HFBoards

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

AV Strikes Back: The Neutral Zone Wars Part II

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-14-2009, 01:39 PM
  #26
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Yeah, if you look at the NHL numbers for the past five seasons, while playing with the lead teams are generally outshot and teams trailing generally outshoot the other team. For example, the SF/SA ratio of a team with a one goal lead is ~0.87 and for a team with a one goal deficit ~1.15.

I don't know if it's necessarily the most effective strategy, but it's the one that most NHL coaches choose. For example, Detroit and San Jose didn't have those huge swings in being outshot even when they had the lead, and they ended up being two of the three best teams in the league.
I would suggest there is a difference between:

1. playing a smart, sound game with the lead
2. curling up into a ball whilst your opponent rains blows upon you, begging for the bell to ring.

Again, going back to that infamous Game Four - how many teams have won a playoff game with fewer than 14 shots on goal?

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 01:51 PM
  #27
Jay Cee
P4G
 
Jay Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
I would suggest there is a difference between:

1. playing a smart, sound game with the lead
2. curling up into a ball whilst your opponent rains blows upon you, begging for the bell to ring.

Again, going back to that infamous Game Four - how many teams have won a playoff game with fewer than 14 shots on goal?
As I said before you are operating on a completely flawed premise in this thread:

#1: The coach is primarily responsible for the final score of any given game.

and most importantly

#2: That that game would have been an assured victory had we "played to win" when other games in the series have shown that was anything but the case.

Jay Cee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 01:53 PM
  #28
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
I prefer to base my opinion on Vigneault's body of work as an NHL head coach rather than one game or several games in a series.
So do I.

He's missed the playoffs 3 times in 7 NHL seasons, and hasn't won anything as a coach at any level for over 20 years.

His record at the junior and minor-pro levels isn't exactly the stuff of legend, either.

Quote:
Trois Rivieres Draveurs

1986-1987: Last place in their division


Hull Olympiques

1987-1988: Won the QMJHL; 3rd in the Memorial Cup
1988-1989: 3rd place; lost in 2nd round
1989-1990: 6th place; lost in 2nd round
1990-1991: 2nd in division; lost in 1st round
1991-1992: 2nd in division; lost in 1st round


Beauport Harfangs

1995-1996: 1st in division; lost in finals
1996-1997: 6th in division; missed playoffs


Montreal Canadiens

1997-1998: 4th in division; lost in 2nd round
1998-1999: 5th in division; missed playoffs
1999-2000: 4th in division; missed playoffs
2000-2001: fired after 20 games


PEI Rocket

2003-2004: 3rd in division; lost in 2nd round
2004-2005: 4th in division; missed playoffs


Manitoba Moose

2005-2006: 3rd in division; lost in 2nd round

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 01:56 PM
  #29
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,405
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyatt4God View Post
As I said before you are operating on a completely flawed premise in this thread:

#1: The coach is primarily responsible for the final score of any given game.

and most importantly

#2: That that game would have been an assured victory had we "played to win" when other games in the series have shown that was anything but the case.
Okay, fine.

Again, how many teams have won a playoff game with fewer than 15 shots on goal?

Remember, in one of the two playoff series Vigneault has won, the team was shutout three times!

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 02:04 PM
  #30
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Yeah, if you look at the NHL numbers for the past five seasons, while playing with the lead teams are generally outshot and teams trailing generally outshoot the other team. For example, the SF/SA ratio of a team with a one goal lead is ~0.87 and for a team with a one goal deficit ~1.15.

I don't know if it's necessarily the most effective strategy, but it's the one that most NHL coaches choose. For example, Detroit and San Jose didn't have those huge swings in being outshot even when they had the lead, and they ended up being two of the three best teams in the league, so it's possible it is a useful strategy to keep your foot on the gas.
Those teams also have the horses to be able to reliably keep going like that, though.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 02:22 PM
  #31
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
Remember, in one of the two playoff series Vigneault has won, the team was shutout three times!
Yea, because both teams in that series were offensive superpowers.

That Canucks team was verrry thin up front. Very thin.

But don't let the details and historical accuracy get in the way of your hate-on.

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 02:25 PM
  #32
DanyHeatleyfnAllstar
French Coach!
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgry
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
Okay, fine.

Again, how many teams have won a playoff game with fewer than 15 shots on goal?

Remember, in one of the two playoff series Vigneault has won, the team was shutout three times!
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

DanyHeatleyfnAllstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 05:45 PM
  #33
BloatedGuppy
Registered User
 
BloatedGuppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,934
vCash: 500
I'm not always in love with AV's coaching decisions, but I will say that one thing I appreciate is that since he's come here the Canucks have had a discernible system. Seldom does it seem like there is not a plan in action. Contrast this to the Crawford days, when it was five guys swashbuckling all over the place and pure chaos in our own zone.

BloatedGuppy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 05:59 PM
  #34
Kid Canuck*
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,100
vCash: 500
Sure he has a better winning % out of any coach that has coached here for any significant amount of time. He also has been given the best tools to work with. Sure Crawford and Quinn were given some decent tools but either was given a top end goalie in the league. So my feeling is to see how he can rebound from a series in which the team basically outplayed the other team but when it game to the end of games were lacking finish or discipline weather it came by way of a giveaway or a lazy penalty. You could let him finish the final year of his contract and see what happens and risk of losing him or if you give him a 3 year contract and fire him after a year or two the remaining money doesn't count against the cap but is money still coming out of Aquillinis pocket. Seems low risk I suppose to sign him for a few years. If it doesn't work out, what Gillis has done on the positive end would far outweigh that.

Kid Canuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:20 PM
  #35
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
Those teams also have the horses to be able to reliably keep going like that, though.
Yeah, that's why I was non-committal about whether it actually was the case.

I do think that with time with the collection of two-way players the Canucks are building up front (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Hodgson, etc.) they should be able to give them more free reign to take chances offensively.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:35 PM
  #36
topheavyhookjaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kid Canuck View Post
Sure he has a better winning % out of any coach that has coached here for any significant amount of time. He also has been given the best tools to work with. Sure Crawford and Quinn were given some decent tools but either was given a top end goalie in the league. So my feeling is to see how he can rebound from a series in which the team basically outplayed the other team but when it game to the end of games were lacking finish or discipline weather it came by way of a giveaway or a lazy penalty. You could let him finish the final year of his contract and see what happens and risk of losing him or if you give him a 3 year contract and fire him after a year or two the remaining money doesn't count against the cap but is money still coming out of Aquillinis pocket. Seems low risk I suppose to sign him for a few years. If it doesn't work out, what Gillis has done on the positive end would far outweigh that.
Quinn had McLean who was a Vezina nominee, he wasn't Luongo in most people's minds, but he was at least a top 10 goalie in that stretch. And Bure is a better forward than we've ever had. That '94 team was as good a team as we've ever had. Crawford's teams had bigger organizational holes than either Quinn's or Vigneault's current team. I'd argue his first two years were pretty impressive given the lack of punch up front though.

That being said, I agree with your analysis of Vigneault, I think he's good for another year or two, and then who knows, but the 3 year contract is pretty standard.

topheavyhookjaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:35 PM
  #37
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wetcoaster View Post
Wetcoaster believes that he did so.
Referring to oneself in the 3rd party is very commonly done in the French language. AV obviously makde up his sentences in French first and then translated to English. FYE

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:39 PM
  #38
topheavyhookjaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Yeah, that's why I was non-committal about whether it actually was the case.

I do think that with time with the collection of two-way players the Canucks are building up front (Sedins, Kesler, Burrows, Hodgson, etc.) they should be able to give them more free reign to take chances offensively.
Raymond, Wellwood and Bernier improving could really help that as well. If that group can improve their production and effectiveness it would go a long way to making this team a lot tougher to handle. If they're all 30+ point guys, instead of just Bernier as a 30 point guy, this team has a lot more options.

topheavyhookjaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:40 PM
  #39
topheavyhookjaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
Referring to oneself in the 3rd party is very commonly done in the French language. AV obviously makde up his sentences in French first and then translated to English. FYE
Arrogant ********.

topheavyhookjaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 06:41 PM
  #40
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hi-wayman View Post
Quinn was not a better coach while with the Canucks. Quinn is very loyal to his players which is good that the players know they are allowed to play their game, but Quinn carried that to a fault in that he kept players past when they should have been replaced and he had a hard time inserting young players and rookies into a spot of importance on the roster.

Roger Nielson was the inventive coach that could react quickly to changes.
I agree with you completely on this. Quinn was loyal to his players to a fault and eventually it hurts the team. The other thing i recall, players start taking liberties at Quinn's expense.

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 07:12 PM
  #41
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
Referring to oneself in the 3rd party is very commonly done in the French language. AV obviously makde up his sentences in French first and then translated to English. FYE
Define French language. You mean, in Quebec?

Because this is completely unheard of in France.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 07:24 PM
  #42
rye&ginger
Registered User
 
rye&ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,156
vCash: 500
hrmm where does he use 3rd person? 'as coach' ? Is that 3rd person? or am I missing something.

edit: duh right at the end. Go AV. I like it.

rye&ginger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 07:26 PM
  #43
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,664
vCash: 500
Last word of the quote.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 07:40 PM
  #44
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 796
Quote:
Originally Posted by *Injektilo View Post
Define French language. You mean, in Quebec?

Because this is completely unheard of in France.
I don't think so. Here from a French from France website that explains the context where it is used, which is exactly the context AV used it in:

http://forums.futura-sciences.com/ne...singulier.html

C'est généralement utilisé pour parler de soi en tant que titulaire d'une fonction, probablement pour dire que la fonction ou le titre transcende la personne. Exemples célèbres: Louis XIV ou plus récement un de nos politiciens ("vous parlez au premier ministre de la France").

It is generally used to refer to oneself as an office holder, probably to say that the function or title transcends the individual. Famous examples: Louis XIV or more recently one or more of our politicians ( "you are talking to the Prime Minister of France").

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 07:41 PM
  #45
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
 
Hollywood Burrows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: VANCOUVER
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,629
vCash: 500
He's an average NHL coach. The Canucks will need a better coach to get to the next level, but AV is alright for now.

Hollywood Burrows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-14-2009, 08:09 PM
  #46
*Injektilo
Registered User
 
*Injektilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: France
Posts: 11,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outside99 View Post
I don't think so. Here from a French from France website that explains the context where it is used, which is exactly the context AV used it in:

http://forums.futura-sciences.com/ne...singulier.html

C'est généralement utilisé pour parler de soi en tant que titulaire d'une fonction, probablement pour dire que la fonction ou le titre transcende la personne. Exemples célèbres: Louis XIV ou plus récement un de nos politiciens ("vous parlez au premier ministre de la France").

It is generally used to refer to oneself as an office holder, probably to say that the function or title transcends the individual. Famous examples: Louis XIV or more recently one or more of our politicians ( "you are talking to the Prime Minister of France").
You'd have a point if "Vigneault" was his title and not his name.

*Injektilo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 10:11 AM
  #47
cc
Registered User
 
cc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,078
vCash: 500
You have to wonder how well AV would fair with just an average goaltender like Cloutier. I suspect that Crawford would have probably faired pretty well if he had the best goalie in Canucks history in net. I feel Luongo is the biggest reason for AVs success more than anything and AV has often joked in the media that his "stategy" was to rely on Louie

cc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 10:44 AM
  #48
Dana Murzyn
Registered User
 
Dana Murzyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cc View Post
You have to wonder how well AV would fair with just an average goaltender like Cloutier. I suspect that Crawford would have probably faired pretty well if he had the best goalie in Canucks history in net. I feel Luongo is the biggest reason for AVs success more than anything and AV has often joked in the media that his "stategy" was to rely on Louie
AV relies on his best player? What a punk!

Or put another way: you have to wonder how well AV would fare with the highest-scoring line in hockey. Because I feel the WCE was the biggest reason for Crawford's success.

Dana Murzyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 10:52 AM
  #49
BrockH
HFBoards Sponsor
 
BrockH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 2,554
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Yeah, if you look at the NHL numbers for the past five seasons, while playing with the lead teams are generally outshot and teams trailing generally outshoot the other team. For example, the SF/SA ratio of a team with a one goal lead is ~0.87 and for a team with a one goal deficit ~1.15.

I don't know if it's necessarily the most effective strategy, but it's the one that most NHL coaches choose. For example, Detroit and San Jose didn't have those huge swings in being outshot even when they had the lead, and they ended up being two of the three best teams in the league, so it's possible it is a useful strategy to keep your foot on the gas.
Where'd you get those stats from? I'm wondering if in the case of Detroit and San Jose there might still be a significant swing, but just they start off outshooting the opponents by so much that even with the swing they still are outshooting them (e.g. 1.3 SF/SA ratio when trailing and 1.15 SF/SA ratio when in the lead)?

BrockH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-15-2009, 10:52 AM
  #50
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BloatedGuppy View Post
I'm not always in love with AV's coaching decisions, but I will say that one thing I appreciate is that since he's come here the Canucks have had a discernible system. Seldom does it seem like there is not a plan in action. Contrast this to the Crawford days, when it was five guys swashbuckling all over the place and pure chaos in our own zone.
Aka Pat Quinn Pond Hockey System.

Wetcoaster 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 12:34 AM.

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.