars tend to blend in with each other too, which makes it harder to see how many games.  It's just a bad illustration imo.  They probably shoulda used some more variety in colours.  Some are way too similar.  It looks like it shows that Brock is a #1 center near the end of the season.  I'm pretty sure that didn't happen.

Edited by Viper007

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.