Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Official] Canucks coach talk. Keep all talk here.


MJDDawg

Recommended Posts

It depends on your definition of success. NY Rangers were 1st in the East last season and went on to the Conference Finals. Torts is also a Cup-winning coach and while at times his demeanor and comments leave much to be desired, he is extremely fair and treats all players equally based on merit and play.

I think he is a great coach and would be a very good short-term solution, which is probably why he will not be considered...but I think I would dislike the side-show that comes with him. Although as a general fan I look forward to it.

Team Lundqvist? Lets face it, Tortorella only had a job for as long as he did because of Lundqvist being an absolute beast.

His success that season is comparative to AV's success in 06/07.

I really think that if he wasn't the loud mouth jerk that the media loves to talk about, he wouldn't even be in discussions as a top coaching candidate. Alot of his appeal comes from his antics it seems like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I digress on that, any time a cup winning coach is a available you have to at least look at the possibility.

I also disagree that it was only because of Lundquist that they made it to the ECF, thats like saying the Canucks only got to the SCF due to Luongo. I thought Callahans injury hurt them abit last year as he is a pretty key cog for NYR and totally bought into Torts system.

Personally what I think caused an implosion for NYR was that deal with Columbus for Nash. He is a solid player but that ate up a fair bit of NYRs depth and guys that succeded under torts system. Its also not like he was wiped out in the 1st round the last 2 years either he was in the ECF & 2nd round - also look at how Boston is absolutely dominating Pittsburgh, its not like he lost to a club that they should have easily beat Boston is on the verge of being in the SCF again and potentially could win the cup again.

Torts was his own undoing and his media antics grew tiresome (I am sure there were more than the famous ones on youtube) and the 48 game season hampered everyone. Where Torts loses credibility (for me anyway) is when he takes to the media to blast players - Hagelin recently as an example - which I think does little to nothing to motivate the player and infact makes the situation worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on your definition of success. NY Rangers were 1st in the East last season and went on to the Conference Finals. Torts is also a Cup-winning coach and while at times his demeanor and comments leave much to be desired, he is extremely fair and treats all players equally based on merit and play.

I think he is a great coach and would be a very good short-term solution, which is probably why he will not be considered...but I think I would dislike the side-show that comes with him. Although as a general fan I look forward to it.

Just to play devil's advocate, there are many things that can contribute to success. In the case of the Rangers, perhaps there were good systems in place and good quality players to run them, but they'd done so out of their own will to win rather than due to any loyalty to Torts. If they weren't the type of players to ask out when they didn't like the coach and his message anymore, they'd have to put up with it.

Well, they got their option to speak freely after this year and let the management know how they felt. That meant Torts not getting fired quickly turned into the opposite and now they're looking for someone to replace him. The new coach isn't likely to be the confrontational style as a matter of change, so they're bound to get someone who can put systems in place that are similarly good (or maybe better) but also work with the players to make sure they're on board with implementing them and doing it for better reasons than just being hockey players.

^ I digress on that, any time a cup winning coach is a available you have to at least look at the possibility.

...

Perhaps an extreme example, but it will illustrate my point nicely:

If you're an eco-friendly company looking to make a significant economic gain and have an opening for a CEO, would you look at every CEO who has been at the head of a Fortune 500 company? You'd maybe start with that list and have your own choices as well who could also do the role, but you aren't likely to do an in depth interview process including CEO's who have been heads of companies guilty of pollution or negative genetic engineering (i.e. Monsanto). You can pretty effectively weed those people out - pun intended - and give more time and consideration to people that may fit the role and company you have better.

Most of the coaches out there have a pretty public resume. Torts is no exception, and hockey minds involved at the level Gillis and Co. are would know pretty quickly if he has anything that would take his resume off the list. If there are any red flags that go against what they're looking for, then they move on to the next guy - even if that guy hasn't won a Stanley Cup or been a head coach in the NHL before. So long as the resume fits what the team is going for and will work with the players, they'll get interviewed (assuming they're available to do so). If it doesn't, then they won't bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Team Lundqvist? Lets face it, Tortorella only had a job for as long as he did because of Lundqvist being an absolute beast.

His success that season is comparative to AV's success in 06/07.

I really think that if he wasn't the loud mouth jerk that the media loves to talk about, he wouldn't even be in discussions as a top coaching candidate. Alot of his appeal comes from his antics it seems like.

One could also argue that Lundqvist's numbers improved notably after Tortorella became coach of the Rangers.

Though it is far from an easy proposition, when you separate the coach from the character, his overall results speak for themselves as he has won both a Calder Cup and a Stanley Cup as a head coach.

From a character perspective, I dislike his antics and demeanor without a doubt, regardless of the entertainment value. But purely as a coach I think he does deserve more respect than many are giving him credit for.

I just think that because of his antics, he will have a short life as a head coach on any given team, but he could bring immediate success to a team as a coach no matter what - he is a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confess I like Torts. He seems a fair guy who demands and then demands more from the players.

I watched the Road to the winter classic a while back flying back from Canada and as a football player myself I would want this kind of coach in charge.

But we are all different, what works for one doesn't necessarily work for each other. some players need an arm around them and others need that kick up the backside. It's knowing which player needs what and then picking the right moment.

I do believe some of our players have been in the comfort zone far too long and don't show enough passion. Maybe the new coach ( whoever it is ) can sort that out. I have my doubts though as the gentlemans club atmosphere has been here for a number of years now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a convincing case. I agree.

Part and parcel, I'd like to see some of the young guys mix it up on lines with our top players. Skill guys like Jensen/Kassian would benefit most learning to play a high speed skill game a lot faster playing with Kesler or the Twins than Lapierre. In return, the young guys offer speed, size and soft hands. It wasn't Eakins, but Carlyle put Kadri with Lupul and they found some synergy. Ahem, Marchand played with Bergeron, Lucic with Krecji even two years ago. Has to be a boost for a young guy who no doubt starts out skating that much harder!

The thing is the team is likely going to be alot younger next season. There could be as many as 5 players who are 23 or younger on the team, possibly more.

They don't really have a choice but to go with youth with the way the cap is now. And with young players, we're gonna need a coach that is patient. If we bring a coach that benches young players every time they have a bad stretch of games, forget about development.

It's all about getting these young guys in the lineup while our core players are still playing at a high level. That way they can play with these guys and see what it takes to be a top player. And the idea is that eventually this new group of players will take over as the core group/ Much like the Sedins, Edler, Bieksa, Kesler, and Burrows took over from Naslund, Morrison, Bertuzzi, Jovanovski, and Ohlund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

will GMMG wait so long that his choice ends up coaching the competition? Taking your time is enviable but reality is that the good ones will be sought and they will rather go for the one in hand versus the one that might be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Gills did not want Eakins why did he have 2 interviews with him.

I do not mind if he is gone, i rather want Ruff to be our coach but Gills has to make a

qiuck decsion before every good opion his gone and ranbom people are left like Glen whats his face or Joe Sakco

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eakins is a MUCH better fit for the Oilers than the Canucks. Total youth movement in Edmonton. Releasing Hemsky and Horcoff was a dead give away. Eakins can step right in and coach a team that isn't much older than what he's been coaching for the past three years. Pretty much a seamless transition if you ask me. Eakins may have been OK as an assistant (associate) coach with the Canucks, but the Canucks are an older - veteran team and thus need somebody older and more experienced as their main bench boss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eakins is a much better fit in Edmonton than Vancouver. Total youth movement there especially with the pending release of Hemsky and Horcoff. The majority of the Oilers so called core won't be much older than what he's been coaching for the past three seasons. Should be a seamless transition. Smart move on the Oilers part. Maybe smart(er) on Vancouver's part? Think Eakins would have made a decent associate coach in Vancouver, but feel Vancouver's older core needs a more experienced, mature bench boss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...