Crawford's last year as coach, the WCE were 1-3 among Canuck forwards in overall icetime, ES icetime, PP icetime. The Sedins were 2nd PP, and were 6th and 7th among the team's forwards in ES icetime, behind the WCE, Kesler, and Cooke.
The Sedins didn't get top minutes with the Canucks until the next season, AV's first ad head coach.
The Sedins took over half way into the season in ACTUAL product on the ice if not in name. They became the 1st PP unit and put up the points to prove it.
AV didn't make them into anything, they had already become what they are. Anson Carter led the Canucks in goals and PP goals. Of his 33, 32 were assisted by the Sedins including EVERY PP goal.
The Sedins took over half way into the season in ACTUAL product on the ice if not in name. They became the 1st PP unit and put up the points to prove it.
AV didn't make them into anything, they had already become what they are. Anson Carter led the Canucks in goals and PP goals. Of his 33, 32 were assisted by the Sedins including EVERY PP goal.
Have to agree with this...
Sedins were on their way, and any coach would of benefited.
What AV should get all the credit in the world for is putting Burrows on that line which created the chemistry that exploded the Twins from PPG players to Art Ross winners. That was a move outta left field when he threw a scrub 3rd liner to play along side the Twins on the 1st line.
Huge kudos for recognizing the potential line working.
Vancouver fans should punish him by banishing him to Toronto! Come on, he only lead a team to the Stanley Cup final 2 seasons ago and hasn't missed the playoffs since 2008. Obviously he's over the hill.
The Sedins took over half way into the season in ACTUAL product on the ice if not in name. They became the 1st PP unit and put up the points to prove it.
AV didn't make them into anything, they had already become what they are. Anson Carter led the Canucks in goals and PP goals. Of his 33, 32 were assisted by the Sedins including EVERY PP goal.
Agreed. It's nonsensical to even suggest that AV turned the Sedins into what they are today.
I guess we should discount the general process of maturing. While no doubt the coaching staff pays a role in the on ice product, it is amusing to say the least to AV turned the Sedins into anything.
I tend to agree with you in that im of the mind that the coach can really only put a player into a position to succeed at this level. Its up to the player.
What however irritates me is when people say "blah blah blah <insert canned coach criticism>" and then discount the exact same thing with said coach if its positive.
One cannot logically say AV ruins players, cant develop players etc without recognizing hes has developed players etc.
I think this is an important point. Because Gillis and AV have become friends, Gillis can give his input without the coach feeling like he's meddling. I have a feeling Gillis is the kind of guy that gets his fingers into every piece of the pie.
I dont get the impression they are friends. Where did you see this?
Not all on the coach of course, but I think it's time for a change.
Be careful what you wish for. The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't know, and other cliches like that. You might shoot yourself in the foot.
There'd be a chance that the Canucks struggle during an extended adjustment period, and then there's also a chance that the coach just sucks for your team altogether, even worse than AV, as well as the next coach, and the next. Look at Calgary and Washington for examples. After 5 years, only now has Calgary's coaching problems been resolved (hopefully). Top coaches don't grow on trees unfortunately.
Be careful what you wish for. The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't know, and other cliches like that. You might shoot yourself in the foot.
There'd be a chance that the Canucks struggle during an extended adjustment period, and then there's also a chance that the coach just sucks for your team altogether, even worse than AV, as well as the next coach, and the next. Look at Calgary and Washington for examples. After 5 years, only now has Calgary's coaching problems been resolved (hopefully). Top coaches don't grow on trees unfortunately.
Coaching change might do the nucks good. But ive been a fan long enough to say it hasnt ever really done much for them long term.
Theres also lots of info out there on that seems to show coaching changes dont really have the impact people hope for. I did some google research on this last year but heres a newer article on it from a month back:
…we use matching techniques to compare the performance of football programs that replaced their head coach to those where the coach was retained. The analysis has two major innovations over existing literature. First, we consider how entry conditions moderate the effects of coaching replacements. Second, we examine team performance for several years following the replacement to assess its effects.
We find that for particularly poorly performing teams, coach replacements have little effect on team performance as measured against comparable teams that did not replace their coach. However, for teams with middling records—that is, teams where entry conditions for a new coach appear to be more favorable—replacing the head coach appears to result in worse performance over subsequent years than comparable teams who retained their coach.
Quote:
From our analysis, it emerges that coach replacement does not produce statistically significant effects on team performance. This result turns out both when we estimate the impact of coach change including among controls team fixed effects and when using a matching estimator, in which selection on the treatment depends on team performance in the latest rounds. This finding confirms results obtained by some recent studies (for example, Balduck & Buelens, 2007; Bruinshoofd & TerWeel, 2004)
Quote:
The effect of a change of coach on team performance in theNHL has been estimated in a parametric model, also based on match-level data. Ordered probit regression has been used to represent the discrete and hierarchical structure of the ‘win-tie-lose’ match-results-dependent variable. The use of lagged match results data provides a control for the phenomenon of mean-reversion in team performance. The empirical results suggest teams that changed their coach within-season tended to perform worse subsequently in the short term than those that did not. However, the detrimental effect appears to be short-lived, and over a longer time horizon the effect is almost neutral. In the broader context of the debate concerning the managerial influence on organizational performance, the results suggest that a change of management in the midst of a crisis is unlikely to improve performance by more than might have been expected through the natural tendency for mean-reversion after a spell of poor performance.
Vancouver fans should punish him by banishing him to Toronto! Come on, he only lead a team to the Stanley Cup final 2 seasons ago and hasn't missed the playoffs since 2008. Obviously he's over the hill.
oh please take him, we will fedex him to air canada center.....Nah, i don't want AV to coach the leafs, they don't deserve to have such a terrible coach.
Good for him, once again I will drive him to the airport so he can fly to his new job as soon as possible. Marc Crawford is an obvious upgrade over AV.
Eh.... You might want to talk to some Kings or Stars fans before you go that route...
I would trade AV for a coach like Babcock or Q in a heartbeart. Given coaches on the market, however, I'd say swapping him out with somebody else at this point in time would at best be a lateral move. I think the Canucks could use a fresh voice, but let's be honest, what candidates are there right now who are as good as or better than AV? I don't see Babcock or Q getting fired anytime soon (although a lot of us thought Q's job was on the line last season, but look at what he's doing with Chicago now).
