decided to change players instead of a whole game plan.
You implied that they didn't have much of a gameplan for the Oilers other than letting the kids play their game. Changing the lines after being outshot and outscored in the first period belies that.
You implied that they didn't have much of a gameplan for the Oilers other than letting the kids play their game. Changing the lines after being outshot and outscored in the first period belies that.
I didn't mean to imply they didn't have a game plan, I think they always have a plan. I was trying to imply that the have a season strategy and a plan for lets say for the sake of argument, the next 2 weeks (or fought-night were I'm from). In that plan the say something like...
Home game against Chicago, we know they want a fast paced game with lots of room for there stars, we better not let them have that we have to play like this to win this one.
Away to Oilers, They will want to play the same type of game as Chicago. and have a very dangerous PP. We will play there Power play like this and not let them gain momentum, we will give them the room they want ES, no need throwing hits against kids, And make sure there scoring chances are low%, we'll see how our players do against that type of momentum and try and go .500 on the road.
Im not saying that was the plan, just trying to illustrate what I meant. This also is to much speculation then I'm comfortable with. I do con-seed that I do not know enough about hockey to state my opinions as fact, just trying to counter those that say, "They didn't want the win bad enough fire AV"
Also "belies" is to big a word for this HS dropout, Had to google that one
I don't think its possible to "give it all" or "100%" in an normal NHL season, This one is even more congested.All though he probably shouldn't say it. In every sport teams pick games they want to win. Having a Great home record and say .500 on the road is usually the plan. You could see the difference between the Chicago game and the Oil game. Chicago they had a clear game plan that was executed very well. They controlled the pace of the game and made sure they weren't out skilled. Against the Oil they seemed to let the kids play the game they wanted to, we seem to be content trying to play there game. I don't think they think there a threat. if it cam close to losing the division to them I think well turn up, play a checking game like when we out hit teams 45 to 10, at the moment there,s no point.
It certainly feels that way sometimes when they face the Oilers.
I think the bottom line is that this team is good enough to win (regular season, at least) games under adverse conditions.
Top pairing is a mess? Turns out the $4m guy on the bottom pairing is going to play his best games in a Canuck jersey.
Missing a 2nd line? Here comes a player back from a career threatening injury and another guy from the farm team to put up 7 goals in the first 9 games.
The teams offensive leaders are sputtering? Ho hum, the two best offensive forwards and best offensive defenseman have 8, 6 and 8 points through 10 games respectively.
One of your goaltenders is being outplayed by the other (which means he only has three wins and a shutout through five games)? Great, your backup is an All Star and between the two they'll allow 2 or fewer goals in 8 of 10 games.
Honestly I think if this team can get healthy and on a roll all at the same time they will be the deepest group in the league - and next year really will be about attempting to preserve as much of that depth as possible with fewer cap dollars to go around.
This team has surprised me, and I think a key part is our youth. Schroeder and Kassian have stood out as important players so far and filled some holes that we had. Not sure you can rely on this to continue consistently all year, but it's definitely promising. When Kesler and Booth return we shouldn't need to rely on these kids to push the play, rather they can supplement what our stars do and that should make us more dangerous. Hopefully AV doesn't send either kid down.
If people are happy with AV, I still want a new "eye in there sky" coach to help make up for AV's weaknesses.... And fire Bowness, worse coach of all time - go look at his coaching record.
If people are happy with AV, I still want a new "eye in there sky" coach to help make up for AV's weaknesses.... And fire Bowness, worse coach of all time - go look at his coaching record.
Some people are better suited to be assistant coaches.
The MIN game was the first full game effort I saw from the team. 10 games in. Best start in 7 years.
It's unbelievable that the Canucks have the record that they do with how they started out. Good job AV?
I think on the whole, the start is sub-standard, but the results have been strong. I'm not sure what to make of it.
If you're judging the Canucks against past teams and their play then I can see that. But if you look around the league at how difficult it has been for most teams to play good hockey... they've come together rather quickly. And without two top 6 forwards...
If people are happy with AV, I still want a new "eye in there sky" coach to help make up for AV's weaknesses.... And fire Bowness, worse coach of all time - go look at his coaching record.
Since Bowness has been here we've been a good to great defensive team every year. Since Gillis changed the style of our defensemen, they've also been amongst the highest scoring bluelines every season, along with being a top defensive team.
Bowness coaching record since he got here has been outstanding.
Bowness coaching record since he got here has been outstanding.
Yeah, Bowness might be a bad coach but his coaching record isn't really determinative in that regard. He spent four seasons as head coach of the worst team of the modern era and it's not as though the coaches preceding or succeeding him, including Jack Adams winners Bob Francis and Jacques Martin, did any better than he did with the same/similar teams.
Just wanted to bring up something I found Interesting. In previous Interviews AV has said that he dose not interact with players on a personal level, I don't have a source but it think he talks about it on the "Behind the bench" series they did last year. He gave his reasons like, Not wanting to be seen as playing favorites, or being friends with the players. However in a recent interview he said "He (Schroeder) told me that his parents brought a box, so I guess i better play him". I thought it was interesting and poses a couple of questions. Has AV changed his style a little bit?, Dose he make an exception for the young guys?, Or was it a bit misleading that "I don't have any personal contact" sentiment. Just thought I would shear some thoughts, I'm not really reading to much into it, Just my wife doesn't give a crap, so I thought I'd make you guys read it.
Just wanted to bring up something I found Interesting. In previous Interviews AV has said that he dose not interact with players on a personal level, I don't have a source but it think he talks about it on the "Behind the bench" series they did last year. He gave his reasons like, Not wanting to be seen as playing favorites, or being friends with the players. However in a recent interview he said "He (Schroeder) told me that his parents brought a box, so I guess i better play him". I thought it was interesting and poses a couple of questions. Has AV changed his style a little bit?, Dose he make an exception for the young guys?, Or was it a bit misleading that "I don't have any personal contact" sentiment. Just thought I would shear some thoughts, I'm not really reading to much into it, Just my wife doesn't give a crap, so I thought I'd make you guys read it.
I think a coach has to be careful not to become too friendly with players but it would be equally foolhardy not to get to know your players personally. AV seems to do a nice job balancing the two.
Interesting to note that both AV and coach Q pulled their teams aside for a few minutes after the skate today. I can't remember who mentioned it on the TEAM around noon... they also mentioned it was quite rare for AV to do that. I know he's been criticized for a lack of this in the past.
