It's the Coaching... analysis why

[captainhorvat]

9 hours ago, Metal Face Doom said:

If willie was coaching.  Petey wouldn't make the lineup.  Boeser would be a scrub and Hughes would be in Utica.  

Seems accurate haha

[ItTakesAnArmy]

13 hours ago, CptCanuck16 said:

I think you are putting way too much emphasis on draft picks. They're a crap shoot.

Are you new here? The whole point behind hiring Benning, the scouting and drafting guru, was because he had supposed superior selection skills. The "scouting background" to tip the odds away from "a crap shoot" to more certainty.

First round picks are almost all sure things now  especially in the top ten, extremely rare are the failures and total bombs.

[CptCanuck16]

7 hours ago, ItTakesAnArmy said:

Are you new here? The whole point behind hiring Benning, the scouting and drafting guru, was because he had supposed superior selection skills. The "scouting background" to tip the odds away from "a crap shoot" to more certainty.

First round picks are almost all sure things now  especially in the top ten, extremely rare are the failures and total bombs.

While I agree that all of Bennings first round picks have been fire (jury is still out on OJ as he is yet to play in the NHL) many of our second and third round picks have never played at the NHL level and probably never will. Meanwhile a guy like Adam Guadette (a 5th round pick) is in the lineup. That's what I mean by it being a crapshoot. Some draft picks elevate their game and move on to achieve great things whilst others fade away or never take their game to another level. That's life, stuff happens, there are no guarantees. Proclaiming we were somehow selling ourselves short by giving up 2nd and a 7th round pick in exchange for players who are proven NHLers and are ready to play now is misguided IMHO because we just don't know if that 2nd and 7th round guy will ever see any ice time in the NHL. As for the 1st we gave up for Miller I think it has worked out very well so far. 

 

Here is a complete list of all of Bennings draft picks;

https://canucksarmy.com/2018/07/02/five-years-in-jim-bennings-first-five-drafts-for-the-vancouver-canucks/

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by CptCanuck16

[Westcoasting]

8 hours ago, ItTakesAnArmy said:

Are you new here? The whole point behind hiring Benning, the scouting and drafting guru, was because he had supposed superior selection skills. The "scouting background" to tip the odds away from "a crap shoot" to more certainty.

First round picks are almost all sure things now  especially in the top ten, extremely rare are the failures and total bombs.

Just about every year you can count on some failures...are you new to hockey?

[Junkyard Dog]

It's always the coaching though.

 

AV

Willie 

now Green.

If you replace Green, you'll just blame the next guy.

[Wanless]

It seems as the Canucks struggle against teams with a system that clogs up the neutral zone and passing lanes as a primary strategy. 

 

Looking at the Blackhawks game the Canucks could make passes as they kept on getting picked off, both the devil's games and last night against the stars they had a hard time gaining the zone with lots of turnovers and odd man rushes coming back.

 

I don't think the Canucks need to change their system completely but add more options for breakouts and transition play. This is on coaching to figure out and implement

[Conscience]

Green seems to get some weird ideas stuck in his head and it hurts the team.

 

notice how virtanen scored from the left wing again but he refuses to ever try him there?

[Tre Mac]

It's those team like that tshirts I tell you what.  I love Greener.

[CptCanuck16]

13 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

It's always the coaching though.

 

AV

Willie 

now Green.

If you replace Green, you'll just blame the next guy.

We've had some good coaches; 

 

Patt Quinn

Marc Crawford

AV

 

Travis Green isn't one of them. Coaching in the NHL isn't like coaching in the minors. Every teams players are the best of the best. There isn't much separating them talent wise. They're all amazingly skilled at hockey. If they weren't they wouldn't be in the NHL. The difference between a winning team and a losing team over the course of the season is a coaches ability to recognize his teams and his opponents teams strengths and weaknesses and exploit them. Based on TG's own comments and the predictable playing style of the Canucks I am fairly certain this concept is lost on TG. He wants his players to do the same thing over and over again and expects different results. 

[CptCanuck16]

19 minutes ago, Tre Mac said:

  I love Greener.

Why?

[Westcoasting]

2 hours ago, CptCanuck16 said:

Why?

Who do you like better that is unemployed?

 

[*Buzzsaw*]

1 hour ago, Westcoasting said:

Who do you like better that is unemployed?

 

Quennville was available all summer.

 

He is top 3 in the NHL.... but he will cost you.

 

5 years... over 26 million with Florida.

 

Alain Vigneault was available as well.

 

Another 25 mil... 5 years with Philly.

 

Want me to go on?

 

Coaches salary does not count against the CAP.

 

But the current Canucks owner has not seemed willing to pay the dollars... when Vigneault was here previously he was a relative unknown and not too expensive.

 

Travis Green is apparently paid $1 mill per.

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by *Buzzsaw*

[Tre Mac]

4 hours ago, CptCanuck16 said:

Why?

1. No nonsense coach who lets the skill players play their game
2. He's been more than patient with prospects like Virtanen and now that's paying off
3. He's played this game at a high level, and more so than most coaches
4. Had success in the coaching in the minors 
5. Has a line blender
6. Played poker at a high level

Honestly seems like a cool dude.  Coaches can only do so much, in the end it's up to the players to perform.  Green has this team playing exciting hockey that's been outperforming teams on most nights.  

 

[*Buzzsaw*]

4 hours ago, CptCanuck16 said:

We've had some good coaches; 

 

Patt Quinn

Marc Crawford

AV

 

Travis Green isn't one of them. Coaching in the NHL isn't like coaching in the minors. Every teams players are the best of the best. There isn't much separating them talent wise. They're all amazingly skilled at hockey. If they weren't they wouldn't be in the NHL. The difference between a winning team and a losing team over the course of the season is a coaches ability to recognize his teams and his opponents teams strengths and weaknesses and exploit them. Based on TG's own comments and the predictable playing style of the Canucks I am fairly certain this concept is lost on TG. He wants his players to do the same thing over and over again and expects different results. 

Would not classify Mark Crawford as one of the better Canucks coaches.

 

Would agree with the other two choices... would add Roger Neilson to that list... Hall of Famer... huge innovator as a coach.

[lmm]

On 11/11/2019 at 3:23 PM, RU SERIOUS said:

Don't worry TG and NB are on their last legs.  They were always expected to be "interim" coaches used for rebuild purposes only.   Unless the Canucks succeed into the playoffs, they will both be gone at years end as the Cunucks rebuild has just about reached the point that they're ready for an real - experienced coach.    Be patient  - its all part of the plan!

then why did they just re-up the assistant coaches?

 

[IBatch]

On 11/14/2019 at 12:13 PM, ItTakesAnArmy said:

Are you new here? The whole point behind hiring Benning, the scouting and drafting guru, was because he had supposed superior selection skills. The "scouting background" to tip the odds away from "a crap shoot" to more certainty.

First round picks are almost all sure things now  especially in the top ten, extremely rare are the failures and total bombs.

Well a recent study showed that drafting in the first round hasn’t changed much the last 30 years.   Same amount of busts, same amount of pretty much everything - despite way more staff and emphasis on development.   We’ve had some good drafts the last five-seven years but they’ve been far from perfect.  And really it’s way too early to know how good it’s been.  We won’t know the exact quality for another decade.   Id agree top ten picks are almost all sure things - same as it ever was - but there is also usually one or two who are busts or maybe not complete bombs but not great especially given their draft position.   Patrick.  Puljajarvi. OJ.  Yakupov (he broke goal scoring records in the CHL) ... too early but just to name a few recent ones.   The rest of the first round, particularly the second half it’s not so certain and even the best drafts all-time have a few misses/busts/almost bombs past ten.    Second round?  Well 50% will play 1-200 games - the rest zero games and the number of guys that will play 700 is very low.   12.5% of the third round on play 100 games or more - total crap shoot.  And it won’t ever ever ever be more then that.  Why?  There is only so many jobs available.   

 

Sure some drafts are better then others - next years is considered above average.  We had two monster drafts in a row when McDavid and Mathews went back-back.  One thing I will say - is recent drafts are producing  a bevy of defenseman we haven’t seen since the 80-90’s.   Only EK, Doughty and Chara are locks for the HHOF the last 20 years - guys that are now in their 30’s.   Maybe Burns and Weber too.  It’s been a while since we had a crop of guys like Leetch, Coffey, Borque, Housley, MaCinnis, Pronger, Chelios, Murphy, Blake, Lidstrom, Zubov, Langway etc make the HHOF and deservedly so.   Plus there was a bevy of guys a level below like Carlyle, Wilson and even Babych.  

 

Werenksi, McAvoy, Hughes, Makar, Dahlin, Heiskanen - and Provorov, Parayko a bit older and Hedman and Carlson a bit older then them.  It’s possible it’s a by-product of the “ New NHL” - at least the regular season one where virtually 3/4 of what is called used to be let go as hockey plays.   Hudson Bay Rules could expose some of these guys in the playoffs (QH and McAvoy sized ones at least).  Time will tell.

Edited November 17, 2019 by IBatch

[Boudrias]

On 11/15/2019 at 7:01 PM, CptCanuck16 said:

We've had some good coaches; 

 

Patt Quinn

Marc Crawford

AV

 

Travis Green isn't one of them. Coaching in the NHL isn't like coaching in the minors. Every teams players are the best of the best. There isn't much separating them talent wise. They're all amazingly skilled at hockey. If they weren't they wouldn't be in the NHL. The difference between a winning team and a losing team over the course of the season is a coaches ability to recognize his teams and his opponents teams strengths and weaknesses and exploit them. Based on TG's own comments and the predictable playing style of the Canucks I am fairly certain this concept is lost on TG. He wants his players to do the same thing over and over again and expects different results. 

Having structure and consistency as a game plan thru a season when your roster core is young and developing sounds like a solid plan to me. Green is allowing his youth the TOI to gain experience but not overwhelming them from what I can see. This roster is not a Serious CUP contender yet. How this young core evolves is critical. As we saw earlier in the season when everything aligns they are formidable. That cannot be sustained at this point thru 82 games. Green has to be supportive but also a task master. Not a easy assignment especially in a market like Vancouver. The media is not his friend most nights.  

[-DLC-]

I'd say you don't tamper with something that's a work in progress and, in a realistic view, performing at or better than expected if kept in perspective.  People see the team with some success then lose their minds and expect them to barrel through and just win.  It's very unreasonable to set the bar where some have...especially with a young core, some of whom are just learning the ropes of the NHL.

 

To disrupt things by removing a coach?  Be careful what you wish for....could do more harm than good.

 

I wonder if Babcock or Gallant will have fans screaming for their heads?  

 

Teams weather storms, don't win every game and, for me...the fact that they closed a two goal deficit late in the game against a tough Avs team is more a good sign than a bad one.  Sure...not the best game overall but it matters little in the end.  Finding a way to grab points is the ultimate goal.

 

I hate the constant evaluations that call for drastic measures.  

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

On 11/15/2019 at 6:01 PM, CptCanuck16 said:

We've had some good coaches; 

 

Patt Quinn

Marc Crawford

AV

 

Travis Green isn't one of them. Coaching in the NHL isn't like coaching in the minors. Every teams players are the best of the best. There isn't much separating them talent wise. They're all amazingly skilled at hockey. If they weren't they wouldn't be in the NHL. The difference between a winning team and a losing team over the course of the season is a coaches ability to recognize his teams and his opponents teams strengths and weaknesses and exploit them. Based on TG's own comments and the predictable playing style of the Canucks I am fairly certain this concept is lost on TG. He wants his players to do the same thing over and over again and expects different results. 

Funny thing is, the criticism you’re making about Green is the exact same criticism that was often made against AV when he was here. People said he wasn’t able to adjust his systems/game planning/playing style to strategically match his opponents and the league. They said he was a good coach as far as preparing his teams through practice to play the game a certain way, but that he failed to make in-game adjustments, and was poor in head-to-head game strategy, especially against the league’s “good” coaches. Some even said he was just an AHL/QMJHL level coach, but out of his depth against true NHL coaches.

 

I think we can all agree (now) that AV was, and is, a very good NHL head coach.

 

But at the time, AV took a lot of flack in Vancouver. And much of that criticism paralleled what we hear directed at Green these days.

 

Also, I have a much different take on the quality of coaching league-wide. I think NHL coaches are much closer in quality than the individual players and the overall team rosters. As in, if you were to take any team right now, and swap out the coach for one of the 30 others, you’d likely see that team achieve, on average, very similar results over a season. Now take any of the 31 head coaches, and have him coach each of the league’s teams, and he will get dramatically different results, depending on the quality of the rosters he’s given.
 

If there was a WAR stat (wins above replacement) for coaches (EDIT: and one that actually measured results achieved by coaches under similar conditions, in terms of roster quality), I suspect the numbers would be much smaller than the range we see among players. Simply because the difference in results any given coach can get out of a particular roster is, IMO, fairly small.

 

Sure, we see coaching changes occasionally spur dramatic turn arounds with teams. And sometimes we see seamless fits between roster construction and coaching style, which yield great results. Same goes for terrible fits (see Tortorella 2013-14). But for the most part, you can swap any of the league’s coaches onto another team, and the bulk of them will get pretty much the same results out of the players they’re given to work with.

 

This isn’t to say that coaches are unimportant. Just that there are only 31 head coaching positions, so the talent pool is the absolute elite of that profession, and the guys that make it to that level are all absolute “rock stars” at their job.
 

But coaches are the first to be blamed for a team’s performance, and tend to be the first to be changed out when teams struggle. And honestly, I think a fair amount of the “insanity” in this league (as in doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results) occurs when teams expect coaching changes to fix roster problems, instead of focusing on changing/adding players to improve a team, or changing a GM, if he proves unable to achieve results with the rosters he’s putting together. 

Edited November 17, 2019 by SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME

[Maddogy]

My updated opinion on the losing streak in point form:

 

- The core players are not ready to lead this team into contending, they need more time to develop, opinions may defer as to whether the Miller trade is justified in order to help the core players develop properly. If we have Mcdavid and Draisaitl instead of Pettersson and Boeser, I would be very surprised if we do not get into the Stanley Cup Finals in May

 

- NHL is a super stars league at least during the 82 games regular season, if you want your team to do well during the regular season, we better see your core players in the top 10-15 ranking of players 

 

- Canucks are not very good in breakaways, 2 on 1, 3 on 2 rushes. This may indicate a lack skill. Perhaps more drills during practice can improve the percentages. 

 

-Canucks are scoring quite a bit of garbage goals but not many pretty ones. In regular season this indicates a lack of talent. However I prefer this due to the tight checking nature of the playoffs and I think all you need to do is to squeeze into the playoffs rather than dominating the regular season. 

 

- My criticism of Travis Green is that he is not Barry Trotz, other than this, Travis is a good coach

 

- My personal bias is that I keep telling fans of every team that going through adversity and a challenging stretch is good in the long run if your core players are young. A team that is ready to lose some games and survive 7 games rounds, and 4 rounds of playoffs is preferable to a team that expects domination and gets frustrated

 

- I would not mind Canucks miss the playoffs this season and get some draft lottery luck