Fire Green!

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

if i had it in my power, i’ld arrange for you to sit down with green, one on one. you could ask him why he employs the systems he does and why he doesn’t employ the philosophy you want to see? maybe he could convince you of his methods or maybe you could convince him to change to meet your idea  of how to coach a successful system.

 

That would be fun.  But I’m pretty sure Green has forgotten more about hockey than I’ll ever know.  That’s why I’m curious about his forecheck.  It’s just okay for creating ozone turnovers, but really bad for odd man rushes against.  Green’s a smart guy, so why is he using that system?  Aquilini thinks more ozone chances sells tickets?

[chon derry]

@Alflives YOUR FIRED! 

Edited March 19, 2020 by chon derry

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, smithers joe said:

if i had it in my power, i’ld arrange for you to sit down with green, one on one. you could ask him why he employs the systems he does and why he doesn’t employ the philosophy you want to see? maybe he could convince you of his methods or maybe you could convince him to change to meet your idea  of how to coach a successful system.

 

that would have to be preceded by a rather lengthly education for Alf in NHL systems.

Alf couldn't name a single system Green employs - let alone choose among Green's and other options.

And this isn't unique to Alf - it applies to virtually everyone on these boards - which is what makes the ongoing elementary references so tedious.

Kudos to anyone that bothers to learn/teach themselves a thing about what is being talked about.  That is a rare occurance here, at best.

Edited March 19, 2020 by oldnews

[smithers joe]

i can understand people feeling that more progress should have been gained. but from my small sample size of coaching, both hockey and baseball, i’ve always worked on my players  weaknesses but built my strategy on each players strengths. other coaches, coached different from me, but i always helped each player reach their full potentials. i don’t agree with every decision green uses, but i would want to know how his systems are built to help his players successes and maintain the mandate of the team’s owners and management. kind of like a tight rope.

[SilentSam]

51 minutes ago, oldnews said:

that would have to be preceded by a rather lengthly education for Alf in NHL systems.

Alf couldn't name a single system Green employs - let alone choose among Green's and other options.

And this isn't unique to Alf - it applies to virtually everyone on these boards - which is what makes the ongoing elementary references so tedious.

Kudos to anyone that bothers to learn/teach themselves a thing about what is being talked about.  That is a rare occurance here, at best.

“The Torpedo”.  

[Dumb Nuck]

13 hours ago, oldnews said:

that would have to be preceded by a rather lengthly education for Alf in NHL systems.

Alf couldn't name a single system Green employs - let alone choose among Green's and other options.

And this isn't unique to Alf - it applies to virtually everyone on these boards - which is what makes the ongoing elementary references so tedious.

Kudos to anyone that bothers to learn/teach themselves a thing about what is being talked about.  That is a rare occurance here, at best.

I don’t need to be a pro hockey player to be able to distinguish between a great one and a poor one, heck CDC berates our players at alarming rates. Green is green and has done nothing to lead me to believe he is a good NHL caliber coach, we have a great foundation, we deserve a coach that is not in training.

 

Irregardless (had to throw that word in there) when I started this thread  we were #1 in our division and the day they suspended the season we dropped out of the playoffs, maybe I’m not as dumb as you think I am.

Edited March 20, 2020 by Dumb Nuck

[oldnews]

8 hours ago, Dumb Nuck said:

I don’t need to be a pro hockey player to be able to distinguish between a great one and a poor one

you don't even realize that there it isn't "one", period.  it's that elementary - and you don't even grasp that.

[Odjick29willkillyou]

On 1/19/2020 at 12:05 AM, Dumb Nuck said:

I love our team, hate the coaching. Yeah, I know that today we are #1 in our division but we are one loss away from 6th. I’m not a Green lover, I think he’s way to  < soft of a coach to have any playoff success so I’ll put my money where my mouth is:

 

I will donate to Canucks Place as follows:

 

$25 if we win the first round under Green.

$50 more if we win the second round under Green.

$100 more if we win the conference finals under Green.

$150 more if we win the cup under Green.

 

Bookmark it, quote me, hold me accountable, I’m putting my beer money where my mouth is.

 

 

 

Two things: 

1. #too

B. Your profile pic tells me all I need to know about how much you "love this team."  

[The Lock]

16 hours ago, Dumb Nuck said:

I don’t need to be a pro hockey player to be able to distinguish between a great one and a poor one, heck CDC berates our players at alarming rates. Green is green and has done nothing to lead me to believe he is a good NHL caliber coach, we have a great foundation, we deserve a coach that is not in training.

 

Irregardless (had to throw that word in there) when I started this thread  we were #1 in our division and the day they suspended the season we dropped out of the playoffs, maybe I’m not as dumb as you think I am.

Here the thing. Your first sentence I agree with. I shouldn't matter whether one's actually played hockey or not. After that, not so much...

 

What exactly are we using here to define a "green" coach? What makes us think an "experienced" coach is going to do better? I hear Mike Keenan's an experienced coach. Should we bring him back?

 

The problem with thinking about experience with a coach is that's not actually what makes a good coach. It can help, but if it were all about experience then why did Torts fail here? There's a lot more to it than experience. I'd even argue that experience is very little to do with it since we see "green" coaches be successful in this league all the time (Bylsma won the cup in his 1st year!) and unsuccessful "experienced" coaches all the time (see above example, even look at Bylsma on the Sabres lol).

 

Finally, using the standings as a way to say "I told you so" is only putting yourself in the very same logic as stating that one needs to be a hockey player to distinguish between a great coach and a poor coach. Exact same mentality. It's desperation to "come up with points". Obviously, playing hockey helps. Obviously, standings help. Are either the end all? Think about that. You're throwing the exact same type of arguments as you seem to be receiving. lol

 

Honestly, I don't think anyone here really knows enough to say whether Green is good or bad. It's like having a food fight without knowing where the food actually is so everyone's using whatever they could find and pretending it's food just because the op said "FOOD FIGHT!"

Edited March 21, 2020 by The Lock

[Violator]

We havent won a game in two weeks i think we need to fire him.

[lmm]

1 minute ago, Violator said:

We havent won a game in two weeks i think we need to fire him.

undefeated in 2 weeks, re-up the guy fast before Seattle scoops him

 

btw I just watched the Islander game, it was only 10 days ago

...

10 long days ago

[RowdyCanuck]

2 hours ago, The Lock said:

Here the thing. Your first sentence I agree with. I shouldn't matter whether one's actually played hockey or not. After that, not so much...

 

What exactly are we using here to define a "green" coach? What makes us think an "experienced" coach is going to do better? I hear Mike Keenan's an experienced coach. Should we bring him back?

 

The problem with thinking about experience with a coach is that's not actually what makes a good coach. It can help, but if it were all about experience then why did Torts fail here? There's a lot more to it than experience. I'd even argue that experience is very little to do with it since we see "green" coaches be successful in this league all the time (Bylsma won the cup in his 1st year!) and unsuccessful "experienced" coaches all the time (see above example, even look at Bylsma on the Sabres lol).

 

Finally, using the standings as a way to say "I told you so" is only putting yourself in the very same logic as stating that one needs to be a hockey player to distinguish between a great coach and a poor coach. Exact same mentality. It's desperation to "come up with points". Obviously, playing hockey helps. Obviously, standings help. Are either the end all? Think about that. You're throwing the exact same type of arguments as you seem to be receiving. lol

 

Honestly, I don't think anyone here really knows enough to say whether Green is good or bad. It's like having a food fight without knowing where the food actually is so everyone's using whatever they could find and pretending it's food just because the op said "FOOD FIGHT!"

Imho torts was the right coach but we got him at the wrong time......

funny thing is Green coaches a similar style to torts.....

for a coach to work everything has to line up,

a lot of things come into play. 

Green has the room and from interviews I've heard his saying the right things, I think the D coach has to go, maybe even the special teams coach too. 

We've already proved we won't be like the oilers or Buffalo and continue to suck but get better year in and year out, Jim has seen to that. 

Next season Green will be on the hot seat and for good reason but none of us knew how good we would be this season and their for green gets a pass......

[The Lock]

3 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Imho torts was the right coach but we got him at the wrong time......

funny thing is Green coaches a similar style to torts.....

for a coach to work everything has to line up,

a lot of things come into play. 

Green has the room and from interviews I've heard his saying the right things, I think the D coach has to go, maybe even the special teams coach too. 

We've already proved we won't be like the oilers or Buffalo and continue to suck but get better year in and year out, Jim has seen to that. 

Next season Green will be on the hot seat and for good reason but none of us knew how good we would be this season and their for green gets a pass......

I come with a mindset that we don't really know what's going to work until we actually see it. Torts might work now. Torts also might not work now. We don't know.

 

Personally, I don't see Green as a similar style to Torts but maybe I'm not looking at the same qualities either. Green seems a little more "sensible" than Torts in my opinion, someone who's probably a little more flexible. With Torts, you need the right situation for things to work otherwise it's just not going to. You also evidently need him in the system for a while so that anyone who's not buying in gets "weeded out". (He had a bunch of trouble his first year in Columbus if I remember correctly) That being said, Torts was on a young Tampa Bay team not unlike what we have now that won the cup. That also being said, he never won a cup after that. Green might just as easily prove to be the right guy come playoff time since none of this is really known. If anyone thinks they know the answer here, they're lying to themselves. lol There's nothing wrong with an opinion and a preference of course though.

 

When you talk about everything having to line up, I fully agree there, but I also think, because of that, when a team is hot a coach has it made. He just has to keep them motivated (like Torts in Tampa Bay). It's why Babcock is so "coveted". He was able to ride some good Detroit teams but, if you talk with a number of fans from Detroit, there's a lot of scrutiny of him and Holland. There's players in Toronto who reportedly spoke out about him after he was fired. For Babcock, Detroit was just a good team and it probably didn't even matter what he did to an extent.

Edited March 21, 2020 by The Lock

[RowdyCanuck]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

I come with a mindset that we don't really know what's going to work until we actually see it. Torts might work now. Torts also might not work now. We don't know.

 

Personally, I don't see Green as a similar style to Torts but maybe I'm not looking at the same qualities either. Green seems a little more "sensible" than Torts in my opinion, someone who's probably a little more flexible. With Torts, you need the right situation for things to work otherwise it's just not going to. You also evidently need him in the system for a while so that anyone who's not buying in gets "weeded out". (He had a bunch of trouble his first year in Columbus if I remember correctly) That being said, Torts was on a young Tampa Bay team not unlike what we have now that won the cup. That also being said, he never won a cup after that. Green might just as easily prove to be the right guy come playoff time since none of this is really known. If anyone thinks they know the answer here, they're lying to themselves. lol There's nothing wrong with an opinion and a preference of course though.

 

When you talk about everything having to line up, I fully agree there, but I also think, because of that, when a team is hot a coach has it made. He just has to keep them motivated (like Torts in Tampa Bay). It's why Babcock is so "coveted". He was able to ride some good Detroit teams but, if you talk with a number of fans from Detroit, there's a lot of scrutiny of him and Holland. There's players in Toronto who reportedly spoke out about him after he was fired. For Babcock, Detroit was just a good team and it probably didn't even matter what he did to an extent.

I agree torts and green as coaches are different but they coach a similar on ice style.. 

Torts coaches his best when his star players play hard on both sides of the puck and his teams have always had push back and when he came to Van , that was never going to happen with the Sedins as the star players.

Green has been learning and growing as a coach which is a good sign but there's been to many games where players just take over and we have lost games earlier in the season due to coaching.( not 100% on green but his D coach and PP/PK coach) 

sometimes I get flash backs of Willie coaching, with Green's line blender and not making adjustments on the fly( which he has gotten better at) 

i question a coach that can't come up with a system that gets the most of the guys or atleast benefit the guys......letting 50 shots a night is leaf hockey and we can't win that way. 

I don't want babcock unless his just joining the coaching staff and is the new D coach ha 

I like green like you said a big part is getting the guys to buy in and he has done that , I agree though we have to wait until atleast after next season to see if Green is our guy or not. 

I think this summer Jim will fine tune the team and Green better get ready to say hello to his new coaching staff.

also imho I think babs is overrated.....rather have torts, but I think torts only really works for younger teams or teams where their top guys play a 200ft game and torts has a shelve life though. 

 

 

[lmm]

23 hours ago, The Lock said:

Here the thing. Your first sentence I agree with. I shouldn't matter whether one's actually played hockey or not. After that, not so much...

 

What exactly are we using here to define a "green" coach? What makes us think an "experienced" coach is going to do better? I hear Mike Keenan's an experienced coach. Should we bring him back?

 

The problem with thinking about experience with a coach is that's not actually what makes a good coach. It can help, but if it were all about experience then why did Torts fail here? There's a lot more to it than experience. I'd even argue that experience is very little to do with it since we see "green" coaches be successful in this league all the time (Bylsma won the cup in his 1st year!) and unsuccessful "experienced" coaches all the time (see above example, even look at Bylsma on the Sabres lol).

 

Finally, using the standings as a way to say "I told you so" is only putting yourself in the very same logic as stating that one needs to be a hockey player to distinguish between a great coach and a poor coach. Exact same mentality. It's desperation to "come up with points". Obviously, playing hockey helps. Obviously, standings help. Are either the end all? Think about that. You're throwing the exact same type of arguments as you seem to be receiving. lol

 

Honestly, I don't think anyone here really knows enough to say whether Green is good or bad. It's like having a food fight without knowing where the food actually is so everyone's using whatever they could find and pretending it's food just because the op said "FOOD FIGHT!"

oh goodness that post decended into gibberish

 

but you mention Mike Keenan, who by the way is 70 years old now so a little past his best before date.

But funny because both Keenan and Torts are/were successful coaches but in Vancxouver they combined for 190 games over 3 seasons.

That is 63 +45 for Keenan and 82 for Torts, they were both tasked with the same thing when hired in Vancouverand both times owner/management did not have the stomach to see the project through. Both Keenan and Torts had their shortest and least successful run in Vancouver. Actually that is not entirely true of Keenan he had a few bad runs after winning the Cup in New York. 

But Torts was hired in Vancouver to shake things up, and he did that. but once Linden and Bennning were brought in, they doubled down on keeping the Sedins happy even though they were then well past their prime and scoring at the same rate that Mark Messier did during his season here with Keenan.

 

It seems Keenan lost his spot as a coach and became a trouble shooter for several teams after the NYR cup, but Torts has had 3 successful runs and one short stop in Vancouver, so I ask, did he fail or did management chicken out?

Edited March 22, 2020 by lmm

[Angry Goose]

28 minutes ago, lmm said:

oh goodness that post decended into gibberish

 

but you mention Mike Keenan, who by the way is 70 years old now so a little past his best before date.

But funny because both Keenan and Torts are/were successful coaches but in Vancxouver they combined for 190 games over 3 seasons.

That is 63 +45 for Keenan and 82 for Torts, they were both tasked with the same thing when hired in Vancouverand both times owner/management did not have the stomach to see the project through. Both Keenan and Torts had their shortest and least successful run in Vancouver. Actually that is not entirely true of Keenan he had a few bad runs after winning the Cup in New York. 

But Torts was hired in Vancouver to shake things up, and he did that. but once Linden and Bennning were brought in, they doubled down on keeping the Sedins happy even though they were then well past their prime and scoring at the same rate that Mark Messier did during his season here with Keenan.

 

It seems Keenan lost his spot as a coach and became a trouble shooter for several teams after the NYR cup, but Torts has had 3 successful runs and one short stop in Vancouver, so I ask, did he fail or did management chicken out?

I like how you completely be ignored the relevant points @The Lock brought up to you.  Solid response yet again wtg

[Angry Goose]

On 3/20/2020 at 5:16 PM, The Lock said:

Here the thing. Your first sentence I agree with. I shouldn't matter whether one's actually played hockey or not. After that, not so much...

 

I kinda sorta disagree.  While not absolutely necessary, having experience as a player helps.  I've had coaches who have never played, and would the try to over coach certain things and it's frustrating as a player.  

[lmm]

28 minutes ago, SILLY GOOSE said:

I like how you completely be ignored the relevant points @The Lock brought up to you.  Solid response yet again wtg

Oh Silly, did I sleep with your girlfriend?

If I did I promse not to do it again.

 

Which "relevant points" did I miss, 

the food fight?

 

but hback on topic

it seems to me that there are 2 different arguments going on in this thread.

 

1 the people who are not ennammered with Green say "Green is not a great coach and one of the reasons for that is because he is inexperienced"

 

2 the pro Green crowd respond, "Coach Bylsma et al were inexpreienced, so you have no argument"

 

I have not heard one argument that says, "All inexperienced coaches suck" but it seems that is what the Pro Green crowd are arguing against.

 

Side note, Scotty Bowman coached in leagues I have never heard of for 11 years before taking over StLouis in 1967, his record was not that good, and the Blues were  sub-500 in his first year, but he turned out to be a pretty good coach.

[Angry Goose]

6 hours ago, lmm said:

Oh Silly, did I sleep with your girlfriend?

If I did I promse not to do it again.

 

Which "relevant points" did I miss, 

the food fight?

 

but hback on topic

it seems to me that there are 2 different arguments going on in this thread.

 

1 the people who are not ennammered with Green say "Green is not a great coach and one of the reasons for that is because he is inexperienced"

 

2 the pro Green crowd respond, "Coach Bylsma et al were inexpreienced, so you have no argument"

 

I have not heard one argument that says, "All inexperienced coaches suck" but it seems that is what the Pro Green crowd are arguing against.

 

Side note, Scotty Bowman coached in leagues I have never heard of for 11 years before taking over StLouis in 1967, his record was not that good, and the Blues were  sub-500 in his first year, but he turned out to be a pretty good coach.

 Green isn't an inexperienced coach, neither is Berube, Tochett or Brindamour who are all first time NHL head coaches.  

 

If you're going to criticize green, at least say something substantial.  

Edited March 22, 2020 by SILLY GOOSE

[khay]

On 3/19/2020 at 11:20 AM, oldnews said:

that would have to be preceded by a rather lengthly education for Alf in NHL systems.

Alf couldn't name a single system Green employs - let alone choose among Green's and other options.

And this isn't unique to Alf - it applies to virtually everyone on these boards - which is what makes the ongoing elementary references so tedious.

Kudos to anyone that bothers to learn/teach themselves a thing about what is being talked about.  That is a rare occurance here, at best.

It would be great if someone as smart as you could educate us CDC morons. Please teach us the names of some of the popular NHL systems and their characteristics, and finally, what system Green uses. Thanks in advance!