Missing Vigneault Yet?

[stawns]

Yeah, I agree with both of these. Furthermore, I think what we're seeing now might have been part of the gameplan all along, as painful as that is. I think Torts was hired with the objective of pushing the players to see if, or when, they would break or stop competing.

if that were true, I would hope MG would be fired. Player evaluation and management is his job. A coach's job is to win.

[DarthMelvin]

I see the heart in Torts.....if our team had half his heart and effort....or maybe played like Sestito or hansen. maybe we would win some....Even Kesler I have been watching and he is doing alot,

[Guest Dasein]

AV had a better balance between the two. I can't recall this many odd man rushes and two on one's with AV. It seems like every mistake ends up in the back of our net with torts while with AV you were never in that situation in the first place.

What you are referring to is the transition game.

I am talking about defensive positioning in our zone. Torts system is much better in the defensive zone.

[BenDrinkin]

I liked AV a lot as coach, but as GM you either trade all your players, or fire your coach. One is way easier.

Torts is good too, both are top quality coaches.

[stawns]

What you are referring to is the transition game.

I am talking about defensive positioning in our zone. Torts system is much better in the defensive zone.

are you kidding? Every game its an endless parade of running around and leaving players open. Under AV the team was the best defensive team in the league, or top 5, more often than not

[apollo]

I see the heart in Torts.....if our team had half his heart and effort....or maybe played like Sestito or hansen. maybe we would win some....Even Kesler I have been watching and he is doing alot,

Maybe if torts actually didn't bench guus like tito or Hansen then we would do better

[Guest Dasein]

are you kidding? Every game its an endless parade of running around and leaving players open. Under AV the team was the best defensive team in the league, or top 5, more often than not

AV has never been without Henrik in his lineup and never faced this much adversity due to injuries.

Play with half of an AHL team and this does tend to happen. When we were full-strength, not as many backdoor plays as AV's system allowed.

[canuck73_3]

AV has never been without Henrik in his lineup and never faced this much adversity due to injuries.

Play with half of an AHL team and this does tend to happen. When we were full-strength, not as many backdoor plays as AV's system allowed.

AV had a second line of Naslund-Green-Moran and a defence of 3 AHLers for crying out loud...

[Ronalds.Kenins41]

^^^Wow you picked the perfect thread to bump

[oldnews]

What you are referring to is the transition game.

I am talking about defensive positioning in our zone. Torts system is much better in the defensive zone.

I'd be curious to hear you define Tortorella's defensive zone system.

[DarthNinja]

I'd be curious to hear you define Tortorella's defensive zone system.

Torts' defensive system is actually a bit visionary and pioneering in a sense. He basically employs a system of what we would see many teams revert to in the playoffs, except he does so all year round. Collapsing and protecting the net in more of a zone format (as opposed to individual coverage and the high-risk/high-reward D-zone overloading, which are AV's preferences whereas Torts instructs players to overload only in certain situations), blocking shots, sound positional play (DO NOT miss your assignment - regardless who you are you will hear about it if you do), aggressive puck pressure and puck support when breaking-out. People scold him for the shot blocking but probably because they don't watch a lot of other teams play and are used to AV's system, which does nto focus so much on blocking shots. Having said that, last year only 2 teams in the NHL blocked less than 1000 shots so some are behind the curve here (and I'm glad its not Torts).

His system or similarly employed ones is in fact a very effective, sound and proven one as well, especially for the playoffs and recent Cup-winning teams (CHI, PIT & BOS).

Torts is known for making adjustments when needed and will even adjust his system within a game as he himself said, "sometimes, 'the process' needs to go out the window". AV on the other hand is known to strictly abide by his process and expects the team to play through counter-adjustments the same way.

I believe AV's system is perhaps better suited for the regular season whereas Torts' system, while more physically demanding, is better suited for success in the playoffs.

Any ways, you can get a more detailed analysis here:

http://www.blueseatblogs.com/2012/02/21/overview-of-john-tortorellas-system/

[erkayloomeh]

All I can say, is from the day we signed torts I have been waiting for people to realize that he is an inept, washed up, unskilled, one-dimensional, unprofessional idiot. The fact that the majority of our fan base is supporting the current Canucks staff decisions is disgusting. When AV headed this club, we were considered to be a premier professional franchise that exhibited the highest levels of professionalism and consistently competed as a one of the best teams in the league. We won against the best teams in the league, maximized our players ability to produce good hockey and most of all, wins.

The argument that Tortorella was dealt a rough hand and that he is picking up AV's mess is just an easy way for Vancouver fans to not have to take responsibility for making the wrong choice. If Tortorella was dealt such a bad hand, why was AV able to coach this club with strong, offensive, puck-possession hockey for the last two years? Why did we finish so high in the standings? Was it a weak division? Well, if that is the argument, I suggest you look at our record against the infamously "weak" teams from the defunct NW Division. We don't win against Calgary, Edmonton, Minnesota anymore.

Get Tortorella and Gillis the hell out of town and lets play some god damn hockey in Vancouver again. All I can say is, if the Canucks keep this crap up (and by Canucks I mean our useless coaches) the ownership better be prepared to significantly lower ticket prices and not be considered premier anymore.

This representation of the city of Vancouver is vulgar and as a long, long time Canucks fan, I can honestly say, for the first time in my life I am considering my allegiance to Vancouver.

S.O.T. (save. our. team.)

plus 10 torts is awful awful awful

[vcrguy]

This core is rotten, and this is the legacy of AV. Can't blame Torts for inheriting a bunch of ne'erdowells.

Don't blame AV for the core. He won two President's trophies with them. If their rotten, blame MG.

[spur1]

AV was done here...period

[tribaljohn]

I well never ever miss AV do not like him do not think he well ever earn my respect.

[oldnews]

Torts' defensive system is actually a bit visionary and pioneering in a sense. He basically employs a system of what we would see many teams revert to in the playoffs, except he does so all year round. Collapsing and protecting the net in more of a zone format (as opposed to individual coverage and the high-risk/high-reward D-zone overloading, which are AV's preferences whereas Torts instructs players to overload only in certain situations), blocking shots, sound positional play (DO NOT miss your assignment - regardless who you are you will hear about it if you do), aggressive puck pressure and puck support when breaking-out. People scold him for the shot blocking but probably because they don't watch a lot of other teams play and are used to AV's system, which does nto focus so much on blocking shots. Having said that, last year only 2 teams in the NHL blocked less than 1000 shots so some are behind the curve here (and I'm glad its not Torts).

His system or similarly employed ones is in fact a very effective, sound and proven one as well, especially for the playoffs and recent Cup-winning teams (CHI, PIT & BOS).

Torts is known for making adjustments when needed and will even adjust his system within a game as he himself said, "sometimes, 'the process' needs to go out the window". AV on the other hand is known to strictly abide by his process and expects the team to play through counter-adjustments the same way.

I believe AV's system is perhaps better suited for the regular season whereas Torts' system, while more physically demanding, is better suited for success in the playoffs.

Any ways, you can get a more detailed analysis here:

http://www.blueseatb...orellas-system/

I see you've done someone else's homework.

Zone defenses and situationally collapsing aren't particularly visionary or pioneering.

There are also a lot of oversimplifications taking place there - all teams use various systems, which also vary situationally depending on the players on the ice and the context of the game.

"Torts instructs players to overload only in certain situations." That would seem to be a misunderstanding of what overloading actually is. AV also only instructs players to overload in certain situations - when the puck is on one side of the ice, particularly when there is an opportunity to pressure a team when the puck is in arguably the least dangerous part of the ozone, on the half boards. There is no overload unless the puck is to the sides (and relatively contestable), and even in that situation, the weak side forward is charged with taking away the cross ice pass, getting in the passing lane to prevent (risky) passes to the opposing blueline - so "sound positional play" is certainly as much a part of an overload as it is a more passive zone defense and does not distinguish Torts and AV's systems. "Sound positional play" needs to be a staple of any system - how effectively it is executed is another matter.

'Zone' defense is also fairly oversimplified - there are various types of zone defenses.

"Aggressive puck pressure" is more a fixture of overloads and man-to-man than it is with "collapsing", zone, shot blocking intensive defensive formations. If overloading is done effectively, it can reduce opposition possession, and thus reduce the number of shots a defense has to block. "Collapsing" doesn't exactly necessarily imply puck pressure or taking away space, does it? The thing about blocking a great deal of shots is that it does not necessarily indicate effective defensive zone coverage - what it equally indicates is significant possession by the opposition.

Ironically, where Tortorella is perceived to employ more "responsible" defensive systems, his forecheck is an intensive 2-1-2, which is not only more taxing, but arguably more risky, and also puts more pressure on his blueline when that 2 at the front is broken down. When your top forwards are playing some of the heaviest minutes in the NHL, it's debatable how sustainable that system is or how consistently it can be applied.. So whether it has playoff wisdom is one thing, whether your team has anything left in the tank come playoffs, another. During December, it was quite effective, in January, not so much. There are pros and cons to any system, also dependent on the type of players executing them.

AV's 1-2-2 is not as aggressive, and ironically, probably more "conservative" and arguably results in fewer odd-man rushes and breakdowns against the rush.

Both AV and Tortorella like to activate their defensemen significantly and allow them to pinch freely to support the forecheck and to maintain/regain ozone possession.

Imo they're both very good coaches and most statements that reduce either of them tend to be hopelessly oversimplified.

Tortorella's 'systems' have obviously looked horrible recently - but that is as much a result of having a short handed, exhausted team, hammered by injuries and a gruelling schedule as it is Torts' 'systems'. Then again, it just happens that his coaching style is arguably more taxing, and thus might break down a little more quickly when his team isn't all that healthy. It's been stated here that AV never had to deal without Henrik, but Henrik isn't exactly the key to the Canucks' defensive systems, and moreover, AV had more than his share of injuries to cope with at key times as coach of the Canucks.

I find the tendency to proclaim one coach or the other's system's superior to be almost always entirely unsubstantiated, or at best, really reductive.

[SamJamIam]

can't believe how many of you guys are passing off pure speculation as a legitimate position to argue from

there's no reason to believe Torts lost or never had the room, we have every reason to believe the untalented squad we have has been in slow decline for years now. the problems we have now are the same problems we had last year, just worse. same as last year compared with the year before that, too. this was a long time coming

the issue isn't coaching, it's an overrated, under talented roster

Or you know, it could be something far less dramatic like a number of critical injuries during one of the more grueling road trips of the year. Context seems to be lost on people so they grab for these massive sweeping answers. Sometimes it's not some big story arc, just a small hiccup. But of course the sports media does better when they can convince people it's the former.

[DarthNinja]

I see you've done someone else's homework.

Zone defenses and situationally collapsing aren't particularly visionary or pioneering.

There are also a lot of oversimplifications taking place there - all teams use various systems, which also vary situationally depending on the players on the ice and the context of the game.

"Torts instructs players to overload only in certain situations." That would seem to be a misunderstanding of what overloading actually is. AV also only instructs players to overload in certain situations - when the puck is on one side of the ice, particularly when there is an opportunity to pressure a team when the puck is in arguably the least dangerous part of the ozone, on the half boards. There is no overload unless the puck is to the sides (and relatively contestable), and even in that situation, the weak side forward is charged with taking away the cross ice pass, getting in the passing lane to prevent (risky) passes to the opposing blueline - so "sound positional play" is certainly as much a part of an overload as it is a more passive zone defense and does not distinguish Torts and AV's systems. "Sound positional play" needs to be a staple of any system - how effectively it is executed is another matter.

'Zone' defense is also fairly oversimplified - there are various types of zone defenses.

"Aggressive puck pressure" is more a fixture of overloads and man-to-man than it is with "collapsing", zone, shot blocking intensive defensive formations. If overloading is done effectively, it can reduce opposition possession, and thus reduce the number of shots a defense has to block. "Collapsing" doesn't exactly necessarily imply puck pressure or taking away space, does it? The thing about blocking a great deal of shots is that it does not necessarily indicate effective defensive zone coverage - what it equally indicates is significant possession by the opposition.

Ironically, where Tortorella is perceived to employ more "responsible" defensive systems, his forecheck is an intensive 2-1-2, which is not only more taxing, but arguably more risky, and also puts more pressure on his blueline when that 2 at the front is broken down. When your top forwards are playing some of the heaviest minutes in the NHL, it's debatable how sustainable that system is or how consistently it can be applied.. So whether it has playoff wisdom is one thing, whether your team has anything left in the tank come playoffs, another. During December, it was quite effective, in January, not so much. There are pros and cons to any system, also dependent on the type of players executing them.

AV's 1-2-2 is not as aggressive, and ironically, probably more "conservative" and arguably results in fewer odd-man rushes and breakdowns against the rush.

Both AV and Tortorella like to activate their defensemen significantly and allow them to pinch freely to support the forecheck and to maintain/regain ozone possession.

Imo they're both very good coaches and most statements that reduce either of them tend to be hopelessly oversimplified.

Tortorella's 'systems' have obviously looked horrible recently - but that is as much a result of having a short handed, exhausted team, hammered by injuries and a gruelling schedule as it is Torts' 'systems'. Then again, it just happens that his coaching style is arguably more taxing, and thus might break down a little more quickly when his team isn't all that healthy. It's been stated here that AV never had to deal without Henrik, but Henrik isn't exactly the key to the Canucks' defensive systems, and moreover, AV had more than his share of injuries to cope with at key times as coach of the Canucks.

I find the tendency to proclaim one coach or the other's system's superior to be almost always entirely unsubstantiated, or at best, really reductive.

I suppose I did someone else's homework lol but it wasn't to be argumentative or anything...I wasn't all entirely sure your q would be a'd anyways so I figured I would simply put some info out there.

I fully agree that any good coaching staff would employ numerous systems depending on the situation, however most coaches usually have a certain system or style they prefer for their foundation. What separates great coaches from the good ones is that ability to adjust to the other coaches systems or tactics and make counter-deployments, particularly in the playoffs. This, for example, is what Scotty Bowman was a master of.

There are pros and cons to every system and in reality it comes down to the coaches being able to make adjustments and players executing. But I think it's also pretty rare to see full-on man-to-man D-zone coverage these days, although if refs start re-establishing he culture to allow more clutching, hooking and grabbing then it may become more prominent.

Aggresive puck pressure can be incorporated into any system really and also implies keeping possession of the puck. Keep in mind that the main principle of the low zone collapse is to protect the net, fill up shooting lanes and prevent shots from getting through to the net. A team could easily apply aggressive puck pressure below the hash-marks with the difference being that if pucks get through to the point, the wingers collapse to the front of the net and to the shooting lanes instead of rushing the points or gelling to the point.

And I mean come on man...you say that "overloading in certain situations" is a misunderstanding of the term but then you go on to say that AV overloads it in certain situations too!

You may be right about how much ice time Torts is giving his top players but that could also be because the Canucks have a serious shortage in that department (i.e. top-6). Kesler also seems to behaving no issues with it and the Sedins also were doing great until January came around.

As for the cause of it, yes, injuries obviously have contributed to this but Torts also stated more than once that he saw the team "falling on old habits"...top it off with the head coach not being able to coach, correct, guide and adjust his team in any way for two weeks (which of course was his own doing). When he came back he had some undoing to do and this was evident in the way the team played and improved after he came back (albeit and granted they were still losing games).

I've made it no secret that Torts has been my favourite coach since well before he came here. He is a coach of the year and championship winner in both the AHL and NHL. Having said that, nobody can deny or take away AV's accomplishments with the Canucks while Torts is yet to even make his mark with the team. We can only hope he will be given some serious roster upgrades so he could hopefully start doing some serious damage.

[Frazzy Desjardins]

Lol no

[Me_]

Lol no

I lol no too.

I do not miss AV at all. That ship sailed and Tortorella keeps it super entertaining. Notice how the media is now on the Canucks' side; something that wasn't happening at all with AV.