Jock Cousteau Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 At least the coach drama won't last as long as the goalie Drama... Then again... maybe we will wait til next off season to name our coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrippledCanuck Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Torts is exactly what the canucks and canuck media need, he demands accountability, if the canucks have developed a country club atmosphere and torts coming in and ripping them a new one wrecks their game, then they are obviously to much of a entitled delicate flowers to play this game and should be gone. I dont care who you are or what you get paid, if your 1st line or 4th line if you are not earning your bloated pay you need to be benched or dropped to different lines, this team has become to complacent and secure that their positions are set with the exception of Ballard and even now he has probably breathed a sigh of relief with the departure of Coach V. As for the media, they have gotten out of control when dealing with the canucks and if Torts can come in take the media pressure off the team I dont see how that can be a bad thing in fact it may help to improve the on ice product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I remember one year after a horrible game for our D, Bowness went off on our D and completely chewed them out. The result after that I believe was an 8 game losing streak... I don't think our players will respond to Tortorella. I could be wrong though. Maybe we will get lucky and our next D coach will subscribe to the theories that: 1. Putting your two worst defensive defenders together and playing them 27 minutes per game in the playoffs is really a bad idea (and it should not take 4 losses to figure that out). 2. Putting defensive pairings together an letting them grow together and develop chemistry is a good thing come playoff time. 3. Roles designed based on the player always trump players squished into whatever role you have open despite what their specific skill set is. Honestly, AV and Bowness made so many mistakes with our D it is not even funny. If any player on this team cannot handle getting yelled at by a coach when thy frack up then Gillis should be trading them now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Me_ Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 What a sad life you live my friend. You'll be able to claim the same in about 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangler696969 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 You'll be able to claim the same in about 30 years. No, because I don't dedicate my whole life to the Canucks. I have a job, go to school, have a girlfriend who I like very much, and actually play hockey. Sure I cheer the Canucks on, but it is not the end of the world for me if they lose, even though I was very shaken after 2011. I love the Canucks, always will, but I will not dedicate all my years on this Earth for them. Too many other good things about life. After they lost this year you probably crawled into the corner of your apartment and cried for 2 weeks straight. That being said, I know this is the coach thread, so my opinion of Torts is positive. I wasn't sure at first but I'm starting to warm up to the idea. We need a coach who has won the cup before, and I would love to watch his pressers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 What a sad life you live my friend. How so? Because I played my first hockey game at age 5 (and started following NHL hockey around the same time) and am still playing now that I'm in my 50s? I'm not sure why you'd refer to that as "sad", but I respectfully disagree. If it makes any difference, I've never played a video game version of hockey in my life, so it's not like it takes up all my time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panelguy Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Tortorella would set this team back for years ala Keenan. We don't need that act in Vancouver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Canucks fans have horrible taste in coaches. They want AV gone and then, when it's rumoured we're gonna hire coach x as our new head coach, 95% of the fan base is like 'really?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RustyShackleford Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 No, because I don't dedicate my whole life to the Canucks. I have a job, go to school, have a girlfriend who I like very much, and actually play hockey. Sure I cheer the Canucks on, but it is not the end of the world for me if they lose, even though I was very shaken after 2011. I love the Canucks, always will, but I will not dedicate all my years on this Earth for them. Too many other good things about life. After they lost this year you probably crawled into the corner of your apartment and cried for 2 weeks straight. That being said, I know this is the coach thread, so my opinion of Torts is positive. I wasn't sure at first but I'm starting to warm up to the idea. We need a coach who has won the cup before, and I would love to watch his pressers. LOL what a joke...why dont you take a long walk off a short pier then tell your life story to someone who might actually care. GO CANUCKS GO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 What exactly does that prove besides nothing. I suppose Roger Nielson and Scotty Bowman never heard of Zone play until AV invented it according to you. I suppose I should believe whatever you say because of your claim that you've been involved with the game for 45 years, so what??? There's a point in every argument where one person should be quiet and slink off to the corner. Two posts ago for you...minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 No, because I don't dedicate my whole life to the Canucks. I have a job, go to school, have a girlfriend who I like very much, and actually play hockey. Sure I cheer the Canucks on, but it is not the end of the world for me if they lose, even though I was very shaken after 2011. I love the Canucks, always will, but I will not dedicate all my years on this Earth for them. Too many other good things about life. After they lost this year you probably crawled into the corner of your apartment and cried for 2 weeks straight. That being said, I know this is the coach thread, so my opinion of Torts is positive. I wasn't sure at first but I'm starting to warm up to the idea. We need a coach who has won the cup before, and I would love to watch his pressers. I love it when people make a comment and show that they had absolutely no idea what was actually being talked about. Rupert can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about 45 years dedicated to the canucks. Should be common sense given the team hasn't been around for 45 years dontchathink? We're all a bunch of idiot nerds posting on an internet forum about hockey. We all have sad lives to some extent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I love it when people make a comment and show that they had absolutely no idea what was actually being talked about. Rupert can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about 45 years dedicated to the canucks. Should be common sense given the team hasn't been around for 45 years dontchathink? We're all a bunch of idiot nerds posting on an internet forum about hockey. We all have sad lives to some extent. I actually laughed at this. Epic post of the day on CDC. As for the point Rupert was making, I think you are right. He was pointing out that his observations come from a long history of playing and being around the game. Rupert and I battle a lot on a lot of topics but he clearly understands a lot about the game. I think he just gets pissed off at others who talk when they clearly don't understand the game, which I can certainly understand. How many times can I use understand in one paragraph? I clearly don't understand how to find alternate words with the same meaning.....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmployeeoftheMonth Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I actually laughed at this. Epic post of the day on CDC. As for the point Rupert was making, I think you are right. He was pointing out that his observations come from a long history of playing and being around the game. Rupert and I battle a lot on a lot of topics but he clearly understands a lot about the game. I think he just gets pissed off at others who talk when they clearly don't understand the game, which I can certainly understand. How many times can I use understand in one paragraph? I clearly don't understand how to find alternate words with the same meaning.....lol I understand your pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik Kesler Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 There's a point in every argument where one person should be quiet and slink off to the corner. Two posts ago for you...minimum. Who knew a simple comment I made about something AV did right, and that Torts and most of the successful teams in the league have copied would lead to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I understand that if I see one more person parrot that freaking "country club" line one more G.D. time...something in my brain might just snap causing me to have a somewhat vacant, yet threateningly maniacal look in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I actually laughed at this. Epic post of the day on CDC. As for the point Rupert was making, I think you are right. He was pointing out that his observations come from a long history of playing and being around the game. Rupert and I battle a lot on a lot of topics but he clearly understands a lot about the game. I think he just gets pissed off at others who talk when they clearly don't understand the game, which I can certainly understand. How many times can I use understand in one paragraph? I clearly don't understand how to find alternate words with the same meaning.....lol Both you and EOTM are right, (or should I say "understand" ) that is basically what I was saying. And yes, you and I have locked horns before. The difference is that you can actually admit that AV had some strong points, while I freely admit that he had weak points. Guys like newgm do nothing but slag him and refuse to admit that he may have done some things well, which is patently ridiculous. Why would Slats or Nieuwendyk even consider him otherwise? The thing that makes me shake my head about this thread, is that while a few like yourself are talking about what they believe Torts would do well for the Canucks, there are many more who like the idea of seeing him put the local media in it's place and yell and scream at the refs... ...as if either of those things would have any positive influence on the team... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 I think they'll respond well to torts because even though he gives them crap atleast he'll stick up for them when a ref makes a bad call. That's something AV hardly ever did for them. If they can't respect a guy who is willing to get fined to protect his players they need to give their heads a shake. It's the biggest reason I like torts. And everyone saying he's going to push the same defensive system as NY, I'm pretty sure gillis will get him to be more offensive minded since he can run that system fairly well. And our guys are seriously offensive minded with the D always jumping up in to the play and someone always covers them on the backend so he should be able to help balance the offence and defense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Your New Coach Mr. Tippett Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Hey Guys, your new coach checking in. See you at camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Tortorella would set this team back for years ala Keenan. We don't need that act in Vancouver. It was more the trades Keenan made rather than being a coach that was part of that dreadful era. Torts might piss a few guys off and one or two might request a trade after a year or two but as long as MG is in charge, he dictates the quality of team we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elvis15 Posted June 17, 2013 Share Posted June 17, 2013 Considering the recent theme of the discussion I don't know if it got mentioned, but when HNIC was talking about Torts and another coaching candidate have the most interest, a number of people were speculating it was Ruff as the unnamed second. Well, in Elliotte Friedman's 30 thoughts today, he says it's likely Stevens. 15. Former Rangers head coach John Tortorella is going to Vancouver this week for a second interview. Information about his first one is not exactly flowing across the atmosphere, but it sounds like a lot of time was spent discussing media interaction. The Canucks don't want daily craziness and Tortorella apparently understands he will have to be different. Vancouver is the hardest English market in the NHL. There is no doubt the man can coach, but Gillis' toughest decision may be whether or not he truly believes Tortorella can handle it. 16. The Canucks will be doing at least one additional second interview this week. No confirmation, but the belief is it is Kings assistant John Stevens. I added in the previous thought about Torts, since it's also relevant. Interesting point to note about how a lot of time was spent on how he'll handle the media. The second interview may be to discuss more about what he sees the team becoming and how he'll coach them, but it's pretty clear Gillis and Co. are getting the elephant in the room out of the way so they can concentrate on if he'll be a good fit to coach the team (and the players on it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.