| Author |
 Topic  |
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
 Posted - 05/25/2011 : 23:00:56
|
Poll Question:
Who will be the Canucks' opponent in the 2011 NHL Stanley Cup finals?
|
|
|
|
MrBoogedy
Rookie
Canada
195 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 00:14:33
|
| I voted Tampa Bay... I don't know if I expect them to win, but i really hope they do. Like 13 - 0. |
 |
|
|
Oilearl
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
268 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 07:32:45
|
Sticking with Bruins however Tampa showed a lot by winning last night
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 07:51:48
|
I think for the sake of an great final, I am pulling for TB. They have a very under-rated defense and they are assassins on offence. IF TB plays Vancouver I can see a similar style of game as the SJ/VAN series with maybe a little bit less nastiness and more skill. But I can tell you right now, if TB gets the same kind of offensive chances as SJ, Vancouver will be in trouble. One thing I have noticed during these playoffs is I don't think there is a team that has capitalized on their chances as much as TB has. Just to put that into perspective TB has 8 more goals than Van taking 70 few shots to this point. They also have acheived this against the best goalie in the game today in Thomas and a top 5 guy in the league in Fluery. Pretty impressive.
Boston would be a good match up too but I think a VAN/BOS series would be a lot more grinding than skills/finesse. I prefer the latter, so I am going with TB. |
|
|
|
Guest4312
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 07:56:09
|
| thomas may be the best regular season goalie 2/3 past seasons but he definitely is not the same player in the playoffs not even close to as dominant |
|
|
|
ginks40
Top Prospect
Canada
20 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 10:26:24
|
Wow, seems like a pretty even split among voters.
Personally, I'm rooting for TB. I think Rollie deserves a cup.
If TB does win, the travel will be ridiculous. I don't think you could get two more geographically distant teams in the NHL (aside from the Panthers).
edit: I actually just looked up the distances and both Boston and Tampa Bay are pretty close to the same distance (only about 150km apart). Florida is definitely the furthest though.
|
Edited by - ginks40 on 05/26/2011 10:29:08 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 12:29:57
|
Tampa Bay.
They have a very promising young coach who has proven thus far to be able to make the adjustments necessary to win . They have been able to change their style to one that will allow them the best opportunity to win in each of their series. The players are capable of changing and they are willing to do it for this coach.
Boucher > Julien
Assuming Tampa beats Boston, I think they will also defeat Vancouver. |
|
|
|
Guest2768
( )
|
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 17:23:36
|
| Well I think game 7 belongs to Boston... but not without a fight. I think the home-turf will be the edge they'll need to get the job done. Lets not forget that Tampa was shut-out 1 game as well, so their offence can be broken. Also, I thin there will be fewer dumb penalties taken since it is game 7..... which will be in Botson's favour. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 19:28:15
|
Rooting for TB. Love the more offensive style (at times), really like St. Louis, what a player, and love the way this rookie coach has really taken the NHL by storm. Roloson is a nice story too.
I don't give Boston enough credit, that could be true . . . but I just don't think they deserve to be in the final.
Either team I think will be in deep trouble against the Canucks, I think it'll be over fast. There are no holes on the Canucks like there are on both Boston and TB.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2011 : 22:35:28
|
Slozo, where are TB's weaknesses?? Can you honestly say that Vancouver has no holes when both the Blackhawks and San Jose grossly outplayed the Canucks through stretches of their series??? San Jose outshot Vancouver by 56-34 in the last game and 38-13 in the game before.
No holes??? Is that intended on being a joke??? |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 00:26:21
|
I think the biggest hole in the Canucks is their 4th line. It hardly plays, esp after the 2nd period! They prob need this rest they're getting much more than many realize!
Beans, as far as the wide range in shots on goal, i will agree, somewhat. However, it's often eerily similar to the good 'ol +/- stat in that it doesn't always tell the story! Look at that last game. I believe it was sometime in the 3rd period that the commentators mentioned that SJ had blocked 25 shots! 25!!! That's a lot of blocks that came off control the Canucks had with the puck in the Sharks zone. Further proof to this is the fact that the Sedin's had one of their best playoff games of their careers and controlled the game at times, yet all people bring up is how SJ outshot the Canucks and carried the play??? It can be very deceiving.
Aside from the 4th line being used sparingly, i really don't see a lot of holes in the Canucks lineup. BTW, there's already talks of Malhotra playing, possibly on the fourth line in a roll, in the finals! I'd love to see that!
BTW, at the time of me writing this, the vote in the poll is 127-127! Crazy! |
Edited by - Alex116 on 05/27/2011 00:30:16 |
|
|
|
Lunchbox
Top Prospect
Canada
88 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 01:31:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
San Jose outshot Vancouver by 56-34 in the last game and 38-13 in the game before.
...and they still lost in five games. We saw Vancouver playing in games where the defense gave up pretty much as many shots as they are going to in a game, and they still won both. IF they allow that many shots against in the finals, yeah they could be in trouble, or as Alex said they may all be from the outside, or poor opportunities.
The thing is that the Canucks in all likelihood wont have a shot differential this bad on an average night, and the team is good enough that being outplayed for stretches of a game or series doesn't spell disaster like it does for some teams. Plus, I feel the Canucks have only gotten better on average as they have progressed.
Since SJ and TB are fairly comparable, I dont think that the Canucks will be in much tougher than they were against San Jose. If Boston wins, I think it will come down to whether Thomas can beat the Canuck offense.
If I had to choose, I'd vote for Tampa. I like the players more, and I think the series will be more entertaining, but I still feel that the Canucks would win against either. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 06:50:34
|
Vancouver's biggest hole? Same as Boston's. If Boston wins tonight the finals will see poor coaching against poor coaching.
CJ and AV have shown remarkable inability to learn and adapt. Fortunately for AV, with the exception of Chicago, he has faced coaches of similar ilk so far.
If Tampa wins tonight you will witness AV fail again. He will be soundly out-coached.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 08:02:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Vancouver's biggest hole? Same as Boston's. If Boston wins tonight the finals will see poor coaching against poor coaching.
CJ and AV have shown remarkable inability to learn and adapt. Fortunately for AV, with the exception of Chicago, he has faced coaches of similar ilk so far.
If Tampa wins tonight you will witness AV fail again. He will be soundly out-coached.
I don't agree with all of this as AV did beat both Quinville and Trotz who are two of the top coaches in the league in my opinion. Although, neither Trotz nor McLellan have not proven to be a solid playoff coaches so I do see some of the point
To Alex's point, the shots against and your comparison to +/- are not one and the same. I watched the games. I watched SJ own the puck for most of the game and I watched Luongo stand on his head to keep his team in the games. The shots on goal in the last 2 games were very indicative of who owned the play.
The 5 games is not an indication of how close that series actual was. There were only 2 difference in the series between SJ and Van was that SJ did not bury their chances and Van did, and Vancouver played a more disciplined game and SJ did not. If Van plays TB I do think the coaching advantage will be in TB's favour based on the way that TB has changed their style of play 3 times in three different series. I also think that TB is far more effecient than any other team at capitalizing on their chances.
I gotta say that anyone who thinks Vancouver is going to have a cakewalk is missing something. If they play Boston, I take Vancouver in 6, maybe 5. If they play Tampa, I would not be surprised to see TB take the series in 5 or 6.
Just sayin. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 08:57:56
|
| I believe Vancouver is best suited to play Boston and would prefer to play them, but T Bay will take the game tonight. No time for explanations this morn though, just layin down the prediction. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 09:43:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Vancouver's biggest hole? Same as Boston's. If Boston wins tonight the finals will see poor coaching against poor coaching.
CJ and AV have shown remarkable inability to learn and adapt. Fortunately for AV, with the exception of Chicago, he has faced coaches of similar ilk so far.
If Tampa wins tonight you will witness AV fail again. He will be soundly out-coached.
I don't agree with all of this as AV did beat both Quinville and Trotz who are two of the top coaches in the league in my opinion. Although, neither Trotz nor McLellan have not proven to be a solid playoff coaches so I do see some of the point
To Alex's point, the shots against and your comparison to +/- are not one and the same. I watched the games. I watched SJ own the puck for most of the game and I watched Luongo stand on his head to keep his team in the games. The shots on goal in the last 2 games were very indicative of who owned the play.
The 5 games is not an indication of how close that series actual was. There were only 2 difference in the series between SJ and Van was that SJ did not bury their chances and Van did, and Vancouver played a more disciplined game and SJ did not. If Van plays TB I do think the coaching advantage will be in TB's favour based on the way that TB has changed their style of play 3 times in three different series. I also think that TB is far more effecient than any other team at capitalizing on their chances.
I gotta say that anyone who thinks Vancouver is going to have a cakewalk is missing something. If they play Boston, I take Vancouver in 6, maybe 5. If they play Tampa, I would not be surprised to see TB take the series in 5 or 6.
Just sayin.
Vigneault barely squeeked past an injury depleted Hawks roster. Also missing several key players from previous season. Versteeg, Byfuglien, Eager etc.. First 3 games were all very close. Once Chicago got Bolland, a RHS, back from injury it wasn't remotely close until game 7 which went to overtime to decide.
Care to explain how AV wasn't out-coached by Quenneville?
How did Chicago come from a 3-0 game deficit to an overtime goal away from taking the top regular season team out in the first round?
Trotz is an average coach. |
Edited by - willus3 on 05/27/2011 09:45:21 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 11:01:18
|
Willus, you are preaching to the choir. I have never been a fan of AV and have stated how poor of a coach he is on multiple occasions. I agree with everything you said about the CHI/VAN series. But the Canucks did win. AV beat him, but not through coaching. The Canucks were simple a better, deeper team than Chicago was.
As far as Trotz being an average coach, well I disagree with that. I would agree if you said 'average playoff coach' as he has been. However, consider his team has the 5th most wins since the lock out and is one of only 4 teams to make the playoffs in at least 5 of the 6 seasons since the lockout. This would be an impressive feat for any time. Consider the bargin basement squads that Nashville has iced in that time period, coaching is the common denominator in the equation.
Trotz is more than an average coach. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 11:04:51
|
Man, i really hate these coaching arguments as i think they're overrated to some degree, but Willus, please tell me how it is that Quenville outcoached AV (if it's not the other way around), or was it even? Please don't say that it's because they came back from 3-0 to force game 7 which went to OT or else i'll just say, what was he doing in games 1, 2 and 3???
AV has done what good coaches do. He's shuffled lines, he's moved guys in and out of the lineup, called key time outs, etc. Has he changed their style to win a series? NO, but has he had to? Sure, he's coaching arguably the best team in the league, but what else does this guy have to do to gain some respect? 
How 'bout the fact that we've discussed all year on here as to how he's been able to get Kesler and Burrows to clean up their acts? You're telling me that they did this on their own??? Last couple years he's taken a beating (albeit mostly from Beans ) about undisciplined play, etc and a lot of that was from these two. Where are they now? Kesler needs little mention with a Selke likely coming, but he sits in 4th in playoff scoring and is in the running currently for the Conn Smythe. Burrows? Oh, all he's done is become a key part of a top line on a top team in the NHL and currently has 7 goals and 7 assists thus far, however, the most important stat would include the number 6. 6 freakin' penalty mins!!! 6!!!
So, if anyone wants to pile on AV for not being able to discipline his players, he at least deserves some of the credit for their reform!!!  |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 11:12:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, you are preaching to the choir. I have never been a fan of AV and have stated how poor of a coach he is on multiple occasions. I agree with everything you said about the CHI/VAN series. But the Canucks did win. AV beat him, but not through coaching. The Canucks were simple a better, deeper team than Chicago was.
As far as Trotz being an average coach, well I disagree with that. I would agree if you said 'average playoff coach' as he has been. However, consider his team has the 5th most wins since the lock out and is one of only 4 teams to make the playoffs in at least 5 of the 6 seasons since the lockout. This would be an impressive feat for any time. Consider the bargin basement squads that Nashville has iced in that time period, coaching is the common denominator in the equation.
Trotz is more than an average coach.
Performance in the playoffs reveals coaches for what they are. Making the necessary adjustments in a series, out manoeuvring the opposition's coach, playing the appropriate players etc...
How has Trotz performed so far?
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 11:26:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Man, i really hate these coaching arguments as i think they're overrated to some degree, but Willus, please tell me how it is that Quenville outcoached AV (if it's not the other way around), or was it even? Please don't say that it's because they came back from 3-0 to force game 7 which went to OT or else i'll just say, what was he doing in games 1, 2 and 3???
AV has done what good coaches do. He's shuffled lines, he's moved guys in and out of the lineup, called key time outs, etc. Has he changed their style to win a series? NO, but has he had to? Sure, he's coaching arguably the best team in the league, but what else does this guy have to do to gain some respect?
How 'bout the fact that we've discussed all year on here as to how he's been able to get Kesler and Burrows to clean up their acts? You're telling me that they did this on their own??? Last couple years he's taken a beating (albeit mostly from Beans) about undisciplined play, etc and a lot of that was from these two. Where are they now? Kesler needs little mention with a Selke likely coming, but he sits in 4th in playoff scoring and is in the running currently for the Conn Smythe. Burrows? Oh, all he's done is become a key part of a top line on a top team in the NHL and currently has 7 goals and 7 assists thus far, however, the most important stat would include the number 6. 6 freakin' penalty mins!!! 6!!!
So, if anyone wants to pile on AV for not being able to discipline his players, he at least deserves some of the credit for their reform!!!
Coaching is under valued, by everyone, always except by the people who really understand what happens in the game of hockey. Ask a GM about the impact and importance of a coach. Steve Yzerman could very well have made his best move as a GM already. Hiring Boucher.
Tell me how the series went to 7 games Alex. If Vancouver has the superior team, how do you go from up 3-0 to almost losing the series? How does that happen? |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 13:32:10
|
Willus....thank you for the lesson on how to find out the importance of a coach! It was kind of you to point out, with the clever use of the bold feature i might add, that coaching is undervalued by everyone "always, except by the people who really understand what happens in the game of hockey.". Good to know.
Maybe you could forward me the ph # of this GM you've spoken to as i'm keen to learn a little more about the game?
As to your question which i should just ignore as you did to mine, i can say this. The Canucks didn't almost blow the 3 game lead in round 1 from being outcoached! There, that's easier than having to type out the multiple different reasons such as they played poorly in two games, they ran into a hot goalie, they sat back at 3-0, etc. Of course, your buddy the GM would prob beg to differ. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 14:15:53
|
quote:
I think the biggest hole in the Canucks is their 4th line. It hardly plays, esp after the 2nd period! They prob need this rest they're getting much more than many realize!
The 4th line is fine. They don't see a lot of ice time when the Canucks have a 1 goal lead or are down by a goal, and they've spent a lot of the post-season in that position.
In the games where we have had >1 goal leads, the 4th line has played regularly and played pretty well. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 14:26:31
|
quote:
Tell me how the series went to 7 games Alex. If Vancouver has the superior team, how do you go from up 3-0 to almost losing the series? How does that happen?
Sometimes it happens. An equally interesting question is if Chicago has such a great coach, how did they fall behind 3-0 in the first 3 games?
No doubt coaching is important. However, equally important is having a team deep enough to give your coach options. VAN was a deeper team than CHI, and AV had the options to be able to make changes in the lineup without sacrificing the team's ability to win.
If you look at that series as a whole, CHI outclassed Vancouver for 2 games (4 and 5). VAN was the far better team in game 1, and was marginally better in game 2. The rest, 1 goal toss-ups, of which 2 were won by VAN, including the super critical game 7. I think AV did pretty well.
quote:
Performance in the playoffs reveals coaches for what they are. Making the necessary adjustments in a series, out manoeuvring the opposition's coach, playing the appropriate players etc...
...all of which AV has done this playoff season. How can you insist that playoff performance reveals coaches for what they are, and then insist that AV - who is currently in the finals - is not a very good coach? |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 15:48:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Man, i really hate these coaching arguments as i think they're overrated to some degree, but Willus, please tell me how it is that Quenville outcoached AV (if it's not the other way around), or was it even? Please don't say that it's because they came back from 3-0 to force game 7 which went to OT or else i'll just say, what was he doing in games 1, 2 and 3???
AV has done what good coaches do. He's shuffled lines, he's moved guys in and out of the lineup, called key time outs, etc. Has he changed their style to win a series? NO, but has he had to? Sure, he's coaching arguably the best team in the league, but what else does this guy have to do to gain some respect?
How 'bout the fact that we've discussed all year on here as to how he's been able to get Kesler and Burrows to clean up their acts? You're telling me that they did this on their own??? Last couple years he's taken a beating (albeit mostly from Beans) about undisciplined play, etc and a lot of that was from these two. Where are they now? Kesler needs little mention with a Selke likely coming, but he sits in 4th in playoff scoring and is in the running currently for the Conn Smythe. Burrows? Oh, all he's done is become a key part of a top line on a top team in the NHL and currently has 7 goals and 7 assists thus far, however, the most important stat would include the number 6. 6 freakin' penalty mins!!! 6!!!
So, if anyone wants to pile on AV for not being able to discipline his players, he at least deserves some of the credit for their reform!!!
Good call Alex. I am in full agreement. And he did a pretty damn good job during the regular season when his defence core was decimated. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 16:58:00
|
I agree with Willus on a few points. Firstly, most people do significantly under-value coaching in the playoffs. Secondly, there is validity to the point of slipping from a 3-0 to OT in game 7. Quinville did shuffle the deck and make the appropriate changes to shut down virtually every part of what made Vancouver successful in the first 3 games. He also found what worked offensively. The Blackhawks had Luongo chased from the net and had even the most diehard Canuck fans asking the question of what Luongo would be worth in a trade and people questioning where the Sedin's were. AV really had no answer in those three games. Nothing. In game 7, Vancouver completely outplayed Chicago but still did not finish the job until overtime.
It's pretty hard to say that coach didn't have a really big part of that.
TB is another great example of what coaching does. As is Detroit's near come back against SJ. AV is doing a better job this year than he has in the past, but he's still not great. There have been 2 long-standing issues with the Canucks in the playoffs and that is discipline and the ability to shift their system when needed. They are playing more disciplined without question. However, they have not altered their system. You could argue that they are winning so they shouldn't have to. But I would argue that they squeaked though Chicago, Nashville showed the NHL that Vancouver could be stopped, and SJ really did everything to win but put the puck in the net.
A great coach will exploite the opposition. A great coach will counter. AV does not counter well. At least, he has not proven that he does. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 17:56:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus....thank you for the lesson on how to find out the importance of a coach! It was kind of you to point out, with the clever use of the bold feature i might add, that coaching is undervalued by everyone "always, except by the people who really understand what happens in the game of hockey.". Good to know.
Maybe you could forward me the ph # of this GM you've spoken to as i'm keen to learn a little more about the game?
As to your question which i should just ignore as you did to mine, i can say this. The Canucks didn't almost blow the 3 game lead in round 1 from being outcoached! There, that's easier than having to type out the multiple different reasons such as they played poorly in two games, they ran into a hot goalie, they sat back at 3-0, etc. Of course, your buddy the GM would prob beg to differ.
That's what happens when I read a completely ignorant statement.
Nice excuses as well. Weak.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 18:06:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by nuxfan
quote:
Tell me how the series went to 7 games Alex. If Vancouver has the superior team, how do you go from up 3-0 to almost losing the series? How does that happen?
Sometimes it happens. An equally interesting question is if Chicago has such a great coach, how did they fall behind 3-0 in the first 3 games?
No doubt coaching is important. However, equally important is having a team deep enough to give your coach options. VAN was a deeper team than CHI, and AV had the options to be able to make changes in the lineup without sacrificing the team's ability to win.
If you look at that series as a whole, CHI outclassed Vancouver for 2 games (4 and 5). VAN was the far better team in game 1, and was marginally better in game 2. The rest, 1 goal toss-ups, of which 2 were won by VAN, including the super critical game 7. I think AV did pretty well.
quote:
Performance in the playoffs reveals coaches for what they are. Making the necessary adjustments in a series, out manoeuvring the opposition's coach, playing the appropriate players etc...
...all of which AV has done this playoff season. How can you insist that playoff performance reveals coaches for what they are, and then insist that AV - who is currently in the finals - is not a very good coach?
Yes sometimes it happens. But does it happen without reason? Of course not. And of course we hear the typical superficial reasons why. Hot goalie, played poorly etc..
Try to introduce some depth(even though I just scratched the surface) and people can't handle it.
So be it.
AV isn't a good coach.Simple reason for all, he has had a team in place for years now with the talent to take very deep runs and has failed every year. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 18:06:34
|
quote:
I agree with Willus on a few points. Firstly, most people do significantly under-value coaching in the playoffs. Secondly, there is validity to the point of slipping from a 3-0 to OT in game 7. Quinville did shuffle the deck and make the appropriate changes to shut down virtually every part of what made Vancouver successful in the first 3 games. He also found what worked offensively. The Blackhawks had Luongo chased from the net and had even the most diehard Canuck fans asking the question of what Luongo would be worth in a trade and people questioning where the Sedin's were. AV really had no answer in those three games. Nothing. In game 7, Vancouver completely outplayed Chicago but still did not finish the job until overtime.
It's pretty hard to say that coach didn't have a really big part of that.
But again, and I know you have a coach-crush on Quenneville, but...where were Quenville's awesome coaching abilities in games 1/2/3? What answers did he have for a Vancouver team that largely outplayed his team for the first 3 games to go up 3-0, both physically and on the scoreboard? What answer did he have, at all during the entire series, for Kesler mostly shutting down his big line when it counted? Say all you like about AV letting games 4 and 5 get away (I would argue that game 6, an OT win by CHI, was pretty close) and I agree with it, but I'm not sure how Quenneville doesn't get equally cut down for letting CHI get into a 0-3 situation in the first place.
quote:
However, they have not altered their system. You could argue that they are winning so they shouldn't have to. But I would argue that they squeaked though Chicago, Nashville showed the NHL that Vancouver could be stopped, and SJ really did everything to win but put the puck in the net.
Again, I don't get it. AV is criticized for not changing his system, and yet this same ol' system has seen his team beat progressively better teams in progressively fewer games - what is there to change?
AV has made changes and adjustments where necessary throughout the playoffs - player changes, line juggling, etc. But at the end of the day, when you have a system that a) the team believes in, and b) proves to be successful, why would you deviate very far from it?
Every opponent has exposed some weakness in the Vancouver team. And VAN has proven they can overcome those weaknesses and win.
|
Edited by - nuxfan on 05/27/2011 18:07:30 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 18:12:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I agree with Willus on a few points. Firstly, most people do significantly under-value coaching in the playoffs. Secondly, there is validity to the point of slipping from a 3-0 to OT in game 7. Quinville did shuffle the deck and make the appropriate changes to shut down virtually every part of what made Vancouver successful in the first 3 games. He also found what worked offensively. The Blackhawks had Luongo chased from the net and had even the most diehard Canuck fans asking the question of what Luongo would be worth in a trade and people questioning where the Sedin's were. AV really had no answer in those three games. Nothing. In game 7, Vancouver completely outplayed Chicago but still did not finish the job until overtime.
It's pretty hard to say that coach didn't have a really big part of that.
TB is another great example of what coaching does. As is Detroit's near come back against SJ. AV is doing a better job this year than he has in the past, but he's still not great. There have been 2 long-standing issues with the Canucks in the playoffs and that is discipline and the ability to shift their system when needed. They are playing more disciplined without question. However, they have not altered their system. You could argue that they are winning so they shouldn't have to. But I would argue that they squeaked though Chicago, Nashville showed the NHL that Vancouver could be stopped, and SJ really did everything to win but put the puck in the net.
A great coach will exploite the opposition. A great coach will counter. AV does not counter well. At least, he has not proven that he does.
Well done Beans.
JQ went into the series with an inferior team that struggled all season. After a few games made the needed adjustments to almost steal the series from the best regular season team. This is apparently difficult to comprehend. |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 18:56:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
......... AV isn't a good coach.Simple reason for all, he has had a team in place for years now with the talent to take very deep runs and has failed every year.
This is classic stuff Willus! So by reading this statement, if they win this year...or even if they don't and only make it to the finals, then clearly you would have to concede that AV is a great coach. Glad we NOW have this argument finally settled.
And yes the Canucks may be a very similar team to previous seasons, but in all your wisdom you surely must agree that it takes time for individuals to mature (and therefore teams to gel)
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
....JQ went into the series with an inferior team that struggled all season. After a few games made the needed adjustments to almost steal the series from the best regular season team. This is apparently difficult to comprehend.
Your argument for Chicago's FAILURE to advance is essentially the same argument that past Canuck teams could use. Afterall the Canucks got knocked out by a far superior team last year (the Blackhawks) Careful, before you answer look at the talent that Chicago lost in the summer last year. Or maybe it was that AV's poor coaching? You gotta make up your mind.
Jesus! Why the hell am I defending these damn Canucks!?  |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 18:57:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus....thank you for the lesson on how to find out the importance of a coach! It was kind of you to point out, with the clever use of the bold feature i might add, that coaching is undervalued by everyone "always, except by the people who really understand what happens in the game of hockey.". Good to know.
Maybe you could forward me the ph # of this GM you've spoken to as i'm keen to learn a little more about the game?
As to your question which i should just ignore as you did to mine, i can say this. The Canucks didn't almost blow the 3 game lead in round 1 from being outcoached! There, that's easier than having to type out the multiple different reasons such as they played poorly in two games, they ran into a hot goalie, they sat back at 3-0, etc. Of course, your buddy the GM would prob beg to differ.
That's what happens when I read a completely ignorant statement.
Nice excuses as well. Weak.
Willus....if you want to imply that i'm ignorant, i'd love for you to show me these "completely ignorant statements" you speak of. Please keep in mind, it's my original post that you ignored the questions in, not the sarcastic ones afterwards. If you're gonna deem my statements ignorant, i'd appreciate an explanation.
Willus / Beans....You both crack me up! Continue to give little or no credit and keep your man crushes going on Quenville, Babcock, etc. It really doesn't matter to guys like you what happens. If the Canucks go on to win, all we're gonna hear is:
1. The Canucks won the cup, but it had nothing to do with AV
2. They won, but Luongo is still shaky, didn't steal any games and still can't win the big one.
3. Burrows, Bieksa, etc are all still D-Bags.....
Need i go on?
As far as AV, maybe you're right. I mean, if only the Canucks could have a guy like Boucher! He's so awesome!!! I mean, with all his 2 whole years experience as a head coach in the pro's, the guy's a freakin' natural! If only.......
AV's just garbage. I mean, he's only got 1 Jack Adams award, surely that was all to do with his team, he prob did nothing all that year. And how about that Jack Adams nomination back in 2000 with the Habs? Obviously they must have been an unreal team. Oh, wait, they didn't even make the playoffs after being decimated by injuries? Clearly this years nomination, his 3rd, is all about the team. Surely the progression / transformation of both Kesler and Burrows that you continue to conveniently ignore had nothing to do with the coach. When they were undisciplined, yup, his fault, but i guess his patience paid off and they matured all on their own! The multiple injuries to their defense all year must just prove that they're a phenomenal team because surely AV had nothing to do with it? What a crazy nomination, the guy obviously sucks........
Back to JQ, gotta give him props for shuffling his lineup and sticking that Bolland guy in there! He made a huge difference and i bet no other coach, other than maybe Babcock and prob "The Natural", Boucher would have done the same thing!
Ah, i give up, i'm just "preaching to a different choir" Beans, only this one's singing is truly terrible....... |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 19:00:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Jesus! Why the hell am I defending these damn Canucks!?
I dunno Leigh, but at least you're giving an honest, unbiased and sound opinion! I'm not in any way saying AV is one of the top coaches in the league, not now, not ever, but to say he's out and out "not a good coach" is deplorable. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 19:26:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
......... AV isn't a good coach.Simple reason for all, he has had a team in place for years now with the talent to take very deep runs and has failed every year.
This is classic stuff Willus! So by reading this statement, if they win this year...or even if they don't and only make it to the finals, then clearly you would have to concede that AV is a great coach. Glad we NOW have this argument finally settled.
And yes the Canucks may be a very similar team to previous seasons, but in all your wisdom you surely must agree that it takes time for individuals to mature (and therefore teams to gel)
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
....JQ went into the series with an inferior team that struggled all season. After a few games made the needed adjustments to almost steal the series from the best regular season team. This is apparently difficult to comprehend.
Your argument for Chicago's FAILURE to advance is essentially the same argument that past Canuck teams could use. Afterall the Canucks got knocked out by a far superior team last year (the Blackhawks) Careful, before you answer look at the talent that Chicago lost in the summer last year. Or maybe it was that AV's poor coaching? You gotta make up your mind.
Jesus! Why the hell am I defending these damn Canucks!?
Sorry, why would that make him a GREAT coach? If he were as good at coaching as his team is at playing hockey they would have rolled to the finals.
And when you come up with a reasonable comparison we'll talk.
Vancouver finished 4 in the league last season. Chicago barely made the playoffs this season. How is this the same thing again? Avoid the sophistry please. |
Edited by - willus3 on 05/27/2011 19:30:24 |
|
|
|
Guest9236
( )
|
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 19:55:59
|
| Boston is the better team I predict Boston in 6 games over Vancouver. Lucic will dominate them in Vancouver, sorry all you Canuck fans. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 20:09:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus....thank you for the lesson on how to find out the importance of a coach! It was kind of you to point out, with the clever use of the bold feature i might add, that coaching is undervalued by everyone "always, except by the people who really understand what happens in the game of hockey.". Good to know.
Maybe you could forward me the ph # of this GM you've spoken to as i'm keen to learn a little more about the game?
As to your question which i should just ignore as you did to mine, i can say this. The Canucks didn't almost blow the 3 game lead in round 1 from being outcoached! There, that's easier than having to type out the multiple different reasons such as they played poorly in two games, they ran into a hot goalie, they sat back at 3-0, etc. Of course, your buddy the GM would prob beg to differ.
That's what happens when I read a completely ignorant statement.
Nice excuses as well. Weak.
Willus....if you want to imply that i'm ignorant, i'd love for you to show me these "completely ignorant statements" you speak of. Please keep in mind, it's my original post that you ignored the questions in, not the sarcastic ones afterwards. If you're gonna deem my statements ignorant, i'd appreciate an explanation.
Willus / Beans....You both crack me up! Continue to give little or no credit and keep your man crushes going on Quenville, Babcock, etc. It really doesn't matter to guys like you what happens. If the Canucks go on to win, all we're gonna hear is:
1. The Canucks won the cup, but it had nothing to do with AV
2. They won, but Luongo is still shaky, didn't steal any games and still can't win the big one.
3. Burrows, Bieksa, etc are all still D-Bags.....
Need i go on?
As far as AV, maybe you're right. I mean, if only the Canucks could have a guy like Boucher! He's so awesome!!! I mean, with all his 2 whole years experience as a head coach in the pro's, the guy's a freakin' natural! If only.......
AV's just garbage. I mean, he's only got 1 Jack Adams award, surely that was all to do with his team, he prob did nothing all that year. And how about that Jack Adams nomination back in 2000 with the Habs? Obviously they must have been an unreal team. Oh, wait, they didn't even make the playoffs after being decimated by injuries? Clearly this years nomination, his 3rd, is all about the team. Surely the progression / transformation of both Kesler and Burrows that you continue to conveniently ignore had nothing to do with the coach. When they were undisciplined, yup, his fault, but i guess his patience paid off and they matured all on their own! The multiple injuries to their defense all year must just prove that they're a phenomenal team because surely AV had nothing to do with it? What a crazy nomination, the guy obviously sucks........
Back to JQ, gotta give him props for shuffling his lineup and sticking that Bolland guy in there! He made a huge difference and i bet no other coach, other than maybe Babcock and prob "The Natural", Boucher would have done the same thing!
Ah, i give up, i'm just "preaching to a different choir" Beans, only this one's singing is truly terrible.......
"Man, i really hate these coaching arguments as i think they're overrated" - Alex116
This statement shows your lack of understanding in regards to coaching. That would be ignorance.
Now get something straight. My comments are bias-free. I honestly couldn't care less who wins the cup. Clearly you haven't read many of my posts.
Don't talk to me about answering questions. I asked the original question regarding giving up the 3-0 lead to the Hawks and you replied with a question. Didn't answer mine though...
As for the rest of your sarcastic, hyperbole ridden drivel, I have no interest in replying to it. Drop the bs and we have no issue.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 20:10:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Jesus! Why the hell am I defending these damn Canucks!?
I dunno Leigh, but at least you're giving an honest, unbiased and sound opinion! I'm not in any way saying AV is one of the top coaches in the league, not now, not ever, but to say he's out and out "not a good coach" is deplorable.
That is correct. He is not a good coach, he is an average coach. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 21:32:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
"Man, i really hate these coaching arguments as i think they're overrated" - Alex116
This statement shows your lack of understanding in regards to coaching. That would be ignorance.
Ah, well done Willus, you conveniently left out the "to some degree" at the end of my quote! Pretty sure i said "Man, i really hate these coaching arguments as i think they're overrated to some degree"
Surely you're intelligent enough to understand what those extra couple of words you omitted mean in the context of what i was saying? BTW, it's an opinion, everyone's allowed one and if you disagree with it, calling it ignorant is really strong. S'all good though, we disagree, on both the coaching issue, and more importantly, my ignorance. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2011 : 21:33:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Jesus! Why the hell am I defending these damn Canucks!?
I dunno Leigh, but at least you're giving an honest, unbiased and sound opinion! I'm not in any way saying AV is one of the top coaches in the league, not now, not ever, but to say he's out and out "not a good coach" is deplorable.
That is correct. He is not a good coach, he is an average coach.
Willus, that's sooooo sweeeeeet! He's gotten better in the past few hours alone! Without even a game! I mean, you did say earlier: quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Vancouver's biggest hole? Same as Boston's. If Boston wins tonight the finals will see poor coaching against poor coaching.
So, he's gone from a poor coach to an average one! Making strides!!! Sheesh, by game 1, he might even be slightly above average?
At least you got Boston winning, now if the Canucks win, you can say that AV had an equally poor coach to outcoach! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 09:16:21
|
Unfortunately, Canuck fans seem blinded by the excitement of the Finals. I get it, the Oilers were there too and I don't think anyone could have told my anything critical of the team at that time. However, I think what I think. I don't see AV as a good coach. It has nothing to do with 'man crush' (by the way, nice attitude Alex) with any coaches. I admire some coaches and dislike others. AV is one I dislike because I don't see him as a good coach.
I am done. Canucks fans will be blind for the next two weeks. I know the feeling. Enjoy the finals as it is so rare that anyone's favorite team makes it. |
|
|
|
Guest9210
( )
|
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 09:40:26
|
| Oh we will Beans as our whole town of Yarmouth is pumped for our Bruins. This is Bostons year. Go Boston. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 09:55:44
|
Beans, the "man crush" thing is nothing to do with "attitude" so i don't know where you got that. I actually stole that from nuxfan, though he called it a "coach crush", but you prob mixed us up again anyway.
Here's my prob, which at least Leigh has been kind enough to notice as well as a non Canuck fan and probably more of a Canuck hater than he's currently showing . You, amongst others, rag on Vigneault for past failures including undisciplined players, lack of success, etc. NOW, he's got all that going, and you wanna consider him as "not a good coach"? Give some freakin' credit where credit is due my friend! I've already gone over everything he's done to contribute to the team so i won't waste my time or yours repeating it.
You say you "admire some coaches and dislike others", that's fine. IF you were telling me you didn't like AV, that's one thing, but to come on here and tell me that he's not good is absurd!
Between you and Willus, all we've heard is how great all these other coaches are, including Boucher? WHO??? Really? And, just how bad Julien and AV are, yet they're the two in the final? How many times do bad coaches make the finals, and we suddenly have 2? C'mon, dislike him all ya want, but it'd be like trying to convince me that Burrows is not worthy of being a player in the NHL. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Who will the Canucks face? 
