Coaching, decisions and player usage

[smokes]

6 hours ago, janisahockeynut said:

So SMOKES

 

Are you suggesting that the 3rd OA Leafs, are doing it wrong? Or have a bad coach?

 

34 player movements this summer.

Those turnovers have more to do with cap relief so they can keep their core players more than anything else. Vancouver did not have such Maple Leaf cap problems, That and a need to fix their crappy defence.

Edited July 28, 2019 by smokes

[J.I.A.H.N]

3 hours ago, the grinder said:

he is just mad because he knows he is wrong   travis greens first year the canucks  went thru 35 players thru out the season plus 3 goalies ,  last year we went thru 45 players and used five goalies ,  and every year we added 3 to 5 new players to the roster  and this year we added 4 quality nhlers to the lineup .. we finally have some quality  pieces to be successful , and coach green will deploy them properly  , and have them play well together     ps   now if jb can find one more scoring winger   and a depth dman i think we will be set  or we wait for the Russian invasion of podi and trymakin 

I might have misunderstood your last post...…..at any rate

 

I am just fine with our management, coach, and our much improved roster

 

My only concern is Utica and how it is being developed....hopefully the report I hear are wrong

 

I still have my guys I would trade, but so does every team

 

All is pretty good in Nutsville right now

[Dr. Crossbar]

On 7/27/2019 at 10:06 AM, Wanless said:

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.

I actually agree with this to a certain degree. For me it dates back to the intial press conference and interviews after Eriksson was signed. Both JB and WD said they wanted a guy who go could up and down the lineup, spread out the offensive.

 

I've always felt the organization misread Eriksson's 30 goal season to be more offensively versatile than it really was. He was most successful in front of the net, slot, scoring off the rebound. But because of our deficiencies, we needed him to expand his roles. And the more he doesn't score, and takes on other roles, the more he gets moved around. 

 

I'm not excusing Eriksson's play - you've got to get with program - but I do think there was a disconnect or misreading from the very beginning on the management/coaching side as well. 

 

With Miller and Ferland now in the lineup, I do wonder if that stability in the Top 6 would play better to Loui's strengths and give Green the opportunity to use him where Eriksson has had the most success.

 

 

[Yung1]

I'm a huge Green fan but I think the criticism of his lineup construction and deployment is fair. The thread creator makes some really good points. 

 

With that said though, I think last year's lineup decisions were influenced by at least some priority being given to development and seeing what we had in some players. I think this year we might see more of a priority given to putting players in positions to succeed rather than putting them in positions to challenge them in order to see if they're capable and/or in order to develop them.

 

Green is a young coach though, and I'm sure part of this is just that he has areas in which he needs to grow. As a person of high character, I'm confident he will improve in areas he's weak. 

[Wanless]

1 hour ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

I actually agree with this to a certain degree. For me it dates back to the intial press conference and interviews after Eriksson was signed. Both JB and WD said they wanted a guy who go could up and down the lineup, spread out the offensive.

 

I've always felt the organization misread Eriksson's 30 goal season to be more offensively versatile than it really was. He was most successful in front of the net, slot, scoring off the rebound. But because of our deficiencies, we needed him to expand his roles. And the more he doesn't score, and takes on other roles, the more he gets moved around. 

 

I'm not excusing Eriksson's play - you've got to get with program - but I do think there was a disconnect or misreading from the very beginning on the management/coaching side as well. 

 

With Miller and Ferland now in the lineup, I do wonder if that stability in the Top 6 would play better to Loui's strengths and give Green the opportunity to use him where Eriksson has had the most success.

 

 

Definitely

 

That's what I'm hoping for. My concern for this year, that I think many people missed, is how long can the team not compete for now with the roster before green is in the hot seat

[the grinder]

3 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

I actually agree with this to a certain degree. For me it dates back to the intial press conference and interviews after Eriksson was signed. Both JB and WD said they wanted a guy who go could up and down the lineup, spread out the offensive.

 

I've always felt the organization misread Eriksson's 30 goal season to be more offensively versatile than it really was. He was most successful in front of the net, slot, scoring off the rebound. But because of our deficiencies, we needed him to expand his roles. And the more he doesn't score, and takes on other roles, the more he gets moved around. 

 

I'm not excusing Eriksson's play - you've got to get with program - but I do think there was a disconnect or misreading from the very beginning on the management/coaching side as well. 

 

With Miller and Ferland now in the lineup, I do wonder if that stability in the Top 6 would play better to Loui's strengths and give Green the opportunity to use him where Eriksson has had the most success.

 

 

the biggest thing is coach green did give loui  the chance to be in the top six and so did wille d  ,   the loui thing has been going on for 3 years  now , if loui played better there wouldn't be a discussion , and with the new comers  there isn't room for loui in the top 6 anymore  ,  we got loui for scoring right ?  he has scored  30 goals in 3 seasons combined ,   that's on the player ,  not the coach 

[the grinder]

1 hour ago, Wanless said:

Definitely

 

That's what I'm hoping for. My concern for this year, that I think many people missed, is how long can the team not compete for now with the roster before green is in the hot seat

they are competing for the   now, look at the free agents signings   the trade for jt miller ,  the season hasn't even started and you want to hand green his walking papers lol  the team is finally stocked with players to play the style green wants to play , we got bigger , have more grit and we are not going to be pushed around , green isn't going anywhere soon 

[Wanless]

1 hour ago, the grinder said:

they are competing for the   now, look at the free agents signings   the trade for jt miller ,  the season hasn't even started and you want to hand green his walking papers lol  the team is finally stocked with players to play the style green wants to play , we got bigger , have more grit and we are not going to be pushed around , green isn't going anywhere soon 

No I don't

 

I never once said to fire him

 

With this roster moving forward, if the team isn't legit in the hunt for a spot, should the idea of moving on from green be considered? I think that if can't get the team going it definitely needs to be considered.

 

Just like how players shouldn't be gifted spots the coach should also not be gifted a spot

 

But I guess if the team is not showing well you're ok with that

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Wanless

[Dr. Crossbar]

3 hours ago, Wanless said:

Definitely

 

That's what I'm hoping for. My concern for this year, that I think many people missed, is how long can the team not compete for now with the roster before green is in the hot seat

I think all eyes are on Green now that Benning improved the team. I'd say his hot seat begins game one of the season. We are competing. The new signings reflect that. He was brought in to develop youth but he's now being given the opportunity to win.

 

If this team underachieves/underperforms, doesn't get into the playoffs, his seat will be even hotter the following season. Imo, he'll be gone before Benning if things go south.

 

I want to see him succeed.

 

 

[Wanless]

1 minute ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

I think all eyes are on Green now that Benning improved the team. I'd say his hot seat begins game one of the season. We are competing. The new signings reflect that. He was brought in to develop youth but he's now being given the opportunity to win.

 

If this team underachieves/underperforms, doesn't get into the playoffs, his seat will be even hotter the following season. Imo, he'll be gone before Benning if things go south.

 

I want to see him succeed.

 

 

This

 

Thanks for seeing the purpose of the thread

[the grinder]

10 minutes ago, Wanless said:

No I don't

 

I never once said to fire him

 

With this roster moving forward, if the team isn't legit in the hunt for a spot, should the idea of moving on from green be considered? I think that if can't get the team going it definitely needs to be considered.

 

Just like how players shouldn't be gifted spots the coach should also not be gifted a spot

 

But I guess if the team is not showing well you're ok with that

lol moving on from a coach and firing him is the same ,  no the team will show well , they have improved in all the area  got  2 dmen  , 2 forwards all are vets with playoff experience , and all have size and grit , everything the canucks were lacking,  , the one thing green does well he makes the team compete every night , coaching is least of the worries

[Wanless]

2 minutes ago, the grinder said:

lol moving on from a coach and firing him is the same ,  no the team will show well , they have improved in all the area  got  2 dmen  , 2 forwards all are vets with playoff experience , and all have size and grit , everything the canucks were lacking,  , the one thing green does well he makes the team compete every night , coaching is least of the worries

So you are arguing that he will do well

 

I hope he does well

 

And saying if his performance isn't great, should the conversation start to move on from him is far from me say I want to "hand him his walking papers" as you suggest.

 

Where do you think the bottom line for Green is?

[Dr. Crossbar]

2 hours ago, the grinder said:

the biggest thing is coach green did give loui  the chance to be in the top six and so did wille d  ,   the loui thing has been going on for 3 years  now , if loui played better there wouldn't be a discussion , and with the new comers  there isn't room for loui in the top 6 anymore  ,  we got loui for scoring right ?  he has scored  30 goals in 3 seasons combined ,   that's on the player ,  not the coach 

I don't disagree with what a lot of you're saying, I just see more to it and some accountability on both sides. If there was no validity to what I see, I wouldn't be seeing it.

 

And I'm not convinced he was used as effectively for how he scores goals and where he had the most success. We got him for goal production but I do question whether we played to his strengths. And I do think it's fair to question that. I think we misread his offensive versatility.

 

I can recall countless GDTs where I was screaming for WD and Green to get Eriksson in front of the net. We just weren't playing that type of game consistently. 

 

At the end of the day, sure, that's on the player. I see more to it.

[the grinder]

1 hour ago, Wanless said:

So you are arguing that he will do well

 

I hope he does well

 

And saying if his performance isn't great, should the conversation start to move on from him is far from me say I want to "hand him his walking papers" as you suggest.

 

Where do you think the bottom line for Green is?

lol whaever  moving on and firing is the same thing ,  to be fair to green  you give him this year  the full year and see what he can do with a full nhl team  , and if doesn't go to plan  you make the change in the offseason when his contract is up  but that's not  gonna happen because coach green is a perfect fit for our team  , like berube and brindamor they understand the game and have played it  , besides what coach is available that is any better than green ?

Edited July 30, 2019 by the grinder

[Wanless]

1 minute ago, the grinder said:

lol whaever  moving on and firing is the same thing ,  to be fair to green  you give him this year  the full year and see what he can do with a full nhl team  , and if doesn't go to plan  you make the change in the offseason when his contract is up  but that's gonna happen because coach green is a perfect fit for our team  , like berube and brindamor they understand the game and have played it  , besides what coach is available that is any better than green ?

Ok so you haven't kept up with the thread at all if you're asking who is available as it's been discussed that no one is. And saying that if green can't perform that conversation should begin is not saying he should be fired

 

But trollers be trolling so we're done

 

LOL 

[kloubek]

Green is not to blame for our woes. We have simply not had a good team.  We lacked secondary scoring and size. We lacked depth to cover for our ridiculously high injury rate. And we have had little by way of prospects until recently. We've been rebuilding.

 

In spite all this, the team has somehow been competitive most nights. No, we didn't win a lot of games but we did better than I expected given the team we have iced.  And I think we have Green to thank for that.

 

Benning has changed this team, and while I still see a couple of holes, this season will say a lot about our direction and future. It will put a focus on what Benning has done, and how Green works with what he has been given.

 

I would expect if we improve dramatically that Benning and Green are secure for a while. If we still suck, Green would probably be the first to go and if that doesn't work, Benning will follow. But honestly, I just don't see that happening.  I think this team is going to surprise a lot of people.

[the grinder]

4 hours ago, Wanless said:

Ok so you haven't kept up with the thread at all if you're asking who is available as it's been discussed that no one is. And saying that if green can't perform that conversation should begin is not saying he should be fired

 

But trollers be trolling so we're done

 

LOL 

trolling lol   I didnt ask who is available   I asked you who is available then ? and the answer is no one right ?   lol a conversation should begin  and what does that conversation lead to  hmmm  getting let go fired  handed walking papers        what  because I have a different opinion  than you  im a troll   lol   u keep on trolling your self then   

[nuck-lifer]

Green's deployment overall was pretty effective. You look at the percentage of player improvements under the coach, and considering we ran top 3 again for injuries most players excelled under Green.

A few exceptions would be Pouliot, Gudbranson, and Eriksson. Pouliot and Gudbranson were thrown into roles that were above their ability. Eriksson is the interesting case.

In my mind he doesn't fit with Petey's line, but he does compliment a stronger, heavier line such as Horvat/ Pearson where he had success there late in the year.

 

With Ferland and Miller added to our lineup , I really think this will bring out the best in Loui as long as Green doesn't waste him on Beagles line again.

 

something like this 

Ferland - Petey- Brock- 1

Pearson- Bo- Loui- 2A

Baer- Miller- Jake- 2B

Sutter- Beagle- Leivo- 4

 

Loui in the middle 6 would be the ideal situation IMO to maximize the player and more importantly maximize his value to unload this contract hopefully next summer.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

14 hours ago, kloubek said:

Green is not to blame for our woes. We have simply not had a good team.  We lacked secondary scoring and size. We lacked depth to cover for our ridiculously high injury rate. And we have had little by way of prospects until recently. We've been rebuilding.

 

In spite all this, the team has somehow been competitive most nights. No, we didn't win a lot of games but we did better than I expected given the team we have iced.  And I think we have Green to thank for that.

 

Benning has changed this team, and while I still see a couple of holes, this season will say a lot about our direction and future. It will put a focus on what Benning has done, and how Green works with what he has been given.

 

I would expect if we improve dramatically that Benning and Green are secure for a while. If we still suck, Green would probably be the first to go and if that doesn't work, Benning will follow. But honestly, I just don't see that happening.  I think this team is going to surprise a lot of people.

Generally a GM gets only one gets out jail free card before getting axed (get to use a head coach he hired as a fall guy).  Unless of course the team has done something tangible in the regular season / postseason.

[kloubek]

3 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Generally a GM gets only one gets out jail free card before getting axed (get to use a head coach he hired as a fall guy).  Unless of course the team has done something tangible in the regular season / postseason.

Well my thinking is that Benning has done what he can to give us wins NOW.  If we aren't competitive, the question would need to be asked if the players Benning got suck or if it us a result of not utilizing the players properly.  I would imagine the first step would be to look at the coaching and to see if a new coach would spark our players better.  The alternative is to get a new GM who would modify the personnel but that is a longer term solution.  After completing a rebuild, I imagine ownership wants to win with the current roster.