Canada Hockey Place Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Some people just want a coaching change. And it has less to do with who the coach is and more about trying something different. The losing coach is always "outcoached" regardless of who it is. The Sedins have 1 yr remaining on their contract, a contract signed by Gillis. At the end of that contract we may all be asking what if.... Much like, what if the Canucks upgraded the goaltending during the WCE era? We'll never know. But I'm sure a lot of people believe it was a worth a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustAFan33 Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 I've been gradually moving into the group that is seriously unimpressed with his coaching. He juggles lines at the drop of a hat, plays favourites for no apparent reason, and absolutely does not adapt to opposing teams' strategies in series. You can get away with that in the regular season, but, as has been proven time and time again, it doesn't work in the playoffs. After a couple of games in a series, usually after a two day break, you can see the opposing team change things up and get a win. Next game, Canucks play the exact same way they did at the start. That's all coaching. There have been a number of glaring weaknesses in the Canucks style of play for years under his system that continue to be a problem. Regardless of who has been on the roster. They suck playing teams that have an aggressive forecheck or that commit to blocking shots. And they rely far too much on great goaltending for sloppy defensive coverage and a lack of shot blocking in their end, regular season or playoffs. Even when they're getting wins out of it, it makes for either boring or frustrated viewing as a fan. On the other side of the coin, are there any better alternatives out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luongo Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Hell no. Any time things get tough, we go into this defensive shell system instead of addressing the real issues. This started last year, and it has not gotten any better, regardless of the injuries. Can't generate offense, let's play defensive hockey. Poor PP, let's play defensive hockey. One goal lead, let's play defensive hockey. Bad breakouts, let's play defensive hockey. A lot of teams around the league are adopting the tight, neutral zone trap style of hockey because it allows teams to contend and win games despite the lack of skill...Ottawa, Columbus, etc. but we are not a team that lacks skill when we're healthy. It doesn't take skilled players or a skilled coach to play this kind of hockey. How come we played down to the level of our abilities last season, and this season as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Disagree. People give coach Q credit for coaching his way out of a 3-0 deficit, but forget that he also coached his way into it. As for game seven, go back and actually watch it. Crawford played exceptional and the final score flattered the 'Hawks because of it. Against Boston, Vigneault had to deal with the loss of Hamhuis and Rome, plus the fact that Henrik, Kesler, Ehrhoff and Bieksa were all playing through injury. I think it's a testament to his ability that the team got that close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Hell no. Any time things get tough, we go into this defensive shell system instead of addressing the real issues. This started last year, and it has not gotten any better, regardless of the injuries. Can't generate offense, let's play defensive hockey. Poor PP, let's play defensive hockey. One goal lead, let's play defensive hockey. Bad breakouts, let's play defensive hockey. A lot of teams around the league are adopting the tight, neutral zone trap style of hockey because it allows teams to contend and win games despite the lack of skill...Ottawa, Columbus, etc. but we are not a team that lacks skill when we're healthy. It doesn't take skilled players or a skilled coach to play this kind of hockey. How come we played down to the level of our abilities last season, and this season as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Do you know what though? That's what makes a team - that, when some are missing or struggling others will pick up the slack. "Coulda easily" lost, but won. When you're patching together a team and are winning despite that, it shows that you are a fairly strong team. "No where close to being a contender"?? Don't just pick up phrases that others have thrown out there...any team is a contender until they're knocked out of the playoffs. Including us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.