Bure to Mogilny Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 The more i think of it the more i believe 2012 should of bin are year. Think about it we had a lot of the same peices from 2011 run we won presidents trophy against all odds but are offense dryd up against the kings who suprised us I think the mistake of the year was the kassian trade. Now here me out before u dismis. I love kassian and in the long term will be better then cody hodgson but in 2012 hodgson was starting to brake out offensivly and was scoring HUGE clutch goals (remember goal 4 against boston in boston with those crazy fans??). We lost all those games to LA by one goal are offense was just not enough and i think haveing a third line danger of scoreing goals would of bin a differense maker. And LA had mutch easier competiton after us including the finals and we wouldnt of had a problem either. I think was huge error by gillis to make that trade even if is better for the future but because that was are window that was are last great shot and we shouldnt of bin trading offensive game ready assets for a future stud who was not game ready atm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gross-Misconduct Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 The more i think of it the more i believe 2012 should of bin are year. Think about it we had a lot of the same peices from 2011 run we won presidents trophy against all odds but are offense dryd up against the kings who suprised us I think the mistake of the year was the kassian trade. Now here me out before u dismis. I love kassian and in the long term will be better then cody hodgson but in 2012 hodgson was starting to brake out offensivly and was scoring HUGE clutch goals (remember goal 4 against boston in boston with those crazy fans??). We lost all those games to LA by one goal are offense was just not enough and i think haveing a third line danger of scoreing goals would of bin a differense maker. And LA had mutch easier competiton after us including the finals and we wouldnt of had a problem either. I think was huge error by gillis to make that trade even if is better for the future but because that was are window that was are last great shot and we shouldnt of bin trading offensive game ready assets for a future stud who was not game ready atm Spell check is your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Alain Vigneault was not THE problem in Van. But he was A problem in the grand scheme of things. Whatever the reason he had lost the ability to motivate this group of players and to get the most out of them. It happens to a lot of coaches who have been with the same group of players for a long time. And whether that is a reflection of his coaching style and motivational skill or a reflection of this core group's coachability is very much open to debate. In short it was his time to go as he and the team were stagnating and then regressing. That doesn't mean he is a bad coach because he isn't. He just wasn't as effective with a group of players he had coached for many years. The Rangers this year were much better and deeper than the Canucks were the last few years. And they were also a team in need of a new style of coach after having been with Torts for several years. Same scenario in many ways as the Canucks. They responded well to his style and have the type of players who can play his style too which helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combover Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 AV is a good coach and he did a good job while in van but his time expired. that being said watching the rangers plays was a painful reminder of the reasons the nucks couldn't pull it off in 2011 the terrible stop playing with a one goal lead allowing the other team to gain so much momentum and then like always when they score its hard to get the feet moving again, not the killer finish them off mentality that wins championships as proven over the past decade. his total inability to adjust in game or even in series with any kind of success. and eveyone should be totally realistic this would have been a sweep if lundquist didn't stand on his head, just like in Vancouver great goaltending hides poor coaching. time to move on AV was part of the problem but he most certainly wasn't/ isn't alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madwolf Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Second best again. AV just cannot make it over the top. Is that a stigma he will never over come? Neither could Peyton Manning or Tony Dungy They COULDN'T do it. Why is that some people think that it's better to start over with a guy with no experience than it is to get a guy who consistently gets you to the Conference Finals or fails playing for The Cup? Odds are the guy whose always there is going to win it before the guy you're about to gamble everything on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Watching the LA/NYR series reminds me of how my head used to explode watching the Canucks try to protect a one goal lead under AV, usually unsuccessfully. As soon as the Rangers get the lead they fall back into a "one man forechecking, 4 men back" system and just let the Kings come at them wave after wave. The Rangers have been outshot 25 - 3 in the third period in the last couple of games. The Canucks under AV did the same thing. Good teams keep the pressure on once they have a lead. I still think the Canucks did the right thing letting AV go but did the wrong thing hiring Torts - and allowing Gillis to tie up their cap space with long term contracts. It's funny that mere pages after DBTR posts stats that blow this theory totally out of the water, the usual suspects chime in with the same tired misinformation as if they know what they're talking about. Go back and read the post. It's not difficult to understand, as long as you are interested in knowing the facts as opposed to the usual CDC rhetoric. Second best again. AV just cannot make it over the top. Is that a stigma he will never over come? It's funny how Pat Quinn is lionized for taking a middle or the pack team to the Cup finals, yet when AV does the same thing, CDC sees him as some kind of failure. The Rangers finished 12th overall this season. This was an extremely successful playoff run for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benchsplinters Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 A laughable comment if you're not being sarcastic ... to suggest that losing in the SCF is somehow a shameful thing. Many other coaches wish they could have achieved this. Stigma? I think not. Pride maybe, to have gotten this far twice in recent years with two different teams.I was not trying to be sarcastic nor was I trying to suggest losing the SCF was shameful. NY played very very well. I enjoyed all five hockey games and IMVHO I was treated to some of the best hockey I have seen. The problem with making a very simple statement on CDC is, there is so much sarcasm that runs rampant here that some just can't distinguish between sarcasm and gleaning the context out of a harmless and simple statement made by someone else. As a matter of fact, I was trying to be a bit compassionate towards AV. I was not trying to knock his coaching tactics during the series nor was I being critical of him. Three statements (1) second best - true. (2) just cannot make it over the top - true. (3) is that a stigma he will be able to overcome - very simple question. Will he ever be a SC winner? We all know it is hard to get to the finals; he has been there twice; will he get there again in his tenure as a coach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 So when Torts benched Brad Richards, he was an idiot. What does that make AV when he did the same thing? Woooo England! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 So when Torts benched Brad Richards, he was an idiot. What does that make AV when he did the same thing? Woooo England! ???? He played over 21 minutes in game five. With Torts he was a healthy scratch.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BanTSN Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Game 4. When the Rangers actually won a game, AV had to bench Richards. Hmmm... Maybe Torts knew what he was doing after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Darryl Sutters' comments after the game, said, "any team that gets into the playoffs, has a chance at the cup". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Darryl Sutters' comments after the game, said, "any team that gets into the playoffs, has a chance at the cup". He's right. Teams that don't get into the playoffs have no shot at the cup at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucklehead73 Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Can't say it was as bad as the last few years of the canucks play, but looked pretty similar, AV has no answer to that relentless fore-check system, but not saying anyone else does either... But any GM will change it up if it isn't working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisbanks Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 ???? He played over 21 minutes in game five. With Torts he was a healthy scratch....no AV just pretty much sat down rick nash after he started playing well vs montreal just ripped him off the PP in the finals ... he didnt do it early in the playoffs when nash wasnt playing well... that wouldve made too much sense... AV decides to take a players minutes away once he starts producing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Congrats AV. Had a great run in your first year there. Had your blueline playing solid hockey, and most of your forward group contributing, probably overachieving really. It's funny that so many ballbusters around here are intent on laying blame on a coach who just won 13 games in the postseason with a new group, and their loss coming largely as a result of 3 straight overtime losses to one of the most dominant playoff teams in recent SC history. A great run that you're probably not going to complete against a team like L.A. while your two highest paid players are ineffective, you're not really enjoying many bounces, and to top it off, get some pretty incompetent (or game management) performances from the likes of O'Halloran and Kozari. A bit much to overcome really - L.A. is good enough without the bounces and breaks, but all in all, a great run really. Nice to see - the vindication of Alain Vigneault. If people have such a thirst for blame, and any real hockey sense at all, they'd be looking at the rather fatal errors made by your GM, whose history of chasing shiny, overpriced assets came back to bite the franchise once again, as the king's ransom that was paid for Nash, and the 58.5 million thrown at Richards over 9 years, came back to bite the Rangers.. Imagine that forward group with a guy like Dubinsky thrown into the mix. t would have been very interesting imo to see a couple guys like Dubinsky and Anisimov for AV to add to that forward group (and a couple assets like Erixxon and Rychel to add to their prospect depth). 28 coaches that were golfing while you were still taking a run at the Cup. Congrats on a great season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSecretIsMe Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 AV was definitely a part of the problem in Van, but he wasn't 'the' problem. Truthfully, I put more blame on the players. They couldn't close when they really needed to and that was the reason they lost. Also, as mentioned above, throwing away games and top guys not performing is really the reason we lost. Nonetheless, as I've read so many times before, each and every coach has an expiry date. With the Canucks, it was either move players or move the coach. Evidently, they chose to move the coach because they still believed in the core and its potential. It takes the whole organization to win a cup, from top to bottom, not just the coach or just the players. Maybe the biggest failure was on managements part for not realizing when to make changes and also not retrieving the correct amount of assets to make a real push (injuries and all). Regardless, the onus can't be placed on any one individual, after all, it is a team sport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 no AV just pretty much sat down rick nash after he started playing well vs montreal just ripped him off the PP in the finals ... he didnt do it early in the playoffs when nash wasnt playing well... that wouldve made too much sense... AV decides to take a players minutes away once he starts producing.. Nash was "producing"? That's news to me. FTR: 4th in TOI/G amongst Ranger forwards, while finishing tied with Benoit Pouliot for 8th in scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neversummer Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Let's just say that it was a miracle that AV got the Rangers into the finals with 2 overpaid one time wonders .... Nash ($7.8m) and Richards ($6.6m) . Replace those 2 pylons and use that $14m to get some real players ... and NY rebuilds on the fly ... faster than the Canucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deets Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 Let's just say that it was a miracle that AV got the Rangers into the finals with 2 overpaid one time wonders .... Nash ($7.8m) and Richards ($6.6m) . Replace those 2 pylons and use that $14m to get some real players ... and NY rebuilds on the fly ... faster than the Canucks. It's interesting to point out that Richards scored more points then any Canuck this year. Albeit only one more point then Henrik. Still, the fact that you are calling him a pylon is pretty stupid. I wish we had a couple more pylons on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 It's interesting to point out that Richards scored more points then any Canuck this year. Albeit only one more point then Henrik. Still, the fact that you are calling him a pylon is pretty stupid. I wish we had a couple more pylons on this team. I think Richards rebounded nicely this season, after spending much of last year in Torts' doghouse, but I believe that if they were being honest, both he and Rick Nash would admit that they were disappointed with their playoff performances. The stick that Voynov got on Nash's shot was a microcosm of how RN's postseason went and Richards' was only slightly better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.