I somewhat disagree that this can be all put on AV. Missing Daniel is the key here. People called Quenneville a genius and now he's just a plug because he doesnt have depth.
I also dont like the options out there after Mac T. I would also hope we could find a coach who's won a cup.
If missing Daniel turns a President's Trophy winning team into the losers you are seeing out on the ice, then there is something seriously wrong here. That's missing depth now? Nope. It's missing skill. Skill on a team already short on skill at forward.
Daniel going out only exacerbated the issue. AV has systematically discouraged purely offensive players from being retained on this team. He opts for the two-way guys and it's clear as day to see. Now, he's reaping what he is sewn.
Tacticians and rah rah'ers arent going to stop the likes of Burrows and Kesler playing like dough heads.
The problem is, right now our gameplan doesn't even create the possibility of scoring chances. Write up a different forecheck and offensive plan and you might start to see the Kings making mistakes because they're being forced into them. Right now we're the ones being forced into mistakes and are just playing into Sutter's cards. While the players are not playing great, the coaching is even a few steps below them.
AV's thinking that you keep playing your game regardless of what your opponent throws at you is completely retarded.
I somewhat disagree that this can be all put on AV. Missing Daniel is the key here. People called Quenneville a genius and now he's just a plug because he doesnt have depth.
I also dont like the options out there after Mac T. I would also hope we could find a coach who's won a cup.
OK, again.
Stanley Cup Winning Coaches (years coaching team)
2011 Claude Julien (year 4) vs Alain Vigneault (year 5)
2010 Joel Quenneville (year 2) vs Peter Laviolette (PHI 1)
2009 Dan Bylsma (year 1) vs Mike Babcock (year 4)
2008 Mike Babcock (year 3) vs Michel Therrien (year 3)
2007 Randy Carlyle (year 2) vs Bryan Murray (year 2)
2006 Peter Laviolette (CAR 2) vs Craig MacTavish (year 5)
2004 John Tortorella (year 4) vs Darryl Sutter (year 2)
2003 Pat Burns (NJD 1) vs Mike Babcock (ANA 1)
2002 Scotty Bowman (year 9) vs Paul Maurice (year 7)
2001 Bob Hartley (year 3) vs Larry Robinson (year 2)
2000 Larry Robinson (year 1) vs Ken Hitchcock (year 5)
1999 Ken Hitchcock (year 4) vs Lindy Ruff (year 2)
1998 Scotty Bowman (year 5) vs Ron Wilson (year 1)
1997 Scotty Bowman (year 4) vs Terry Murray (year 3)
1996 Marc Crawford (year 2) vs Doug MacLean (year 1)
1995 Jacques Lemaire (year 2) vs Scotty Bowman (year 2)
1994 Mike Keenan (NYR 1) vs Pat Quinn (year 4)
1993 Jacques Demers (year 1) vs Barry Melrose (year 1)
1992 Scotty Bowman (year 1 with PIT) vs Mike Keenan (CHI 4)
1991 Bob Johnson (year 1) vs Bob Gainey (year 1)
In summary, AV has been here for 6 years now.
In the last 20 years:
-The average winning coach was in his 2.35th year with his team and the average losing coach had been coaching their team for 2.8 years. -Only Scotty Bowman has ever won the Cup after >5 years coaching the same team.
-Excluding Bowman, only AV, Hitchcock, Maurice and Mactavish have managed to make the final after 5 or more years coaching the same team. -No SCF losing coach has come back to win the SCF with the same team.
-Only Keenan (CHI then NYR). Mike Babock (ANA then DET) and Bowman (DET) were able to come back to the SCF as losers and win.
Of course you always take historical stats with a grain of salt but simply changing the coach already puts us in the majority of teams who have won the Cup in the modern era.
Getting a guy who has been to the SCF before certain should make a difference since there are 6 coaches with repeat appearances. So that means around 25% of all SCF appearances are by these six coaches.
However, there are just as many 1st year coaches (with their teams, not actual rookie coaches) who have made the SCF.
Anyhow, the point is that anyone who is halfways competent could bring us to the Cup, at least if you look at it historically. Many times new coaching blood is the catalyst for a final appearance.
Tacticians and rah rah'ers arent going to stop the likes of Burrows and Kesler playing like dough heads.
One thing at a time. I need to know, as a fan, that the guy behind the bench isn't getting his lunch fed to him on a nightly basis to then turn my attention, and ire, to the players that choose/choose not to follow his direction.
My point is more that people wanted to put these meltdowns on Luongo, but it seems to be the whole team melting down in one way or another (goaltending, defense, offense, some combination therein) each and every season. Sounds like a mental/preparation issue, and that falls on coaching.
Or its simply a limitation of the tools.
Right now of our top 6:
- D Sedin: Out
- H Sedin: trying but has nothing else to go to but the cycle which the kings are hammering.
- Burrows: More interesting in trying to draw penalties/ engage in BS.
- Kelser: See above
- Booth: Trying but again limited with what he can do.
- Raymond: Enoughs been said.
- Higgins: Plays a solid game but hasnt odne much in his role so far. Too much to expect him to be a perpetual game changer.
Mike Gillis could revamp this team and bring them in an entirely different direction with three moves.
1. Replace Alain Vigneault (and perhaps promote Craig MacTavish).
2. Trade either Cory Schneider or Roberto Luongo.
3. Trade Ryan Kesler.
Two of the three seem likely, given Alain Vigneault is now treading on thin ice and his team is down 3-0 in the first round of the playoffs. Based on how Kesler has played this year, trading him may change the team's philosophy going forward and provide another impact player. The playoff previews on TSN and Sportsnet reveal just how highly-regarded he is in the eyes of everybody else around the league.
It can be done, based on what Philadelphia did last year. While Richards and Carter are, ironically, the ones playing against us this year, a shake-up was what the Flyers lineup really needed.
I think the three moves would be plausible, considering Kesler's value right now. The first step, though, would be to replace the coach. We've seen Alain Vigneault for six years, and I'm starting to believe a change is needed.
On the lack of offense with this team, I think what's compounding the problem is that there are no other creative offensive players on this team other than the Twins, and they play on the same line.
Having Daniel back on Kesler's LW would help for starters but that would not cover up for the fact that nobody ever seems to be in position to get a rebound or get open for a one-timer. Over the past year I've slowly realized that the offensive side of our game is just so stale - no imagination, vision, playmaking and offensive instincts whatsoever outside of a handful of players. We work so hard to cycle the puck and hardly ever generate any truly dangerous chances. The effort all just goes to waste.
On rush plays it's not much better - sure we have a lot of team speed but it seems we don't know how to utilize it properly. They skate as fast as they can up ice and everyone converges toward the net, without anyone getting open for a shot. When we shoot it's a direct shot into the pads or to the chest, and never for creating rebounds. In general they just don't ever seem to get much done, though not for lack of trying. Everything seems so inefficient, and I don't know if that's poor coaching or not but I'm starting to suspect it is.
The big thing for me (up until this series at least) is how the Canucks generally look worse and worse as a series goes on as the other team adjusts to exploit their weaknesses. It seems like the Canucks never had any answers for that, and that is a big indictment of the coaching.
The problem is, right now our gameplan doesn't even create the possibility of scoring chances. Write up a different forecheck and offensive plan and you might start to see the Kings making mistakes because they're being forced into them. Right now we're the ones being forced into mistakes and are just playing into Sutter's cards. While the players are not playing great, the coaching is even a few steps below them.
AV's thinking that you keep playing your game regardless of what your opponent throws at you is completely retarded.
I disagree.
This has been an issue for years now with Burrows and Kesler and Ive said before as they go so does the team.
Julien was criticized for exactly the same thing last year. What changed? Not his game plan. His players stepped up and we had key injuries.
The problem is, right now our gameplan doesn't even create the possibility of scoring chances. Write up a different forecheck and offensive plan and you might start to see the Kings making mistakes because they're being forced into them. Right now we're the ones being forced into mistakes and are just playing into Sutter's cards. While the players are not playing great, the coaching is even a few steps below them.
AV's thinking that you keep playing your game regardless of what your opponent throws at you is completely retarded.
I totally agree with your post but I just wanted to bring up the main problem - his philosophy works perfectly in the regular season.
So the problem is that this team is talented enough to win a President's Trophy without even really trying and people equate all those regular season wins into coaching aptitude.
Then in the playoffs where flexibility is more important than a consistent approach, he fails miserably. If we go out early this year, it is going to be yet another example of a playoff meltdown by the team as a whole. The difference is that this year our goaltending was good enough that the real problems were out there for everyone to see.
Julien was criticized for exactly the same thing last year. What changed? Not his game plan. His players stepped up and we had key injuries.
The Bruins still made adjustments, you can compare Game 1 with Game 3 of our series against them if you don't believe me. The Canucks don't make adjustments until it's way too late and even then they're minimal. You're playing the same team for up to 7 games, of course they're going to adjust their gameplan to take advantage of you or at least to limit your effectiveness. You don't have to get away from your game completely but some changes have to be made, you can't just keep banging your head against an iron door hoping that the 100th time your skull will somehow finally be stronger than iron.
On the lack of offense with this team, I think what's compounding the problem is that there are no other creative offensive players on this team other than the Twins, and they play on the same line.
Having Daniel back on Kesler's LW would help for starters but that would not cover up for the fact that nobody ever seems to be in position to get a rebound or get open for a one-timer. Over the past year I've slowly realized that the offensive side of our game is just so stale - no imagination, vision, playmaking and offensive instincts whatsoever outside of a handful of players. We work so hard to cycle the puck and hardly ever generate any truly dangerous chances. The effort all just goes to waste.
On rush plays it's not much better - sure we have a lot of team speed but it seems we don't know how to utilize it properly. They skate as fast as they can up ice and everyone converges toward the net, without anyone getting open for a shot. When we shoot it's a direct shot into the pads or to the chest, and never for creating rebounds. In general they just don't ever seem to get much done, though not for lack of trying. Everything seems so inefficient, and I don't know if that's poor coaching or not but I'm starting to suspect it is.
Actually, we don't go to the net consistently. That's our problem. Everything else I agree with.
This is simple stuff that is usually practiced. It's obvious if you just look at other teams who are able to get to the right areas without comparable personnel.
I totally agree with your post but I just wanted to bring up the main problem - his philosophy works perfectly in the regular season.
So the problem is that this team is talented enough to win a President's Trophy without even really trying and people equate all those regular season wins into coaching aptitude.
Then in the playoffs where flexibility is more important than a consistent approach, he fails miserably. If we go out early this year, it is going to be yet another example of a playoff meltdown by the team as a whole. The difference is that this year our goaltending was good enough that the real problems were out there for everyone to see.
Well let's see now... Canucks 2011-2012 ES G/G = 1.9
Power play thoroughly scouted by other team / dried up / lacking Daniel Sedin = no PP goals = 1.9 G/G.
Add to that the Kings playing a very defense-first system and Quick looking sharp, and we can't even get to 2.
It's not a regular season vs. playoffs thing. It's power play working vs. power play not working thing.
What were Boston's goal scoring totals throughout the playoffs last year?
Apples to oranges much?
Apple to oranges much what?
The players on Boston were intent on beating us.
Thats all they cared about.
Kesler and Burrows do not look like they are concerned with beating the Kings as much as they do with trying to sell calls, looking to the ref for calls etc
The Bruins still made adjustments, you can compare Game 1 with Game 3 of our series against them if you don't believe me. The Canucks don't make adjustments until it's way too late and even then they're minimal. You're playing the same team for up to 7 games, of course they're going to adjust their gameplan to take advantage of you or at least to limit your effectiveness. You don't have to get away from your game completely but some changes have to be made, you can't just keep banging your head against an iron door hoping that the 100th time your skull will somehow finally be stronger than iron.
Which adjustments did they make that made a difference?
and for you
Which adjustments would you make if you were in AVs shoes now? Im curious.
For the record I could care less whether its AV behind the bench or not. However pointing the finger at him misses the bigger elephant in the room.
Actually, we don't go to the net consistently. That's our problem. Everything else I agree with.
This is simple stuff that is usually practiced. It's obvious if you just look at other teams who are able to get to the right areas without comparable personnel.
If it's true that simple stuff like this isn't even practiced, and his assistants work the PK/PP tactics, and he doesn't motivate the troops personally (he's noted for his hands-off approach)... you have to start to wonder just what exactly it is he does on the bench, other than making line changes and picking the personnel that any half-decent coach could manage just as well?
... Hell he doesn't even have to match lines anymore because of his specialized zone start strategy!
Which adjustments did they make that made a difference?
and for you
Which adjustments would you make if you were in AVs shoes now? Im curious.
For the record I could care less whether its AV behind the bench or not. However pointing the finger at him misses the bigger elephant in the room.
The book on us is pretty easy. Stand up at the blueline to deny our entry - we don't dump and chase well and we like carrying the puck in. To negate our speed, push the attacking wingers to the outside. The defensive wingers have to be ready to help out when our D pinches down. Block as many shots as you can, collapse the defencemen to the net to clear rebounds. We don't really drive the net so collapsing helps there too.
As for things we could do, just look at TB versus Boston last year. Quick high shots on goal from set plays. Put a winger behind the goalie if that goalie is going to challenge aggressively. Screen the goalie as much as possible. Cross-seam one-timers.
6yrs with coach av behind the bench. still hasn't learned how to adapt to the opposition's stragety. team needs a new voice. doesnt give young players a fair shake.
Anyhow, the point is that anyone who is halfways competent could bring us to the Cup, at least if you look at it historically. Many times new coaching blood is the catalyst for a final appearance.
**** the Finals appearance. I want a win. Perhaps new coaching blood is the answer but I'm not sure about the options out there. This isnt a younger team either, it's mostly a veteran team.
The book on us is pretty easy. Stand up at the blueline to deny our entry - we don't dump and chase well and we like carrying the puck in. To negate our speed, push the attacking wingers to the outside. The defensive wingers have to be ready to help out when our D pinches down. Block as many shots as you can, collapse the defencemen to the net to clear rebounds. We don't really drive the net so collapsing helps there too.
As for things we could do, just look at TB versus Boston last year. Quick high shots on goal from set plays. Put a winger behind the goalie if that goalie is going to challenge aggressively. Screen the goalie as much as possible. Cross-seam one-timers.
Sedins dont have speed and they rely on the cycle. Teams have firgured out your play them tight and hard. What LA is doing and what BOS did.
So how do you get out of that?
Our speed guys Kesler etc dont seem to have the ability to make a play and instead try to do everything themselves. This makes it easy for the other team.
Crash and bang the net. Whos going to do that on this team?
