Willie D needs to pipe down.

[bluesman60]

8 minutes ago, jmfaminoff said:

PP worked when we had two PP lines, and there was a good hard point shot. In years past the D had to respect the Twins because if the D pinched, the puck was up at the point for a Salo shot.  If the D waited for the point shot, the D was outnumbered and you then had the Twins down low.  It was a money play.

 

You also had to worry about a Kesler, Higgins, and Hansen line. They either got a tired 1st unit PK or the second PK line that was outmatched.

Things have changed, and we did not play to our strengths.

I would also add this: Henrik won the Hart and Art Ross trophies playing without Daniel for 19 games. So there is some proof that they can handle paying away from each other.

The PP is too predictable. Pass it around and around and then get it to Stetcher or whomever else is on the point and let them be the shooter. There has to be shots coming from everywhere to keep the opposition guessing.

[ilduce39]

11 minutes ago, canuck2288 said:

The oldest trick in the book is to slam a player by slamming him and then trying to retract

 

fans love Tram most hate Willie. Just another nail in his coffin 

 

how many times has he called out his 7 point boy? And now he puts Chaput in the top line? 

 

And you say I have a twisted agenda? 

The only players with lower average TOI than Megna are Skille and Chaput.  

 

Last game Megna had the 2nd lowest TOI.  LaBate had like 40 seconds less than him for lowest.

 

Time to stop talking about Megna - or Chaput for that matter.  The facts prove they're getting pretty much what depth players on a crappy team deserve.

 

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2017.html

[Baggins]

13 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Isn't it a little odd to do so after a game where the player played well and did bring that edge though?

I don't have a problem with it. There was for more good comments about Tryamkin than bad. This one comment was about Try bringing it consistently. Consistency is a common issue with young guys and they do need to learn that part to progress. I see this as the typical "blowing a comment out of proportion" that regularly goes on here.

 

We'll see tonight if it's lights a fire in Try and for the rest of the season. If it does - way to go Willie.

[The Colt 45s]

Just now, bluesman60 said:

The PP is too predictable. Pass it around and around and then get it to Stetcher or whomever else is on the point and let them be the shooter. There has to be shots coming from everywhere to keep the opposition guessing.

 

I do not think most players are worried about stepping in front of a Stetcher shot.  

[wallstreetamigo]

4 minutes ago, Baggins said:

I don't have a problem with it. There was for more good comments about Tryamkin than bad. This one comment was about Try bringing it consistently. Consistency is a common issue with young guys and they do need to learn that part to progress. I see this as the typical "blowing a comment out of proportion" that regularly goes on here.

 

We'll see tonight if it's lights a fire in Try and for the rest of the season. If it does - way to go Willie.

Consistency seems to be a common issue with the vets too though. 

 

Whenever Willie talks about young players it's usually backhand compliments though. He did this well BUT he needs to do this this this this and that if he wants to stick as an NHL player. 

 

If you cant take that same approach with vets and plugs too then the effectiveness of that message becomes minimal very quickly.

 

Considering Tryamkin "brought it" against Dallas before the comments, I say way to go Tryamkin, not way to go Willie.

[canuck2288]

10 minutes ago, bluesman60 said:

He is doing what he has been told to do....play the young guys. We have seen what Megna can do...now let's see what Chaput can do with increased minutes on the top line. Notice that Megna is now on the 4th line.

Why would we ever consider a guy like Chaput young? He is 25 and has produced nothing this year. Yes he works hard but that's what a marginal 4th liner does. Now he finds himself playing top line minutes?

[canuck2288]

7 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

The only players with lower average TOI than Megna are Skille and Chaput.  

 

Last game Megna had the 2nd lowest TOI.  LaBate had like 40 seconds less than him for lowest.

 

Time to stop talking about Megna - or Chaput for that matter.  The facts prove they're getting pretty much what depth players on a crappy team deserve.

 

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2017.html

I agree. Good point I had noticed the declining ice time... until tonight for Chaput 

[Rocksterh8]

9 hours ago, darkpoet said:

Again. When a young guy makes mistakes, sure go ahead and mention it.

The problem is, he doesn't "offer the same courtesy" to his vets, who are supposed to be teaching these young guys how to play. It's hypocritical. Straight up. 

You can't single out Tryamkin for not being tough enough, when Hank and Danny are feeding so much pizza into the middle of the ice, you've got Sbisa racing around picking up Ranch flavoured dip cups.
 

DarkPoet, you're making some really good points on here lately! Like the cut of your JIB!  Keep up the good work.

[ilduce39]

3 hours ago, DIBdaQUIB said:

So short term results are all that matter?  It is okay, in mean nothing games, to motivate  your rookies by publicly criticizing their play?   Confidence is one of the hardest things to build in this league and many of our rookies are struggling with that having had a rough road an playing on a bottom 5 team.  To have the coach pile-on and lay the blame for losses at your feet, sure doesn't sound like a long-term, sound strategy to me.  It sounds like the kind of things a coach who is losing his grasp and perhaps knows he is under the gun would say to point the finger elsewhere.

Again, this whole argument is based on the premise that Willie has somehow hurt Tryamkin or his confidence.  If I see evidence that Big Nik is down on himself and if Willie keeps piling on I'll be calling for Willie's head too.   

 

As an aside, I think you should coach "Do's" more than "Do-nots" if you want to foster player confidence - Willie saying DO be more physical is giving Try the green light to wreck some havoc.  Will it have an effect?  We'll see.  Nikita may not even notice from his Russian bubble.

[Baggins]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

Consistency seems to be a common issue with the vets too though. 

 

Whenever Willie talks about young players it's usually backhand compliments though. He did this well BUT he needs to do this this this this and that if he wants to stick as an NHL player. 

 

Considering Tryamkin "brought it" against Dallas before the comments, I say way to go Tryamkin, not way to go Willie.

It's kind of his point though isn't it? Didn't one game, did the next. So he comments, "he needs to bring it consistently" referring to the Boston game. Seems a pretty fair comment to me.

 

Btw, I don't recall Willie say "if he wants to stick" at all in that blurb.

[Standing_Tall#37]

2 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

AV was criticized early on for being a coach who couldn't coach offense.  My point is that when the skill level isn't there, you coach for defense.  Willie has 5 AHL forwards to work with and I'm not counting LaBate.  I'm saying that this part of the criticism has more to do with the team than Willie.

 

Adjustments on the fly etc are Willie's shortcomings.  He gets hammered for deployment but there's more to it than offense.  He's trying to match up lines too.  I've had it up to here with Megna for one.  

 

Willie is best as a teacher.  It's well known that an NHL coach is more of an executive.  He works the bench but has assistants who deal with the players more.  Also, in season in the NHL, there's not a lot of practices.  That would be Willies strength.  I think he would be an outstanding assistant coach at the NHL level or a head at the Junior or AHL level.

 

Do they fire Willie?  For the next year or two, the Canucks are going to struggle no matter who their coach is.

 

Well I think you're mostly right but there's some players that you want to harness their offensive strengths (Goldobin and Baertschi come to mind). The GM has basically conceded the season so what's the harm in allowing them to play a little more offensive and try to get some confidence for them to go in to next year. Maybe work on the defense in training camp next year. 

 I think we have a few young guys with top line potential here soon that could carry the team offensively in the near future, but for some reason seem hellbent on stifling these guys offensive talents/skill.  My point I suppose that I'm making is that if you're developing to not lose, you fail. Because in the future you're going to need guys that are elite scoring threats, but if you curb them so that they can't play the game that's got them to the show... well... having 18 players dressed that are really only effective defending won't get you anywhere better than maybe 7th or 8th in the conference. To me this seems like Willie's biggest failure(maybe 2nd when you look at his wierd love of Megna). Then you see him punish Goldobin for scoring the most exciting goal of the season for not knowing the system, meanwhile 3 nights later you play a brand new guy 10 minutes... well something doesn't add up there. 

   I think you get rid of him as soon as Utica is done and bring up Green for the remainder for an audition. I think there will be struggles going forward no matter who the coach is like you say. But Willie is a one trick pony. That trick works very well in the ahl and Jr. But when you play against the world's best they innovate and improvise on the fly... making that trick worthless. There is probably 50-100 coaches out there chomping at the bit to get a chance/ another chance with their own systems and development plans and at this point I think it would be a benefit to the Canucks to give someone a shot with a proven track record of improvising and developing. 

 It's nothing against Willie personally, it's just that I don't think him and his clipboard are the best fit here anymore. 

[ilduce39]

4 minutes ago, canuck2288 said:

I agree. Good point I had noticed the declining ice time... until tonight for Chaput 

Ya Chaput is a weird choice to ride with the Sedins, but Bo-Baer-Granny could be our top line next year.  Now is the time to try it out I guess.

[wallstreetamigo]

3 minutes ago, Baggins said:

It's kind of his point though isn't it? Didn't one game, did the next. So he comments, "he needs to bring it consistently" referring to the Boston game. Seems a pretty fair comment to me.

 

Btw, I don't recall Willie say "if he wants to stick" at all in that blurb.

He did in the similar ongoing comments about Boucher who I thought had a really good game too.

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, Baggins said:

It's kind of his point though isn't it? Didn't one game, did the next. So he comments, "he needs to bring it consistently" referring to the Boston game. Seems a pretty fair comment to me.

 

Btw, I don't recall Willie say "if he wants to stick" at all in that blurb.

These are the things that a narrative-twister like wallstreet likes to add, hoping to extract more drama and false legitimacy from his overblown protests.

 

Never in any way has Desjardins suggested that Tryamkin needs to step it up to 'stick' or make it in the NHL.

He's talking strictly about maximizing his potential, which Desjardings also happened to comment that he believes he will.   All in a typical day of selective attention though.

[HomeBrew]

There is two odd misconceptions people seem to making with this:

 

1) WD did NOT say that we lost the Boston game because Tryamkin. He said that we could have WON the game if he brought his game consistently. There is a difference there and I think everyone needs to make sure they understand it. 

 

2) WD is not a parental figure to the team. He is a coach. Most people will understand that not everyone on a team needs to be coached in the same manner. Some can self learn from their mistakes and take responsibility, some need to be pushed in order to get to their respective potential talent wise. There seems to be some personal trauma that people are working through here thinking that all Tryamkin cares about is "BUT WHAT ABOUT HIM COACH?! YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HIM!?" Really, you guys need to stop be such crybabies about this. 

[oldnews]

Someone should just transcribe the entire passages of what Desjardins actually said.

How ridiculous the over-reactions are would be that much clearer.

 

[TheOgRook]

1 hour ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I'm talking about now. 

I'm talking about accomplished coaches not being able to get it done so with your view of Willie how is he supposed to do any different?  Kinda weakens your argument doesn't it?

[TimberWolf]

6 minutes ago, HomeBrew said:

There is two odd misconceptions people seem to making with this:

 

1) WD did NOT say that we lost the Boston game because Tryamkin. He said that we could have WON the game if he brought his game consistently. There is a difference there and I think everyone needs to make sure they understand it. 

 

2) WD is not a parental figure to the team. He is a coach. Most people will understand that not everyone on a team needs to be coached in the same manner. Some can self learn from their mistakes and take responsibility, some need to be pushed in order to get to their respective potential talent wise. There seems to be some personal trauma that people are working through here thinking that all Tryamkin cares about is "BUT WHAT ABOUT HIM COACH?! YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HIM!?" Really, you guys need to stop be such crybabies about this. 

 

People are posting observations about a losing coach that shows no signs of being able to adapt and tends to get outcoached at home. You really need to stop being a crybaby about that.

[Baggins]

6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

He did in the similar ongoing comments about Boucher who I thought had a really good game too.

Ok, are we talking about Tyramkin or Boucher?

 

Boucher hasn't managed to stick with two teams already, getting claimed off waivers twice in one season. Saying what he needs to work on to stick would likely be a pretty fair comment in his case.

[darkpoet]

3 hours ago, hlinkas wrister said:

I think it has more do do with helping young players realize their potential, it's not about equality. The ceilings of the veteran players have been attained, whereas Tryamkin's potential is sky-high. This season is cooked now anyways, its not about the veterans (or d-men who are soon to be playing for Vegas) anymore. 

Be that as it may, the optics of it are terrible. 

It's not like WD's walking around with swagger in his step. He looks, and is coming off disgruntled. Which is one reason why I question some of his comments. He seems tired and fed up, and looking at it that way, it's logical to assume his comments say more about him, than any player he's talking about. 

I stand by my thinking that a player should never have "earned the right to suck with impunity" 

As a coach, if it's an issue of respect, and you don't want to call out your veteran players for consistent poor performance - fine - but then it's your job to find a way for them to be successful and correct whatever the problem may be. If that means shuffling lines, decreasing ice time, paying more attention to matchups, then so be it.
That's not happening though.