Dickinson - not a bashing thread

[Dazzle]

6 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

This year Green had a lot better tools to work with although I would argue that the bottom 6 was still really average at best partially so to the disastrous decisions made at camp. 
 

For most of Benning’s time, the bottom 6 was a black hole and the type of players he brought in were very much chosen to play Green’s defective, throwback style. So Benning does bear some of the responsibility for being unable to bring in quality support pieces. 
 

Can’t believe there is still even one fan or media person left after watching the last 5 games who can - with a straight face - defend Green or Baumgartner as good coaches at this point. There should be zero support for that fail of an idea at this point.

Basically anyone who appears on the Donnie and Dhali show are Green supporters. This includes Jamie McLellan and Craig Button, especially Button. Button said "I know what Green was trying to do here, and it's to protect the weakness at D"

 

Then he goes on to say how Boudreau is "playing to the team's strengths", which implies that Green didn't know how to do it, or chose not to. Still, he puts about 90 percent of the blame squarely on Benning.

 

You really can't make up this stuff up.

[wallstreetamigo]

8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Basically anyone who appears on the Donnie and Dhali show are Green supporters. This includes Jamie McLellan and Craig Button, especially Button. Button said "I know what Green was trying to do here, and it's to protect the weakness at D"

 

Then he goes on to say how Boudreau is "playing to the team's strengths", which implies that Green didn't know how to do it, or chose not to. Still, he puts about 90 percent of the blame squarely on Benning.

 

You really can't make up this stuff up.

Button is one of the worst for giving his opinion then flip flopping like he never did. Knowledgeable guy but he goes all in on stupid sometimes. 

[Baggins]

23 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Under a system where 1995 called they want their type of 3rd line back. Dump and change, stop the bleeding, 100% focused on defense. That’s not how the top teams use their 3rd line anymore. No top team in the nhl still believes it’s a crime for the bottom 6 to score or take offensive chances. The Green/Benning led Canucks certainly did both in how they tried to construct those lines and how they coached them to play.
 

Gaudette would probably have been a better fit under a coach like Boudreau who likes an offensive, up tempo style of play. 

Vesey was garbage defensively and a black hole offensively. He was hands down our worst forward in terms of playing responsible defense. And yet he was given endless rope with Green. Boyd is a decent player but nowhere near effective in his time here. 

Nonsense. Nowhere did I say the third line needs to be 100% focused on defense and oblivious to offence. You just can't win here. Being defensively responsible does not mean no offensive opportunity. As a matter of FACT solid defensive play leads to offensive opportunity. You can't score if you don't have the puck. Just as your useless as an offensive player if you cost the team more goals than you score with poor defensive play. It's pretty universal now that players need to play hard at both ends.

 

You can thank Scotty Bowman, the winningest coach in NHL history, for this way of thinking. He insisted all players put the same effort in at both ends of the rink. He even threatened to trade Yzerman (a 100+ point player and floater defensively) if he didn't start playing the defensive side of the game as well. Yzerman was cut from team Canada twice despite his production because he viewed himself "an offensive player" who put little effort into the defensive side. Scotty would smack you upside the head if you told him "let the offensive player play offense". Yzerman bought in and went from Team Canada reject to being one of the most respected players in the league and Team Canada captain. Enough said.

[lmm]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

You make decisions on what you know. Players win or lose spots based on preseason performance. That happens every year. The exception is a prospect that's waiver exempt needs to be head and shoulders better than a veteran to steal a spot. That's just asset management. For guys who are waiver eligible they really need to show up ready to impress otherwise they may get moved (if any takers) or face waivers. Hoglander didn't just outplay guys to make the roster, he outplayed Virtanen to take a top six spot. Should he have been sent to the farm team because his preseason might be just playing over his head? If you know you're on the fringe (Juolevi, Gadj, Mac) you better rock your opportunity and win your spot. They didn't. Others outperformed them. I don't worry about losing fringe players.

So you are saying Nic Petan outplayed Gadj and Mac?

[Boudrias]

17 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Nonsense. Nowhere did I say the third line needs to be 100% focused on defense and oblivious to offence. You just can't win here. Being defensively responsible does not mean no offensive opportunity. As a matter of FACT solid defensive play leads to offensive opportunity. You can't score if you don't have the puck. Just as your useless as an offensive player if you cost the team more goals than you score with poor defensive play. It's pretty universal now that players need to play hard at both ends.

 

You can thank Scotty Bowman, the winningest coach in NHL history, for this way of thinking. He insisted all players put the same effort in at both ends of the rink. He even threatened to trade Yzerman (a 100+ point player and floater defensively) if he didn't start playing the defensive side of the game as well. Yzerman was cut from team Canada twice despite his production because he viewed himself "an offensive player" who put little effort into the defensive side. Scotty would smack you upside the head if you told him "let the offensive player play offense". Yzerman bought in and went from Team Canada reject to being one of the most respected players in the league and Team Canada captain. Enough said.

Look at Scotty's Montreal teams. Many players to admire for their 200' game. Jacque Lemaire was a deadly force at both ends. Bob Gainey. Carboneau. Jarvis. They all went on to stellar coaching careers. 

[Baggins]

52 minutes ago, lmm said:

So you are saying Nic Petan outplayed Gadj and Mac?

Honestly, I didn't think any of them were particularly noteworthy in preseason. All of them are fringe players you could toss a coin on. 

[canuckleheads fan]

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

There's always an excuse for Green, of some sort. Green sucked, regardless of how many different rosters he's been given. If Benning can be bashed for his performance, so can Green. The bolded here shows that you still think Green is a 'decent coach'. How are you supporting this view? Look no further than this brand new, revamped roster, which Green obviously lost, even from the beginning. The poor preseason should've been an early indication that a change was needed, let alone the next 10-15 season games.

 

I mean if we look at established players - we see Player Name suddenly falling off a cliff. We see Dickinson. Why? Green has been part of this mess even from the beginning. Why is it that ALL of his players have been underperforming, excluding Garland and Miller?

 

You'll never catch me bashing either Green or Benning.  I liked JB, and think he built a quality team based on their performance over the past five games.  I think the problem is that we lost a lot of glue guys over the past couple of years in Edler, Tanev and Markey, and it's taken Bo some time to slide into that roll, and if you believe some of the media reports, there has been locker room friction between Bo and Miller, which does not lead to a cohesive unit.  So, they fired a coach who needed the leadership to come from inside the room, and hired a coach who is a leader with charisma and serious industry wide respect, and presto chango, we're now talking about the playoffs again. 

 

Did Benning have his problems?  Sure, he was not great with his early FA signings because his pro scouting was crap.  He was terrible with the media, he is a man with zero charisma.  But what he was great at was what a rebuilding team needed, he was great at assessing and drafting young talent. 

 

Green was excellent at developing that talent, as attributed by the one Calder trophy and the two Calder second place finishes.  He did a fine job of developing Bo, Brock, Quinn, Petey, Hogs, etc.  He had a good feel for how much lead to give a young guy without putting too much on them.  I thought he was good with the media, and he did a great job of coaching in the bubble.  I think Travis' biggest problem was his loyalty to Baumer, and that eventually got him fired.  Since Shaw has taken over, Canucks defense is night and day better, even when they have to reset the chess board thanks to injuries and Covid.  Petey's early struggles also contributed to the team's poor start, and maybe Travis exacerbated that by cutting his ice time which hurt his confidence.  Bruce has taken a different tack, left the lines to gel, put Petey and Podz with a leader in Garland who I think is having great influence on that line as attributed by Petey's recent more physical play,  and that seems to have worked wonders.

 

Should Travis have been fired.  Yes, it was time.  But that does not mean he's a bad coach nor is he a bad guy.  He took over a team in the midst of a rebuild that ownership hampered by not letting Benning empty the cupboard and stock up on picks, and he tried to make the best of it, often fielding a roster full of AHLers.

Edited December 17, 2021 by canuckleheads fan

[Dazzle]

7 hours ago, canuckleheads fan said:

You'll never catch me bashing either Green or Benning.  I liked JB, and think he built a quality team based on their performance over the past five games.  I think the problem is that we lost a lot of glue guys over the past couple of years in Edler, Tanev and Markey, and it's taken Bo some time to slide into that roll, and if you believe some of the media reports, there has been locker room friction between Bo and Miller, which does not lead to a cohesive unit.  So, they fired a coach who needed the leadership to come from inside the room, and hired a coach who is a leader with charisma and serious industry wide respect, and presto chango, we're now talking about the playoffs again. 

 

Did Benning have his problems?  Sure, he was not great with his early FA signings because his pro scouting was crap.  He was terrible with the media, he is a man with zero charisma.  But what he was great at was what a rebuilding team needed, he was great at assessing and drafting young talent. 

 

Green was excellent at developing that talent, as attributed by the one Calder trophy and the two Calder second place finishes.  He did a fine job of developing Bo, Brock, Quinn, Petey, Hogs, etc.  He had a good feel for how much lead to give a young guy without putting too much on them.  I thought he was good with the media, and he did a great job of coaching in the bubble.  I think Travis' biggest problem was his loyalty to Baumer, and that eventually got him fired.  Since Shaw has taken over, Canucks defense is night and day better, even when they have to reset the chess board thanks to injuries and Covid.  Petey's early struggles also contributed to the team's poor start, and maybe Travis exacerbated that by cutting his ice time which hurt his confidence.  Bruce has taken a different tack, left the lines to gel, put Petey and Podz with a leader in Garland who I think is having great influence on that line as attributed by Petey's recent more physical play,  and that seems to have worked wonders.

 

Should Travis have been fired.  Yes, it was time.  But that does not mean he's a bad coach nor is he a bad guy.  He took over a team in the midst of a rebuild that ownership hampered by not letting Benning empty the cupboard and stock up on picks, and he tried to make the best of it, often fielding a roster full of AHLers.

He's a bad coach. He's had five seasons with different variations of rosters, from bad to decent. At no point did we see any kind of success that we can attribute to his coaching. The season that he was in the bubble - the team had actually a losing record prior to going in, but they were afforded an entry through a play-in.

 

Granted that Green did do quite well in the bubble, his team was also badly outplayed by Vegas. Demko was really the reason that the series went as far as it did, not Green. Green also had Markstrom (not much in Vegas), Toffoli, and Tanev. Decent lineup, but Green didn't really capitalize with his lineup, prior to the play-in.

 

Green has really had a small sample size that he has proven himself, with the rest of the time showing that he's largely unable to adapt to his roster. The most obvious was this year, where the team had been revamped, but Green showed up poorly in the preseason, followed by a disappointing start of the season. It was pretty clear to many of us that he wasn't the right coach by that point. He also let go of basically all the farm players and kept Chiasson in the lineup. Green never gave Gadjovich much of a chance, unfortunately.

 

Which goes to another point - Green has been infamously stubborn with young players. His stubbornness as to how he thinks the game is why his teams have generally been losers. The fact that he didn't dare try to out pod, Petey and Garland together is unacceptable, given how he kept trying to respark the lotto line. This goes to show you that he was trying to force something that could not be forced. Insanity is when you try the same thing multiple times and expecting a different result.

 

This applies to his dump and chase play too. His set plays were obviously ineffective, but it never inspired Green to try something new. Honestly, Green's games were so unwatchable for me for the most part. I was easily tuned out by how lackluster the team played. Not once did Green try to change it up.

 

Hell, even if we lost every game under Boudreau, at least the team is fun to watch. Green was punishing us with his poor deployments. He makes WD look like an NHl coach.

Edited December 17, 2021 by Dazzle

[Gawdzukes]

On 12/16/2021 at 3:02 PM, Dazzle said:

Benning gave Green the tools to do his job. Green just wasn't given the training manual on how to coach.

 

Imagine going to a workplace where Green is this guy who got promoted AND extended for being mediocre. And while he had struggled in coaching school (in this case, the AHL), he was telling people what to do.

Then you add Baumgartner who was an AHL star teaching how to play NHL defense. I'm not hating Baumer, but Green hired him, and he was responsible for how HIS roster looked on the ice. This is on Benning, sure, for hiring/extending Green, but Green did not deliver his end of the bargain.

 

Now we see that Benning's newest team really wasn't as bad as Green had been coaching them to be, but we still see Green defenders talking about how Green "only could do what he was given".

 

On 12/16/2021 at 3:12 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

This year Green had a lot better tools to work with although I would argue that the bottom 6 was still really average at best partially so to the disastrous decisions made at camp. 
 

For most of Benning’s time, the bottom 6 was a black hole and the type of players he brought in were very much chosen to play Green’s defective, throwback style. So Benning does bear some of the responsibility for being unable to bring in quality support pieces. 
 

Can’t believe there is still even one fan or media person left after watching the last 5 games who can - with a straight face - defend Green or Baumgartner as good coaches at this point. There should be zero support for that fail of an idea at this point.

Don't you guys get tired or piling on these guys over and over and over again? They're not with the team anymore and they never will be again. It's over, we all get it and you are both 159% correct. Can we move on and talk about the Canucks now ... instead of how Green ruined Gaudette's illustrious career?  On the other hand we could be talking serious PGOD here (Post Green Outlash Disorder). Don't be afraid to reach out, Post Greener is nothing to laugh at (or maybe this is your therapy). 

Edited December 18, 2021 by Gawdzukes

[Gawdzukes]

On 12/16/2021 at 5:15 PM, Baggins said:

Honestly, I didn't think any of them were particularly noteworthy in preseason. All of them are fringe players you could toss a coin on. 

There a lot of people here in love with the idea that all things being equal you take the younger player you drafted, but that is not really examining the issue, it's merely scraping the top. At the end of the day even a slight uptick or feeling of confidence in one player over another is justification for choosing that player.  That's how tight the NHL is, there is no excuse for playing an inferior player or wasting a roster spot for 82 games in hopes a fringe guy you drafted miraculously figures it out.

 

I was in too much pain to actually watch the game Thursday (first one I missed) but I can't even seem to find the Great Gadjovich on the box score. He's so awesome they didn't even give him a game against his old team.  As much as people have a valid point about Green & Benning this is where you can see the bias spiraling into desperation. For having basically zero evidence/viewership of practice or anything that matters they try to heap this on their hay pile of things to slam Green and Benning with. This is something where the actual results speak for themselves (Gadj has literally done nothing ... he's a placeholder until injured players return) yet they still blindly insist Gadjovich is some great loss, instead of a simple hockey decision.

Edited December 18, 2021 by Gawdzukes

[wallstreetamigo]

On 12/16/2021 at 1:50 PM, Baggins said:

Nonsense. Nowhere did I say the third line needs to be 100% focused on defense and oblivious to offence. You just can't win here. Being defensively responsible does not mean no offensive opportunity. As a matter of FACT solid defensive play leads to offensive opportunity. You can't score if you don't have the puck. Just as your useless as an offensive player if you cost the team more goals than you score with poor defensive play. It's pretty universal now that players need to play hard at both ends.

 

You can thank Scotty Bowman, the winningest coach in NHL history, for this way of thinking. He insisted all players put the same effort in at both ends of the rink. He even threatened to trade Yzerman (a 100+ point player and floater defensively) if he didn't start playing the defensive side of the game as well. Yzerman was cut from team Canada twice despite his production because he viewed himself "an offensive player" who put little effort into the defensive side. Scotty would smack you upside the head if you told him "let the offensive player play offense". Yzerman bought in and went from Team Canada reject to being one of the most respected players in the league and Team Canada captain. Enough said.

Greens system was 100% defense though for the bottom 6. That’s my point. Teaching offensive players to play solid defensively SHOULD be possible without stifling any offensive creativity. It just wasn’t for Green. 

[MeanSeanBean]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Greens system was 100% defense though for the bottom 6. That’s my point. Teaching offensive players to play solid defensively SHOULD be possible without stifling any offensive creativity. It just wasn’t for Green. 

It seemed like it did work at one point. I remember that bubble team lookin so damn good. I wonder how much of that was Demko covering our faults. Sometimes a voice gets stagnant like we saw in the Peg. I honestly hope he lands another gig somewhere. Even with his faults, I liked him.

 

[wallstreetamigo]

10 hours ago, Shayster007 said:

It seemed like it did work at one point. I remember that bubble team lookin so damn good. I wonder how much of that was Demko covering our faults. Sometimes a voice gets stagnant like we saw in the Peg. I honestly hope he lands another gig somewhere. Even with his faults, I liked him.

 

Even in the bubble our bottom 6 wasn’t really doing much. St Louis goalie had like an 850 save percentage. Vegas dominated us and other than goaltending we would have been crushed in 5 games. The turtling defensive strategy only works if you can rely on your goalie to play lights out every game. That’s unsustainable though.

Edited December 19, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[Baggins]

12 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Greens system was 100% defense though for the bottom 6. That’s my point. Teaching offensive players to play solid defensively SHOULD be possible without stifling any offensive creativity. It just wasn’t for Green. 

Still clutching at straws? Green's system seemed to allow easy zone entries for the other team and tended to get us stuck in our own end a great deal. A solid defensive system, playing 100% defensively, would not see us being out shot game after game. Teams would have a tough time getting getting through the neutral zone and gaining clean zone entries were his system 100% defensive. Opposition didnt have trouble with clean entries on us at all. Even when we got possession we'd struggle to break out of our own end often turning the puck over. I'm no coach, but there was a systems problem there. Players who were pretty good defensively elsewhere came in and didn't look very good here. If Green were 100% defensive those players would have fit right in. They didn't. To say Green coached 100% defense is nonsense. I don't know what Green's defensive system was but it didn't lean towards a strong defensive game.

[alt kilgore]

13 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Greens system was 100% defense though for the bottom 6. That’s my point. Teaching offensive players to play solid defensively SHOULD be possible without stifling any offensive creativity. It just wasn’t for Green. 

 

14 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Still clutching at straws? Green's system seemed to allow easy zone entries for the other team and tended to get us stuck in our own end a great deal. A solid defensive system, playing 100% defensively, would not see us being out shot game after game. Teams would have a tough time getting getting through the neutral zone and gaining clean zone entries were his system 100% defensive. Opposition didnt have trouble with clean entries on us at all. Even when we got possession we'd struggle to break out of our own end often turning the puck over. I'm no coach, but there was a systems problem there. Players who were pretty good defensively elsewhere came in and didn't look very good here. If Green were 100% defensive those players would have fit right in. They didn't. To say Green coached 100% defense is nonsense. I don't know what Green's defensive system was but it didn't lean towards a strong defensive game.

 

I think neither is right or wrong. 

Green didn't really have a system. At least not a well thought out one.  Look how much he'd put his lines in the blender, sometimes within 5 minutes of the game if it wasn't going his way.  He coached by the seat of his pants.

 

He coached mostly afraid to lose.  We'd get behind by a goal, in most games he coached this season, and so he'd revert to a defensive shell game.  No one is saying it was a SUCCESSFUL defensive system, but that was his go to most games.  Skate backwards and allow entry into our zone. I guess to be extra cautious about letting the puck carrier get behind them. Then work like heck to recover the puck and dump it out and try and chase it down.  And then combine that strategy with mixed messages to your offensive minded young players who then had to switch from a static defensive posture to skating fast and passing fast, and shooting fast. 

 

Back and forth, all game long.  No wonder they looked tired a lot of games.  Physically and mentally. The PK took that static approach to another level yet. So when the PK was over, they'd have to switch systems in their minds 180, to the Green offensive system. There was no flow. From standing still to high octane rushes.  Then back up and freeze again. There is so much more fluidity with Boudreau's system.  Attack and be active the whole time you are out there, so if and when there's a turnover in your favour, the whole lineup on the ice is ready, moving, and probably already skating up the ice.

 

[wallstreetamigo]

11 hours ago, Baggins said:

Still clutching at straws? Green's system seemed to allow easy zone entries for the other team and tended to get us stuck in our own end a great deal. A solid defensive system, playing 100% defensively, would not see us being out shot game after game. Teams would have a tough time getting getting through the neutral zone and gaining clean zone entries were his system 100% defensive. Opposition didnt have trouble with clean entries on us at all. Even when we got possession we'd struggle to break out of our own end often turning the puck over. I'm no coach, but there was a systems problem there. Players who were pretty good defensively elsewhere came in and didn't look very good here. If Green were 100% defensive those players would have fit right in. They didn't. To say Green coached 100% defense is nonsense. I don't know what Green's defensive system was but it didn't lean towards a strong defensive game.

I didn’t say it actually produced quality defense. I said it was a 100% defense first system for the bottom 6. The fact that it was passive collapsing crap with no actual defensive results other than being outshot and out chanced on a regular basis just makes it even worse. Not only did it kill any chance of counterattack offense or possession, it didn’t even suppress quality scoring chances against. 
 

Pretty rare for any nhl coach to have a system that ends up killing offense while also sacrificing quality defense.

[iceman64]

On 12/15/2021 at 9:08 AM, Dazzle said:

Let me say, I feel for Dickinson, and I don't think I'm alone. I think he's snakebitten and frustrated whenever he tries to score. Every single time I see him failing, he hates himself for it. You can see it in his eyes that he doesn't want to be THAT guy.

 

The good: He's starting to win some faceoffs. He's not a liability in the defensive zone.

 

We need to support him. I can't imagine how much better we'll be if Dickinson also goes on a hot run during our run.

I'd rather have him out against the right guys who need to be shut down, when he's on his game he's THAT guy when it's more important he helps keep the puck out of Demko's net against the leagues top players, it'd be a bonus to have him score more but it'll happen as it's not for lack of effort ala "unnamed player" (I still hate that guy) lol and probably always will but like motte, he's got a motor and then some.. I still wonder if motte's scoring touch went on strike or something, misses the net by rushing a shot when he has time to shoot.. don't know what that's about, I'd say rust but he's been back for awhile... idk .  

[Dazzle]

7 hours ago, iceman64 said:

I'd rather have him out against the right guys who need to be shut down, when he's on his game he's THAT guy when it's more important he helps keep the puck out of Demko's net against the leagues top players, it'd be a bonus to have him score more but it'll happen as it's not for lack of effort ala "unnamed player" (I still hate that guy) lol and probably always will but like motte, he's got a motor and then some.. I still wonder if motte's scoring touch went on strike or something, misses the net by rushing a shot when he has time to shoot.. don't know what that's about, I'd say rust but he's been back for awhile... idk .  

I think he's played better under BB; however, Dickinson has not been known to be any kind of prolific scorer. Maybe BB can help him with that (or not).

 

As for Motte, yeah, I agree that he's missed a lot of shots, but I think he's not missing them by much. I think those will eventually go in. I remember his performance in the bubble. It was definitely memorable.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Dazzle

[Gawdzukes]

5 hours ago, Dazzle said:

I think he's played better under BB; however, Dickinson has not been known to be any kind of prolific scorer. Maybe BB can help him with that (or not).

 

As for Motte, yeah, I agree that he's missed a lot of shots, but I think he's not missing them by much. I think those will eventually go in. I remember his performance in the bubble. It was definitely memorable.

Yeah Motter is just rusty. To be expected. He's not a consistent scorer but he's shown when the going gets tough he can be.

 

Not really related but remember Chris Kontos that one year?

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Gawdzukes said:

Yeah Motter is just rusty. To be expected. He's not a consistent scorer but he's shown when the going gets tough he can be.

 

Not really related but remember Chris Kontos that one year?

The name doesn't ring a bell, but maybe i just forgot about him.