HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Why the 3 Year Extension for Vigneault?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2009, 06:13 PM
  #26
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakovsky View Post
Not entirely true. I've seen arguments stating that Nonis should have predicted Naslund would deteriorate after 2004 and that he should not have been signed to a new contract.
That might have been argued but it's more of a fringe opinion.

It was an expensive contract but at least the term was reasonable. Can you imagine Naslund receiving a 5 year term at that dollar value?

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 07:41 PM
  #27
Flash Walken
Registered User
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakovsky View Post
Not entirely true. I've seen arguments stating that Nonis should have predicted Naslund would deteriorate after 2004 and that he should not have been signed to a new contract.
Those were my thoughts at the time...

Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 07:58 PM
  #28
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken View Post
Those were my thoughts at the time...
well you were mostly on your own.

the vast majority thought that the Canucks did an amazing thing by keeping together the core of the team from before the lockout.

Of course losing Malik and Sopel really hurt when defensemen started getting injured, but you didn't see a lot of criticism for that in the summer of 05. Besides, signing them to the contracts they received would have been far worse than the Naslund signing.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 08:11 PM
  #29
Flash Walken
Registered User
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,233
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ernie View Post
well you were mostly on your own.

the vast majority thought that the Canucks did an amazing thing by keeping together the core of the team from before the lockout.

Of course losing Malik and Sopel really hurt when defensemen started getting injured, but you didn't see a lot of criticism for that in the summer of 05. Besides, signing them to the contracts they received would have been far worse than the Naslund signing.
Pretty much in agreement.

Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-13-2009, 09:49 PM
  #30
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 9,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken View Post
Those were my thoughts at the time...
My thoughts weren't that I predicted Naslund would deteriorate but most definitely my thoughts were that the core needed to be blown up as soon as Burke walked out the door (and Burke all but said the same thing as he walked out the door).

And while it may have been a minority opinion at the time it wasn't a small minority. Many people voiced the same thoughts.

BUt on the topic of this thread....if the biggest thing to complain about is the extension of a coach in an organization that isn't scared to bury a couple of million dollars of salaries in the minors and therefore will have no issue turfing a coach I'd say it's been a pretty decent summer for Gillis.

ON the turtle strategy...I'm not sure that's a coaching thing but a player thing. Many teams do the same thing even if the coach is screaming not to. I seem to recall on the feed I was watching in the Chicago series as the canucks were sitting on that 1-0 lead in the game mentioning that AV and the coaching staff were trying to get the team to not sit back.

tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 01:35 AM
  #31
Donky
Registered User
 
Donky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 302
vCash: 500
I disagree with Tony most of the time...and I am a supporter of AV's approach and skills as a coach.

As a fan I don't care how much they pay AV or if they fire him and have to eat some salary. It doesn't affect me at all....I mean really who gives a ****.

BUT if I were a GM I would always try to sign my coach to short term contracts. Why...because how often are coaches in this league lured away to other jobs? Hardly ever. Why risk a couple of million dollars on someone that you may have to fire for any number of unforeseen reasons? Most coaches are thankful just to have a coveted NHL job...they don't jump ship very often. Keep them hungry and on a short leash. One year extension every summer...having said that...

Perhaps MG has a very good read on AV's rapport with the players and that the organization is in great shape with AV as coach and cannot fathom any kind of firing anytime in the next three seasons.

Donky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 02:52 AM
  #32
Balls Mahoney
Fair and Balanced
 
Balls Mahoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: +7 495 695-37-76
Country: United States
Posts: 11,596
vCash: 500
AV is so under-rated it's not funny. I think he's a top three coach in the league. He gets the most out of his players. He's a top notch coach with developing prospects (Would Edler, Raymond, Bieksa, Hansen, Wellwood, and Bernier be the players they are today under Crawford?) and young players. He has a good relationship with Luongo and the Sedins, and he has a general laid back style style that is like a breath of fresh air after the Crawford era. The only thing you can really fault him on is having a consistently ****** powerplay but that tends to happen when you only have Byron Ritchie or similar pieces of crap manning your special teams. AV is awesome and I could see him finishing out this deal.

Balls Mahoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 03:50 AM
  #33
CallMeJerry
Registered User
 
CallMeJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dana Murzyn View Post
Ugh. I get so tired of hearing this.

AV's "turtle" strategy earned the team a 100-point season. It was poor player execution against an excellent opponent that cost them Game 4. And it was not enough "turtle" that eventually cost them game 6 and the series.
Well to be fair AV stopped turtling in the 08-09 seaosn for the most part.

But specifically in Game 4 against the Hawks - and I point out this game because it turned out to be the pivotal game of the year - to my recollection, they played taking no chances at all throughout almost the whole game. I just checked the box score and the shots on goal reflect that (4-6-4 for the Canucks in regulation). Remember, the team was up 2-1 in the series. They showed that they could go toe-to-toe against the young, speedy Hawks. Well along comes Game 4 and there's the strategy change. And they lost. Not only did they lose. In my opinion, the coaches lack of faith in the team's ability to play straight up against the Hawks killed any confidence they had leading to the losses in games 5 & 6. In the season ending interviews, several players mentioned specifically that they wished they played differently in game 4.

CallMeJerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 03:54 AM
  #34
CallMeJerry
Registered User
 
CallMeJerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,421
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Balls Mahoney View Post
AV is so under-rated it's not funny. I think he's a top three coach in the league. He gets the most out of his players. He's a top notch coach with developing prospects (Would Edler, Raymond, Bieksa, Hansen, Wellwood, and Bernier be the players they are today under Crawford?) and young players. He has a good relationship with Luongo and the Sedins, and he has a general laid back style style that is like a breath of fresh air after the Crawford era. The only thing you can really fault him on is having a consistently ****** powerplay but that tends to happen when you only have Byron Ritchie or similar pieces of crap manning your special teams. AV is awesome and I could see him finishing out this deal.
Seriously?

CallMeJerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 04:06 AM
  #35
Dolemite
The one...the only..
 
Dolemite's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 36,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CallMeJerry View Post
- AV's still hurts the team with his tendency to go to the turtle strategy - most recently in Game 4 against the Blackhawks
My biggest gripe with this extension is AV putting in the wrong game plan for the series with the Blackhawks. They should have been checking the crap out of the Hawks at every opportunity.....like the Wings did to the Hawks in the WCF's. The Hawks were (and still are) a very young team (to the point where it was a liability) and should have used this to their advantage like the Oilers did in the 2006 series with the Sharks.

__________________
http://thenhlhotlist.azvibe.com/
Follow along on Twitter: http://twitter.com/azvibesports
Dolemite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 11:28 AM
  #36
freakydave
Registered User
 
freakydave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 796
vCash: 500
AV

I agree with Peter Griffin---
I am going on the record here- I will not critcize the coach this season.

freakydave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 11:41 AM
  #37
Ernie
Registered User
 
Ernie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,913
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolemite View Post
My biggest gripe with this extension is AV putting in the wrong game plan for the series with the Blackhawks. They should have been checking the crap out of the Hawks at every opportunity.....like the Wings did to the Hawks in the WCF's. The Hawks were (and still are) a very young team (to the point where it was a liability) and should have used this to their advantage like the Oilers did in the 2006 series with the Sharks.
The Canucks didn't really have the players to do it.

They had Burrows, Kesler, and Bernier each on one of the top 3 lines but otherwise their linemates were not going to play that stifling two-way shutdown game that Detroit can play.

An injection of Samuelsson, Hodgson, and Hansen might increase the team's ability to do that.

Ernie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 11:48 AM
  #38
Shane
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12,968
vCash: 500
Yeah, let's have a lame duck coach. Great idea Gallagher, you twit.

Shane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 12:27 PM
  #39
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
Slow news day? A three year deal is fine considering the coach is one of the lowest paid guys compared to the players.

VanEric 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 02:04 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.