This extension tells me the Gillis and Vigneault do see eye to eye. The only way Vigneault gets the boot next season is if the team really stinks up the joint. If Gillis wanted a fall guy he would of let Vigneault run out his contract instead he lets him know he will be around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scott
Kesler and Burrows are shut down forwards, not players you want in the last minute of the game trying to tie it up.
I recall many times where he benched the sedins usually in the 3rd period, and didn't even have them on the ice for the final minutes of many games where they were down. Sure the PP wasn't working, so Mike Kelly is responsible, it's pretty obvious Vigneault is putting the blame on others to save his own job. Remember Vigeanult is the HEAD COACH... what he says, is what happens.
I prefer it when a coach can make in game changes and play the hot hand. Since Kesler and Burrows are always flying and creating chances they put out there because they were the only ones doing so. Whats the point of putting players out there that are not skating? If it isn't working, try somethng else which is what Vigneault did.
Luongo had a fantastic year, no doubt, and he "stole" us a game or two. But his save percentage was only .004 better than it was this year. The difference in his play is overstated.
It was injuries and no organizational depth that undid the team this year.
But if you're talking about the time period in question during the latter half of the season (i.e. when they were winning) he was much better. From Christmas on, his stats were:
30-7-5
GAA: 2.15
SV%: 9.29
That is significantly better than his play this season. I don't blame him for the team's problems this season. I just think his amazing play in the 2nd half of 06-07 masked some of the team's deficiencies.
The "lost the room" comments are absurd. Total conjecture, and obviously untrue or else he wouldn't be back. But it's a neato catchphrase I guess. Whatever.
I understand those who aren't AV fans because of his style. I don't mind it, but I can see why some wouldn't. Fair enough. Not liking him because he didn't play your fave player enough is lame and puckbunny-esque. Harping about Ritchie being on the PP occasionally is a little much as well - I'm sure AV is the ONLY coach in NHL history who tries to get creative with his roster when he has no depth, right? Give me a break.
Anyways, I'm glad he's back. There's nobody out there better, and firing him just for the sake of firing him doesn't make any sense. With all the changes that are hopefully coming, some stability is good.
bang on. Even Vigneault couldn't draw blood from the stone Nonis gave him.
Sure, playing Ritchie on the PP seems absurd, but who else goes there? Ritchie is a good skater and has decent hands, its not like he is benching Mike Green in favor of him.
bang on. Even Vigneault couldn't draw blood from the stone Nonis gave him.
Sure, playing Ritchie on the PP seems absurd, but who else goes there? Ritchie is a good skater and has decent hands, its not like he is benching Mike Green in favor of him.
That's why for example when you get a player, such as Demitra, willing to sign in Vancouver, you may want to take a very, very, very long look at that and seriously consider offering him a contract; simply because at the VERY worst he'd help the 2nd unit PP, as that unit last season was just horrific.
I don't know how I feel about this, hell I still don't know how I feel about the Nonis business and everything that's happened since.
I do think AV is a decent hockey guy but he really frustrated me this year with some of his lineup decisions and they way he used those lineups.
I'm finding everything in Canuck land very confusing right now.
I can simplify it for you. The new Canuck ownership wanted to go in a new direction because Nonis has failed miserably the past 2 seasons. They got rid of the assistant coaches because 1 ran a terrrrrible PP and the other one was a useless video coach who obviously didn't perform well.
That's why for example when you get a player, such as Demitra, willing to sign in Vancouver, you may want to take a very, very, very long look at that and seriously consider offering him a contract; simply because at the VERY worst he'd help the 2nd unit PP, as that unit last season was just horrific.
He would certainly add depth to the roster and with the Canucks needing to fill at least three top 6 spots, maybe more depending on how Raymond recovers from surgery, they can't exactly be choosers here. If Demitra is willing to sign a two year deal worth around $3.5-$4.5M per, I wouldn't be opposed, assuming Gillis also has plans to add more size, speed and grit to the top 6.
1. If AV had lost the room, he would know. He will have talked to players, who know the GM wont rat them out. Player personel is the GM's job, not the coaches.
2. AV is a good coach. Cant dispute that. Right coach for this team? what is this team, when changes are expected anyway?
3. Gillis does take all the pressure now. Same coach, different GM means its not the coach that was the problems last year, but the GM. Gillis is stepping up to the plate and I like that.
4. Wicked irony to have the Michael Scott member talk about bad management no offense to you personally, just the fictional character! I dont agree with your take but thats why we are here.
The criticisms of AV not giving Naslund enough minutes are hilarious. He gives ice time based on effort and contribution, not based on paycheque and past performances. It was a refreshing change after years of watching a content team that looked up to lazy star players. Naslund and Bertuzzi were the worst then, Naslund is the worst now.
He would certainly add depth to the roster and with the Canucks needing to fill at least three top 6 spots, maybe more depending on how Raymond recovers from surgery, they can't exactly be choosers here. If Demitra is willing to sign a two year deal worth around $3.5-$4.5M per, I wouldn't be opposed, assuming Gillis also has plans to add more size, speed and grit to the top 6.
I agree. Talent-wise, it's probably a lateral move from Naslund, without all the baggage and captaincy issues.
Kesler and Burrows are shut down forwards, not players you want in the last minute of the game trying to tie it up.
I recall many times where he benched the sedins usually in the 3rd period, and didn't even have them on the ice for the final minutes of many games where they were down. Sure the PP wasn't working, so Mike Kelly is responsible, it's pretty obvious Vigneault is putting the blame on others to save his own job. Remember Vigeanult is the HEAD COACH... what he says, is what happens.
In the game against the Oilers the Sedins were 0 for 8 on the powerplay. The only goal that was scored was on the powerplay.... by Burrows.
I think I'll wait and see the results of all this before I declare him "an awesome man". It's a results based industry and we have no history or track record for this guy. While I'm almost always optimistic and think Gillis is a smart guy, I am very suspicious of the Aquilini's.
I hope it works out but I don't see how you can already be a Gillis apologist when he hasn't really done much of anything yet. If he starts turfing some of the scouting department then I might get interested.
But if you're talking about the time period in question during the latter half of the season (i.e. when they were winning) he was much better. From Christmas on, his stats were:
30-7-5
GAA: 2.15
SV%: 9.29
That is significantly better than his play this season. I don't blame him for the team's problems this season. I just think his amazing play in the 2nd half of 06-07 masked some of the team's deficiencies.
But during that stretch the GF went up significantly too, didn't it? And the PP got better, and I think the PK did as well, even beyond what could be attributed to Luongo's increased save percentage.
This is from memory, so I could be wrong. But there's no denying that the team was playing extremely well. (Where do you get your stats, btw?)
I personally think Vigenault put the blame on the assistant coaches to save his own job.
I personally think that Gillis spoke with AV, the players and the rest of the coaching staff to hear what they had to say and then made his own decision based on the information that was provided to him.
bang on. Even Vigneault couldn't draw blood from the stone Nonis gave him.
Sure, playing Ritchie on the PP seems absurd, but who else goes there? Ritchie is a good skater and has decent hands, its not like he is benching Mike Green in favor of him.
Decent hands?
This guy scored 3 goals in 71 games getting over 12 minutes of average ice-time per game. I think he's dispelled any sort of myth that he has even decent hands. Willie Mitchell got more points then him for heaven's sake. In fact, now that I look at it EVERYONE pretty much got more points then him as long as they played 20+ games. Aaron Miller almost get more points then Ritchie in 20 fewer games, and I think he scored his first goal in like 2 years this past season. Seriously...decent hands?
I even happen to like Vigneault as a coach, but seriously...if a guy has 5 points over 40 games...probably don't put him on the PP.
This guy scored 3 goals in 71 games getting over 12 minutes of average ice-time per game. I think he's dispelled any sort of myth that he has even decent hands. Willie Mitchell got more points then him for heaven's sake. In fact, now that I look at it EVERYONE pretty much got more points then him as long as they played 20+ games. Aaron Miller almost get more points then Ritchie in 20 fewer games, and I think he scored his first goal in like 2 years this past season. Seriously...decent hands?
Seriously, yes. Ritchie played very well with elevated minutes on Calgary last season before joining us. He filled in temporarily for Iginla and was productive. He played an energy role here, but of all our plug forwards/depth d-men, I'd say he has the best hands and that is why he was on the PP.
Who else could play second PP on the point? I don't get why people focus on it... it has so little to do with the outcome of the season it is absurd.
Uh, yeah. I think I can dispute that. Look at his track record.
So can I. I dont think he is he best coach in the NHL. I wouldnt have minded him to be canned but I dont like any of the available coaches out there either.
A good coach can get the job done, even a worse one. See Theirein, Tortarella, Keenan. Its more up to the roster to be quality.
But during that stretch the GF went up significantly too, didn't it?
Yes, goal scoring was much better after Christmas than before. However, up was the only way to go. Before Christmas they were scoring 2.28 Goals Per Game which was the worst in the league. After Christmas they did much better and scored at a 2.93 Goals Per Game pace. Even then, if they had maintained that pace all season they only would have been 15th in the league in scoring. With their poor start dragging them down, they only finished 21st in the league in goal scoring over the whole season. So their goals for definitely improved, but it went from pathetic to mediocre, so I don't think that can be given too much credit, since the majority of the league was still scoring more than them.
Quote:
And the PP got better, and I think the PK did as well, even beyond what could be attributed to Luongo's increased save percentage.
The Power Play did get better, but the improvement was almost totally localized within the month of January. Before January and after, it was fairly mediocre at between 15% and 17%. In the month of January (and particularly in a game against Toronto where the PP went 5-10) the Canucks were much better with a Power Play of around 25%. After that, it cooled back down to near it's pre-January levels. So I'd argue that wasn't really that much of a determining factor over the long term.
The Canucks penalty kill was fantastic, the best in the league in 06-07. However, there was virtually no improvement between the first half and second half of the season. Before Christmas, the Canucks had a penalty kill of 86.5%. After Christmas it was 87.2%. To me, that is so close that it means little, if anything in determining the change between their record pre and post Christmas.
I don't think Luongo's play can be underestimated. Obviously the team just looked better in the second half in ways that stats can't represent. They had more confidence, they played a more physical game, and they looked more dangerous. However, I think a lot of that has to do with Luongo's play. It would be silly to say that the coaching had nothing to do with it, but they were scoring at a pretty mediocre pace even during their run and it was only their goals against that saved them. Granted the defense and the team's system must take some credit for that, but without Luongo's play, I don't believe that the team would have been nearly as successful.
Quote:
This is from memory, so I could be wrong. But there's no denying that the team was playing extremely well. (Where do you get your stats, btw?)
Most of them I just figure manually using different splits on ESPN. You can isolate stats to each month, so it's not that difficult to come up with longer term trends.
Seriously, yes. Ritchie played very well with elevated minutes on Calgary last season before joining us. He filled in temporarily for Iginla and was productive. He played an energy role here, but of all our plug forwards/depth d-men, I'd say he has the best hands and that is why he was on the PP.
Who else could play second PP on the point? I don't get why people focus on it... it has so little to do with the outcome of the season it is absurd.
False, first of all, a powerplay is crucial to a teams success in the season, and yes, one player can determine whether a PP can be good or not, how many times did Ritchie fail to keep the puck in? I remember watching many games where there were guys like Bieksa, Salo, Ohlund, Bourdon, Edler on the bench while Ritchie was on the point (And that is taking into effect that the first PP unit already had a d-pairing) I much rather see Bourdon on the point than Byron Ritchie... I have never seen anything special with Ritchie in terms of any kind of shot or even skill for that matter.
So can I. I dont think he is he best coach in the NHL. I wouldnt have minded him to be canned but I dont like any of the available coaches out there either.
A good coach can get the job done, even a worse one. See Theirein, Tortarella, Keenan. Its more up to the roster to be quality.
I personally think that Gillis spoke with AV, the players and the rest of the coaching staff to hear what they had to say and then made his own decision based on the information that was provided to him.
makes a lot more sense to me than the wild claims that Vigneault threw his assistant coaches under the bus.
no offense to you personally, just the fictional character! I dont agree with your take but thats why we are here.
