View Single Post
12-08-2013, 05:58 PM
Cake or Death
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by haveandare View Post
They corrected a lot of problems from last year, but they developed a huge weakness where they used to have a strength, and that is in their battle level and overall cohesion as a team. Torts had a lot of problems, but getting a team to think and act as one unit is/was undoubtedly his strength as a coach, and IMO, the inability to get a team to think and act as one like that is the most glaring weakness of AV as a coach. Ask VAN fans - they largely think that no matter what happens game to game, their team is going to come out hard and they are going to stand up for each other in every way, and they're happy that's that case with Torts as opposed to AV.

I'm not sure what the answer is really. I doubt that AV is going to gain that part of coaching at this point in his career. I think it's largely a personality thing. Torts' personality demanded that his team play that way first and foremost. If you didn't play that way, you didn't play. That was the litmus test. In many ways, that was problematic, however, it did lead to a good team attitude most of the time. The leaders on the team, in terms of players (Cally, Girardi, Staal, Hank, McD), don't really have that intensity. They seem like great guys, and they do their damnedest to lead by example, often succeeding, but they're not the kind of guys that are going to demand that everyone get behind each other and make teammates accountable when they fail to. This team would really benefit from a player like that, especially a vet, who makes the other guys want to follow them into anything.
Good post. You presented a fair, honest assessment of both Torts and AV, and of the roster. I agree with you, as I think most informed posters would, that both coaches do have their strengths and weaknesses.

I am not sure why a few posters are chiming in that fans here thought AV would solve the team's scoring issues when anyone who watched him in Vancouver knew he was more of a defensive tilted coach. That is likewise the impression I got when I lived near Van and from my many friends out there. I also don't understand why these same posters don't seem to realize that 99 percent of the posters here do realize the problems are up top with Sather. But since we recognize we are stuck with Slats you try to make the best you can with what's below him, and Tortorella was no longer that guy. The team plateaued with Torts and was trending the other way. A change was needed.

Both Renney and Torts were imperfect, as most coaches are. But both guys also did their share of valuable things for the organization, and they were given ample time to do so. I thought it was clear as day that Torts' time had reached its end and the players were no longer responding to him. I did not think AV was the right replacement choice personally, but hopefully I am wrong. At the moment, however, AV will still need some level of legit time before any of us can fully grade his tenure here.

Whether AV is that change is impossible to say this early in. Based on what I saw of him in Vancouver, I personally think he was hired way too hastily. But 30 games is still way too soon to judge a guy. At the 30 game marker in his first full season, Torts was 14-14-2, and the team was in the middle of losing 13 of 18 games en route to missing the playoffs. The team turned out decent enough the few following seasons. Any new coach needs that same traction to get a real estimate of their worth, as good, bad or mediocre starts over short spans can be very inaccurate reflections of how the team will play over the long haul. GMs also need time to effectively adjust personnel to suit a particular coach's strengths and weaknesses.

The one thing people cannot do is operate in some fantasy vacuum and think building a championship caliber team is easy when there are 29 other GMs, coaching staffs, and teams vying for the exact same goal. It is not easy at all. Especially when we have been burdened with a ******** GM who has a free pass and no apparent accountability.

  Reply With Quote