Collective feeling on Tort's 'antics'?

[-DLC-]

Had JT put out a different line, absolutely nothing would have happened, except for an immediate line change by Calgary to get a more favourable match up.

Surely you understand that you cannot state what someone else "would have" done as an absolute or with certainty. Just cannot.

You can only speak in those terms on what YOU would do and you're intelligent enough to grasp that.

So you just don't know...none of us do/did, including Torts.

[I-miss-Wis]

I cannot believe anyone in their right mind would start their best players against a 4th line of bullies. You would have started the Sedins against that Flames opening line up? What if Daniel or Hank got a concussion from a late hit or broken jaw from a sucker punched after a whistle? Great, a goon gets a 2minute penalty or a game... Calgary doesnt care and we're out a star players during a stretch to make the playoffs.

The risk was WAY too high. And could you imagine the backlash onto JT if that had happened? Give your head a shake and look at the end result.... We won the game and traded 4th line penalties.

The point is that Torts automatically assumed that the 4th line was put out there by Calgary to beat up his 1st line so felt he had to counter with his own 4th line and went nuts about the whole thing. He had some other options:(1) - start his 1st line - yep with the twins and try to score on the opening shift. Most likely Calgary would have done a quick line change and the brawl would not have taken place(2)- start his 4th line but instruct them NOT to fight. That means NOT dropping the gloves when Westgarth decides to do so. The refs step in and bingo, Vancouver has a 2 min power play to start the game(3) - start his 4th line and instruct only ONE guy to fight Westgarth. From the looks of it and seeing Torts all fired up it appears that he ordered all 5 players on his 4th line to fight Calgary. It's easy for coaches to sit behind a bench and order someone else to go get hit in the face. This was an embarrassment.I took my 2 youngest kids to a day game this past Sunday (Chicago vs. Boston) - and I got to tell you I was thankful there was no fighting. It would scare them and if a 5-on-5 brawl broke out I would have taken them inside the concourse until it was over. The whole thing was excessive and unnecessary and I felt Torts was the instigator here and inflamed the situation. And then his attempt to start a fight by invading the Calgary locker room was pretty embarrassing. Dont' be surprised if Torts has a short tenure in Vancouver. I like coaches that keep a cool head and remain professional.

[hlinkas wrister]

We both know that there's plenty of guys that aren't fighters in this game. You guys have the Sedin twins and we have Patrick Kane. Great players, but not the guys we want dropping the gloves. None of them have the size and strength to match up with the enforcers of the league and it's not their game. But somehow Torts thought that if he played his first line with the Sedins out there they would have been forced to defend themselves in a 5-on-5 brawl. That's where I disagree with him - in that he drew a wrong conclusion. Now having said that I agree that Westgarth was definitely chirping before the opening faceoff and trying to start a fight. I don't know if he was trying to start a 1-on-1 or a 5-on-5. I recall about 5 years ago we had Adam Burish on our team who fought with a Vancouver player at the opening faceoff - Adam was part of our 4th line and there was no 5-on-5 brawl that ensued. So starting a 4th line by Calgary did not automatically mean that this had to be a brawl.

You make some decent points, but I don't think Torts did not want to start the Sedins because of the risk of them getting in a fight. He didn't want to start them because Henrik was injured already - it didn't make sense to play them against their smash and bang line. Otherwise, if the twins are healthy, that's a match-up a coach could only drool over. His hallway antics were over the top and he was punished accordingly. Hartley wanted to set the tone for the game with his opening line-up and the Canucks answered the bell (rightly or wrongly it's just a matter of opinion. It's still allowed in the game so I've got no problems with it). That being said, I would much rather watch a good, high skilled, clean hard-hitting game between your Hawks and our Canucks any day of the week than a fight filled game against the no talent Lames.

[oeteman]

The point is that Torts automatically assumed that the 4th line was put out there by Calgary to beat up his 1st line so felt he had to counter with his own 4th line and went nuts about the whole thing. He had some other options:(1) - start his 1st line - yep with the twins and try to score on the opening shift. Most likely Calgary would have done a quick line change and the brawl would not have taken place(2)- start his 4th line but instruct them NOT to fight. That means NOT dropping the gloves when Westgarth decides to do so. The refs step in and bingo, Vancouver has a 2 min power play to start the game(3) - start his 4th line and instruct only ONE guy to fight Westgarth. From the looks of it and seeing Torts all fired up it appears that he ordered all 5 players on his 4th line to fight Calgary. It's easy for coaches to sit behind a bench and order someone else to go get hit in the face. This was an embarrassment.I took my 2 youngest kids to a day game this past Sunday (Chicago vs. Boston) - and I got to tell you I was thankful there was no fighting. It would scare them and if a 5-on-5 brawl broke out I would have taken them inside the concourse until it was over. The whole thing was excessive and unnecessary and I felt Torts was the instigator here and inflamed the situation. And then his attempt to start a fight by invading the Calgary locker room was pretty embarrassing. Dont' be surprised if Torts has a short tenure in Vancouver. I like coaches that keep a cool head and remain professional.

All hypothetical and there is still a huge risk of having a star player being injured. Having the Sedins out this stretch would be incredibly crippling, and worth more than a powerplay against Calgary or even 2 points. I'm going to read your post from the perspective of a father who probably has children in the minor hockey system. So yes, I see where you're coming from.

When/if your kids grow up and play hockey to the junior/pro level. You'll see where the majority of these posts are coming from. Canucks have been the kids on the block who are viewed as buckling under intimidation. The fact Calgary even dressed, let alone started that line up was a pretty good indication of what they had planned for that game. The risk far exceeds the reward = JT did the right thing.

We can completely agree on the hallway incident. Way out of line on JT's part.

[singularity]

All I hear are "coulda, shoulda, woulda".

End of the day, nothing anyone can say is going to change things. Torts did what he did, the team believes in him and the Canucks look a lot more cohesive and formidable than the punching bags we were.

He COULD have played another line, and our stars COULD have gotten injured.

He DIDN'T and our stars DIDN'T get injured.

So he misses a few games. We got Sully and Gully to cover for him, and sure, he's not allowed contact with players, but I am sure he still is able to have coaching discussions with other staff in the organization. I'm loving the new face of the Canucks.

It's all good.

[icetime]

The Canucks are self destructing. And most everyone is focused on how tough we are. Do we really want to go through 4 or 5 years of post Gillis and post Torts rebuilding? It's coming so save the entire 16 pages of this thread so we can remember the thinking that lead us there. While the franchise burns, the majority of folks fiddle a toughness tune.

Thus far, we are on the losing side of the scoreboard in every meaningful Division game. Burroughs is out forever for a meaningless blocked shot -- but that was then the flavor of the day -- -- "be tough block a shot". Now to be tough we have a line brawl and try to attack the opposing coach. What's next? Slap Shot?

Torts the most winning US coach in history. Here is what Wikipedia has to say

"Tortorella was also the assistant coach of the U.S. National Men's hockey team in 2008-2009^[9] replacing Peter Laviolette, which included leading the squad at the 2008 IIHF World Championship, where they finished sixth."

Not even on the radar for the current US Olympic team. But as long as the fans are happy with tough who cares?

Tough works --- for about a week. But lets be happy for that week. A great week it was!!! But what do we do after we realize the week is over? Trade the Sedins so they get one last shot at a cup? A better Idea -- Let's just keep attacking the opposing coach so no one notices. That will keep Rogers Arena full. The worlds largest cage fight venue Our 1000th home sellout. And tickets will be much cheaper.

[I-miss-Wis]

All I hear are "coulda, shoulda, woulda".

End of the day, nothing anyone can say is going to change things. Torts did what he did, the team believes in him and <b >the Canucks look a lot more cohesive and formidable than the punching bags we were. <b />

He COULD have played another line, and our stars COULD have gotten injured.

He DIDN'T and our stars DIDN'T get injured.

So he misses a few games. We got Sully and Gully to cover for him, and sure, he's not allowed contact with players, but I am sure he still is able to have coaching discussions with other staff in the organization. <b> I'm loving the new face of the Canucks. <b />

It's all good.

AV took you guys to game 7 of the SCF just 3 years ago - that's not something to overlook. And personally I thought you guys were a better and tougher team under him than under Torts. I know you said you are loving the new face of the Canucks but 3 years ago you guys played the game with skill and speed and I don't ever remember brute force being part of the game that made you guys successful - which is what Torts is trying to instill here.

[oeteman]

The Canucks are self destructing. And most everyone is focused on how tough we are. Do we really want to go through 4 or 5 years of post Gillis and post Torts rebuilding? It's coming so save the entire 16 pages of this thread so we can remember the thinking that lead us there. While the franchise burns, the majority of folks fiddle a toughness tune.

Thus far, we are on the losing side of the scoreboard in every meaningful Division game. Burroughs is out forever for a meaningless blocked shot -- but that was then the flavor of the day -- -- "be tough block a shot". Now to be tough we have a line brawl and try to attack the opposing coach. What's next? Slap Shot?

Torts the most winning US coach in history. Here is what Wikipedia has to say

"Tortorella was also the assistant coach of the U.S. National Men's hockey team in 2008-2009^[9] replacing Peter Laviolette, which included leading the squad at the 2008 IIHF World Championship, where they finished sixth."

Not even on the radar for the current US Olympic team. But as long as the fans are happy with tough who cares?

Tough works --- for about a week. But lets be happy for that week. A great week it was!!! But what do we do after we realize the week is over? Trade the Sedins so they get one last shot at a cup? A better Idea -- Let's just keep attacking the opposing coach so no one notices. That will keep Rogers Arena full. The worlds largest cage fight venue Our 1000th home sellout. And tickets will be much cheaper.

Credibility lost.

In your last paragraph it sounds like you have some sort of personal vendetta against the Canucks organization. Anyways, the Canucks actually look like a team with some heart lately and have a coach who fuels the fire. We are in a scoring slump but goals will come. So unlike you, I'm taking this as a good thing and remaining positive!

[oeteman]

AV took you guys to game 7 of the SCF just 3 years ago - that's not something to overlook. And personally I thought you guys were a better and tougher team under him than under Torts. I know you said you are loving the new face of the Canucks but 3 years ago you guys played the game with skill and speed and I don't ever remember brute force being part of the game that made you guys successful - which is what Torts is trying to instill here.

3 years ago when our core was in their prime and healthy. The "brute force" is what won the cup that year.

[Dr. Crossbar]

3 years ago when our core was in their prime and healthy. The "brute force" is what won the cup that year.

Agreed. The end result of that run was no cup. The past two seasons, no cup and early bounce from playoffs. Shake it up. Do what you haven't done in the past. Obviously that hasn't worked. Simple.

[-DLC-]

Anyone else just hear CC on The Team? SMH. What was that Alicia Silverstone movie?

Honestly.

Starts with being asked "was this an easy decision?"

"Yeah it was easy"

Next sentence out of his mouth starts with "it wasn't easy"

??? OK, pick one. No wonder this stuff's a mess. (Buckle down for the ride, folks)

Talked of pond hockey and guys don't hook during pond hockey??? WTH?

"Coaches would love to settle the score but we can't have coaches doing that...no one's done that until John". Oh really?

Said JT's history came into play.

Why 15 days? Spoke of McPhee's 30 in comparison.

Touched on looking bad on HDIC..."bad for the game not what you want to see". (As opposed to some of the other garbage we watch on a nightly basis)

From the "Roger Nielsen" camp of no swearing, etc. Don't have that in the NHL? Really??? How about when one of the officials mouthed some choice language recently??? So John's swearing is an issue. A ref - an official representing the game, is ok. Got it.

A bunch of rambling, half sentences and non answers. Name dropped by the end...talking of Stevie Y, Orr, Gretz. I'm sorry, I tried to listen objectively and unbiasedly but all that came through was a bunch of (attempted) lip service from a member of the old boys club.

Was quite approachable and not quite as stuffy as I would have expected. But man, he's in charge? Not one concrete, focused thought. So bad lol. Sounded like a casual attempt at a conversation at the Legion on a Saturday afternoon over 8 beer in between dart throws.

I think why I find John so refreshing is because he doesn't care - what you see is what you get. Hell, I even have more respect FOR a ref who'll just say it how he feels it. But this bunch of puffing out smoke and words and stuff to try to shed light on it was painful to listen to. I now see why we're in darkness.

He said, at one point, that he likes to dummy things down (that's how we got to pond hockey talk right from the get go). He was extremely successful in that. Wow.

[Tre Mac]

Actually was wondering today has AV said anything on this? Be interesting to hear what he thought when he first saw this.

[Dr. Crossbar]

Anyone else just hear CC on The Team? SMH. What was that Alicia Silverstone movie?

Honestly.

Starts with being asked "was this an easy decision?"

"Yeah it was easy"

Next sentence out of his mouth starts with "it wasn't easy"

??? OK, pick one. No wonder this stuff's a mess. (Buckle down for the ride, folks)

Talked of pond hockey and guys don't hook during pond hockey??? WTH?

"Coaches would love to settle the score but we can't have coaches doing that...no one's done that until John". Oh really?

Said JT's history came into play.

Why 15 days? Spoke of McPhee's 30 in comparison.

Touched on looking bad on HDIC..."bad for the game not what you want to see". (As opposed to some of the other garbage we watch on a nightly basis)

From the "Roger Nielsen" camp of no swearing, etc. Don't have that in the NHL? Really??? How about when one of the officials mouthed some choice language recently??? So John's swearing is an issue. A ref - an official representing the game, is ok. Got it.

A bunch of rambling, half sentences and non answers. Name dropped by the end...talking of Stevie Y, Orr, Gretz. I'm sorry, I tried to listen objectively and unbiasedly but all that came through was a bunch of (attempted) lip service from a member of the old boys club.

Was quite approachable and not quite as stuffy as I would have expected. But man, he's in charge? Not one concrete, focused thought. So bad lol. Sounded like a casual attempt at a conversation at the Legion on a Saturday afternoon over 8 beer in between dart throws.

I think why I find John so refreshing is because he doesn't care - what you see is what you get. Hell, I even have more respect FOR a ref who'll just say it how he feels it. But this bunch of puffing out smoke and words and stuff to try to shed light on it was painful to listen to. I now see why we're in darkness.

Just got a visual of what the NHL HQ in NYC must look like! That made me laugh out loud.

All great points!

[-DLC-]

I honestly tried to find something positive to say. Here's what it is (I guess, if I must find something): he was more approachable/human than I expected in this interview. I expected him to be rigid, firm and speaking from a place of authority and "because I say so". If you tuned in halfway through, you'd never know it was NHL brass...sounded like a caller weighing in on things. Not sure that's a good thing, but that's what I can come up with. Hope someone else heard it, to chime in too.

Also: said that there are grey areas...but this matter is black and white. So the fact that he is saying there are grey areas doesn't leave me feeling like they have it all figured out. No wonder there's inconsistency. They're just not sure (yet). Referred to the Bertuzzi/Moore incident in a "you can't do that stuff anymore" in relation to retaliation. Hogwash.

[oldnews]

To their credit imo, McKenzie and Ward (on TSN) last night were pretty clearly in agreement that Hartley's pathetic pretenses of 'rewarding' his fourth line was an insult to anyone's intelligence, and that Tortorella really had little option but to not risk his skilled players.

[a Fool]

Torts just wanted to give Hartley a HAM sandwich nbd.

[hlinkas wrister]

AV took you guys to game 7 of the SCF just 3 years ago - that's not something to overlook. And personally I thought you guys were a better and tougher team under him than under Torts. I know you said you are loving the new face of the Canucks but 3 years ago you guys played the game with skill and speed and I don't ever remember brute force being part of the game that made you guys successful - which is what Torts is trying to instill here.

We were a better team, but definitely not a tougher team. Did you watch the SCF in 11 ? Our players were getting speed-bagged by smurfs. Our high end skill players are Euros, not Canadian kids like Toews and Crosby that seem to find another level when players try to intimidate them out of their games. Including our exit in the 2011 finals you could say the last three play-off exits have all been a result of physical damage imposed on our skill guys. Keith damaged Daniel in the regular season but he was effectively done for the year. Brown's hit on Henrik effectively ended that series as well. Brown's hit was legal, but it was interesting that all the talk then was how the Canucks dropped the ball for their lack of a response to it. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[icetime]

Credibility lost.

In your last paragraph it sounds like you have some sort of personal vendetta against the Canucks organization. Anyways, the Canucks actually look like a team with some heart lately and have a coach who fuels the fire. We are in a scoring slump but goals will come. So unlike you, I'm taking this as a good thing and remaining positive!

No vendatta. I am season tickety holder. I travel many miles and spend a fair amount on money to watch Canucks play in Vancouver. This is my opinion. i just think this situation and approach is a huge mistake. Maybe I am wrong but I doubt it. It would be great if staying positive did the trick. I root for the Canucks and hope for the best. But I don't foresee anything positive arising from this mess. I am gald there is an Olympic break. Maybe that will be an opportunity for the Canucks to reevalaute and will give the team a break. It will also give us all something new to disagree about.

[oeteman]

No vendatta. I am season tickety holder. I travel many miles and spend a fair amount on money to watch Canucks play in Vancouver. This is my opinion. i just think this situation and approach is a huge mistake. Maybe I am wrong but I doubt it. It would be great if staying positive did the trick. I root for the Canucks and hope for the best. But I don't foresee anything positive arising from this mess. I am gald there is an Olympic break. Maybe that will be an opportunity for the Canucks to reevalaute and will give the team a break. It will also give us all something new to disagree about.

Now I'm confused! What "situation and approach" are you referring to? "Opportunity to reevaluate" what exactly? You still haven't made your point clear. It sounds like you're just a disgruntled fan voicing his distaste for the Canucks. If thats the case, make it clear what you're getting at and don't purchase tickets.

[oldnews]

#FreetheFlames

#RegimeChange