timberz21 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 No he wasn't......but he wasn't the solution also, neither was Torts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 AV had become a big part of the problem. Just because the Rags have won 3 games in the first round with home ice advantage against a team that's a couple hours bus ride down the highway is supposed to mean he wasn't part of the problem? C'mon. When AV coached here in his first year we won the first round. That has yet to happen for him in New York, let's see what he does over the next couple years and then talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabatoge95 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 AV is not a bad coach but it was definitely time to move on. As for Torts, I think he deserves another year with this club. This year was a disaster in so many different ways and it wouldn't be fair to can him based on this one season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Absent Canuck Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 While I'm not the biggest AV fan, I was calling for MG's head since the end of the 2011-2012 season with the disasters on Torres, Ehrhoff, and Hodgson. Simply put, MG should have been canned last year, not AV. If this year was still disaster, then can AV. There are a selected few who still try to slip this in here. This was a great trade for us. There is no way we get Kassian for Cody at the beginning of the year. He had missed a bunch of training. He had flailed around in the AHL. He was a spectator for most of the cup run. Gillis forcibly showcased the guy and to his credit Cody responded. However, he had 3 points in his last 16 games . I think it was Gillis' intention to deal him at the draft but he got an offer at the trade deadline for one of the 4 guys he was targeting. I dont understand why guys keep trying to re write history like Hodgson was so important to the team. He wasn't. The guys even taped a plastic C to his sweater to mock him the day he was traded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey Fever Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 We all know it's usually not the coach's fault, but he always pays the price. These overpaid babies with their lovely union who call themselves hockey players never have to worry. They'll just collect their exorbitant paychecks somewhere else. I knew as soon as they lost to Boston in the finals that this group didn't have the cojones to ever do it again. We'll have to wait till the next rebuild is complete, in at least 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanucksSayEh Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Things run their course, maybe not the problem, but guy just had to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raph Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 There are a selected few who still try to slip this in here. This was a great trade for us. There is no way we get Kassian for Cody at the beginning of the year. He had missed a bunch of training. He had flailed around in the AHL. He was a spectator for most of the cup run.Give me reasons why you think Kassian would have not been available during the off season. Short of Hodgson suffering a career ending injury in the playoffs, Hodgson had much more value than Kassian who was pushed out of the lineup into the AHL by guys like Stafford and Foligno at the time.Kassian was still way too rough along the edges to make any difference in the playoffs, let alone having AV trust him on the ice with only a month of being on the roster. MG's narrow-minded vision of a hockey team just includes a weigh scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonshinefe Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Sometimes a coach stays too long and a team gets stale, the management felt this was the case and switched to another coach who has a ring. I don't really blame them, it's pretty much standard practice to lay off the coach if your team has been under achieving for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckBoss Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I'd have to give Luongo majority of the credit for AV's success here Having said that he was a good coach during his time spent in Van But all good things have an expiry date And change of scenery counts for something as well Ps: MG's expiry date was long over due Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 AV is a good coach but not a great one. Either is Tortorella. I fear we won't get over the hump until we have a true genius of a coach behind our bench. That being said, you don't just need a good team and good coaching to win in the playoffs - you need favourable matchups and luck. St. Louis had all the pieces going into the playoffs - great record, solid team and arguably the best NHL coach, but they blew it to a team that matched up better against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snucks Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 We all know it's usually not the coach's fault, but he always pays the price. These overpaid babies with their lovely union who call themselves hockey players never have to worry. They'll just collect their exorbitant paychecks somewhere else. I knew as soon as they lost to Boston in the finals that this group didn't have the cojones to ever do it again. We'll have to wait till the next rebuild is complete, in at least 10 years. Yeah remember SOB called them a bunch of pretenders. All you have to do is look at minor hockey and the prima donna players parents and coaches create. AV knows all about that. So does Mike Keenan. The fans are the ones getting ripped off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 That ship has sailed, but, he doesn't look like much of a problem in NY, does he? That team moves the puck very well, plays an entertaining, up tempo style of hockey, and has moved into the top half dozen of puck possession teams in the NHL. Sound familiar? The Rags leap-frogged the Nucks this year, becoming a better puck possession team (using CorsiFor% as the indicator). The Canucks have slipped to 9th while the Rags moved up to 6th. Under these coaches tenures, the trend is, well, it' a definite trend. 2011/12 - Canucks 7th, Rangers 19th. 2010/11 - Canucks 4th, Rangers 21st. 2009/10 - Canucks 5th, Rangers 13th. 2008/9 - Canucks 12th, Rangers 20th. Last year in a half season, the Rags were closer - and interestingly, the Canucks this season were pretty good for a half season as well. Sather however couldn't help but notice how "the Tortorella system" was grinding his players into the ground as the season progressed.... Sound familiar? Add an Olympic condensed schedule and the West coast travel reality into the picture, and it's a recipe for.... exactly what happened this year? Certainly looks that way. Let's not pretend the difference is a "trending" core. The Rangers core was "trending" last year. This year: Richards is 33, St Louis is 38, Nash is 29, Girardi and Boyle are 29, Moore is 33. The Rangers' average age is 27.3 years whereas the Canucks 27.5. I'm not a fan of the idea that a coaches' job is to 'expose' his players, the roster, the core, the depth, or his GM. Bring in someone who makes the most of what he has to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoted Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 He's a good coach and not that surprising he is doing well. He seemed to be stale for the Canucks, which is a fairly normal thing to happen. Success when moving on does not mean it was a mistake to move him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 MG was the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Short term memory problem. Torts benched Brad Richards because he took the lockout off and proceeded to play like garbage all season long. Now that Richards worked out in the summer AV looks like a hero for not benching him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Short term memory problem. Torts benched Brad Richards because he took the lockout off and proceeded to play like garbage all season long. Now that Richards worked out in the summer AV looks like a hero for not benching him. Not only that, but Chris Kreider was having a great season until it was cut short by injury.... ...the same Chris Kreider who spent all of last season in Torts' doghouse. But we all know that Torts is great with young players and Vigneault is not, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honky Cat Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 That ship has sailed, but, he doesn't look like much of a problem in NY, does he? That team moves the puck very well, plays an entertaining, up tempo style of hockey, and has moved into the top half dozen of puck possession teams in the NHL. Sound familiar? The Rags leap-frogged the Nucks this year, becoming a better puck possession team (using CorsiFor% as the indicator). The Canucks have slipped to 9th while the Rags moved up to 6th. Under these coaches tenures, the trend is, well, it' a definite trend. 2011/12 - Canucks 7th, Rangers 19th. 2010/11 - Canucks 4th, Rangers 21st. 2009/10 - Canucks 5th, Rangers 13th. 2008/9 - Canucks 12th, Rangers 20th. Last year in a half season, the Rags were closer - and interestingly, the Canucks this season were pretty good for a half season as well. Sather however couldn't help but notice how "the Tortorella system" was grinding his players into the ground as the season progressed.... Sound familiar? Add an Olympic condensed schedule and the West coast travel reality into the picture, and it's a recipe for.... exactly what happened this year? Certainly looks that way. Let's not pretend the difference is a "trending" core. The Rangers core was "trending" last year. Richards is 33, St Louis is 38, Richards is 29, Girardi and Boyle are 29, Moore is 33. The Rangers' average age is 27.3 years whereas the Canucks 27.5. I'm not a fan of the idea that a coaches' job is to 'expose' his players, the roster, the core, the depth, or his GM. Bring in someone who makes the most of what he has to work with. Nailed it.......!.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Not only that, but Chris Kreider was having a great season until it was cut short by injury.... ...the same Chris Kreider who spent all of last season in Torts' doghouse. But we all know that Torts is great with young players and Vigneault is not, right?That was always a myth. AV in this organization grew up with the bulk of the team. People got upset when selfish dbags Shirokov and Coho tried to come in and take over the joint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Nailed it.......!.... The "young man's game" line is an excuse and nothing but. It attempts to expose the roster and GM as the problem when inadequate coaching and strategy play a huge part in the failure of "the Tortorella system". Not many men are built to play 25 hard forward minutes a night - certainly not ones that aren't in their prime, and certainly not ones that are too young for the task. So what exactly is the career window for this type of stud? An entire stable of 25-29 year olds is not going to happen anywhere, anytime soon, so adapting to reality is preferable, not expecting your GM to furnish you with a dozen studs in their prime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
votrechien Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I don't think either management or ownership ever thought he was the problem. But the team needed a change, and he was the easy change to make, especially given the salary cap situation this year. There's a reason he got re-hired within months of being fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.