Allvin & Rutherford Press Summary

[TFerguson]

5 hours ago, Maddogy said:

If the Canucks did not play with structure then how the heck did they win all those games in the second half of the season? Are the Canucks so talented that they won those games without structure? What does this tell you about those structured teams that lost to the Canucks?

We've been winning but that doesn't mean our structure is great. That's whybJR mentioned D zone exits being worst in the league. 

Big difference between the play of a team like Calgary and a team like the Canucks. Considering Calgary is mostly ex canucks ;-) I think it has a lot to do with Sutter's structure. 

[tas]

25 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

Yes he is a very good goalie. He's just not the only reason we won 32 out of 57.

not literally the only reason, but the difference maker, and that means you're depending on your goalie too much. 

[wildcam]

6 hours ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Bruce: there he goes?

Are they arranging it so that Bruce himself pulls the plug?

I can see Bruce waiting until after the 1st round of playoffs are over? Some team will off him a 3 year contract.. If LA kings get knocked out, Toronto, Flyers these teams will be calling Bruce..I think Bruce will go with team that offers term 3 years...

[Hairy Kneel]

1 hour ago, Crabcakes said:

Did you see OEL light up in the exit press conference when it was suggested that he could do much better offensively?

 

Damn right he wants to.

I missed that

He's a team first guy

But thirsty af lol

[Crabcakes]

3 hours ago, MrCanuck94 said:

One thing I recall from one of JR's earlier pressers, always having the next candidate in mind.

 

Whether you sign the best player or best staff member, always searching and looking for better.

 

It would suck to lose Bruce, but I'm sure they have a few candidates in mind that are just as good, if not better, to replace him.

Reminds me of how Wally Buono used to operate

[mll]

1 hour ago, BigTramFan said:

No SV% doesn't show that, but HDsc SV% (high danger scoring chance save percentage) does.

 

Again Demko was good at 0.837 SV% on 283 HD shots, but certainly not top of the league for that stat. Some examples of other goalies from some top teams that had higher HDsc SV%:

 

Shesterkin NYR 0.850 (260 HD shots)

Markstrom CLG 0.838 (253 HD shots)

Andersen CAR 0.841 (232 HD shots)

Husso STL 0.840 (200 HD shots)

 

So although Demko faced more HD chances than these goalies, his SV% wasn't better. He wasn't a superstar in this area. And this also means that a fair share (46 HD goals from 283 HD chances) actually went in, and Demko's play therefore was not wholly responsible for the Canucks winning record.

 

Please don't think I am running down Demko here. He is a very good goalie and he is also young and likely to get even better. He could have had a much lower HDsc SV% and the Canucks would have lost more games.

 

My main point is that you cannot say that Demko's play was "superstar" level and hence he was responsible for the Canucks winning 32 out of 57 games. He played his part and he played it well.

 

Regarding JR's comment about winning 50% due to goaltending, I think you could say the same about most teams in the league, i.e. good goaltending is responsible for about 50% of your wins. What our defense needs to work on is reducing those HD chances to a much lower level. That, along with scoring more goals for, would make Demko's job easier and reduce our dependence on the goalie to win it for us.

 

The numbers look to come from Hockey-Reference but public models don't really allow to make that kind of conclusion.  Pre-shot movement and screens as well as goalie positioning will impact the danger level of a shot which public models don't capture.    

 

These models are mostly built off shot location but 2 shots from the same location can have completely different levels of complexity.  They are not capturing screens - a shot through a multi-layered screen is far more difficult to stop than a clear-sighted shot.

Tracking technology shows that a shot off a cross-seam pass where the goalie has to quickly move side-to-side is well over 10x more dangerous than a shot from the same location where the goalie is facing the shot square and can see it coming.

 

The NHL has given access to their in-arena tracking but it's done manually - it's not consistent across arenas and it's also subjective.  Not every shot necessarily gets recorded and coordinates aren't always consistent, they also don't always have the same definition of a shot.  For example a shot that is going way wide but the goalie gloves it down is considered a shot on net in some arenas while in others that's a missed shot.

 

Teams have also confirmed that their internal models differ considerably from public models.  Trotz shared the example of where the goalie has the post completely sealed and the opponent is at the net giving taps into the pads - public models will record them as high danger shots but there's just no chance of scoring in those situations.

[stawns]

Sounds to me like if they were out of the playoffs, Miller was gone

[Maniwaki Canuck]

41 minutes ago, wildcam said:

I can see Bruce waiting until after the 1st round of playoffs are over? Some team will off him a 3 year contract.. If LA kings get knocked out, Toronto, Flyers these teams will be calling Bruce..I think Bruce will go with team that offers term 3 years...

It stands to reason.  Bruce has the remaining year with us to fall back on, but he hasn't exactly accepted it despite saying he wants to return.  Hard to see what else this adds up to but testing the waters around the league.

[JamesB]

4 hours ago, Curmudgeon said:

Uhhhh....Benning. Every year. And I'm glad somebody else noticed. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

...

 

4 hours ago, MrCanuck94 said:

They didn't even say close to the same thing.

 

The main thing Allvin said was he'll try his best to not take a step back while building structure and cap space within the organization. The goal is to improve every year but the vision is always to create a contender.

 

They have reiterated many times that there is work to do.

Agree with @MrCanuck94. There is an absolute world of difference between Rutherford and Benning. (For one thing, Rutherford can put together a few sentences without making a grammatical mistake.) It would take too long to state all the differences but the biggest one is that Rutherford comes across as professional whereas Benning always gave the impression of being a "seat of the pants" or "gut reaction" kind of guy who did not really go in for careful planning.

[MrCanuck94]

1 hour ago, BigTramFan said:

No SV% doesn't show that, but HDsc SV% (high danger scoring chance save percentage) does.

 

Again Demko was good at 0.837 SV% on 283 HD shots, but certainly not top of the league for that stat. Some examples of other goalies from some top teams that had higher HDsc SV%:

 

Shesterkin NYR 0.850 (260 HD shots)

Markstrom CLG 0.838 (253 HD shots)

Andersen CAR 0.841 (232 HD shots)

Husso STL 0.840 (200 HD shots)

 

So although Demko faced more HD chances than these goalies, his SV% wasn't better. He wasn't a superstar in this area. And this also means that a fair share (46 HD goals from 283 HD chances) actually went in, and Demko's play therefore was not wholly responsible for the Canucks winning record.

 

Please don't think I am running down Demko here. He is a very good goalie and he is also young and likely to get even better. He could have had a much lower HDsc SV% and the Canucks would have lost more games.

 

My main point is that you cannot say that Demko's play was "superstar" level and hence he was responsible for the Canucks winning 32 out of 57 games. He played his part and he played it well.

 

Regarding JR's comment about winning 50% due to goaltending, I think you could say the same about most teams in the league, i.e. good goaltending is responsible for about 50% of your wins. What our defense needs to work on is reducing those HD chances to a much lower level. That, along with scoring more goals for, would make Demko's job easier and reduce our dependence on the goalie to win it for us.

Nice post, and for sure all great teams have great goalies as well.

 

I think the difference is that to differ ourselves from 'most teams in the league' and become contenders, we have to have a franchise talent goalie that we don't rely on for wins. Like what Vasilevsky is to Tampa.

[Smashian Kassian]

8 hours ago, JM_ said:

I know this isn't what a lot of people wanted to hear, but I'm glad this isn't looking like the 'step back to go forward' plan. So we'll see how it all shakes out but I liked what I heard. 

 

Only thing that surprised me was not offering Bruce a 2 year extension, just going with the one and that he has until June 1 to make his decision. 

 

Agree completely.

 

I was quite impressed with the honest & certainty in which they handled it. I think they see the obvious pieces/talent like we do, but also have a clear vision for where improvement needs to be. 

 

What they said made me feel really optimistic about this team. But now we'll see how they execute. 

[Elias Pettersson]

2 hours ago, AV. said:

What a relief this was to hear that mgmt shares my opinion on this blueline.

I was fighting for my life trying to tell the masses we had professional bank robbers and a group of goblins skating for us, but the masses drank too much Pool-aid to bother listening.  Makes you wonder.

Hope to hell this talk of extension for Miller/Horvat is just to maintain public leverage.  If the team is serious about a cup, they need to transition the show to Pettersson.  They should be playing the field on virtually all players, outside of Pettersson and Demko.

The draft/off-season can't come soon enough.  Judgment days await.

Poolman only played 40 games.  Did Poolman hypnotize the other defenders into playing crappy defensively for the other 42 games?

[Crabcakes]

15 minutes ago, stawns said:

Sounds to me like if they were out of the playoffs, Miller was gone

 

Making the playoffs is a big deal apparently.  I think that on Miller and Boeser (and anybody else as time goes on for that matter) when it comes time to negotiate new contracts, they will determine the number and term that makes sense for the team and if they can't make it work, they will move on.  Rutherford has a history of being a bit of a gun slinger and he's not afraid to make a deal if he has to.  

 

I think that Miller's number may be around $7.5 and Boeser's AAV would be similar to what it is now $5.8

[Smashian Kassian]

What Rutherford said on 650 about Miller was really re-assuring imo.

 

He sees the full picture like we do, but has the discipline to make the right choice both long & short term.

 

 

[Curmudgeon]

23 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

I think that Miller's number may be around $7.5 and Boeser's AAV would be similar to what it is now $5.8

I think those are good numbers, and reasonable as well. Not sure about term, but Rutherford mentioned that when signing an older player, you have to look at what he does in the first three years compared with the final three years. Does this not sound like Rutherford's starting position with Miller is no more than six years? Don't know about Brock, but I think his deal will be more about term than money. Interesting times ahead, but I am confident that Rutherford won't deviate from his plan to ice a team that is younger, faster, more skilled and are more structured in moving the puck out of their own zone.

[spook007]

7 hours ago, 73 Percent said:

What does that mean lol? 

 

As of right now, is BB under contract for the 2022 2023 season?

Nothing has been signed, although both sides says they want it done....

 

So short answer would be no. 

[Vinny in Vancouver]

3 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

No, it sounds like JR wants them to play a more structured game.  No more winging it.  OMG it's about time!!

Btw, I thought that was what Travis Green was trying to do. Didn't Hirsch emphatically say that there was nothing wrong with the system but that one Alpha Dog in the locker room didn't believe in it? 

[spook007]

7 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

I think they saw the effect of losing Motte to team chemistry. Lower end player with a big impact on the forecheck and team attack mentally. 

I don't think they want to see that happen with JT. 

Rutherford is a known trigger man... Don't think, he will lose any sleep over a transaction like that. 
Shipped a fair few stars out during his time in Pittsburgh. 
Atm think only Hughes and Demko are 100% safe.... probably Petey and Bo too. 

Will be surprised if we don't see changes before next season. And not the ones involving Hunt only....

[wai_lai416]

1 minute ago, spook007 said:

Nothing has been signed, although both sides says they want it done....

 

So short answer would be no. 

well technically bruce have a contract.. he has an optional year for next year it's up to him though whether he wants to stay or go.. but given what have transpired today it wouldn't be suprising if a contender decides to change coach ie vegas and they contact bruce.. he packs it up and leave vancouver.. given he had the team for 3/4 of the season and they played as much games as the previous 2 seasons due to covid.. to short change him and say well it wasn't a full season imo is a bit disrespectful.. so let say if vancouver were to sneak into the playoffs as wc2.. would they still be saying the same thing? turning EP and Horvat around alone warrants a short 2 year contract extension.. i mean BB had the approval from JR when he was hired.. so why bother hiring BB if he wasn't what you wanted? the Boudreau contract is prolly one of the weirdest contract i've seen for a veteran head coach.. brought in only for a temporary 3/4 season with a team option year rather than anything secured as with most headcoaches that are brought in outside the organization.. pretty sure most head coaches that were not promoted from within got like at least a 3 year contract when brought into a new team... 

[Jaimito]

4 hours ago, Claiborne55 said:

Bruce Boudreau's stock has never been higher. 

 

They have really left him no choice but to leave.  He will need to capitalize on that and JR dropped the ball in not recognizing that.   Could have at least given BB a raise for the up coming year.

 

They are setting BB up as the fall guy if he stays here and misses the playoffs... he will get fired and never coach again in the NHL.    

 

When Vegas or some other team comes offering 3 years at double his current salary... how can he say no?

 

He leaves Vancouver as a legend... always nice to go out on top.

 

Leafs might want him too if they fall short again in the Playoffs.

 

 

It's possible there is a raise for next yr. We don't know what's the entire offer. 

It's clear from JR that nux offered him another yr though, and Bruce said he wants to return.   JR also said he is worried about paying for multiple coaches, and that may mean he and/or Alvin isn't completely on board for him to stay long term at this time.  JR also mentioned having the right coach for the right time. So getting into playoffs is a goal now, then playoff success is the next goal, which BB hasn't had.  Maybe they want to see how he does then.  JR's criticism of the Nux defensive structure may be aimed at not just the players but the coaching staff too. 

 

When both parties (AQ and Bruce) signed last yr, it was for a yr, second yr an option for both parties.   The new front office and Bruce are negotiating and we'll see. Bruce is at the tail end of his career, and was grateful for another chance esp in Canada. Unless he doesn't feel he can succeed with Nux next yr, I don't see why he will leave.  At this stage of his career, it's all about winning the cup.  Starting from scratch again is hard and he already got to know the team and the environment, and knows if he can take them there.  The deadline is Jun 1. We will know in a few weeks. 

 

Listen to him again, around 1:00 mark, about getting fired from Minny, and doubts about getting another chance. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Jaimito