EmployeeoftheMonth
-
Posts
4,347 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by EmployeeoftheMonth
-
-
if you think those two things mean the same, i don't know what to tell you. maybe learn what words and sentences mean? just because a system emphasizes something doesn't mean its all about that. you can emphasize more than one thing.
anyway, it seems that the fancy stats back up my point, too. http://vansunsportsblogs.com/2014/04/01/under-john-tortorella-the-canucks-get-plenty-of-shots-but-few-scoring-chances/
em·pha·size [em-fuh-sahyz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), em·pha·sized, em·pha·siz·ing.
to give emphasis to; lay stress upon; stress: to emphasize a point
So if he's emphasizing shots than shots would be the point?!? Yes. What else was he emphasizing? You've only brought up shots here as your main point to go after his system where you claim we out shoot the opponents 2:1. Torts system is more than just shoot and block.
Also I never said they weren't playing poorly. I never said they didn't take low percentage shots. We're talking about what you're claiming Torts system to be.
-
1
-
-
i never said his system was all about shots. i said it emphasized shooting from everywhere. if memory serves, he harped on that point quite a lot early in the year.
So you never said his system was all about shots just that it emphasized shots.
Yeah those are the same thing.
Again. Pressure not shots. He wants pressure. He wants D to pinch and he wants forwards to be responsible defensively. He wants a system where in the offensive and defensive zone his team creates pressure for the opposition. Not "shoot from everywhere" which is what you said. The team wasn't putting up twice the amount of shots from their opponents which you also said. They averaged like 2 shots more a game than they had against. You're misrepresenting the system Torts implies either on purpose or because you don't understand it enough to think of it as anything but a shoot first system.
I think you got onto this "shots" thing because something _Me said sarcastically to something Luongo101 said. I'm not sure you got that he was being sarcastic.
-
1
-
-
if you say so.
Facts say so. Well and you said so when you talked about torts system being all about shots.
-
1
-
-
my point was that even in the games when the canucks outshot their opponent by a wide margin, they still weren't playing good hockey.
And your implication is that's all because of the system Torts has them playing?
A system btw that isn't about shots even though you keep saying it is.
-
1
-
-
It's no coincidence all of our star players players had some of their worst years under Torts. Get rid of the guy and find someone who knows how to deal with advanced stats and modern tactics. Not stone age garbage. I can see him drawing out his gameplan ...
YOU GET PUCK
YOU DUMP PUCK
YOU HIT MAN
YOU GET PUCK
YOU SHOOT PUCK
YOU SKATE BACK
Is this your first year watching hockey?
-
its a sign of a system that emphasizes "shooting from everywhere" which amounts to forcing low percentage plays. the theory is that lots of shots = lots of rebounds = lots of scoring chances. but the actual net result is lots of easy saves for the goalie, which gets him in a groove, and lots of turnovers, since at least as many rebounds are gathered up by the opposing team instead of being turned into second chance opportunities.
It's funny how the arguments change. Used to be shots shots shots was the mantra around here. People trying to make pretty plays and fans getting frustrated screaming for them to just shoot.
You keep talking about Torts system but I'm not sure you understand what his system is. It's pressure not lots of shots. There's a world of difference.
BTW the Canucks averaged 30.8 shots per game while allowing 28.4 shots against per game. Care to explain your point given those two numbers?
-
2
-
-
outshooting your opponent 2:1 and winning 2-1 isn't a sign of a team playing well. it's a sign of a bad system.
Winning is the sign of a bad system?
-
This thread is like the Alex Jones of hockey.
Just with better spelling and grammar.
-
I can't believe that people buy into torts bullcrap. Earlier in the season when he was over-playing our top players he was asked about it. He said that these guys were top end players who could handle it. That's how he justified over-playing them all season. Now he says he knew from the start that the core was too old and stale. Hypocrite!!!
You very obviously didn't watch the press conference.
-
Yeah, he's just spewing whatever comes into his Styrofoam-filled head.
His TV interview was about 4 times as long as his exit interview with TL; what does that say to you Torts-Keepers?
He reminds me of crack heads. He gets that vacant but rabid look in his eyes and just starts to rant.
Just keeps talking regardless of the facts or reason or what he has already said.
Just saying anything that gets him to that next hit.
Take your money and run Torts.
Edit: punctuation
It says to me that nothing is going to happen.
Torts will be back next season imo. Obviously it will also be up to whoever the new GM is but if TL or the owners wanted him gone he'd already be gone.
-
Dirtier hit?
Rome on Horton or Seabrook on Backes?
Without a second thought it was Rome on Horton
-
Yeah you're right...the reason I agree is in the spoiler. Doesn't really 'spoil' anything IMO, but just in case.
Seven here
Six here:
Yeah I dunno. It could just have slipped underneath her clothes.
-
1
-
-
The core is legitimately relevant as per the first 40 games of this season.
The ability and excuses to support the core was stale and done.
That's not what you were saying at the start of the year. You kept going on about the team not scoring enough and not being able to beat the top teams.
-
A player's play is a good way to dictate their ice time.
A coaches' coaching - a good way to dictate whether the coach returns next year.
Further: players' play under coaches' coaching...another good indicator of coaches' coaching.
Sure so we can say that prior to the new year the coaches coaching and the players playing were both getting the job done. We can argue (or agree) about the GM's GMing later but lets use this as the cornerstone of the discussion.
Now I'd hate to imply this has anything to do with AV but in your list you stated that Torts used the Sedins more to kill penalties than Hansen. What's the problem with that? Also we're talking about an average of 10 seconds more per game. 10 seconds!!! Also I'm sorry to say but Hansen wasn't really earning it this season. I'd say the same for Hammer in the first quarter of the season but that's nothign to do with this.
Using Edler as a shutdown D man is what he should be. He's either got to put up points or he's got to defend. Edlers problems didn't start this season, they've been here for a while. Whether he's used as a PMD or a shut down guy he's not up to where he should be for what he's being paid. AV tried to use him the same ways Torts did. He hasn't worked anywhere terribly well. I'm not one of those Edler sucks guys but I don't know what can be done with him.
The Sedins ice time: You may want to take a look at the game logs before the new year. They had some bigger nights than they did Under AV but it's not that different overall and it certainly wasn't 24 minutes a night. In fact it only hit that mark 9 times before the new year for Dan. I assume it's similar for Henrik.
Your 5th point I more or less agree with. Not completely but I think you make a good point there.
Edler and Bieksa played together under AV as well but I also wouldn't have labelled those two as the shutdown pair on this team. I think you're misrepresenting what they were which was just a poor pairing. Hammer Tanev was usually the shutdown crew though weren't they?
-
If there's anything specific you want to take issue with, fill your boots.
If there's anything specific you want to take issue with, fill your boots.
Just answer the question in post 173 of this thread. For like the 5th time.
Or don't but then don't bother responding again. It will just waste both our time. It's astounding the lengths you're going to not answer the question. I feel like I'm having a conversation with Smurf or Nino about Luongo at this point.
-
What's this?
So you just don't want to answer the question and give context to your opinions?
Are you the same oldnews that used to be here? That guy always seemed pretty thoughtful and willing to engage people like adults.
Seems like you just want to stir the pot. Not really interested in that. If you're not going to answer the question that's fine. In itself that's an answer anyways.
You want to know a good way to judge a coaches performance. Take all the information in and make an educated judgement. Not pick and choose what we want and make rash judgments based on misinformation and emotions.
-
Tortorella has said it a number of times this year - he considers the players to be the ones who decide their ice time based upon their performance.
Good standard upon which to determine whether the coach returns next year.
How was the coaching performance?
My opinion was pretty clear from my first post onward - the retool should start at the coaching position.
Which part is unclear or being avoided?
Well you certainly seem to be avoiding that question.
-
I don't have a problem with your posts OetM. I'm simply responding to your posts about posts. It's not about being 'bothered' - if you're bothered by the fact that I have a response and still don't agree with you, I suggest you take your advice and don't engage. If you expected that I wouldn't have an answer I don't see the point in the first place - were you looking to avoid a conversation on the matter? You might think some criticisms are less than fair but haven't really referred to anything specific - unless you want to engage an actual context, I don't see much point skating around the issues. You may not be prepared to make a decision - fair enough - that's your perspective - my perspective is obviously different, and one that is not dissuaded by this kind of surface objection.
This is getting silly Oldnews.
Agreeing is not the cornerstone of a discussion.
How about you go back and answer the question I asked you regarding the actual contet. You've seemingly done everything you can not to engage in that and get into the specifics here. Post #173
-
1
-
-
?
The differences wadr are very significant.
AV did not use the Sedins to kill more penalties than Hansen.
AV did not mistake Alex Edler for his primary shutdown defenseman.
AV did not play the Sedins 24 minutes a night and run them into the ground by New Years.
AV understood the travel and play schedule of the Canucks are regardless of the depth the team had, used his fourth line more than 3 or 4 minutes a night.
AV had role players whom he utilized as such. Two year ago AV had 9 forwards under 40% offensive zone starts, and a half dozne key shutdown guys in the 13-30% range. Last year still 5 guys under 40%.This year, Richardson is pretty much it at 32.5% (and Pelletier for 3 games). Only a handful of regulars over 50% ozone starts. Tortorella has a relative cookie cutter approach to using his forwards that arguably fails to utilize players to their strengths.
AV did not mistake the Edler/Bieksa pairing for a good idea.
AV did not berate players publicly.
AV did not attempt to break into any opposition locker rooms, get himself suspended, and then in his absence wonder about the extent that leadership in the room fell into the players hands.
Specifics about decisions - not cliches.
and...
many of those things were explained weren't they? Some others I agree were mistakes on his part which he also takes the blame for. Most of what you wrote are kind of confirming my suspicion. Also you're 6th and 7th points are both incorrect completely.
But this has nothing to do with AV right?
-
This
Did I get a prize for winning Van?
-
I don't think it's necessary to 'reach' at all, EotM. I've been very specific about the actual issues I have with the job Tortorella did this season - the hockey questions we heard very little about - the specifics of systems, personnel decisions, ice time, defensive pairings, line juggling, etc - and the cliches Tortorella offered as solutions just aren't very convincing. The whole 'I needed to be stricter, keep my foot on the pedal, hold players accountable, etc - not really good enough.
You appear to have jumped into the last page or two of a thread - if you want to take issue with my first post in this thread - by all means - it's more in depth - but if you're looking to skim over the surface as Tortorella did in his presser - I don't have much more to offer here.
I'm just making some comments about posts oldnews. If that bothers you don't make posts. I've read the thread and those are my comments about what I've read from you. Some stuff I agree with and some stuff I think you're reaching to trash the guy. Based on what he said in the press conference I think a lot of your criticisms are less than fair. I think you've got your conclusion and that's interfering with how you're processing what's being said. We have a clear example of that in your second post in the thread.
Personally I don't know if he's the right coach for this team but I'm trying to not jump to things as quickly as some might be.
-
I'm not taking that quote from the presser.
Tortorella did say exactly that a number of time this season.
Has nothing whatsoever to do with AV nor whether or not I "like" Tortorella.
And can you think of a good reason why how a player plays doesn't or shouldn't dictate their ice time?
What I said from the presser was his explanation of it.
As for the last part that's fine I'm just giving you what I'm interpreting. I'm seeing a lot of arguments we used to see about AV being made about torts. Not necessarily the same substance of the arguments just the same tactics.
-
Option 1) Stat Quo and Keep firing coaches every year for the next 4 years and listen to the same players make the same excuses.
or
Option 2)
listen to Torts who speaks the cold hard truth and trade 3-4 vets.
Most people outside of delusional fan boys would agree with Tortorella,
this team desperately needs a massive shakeup.
I think option 2 may be the extreme rockstar 5 hour energy extra cheese dorrito version of what Torts said. :D
-
Yes, What additionally annoyed the hell out of me was the rest of his Keenan 2.0 show. Avoided the hard questions about how his approach was a misfit and opted instead to offer a whole lot of GMing advice regarding the lack of depth, the stale old core, etc. Is he lobbying for the GM opening, hoping to follow in the footsteps of Iron Mike? It sure sounded like a real convergence in philosophies. Don't coach what you do have - but rather run down what you have with a view to convincing the City to give you a key to remake the organization in your image.
Thank gawd Trevor Linden is back in a leadership role here.
Thanks for essentially wasting a season Torts. If he felt the core was so old and stale, and didn't have the young horses to execute his young man's gameplan, then attempting to storm ahead with his approach had a fairly predictable and forseeable result, didn't it? Was the point to run the team's tank empty by the halfway mark? Was this an entire season devoted to a passive aggressive strategy, which was essentially also the nature of his comments at season ending presser? 'Im not being critical, I'm just being honest when I say that coaching wasn't the problem - it's just that the core is trending, old, stale, etc and if anything, I undercoached them'. k.
What I saw was an absolute loss of answers, responsiveness, and coaching accountability at the half way mark of the season. And there certainly weren't any better answers coming out of that season ending presser. Essentially, give me the best young horses in the NHL and I might provide some results, otherwise, this group is a lost cause. Completely unacceptable imo.
I mean, he talked extensively about his failings. He was quite clear that he felt the first half of the year he coached the team properly but that he let the room go and didn't do his job as a coach in a way that benefited the room. He was also very clear about talking about how great the leadership group was. He wasn't trashing them he was trashing the job he did more than anything else.
You're reaching pretty hard to make an argument here Oldnews. This is Nucknit territory.
-
4
-
The "I would like to see Torts stay for at least one more year" thread.
in Canucks Talk
Posted
Oddly enough I read his post like Karl Pilkington.