HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The thread in which I invite people to explain how AV hates young/skilled players

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-19-2013, 02:48 AM
  #51
nameless1
HF's Poet Laureate
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,449
vCash: 500
I will add in my 2 cents.
The players that AV are most comfortable with are defensively responsible players.
If one recalls his first season as coach, he is able to coax more than 100 points with a roster filled with the likes of Marc Chouinard and Lee Goren.
If AV is given a team filled with defensive players, he could probably get that team to the playoffs.
Defense had always been his priority.

That does not mean he does not know how to incorporate offense into his system.
The last couple of years had proven that.
Still, defense is what he values.
That is why the team is full of 2 way players now, and the players who gets the most ice time are those that are defensively responsible and is willing to play a 200 feet game.

I personally thinks AV knows how to develop young players.
The best examples are probably Hansen, Burrows, Kesler, Raymond, Bieksa and Edler.
When he first took over, Burrows and Hansen look to be destined as 3rd or 4th line checkers.
Eventually, he turned them into 2-way players with 20 goals potential annually.
Kesler went from a checking line forward to a Selke-level performer with one 40 goal season under him.
For Raymond, he was taught to be defensively responsible, and while his offense is inconsistent, he can be played in any situation, and he can slot in comfortably on any line.
Bieksa was let loose when AV became coach, and he gave him a 42 point season, while Edler looked to be the #1 Vancouver had been looking for.

Although there are not many examples, it was mainly due to the poor draft record by the front office.
Given what he got, AV was able to exceed the projections of many of the young prospects.
During their draft years, who would have thought Hansen could be a valuable 3rd liner who could score 20 goals, and who would have thought Kesler could be a second liner?
The players themselves worked hard, but AV deserves a lot of credit.

The biggest issue that he has are players who are one-dimensional offensive players, and are not that interested in playing a 200 feet game.
If he can not turn them into 2-way players quickly like Raymond, he really does not know what to do with a pure offensive type, than to cast them aside and play people who are more responsible defensively.
Grabner and Shirokov are the best examples.
Part of it could be due to the fact that the Canucks are perennial playoff, and eventually Cup contenders, which would make him lose patience with them.
I also think that the Canucks being one of the best team in the league also caused him to focus less attention on player development and play players he thinks will give him the best chance to win.
Oreskovich is probably the best example of that.
Still, if that is what it means to have an elite team, I don't think I have a problem with it.

nameless1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 03:05 AM
  #52
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,359
vCash: 500
So we're doing an amazing job then. I guess there is nothing left to say.

First of all, if you're not going to give Crawford credit for feeding the Sedins icetime and being the first person to give icetime to Kesler and Burrows I think you have selective memory.

Second of all, Burrows and Kesler were given opportunity by AV in a time where there was a talent vacuum here. Who else was going to get played? Cowan?

AV's true colours are showing here and as a previous poster mentioned, he is risk averse. That means he isn't going to be an ideal coach as far as developing a guy like Shroeder

I give him and the team credit for goalies and defencemen.

Again, all I've argued is that our drafting as well as our actual player development is up for debate. And it is. Those things fall on both GMMG and AV.

I mean, we trade for Kassian...and he ends up playing 2 minutes less per game here? Even when he was basically in the doghouse in Buffalo at the time and had been eclipsed by Foligno?

Meanwhile if anyone has the temerity to bring up Grabner or Shirokov, we're going to hear the 'one-dimensional' crap again. Despite the fact Grabner left and scored 30 goals and played the penalty kill in NYI.

And you know what? Grabner MIGHT, when all is said and done, turn out to be one-dimensional. BUT WE NEVER BOTHERED TO FIND OUT. That's what I have issue with and you guys can keep mentioning 27+ year old guys who got their start as much under Crawford as AV and had no competition for roster spots.

You know what else bugs me about our player development? For all of AV and our vaunted ability to 'make the best of what we have' we have NEVER HAD A STABLE FOURTH LINE FOR YEARS. This despite bringing in some good FA veteran guys. Where is our King Williams Nolan line? And don't tell me those guys were amazing prospects and high draft picks either.

We can't be ultra-conservative like Detroit. We don't have absolutely rock solid players who will ensure a great 1st and 3rd line every year. And maybe we shouldn't be as crazy as the Flyers with 5 rookies.

Anyways, as usual the truth lies somewhere in the middle. But it's ok, you guys are satisfied with the way things are. I'm not. *shrug*

mossey3535 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 03:17 AM
  #53
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,920
vCash: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
You know what else bugs me about our player development? For all of AV and our vaunted ability to 'make the best of what we have' we have NEVER HAD A STABLE FOURTH LINE FOR YEARS. This despite bringing in some good FA veteran guys. Where is our King Williams Nolan line? And don't tell me those guys were amazing prospects and high draft picks either.
why do you think fourth lines should be stable?

Verviticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 03:19 AM
  #54
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
I like the idea that AV would be a better coach if he demanded his players made plays that had lower likelihood of success.

"Ok, guys. I want you to get out there and make the worst decisions you can!"

Of course AV wants his players to make high percentage plays and adhere to the system. Those are basically traits of successful coaches.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 03:37 AM
  #55
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verviticus View Post
why do you think fourth lines should be stable?
Within the course of a single season? Because it gives the team the confidence that line will be able to do whatever is asked of it.

From season to season obviously there will be some turnover.

mossey3535 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 03:39 AM
  #56
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
You know what else bugs me about our player development? For all of AV and our vaunted ability to 'make the best of what we have' we have NEVER HAD A STABLE FOURTH LINE FOR YEARS. This despite bringing in some good FA veteran guys. Where is our King Williams Nolan line? And don't tell me those guys were amazing prospects and high draft picks either.
Was that even a consistent line?

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 03:39 AM
  #57
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
I like the idea that AV would be a better coach if he demanded his players made plays that had lower likelihood of success.

"Ok, guys. I want you to get out there and make the worst decisions you can!"

Of course AV wants his players to make high percentage plays and adhere to the system. Those are basically traits of successful coaches.
Who claimed this?

Now you're just being silly. There's a difference between being able to play well but yet improvise and create within the confines of a system, and having players who will do nothing but 'make the safe play'.

Besides, if we're playing such a sound, well-coached defensive system, it should be able to bear the occasional 'interesting' foray by our skilled guys.

mossey3535 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 03:44 AM
  #58
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Within the course of a single season? Because it gives the team the confidence that line will be able to do whatever is asked of it.

From season to season obviously there will be some turnover.
The three players you listed for the kings were not a "consistent 4th line" last year. Two of them played less than 30 games in the regular season, and the other one was in the top 6. None of them show up as any of the other's top 5 linemates for the regular season or playoffs according to Behind the Net. In the regular season, Williams appears to have mostly played with Brown and Kopitar, King with Richards and Carter, and Nolan with Clifford and Fraser. In the playoffs, Williams appears to again have played with Kopitar and Brown, King with Lewis and Stoll, and Nolan with Richardson and Fraser.

I'm curious what you were talking about with that?

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 03:45 AM
  #59
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Who claimed this?

Now you're just being silly. There's a difference between being able to play well but yet improvise and create within the confines of a system, and having players who will do nothing but 'make the safe play'.

Besides, if we're playing such a sound, well-coached defensive system, it should be able to bear the occasional 'interesting' foray by our skilled guys.
Have you ever seen the Sedins play? Ehrhoff when he was here? Kevin Bieksa? I'm the one being silly?

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 04:35 AM
  #60
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nameless1 View Post
If he can not turn them into 2-way players quickly like Raymond, he really does not know what to do with a pure offensive type, than to cast them aside and play people who are more responsible defensively.
Grabner and Shirokov are the best examples.
NYI trust Grabner enough to put him on the PK. Scored 8 shorties over the last 2 seasons.

Fat Tony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 04:36 AM
  #61
Fat Tony
Registered User
 
Fat Tony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
Have you ever seen the Sedins play?
He admitted watching the Sedins make their no-look passes used to drive him crazy. He went against type letting them off the chain. I have to give him credit for doing so.

Fat Tony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 05:36 AM
  #62
jigsaw99
Registered User
 
jigsaw99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Optimist View Post
Anyone else remember when he gave a 23 year old Bernier every opportunity to establish himself in the top 6?
23 year old who had two full seasons before being traded to Canucks. He also over extended Bernier since he is not a top 6 player. we talkin about rookies' here.


Last edited by jigsaw99: 01-19-2013 at 05:43 AM.
jigsaw99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 05:38 AM
  #63
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,920
vCash: 695
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
Within the course of a single season? Because it gives the team the confidence that line will be able to do whatever is asked of it.

From season to season obviously there will be some turnover.
its the 10th, 11th and 12th best forwards on the team. how on earth do you expect the 1-9 to never get hurt and the 13-16 to never have stretches where they out play them? locking yourself to three guys on the fourth line come any circumstance is awful

Verviticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 05:42 AM
  #64
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,426
vCash: 500
I think this issue with AV isn't that he outright dislikes Skilled or Young players...so much as that he's extremely hit or miss with it. If a guy isn't an 'AV Player', he's doomed from the get-go. But when AV does develop young and/or skilled players, they often turn out quite well. But it's within a fairly specific mold.

Basically, more than a hate for young/skilled players, i think the REAL issue with AV is a lack of flexibility in working with those type of players. He seems to have one real approach, and if that doesn't work...that's end of story for a player here. Unfortunately, players are a people...not robots, and the best coaches find ways to get the most out of all different sorts of players with all different sorts of personalities and demeanours.

I think it comes back to the 'Carrot and the Stick' thing. AV has the 'stick', but not much in the way of the 'carrot'. It works for some players, and for those where it works...it provides outstanding results. Hardened two-way players often with a bit of a chip on their shoulder. But for those who don't respond well to that sort of prodding...they're essentially just cast aside.

Has to make it a lot more difficult drafting players, with that sort of funnel to the pros in mind.

biturbo19 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 07:09 AM
  #65
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
The three players you listed for the kings were not a "consistent 4th line" last year. Two of them played less than 30 games in the regular season, and the other one was in the top 6. None of them show up as any of the other's top 5 linemates for the regular season or playoffs according to Behind the Net. In the regular season, Williams appears to have mostly played with Brown and Kopitar, King with Richards and Carter, and Nolan with Clifford and Fraser. In the playoffs, Williams appears to again have played with Kopitar and Brown, King with Lewis and Stoll, and Nolan with Richardson and Fraser.

I'm curious what you were talking about with that?
I didn't look up the exact line times, I admit that. And I was talking about the Kings 4th line from memory so I botched the names. But you didn't stop to ask what I meant by consistent.

The point I was trying to make is that the 4th line has to be stable and consistent throughout the year. That might not mean in terms of EXACT personnel, but in many cases on other teams there are one or two guys who anchor the line.

Your line combos don't change my argument. In King, Nolan, and Clifford you've got two rookies and a 2nd year guy who were trusted to move up and down the lineup and be put out there for significant minutes in the playoffs, not like our fourth lines.

Again, look at the Flyers. It's not like they are some bottom feeding team who are forced to plug these holes with rookies. Can you even imagine us carrying that many rookies and letting them play PP and PK? No, you can't. That's the issue I have.

And it isn't a matter of just 'oh let him play as much as he wants' or 'play him super sheltered'. Look what the Flyers did with Schenn. He was given a chance, he was floating, and they demoted him to the 4th, and then they gave him another chance when he learned his lesson. That simply doesn't happen here unless AV gets some 'oh let's put random player X with the Sedins, see if that works'. There is a chance to adapt and play these rookies as the circumstances dictates and we just haven't done that at all. That's what I mean by player development.

For example: the current circumstances are perfect to see what Schroeder can do for the 2nd line with Kesler injured and his chemistry with Raymond in training camp indicates that might happen. I'm withholding final judgement until all the waiver shenanigans get sorted out but if we don't seize this opportunity to find out what one our bonafide prospects can do in the perfect situation to have an excuse to give him a chance ... well, it just seems like the same old. Don't you find that sad as a fan of this team?

The thing is, I have already acknowledged parts of your argument to be true. But what you're trying to do is pick on details of my argument (which I didn't research this time, sue me) and ignore the spirit of mine.

We can get a LOT better at developing our talent up front in my opinion. But I guess we're just going to give the organization a pass again because it's easier.

mossey3535 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 09:59 AM
  #66
putridgasbag
Grand Poohba
 
putridgasbag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Comox Valley
Posts: 1,195
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
NYI trust Grabner enough to put him on the PK. Scored 8 shorties over the last 2 seasons.
Just out of curiosity with does that have to do with coach V? He doesn't make the final roster decisions and has little to no input on trades.

putridgasbag is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 10:27 AM
  #67
putridgasbag
Grand Poohba
 
putridgasbag's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Comox Valley
Posts: 1,195
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
I didn't look up the exact line times, I admit that. And I was talking about the Kings 4th line from memory so I botched the names. But you didn't stop to ask what I meant by consistent.

The point I was trying to make is that the 4th line has to be stable and consistent throughout the year. That might not mean in terms of EXACT personnel, but in many cases on other teams there are one or two guys who anchor the line.

Your line combos don't change my argument. In King, Nolan, and Clifford you've got two rookies and a 2nd year guy who were trusted to move up and down the lineup and be put out there for significant minutes in the playoffs, not like our fourth lines.

Again, look at the Flyers. It's not like they are some bottom feeding team who are forced to plug these holes with rookies. Can you even imagine us carrying that many rookies and letting them play PP and PK? No, you can't. That's the issue I have.

And it isn't a matter of just 'oh let him play as much as he wants' or 'play him super sheltered'. Look what the Flyers did with Schenn. He was given a chance, he was floating, and they demoted him to the 4th, and then they gave him another chance when he learned his lesson. That simply doesn't happen here unless AV gets some 'oh let's put random player X with the Sedins, see if that works'. There is a chance to adapt and play these rookies as the circumstances dictates and we just haven't done that at all. That's what I mean by player development.

For example: the current circumstances are perfect to see what Schroeder can do for the 2nd line with Kesler injured and his chemistry with Raymond in training camp indicates that might happen. I'm withholding final judgement until all the waiver shenanigans get sorted out but if we don't seize this opportunity to find out what one our bonafide prospects can do in the perfect situation to have an excuse to give him a chance ... well, it just seems like the same old. Don't you find that sad as a fan of this team?

The thing is, I have already acknowledged parts of your argument to be true. But what you're trying to do is pick on details of my argument (which I didn't research this time, sue me) and ignore the spirit of mine.

We can get a LOT better at developing our talent up front in my opinion. But I guess we're just going to give the organization a pass again because it's easier.
Again how much influence to you think the coach has as to roster moves and decisions? A GMs job is to provide players he believes will be successful on his team. A coaches job is to take the players the
GM gives him and mould the best team that he can. Hands up everybody who if they were GM would allow their coach to dictate roster moves. So do you and others believe that Mike Gillis isn't a strong enough GM to stand up to his underling on decisions that are his to make?

Pop Quiz

Who on this list would have the least input on roster moves such as trades, waivers and demotions to the farm?

a - Mike Gillis
b - Laurence Gilman
c - Lorne Henning
d - Francesco Aquilini
e - Alain Vigneault

I bet I can probably find a couple of more guys in the organization who have more "pull" on roster moves than Vigneault.

putridgasbag is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 10:42 AM
  #68
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 19,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by putridgasbag View Post
Again how much influence to you think the coach has as to roster moves and decisions?
Mike Keenan told Brian Burke he had that authority written into his contract....and we all remember Brian Burke's response.

Barney Gumble is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 10:55 AM
  #69
AmazingNuck
Registered User
 
AmazingNuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by luongo321 View Post
yeah, he's a wuss. tries to play it too safe. HOLD THE LEAD HOLD THE LEAD. don't try to score! now do that for 1.5 periods against a potent offense! that chicago series still drives me mad. that was a couple years ago though. he's changed it up a bit. I'm sure MG would have told him to pack his bags if he didn't try to change his philosophy a bit, but it still won't leave AV.
Honestly, holding the lead has led us to more victories than losses. Holding the lead is a great strategy. Offense requires more energy. Going all-out offensively every single game is tiring, and with our schedule, the coach needs to make sure the players aren't fatigued.

The end-game is simple: play a high percentage defensive game. That doesn't mean 100%, so we will get scored on from time to time.

EDIT:

There is a lot of concern that the 4th line has a lot of turnover. There were many injuries, however. Vigneault didn't shuffle the 4th line for the sake of shuffling.

Gillis follows the Detroit philosophy, which means every prospect will spend about 4 years in the minors developing. Don't expect Gaunce to come up for about two or three years.

AmazingNuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 11:24 AM
  #70
hockeywoot
Registered User
 
hockeywoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: China
Posts: 993
vCash: 500
AV has had a lot to do with our success.

He got a 100pt season out of our team full of scrubs+Luongo.
He changed the style to a hybrid of push the pace offence coupled with an effective defensive strategy.
He tries to maximize the potential of our roster.
High O-zone starts for the twins, quick puck movement from our back-end, heavy defensive minutes for Manny (10/11). IMO our team has fared better than the sum of its parts.

The foundation for the forwards is strong 2-way play.
Burrows, Kesler, Hansen, Raymond...
You need to buy in.

Schroeder is on the right track. He was sent down for cap/waiver reasons.
I think AV is a bigger fan of Schroeder than Hodgson IMO.

If the Sedins were developed under AV from their debut, I'd wager they'd be different players. Who knows?
Possibly a lower offensive output, but far more complete players.

We are a perennial contender. Our goal is around winning.
Developing prospects is part of the long-term goal, but winning is still the priority.

You have to not be a huge liability out there. You have to play a role. You have to fit.
AV doesn't hate young players (Tanev and Weise say hello). He hates losing.

hockeywoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 11:44 AM
  #71
LeftCoast
Registered User
 
LeftCoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossey3535 View Post
So we're doing an amazing job then. I guess there is nothing left to say.

First of all, if you're not going to give Crawford credit for feeding the Sedins icetime and being the first person to give icetime to Kesler and Burrows I think you have selective memory.
Burrows played 43 games for Marc Crawford before he was fired and in that same year, played 33 games for Alain Vigneault in Manitoba.

Quote:
Second of all, Burrows and Kesler were given opportunity by AV in a time where there was a talent vacuum here. Who else was going to get played? Cowan?
In AV's first season, Henrick, Morrison and Cooke were all ahead of Kesler on the depth chart. They also had Linden, Chouinard and Santala at centre (ignoring the late season trade for Smolinski) but of these guys, only Linden was used much. But AV pushed for the trade to dump Matt Cooke, chose to play Linden on the 4th line and put Burrows and Kesler together. In fact, you could probably attribute Linden's greatly reduced role and decision to retire to Kesler's emergence as a 3rd line centre.

Quote:
AV's true colours are showing here and as a previous poster mentioned, he is risk averse. That means he isn't going to be an ideal coach as far as developing a guy like Shroeder
It wasn't AV's decision to send Schroeder down. Gillis said as much yesterday in a rather prickly morning radio interview. At that point he said IF Schroeder is sent down, he will be back up shortly and will play meaningful games for the Canucks this year. But he also hinted at some of his reasoning. With a 48 game, compressed schedule, they have to plan for injuries. He mentioned Booth, but also said there are groin injuries in every training camp in the league. He also emphasized that the last time the league ran a compressed schedule, it was the NJ Devils and their stifling trap style defense who won the Stanley Cup while the Rangers (odds on favorites) barely made the playoffs. He emphasized the need for good defense as every game is so important. It follows that this influenced the decision to carry 9 defensemen.


Quote:
I mean, we trade for Kassian...and he ends up playing 2 minutes less per game here? Even when he was basically in the doghouse in Buffalo at the time and had been eclipsed by Foligno?
Personally, I think the Hodgson - Kassian trade was a bad move, but time will tell. None of us knows what CoHo was really like in the room. As far as Kassian's role, he really wasn't ready last year for a bigger role.

This year he will have his chance. Wingers don't have anywhere near the defensive responsibilities of a centre. Kassian isn't expected to carry an offensive line. He can play, really anywhere from the 4th to 1st line as needed. When Schroeder makes the team, he can probably move to the wing if needed, but for the most part, he has to make it as a 2C.

Quote:
Meanwhile if anyone has the temerity to bring up Grabner or Shirokov, we're going to hear the 'one-dimensional' crap again. Despite the fact Grabner left and scored 30 goals and played the penalty kill in NYI.

And you know what? Grabner MIGHT, when all is said and done, turn out to be one-dimensional. BUT WE NEVER BOTHERED TO FIND OUT. That's what I have issue with and you guys can keep mentioning 27+ year old guys who got their start as much under Crawford as AV and had no competition for roster spots.

I'll give you Shirokov. I don't think he was handled well, at it very may well be that he didn't fit the role AV wanted or needed from a centre at that time. Unfortunately, we lost this player as a result.

With Grabner it has been explained many times. I'll do it one more time.

When Grabner was traded, Mike Gillis knew there was a lot of depth on the wings. We had Raymond who was coming off a 25 goal season, who brought much of the same game as Grabner and was far better defensively. We also had Samuelsson and Burrows ahead of him. Grabner was not an ideal 4th liner - most people figured he was a top 6 or nothing type of player. Gillis also knew that Hodgson and Shirokov were going to be in training camp. There was a very good chance that Grabner would not make the starting roster and in order to be assigned to Manitoba, he would have to go through waivers. There is no way he would clear waivers (as he didn't when Florida waived him), so they would either have to tie up a roster spot for a player who was probably going to be in the press box most nights, or lose him with no return.

You also have to acknowledge that there is a big difference between the top 6 forward in Florida (where he didn't make the team) or the Islanders and the top 6 of a team that wanted to contend for the Stanley Cup.

Add to this rationale that also needed depth and quality on the blue line. Bieksa was coming of one of his worst seasons, Ohlund was gone to Tampa and Salo was injured. Historically, the NHL season is tough on defensemen, so Gillis wanted to use a roster spot to carry veteran depth on defense rather than an extra one dimensional winger.

If was the right decision to trade Grabner. We didn't have the option to see if he could make it on the 2nd line here.

Whether Gillis got enough value in return is another question. I think Ballard, at the time, was consider a pretty solid top 4 defenseman. The 1st round pick ended up being Quinton Howden.


Quote:
You know what else bugs me about our player development? For all of AV and our vaunted ability to 'make the best of what we have' we have NEVER HAD A STABLE FOURTH LINE FOR YEARS. This despite bringing in some good FA veteran guys. Where is our King Williams Nolan line? And don't tell me those guys were amazing prospects and high draft picks either.
Seriously - a stable 4th line? There are a tonne of reasons why the 4th line is always going to be in flux.
  • A stable 4th line is completely at odds with your views about giving young players a chance to make the team and developing from within. Not everyone can start with the Sedins, and AV has demonstrated a strong preference for a stable 3rd line.
  • A stable 4th line infers veteran players. Veteran players are for the most part waiver eligible, so when you have injuries or need to make roster moves, you have to expose these guys to waivers.
  • The 4th line is an extremely tough mental role. Rick Rypien struggled mentally with this role and I have heard interviews with Donald Brashear where he said he was terrified every time he was tapped to go out and "dance". In the current NHL fighting is less of an emphasis, but bringing a constant, grinding physical presence is still a mental challenge.
  • Fourth line needs also vary by opponent and game plan. For come opponents you want the 4th line to do no more than eat up some minutes and not get scored upon. For others, you want to impose a physical impact on the game. It takes different personnel for each.
  • The young players who end up on the 4th line - most have ambitions to be more than a 4th line role player. Some graduate to the 3rd line (Hansen) others transition to become 4th line veterans and fall into the waiver eligible group. So guys like Bliznak, Bolduc, Brown and probably at some point Volpati come and go. Rypien was a special case - a mid-career veteran who could play every day (when healthy) and was worth holding a roster spot for.
  • Lapierre is a perfect 3rd/4th line player and as long as he doesn't want a huge payday, will likely be retained for exactly that reason. I also see Dale Weise sticking around for a while.

LeftCoast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 11:52 AM
  #72
Nuck This
Registered User
 
Nuck This's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,055
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Tony View Post
NYI trust Grabner enough to put him on the PK. Scored 8 shorties over the last 2 seasons.
Being on the PK doesn't necessarily mean your good defensively. Grabner is fast and creates turnovers. He makes it hard on other teams to set up. But his awarness lacks. Even offensively he doesn't have the greatest hockey sense. It's all speed and skill with him.

Nuck This is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 11:53 AM
  #73
Smokey McCanucks
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,941
vCash: 500
Of course Vigneault prefers to play guys like Rome or Wiese or Glass or Ebbett over guys like Hodgson or Grabner or Gragnani or Schroeder. He's a hockey coach! If you're a coach you take the plugger who leaves it all out there every shift over the hotshot who skates twice as fast one way as he does the other, and you do that EVERY time! Vigneault does it and he's right to do it and it's made this team a winner. When Vigneault replaced Crawford he made it incredibly clear: for a long time the guys with the most talent and skill got the most minutes regardless of if they were playing well or playing hard, but Vigneault gives the grinders and effort guys a fair shake. I don't think that's a bad thing.

I've watched a lot of hockey, played a little too. Rome played great for us. We turned it into a joke but Vigneault was 100% correct to play Rome so much. He left it all out there, he did all the little things, and he'll be missed here for sure. He was a trooper and played better than guys with a better resume or more name recognition - he deserved every minute of ice time he got here. Glass too, and Wiese, those guys play hard, and if Vigneault and Gillis say it's Ebbett over Schroeder, I say they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Edit, and I shouldn't have to point out that at one point Burrows and Kesler were those pluggers, in Vigneault's first year they were the Wiese and Lapierre of that team that beat Dallas and lost to Anaheim. They always played hard, Vigneault gave them minutes, and it turned out okay.

Smokey McCanucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 11:54 AM
  #74
Cogburn
Registered User
 
Cogburn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,744
vCash: 50
For all this talk of AV being "bad at developing young players", look no further then Hansen.

Aside from that, with this kind of team, it's not his job to do so. I have a lot of criticisms of coach Vee, but calling him out for not developing Hodgson or Schroeder by spoonfeeding them ice time isn't one. His job, especially in recent years when we have had a couple of prospects to be excited about, has been to put the best team he can on the ice. Having speedy 20 goal scoring players on the bottom line is great, but unless they are as good as energy players as the Weises or Lapierres of our team, why screw up their trajectory and waste their potential?

That being said, I do think Schroeder got robbed by Ebbett. I won't hold it against anyone, but I'm still wondering what I missed...two very good training camps in a row and he has yet to see NHL ice time. That's the reason for the thread though, yes? Schroeder languishing away with the Wolves while Kassian gets 2nd line minutes as the new young guy?

Cogburn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-19-2013, 12:11 PM
  #75
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,960
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cogburn View Post
That being said, I do think Schroeder got robbed by Ebbett. I won't hold it against anyone, but I'm still wondering what I missed...two very good training camps in a row and he has yet to see NHL ice time. That's the reason for the thread though, yes? Schroeder languishing away with the Wolves while Kassian gets 2nd line minutes as the new young guy?
The only thing you missed is that both AV and Gillis made it pretty clear that on hockey terms Schroeder should've had the spot. They also both said that he will be back up very soon. Hell, AV even made it seem like it might happen after the first two games.

I feel like people are overreacting big time. Schroeder is one of the hardest working prospects we've had in years and is extremely responsive to any coaching input he gets. It's why I think AV actually likes him and has spoken positively about him. He'll go to the Wolves and work even harder to make it back to the team. He's not going to pout and he's not going to flee to Minny when his contract is up...

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.