Psycho_Path Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 "You say Gillis isn't adding the pieces this team needs, when in fact the core of our team that got us to game 7 of the SCF is still here (aside from Ehrhoff, who doesn't add size) and Gillis has added some size in both Kassian and Booth, as well as Garrison" The parts that made the difference are very much NOT there. Ehrhoff, Sami, Sammy, Manny, Torres. Glass. Kassian was and is for at least another season a waste of time. Booth is a waste of a pair of skates Garrison is decent but no upgrade on Sami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avicii Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Datsyuk.. Oh my goodness Datsyuk > Sedins Much rather have Datsyuk at 7 than both Sedins at 12. Datsyuk shows up, Sedins haven't showed up in a series when it mattered most since 07' against the Stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted May 21, 2013 Author Share Posted May 21, 2013 I actually spit out my coffee upon reading Glass was a difference maker. You've lost it mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bananas Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Gillis really never has put together a good 4th line. At the same time, AV's never managed to get the 4th line to play like one, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted May 21, 2013 Author Share Posted May 21, 2013 You'd rather have Glass to Weise (who I don't even like but is better than Glass because of his size), Sestito, and Pinnizotto? Because I'd take any of those 3 and their size to him any day. It seems like letting Torres go was a mistake but who knows with the way the refs have been towards him if he would have been much of a benefit (has been suspended in both of the last 2 playoffs). Malhotra didn't even play for us during the 2011 run and wasn't much use when he played for us last year or this year due to his eye injury. While I believe Salo was our best defenseman for the past 3+ years before this one, he was injured too often, and not having him in our lineup sucked while he was injured, so Gillis got the best player he could to replace him (he couldn't have gotten Suter). If AV isn't coaching this team I guarantee you we'll see a huge increase in Kassian's production, both regular season and playoffs. Booth certainly looked good this season before he got injured again playing with Kassian and Higgins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted May 21, 2013 Author Share Posted May 21, 2013 Gillis really never has put together a good 4th line. At the same time, AV's never managed to get the 4th line to play like one, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Well if you don't have the players .................you can't make them play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 There are many other coaches in the league who on paper do not have the players yet they still get more out of them then would meet the eye. Almost any coach can get skill players to perform. A big part of that is the skill of the player. The best coaches get the most out of the depth guys something AV has never really been all that good at unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 AV's never managed to get the 4th line to play like one, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswhere Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Yeah, funny that not a lot of top end free agents are signing up to get punched in the head on a nightly basis. Who woulda guessed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 You're talking about a coach who has seen a handful of 'depth' players overachieve during his tenure: Burrows - undrafted checker. Kesler - projected 3rd line center. Hansen - late round pick - 287th overall - 'grinder'. Bieksa - late round depth defenseman at best. Tanev - undrafted, undersized... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Burrows heart and desire are the #1 reason for his overachievement. A close #2 would be the lucky chemistry with the Sedins although #1 has played a part in that as well. I give AV little credit for his overachievement (like as in his last ditch effort to save his job of putting Burrows with the Sedins) and most to Burrows himself. Kesler was drafted in the 1st round. I think there were a bit higher expectations on him. Hansen is still a grinder. Bieksa was given a role on the team due to terrible defensive depth and his own good AHL season where he proved himself to be more than just a depth defenceman in the eyes of the Canucks. He played on the 2nd pairing a fair bit in his first season. He has also been given a very secure position on the team and cannot possibly lose ice time, opportunity, or his plum role. So him "overachieving" is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. Tanev was not drafted because he was a late grower, nothing more to the story than that. Once he grew the expectations grew too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Burrows heart and desire are the #1 reason for his overachievement. A close #2 would be the lucky chemistry with the Sedins although #1 has played a part in that as well. I give AV little credit for his overachievement (like as in his last ditch effort to save his job of putting Burrows with the Sedins) and most to Burrows himself. Kesler was drafted in the 1st round. I think there were a bit higher expectations on him. Hansen is still a grinder. Bieksa was given a role on the team due to terrible defensive depth and his own good AHL season where he proved himself to be more than just a depth defenceman in the eyes of the Canucks. He played on the 2nd pairing a fair bit in his first season. He has also been given a very secure position on the team and cannot possibly lose ice time, opportunity, or his plum role. So him "overachieving" is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy. Tanev was not drafted because he was a late grower, nothing more to the story than that. Once he grew the expectations grew too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyfall Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 What drives me nuts is that AV's style of development is an indirect, beating around the bush rather than direct hands-on approach and is not working NOW. Sure he had developed some players in the past, but not nearly at the pace and volume of what's needed NOW. Why should there excuses for him to not have to be hands on with developing young players? It's one of his biggest weaknesses, simple as that. The trend seems to be unless it's a young defenseman that Bowness trusts, the young players who are on the team the last few years don't get developed quickly and fully enough. Whoever AV started out with in Burrows, Kesler, etc. is who he felt most comfortable with and could develop after a few years at a slow pace. Even that is debatable how much the coach actually helped them. What's needed NOW is if 1/4 of the team next year are rookies who will play solid minutes, he needs to work with them all NOW. Not work with one a time and wait for years for the player to figure it out... quick results with on the fly adjustments now. Detroit is doing it, San Jose is doing it and under the new salary cap I think most teams will have to work this way to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_Wilkins Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 What drives me nuts is that AV's style of development is an indirect, beating around the bush rather than direct hands-on approach and is not working NOW. Sure he had developed some players in the past, but not nearly at the pace and volume of what's needed NOW. Why should there excuses for him to not have to be hands on with developing young players? It's one of his biggest weaknesses, simple as that. The trend seems to be unless it's a young defenseman that Bowness trusts, the young players who are on the team the last few years don't get developed quickly and fully enough. Whoever AV started out with in Burrows, Kesler, etc. is who he felt most comfortable with and could develop after a few years at a slow pace. Even that is debatable how much the coach actually helped them. What's needed NOW is if 1/4 of the team next year are rookies who will play solid minutes, he needs to work with them all NOW. Not work with one a time and wait for years for the player to figure it out... quick results with on the fly adjustments now. Detroit is doing it, San Jose is doing it and under the new salary cap I think most teams will have to work this way to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyfall Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 I covered this in my post above. Playing Burrows, or even Kesler, wasn't "comfortable". They weren't difference makers, but they were developing at a sensible pace while doing all the little things defensively that Vigneault has always demanded. The Canucks, at that time, were fighting for their playoff lives, so it's not like Vigneault could just breathe deep and forget about results. What's needed next year is NOT 1/4 of the team, i.e. 5 players, as rookies. Our best opportunity for many years for another Cup run is going to come in the next two years. We need to play the best players we have now. If a Tanev has earned that playing time, great. But throwing Jansen, Gaunce, and even Corrado into the fire to play consistently meaningful minutes isn't a recipe I'd favour for a team that has to start gaining back some playoff success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.