Gillis, The Aquilinis And Vigneault - Long Read

[stexx]

The line in the OP that makes me wonder, is the "seeking a coach who will be okay with 6-5 games" bit.

Do you really believe that? The Canucks have been top 5 in scoring for the last two years. AV has shown himself capable of playing whatever style the situation dictates, be it defensive or run-and-gun. This bit about him being a defense only coach is a myth.

The defensive coaches are Hitch, Sutter, Torts and Tippett. The only "offensive" coaches left are Laviolette and Trotz, and both of them are on the verge of bowing out. Also, the formerly offensive-minded team Washington, has started winning since adopting a defense-first style.

BTW: Only one NHL coach can claim to have coached a team with a top 5 ranking in both offense and defense the past two seasons. See if you can guess which one....

[Ghostdivision]

1. The Canucks lost in 5 games to the Kings because the Kings were a better team at the time. Consider Kesler's lingering injury problems. Consider the long playoff run of last season. Consider the Kings scoring a lot more goals than the Canucks post-deadline. Considering Quick's performance.

The Canucks scored only 8 goals because, as predicted, it was a tight series. The Blues, this 'big and tough team', is having the same problem.

To me the bigger concern is why the team won the President's trophy in the first place. It's a meaningless award that most serious playoff contenders chose to avoid because they don't need the expectations that go with it. But i was never sold on this teams' playoff chances this season anyway? The odds of repeating trips to the finals in back to back seasons are slim. The only way we could do it is if we added an all-star into the lineup already filled with all-stars or if one of our entry-level contracts had an mvp-type season.

2. Fatigue. Injuries. Coaching can't really do anything to counter them. Our powerplay? Hell, we should've been happy with one that didn't give up so many short-handed goals against. Our powerplay also vanished against Boston, if you recall. Ehrhoff got hurt. Then we lost Ehrhoff. Then the Sedins slowed down. It should be quite clear why our powerplay struggles continued. Coaching could only do so much. I expect next season to have players who are prepared for a long run again. I also expect Gillis to acquire some more good players. That will help more than any ticky-tacky coaching trick could.

3. AV has done well. The players still respond. Yes, there have been playoff losses, but they're mainly due to players being injured or underperforming.

Is the grass greener on the other side? Well who are we talking about? MacT? He was fired from Edmonton after losing in the finals too. And he had Chris Pronger in his prime.

There are certain of AV's coaching style i don't like. The Sedins never penalty-kill when they could. Our 4th line starts in their own zone almost all the time. Our lineup isn't dynamic enough. The adjustments aren't quick enough. And he doesn't appear to try to motivate his players on the bench.

But there are certain AV coaching style aspects i like. He adjusts. Whereas Crow never did. And he is a calming presense, whereas Crow amps his team up to the stupid levels that led to the Bertuzzi incident. Too. Many. Penalties.

One thing about bringing in MacT is that our Wolves prospects may follow. That's how it was when AV took over in the first place. But sorry if i can't get my shorts wet for Jordan Schroeder. Poor man's Marty St. Louis? If our prayers are answered. But even he needs the weakest division in hockey to play in to be successful.

4. Speaking of bringing prospects up, remember when AV brought in Kesler, Edler, Burrows, Hansen, Raymond, Bieksa, Tanev, Schneider, etc.? He's been here for NINE seasons now. You don't last that long as a head coach if you don't give prospects a chance.

With that out of the way, do we have legit guys who can come up? Yes. Of course we do. But it will depend on the players. You think our team will just put in anybody and let him go? Um, no. That's what basement teams have to do. Not us. We are in a position where we can bring in prospects at our leisure. But yes, we would also like to be able to see some prospects who actually, y'know, deserve a shot.

That's where the players come in. If all these kids really work hard in the summer, then they all have a shot. That's the way it's supposed to work.

In the end, losing sucks. It leads to questions. Hard questions. AV might be fired. He might be kept. I don't think it matters either way, but Gillis seems to think he is an alright coach. Perhaps he's looking at Pittsburgh and Detroit, noting that they've made no panic moves after losing in round one, and is going to stand pat.

The REAL importance to me isn't coaching anyway. It's the free agency and trade market. Why should Gillis waste his time coach-hunting when there is a lineup to focus on?!?

Btw. You realize that the only reason we haven't heard from any of those guys lately is because they're on vacation, right? Cheers.

TOMapleLaughs

(The username the cowardly beyotches at HFBoards made me change, after SIX YEARS of seeing TOMapleLaughs. F-ck HFBoards.)

[Totes McGoats]

There sure are a lot of armchair coaches here who think that hindsight allows them to be more qualified than MG and AV.

Give your heads a shake....no one knows how any player is going to perform on any line until they are tried there. Kassian should be playing here, Kesler should be playing there......MG should not have traded away a player that wanted out of Vancouver because he could have been the 2nd line centre, AV was outcoached......

Until you are in the position of being that close to the team, you (collectively) don't know squat about what should happen or what should have happened.

We can discuss the team as much as we want, but we are in no way qualified to decide who goes and who stays.

[Ronning4center]

Everyone knows that the year end meetings between Gillis and the Aquilinis will take place sometime Monday, and that there will be tough questions asked all round. Here are questions that Gillis will likely have to address:

1. (Obvious) Why was the President's Cup winner eliminated in five games in which they only managed eight goals?

Gillis might answer that the team didn't seem able to recapture the same level of emotion and discipline they showed during last year's Cup run. Once again, a team built for speed, finesse and offence was smothered by a team that was bigger, grittier up front and by a team commitment on the part of LA that was built on a tight defensive system. The obvious question from ownership would be in two parts, "How do you account for that?" and :What is your plan to counteract it?'

Gillis might suggest a number of player moves and might have to admit that the cocahing staff was at least partially responsible for not having the team properly prepared. Strike one, AV.

2. Why was the coaching staff unable to prepare the team for a series against LA?

The power play died sometime in January, after the rest of the league caught on to the drop pass at centre. There was a failure to adjust the power play strategy, which was Newell Brown's responsibity. Further, AV has proven to be a fairly hands off coach, preferring to leave the leadership responsibilities to the so-called leadership group of players. This works when the team is going well. When it is not, not so much. Strike two, AV.

3. Why would we commit to another four years of a coach who has been unable to win the Stanley Cup and who may not have been willing or able to establish the kind of presence a coach should exert in the post-season?

The answer is, I don't know. We could decide to not offer AV an extesnion, in which case he owes us one more year as a lame duck coach. Not a great idea, especially when there are several teams in the NHL who would gladly pay AV what he wants, with the term he wants. There seems to be no compelling reason to believe that AV will bring anything new to the table if he is retained and extended. While there is no argument with his body of work in the regular season, ownership demands playoff success, both for bragging rights and for the pure, enormous financial windfall that comes in the playoffs. Ball one, AV.

4. Are there any players in the system who might legitimately challenge for a roster spot in 2012-2013?

The answer is, maybe, but it will depend on the coachng staff. Young players will make mistakes, and in a tight league, you can't afford to make too many of them. Do you use Vancouver's traditional approach and play rookies six or eight minutes a night and risk stalling thier development, or do you use the Philadelphia approach and throw them to the wolves? This coaching staff has been reluctant to play young players, so they have had to play in the AHL. Now, the AHL is a good league, but it isn't the NHL and success down there doesn't always translate. All that said, the only realistic young players who might earn a spot are probably, Schroeder, Connauton, Lack and Jensen, at least for nine games. Ryan Parent may finally get a shot, but is unlikely to make an impact. But will AV play them? His history says probably not. Strike three, AV.

After the meeting Gillis will announce he is staying, that AV, Brown and Bowness will be relieved of their duties and that the search for a new coaching staff is ongoing. He will also announce that Roberto Luongo and the team have mutually agreed to move forward without each other and that he will be exploring trade options in the coming weeks.

In any event, the longer it goes that we don't hear from AV, the more likely it is that he is gone. It just may be that Gillis himself has grown tired of AV's approach and is seeking a coach who will be okay with 6-5 games.

[RUPERTKBD]

did you just call trapville and trotz "offensive"? i find that hilarious that nashville in todays game could be called offensive compared to other teams that just trap even more than they do.

[Canuck Surfer]

Its called the salary cap at one end & there is an expression "young legs."

Every well managed team should have exciting talent with young legs on an entry contract pressing veteran players who might be injury prone, complacent or siimply not as dynamic.

If say a Kesler is not playing great because he's injured, he could be rested. If the coach thinks he's just storing his energy for the playoff's, a little competition can help get him his energy back?

The better question is why do so many here have such a chubby to have a rookie on the team? Is it essential? Is there anybody that stands out so far in the AHL that they have to be in the NHL asap? Has anybody stepped in as a call up and played so amazing that he has to stay? Or is it really more a case of wanting a rookie on the team for the sake of having one?

[j3ff]

Our top line who garners the most ice time, isn't paid to hit people. This amounts to about 1/3 or more of the game. We are basicaly giving teams a buy into the next round. In particular, the oppositions top d- pairing who is up against the top line.......unscathed. Having toughness on the 3rd and 4th will never make up for this. Clearly this whole idea that you can have guys that only score is a liability in the play-offs.

[canacks1970]

coach v was awfull late in the year

great observation, you have saved me the trouble to post a reply, his late season preparation heading into the playoffs and his desperation moves early on against the kings i found very unsettling, gillis knows this too!

[TOMapleLaughs]

The canucks are the only team in history to win back to back presidents cups and not win the stanley cup.

[S.Mouse!]

Ever hear of stearing the course?

[Canuck_Whisperer]

1. The Canucks lost in 5 games to the Kings because the Kings were a better team at the time. Consider Kesler's lingering injury problems. Consider the long playoff run of last season. Consider the Kings scoring a lot more goals than the Canucks post-deadline. Considering Quick's performance.

The Canucks scored only 8 goals because, as predicted, it was a tight series. The Blues, this 'big and tough team', is having the same problem.

To me the bigger concern is why the team won the President's trophy in the first place. It's a meaningless award that most serious playoff contenders chose to avoid because they don't need the expectations that go with it. But i was never sold on this teams' playoff chances this season anyway? The odds of repeating trips to the finals in back to back seasons are slim. The only way we could do it is if we added an all-star into the lineup already filled with all-stars or if one of our entry-level contracts had an mvp-type season.

2. Fatigue. Injuries. Coaching can't really do anything to counter them. Our powerplay? Hell, we should've been happy with one that didn't give up so many short-handed goals against. Our powerplay also vanished against Boston, if you recall. Ehrhoff got hurt. Then we lost Ehrhoff. Then the Sedins slowed down. It should be quite clear why our powerplay struggles continued. Coaching could only do so much. I expect next season to have players who are prepared for a long run again. I also expect Gillis to acquire some more good players. That will help more than any ticky-tacky coaching trick could.

3. AV has done well. The players still respond. Yes, there have been playoff losses, but they're mainly due to players being injured or underperforming.

Is the grass greener on the other side? Well who are we talking about? MacT? He was fired from Edmonton after losing in the finals too. And he had Chris Pronger in his prime.

There are certain of AV's coaching style i don't like. The Sedins never penalty-kill when they could. Our 4th line starts in their own zone almost all the time. Our lineup isn't dynamic enough. The adjustments aren't quick enough. And he doesn't appear to try to motivate his players on the bench.

But there are certain AV coaching style aspects i like. He adjusts. Whereas Crow never did. And he is a calming presense, whereas Crow amps his team up to the stupid levels that led to the Bertuzzi incident. Too. Many. Penalties.

One thing about bringing in MacT is that our Wolves prospects may follow. That's how it was when AV took over in the first place. But sorry if i can't get my shorts wet for Jordan Schroeder. Poor man's Marty St. Louis? If our prayers are answered. But even he needs the weakest division in hockey to play in to be successful.

4. Speaking of bringing prospects up, remember when AV brought in Kesler, Edler, Burrows, Hansen, Raymond, Bieksa, Tanev, Schneider, etc.? He's been here for NINE seasons now. You don't last that long as a head coach if you don't give prospects a chance.

With that out of the way, do we have legit guys who can come up? Yes. Of course we do. But it will depend on the players. You think our team will just put in anybody and let him go? Um, no. That's what basement teams have to do. Not us. We are in a position where we can bring in prospects at our leisure. But yes, we would also like to be able to see some prospects who actually, y'know, deserve a shot.

That's where the players come in. If all these kids really work hard in the summer, then they all have a shot. That's the way it's supposed to work.

In the end, losing sucks. It leads to questions. Hard questions. AV might be fired. He might be kept. I don't think it matters either way, but Gillis seems to think he is an alright coach. Perhaps he's looking at Pittsburgh and Detroit, noting that they've made no panic moves after losing in round one, and is going to stand pat.

The REAL importance to me isn't coaching anyway. It's the free agency and trade market. Why should Gillis waste his time coach-hunting when there is a lineup to focus on?!?

Btw. You realize that the only reason we haven't heard from any of those guys lately is because they're on vacation, right? Cheers.

TOMapleLaughs

(The username the cowardly beyotches at HFBoards made me change, after SIX YEARS of seeing TOMapleLaughs. F-ck HFBoards.)

[stanleycanucks]

The better question is why do so many here have such a chubby to have a rookie on the team? Is it essential? Is there anybody that stands out so far in the AHL that they have to be in the NHL asap? Has anybody stepped in as a call up and played so amazing that he has to stay? Or is it really more a case of wanting a rookie on the team for the sake of having one?

[qball]

There are rumours out there that Joel Quenneville may be 'available' from Chicago...

[schlaBAM]

The canucks are the only team in history to win back to back presidents cups and not win the stanley cup........

[Ronning4center]

Detroit just did the same thing a few years ago, actually. Twice.

1994-95 1995-96: Two president's trophies. No cups.

2003-04 [lockout] 2005-06: Two president's trophies. No cups.

And Gillis has repeatedly said Detroit's is the approach he's trying to emulate. So let's hope we emulate some cup wins as well. Frack, we'd be happy with just one. Cheers.

TOML

[Duodenum]

I should have clarified....the canucks are the only team in history to have won back to back presidents trophys and not won the cup at all. Detroit has won several times.

[Bodee]

If we get a solid acquisition for Luongo, and get rid of Raymond and Malhotra, and the team isn't dynamite 30 games in I could see Mac T coming in and winning ala Pittsburgh 2009

[Bodee]

Parent was one of the Wolves worst defenseman. He'll never see time on the Canucks. Connauton will need another year so I really only see 3 with an opportunity and Corrado might see some extended time in the preseason. Corrado plays a similar game to Tanev but he's a little more offensive.

[Baggins]

He didnt say anything like that.

Im pretty sure hes concerned about the development of young players under AV, and I think he has a good point. If youre not one of AVs guys and you make a mistake, he will reduce your ice time.

Ive never seen him pull a player aside and instruct him about what hes doing wrong, he doesnt talk to the players during a game. Hes kind of a prick that way. If you dont let them make mistakes, they end up playing scared.

[puckdrop81]

I stopped reading after

"- Long Read"