Team wasnt ready from the get go!

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

6 hours ago, RogersTowell said:

When did AV get the Canucks to win when they had no expectation to win? He always had a pretty strong roster to work with and had time for the WCE era to hand off the reigns to the Sedin era with some crossover.  After the last cup run to the finals he couldn't get a playoff series win after leading the league in the regular season.

I guess you missed the first year when Luongo won him the Jack Adams, they weren't expected to do as well as they did, thanks to Luongo.

[ShawnAntoski]

On 3/10/2021 at 10:59 PM, Dazzle said:

Some posters claim I am a Benning fan. I like a lot of his stuff, especially drafting and developing, which has dramatically changed this franchise for the better. That being said, I've been adamant that keeping WD and TG (and staff) is something that he should get his ass lit for.

The worst part is that TG has a far more talented roster than WD ever did, and yet...

 

TG (114-118)

 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/coaches/greentr01c.html

 

 

vs.

 

WD (136-144)

https://www.hockey-reference.com/coaches/desjawi99c.html

 

:|

Yeah Greens best days as a coach seems to be with another team and I still like the Canucks approach to giving unknown coaching commodities a chance to coach the team; my only ask from the staff is that they emphasize rolling four lines cause despite the talent on the roster, it just seems to lead to a very engaged team through out the game (Vegas).  Also, rolling four lines allows for rookies to get in with guaranteed minutes to just focus on improving there games (and the same can be said/applied for some roster players not considered to be high minute eaters).

Edited March 14, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[RomanP]

My suggestion is to keep this thread for all the "fans" who specialize on one thing - bashing our coaches. It can be a sanctuary of the "couch coaches" who pretend to know it all better than anyone. Oh, and one more thing - this is a team of professionals, not high school team. The coach should not be "preparing" them for a game mentally. They are being paid handsomely to prepare themselves.

[RogersTowell]

4 hours ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

I guess you missed the first year when Luongo won him the Jack Adams, they weren't expected to do as well as they did, thanks to Luongo.

Miss it?  You mean that year with not only Naslund and Morrison, but also the Sedins entering their prime and support from an ageing Linden.  The year with Salo, Ohlund and Mitchell still on the back line?  That year?  That's the year young Kevin Bieksa got 42 points and Kesler & Burrows were on the 4th line.  Yeah, he really had it hard that year.  Luongo in his prime didn't hurt either I suppose.  To say that there was no expectation to win is a big stretch with the Sedins 8 years post draft year along with a pretty strong supporting cast.

 

I haven't missed a season since the team entered the league.

[ChuckNORRIS4Cup]

22 hours ago, RogersTowell said:

Miss it?  You mean that year with not only Naslund and Morrison, but also the Sedins entering their prime and support from an ageing Linden.  The year with Salo, Ohlund and Mitchell still on the back line?  That year?  That's the year young Kevin Bieksa got 42 points and Kesler & Burrows were on the 4th line.  Yeah, he really had it hard that year.  Luongo in his prime didn't hurt either I suppose.  To say that there was no expectation to win is a big stretch with the Sedins 8 years post draft year along with a pretty strong supporting cast.

 

I haven't missed a season since the team entered the league.

Ok, well here's another reminder then.

 

 

Despite the arrival of Luongo, many hockey analysts and fans predicted before the season began that the team would either miss the playoffs, or at best battle for the last playoff spots as 7th or 8th seed in the Western Conference. However, a few did foresee that the addition of a high-calibre goaltender in Luongo would propel the Canucks into the top three of the conference.^[1]

 

Under such skepticism, the team played mediocre hockey from October to the Christmas break, and received criticism due to the team's lack of scoring during this period. However, after the Christmas break, the team had settled down on Vigneault's coaching system, and played stellar hockey from that point on, exceeding the expectations of fans, analysts and critics alike. On April 7, 2007, the Canucks defeated the San Jose Sharks by a score of 4–3 in overtime to clinch the Northwest Division title; their second in the past three seasons. Not only did the team win a division title, this season was known for many milestones, such as Taylor Pyatt setting career high in points, and Alain Vigneault setting a new franchise record for wins as a head coach. Also, second-year player Kevin Bieksa had emerged as a top-four defenceman on the team throughout the season.

[RogersTowell]

1 hour ago, ChuckNORRIS4Cup said:

However, a few did foresee that the addition of a high-calibre goaltender in Luongo would propel the Canucks into the top three of the conference.^[1]

And?

[IBatch]

On 3/14/2021 at 7:20 PM, RomanP said:

My suggestion is to keep this thread for all the "fans" who specialize on one thing - bashing our coaches. It can be a sanctuary of the "couch coaches" who pretend to know it all better than anyone. Oh, and one more thing - this is a team of professionals, not high school team. The coach should not be "preparing" them for a game mentally. They are being paid handsomely to prepare themselves.

No doubt.   There has been times when a coaching change is used on veteran teams as a kick in the ass and it's worked ... for awhile.   For the most last whatever weakness'es a team has more often then not. comes back after the initial "all out for the new coach" routine.   And sometimes it gets a lot worse lol.   After Berube getting fired and St. louis winning the cup i do wonder if that's made some sort of implant in folks grey matter.   Heck maybe a fired coaches team wins the cup this year too.   It happens.   But these guys  are the best in their field for a reason.   

[The Lock]

On 3/10/2021 at 10:59 PM, Dazzle said:

Some posters claim I am a Benning fan. I like a lot of his stuff, especially drafting and developing, which has dramatically changed this franchise for the better. That being said, I've been adamant that keeping WD and TG (and staff) is something that he should get his ass lit for.

The worst part is that TG has a far more talented roster than WD ever did, and yet...

 

TG (114-118)

 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/coaches/greentr01c.html

 

 

vs.

 

WD (136-144)

https://www.hockey-reference.com/coaches/desjawi99c.html

 

:|

The thing is, you can still like what a GM's done while also criticize what that same GM has done. It's not like you're either on one side or the other (which some people seem to have a mentality of unfortunately). There's a continuum.

 

That being said, TG now (ie. not 2 or 3 years ago) has a more talented team, but let's not forget that WD started with a lot of the veterans as well as make the playoffs 1 year, so you could make an argument against what you are saying with those stats. There's just not enough context with it to form the conclusion you speak of.

Edited March 16, 2021 by The Lock

[Me_]

The team wasn’t ready from the get go!

 

And now they’ve won five of their last 6!

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2021 by Me_

[Sativika]

Well....I don't know if our team was in a unique situation as any other NHL team with regards to zero preseason games and dealing with covid and such. But TG and his staff did have to deal with a vastly different looking team than the one that had such good success in last years bubble playoffs.

[UKNuck96]

Part of the issue this season is schedule, it’s not surprising results have taken an upturn as the schedule has eased off for us now after the brutal start and the continuous 3 games in 4 days situation and playing rested teams. 
 

part of it is also the division. If you think of who we would normally play - LA, SJ, Anaheim, Arizona they are 4 teams that are currently worse than us. In this division only Ottawa is in a rebuild state.

 

Take a look at how Minnesota are doing and ask are they really that good? If they were in this division would they have the points they have?

 

I think last season showed what the team is capable of in the playoffs but this season we are yet to see that team. While it’s frustrating and m prepared to write of this season due to schedule and opponents as we are just not as strong as some of the other teams and without cross divisional games we don’t get the chance to play weaker teams making us look a lot worse than we are.

 

Next season though hopefully it’s back to normal divisions and I expect us to do better, although with Vegas and Seattle it’s going to be a tougher division that it used to be. 
 

I think people have lost the perspective the impact of the divisions and no cross divisional games. If you took the top 8 teams from last season and stuck them in a division together then a second division of 9-16. The team that finished 8th suddenly goes from being a top team in the league to looking like they need to rebuild, whereas team finishing 9th suddenly looks like they are unstoppable. Same goes with team that was 16th - goes from a team that just made the playoffs to looking like a basement dweller. 
 

can we improve yes, should we accept losing no, but context is also key

[Dazzle]

16 hours ago, The Lock said:

The thing is, you can still like what a GM's done while also criticize what that same GM has done. It's not like you're either on one side or the other (which some people seem to have a mentality of unfortunately). There's a continuum.

 

That being said, TG now (ie. not 2 or 3 years ago) has a more talented team, but let's not forget that WD started with a lot of the veterans as well as make the playoffs 1 year, so you could make an argument against what you are saying with those stats. There's just not enough context with it to form the conclusion you speak of.

With all due respect, there's more than enough of a sample to criticize TG at this point. I see what you're saying about WD having a lot of veterans, but you can see him slide into oblivion.

 

The truth is, there's an overlap of "bad" rosters of WD and TG. This illustrates the similarity of the two.

 

Now when you look at the individual skill of players (Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes), you can see we are still at the same spot where TG was - borderline.

 

Tanev and Markstrom probably would have improved the Canucks a bit - but not by much. You can briefly see how Calgary is only barely ahead of us, with some games in hand.

[The Lock]

49 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

With all due respect, there's more than enough of a sample to criticize TG at this point. I see what you're saying about WD having a lot of veterans, but you can see him slide into oblivion.

 

The truth is, there's an overlap of "bad" rosters of WD and TG. This illustrates the similarity of the two.

 

Now when you look at the individual skill of players (Boeser, Pettersson, Hughes), you can see we are still at the same spot where TG was - borderline.

 

Tanev and Markstrom probably would have improved the Canucks a bit - but not by much. You can briefly see how Calgary is only barely ahead of us, with some games in hand.

The difference is though that WD's roster was on the downturn with our lowest point being the transition of WD to TG. TG's roster has since been on the upswing (aside from the start of this year maybe).

 

This is what I mean by just looking at the record and claiming TG's not much better, it doesn't really take the whole timeline into context. Our roster is gradually getting better now. I'm not necessarily trying to defend TG or WD. I just look at what you're using and I don't think it proves your point as much as you think since you aren't really considering that timeline it seems.

 

This isn't about the sample size itself. This is about how you are using that sample size. Without that extra understanding of why the records are the way they are, it doesn't really say much. It's more like you have a stat, have a hypothesis on that stat, but just a conclusion without research, and that's the part I just don't really agree with. If you do research on it and come to a conclusion that the record's because of TG's coaching then great, but if it's just because of the rosters being roughly equal and people's arguments are about TG having a good roster now as opposed to a while ago, maybe other stats would be better to use.

Edited March 17, 2021 by The Lock

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

The difference is though that WD's roster was on the downturn with our lowest point being the transition of WD to TG. TG's roster has since been on the upswing (aside from the start of this year maybe).

 

This is what I mean by just looking at the record and claiming TG's not much better, it doesn't really take the whole timeline into context. Our roster is gradually getting better now. I'm not necessarily trying to defend TG or WD. I just look at what you're using and I don't think it proves your point as much as you think since you aren't really considering that timeline it seems.

 

This isn't about the sample size itself. This is about how you are using that sample size. Without that extra understanding of why the records are the way they are, it doesn't really say much. It's more like you have a stat, have a hypothesis on that stat, but just a conclusion without research, and that's the part I just don't really agree with. If you do research on it and come to a conclusion that the record's because of TG's coaching then great, but if it's just because of the rosters being roughly equal and people's arguments are about TG having a good roster now as opposed to a while ago, maybe other stats would be better to use.

I'm only making a very cursory comparison between the two. I really don't care about going in depth about bashing Green because I just don't think it's worth the effort. I don't hate the guy at all.

 

This post wasn't meant to be a research project. This is about TG not being able to elevate with a roster he has that WD never had. The fact that WD missed the playoffs after his one good year, and TG only barely making the playoffs (with the play-in games), that's really not saying much about TG.

 

Granted, TG DID arguably elevate his team in the playoffs, by getting to the second round. However, we also saw in those playoffs what we're seeing now, which is getting badly outshot. Ottawa, at one point of the game, was shooting so much that if Demko wasn't in net, this would've been a disaster. We had Tanev/Markstrom last playoffs. We don't have them now. The passive defense/giving up shots and no shooting has been some of the same issues we've been seeing for years. Is this a TG or a Baumer problem? We don't definitively know. One thing we do know is that their systems have been suspect for a while.

 

At some point, Green has to take some blame if we're going to give him credit for others. We cannot just say "Green's good because he's doing well with players like Pettersson and Boeser, so he can't be criticized at all.".

 

People talk about Benning - and they should because he's responsible for these two coaches. Yet WD/TG are two rookie coaches that have yet to prove anything beyond early playoffs. People criticize the WCE rosters for being a one-lined team, and how the 2nd round wasn't the furthest they could go.  So why can't TG be analyzed in the same way?

Edited March 17, 2021 by Dazzle

[The Lock]

21 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I'm only making a very cursory comparison between the two. I really don't care about going in depth about bashing Green because I just don't think it's worth the effort. I don't hate the guy at all.

 

This post wasn't meant to be a research project. This is about TG not being able to elevate with a roster he has that WD never had. The fact that WD missed the playoffs after that, with TG only barely making the playoffs (with the play-in games), that's really not saying much about TG.

 

Granted, TG DID arguably elevate his team in the playoffs, by getting to the second round. However, we also saw in those playoffs what we're seeing now, which is getting badly outshot.

 

At some point, Green has to take some blame if we're going to give him credit for others. We cannot just say "Green's good because he's doing well with players like Pettersson and Boeser, so he can't be criticized at all.".

I don't disagree that Green should be taking blame for some things. I just don't see it with what you've provided as there's so much left out in the open to criticize with it.

 

For example, in WD's first year, the team ended up with 101 points. That alone is going to skew that statistic you are mentioning, since that year clearly boosts WD's record having 48 wins, 29 losses, 5 overtime losses. Not only that, but are you counting overtime losses in with losses in your statistics, because TG also has more overtime losses than WD which should also be considered. It's not a major difference, but there is still a difference.

 

And, honestly, I'm just scratching the surface. If you look at even the last year with WD and the first year with TG, even that 1 year we saw point totals rise. Granted Boeser started in TG's first year but we could really further look at the stats and see what's going on.

 

Anyway, it's okay if you don't care. Just know that you are leaving yourself open to criticism with your argument as a result.

 

But, like I said, I don't see Green as some perfect coach either, although I often question whether a coaching change would really fix things as well at this point. Especially since, if TG's a good playoff coach as opposed to a good season coach.... that might be the difference between another finals run and a stanley cup as well.

Edited March 17, 2021 by The Lock

[Dazzle]

5 hours ago, The Lock said:

I don't disagree that Green should be taking blame for some things. I just don't see it with what you've provided as there's so much left out in the open to criticize with it.

 

For example, in WD's first year, the team ended up with 101 points. That alone is going to skew that statistic you are mentioning, since that year clearly boosts WD's record having 48 wins, 29 losses, 5 overtime losses. Not only that, but are you counting overtime losses in with losses in your statistics, because TG also has more overtime losses than WD which should also be considered. It's not a major difference, but there is still a difference.

 

And, honestly, I'm just scratching the surface. If you look at even the last year with WD and the first year with TG, even that 1 year we saw point totals rise. Granted Boeser started in TG's first year but we could really further look at the stats and see what's going on.

 

Anyway, it's okay if you don't care. Just know that you are leaving yourself open to criticism with your argument as a result.

 

But, like I said, I don't see Green as some perfect coach either, although I often question whether a coaching change would really fix things as well at this point. Especially since, if TG's a good playoff coach as opposed to a good season coach.... that might be the difference between another finals run and a stanley cup as well.

Yes, it boosts WDs record, but not as much you think. The difference of 19. How does this make Green look better though? He's barely .500,  in spite of the talent. That's why the WD comparison is a guide to see how the TG is doing, in comparison to his predecessor.

 

As for Boeser, WD never had such a lethal sniper/game changer, outside of the Sedins, who were declining. I think looking at the number of fringe players, WD did pretty well for himself. 

 

TG has a number of veteran players that have defined roles (not tweeners)... I'm just not sold.

 

The Canucks need to look at all options. There's no way Green is the best option for all the established coaches out there

 

*My references to Green, include his assistants*

Edited March 18, 2021 by Dazzle

[The Lock]

15 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Yes, it boosts WDs record, but not as much you think. The difference of 19. How does this make Green look better though? He's barely .500,  in spite of the talent. That's why the WD comparison is a guide to see how the TG is doing, in comparison to his predecessor.

 

As for Boeser, WD never had such a lethal sniper/game changer, outside of the Sedins, who were declining. I think looking at the number of fringe players, WD did pretty well for himself. 

 

TG has a number of veteran players that have defined roles (not tweeners)... I'm just not sold.

 

The Canucks need to look at all options. There's no way Green is the best option for all the established coaches out there

 

*My references to Green, include his assistants*

We could discuss all this until we're blue in the face really and I have life to focus on as of late, so less time on this forum for me.

 

I do; however, want to reinstate that I think it's really about what TG has now as opposed to 2 or 3 years ago. That being said, I am also of a mindset where, if you have a bad team, I just don't really care what coach you have: you're still a bad team. lol Even Trotz and Nashville: Trotz did a ton for Nashville, but were the Nashville teams really all that bad when they kept getting solid defense and goal tending? All of this is debatable of course, but I do question that.

 

In terms of Green looking better than WD, here's the way I see it:

 

WD did a lot of frustrating things. He'd play favourites with players like Megna. He'd  throw Pedan on the 4th line. He's presumably one of the reasons why Tryamkin left. WD had a good first year, but after that I remember the frustrations people had with him. I was more of a homer back then than I am now and I remember defending WD for the longest time.

 

19 wins difference I want to point out is still almost a 15% difference in contribution of wins in this case from one season (without considering losses of course). 19 might not seem like much, but when you put that into a percentage, 15% of WD being "better than" TG comes from that one season. Granted that's still going to be up for interpretation, but it's still a factor nevertheless that I don't think we can just ignore.

 

I also think a lot of the focus in on the talent our players have now perhaps rather than the gradual improvement we've had in talent over the years. Boeser obviously came in 1st year, but let's be real about this too: him alone doesn't give a dynamo of talent for TG. Pettersson then comes in the next year and then Hughes comes in the next year after that so it's that gradual improvement that I've mentioned before.

 

Anyway, I think the final thing I want to say; and this is a big problem that I often see on CDC; is the notion of the "best option". In my opinion, there will be no best option. There will always be someone better. There will always be someone worse. There is no perfect; yet, it seems like a lot of people here want perfect. I agree that we should look at our options, but to see if there's a BETTER option, but how do we know Benning hasn't done so already and how do we determine if someone's going to be a better option? Torts for example was supposed to be a better option than AV (or just a desperate firing by Gillis to save his job, that was probably also a thing). Torts is obviously a good coach, but he clearly turned out not to be a better option for us.

Edited March 18, 2021 by The Lock

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

We could discuss all this until we're blue in the face really and I have life to focus on as of late, so less time on this forum for me.

 

I do; however, want to reinstate that I think it's really about what TG has now as opposed to 2 or 3 years ago. That being said, I am also of a mindset where, if you have a bad team, I just don't really care what coach you have: you're still a bad team. lol Even Trotz and Nashville: Trotz did a ton for Nashville, but were the Nashville teams really all that bad when they kept getting solid defense and goal tending? All of this is debatable of course, but I do question that.

 

In terms of Green looking better than WD, here's the way I see it:

 

WD did a lot of frustrating things. He'd play favourites with players like Megna. He'd  throw Pedan on the 4th line. He's presumably one of the reasons why Tryamkin left. WD had a good first year, but after that I remember the frustrations people had with him. I was more of a homer back then than I am now and I remember defending WD for the longest time.

 

19 wins difference I want to point out is still almost a 15% difference in contribution of wins in this case from one season (without considering losses of course). 19 might not seem like much, but when you put that into a percentage, 15% of WD being "better than" TG comes from that one season. Granted that's still going to be up for interpretation, but it's still a factor nevertheless that I don't think we can just ignore.

 

I also think a lot of the focus in on the talent our players have now perhaps rather than the gradual improvement we've had in talent over the years. Boeser obviously came in 1st year, but let's be real about this too: him alone doesn't give a dynamo of talent for TG. Pettersson then comes in the next year and then Hughes comes in the next year after that so it's that gradual improvement that I've mentioned before.

 

Anyway, I think the final thing I want to say; and this is a big problem that I often see on CDC; is the notion of the "best option". In my opinion, there will be no best option. There will always be someone better. There will always be someone worse. There is no perfect; yet, it seems like a lot of people here want perfect. I agree that we should look at our options, but to see if there's a BETTER option, but how do we know Benning hasn't done so already and how do we determine if someone's going to be a better option? Torts for example was supposed to be a better option than AV (or just a desperate firing by Gillis to save his job, that was probably also a thing). Torts is obviously a good coach, but he clearly turned out not to be a better option for us.

I agree. Torts is clearly a more established coach, but Columbus is not doing any better than Vancouver, points wise, even if they're not in the same division. Maybe some coaches just don't work, despite their established careers.

 

It's just that whenever I see Green's boring dump and chase system, and his mindless rolling of four lines, I just can't understand his game plan. We tend to get outshot a lot, and for some reason, the passing tends to get too cute because they want the perfect play.

 

But yeah, I concede that every coach will have his flaws. I just don't know if Green is qualified enough to continue.

[oldnews]

GDT material.  not worth a thread.

[The Lock]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

I agree. Torts is clearly a more established coach, but Columbus is not doing any better than Vancouver, points wise, even if they're not in the same division. Maybe some coaches just don't work, despite their established careers.

 

It's just that whenever I see Green's boring dump and chase system, and his mindless rolling of four lines, I just can't understand his game plan. We tend to get outshot a lot, and for some reason, the passing tends to get too cute because they want the perfect play.

 

But yeah, I concede that every coach will have his flaws. I just don't know if Green is qualified enough to continue.

Well, again, if you look at just this year, Torts doesn't look as good, but if you look at how Columbus has done the past couple of years, one could argue Torts has done a lot for Columbus. However, perhaps this should be considered a lesson for us, because what Columbus shows is that a coach can look good one year and look bad the next year, with almost the EXACT same team. So then, what does that tell us about Green, or what does that tell us about coaches in general even?

 

If we're going to now say Torts is not working in Columbus after the past couple of years of everyone literally praising Torts, that kind of makes this whole thing questionable to me about how a coach is viewed. If we're suddenly good next year and we still have Green. Guess what? Green would get a ton of praise. If the team doesn't do well, Green will get the opposite.

 

Cooper in Tampa Bay's another example. Everyone wanted him gone when they were swept by Columbus 2 years ago. The next year, he looks like a genious because they win the cup. So what is he? Is he a good coach or a bad coach? If those 2 years were flipped around, would we be saying he's a bad coach now instead of a good coach?

 

So then I guess the question would be, how much does a coach actually affect the team? Perhaps a coach is just one person on the team just like everyone else and he can only motivate so much when things are not so great. Do we really know? Do we often focus too much on the coach when really blame should be spread out a little more?

 

Because, ultimately, and honestly, the fact that you're talking about Torts being bad now, after his past couple of years of praise, that's a little alarming to me about just how volatile that position is and just how much tunnel vision we often have regarding coaches.

Edited March 18, 2021 by The Lock