| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| just1n |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 12:24:53
Alain Vigneault has resigned with Vancouver. Not sure on terms, not a whole lot of info out as of yet.
Thoughts? I'm not surprised at all.
http://tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=396662 |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/07/2012 : 07:51:26
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
But I still think Julien deserves some credit for his team crushing Vancouver on the scoreboard as well as trying to take it to them physically. The penalties that game were 12-15 with Boston having more. That being said, 15 of those penalties were 'coincidental' and if you look at the list of the players involved, many of those Canucks were Kesler(17 min), Burrow(14 min), and the Sedin (10 min) compared with Boston who had only Lucic and Seidenberg with more than 10 min in PIMs.
That is a great example of the lack of discipline of the Canucks. 3 of their top 4 players tool a combined 41 PIM's.
Agree to disagree may be all we can do after reading the above. You're telling me that Julien deserves credit for his team's aggressive play that resulted in Vancouver's top 3 taking undisciplined penalties??? C'mon, go back and look at the boxscore again. Pay some attention to the time and the score when most of those penalties were taken. It was the 3rd period of a game the Canucks were losing 4-0!!! Aside from the Burrows "unsportsmanlike conduct" minor, they were all with under 13mins left in the game too! Even the misconduct to Burrows can't be looked at in a bad way considering Chara got the same thing. That's a trade off the Canucks would have taken ANY time!
The only thing worse than either creditting Julien for this or blaming AV would be had the Canucks not done anything to fight back, people would be claiming they didn't stand up for themselves! Blowouts often come to this and we usually call it "setting the tone" for the next and future games! Sorry Beans, but calling these penalties a lack of discipline is really grasping for support of your argument as far as i'm concerned.
Either way, that was just one year i was asking about as you claimed you could point to specific "coaching moves" that either won or lost teams the cup for the past 10-15 years, another point that i think is unsubstantiated. I guess you can claim that, but you really can't prove it, nor can i prove any theory wrong so we're wasting our time. I'm done with this........... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/07/2012 : 06:15:36
Well, again we agree to disagree. To the point of Julien putting Chara infront of the net. I know he wasn't the first guy to do it and I agree that it didn't work. I didn't say a coaching decision has to be trailblazing to be good, did I?? He made a change and it didn't work. My point was his actions told his team they would not rest on their laurels and expect a different outcome. I agree that the Aaron Rome hit was likely the tipping point to the series. But I still think Julien deserves some credit for his team crushing Vancouver on the scoreboard as well as trying to take it to them physically. The penalties that game were 12-15 with Boston having more. That being said, 15 of those penalties were 'coincidental' and if you look at the list of the players involved, many of those Canucks were Kesler(17 min), Burrow(14 min), and the Sedin (10 min) compared with Boston who had only Lucic and Seidenberg with more than 10 min in PIMs.
That is a great example of the lack of discipline of the Canucks. 3 of their top 4 players tool a combined 41 PIM's.
Personally, I don't recall a pile of line juggling and changes to anything the Canucks did. And I get they made it to the 7th game. It's a tired coversation. Let's not forget the Canucks won their games all by 1 goal and all scored late or in OT. They never 'dominated' a single game in that series and I don't think AV did anything to impact the series. I believe he did rest very firmly on his laurels.
But we will have to agree to disagree.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/06/2012 : 20:33:01
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
I have to say as well, that looking back and chatting to some people, many are pissed that he didn't play Schneider more. BUT, let's not forget, this wasn't the Schneider we saw this season. That's not to say he wasn't good last year, but with another full season on his resume with many more starts including big games like the return to Beantown in Jan and this kid came a long way since then.
Good points Alex, and I agree with your post. AV did not sit back and do nothing, and he tinkers with things as much as other coaches do. That they fell short, by a single game no less, is hard to pin on coaching.
The one thing that I did not agree with is game 4 and Schneider - I am one of those that strongly felt AV made a mistake in not starting him in game 4 of the finals. When your starting goalie gives up 8 goals in a game, you give him a rest the next night - even in the finals. AV played the Schneider card with some success in the first round against CHI - they didn't win that game 6, but he played well enough that coaches should have had some faith in him. I sometimes wonder how that series might have been different had Schneids gotten that start. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/06/2012 : 16:38:42
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
There were a few things that Julien did that also stand out. Firstly, after having the most anemic power play in the history of the playoffs, he made an attempt at getting Zdeno Chara as a screen in front of the net. Now, I think we can all agree this was not successful on the ice, however that did show the players that doing the same thing the expecting a different result is absurd. The fact that he quickly reshuffled his power play for game 2 and had results (1 for 3) also proved wise.
Secondly, and most importantly, it how well prepared for game 3 the Bruins were. I get they were coming home and had an advantage there, but after losing 2 games in OT and being down 2-0, most teams fold (see NJ this year). But the Bruins came out and beat down the Canucks and outscored them 12-1 in the next 2 games.
Contrasting, AV had no answer for Boston in games 3, 4, 6, or 7. Vancouver was never really in either game 6 or 7 and they looked defeated. 4 goals in 4:14 in game 6. No response. At times it's not the action that is incorrect, it's the lack of action. To that point, I don't think AV is a horrible coach for what he does. He's always been indecisive to me and does not take action when action is needed.
Ultimately, CJ did things and some of them proved successfull while others did not. AV did the same thing he always does, which is often not enough of anything.
Just my humble opinion.
From your side, did AV did anything that stands out for you from last year's final???
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
I see your points, but honestly, putting Chara in front of the goalie? Not only did it have little to no affect, it's been done countless times before. He's not the first coach to put a big body in front of a goalie, heck, he's not even the first to do so with big Z! AV mixed his PP up too, but it's similar to things he did during seasons past or even earlier in 2011 when the PP went into mini slumps.
Now, how well they were prepared for game 3 is a good example. It'd be even better if we had some sort of proof that he deserves the bulk of the credit. From everything i heard last year, it was Aaron Rome who riled up the big bad Bruins and handed them game 3 with his suspendable hit? Also, you mention that AV did nothing in the series to "answer back" to those lopsided lossed in Boston. Well, it's not like he sat back and waved a white towel, his team put up 41 shots in game 3. This is in an 8-1 loss! Seems to me that the goalies had a big say in the outcome of this one.
Game 4 saw Tim Thomas stop every shot (40ish i believe?) that the Canucks threw at him. At the other end of the ice, Luongo was stopping just 16 of 20 before being relieved in the net by Schneider. Maybe one could argue that AV should have started Schneider but it's easy to throw out that 8-1 drubbing and assume Lu had an off night so why not come back with your #1. Personally, i'd have started the 3rd with Schneider rather than wait for Lu to give up a 4th goal, but with the way Thomas was playing that night, it prob wouldn't have mattered. Again, goaltending was key.
You ask what AV did that maybe stands out? Well, to be honest, nothing in particular, but then i don't think anything you mentioned about CJ stands out either but look back to game 5. After being pulled in back to back poor performances in games 3 and 4, there was a ton of pressure on AV to start Schneider when they returned home. The airwaves around town here were going crazy with callers demanding he start Schneider! What did AV do? Started Luongo. How was he rewarded? Lu posted his 2nd 1-0 shutout of the series, that's how.
I can't recall specific's like when AV called time outs in those blow out losses or what exact line changes he made, but believe me, line juggling is one thing that many find he does too much around here. So to say he sits idle and doesn't react to situations is not really accurate.
I have to say as well, that looking back and chatting to some people, many are pissed that he didn't play Schneider more. BUT, let's not forget, this wasn't the Schneider we saw this season. That's not to say he wasn't good last year, but with another full season on his resume with many more starts including big games like the return to Beantown in Jan and this kid came a long way since then. Last year you had a Vezina finalist in Luongo and a very unproven backup in Schneider. Too many, Canucks fans especially, look at the success Schneider had this season and revert back to '11 and claim he should have been our playoff goalie and that AV screwed up. Again, imo, that's not fair blame to be thrown his way. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/06/2012 : 15:10:18
There were a few things that Julien did that also stand out. Firstly, after having the most anemic power play in the history of the playoffs, he made an attempt at getting Zdeno Chara as a screen in front of the net. Now, I think we can all agree this was not successful on the ice, however that did show the players that doing the same thing the expecting a different result is absurd. The fact that he quickly reshuffled his power play for game 2 and had results (1 for 3) also proved wise.
Secondly, and most importantly, it how well prepared for game 3 the Bruins were. I get they were coming home and had an advantage there, but after losing 2 games in OT and being down 2-0, most teams fold (see NJ this year). But the Bruins came out and beat down the Canucks and outscored them 12-1 in the next 2 games.
Contrasting, AV had no answer for Boston in games 3, 4, 6, or 7. Vancouver was never really in either game 6 or 7 and they looked defeated. 4 goals in 4:14 in game 6. No response. At times it's not the action that is incorrect, it's the lack of action. To that point, I don't think AV is a horrible coach for what he does. He's always been indecisive to me and does not take action when action is needed.
Ultimately, CJ did things and some of them proved successfull while others did not. AV did the same thing he always does, which is often not enough of anything.
Just my humble opinion.
From your side, did AV did anything that stands out for you from last year's final???
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/06/2012 : 12:26:46
I'm cool with that. But before we complete this, please don't go with 15 years, but tell me what Claude Julien did to outcoach AV in last years final. Is there one or two specific things or "systems" he implemented that maybe i missed? I'm not being sarcastic, i'm serious. Maybe i just don't see these things as well as others and i'd love to be enlightened. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/06/2012 : 07:44:29
Alex, let me start by saying that I assumed your comments were in jest or at least not intended maliciously. Trust me when I say that I can stand the heat in the kitchen. However, I have to have my moderator hat on and although you and I may be able to have heated conversations including a few personal shots here and there, we all have to follow the same forum guidelines.
I really don't want to continue this discussion but I will say this. We do disagree. I completely disagree with the amount of value placed on coaching in the playoffs. I am not saying it's always a great coach who wins. But great coaching always wins. I can look back to each of the last 10-15 Stanley Cups and point specifically to coaching decisions that won or lost the Stanley Cup.
Once teams make it to the finals, it's unlikely there is a noticeable difference of talent on the ice. The difference is always coaching. What coach makes the right decision at the right time.
We shall agree to disagree.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/05/2012 : 16:16:32
Beans....my apologies, even though i don't think they are warranted. You must have missed the "or" in that statement. You see, i know you are intelligent AND therefore you "get" what i am/was saying, therefore the third option as to my read of your opinion is that you are too stubborn or biased to admit it. 
Either way, sorry for that, i respect you enough that i'm not about to call you unintelligent. However, i certainly am allowed to have an opinion of your opinion and i personally think that claiming a guy can't win the cup after making it to game 7 of the final is absolutely ludicrous. I'm assuming you must have made whack of money on game 7 last year betting on Boston, right? I mean, you are so sure that AV will never win a cup with Vancouver that it must have been an easy wager and win! 
I guess where we differ is that imo you give too much credit to the coach. System or no system the fact is, the Kings are playing the best hockey they've ever played as a group and the other teams didn't. Mix in the hottest goalie in a long time, arguably hotter than even Thomas last year, and a full compliment of their high end talent (Richards, Doughty, Carter, Kopitar) playing far better than ANY of them did all season and you'll see a team that you or i could prob have coached to the finals!
I guess we just see things differently on this? See, i recall Calgary's run to the final in '04 too. But i don't recall them winning because their coach implemented systems. I recall the Kipper playing lights out including 5 shoutouts in the playoffs and carrying the Flames on his back at times. Same goes for Edm. a couple years later. Roloson was a stud and going into the finals was considered a front runner for the Conn Smythe! My point is, goalie's are HUGE when it comes to winning the cup. Unless you have the fire power of the Pens or an Oiler's team from the 80's, you usually need to not just have a good goalie, but he needs to be playing extremely well to. Yes, there are exceptions of course, but for the most part that's what you'll see.
Again, i'm not saying a coach is not a valuable part of the success, i just don't think a coach deserves as much credit as some people think they do. The only evidence that possibly shows Sutter outcoaching any of his opposition is the wins, and while they're also the most important part at this point, i don't think he can be creditted with them. As far as i can see, he can't win without his players, but his players could still win without him.  |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/05/2012 : 08:41:33
First off, Alex, I certainly did not appreciate this comment.
But i do find it laughable when someone says he's not capable of winning a cup with the Canucks when they came as close as they did already.Sorry, but if you don't see how ridiculous that comment is, then you're too stubborn/biased to admit it, your not very intelligent or you just don't get it.
Last time I checked, I have the ability to share any opinion about hockey I want on this site. If it doesn't match your opinion or you don't agree with it, does it mean you have the ability to comment on peoples intelligence?? You, me, and everyone else still need to follow the forum guidelines. Please and Thank You.
But to answer your question, I have just two words to contrast how little making it to the 7 game of the Stanley Cup finals means. Craig MacTavish. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. 2nd place is the first loser. Insert what ever other cliche you wish, not winning is not winning regardless of how it happens.
You know my points and my opinions. You will continue to view my statements how ever you wish. For example, I never once said that Darryl Sutter is a brilliant coach who can unseat the great Scottie Bowman. However, it is hard to argue that he is out-coaching his opposition in this year's playoffs. He did the same thing when Calgary went on their run in '05 and Craig MacTavish did the same thing in '06 during the Oilers run. I am not saying that either of those guys are elite coaches. But they did out-coach their opposition in those playoffs.
Ultimately, we differ in opinions. But what is laughable is that for all of the times people accuse me of being biased it's amazing how little people can recognize bias in their views.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 21:36:13
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, I am so so super duper glad you brought up the Kings.
Riddle me this, one who believe that AV is the man, how are the Kings better than the Canucks??
Are they better in net?? I don't think so.
Do they have a better group of defensemen?? Nope. I think other than Doughty that Vancouver's defensemen have it in spades over the Kings.
What about their forwards? I don't know. Maybe the Kings are better in this department but it's not by a whole bunch.
So why did the Kings win????
I'll give you a clue. That goofy looking suit behind the the Kings bench from Viking, Alberta installed a system. That system is effective and their players buy into the plans of that goofy SOB completely.
The Kings didn't out play the Canucks on skill. They outplayed the Canucks with their system and approach to the game.
That, my friend, is coaching.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
1. The Kings are in fact better than VAN in net. Much better. I would swap Quick for either Luongo or Schneider in a second. Hell, I'd trade them both for Quick. As Alex posted, a 1.44 GAA and a .947 SV% over 16 games so far - playing against the best teams in the west? That is nuts. Quick outplayed both goaltenders all year long, and in the first round, period.
2. The Kings do have a relatively equal defense, although they do possess that one piece, the stud dman, that you have long professed that teams cannot win without. Vancouver does not have it, and LA does. The rest are similar.
3. The Kings have, IMO a better sized top 6 (although not better skilled), and a deeper bottom 6, than VAN does right now. LA's top 6 would be the envy of most teams in the NHL right now (it was not that way all year long), they are 2 solidly balanced scoring lines with size and grit through all 6. Their bottom 6 forwards are better than VAN right now, and have shown they are capable of.
As for the first round of the playoffs, I think VAN lost for several reasons:
- No Daniel Sedin for first 2 games - that is a big hole for VAN
- Ryan Kesler was seemingly playing with one shoulder - when he is not running well, the team generally does not run well as he owns the secondary scoring and second line effectiveness, as well as the PK
- some shockingly bad play by Alex Edler, consistently so. Our rising star and #1 dman played the worst 5 games I have seen him play. He was once seen as the near future #1 dman in Vancouver, and now his name pops up in trade speculation.
- LA effectively shut down the top guns of the Canucks - great tenacious forechecking, beating them to the puck.
- LA effectively outmuscled Vancouver's top forwards - they're a big squad, and VAN does not have much of a physical answer for big strong teams.
- Quick played unbelievable hockey - as he continues to do now. The Canucks were not without shots (avg over 30 per game) and not without chances, but he put up a wall all the way through.
I echo Alex - coaching is part of any sport, hockey is no different. But in a 7 game series anything can happen - injuries, bad play by key players, run into hot/streaky/lucky opponents. Even when you coach well, s*&t happens. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 17:00:49
Beans, you'd better contact this guy! HE's clearly not understanding the affect Sutter is having on this Kings team!
*From Kevin Allen of USA Today*
Quick's 1.44 goals-against average and .947 save percentage are primary reasons why the Kings are 14-2 with a 2-0 lead going into Monday night's Game 3 (8 ET, NBC Sports Network) of the best-of-seven Stanley Cup Final.
Quick's postseason playoff GAA and save percentage are the best recorded by a Stanley Cup Final goalie, with a minimum of 10 games played, since Jacques Plante posted a 1.43 GAA and .949 save percentage over 10 games for the St. Louis Blues in 1969.
Is Sutter eligible for the Conn Smythe?
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 16:49:09
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, I am so so super duper glad you brought up the Kings.
Riddle me this, one who believe that AV is the man, how are the Kings better than the Canucks??
Are they better in net?? I don't think so.
Do they have a better group of defensemen?? Nope. I think other than Doughty that Vancouver's defensemen have it in spades over the Kings.
What about their forwards? I don't know. Maybe the Kings are better in this department but it's not by a whole bunch.
So why did the Kings win????
I'll give you a clue. That goofy looking suit behind the the Kings bench from Viking, Alberta installed a system. That system is effective and their players buy into the plans of that goofy SOB completely.
The Kings didn't out play the Canucks on skill. They outplayed the Canucks with their system and approach to the game.
That, my friend, is coaching.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
First off smartass, i never said AV was "the man". I don't even think he's in the top tier of coaches necessarily. But i do find it laughable when someone says he's not capable of winning a cup with the Canucks when they came as close as they did already. Sorry, but if you don't see how ridiculous that comment is, then you're too stubborn/biased to admit it, your not very intelligent or you just don't get it. I'm not saying coaching isn't important, i just simply believe that you need a mix of skill, coaching, players performing to their capabilities, etc all mixing at the right time and that my friend is what we're all witnessing with the LA Kings.
I noticed you've gone to the "systems" that the LA coaching staff has instilled now and no longer the Canucks lack of discipline that you claimed was their downfall the other day. Did you perhaps finally realize that discipline wasn't in fact the Canucks downfall this season?
As for the two teams and their comparisons, i'll answer that in one big swoop. I think overall that the Canucks are the better team. Overall. THAT, is taking into consideration when both teams have all their players playing at their very best. Now, if the best team could ALWAYS play their best, some of those Oilers teams of the 80's and Habs of the 70's would have gone undefeated. Be it single games, or 7 game series', there exists this thing called upsets. Yes, coaching and systems and discipline can def have a say, but so too can injuries, slumps, teams performing at their peaks, etc.
If Darryl Sutter is such a genius, when did he become so? The guy hasn't done a whole lot in his playoff career as a coach, including coaching 3 div winning teams (2 of which won their conference) to 2 first round exits and one wopping 2nd round exit! Tell me something, in Sutter's first 10 years as a coach, he made it past the 2nd round a grand total of once. He then made the finals the very next year and lost. At that point were you claiming he'd never coach a team to a cup as well? Cuz he's pretty close right now you know.
Somehow, he's suddenly the miracle man eh? Scotty Bowman, move aside! The new KING is here! Don't worry Van, StL, Pho and NJ (maybe), no way you got beat by a team that peaked at the right time, it was the coach who beat you!  |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 15:30:53
Alex, I am so so super duper glad you brought up the Kings.
Riddle me this, one who believe that AV is the man, how are the Kings better than the Canucks??
Are they better in net?? I don't think so.
Do they have a better group of defensemen?? Nope. I think other than Doughty that Vancouver's defensemen have it in spades over the Kings.
What about their forwards? I don't know. Maybe the Kings are better in this department but it's not by a whole bunch.
So why did the Kings win????
I'll give you a clue. That goofy looking suit behind the the Kings bench from Viking, Alberta installed a system. That system is effective and their players buy into the plans of that goofy SOB completely.
The Kings didn't out play the Canucks on skill. They outplayed the Canucks with their system and approach to the game.
That, my friend, is coaching.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 13:51:42
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I find it funny that we have now proven that the Sedins produce at a very good and respectable pace in the playoffs; we have proven in the past that Luongo is not the issue, his numbers are stellar in the playoffs overall.
Then, we come to notice that the team definitely plays very undisciplined in the playoffs; and, that their power play was pretty crap overall in the last few playoff runs.
Um . . . that is EXACTLY the responsibility of the coach, guys. Power play is one of the big things you can judge a coach's performance on - ESPECIALLY when you have the Sedins and Kesler playing for you! And discipline? Directly the responsibility of the coach to harness and maintain.
Um.... the PP has not exactly been crap over the last few playoff runs. It was crap over the last 2 playoff series, over a 4 year span. For the other 7 (over 3 years) series, the PP was actually very good - a combined 39-for-152, or nearly 26%. That is a pretty unbelievable PP% in the playoffs, and to average that for 7 series spanning 3 years, is pretty remarkable.
And when the PP does go to crap (which it certainly has been for the last 2 playoff series), it was against a Conn Smythe winning goalie, and then another (probable) Conn Smythe winning goalie. Perhaps coaching is not the only thing wrong here?
As for discipline - yes, I agree that discipline is ultimately the coach's responsibility, and they Canucks have certainly been one of the most penalized playoff teams over the last 4 years. However, looking at last year's cup run it is obvious that bad discipline does not always mean early exit to the playoffs - otherwise both BOS and VAN should not have been there at the end.
If you want to look at reasons for Vancouver's inability to get the ultimate prize over the last 4 years, there are many. AV might not be the best coach out there, but IMO he is capable of coaching a team to the cup.
|
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 12:22:50
Slozo....While i don't totally agree with you, and with making every effort to not get totally caught up in my view vs yours as far as the coach and discipline, lemme ask you this....
Is it possible for a coach to "get better" / improve? If so, is that not exactly what AV has done? So many consider the Canucks underachievers in those years when Chi knocked them out, but let's not forget, the Canucks were never any sort of big favorite in those series. You can throw in the Anaheim one as well as some like to call that year an underachieving one as well? For arguments sake, let's say PP and discipline was the #1 issue those years. Now, let's look to last year when they made the final. Could AV have improved his coaching? Could he have "reeled them in" and had them a little more disciplined? Could he have improved the PP? If so, did he learn to be a better coach and is that part of the reason they went to the final? Is it not then fair to say that their PP dried up at the worst time? Have you any idea just how good it was up until the Bruins series??? They were running at a very impressive rate which happened to be over 30% through 3 rounds. The Canucks punished teams for taking liberties with them as they had all season en route to the President's trophy. When they ran into Chara and the Boston PK, plus the red hot Tim Thomas, they stubbled. Unfortunately it was at the worst possible time. They went <6% in the final and it cost them. So, is AV suddenly bad because his PP dried up for a 7 game stretch???
Fast forward to this year. Is it the coach's fault they lost in round 1 this year to this Kings team? If so, are there 2 and maybe 3 other coaches who are to blame for losing to this same Kings team??? No way you can put this season's playoff loss on AV, unless i'm missing something he did or didn't do??? |
| n/a |
Posted - 06/04/2012 : 07:15:34
I find it funny that we have now proven that the Sedins produce at a very good and respectable pace in the playoffs; we have proven in the past that Luongo is not the issue, his numbers are stellar in the playoffs overall.
Then, we come to notice that the team definitely plays very undisciplined in the playoffs; and, that their power play was pretty crap overall in the last few playoff runs.
Um . . . that is EXACTLY the responsibility of the coach, guys. Power play is one of the big things you can judge a coach's performance on - ESPECIALLY when you have the Sedins and Kesler playing for you! And discipline? Directly the responsibility of the coach to harness and maintain.
This thread has shown me one thing . . . it's proven to me that actually Vigneault is a worse coach than I at first thought! 
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 06/03/2012 : 12:23:09
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Your strengthing my arguement Alex
Well, i gotta be honest, that wasn't my intent.
Duke, what i don't agree with is your theory that you have to "push back" when it comes to the rough stuff in the playoffs and that's why the "Sedin's will never lead Van to a cup". Not all guys who are effective play a physical style in the playoffs. I think what you're missing is that the Sedin's might not dish out hits, but they are amongst the best of the non physical players when it comes to taking a hit! Look at the hit Hank took from Dustin Brown. Did it change the way he played the rest of the way? Not at all. These guys are often the targets of hits as teams have tried over the years to get them off their game. It seldom works. Look back to the finals last year. The goals didn't come, but the Sedin's continued to play exactly the way they always do, unfortunately they ran into the hottest goalie at the time. IMO, it wasn't the twins lack of physicality or "pushing back" that cost the Canucks the cup, it wasn't the coach not keeping them disciplined either. It was a combination of things but the biggest contributor was running into a goalie playing the greatest hockey of his career.
Heck, it couldn't be AV's fault last year, even Beans is willing to admit that!  |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/02/2012 : 16:16:20
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
Your strengthing my arguement Alex .....A.V was the least of Van`s problems. Where were the Sedin brothers on all those 0 `fers on the Canucks PP`s ??....even at 15 - 20 % they may very well have won the cup.
In my opinion, watching the Canucks play during the last couple of post seasons........Van. goes as Ryan Kesler ( and his line ) goes.....When kesler is flying, Van wins....when he doesn`t show, Van will most likely lose, during the playoffs i mean. NOT the regular season.
He is Van`s center - peice, not A . V....or the Sedin`s...during post - season play.
Duke, you do realize that Kesler plays on the same PP unit as the Sedin's, right? So if the Sedin's are going 0-fer on the PP, so is Kesler.
Kesler is what he is supposed to be - secondary scoring and a physical presence. It makes sense that when he's on his game VAN is winning, because it gives AV 2 solid scoring options, which is difficult to defend against. There are not many games where Kesler is flying and the Sedin's are not. |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 06/02/2012 : 16:13:18
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
nuxfan.....
I don't have time to look up all the numbers, but i do recall Boston being right behind Vancouver in PIM/Game last year in the playoffs, so your statement isn't correct. I'm not gonna doubt that there are more Cup winners with low PIM/Game than there are high ones, but it's not essential to winning. I'd venture to guess that teams with better special teams numbers are more successful. Except for perhaps this year's Kings team which has been atrocious on the PP yet they continue to win!
Alex - you are correct, my bad. I'm not sure why I had BOS as a top-5 last year, but in fact they were the 3rd worst in the playoffs for PIM/game. They seem to be the only team that has won the cup in recent memory that was not top-5 in playoff discipline.
I also agree that discipline was not the downfall of VAN in last year's finals, both teams had plenty of chances on the PP to make a difference, and both had pretty crap PP's during the finals. As for the rest of the playoffs, there were only a couple of games I can think of (game 3 vs SJ, games 4 and 5 vs CHI) where discipline cost the Canucks a single game. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 06/02/2012 : 14:47:15
Your strengthing my arguement Alex .....A.V was the least of Van`s problems. Where were the Sedin brothers on all those 0 `fers on the Canucks PP`s ??....even at 15 - 20 % they may very well have won the cup.
In my opinion, watching the Canucks play during the last couple of post seasons........Van. goes as Ryan Kesler ( and his line ) goes.....When kesler is flying, Van wins....when he doesn`t show, Van will most likely lose, during the playoffs i mean. NOT the regular season.
He is Van`s center - peice, not A . V....or the Sedin`s...during post - season play. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/31/2012 : 02:09:47
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I've already explained it time and time again. Vancouver is a highly undisciplined hockey team in the playoffs and that has been their downfall for 3 of the past 4 seasons. I blame that on the coaching more than anything else.
Beans, just curious, which of the 4 years was the Canucks' discipline not their downfall?
Last year, and not by their doing. They still took too many penalties but the repreive they got was playing against Boston and a single digit performing powerplay.
Had Boston been able to produce on their PP, that series likely would have been over in 5 games.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!!
Beans, are you counting this season's loss to the Kings? If so, i can't say i agree with discipline being the problem. Go back and look at the numbers from the Kings / Canucks series and you may see what i'm talking about.
As for last year and that Bruins PP, we could easily have seen a 4 game Canucks sweep if their own PP hadn't let them down!
Game 1 - Bos 0/6 Van 0/6
Game 2 - Bos 1/3 Van 1/2
Game 3 - Bos 2/4 Van 0/8 (*also 2 SHG for Boston)
Game 4 - Bos 0/4 Van 0/6
Game 5 - Bos 0/4 Van 0/3
Game 6 - Bos 2/5 Van 1/6
Game 7 - Bos 0/1 Van 0/2 (*1 SHG for Boston)
Totals = Bos 5/27 Van 2/33
I'm not sure how the Canucks had a problem with discipline? As for them getting a "repreive", i'd say it was the other way around. Counting the shorthanded goals, the Canucks were -1 for 33 on the PP. It doesn't get much worse than that. Mix that in with a Conn Smythe performance from Thomas and there's more than enough proof for me that coaching wasn't a factor in the final last year!
Also, and this is in advance of your response to the number of penalties the Canucks took this year, look at how many of the minors they took were for the ridiculous "delay of game" (puck over the glass) penalty. Please don't tell me this is the coach's fault for lack of discipline???
Again, this is just a difference of opinion really. I'm not about to claim that the Canucks weren't undisciplined at times throughout the playoffs in years past, but you and i disagree on who's fault it is. I can't recall from your posts from a year or so ago when this was discussed, but i do recall you saying it's almost entirely on the coach for the issue of team discipline. I disagree and we should just move on and not rehash that entire argument.
nuxfan.....
I don't have time to look up all the numbers, but i do recall Boston being right behind Vancouver in PIM/Game last year in the playoffs, so your statement isn't correct. I'm not gonna doubt that there are more Cup winners with low PIM/Game than there are high ones, but it's not essential to winning. I'd venture to guess that teams with better special teams numbers are more successful. Except for perhaps this year's Kings team which has been atrocious on the PP yet they continue to win! |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/30/2012 : 20:00:16
Heres part of guest 4178`s post....
As it relates to captains who lead with toughness, I think Gretzky (4 cups), Yzerman (3 cups) and Sakic (2 cups) led in different ways. I think they were tough in their own ways, but measured up to the Sedin twins, I would venture to say each of these Hall-of-Famers played the game a bit less physically than the Sedins. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/30/2012 : 19:56:05
These comparisons i made were in rebuttal to guest 4178`s comments in an earlier post made above.
He basically said Gretzky, Yzerman, and Sakic played the game softer than the Sedin`s but don`t get crapped on for soft play.....so i basically said that when you wear several stanley cup rings you don`t tend to get crapped on at all.
This is where all this jibberish was founded........if interested....scroll up and you will get the picture  |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/30/2012 : 13:31:09
OK guys, let's make sure we are keeping this on track. This is about Vigneault re-signing with the Canucks. Not the effectiveness of the Sedin's.
Unless the comment is about the coaching situation in Vancouver, let's shut down the Sedin talk. Make a new thread if we want to go down that path.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/30/2012 : 12:04:49
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4315
Don't agree with me. Go ahead and look at the last 2 all-star games. First one they got split up and were o.k. playing with other elite forwards. Second one they played together and made Hartnell look like a god.
I know this is not about A.V. but I read 'the Dukes' post and had to laugh at Mario/Wayne/Steve comparison to Daniel/Henrik. Again i say Not Even Close.
First off - I don't think the all-star game is a very good place to assess talent, that game is a joke.
Secondly - I think we can all agree that the Sedin's, while very good, are not in the same calibre as Lemieux, Gretzky, Sakic, or Yzerman. I'm not sure why Duke made that comparison, but it is clearly not valid.
quote:
As for A.V. well im not a big Van fan and rarely watch them but when they win 2 presidents trophies in a row under A.V. you would think he is doing a good job. I don't blame him for post season failures as a team needs depth to win a cup and that doesn't seem to be a thing Van has. I suppose all the money being put into the Sedin's and Lu doesn't help too much. Also when Van plays their best all season it is hard to play better in the post-season. I'm pretty sure every team usually plays better in the post-season. Also no one on Van is really Post-saeson Clutch. They have no Briere or even Penner. Ya i know these 2 are just O.k. but come playoff's they are money in the bank. Hopefully the GM shakes some things up. (Moving Lu will help). Then A.V. can prove or not if he deserves to continue as Head coach in Van or even the NHL.
For someone that rarely watches the Canucks, you seem to have formed a lot of opinions about them...
1. The Sedin's and Lu do not account for "all of their money" - all 3 combine for 17M in cap space, which is not unreasonable for your top 2 forwards and top goaltender. I would think most NHL teams are in the same ballpark.
2. Dustin Penner is "clutch in the post season"? Holy crap, talk about some short sighted thinking. Before this season, Penner had exactly 10 points in 27 playoff games - including a year where he won the cup. While he has excelled so far this post-season, I would certainly look at:
- Kesler: 36 pts in 53 games, including 19 during their cup run, where he almost single-handedly won the second round series against NSH.
- Burrows: 29 pts in 63 games, 17 in the cup run year, including 2 OT goals, one of which was the series clinching goal vs CHI.
- Daniel Sedin: 64 pts in 92 games, and is a playoff PPG over the last 4 playoff years
- Henrik Sedin: 71 pts in 95 playoff games, also PPG over the last 4 playoff years
As relatively "clutch". Vancouver has experience and players that can play in the post-season.
To some extent, I agree with Beans that VAN is undisciplined during the post season, and it has had an effect on their success. Some else asked for stats to back it up:
2011/12 - 18.8 PIM/game, 5th worst amongst playoff teams
2010/11 - 17.4 PIM/game, 2nd worst amongst playoff teams
2009/10 - 14.6 PIM/game, 5th worst
2008/09 - 19.1 PIM/game, 3rd worst
It is clear that VAN is regularly one of the worst disciplined teams in the post season. Except for 10/11 they also enjoyed relatively little success (which probably speaks volumes about how good their PK was that year).
If you look at the cup winners for those 4 years, all the winners were top-5 in least number of PIM/g. In short, undisciplined teams tend to not win cups. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/30/2012 : 07:59:33
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I've already explained it time and time again. Vancouver is a highly undisciplined hockey team in the playoffs and that has been their downfall for 3 of the past 4 seasons. I blame that on the coaching more than anything else.
Beans, just curious, which of the 4 years was the Canucks' discipline not their downfall?
Last year, and not by their doing. They still took too many penalties but the repreive they got was playing against Boston and a single digit performing powerplay.
Had Boston been able to produce on their PP, that series likely would have been over in 5 games.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 21:05:06
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I've already explained it time and time again. Vancouver is a highly undisciplined hockey team in the playoffs and that has been their downfall for 3 of the past 4 seasons. I blame that on the coaching more than anything else.
Beans, just curious, which of the 4 years was the Canucks' discipline not their downfall? |
| Guest4315 |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 19:08:59
No one talks about Mario, Wayne or Steve like the Sedins' because Mario, Wayne and Steve are all by themselves superstars. The Sedins' are no where near as good. Not even close. Both of them together are superstar players. Split them up and they are about as useful as any 2nd/3rd liner. Pick a good 2nd/3rd line player and imagine he had a twin whom he grew up playing hockey with. Bet you can imagine similar results. Now try putting Mario, Wayne or Steve in that same boat... I see either comlete dominince or too much of a good thing on the same line. If any of these 3 guys had a twin it might be too much skill not enouugh grit and therfore a good idea to split them up. Split up the Sedins' and you probaly won't even notice them half the time.
Don't agree with me. Go ahead and look at the last 2 all-star games. First one they got split up and were o.k. playing with other elite forwards. Second one they played together and made Hartnell look like a god.
I know this is not about A.V. but I read 'the Dukes' post and had to laugh at Mario/Wayne/Steve comparison to Daniel/Henrik. Again i say Not Even Close. I would rather have any one of Mario/Wayne/Steve then Sedin Triplets.
As for A.V. well im not a big Van fan and rarely watch them but when they win 2 presidents trophies in a row under A.V. you would think he is doing a good job. I don't blame him for post season failures as a team needs depth to win a cup and that doesn't seem to be a thing Van has. I suppose all the money being put into the Sedin's and Lu doesn't help too much. Also when Van plays their best all season it is hard to play better in the post-season. I'm pretty sure every team usually plays better in the post-season. Also no one on Van is really Post-saeson Clutch. They have no Briere or even Penner. Ya i know these 2 are just O.k. but come playoff's they are money in the bank. Hopefully the GM shakes some things up. (Moving Lu will help). Then A.V. can prove or not if he deserves to continue as Head coach in Van or even the NHL. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 17:50:35
No one talks about Mario or Wayne or Steve Yzerman ( not being physical ) in the same light as the Sedin`s Beans because these players have all won multiple stanley cups.
The only reason the Sedin`s get a rough ride is because of their failure to lead Van to that 1 stanley cup....and they never will.
Sure they are highly skilled players but they don`t push back, this style of play doesn`t work in the smaller NHL size arenas during the playoffs........compared to international size rinks i mean.....where theres more room to escape in your face hockey.
As of Van`s undisipline play during the playoffs......i don`t really follow it that closely but what is Van`s ratio of taking penalities per game...compared to the rest of playoff teams ??.......are they the front runner in this category ?? |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 10:09:01
I've already explained it time and time again. Vancouver is a highly undisciplined hockey team in the playoffs and that has been their downfall for 3 of the past 4 seasons. I blame that on the coaching more than anything else.
Also, don't mis-quote people. It's annoying and frustrating.
I said:
Regardless of the semantics, the point is that the Sedin's performance has very little to do with Vancouver's lack of success.
You said:
You say the Sedins performance has very little to do with Van`s playoff success Beans ??
Two very different statements.
The Sedin's have done what is expected of them (in some cases more) over the past 4 playoff years. Thedon't get paid for playing physical. They get paid to score goals. You can't blame for doing their job. I don't recall Wayne Gretzky or even Mario Lemiuex playing physically in the playoffs.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/28/2012 : 21:36:06
quote:
Originally posted by The Duke
You say the Sedins performance has very little to do with Van`s playoff success Beans ??
Why don`t you tell us their playoff problems then ??
This hockey team has 2 of todays top point getters in the entire NHL on the same team...BUT THEY CAN`T WIN !!!....they just got ousted by an 8 th place seeded team.
Players with the Sedins skill can sleep for 2 periods and average 1 point per game....esp with all their power - play time.
Beans, are you trying to tell me that in your eyes...( i`m sure you watch playoff hockey ) the Sedin`s during the playoffs are as valuable as someone like Mike Richards because they have as many or more points ??
Any1 who watches hockey knows what a true, valuable playoff performer really is...( eg. Dale Hunter )...a player who gives it all and will try to win at all costs.
Sure the Sedin brothers put up points...thats only part of winning...wearing your heart on your sleeve through leadership and perservance wins cups.......those players used in that earlier post to compare playoff numbers to the Sedins are hockey icons....i wouldn`t even mention them in the same sentence with the Sedin twins.
Duke - they're all valuable. Thats why hockey is a TEAM sport. It takes Sedin-type scoring machines on your top line and top PP unit to score. It takes Richards-type defensive players that can shut down and provide secondary scoring. It takes 3rd and 4th line role players that step up when they can for a tertiary presence. It takes offensive and defensive defensemen all playing big and strong. It takes a great goalie. All those things have to come together and click at the same time in a race to 16 wins.
Sure, scoring is only "part of winning". But it is PART of winning, no? Valuable playoff players owe part of their value to the supporting cast around them, teams can't win it all on the back of a single player anymore. |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/28/2012 : 20:10:42
You say the Sedins performance has very little to do with Van`s playoff success Beans ??
Why don`t you tell us their playoff problems then ??
This hockey team has 2 of todays top point getters in the entire NHL on the same team...BUT THEY CAN`T WIN !!!....they just got ousted by an 8 th place seeded team.
Players with the Sedins skill can sleep for 2 periods and average 1 point per game....esp with all their power - play time.
Beans, are you trying to tell me that in your eyes...( i`m sure you watch playoff hockey ) the Sedin`s during the playoffs are as valuable as someone like Mike Richards because they have as many or more points ??
Any1 who watches hockey knows what a true, valuable playoff performer really is...( eg. Dale Hunter )...a player who gives it all and will try to win at all costs.
Sure the Sedin brothers put up points...thats only part of winning...wearing your heart on your sleeve through leadership and perservance wins cups.......those players used in that earlier post to compare playoff numbers to the Sedins are hockey icons....i wouldn`t even mention them in the same sentence with the Sedin twins.
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/28/2012 : 14:53:52
Guest, you are 100% correct when you look at it from a career point of view. And I stand corrected that all other seasons other than their Cup run saw big drops in the Sedin's production. They have done well in maintaining their performance over the past 4 seasons. Prior to that, they were horrible in the playoffs. In 49 playoff games from 2000-2007, Henrik and Daniel had 24 and 21 pts respectively. Since 2007, Daniel has 46 pts in 49 games and Henrik has 51 pts in 52 games. That is almost dead on pace with their regular season performance.
Regardless of the semantics, the point is that the Sedin's performance has very little to do with Vancouver's lack of success.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 05/28/2012 : 13:26:18
I decided to check out some stats to see if the Sedins production slips in the playoffs, and while their numbers do slide a bit, I believe points production slips for most players in the playoffs.
Here are the Sedins stats:
Daniel: 83.6 points per game (regular season)
69.6 points per game (playoffs)
Henrik: 83.7 points per game (regular season)
74.7 points per game (playoffs)
Interestingly (and not surprisingly), the Sedins have almost identical points-per-game in the regular season, but Henrik does better in the playoffs. Maybe this is why he's the captain?!?
Then I decided to check out the stats on the three prolific players mentioned in my earlier posting, and here's what I found:
Yzerman: 1.16 points per game (regular season)
.94 points per game (playoffs)
Sakic: 1.19 points per game (regular season)
1.09 points per game (playoffs)
Gretzky: 1.92 points per game (regular season)
1.83 points per game (playoffs)
So in looking at these three players, their points-per-game production tailed off in the playoffs too, and in fact, Steve Yzerman's numbers slid the most of any of these named players.
I didn't look at any other comparables, but I suspect most players production slips in the playoffs. In using the three I selected, their names were already brought up, and they are multiple-cup winning captains, and players who were not considered physical players in their time, so they seemed like good comparisons.
While I'm sure there are a number of players who maintain the same points-per-game stats in both the regular season and the playoffs, I don't think the slight dip in the Sedin brothers' stats translates into them being poor playoff performers. |
| Guest4178 |
Posted - 05/28/2012 : 12:41:59
I don't understand all the criticisms about the Sedins or their lack of toughness. Is this a Swedish/European thing? I hope not, because I thought we were past that. Going back to the 70's, I thought Borje Salming showed that Swedes can play the game with toughness, and it really doesn't matter where you're from.
As it relates to captains who lead with toughness, I think Gretzky (4 cups), Yzerman (3 cups) and Sakic (2 cups) led in different ways. I think they were tough in their own ways, but measured up to the Sedin twins, I would venture to say each of these Hall-of-Famers played the game a bit less physically than the Sedins.
You can knock the Sedins all you want (the lack of a Stanley Cup ring is a fair comment, as it stands now), but suggesting they need to "grow a set" is off the mark as far as I'm concerned.
|
| nuxfan |
Posted - 05/28/2012 : 11:51:21
quote:
Originally posted by Duke
A.V can change some things for sure......but the one thing he can`t do is grow an extra set of balls for the Sedin`s.
How much punishment is an individual willing to allow his body to take during a playoff run ??....Those who sacrifice are those who wear the stanley cup rings....not the Sedin brothers.
To quote Beans... Duke I don't think you could be further from the truth in this regard. They are perhaps two of the most resilient forwards in the game today, and I don't think an "extra set of balls" is required. Sure, they don't go out of their way to hit other players - they are not particularly big players, and its not part of their game. But, they do take a phenomenal amount of abuse in all their games, they always play against opposing teams top defensemen and top checking forwards and get pounded whenever possible. Yet despite that, they continue to produce points at a fairly regular clip, and for the most part don't miss games due to injury. It takes toughness to play that way, night in and night out. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 05/28/2012 : 10:05:45
This whole who has a ring comment is a joke. Think about it Duke, how many coaches in the NHL today have a Stanley Cup ring as a coach. I can think of three.
Few coaches ever get a ring, period.
To answer your question, Pat Quinn coached Vancouver to a 7 game series against New York In '94. Roger Neilson also had the Canucks in the finals in '82 but ran into one of the best teams of all time in the New York Islanders.
I would say that both of those coaches (along with Marc Crawford and Mike Keenan) are better coaches that AV who have also coached the Canucks.
The consistency comment is very enlightening. How does a team who consistently wins their division (4 in a row) and consistently wins the President's Trophy (2 in a row) also consistently under-perform in the playoffs?? It might be that consistent coach will do nothing about his team consistently taking penalties as well as the other team's coach consistently out-coaching AV?
As far as the comments about the Sedins, I think you couldn't be further from reality. The Canucks don't lose games when the Sedin's don't play physically. They lose games when the Sedin's don't score! Period. Take a look at their playoff performances in the past. The one season they did go to the finals was the Sedin's best playoff performance. All the other years they are far below their season averages and career averages in the playoffs.
Daniel Alfredsson is the MVP of the universe. All hail the Ottawa Senators!!!!! |
| mandree888 |
Posted - 05/28/2012 : 06:25:51
duke i hear what you are saying about sundin....... but its up to coach to say HEY HIT HIM!
if the coach is not willing to say hey step up your game. and the player is not willing to proactivly step up their game. then they do not have the drive neccessary to win the cup that year.
it's a team game. if your captain (sedin, Sundin) isn't setting teh example how can you blame the rest of the team for not doing it as well.
it is up to the coach to make sure his team is responding to the situation properly |
| The Duke |
Posted - 05/26/2012 : 20:19:53
Not saying i like Al . V as a coach but would what he accomplished while coaching Van make him argue - ably the most successful ... consistent coach in their history ??
How many great ( consistent ) seasons have they had under his thumb ?...over the last 5 - 6 years.
Before anyone jumps all over this and claims...wheres his stanley cup ??
Which previous Van. coach has a stanley cup ring ??
Before people jump down this guys neck....i`m just simply asking the question.....Since NO COACH has ever led the Canucks to a stanley cup .....has there ever been another Van coach who has been MORE successful and consistent than A . V ??
Really, when you look at the Canucks over the past several seasons and wonder where they went wrong during the playoffs ....compared to how successful they were during the regular season.......the answer is simple......
The Sedin`s are great regular season players while they can free - wheel.......When the tight checking, in your face playoff grind begins.......they are just simply too nice of guys.....they don`t push back......same s**t with Matts Sundin while he was in Toronto.....There in essence lies the Van Canucks problem.......
A.V can change some things for sure......but the one thing he can`t do is grow an extra set of balls for the Sedin`s.
How much punishment is an individual willing to allow his body to take during a playoff run ??....Those who sacrifice are those who wear the stanley cup rings....not the Sedin brothers. |
| Alex116 |
Posted - 05/25/2012 : 16:29:30
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
-Did the Canucks win their division four consecutive years and get punted no later than the 2nd round in 3 of those 4 season??
Yes
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
-Did the Canucks lead (or close to lead) the playoffs in penalties in the 3 seasons they were punted early?
Yes, but only if you consider top 6 out of 15 to be "lead or close to lead" and assuming you're talking PIM/Game as they'd never actually lead in mins until last year when they went as far as a team can.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
-In the most unbiased way you can, please tell me who was the better 'coached' team in the 4 playoff series the Canucks lost over the past 4 seasons???
Tough to say. I think Quenville is the best coach of the 4 in question but that's really just an opinion. Is that what you meant, or are you implying that AV was outcoached in all those series by the other coach? I don't recall Julien doing anything in particular to give his team an edge last year, except for choose Tim Thomas as his starter, but i think even i'd have done that? As for the others? Well, you seem to go on discipline and discipline alone when it comes to coaching, so i guess Quenville schooled him then cuz i will concede that the Canucks took a lot of stupid penalties, especially in '09. However, keep in mind that the Hawks finished with more pts than Vancouver in both of those years, so let's not start saying that the Canucks were some sort of huge favorite.
Now, i really hope you're not about to try to tell me that Sutter outcoached AV and that was a big difference this year? Please tell me you're not.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Finally, I couldn't care less if the Canucks make it to game 7 or get punted in the first round. Until they win the Cup, my statement holds true. The Vancouver Canucks will never win the Stanley Cup with AV coaching.
I think this is where i have a problem but maybe i shouldn't. You can think this, but it's not a fact, and that's prob where i erred. It's just a difference of opinion, though i still do find it laughable seeing as they came 1 win from doing so. I could accept your opinion more, if they'd not even come close in the final or they got blatantly outcoached or something? Regardless, this really comes down to your argument about discipline that we had over a year ago IIRC and i don't wanna go back into all that again as i'm sure you prob don't either.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I will gladly eat my words if it happens, but I feel incredibly safe in those comments. So safe that I am willing to entertain one-way bets on that. If you want to bet, I will entertain wagers that have only negative consequences to me if I am wrong. A no risk bet.
Interested??
Interested? No, not even with those terms. I do not wanna see a Canucks logo attached to your avatar for the rest of your existence if in fact the Canucks and AV prove you wrong. In reality, it's not a bet i'd take if it were rewards to both sides, not with the long odds of any team winning the cup, therefore i'm not about to take advantage of a one sided bet. Besides, if AV and the Canucks win, you prob won't be around here much as you won't wanna read some of the stuff i have to say! |
|
|
