View Single Post
02-02-2013, 03:30 PM
Registered User
LeftCoast's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,918
vCash: 500
AV has done about as well as could be expected in coaching and adapting to the player he has and the philosophy of the GM.

When Dave Nonis was the GM, Crawford got the boot because his team couldn't play a lick of defense and had poor goal tending. Nonis brought in Luongo and gave Vigneault a mandate to tighten up the D.

So Alain Vigneault's team lead the league in GA.

Nonis got the boot, and is replaced by Mike Gillis who right from the start was very clear about his team playing a more attacking style. If you recall, before he actually settled on keeping AV, the two of them met almost daily for about 2 weeks discussing hockey philosophy and approach.

So all of a sudden the Canucks are among the top offensive teams in the league.

Also - if you are comparing Vigneault's tenure in Montreal - the year he was fired his team was devastated by injuries and he was a Jack Adams finalist.

Things that I think are under-appreciated about Alain Vigneault:
  • Players earn their ice time; there are very few passes given.
  • Players are treated like adults and held accountable for their play.
  • Players are able to earn their way out of his "dog house".
  • When players are frequent fliers in the doghouse, he gets rid of them.
  • He's very pragmatic - his roster is made up of the players he thinks will give him the best chance of winning each night.
  • All of his players know their roles and what he expects of them.
  • He is, personally, extremely disciplined and rarely "loses it" behind the bench (except maybe breaking up laughing).
  • He respects the game. There are respectable ways to play the game - a code or unwritten rules. He expects his players to play that way (Matt Cooke)

These things sound very basic, but if you have been through the various eras of coaching in Vancouver, you will understand that these things haven't always characterized Vancouver coaches.
  • Mike Keenan was constantly playing head games. He coached by trying to manipulate players through some of the most bizarre tactics.
  • Under Keenan - players didn't know what to expect. He would bench one player to send a message to another.
  • Marc Crawford, regularly "lost it" behind the bench. How can you expect your players to be disciplined when the coach isn't?
  • Crawford was also famous for playing favorites. Bertuzzi could get away with anthing, and when Bert played undisciplined, Crow took it out on Morrison.
  • Many coaches favour veterans, but Crow was horrible with young players.
  • Quinn was actually a very good coach. Good with young players, respected by veterans.
  • Bob McCammon was a pretty good coach, but he didn't have the best tools to work with.
  • Bill LaForge was a disaster. He was immediately hated by the players for treating them like children. His "gauntlet" drill resulted in a back injury that ended Darcy Rota's career.
  • Roger Neilson was a very good coach. He was an early innovator in using video as a coaching tool. He was well liked and respected by the players.

Last edited by LeftCoast: 02-02-2013 at 03:36 PM.
LeftCoast is offline