How Green's coaching and Benning's trades degraded this team

[kloubek]

48 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

However, it is also reasonable for Canucks ownership to ask questions and find out whether Green is a good fit for this team or perhaps a different NHL team.

Of course it is. I've wondered if Green was the right coach pretty much since he was hired. He seems to be a good coach for development, but perhaps not the best coach for leading a high-talent team.

[kanucks25]

11 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Coaches aren't like hockey players where you draft them and trade them.  They have to want to come to your team.  Guys like Babcock, Quenneville, Gallant are quite expensive.  You need permission from the owner to sign those guys who would be asking for millions of dollars in salary.

 

Travis Green makes approx. $1 million per year.  Guys like Quenneville and Vigneault makes upwards of $5 million a year.  That's a huge difference that only an owner can approve.  Also, players can be traded at any time even with a guaranteed contract.  Coaches have to be fired and their contract is guaranteed and payable no matter if they are fired or not.  So there is more risk in signing a big name coach to a long term big time contract versus a player that you can trade anytime to get the contract off the books.

I don't really disagree with anything here but you still haven't in anyway supported your claim that the decision/hiring of incompetent coaches was on ownership and not the GM, or that ownership forced the GM to hire a certain type of coach.

[Elias Pettersson]

20 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

If Green (and BumG) end up getting their walking papers, this will be Shaw's team. I don't see the management going out and getting another AHL coach in waiting, nor do I see them going after an older coach. 

 

Shaw has been an assistant coach in the NHL for over a decade and a half at this point. Rumor was that he was looking for a head coaching job after last season in Columbus. He settled for another assistant gig in Vancouver instead. I believe there's a reason for that. 

 

He's proven himself as an assistant coach more than many have in the league. I'd like to see his influence on this team more. 

I believe that is the backup plan for Benning.  There weren't alot of coaches available last year and the high end ones are asking for $5 million+ on long term deals.  Bringing in Shaw was a smart move in case things faltered.  Green is only getting around $1 million per year so if you fire him now and replace him with Shaw there is no extra cost to the club.  If Shaw doesn't work out he can stay as an assistant and Benning can hire someone else in the summer and Aquilini is only on the hook for an extra million next year for Green.

[mll]

18 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Coaches aren't like hockey players where you draft them and trade them.  They have to want to come to your team.  Guys like Babcock, Quenneville, Gallant are quite expensive.  You need permission from the owner to sign those guys who would be asking for millions of dollars in salary.

 

Travis Green makes approx. $1 million per year.  Guys like Quenneville and Vigneault makes upwards of $5 million a year.  That's a huge difference that only an owner can approve.  Also, players can be traded at any time even with a guaranteed contract.  Coaches have to be fired and their contract is guaranteed and payable no matter if they are fired or not.  So there is more risk in signing a big name coach to a long term big time contract versus a player that you can trade anytime to get the contract off the books.

Green got a raise when he was re-upped in May.  Weren't they saying that he got more than Brind'Amour or at least as much.    

[Elias Pettersson]

2 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I don't really disagree with anything here but you still haven't in anyway supported your claim that the decision/hiring of incompetent coaches was on ownership and not the GM, or that ownership forced the GM to hire a certain type of coach.

Green was available.  He was already here and willing to sign a cheap deal.  The other big name coaches needed permission from Aquilini.  I'm not saying that Aquilini approved or even recommended signing Green.  What I'm saying is that in order to get someone other than Green and more experienced Aquilini would have to have been involved.  Most likely Aquilini did not approve of a big ticket spending on a coach so Benning decided to go with what he had in Green versus trying to find a similar type coach on a cheaper contract that didn't know anything about the team.

[PhillipBlunt]

5 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

I believe that is the backup plan for Benning.  There weren't alot of coaches available last year and the high end ones are asking for $5 million+ on long term deals.  Bringing in Shaw was a smart move in case things faltered.  Green is only getting around $1 million per year so if you fire him now and replace him with Shaw there is no extra cost to the club.  If Shaw doesn't work out he can stay as an assistant and Benning can hire someone else in the summer and Aquilini is only on the hook for an extra million next year for Green.

Shaw is a very solid coach. He's more than proven himself with how he transformed the defense corps in both St. Louis and Columbus. Solid, physical, and responsible in their own end and equally capable and stout in the neutral and offensive zones. 

 

I think he's a diamond in the rough, to be honest. Proven track record in the NHL for sometime. Having Shaw as a ready replacement would probably be the only thing that saves Benning's bacon. 

[mll]

Just now, Elias Pettersson said:

Green was available.  He was already here and willing to sign a cheap deal.  The other big name coaches needed permission from Aquilini.  I'm not saying that Aquilini approved or even recommended signing Green.  What I'm saying is that in order to get someone other than Green and more experienced Aquilini would have to have been involved.  Most likely Aquilini did not approve of a big ticket spending on a coach so Benning decided to go with what he had in Green versus trying to find a similar type coach on a cheaper contract that didn't know anything about the team.

Don't think that him being cheap was the reason. 

 

Linden said that Benning only wanted Green and they didn't bother doing a coaching search.   Utica went to the finals in 2015 and Benning spent all that time there working closely with Green.  

[Nucker 67]

I believe the Canucks have the team in place - at least the goaltending and forwards. Maybe they could add one or two more defensive Dmen. 

 

This is a short window (opportunity) actually, because I think they'll eventually lose Miller and Pearson to clear cap - Hoglander and Podkolzin will be due raises. Same with Boeser and Horvat, new contracts will be needed soon. 

 

Green has been the head coach for 4 seasons  They missed the playoffs 3 out of the 4 years, and some would argue that the "bubble" season was an anomaly. I was so excited for this season, thinking the Canucks made enough improvements that they can finally be one of the better teams. It just looks more of the same to me. Garland has been a really nice surprise. I believe it's coaching. Pulling the goalie too early, Too Many Men penalties, line juggling, etc. Green just doesn't look passionate about winning, or about anything. Now he's blaming the players. Meanwhile the players might be thinking, "Green's systems aren't working". Get the Canucks a real NHL coach and not some up and comer learning the ropes as he goes. 

[kanucks25]

8 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Most likely Aquilini did not approve of a big ticket spending on a coach so Benning decided to go with what he had in Green versus trying to find a similar type coach on a cheaper contract that didn't know anything about the team.

This is just conjecture on your part, which does not exactly exonerate Benning in this situation.

[Elias Pettersson]

6 minutes ago, mll said:

Green got a raise when he was re-upped in May.  Weren't they saying that he got more than Brind'Amour or at least as much.    

Here is a list of the coaches salaries for 2021-2022:

 

NHL Head Coaches Salary 2021–22 (How much they get paid) (sportscriber.com)

 

Green is showing at $1 million for 202-2021.  He was one of the lowest paid coach last year.  I can't find what he is making this year, but even if he is at Brind'Amour level he is still millions below the top paid cocahes.

[mll]

3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Here is a list of the coaches salaries for 2021-2022:

 

NHL Head Coaches Salary 2021–22 (How much they get paid) (sportscriber.com)

 

Green is showing at $1 million for 202-2021.  He was one of the lowest paid coach last year.  I can't find what he is making this year, but even if he is at Brind'Amour level he is still millions below the top paid cocahes.

He started at 1M as a rookie coach.  

 

Still, don't think cost was the reason he got the job.  I think it's Benning being so impressed by the Utica playoff run - how he got the team to compete and reach the finals.  They overcame deficits and continued to compete to go that far.  He referred to it to explain why he felt Green was the right coach for the job.

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by mll

[Jester13]

3 hours ago, King Heffy said:

He's also got rid of promising young guys instead of the useless AHL trash like Hunt, and continued to employ an incompetent clown in Baumgartner.  His ability to identify skill is severity lacking and is a major reason for our struggles.  Enough with the plug love.

Yup, Green's "plug love" is his bias that is constantly on display. It's unbearable to watch now.

 

1 hour ago, PhillipBlunt said:

If Green (and BumG) end up getting their walking papers, this will be Shaw's team. I don't see the management going out and getting another AHL coach in waiting, nor do I see them going after an older coach. 

 

Shaw has been an assistant coach in the NHL for over a decade and a half at this point. Rumor was that he was looking for a head coaching job after last season in Columbus. He settled for another assistant gig in Vancouver instead. I believe there's a reason for that. 

 

He's proven himself as an assistant coach more than many have in the league. I'd like to see his influence on this team more. 

I can't agree more, in that Shaw was hired as a head coach in waiting.

 

I'm actually starting to wonder if Green is losing the room, as our guys - Miller comes to mind, even Petey, possibly - are visibly frustrated more and more, and it could easily be due to always playing the same system that obviously doesn't work, as well as always blending lines and playing plugs. Stack out top two lines with the Lotto and Bo, Hog/Pearson, and Garland; blend the bottom six. But for the love of Gawd, get some consistency and adapt to each game rather than doing the same failed strategy over and over again. 

 

I know it's early, but how many years are we going to see slow starts to a season? That 100% falls onto the coach for not getting things up and running and ready for game 1; instead, we see Green being undecided on his lineup of plugs until the very last day, when we couldn't had our full lineup playing together and gelling and ready to hit the ice hard for the beginning of the season. 

[swizzey]

12 hours ago, *Buzzsaw* said:

Where do I start?

 

Quinn Hughes:

 

Everyone knows Hughes is a rare offensive talent.  He is someone who excels in a Run and Gun offense, or as a powerplay quarterback.

 

What he isn't is a defensive ace... he is not a #1 Defenseman.  A real #1 D can do it all... both offense and defense... Hughes simply isn't big enough to dominate physically in his own team's end the way a real #1 has to.

 

But what does Green do?....  He plays Hughes like a #1... he plays him for close to 30 minutes and he puts him in all the situations which would be demanded of a #1... so we see Hughes on the PK, in charge of clearing the front of the net... wrestling with forwards who are twice his size.  And big surprise... Hughes is a gamer, he tries hard, and then he gets injured wrestling with a much bigger forward in front of the net.

 

Part of this is the failure of Benning to provide Green with a player who could be a good defensive partner to Hughes.  He let Tanev go... Tanev wasn't the biggest player, (bigger than Hughes) but he had the smarts and anticipation... he knew how to use his stick and control the play net front.  Benning also didn't replace Edler with someone who could be as physical.  Everyone who got down on Alex as he aged tends to forget the work he did in front of the net... Edler was a stalwart back there and could battle with the best of them.  Nobody replaced him.  OEL is not that guy... he's skilled, but he is not a real physical presence.

 

Logically Myers should be partnered with Hughes... that way Myers can take care of the net front... but that partnership hasn't worked out for some reason... (although you would think a decent defensive coach could teach them to work together)

 

I am concerned that Hughes is being ruined as a player... that he will mistakenly start to lose confidence in himself for not being able to play the physical game... as well as getting angry at Green for putting him in these situations.

 

Hitting:

 

Everyone is talking about the lack of hitting by the Canucks... their record this season is abysmal.

 

The only person who seems to be hitting is Connor Garland... which is a complete anomaly.  Garland is one of the smaller players on the team... why is he leading the way in the physical play?   Let me make a prediction... if Garland continues to try to lead the team physically, he will be injured too.

 

So why isn't Green coaching the big guys on the team to hit and be physical???  It's true the team has gotten smaller... thanks to all the small forwards Benning has brought in and all the big forwards he has lost to waivers... but we still have few guys with size... Horvat, Miller, Pearson, Myers are examples... why isn't Green coaching his bigger guys to hit on the forecheck?

 

After all, Green's system is a dump and chase... following by a cycle... and hitting has to be part of that... you gotta have someone retrieve the puck when you dump it in... and the way you do that is by forcing the opposing D to cough up the puck... either by hitting or the threat of a hit.

 

So what's going on???  Well, what's going on is Green's laissez faire/see what happens attitude towards everything.  He doesn't have a handle on what his players are doing because he really doesn't have a system.

The other problem is, Miller, Pearson, Horvat and Myers are some of the offensive cornerstones of the team now... if you have these guys being the physical ones... then they get injured or end up in the box.  Theoretically, it is the lunch bucket guys on the team who should be doing the hitting.... problem is... the lunchbucket hitters are all missing.

 

A few years back we had a decent amount of hitting going on... it wasn't really coached... it came as part of the player package.. i.e. we paid to have guys like Beagle, Graovac and Roussel do that... but Benning messed up his CAP and decided we couldn't afford any more expensive character players.

 

And the in house developed hitters, like MacEwen, Bailey and Gadjovich all fell victim to Green's grudges... when Green doesn't like you... you aren't long for the team.

 

So what are we left with?   Unfortunately it looks like a soft team.... thanks Green's coaching and Benning's trades/waivers.

 

---

 

On a related topic... while I love John Garret for his commentary, he is a real homer and never likes to criticize the Canucks Staff.  Corey Hirsch is definitely a character, but he is also not afraid to point to where Green's system is breaking down... both in the D Zone as well as on the offense.  He's been a breath of fresh air.  Wish Green and the Assistants would have a listen to the broadcasts.

 

 

 

 

Relax.

[Patel Bure]

11 hours ago, kacholu said:

Green is an AHL coach. NHL is way too complex and fast for him. In his mind the game works like this "see puck...chade puck "

 

The is a grinder for life and always will be. We need coaches who can adapt and use systems to bring out the best out of players 

I’m starting to feel this way myself quite frankly.

 

I know it’s early but I’m not sure if Green is our guy.

[Timråfan]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Coaches aren't like hockey players where you draft them and trade them.  They have to want to come to your team.  Guys like Babcock, Quenneville, Gallant are quite expensive.  You need permission from the owner to sign those guys who would be asking for millions of dollars in salary.

 

Travis Green makes approx. $1 million per year.  Guys like Quenneville and Vigneault makes upwards of $5 million a year.  That's a huge difference that only an owner can approve.  Also, players can be traded at any time even with a guaranteed contract.  Coaches have to be fired and their contract is guaranteed and payable no matter if they are fired or not.  So there is more risk in signing a big name coach to a long term big time contract versus a player that you can trade anytime to get the contract off the books.

I don’t buy this argument.

Benning has spent up all cap before so if he saved a few mills in cap he could’ve hired an expensive coach if so. 
So money isn’t the problem as an charismatic coach also bring in fans. 

[DSVII]

Reddit did a good post summarizing all my problems with Green:

 

1. We turtle once we have the lead. Last night, we were playing some good hockey. We were winning possession-wise and once we had the lead we stopped playing dynamic, started collapsing and trying to defend, which we are terrible at. When it was 2-2 suddenly we started to forecheck more aggressively and stopped playing Green's ultra-passive way. It's very surprising to me that we are doing something well that is bringing us success, and the players are told to change it.

2. The ultra-passive way. Our changeup from defending last season to now seems to be collapse even harder with less pressure on the opposing team. We are getting one forward applying pressure instead of two. This makes it even easier for the opposition to control the puck. Just look at our possession metrics against Buffalo, a team that is comprised almost entirely of guys that would not make the roster on most other NHL teams.

3. New and unimproved penalty kill. Yes we are missing Motte & Sutter, but this is essentially an extension of the last two points. Our defenders don't apply any pressure, which would be fine if other teams played the PP like us but they don't, because that would be stupid. Which brings me to...

4. Complete and utter lack of movement on PP1. This has been a thorn in my side for literal years now. Our players stand in a diamond around the outside with Bo in the middle, and lazily pass the puck back and forth. I would have killed to defend against a powerplay this slow when I was still playing hockey that mattered. It's so, so easy to defend against a puck that isn't moving. We have to pass way faster and move our feet when we have the puck to force the defenders to adjust. If you don't move the defenders don't either, which means no seams are opening up. This is $&!# that has gone on for years and it boggles my mind because even AAA teams know that puck movement is essential.

5. Unnecessary line juggling. Most of us probably agree that we got goalied in Detroit, which begs the question: why mess with a lineup that was bringing us success everywhere but the scoresheet? We're four games in and guys have barely had a chance to play together on structured lines yet, and now you're making huge shuffles like Miller to 3C and swapping in our bottom pairing from the bench. I can understand wanting to get your 7/8 D in a game, but a lot of the other line juggling, especially this early, works against a team that is on the road and can't focus on practising and gelling.

6. Killing creativity. Our best players aren't free to do what they do best. With the exceptionally rigid structure of zone entries and O-zone play where players are anchored to specific sub-areas of the zone completely annihilates the ability of our top players to make top plays. It is predictable as all hell, and predictable forwards are the easiest to defend against. This was actually a strength of Green when he first started - the rigid structure is exactly what you need when you have a roster full of plugs as it takes the thinking out of the game. For the love of god though, when Elias god damn Pettersson is completely invisible all night long because he's just in areas that are irrelevant to the play, give him more leash. The systems are choking out our stars.

7. In-game Confusion. Our lines don't know who is going on for who, partially because of Travis "Vitamix" Green's constant line blending, partially because our special teams sure are special. You see multiple guys on the bench standing to go on when they aren't up. Either Buffalo or Detroit had someone hop over the boards only to immediately hop back on the bench when another guy went too. This happens nearly every game, and it's part of the reason we get so many too many men penalties

8. Game management, or lack thereof. How many timeouts have you seen Green call to calm his team down and re-center them on the goals of what they are trying to accomplish? (I know he did yesterday at least, which is good) How many times have we allowed a few quick ones, only for the same players to head out and do the exact same things?

Edited October 20, 2021 by DSVII

[Podzilla]

7 minutes ago, DSVII said:

Reddit did a good post summarizing all my problems with Green:

 

1. We turtle once we have the lead. Last night, we were playing some good hockey. We were winning possession-wise and once we had the lead we stopped playing dynamic, started collapsing and trying to defend, which we are terrible at. When it was 2-2 suddenly we started to forecheck more aggressively and stopped playing Green's ultra-passive way. It's very surprising to me that we are doing something well that is bringing us success, and the players are told to change it.

2. The ultra-passive way. Our changeup from defending last season to now seems to be collapse even harder with less pressure on the opposing team. We are getting one forward applying pressure instead of two. This makes it even easier for the opposition to control the puck. Just look at our possession metrics against Buffalo, a team that is comprised almost entirely of guys that would not make the roster on most other NHL teams.

3. New and unimproved penalty kill. Yes we are missing Motte & Sutter, but this is essentially an extension of the last two points. Our defenders don't apply any pressure, which would be fine if other teams played the PP like us but they don't, because that would be stupid. Which brings me to...

4. Complete and utter lack of movement on PP1. This has been a thorn in my side for literal years now. Our players stand in a diamond around the outside with Bo in the middle, and lazily pass the puck back and forth. I would have killed to defend against a powerplay this slow when I was still playing hockey that mattered. It's so, so easy to defend against a puck that isn't moving. We have to pass way faster and move our feet when we have the puck to force the defenders to adjust. If you don't move the defenders don't either, which means no seams are opening up. This is $&!# that has gone on for years and it boggles my mind because even AAA teams know that puck movement is essential.

5. Unnecessary line juggling. Most of us probably agree that we got goalied in Detroit, which begs the question: why mess with a lineup that was bringing us success everywhere but the scoresheet? We're four games in and guys have barely had a chance to play together on structured lines yet, and now you're making huge shuffles like Miller to 3C and swapping in our bottom pairing from the bench. I can understand wanting to get your 7/8 D in a game, but a lot of the other line juggling, especially this early, works against a team that is on the road and can't focus on practising and gelling.

6. Killing creativity. Our best players aren't free to do what they do best. With the exceptionally rigid structure of zone entries and O-zone play where players are anchored to specific sub-areas of the zone completely annihilates the ability of our top players to make top plays. It is predictable as all hell, and predictable forwards are the easiest to defend against. This was actually a strength of Green when he first started - the rigid structure is exactly what you need when you have a roster full of plugs as it takes the thinking out of the game. For the love of god though, when Elias god damn Pettersson is completely invisible all night long because he's just in areas that are irrelevant to the play, give him more leash. The systems are choking out our stars.

7. In-game Confusion. Our lines don't know who is going on for who, partially because of Travis "Vitamix" Green's constant line blending, partially because our special teams sure are special. You see multiple guys on the bench standing to go on when they aren't up. Either Buffalo or Detroit had someone hop over the boards only to immediately hop back on the bench when another guy went too. This happens nearly every game, and it's part of the reason we get so many too many men penalties

8. Game management, or lack thereof. How many timeouts have you seen Green call to calm his team down and re-center them on the goals of what they are trying to accomplish? (I know he did yesterday at least, which is good) How many times have we allowed a few quick ones, only for the same players to head out and do the exact same things?

This. Insane how some people still can’t see how bad the coaching is. How many years is it going to take for them to move around on the power play!?

[rychicken]

1 hour ago, kloubek said:

Of course it is. I've wondered if Green was the right coach pretty much since he was hired. He seems to be a good coach for development, but perhaps not the best coach for leading a high-talent team.

now we just need to get him a high-talent team and we can find out

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, mll said:

He started at 1M as a rookie coach.  

 

Still, don't think cost was the reason he got the job.  I think it's Benning being so impressed by the Utica playoff run - how he got the team to compete and reach the finals.  They overcame deficits and continued to compete to go that far.  He referred to it to explain why he felt Green was the right coach for the job.

 

You are referring to when he initially got hired.  I believe people are talking about why he was re-signed last May.  Cost did play a factor in that I believe.

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Green was available.  He was already here and willing to sign a cheap deal.  The other big name coaches needed permission from Aquilini.  I'm not saying that Aquilini approved or even recommended signing Green.  What I'm saying is that in order to get someone other than Green and more experienced Aquilini would have to have been involved.  Most likely Aquilini did not approve of a big ticket spending on a coach so Benning decided to go with what he had in Green versus trying to find a similar type coach on a cheaper contract that didn't know anything about the team.

Funny thing Travis Green.  There was a ton of interest if he didn't get signed out East.   But yet here we are, four games in, 3 games we could have easily won in regulation, and one terrible game - which he followed up with consequences today.   I think we need to give him a chance.   First roster he's had that isn't awful really, or below average.   It's average actually.    Until our core proves itself at least.