The "I would like to see Torts stay for at least one more year" thread.

[RUPERTKBD]

AV? Is that you?

This makes zero sense. Why would AV care if Torts attended game day skates or not?

For that matter, why would he care at all about what Torts does in Vancouver?

[aGENT]

When the team isn't built for the new Pacific Division, yes; it was exposed for what it is. The team is closer to Calgary than Los Angeles and I don't mean by geographical location.

[oldnews]

When the team isn't built for the new Pacific Division, yes; it was exposed for what it is. The team is closer to Calgary than Los Angeles and I don't mean by geographical location.

I posted a thread - it dispels the myth the teams must be built to handle the 'new Pacific Division'. The evidence is that the Pacific can't handle the smaller teams in the Central.

http://forum.canucks.com/topic/359494-the-size-myth-how-does-the-pacific-division-measure-up/

[Mackcanuck]

After this nightmare of a season,

Hiring Torts was obviously a big mistake to begin with!

Giving him another season would be an even bigger mistake!

[Fozzy]

I posted a thread - it dispels the myth the teams must be built to handle the 'new Pacific Division'. The evidence is that the Pacific can't handle the smaller teams in the Central.

http://forum.canucks.com/topic/359494-the-size-myth-how-does-the-pacific-division-measure-up/

It actually doesn't dispel the myth. It opens up a new argument that this team doesn't have elite speed like the Avs and Hawks do.

Our team dawdle up to the blue line then get pushed off the pick and repeat.

[oldnews]

It actually doesn't dispel the myth. It opens up a new argument that this team doesn't have elite speed like the Avs and Hawks do.

Ironically, you've (not surprisingly) oversimplified the facts (cherry picked actually).

The AVs (12-7-3) were no better against the Pacific than the rest of their division.

Minnesota was 12-4-5

Dallas was 14-3-4

Nashville 11-7-3

Winnipeg 12-6-3

Apparently the entire Central division has "elite speed" lol.

[SuperReverb2]

After this nightmare of a season,

Hiring Torts was obviously a big mistake to begin with!

Giving him another season would be an even bigger mistake!

Any particular reason why you say that? Dumping everything on Torts I assume?

[oldnews]

Any particular reason why you say that? Dumping everything on Torts I assume?

Any particular reason he should stay?

You have lots of apolgism to offer - it was the coddled core's fault, the GM who allegedly didn't understand the 'new NHL' etc, etc, and poor Torts just didn't have enough to work with.... He did a good job of 'exposing' his team, etc, etc. A whole lot of passing the buck and bass ackwards thinking.

Do you have anything convincing that isn't merely a reversed negative that earned him another year?

[SuperReverb2]

Any particular reason he should stay?

You have lots of apolgism to offer - it was the coddled core's fault, the GM who allegedly didn't understand the 'new NHL' etc, etc, and poor Torts just didn't have enough to work with.... He did a good job of 'exposing' his team, etc, etc. A whole lot of passing the buck and bass ackwards thinking.

Do you have anything convincing that isn't merely a reversed negative that earned him another year?

I've stated my reasons for all to see throughout this thread. It appears others may agree with me as well. All I've heard from you are negative comments about my reasons for him staying, yet nothing of substance about your reasons why he should go. Maybe you could offer some? Thanks.

[oldnews]

I've stated my reasons for all to see throughout this thread. It appears others may agree with me as well. All I've heard from you are negative comments about my reasons for him staying, yet nothing of substance about your reasons why he should go. Maybe you could offer some? Thanks.

As I though Reverb. You don't really have anything but reversed negatives.

You've stated your reasons, and as I pointed out, they're all about blaming the core, or blaming the GM, without anything of substance to qualify the job that Tortorella did.

As for my reasons for thinking he should go - I've posted plenty - and in the end I see a number of problematic decisions that 'keeping the foot on the pedal' / more Tortorelllaing wouldn't resolve.

Fact is that before the Calgary meltdown, Tortorella's Canucks had one regulation win in 8 games in January.

What Tortorella clearly lost - were a whole lot of games and his team, under his leadership, wasn't just losing games - it went beyond that to the point where - as a whole, they were utterly lost.

Couldn't protect a lead. Frequent third period meltdowns. Blown coverages became a regularity.

Couldn't score a powerplay goal.

Futile dump and change hockey.

Couldn't kill a penalty.

Just a broken down team - and that can't simply be put on an aging core or alleged lack of depth. An utter lack of leadership at the one position where that is exclusively what you are there to provide - the coach.

Torts' infamous timeouts disappeared. Adjustments? No answers. Ineffective line juggling to the point of senseless.

Exhaustion. Malaise. A lack of energy....and predictable given the course Tortorella took in October, November, December.

The forecheck grew utterly ineffective and the rest of the game was thereby tilted ice.

What exactly is Tortorella going to do differently next year? That's what I'd like to know before signing on to another year of more of the same.

Wait until he has a group of young horses that can sustain his burnout approach?

'Keep the foot on the pedal?'

What Tortorella took responsibility for is pretty cliche - not banging away enough, giving the locker room too much to the players (what a convenient explanation that is), not keeping his foot on the pedal, not being strict enough.

How about an actual hockey answer or two?

They were 26-15 last year.

Didn't have a losing record in any month let alone an overwhelming collapse for half a season.

But this year: the Canucks just went four straight months with 4-9, 1-4. 3-6. and 1-3 records. 9 wins in 4 months.

That's something this franchise has not witnessed for quite some time.

Accountability cliches aren't that strong of a sell imo, particularly when those lines are wearing thin. We heard the "stiffness" sales kick before the season started - ironically, the team hasn't been this limp since the Keenan era.

[SuperReverb2]

As I though Reverb. You don't really have anything but reversed negatives.

You've stated your reasons, and as I pointed out, they're all about blaming the core, or blaming the GM, without anything of substance to qualify the job that Tortorella did.

As for my reasons for thinking he should go - I've posted plenty - and in the end I see a number of problematic decisions that 'keeping the foot on the pedal' / more Tortorelllaing wouldn't resolve.

Torts was hired by MG to give the aging, downhill sliding core of the Canucks, a so called "kick in the ass" for the 2013 - 2014 season. For the first half of the season he did that, and that fact, coupled with the GREAT play of an energetic, youthful Santorelli as the spark plug - catalyst, seemed to work quite well. That all ended with one Phoenix Coyotes players stick work which as we all know was the beginning of the end for this years Canucks and the beginning of the injury parade. To Torts credit he changed his "go get em" style drastically, to a much more boring defensive style, in hopes of salvaging the games played while dealing with MANY key injuries. Key injuries I might had that he or MG had NO replacement players for. (i.e. ZERO team depth at key positions) He also gave the dressing room back to the players a bit (as was AV's style) in the hopes that the players would respond in kind. They didn't and continued to play the same hockey that got AV fired after two frustrating early playoff exit seasons after the cup run. To Torts credit he has already admitted his mistakes this past year, and yes, relaxing and giving the room back to the players was one of them. Full marks in my books for taking the responsibility. He has also admitted he was too slow in reasserting himself after the injuries started to return. Again full marks in my books.

The bottom line is, as we all know, that the current core STAYING INTACT AS IS, is a poor fit for Torts and I might add ANY NEW COACH as it's aging, stale, complacent, and needs a serious injection of energetic, skilled youth. (i.e. the way it worked until Santorelli was injured) Sure there may have been other coaches that could have coaxed this team into another playoff berth this year, but do think for a second that our Canucks as they are could have played the hockey that's been played this first round and survived? I think not and we would most likely be looking at another first round blowout and calling for the new coaches head. Personally I'm pleased with what happened this year and the fact that FINALLY this core was exposed for what it is, and FINALLY it looks like something is going to be done about it. As I've stated before, Torts was merely the vehicle that exposed this team. It's a team that doesn't like to be pushed and doesn't respond well when pushed, yet needs to be pushed to compete in the new MUCH TOUGHER conference it is now in.

If you're happy watching boring, PREDICTABLE pond hockey with the current core until they're drooling in their soup, then fine, we'll fire Torts and hire Barry Trotz or some other coach that will let the core run the show. We'll just make it through the season and limp into the playoffs only to get "smoked" by any number of teams that are now far better than the Canucks are, only to sit here again year after year, blaming the coach (again) the weather, the state of the economy, and anything else we can blame for the Canucks bad play.

Oooooor, maybe we can start thinking outside the box (as I hope Linden, etal are) and we can start to find a way to move a few of these so called "core" guys for some skilled, youthful return as well as interjecting some of our upcoming youth. If that's the case, then Torts deserves another year, because if there was anything positive to take from this season, it was how the younger players excelled under Torts and how the WHOLE team responded (for the better) with those younger players in the lineup. Besides. Who knows what Torts was promised by MG when he came here. Maybe now (hopefully) Linden will be able to deliver on a few of those promises. Torts is our guy for next year.

[Salmonberries]

Looks like we're going to burn another year because of the ridiculous five year deal we gave Torts.

What a shame.

[Goal:thecup]

Torts took responsibility for the team's poor performance this year = Torts should be retained and given another chance?

Uh, no. By his own admission, he was responsible for the team's poor performance this year = Torts is fired!

Torts helped young players like Kassian develop into better players?

Again, no. Kassian was developing just fine actually and Torts underused him, if anything.

Watching Torts crush Jensen, after his fine play in the AHL and the first 2 games with the Canucks, putting him on the 4th line, proves he does not know how to properly develop our young talent.

We cannot afford to let him further this destructive behaviour with the prospects we hope will make it up to the big club this year.

Torts gives a fun press conference and is quite talented deflecting his poor performance onto Mike Gillis' management.

He says neat things that sound like he was the right coach but the results show that he was not.

All this stale core, didn't have depth, Gillis didn't provide the right players talk is just trying to cover his butt.

Even if it is true, the core and the prospects were there when Torts was hired.

He did not do even the least amount of research into the team nor the other teams in the conference, and was completely unprepared to fulfill the obligations of head coach.

Torts should be thankful he got paid.

He should receive the buyout amount stipulated in his contract, take the money, and run.

This may happen on June 25th.

Who here thinks Torts will be snapped up by another NHL team as soon as he is released from Vancouver?

[Quoted]

Torts is a proven coach with a Stanley Cup under his belt. Did he make mistakes? Yes. Is he the absolute best coach out there? Of course not. Is he the best coach for this team? Maybe not. In the end, though, without some fairly significant changes to the make up of the team (a key forward, a real 4th line, shoring up the D a bit), it really won't matter who is the coach. They may as well run with him as he knows the players, they know him, and likely has a better chance for at least next year than bringing in someone cold again.

[RUPERTKBD]

I've stated my reasons for all to see throughout this thread. It appears others may agree with me as well. All I've heard from you are negative comments about my reasons for him staying, yet nothing of substance about your reasons why he should go. Maybe you could offer some? Thanks.

This is kind of a strange question: Why should he go?

There are many specific things, but above everything else, the sixth worst record in the entire league would probably be a good place to start...

[CroSen]

Storming another team's dressing room and starting yet another goalie controvery are a couple of more reasons...

[Angry Goose]

Torts helped young players like Kassian develop into better players?

Again, no. Kassian was developing just fine actually and Torts underused him, if anything.

Watching Torts crush Jensen, after his fine play in the AHL and the first 2 games with the Canucks, putting him on the 4th line, proves he does not know how to properly develop our young talent.

We cannot afford to let him further this destructive behaviour with the prospects we hope will make it up to the big club this year.

You are living in a dream world f you don't think an improvement in Kassian's play was at least in part due to Torts coaching him. We heard numerous times early in the season that one of Kassian's biggest knocks was him not playing more consistently i.e. maintaining a hardwork effort level. Well heaven behold, Kassian improves in that regard. His 2 way play improved at the same time, and he started to use his size and puck control more often in the opponents zone as well. Is it a coincidence that his minutes increased as Torts began to see more reliable, and high percentage play from him? I have no doubt in my mind that Torts worked on the finer points in Kassian's game, and as Kassian improved on those shortcomings he saw increased trust from Torts. And still Torts hasn't succumbed to the larger public mentality that Kassian should be playing top 6 minutes etc etc. Torts is developing the right way to play in Kassian first before giving him that.

And he is doing the same thing with Jensen. Although Jensen started off strong, he began to fade and make mistakes- so he was dropped to the 4th line and as a young player that isn't that bad, it just shows how tough it is to be a 1st liner in the NHL. No doubt Jensen is taking this all in, like Kassian, and will improve because he has the willingness to do so. I would hardly call that "destructive behavior".

Anyways, it is easier to fire the coach than trade away numerous players on the team with NTC's. Unless Linden surprises me- we'll see.

[Angry Goose]

Storming another team's dressing room and starting yet another goalie controvery are a couple of more reasons...

Have you ever had enough of someone who is an obvious meat head/bully/whatever else? Maybe had the balls to push back and let them know they are full of shit? Well Torts did that, and maybe to a fault because in the larger context it became a lightning rod for criticism, public scrutiny etc etc. Everybody wants their NHL coaches to be gentlemen right?

No doubt Torts took issue with the other coach, and it wasn't the only time either. Shit happens.

[aGENT]

Have you ever had enough of someone who is an obvious meat head/bully/whatever else? Maybe had the balls to push back and let them know they are full of crap? Well Torts did that, and maybe to a fault because in the larger context it became a lightning rod for criticism, public scrutiny etc etc. Everybody wants their NHL coaches to be gentlemen right?

No doubt Torts took issue with the other coach, and it wasn't the only time either. crap happens.

Evidently he should have "pulled a Roy" instead...

[tas]

Have you ever had enough of someone who is an obvious meat head/bully/whatever else? Maybe had the balls to push back and let them know they are full of crap? Well Torts did that, and maybe to a fault because in the larger context it became a lightning rod for criticism, public scrutiny etc etc. Everybody wants their NHL coaches to be gentlemen right?

No doubt Torts took issue with the other coach, and it wasn't the only time either. crap happens.

if you were a manager at mcdonald's and the manager from the wendy's across the street came into your restaurant and started antagonizing you, if you reacted the same way tortorella did, you'd be fired on the spot.