| Author |
 Topic  |
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
 Posted - 05/28/2011 : 11:40:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
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!
He is an average coach. A dime a dozen. Can do well in the regular season but when it comes to a playoff series the necessary qualities are not there and you see poor coaching. This would be most of the coaches in the league. So what I stated earlier stands. He is average.
As for the bit about getting Burrows and Kesler under control, well I didn't bring it up but...
Bottom line is it never should have gotten to the point where there was a hubbub in the media about Burrows and the referee. Simply, AV only addressed it when he no longer had a choice. Kesler and Burrows should have been reined in long before the incident with Borrows and the ref.
But like Beans said, from your perspective, Vancouver is above reproach and perfect in every way. Yay Canucks!
|
 |
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 12:01:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
He is an average coach. A dime a dozen. Can do well in the regular season but when it comes to a playoff series the necessary qualities are not there and you see poor coaching. This would be most of the coaches in the league. So what I stated earlier stands. He is average.
No Willus, this is what you fail to comprehend. You clearly said earlier that he is a "poor coach". I even supplied your quote, quit running from it.
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
As for the bit about getting Burrows and Kesler under control, well I didn't bring it up but...
Bottom line is it never should have gotten to the point where there was a hubbub in the media about Burrows and the referee. Simply, AV only addressed it when he no longer had a choice. Kesler and Burrows should have been reined in long before the incident with Borrows and the ref.
This is totally out of context. The ref incident has nothing to do with what i was speaking of when it comes to Kesler and Burrows. You must have missed the point, which was, the two of them had been considered terribly undisciplined (not just here at PUH i might add) and immature players. They have changed their ways, and while AV doesn't deserve 100% of the credit, one MUST give him some credit if that same person is to blame him for their prior actions! Seems fair, no?
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
But like Beans said, from your perspective, Vancouver is above reproach and perfect in every way. Yay Canucks!
Nice cop out. No one's saying they're perfect and in fact if you would read and comprehend what i've said in this thread and others, they're not perfect in every way. I've never said AV is a brilliant coach or as good as some of the others. I've just disagreed with, lemme steal a word from you, IGNORANT comments about how he's a "poor coach". I've also said their 4th line rarely plays as the coach doesn't have trust in them. Mabye a good coach would?  Aside from that, they've got a darn good team and damn rights i'm gonna enjoy it. 
[/quote] |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 12:56:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
He is an average coach. A dime a dozen. Can do well in the regular season but when it comes to a playoff series the necessary qualities are not there and you see poor coaching. This would be most of the coaches in the league. So what I stated earlier stands. He is average.
No Willus, this is what you fail to comprehend. You clearly said earlier that he is a "poor coach". I even supplied your quote, quit running from it.
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
As for the bit about getting Burrows and Kesler under control, well I didn't bring it up but...
Bottom line is it never should have gotten to the point where there was a hubbub in the media about Burrows and the referee. Simply, AV only addressed it when he no longer had a choice. Kesler and Burrows should have been reined in long before the incident with Borrows and the ref.
This is totally out of context. The ref incident has nothing to do with what i was speaking of when it comes to Kesler and Burrows. You must have missed the point, which was, the two of them had been considered terribly undisciplined (not just here at PUH i might add) and immature players. They have changed their ways, and while AV doesn't deserve 100% of the credit, one MUST give him some credit if that same person is to blame him for their prior actions! Seems fair, no?
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
But like Beans said, from your perspective, Vancouver is above reproach and perfect in every way. Yay Canucks!
Nice cop out. No one's saying they're perfect and in fact if you would read and comprehend what i've said in this thread and others, they're not perfect in every way. I've never said AV is a brilliant coach or as good as some of the others. I've just disagreed with, lemme steal a word from you, IGNORANT comments about how he's a "poor coach". I've also said their 4th line rarely plays as the coach doesn't have trust in them. Mabye a good coach would? Aside from that, they've got a darn good team and damn rights i'm gonna enjoy it.
[/quote]
1st point:
You need to work on your reading comprehension then. Go back and read the quote again. It says "poor coaching" not poor coach. This I already explained once. Not going to again. Read what is there, not what you think is there.
2nd point:
It has everything to do with it. It is all disciplinary in nature.
3rd point:
Trust you get the point now about dropping the hyperbole nonsense in your replies. Didn't like it too much when I did it did you.
|
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 13:35:46
|
I am not even close to being a Canucks fan so I don't find myself blinded by enthusiasm. But I do find that some can be blinded by dislike as well. I'm trying to decide if I should use "If the shoe fits..." or "People in glass houses...." Alex can you help me out here.
But I'm satisfied knowing that both Beans and Willus will finally stop this argument when he wins the Jack Adams again this year AND his team wins the Cup. That should put their arguments to rest and they will graciously admit that they are wrong. But hey, if they don't then we know that it is an emotional argument for them and not a logical one. No need to reply Beans, I know you're done this discussion.  |
|
|
|
Guest9212
( )
|
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 14:17:08
|
| I hope your refer to Julien there becuase there is no way Vancouver is winning this series. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 16:25:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9212
I hope your refer to Julien there becuase there is no way Vancouver is winning this series.
At least sign up and throw up a Bruins logo or something. Comments like this (above) are a waste of everyone's time. Even i'm willing to admit that Boston has a chance to win the cup. I mean, they are in it aren't they? While i might be predicting Vancouver in 5 (close games), i can certainly not say i'd be absolutely shocked if Boston won. But, whatever makes you feel good. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 16:27:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
I am not even close to being a Canucks fan so I don't find myself blinded by enthusiasm. But I do find that some can be blinded by dislike as well. I'm trying to decide if I should use "If the shoe fits..." or "People in glass houses...." Alex can you help me out here.
But I'm satisfied knowing that both Beans and Willus will finally stop this argument when he wins the Jack Adams again this year AND his team wins the Cup. That should put their arguments to rest and they will graciously admit that they are wrong. But hey, if they don't then we know that it is an emotional argument for them and not a logical one. No need to reply Beans, I know you're done this discussion.
Leigh, i'm pretty much done with this. I think i've proven my points enough, some continue to fail to acknowledge what's pretty plain to see. Funny thing is, it really won't matter if the Canucks win the cup, some people's minds won't change. They'll just insert a new excuse, call if fluke, etc.....  |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 19:24:04
|
OK, I couldn't resist. Alex, I have to say you might have the most blinded opinion I have ever read. Not only are you trying to argue that your opinion is fact, but you are getting personal about it. It's not that people don't see what you see. It's that they don't agree. I don't see a genius coach in AV. I see a unbelievable talented and deep team that has found their way to the Cup. They have not dominated anyone. They won, but not dominated. Can you acknowledge that?? And it's not like they won by changing anything to counter the other team. They are like a kid beating their head against a wall. They will either make a hole or knock themselves out. This year, they are making a hole.
But again, I don't expect anyone to agree with that as it's an opinion. But before people start making comments like 'those in glass houses' or 'some continue to fail to acknowledge' perhap you should look in the mirror. By calling down someone for not seeing your opinion and dismissing their opinion, are you not being hipocritical???
It's opinion. It's not fact. People don't have to agree with your opinion simply because it's yours. I believe that Vancouver is winning because they are a very good hockey team. I think that TB made it as far as they did because they are a very well coached hockey team. I think that Chicago nearly put Vancouver out because they are a very well coached hockey team. I believe that Detroit nearly came back against SJ because they are a very well coached team. I believe that SJ was a better team in most of the games against Vancouver but didn't capitalize on their chances. I think that Washington was the best team going into the playoffs but have a completely garbage coach and that's the reason they lost. I believe that Pittsburgh is incredibly well coached and would have been unstoppable in the playoffs had they had their two best players.
I rambled on to hopefully indicate clearly what an opinion is. Some of them you will agree with, others you will not. You can acknowledge them without agree with them.
I acknowledge your opinion that AV is a good coach. I simply do not agree. Is that ok, or am I going to get told I have a man crush for some coaches or a hate on for Vancouver??? I'm sure it will be one of the two. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2011 : 22:20:34
|
quote:
But I'm satisfied knowing that both Beans and Willus will finally stop this argument when he wins the Jack Adams again this year AND his team wins the Cup.
Actually, I think we'd probably see poll for who has been the worst coach to win the cup
quote:
I rambled on to hopefully indicate clearly what an opinion is. Some of them you will agree with, others you will not. You can acknowledge them without agree with them.
I think your opinion is well noted Beans - it just doesn't seem to be backed up by much, which I guess is what is leading to all the back and forth.
So far, I have read about how great a coach Quenneville is for marching back from a 3-0 deficit to force game 7, but have heard nothing about how that great coach managed to see his team drop to 0-3 in the first place (before getting lucky and getting Bolland healthy), or get badly outplayed in the biggest game 7 of his team's season.
I'm also reading about how AV is floating on an "unbelievable talented and deep team that found their way to the Cup", and yet when Quenneville is at the head of arguably the best and deepest team to win the cup in the past 5 years only a year ago, it is great coaching that did it.
I'm also reading about this coach that has won "without changing anything to counter the other team", however I have seen him change constantly throughout this playoffs to try and overcome hurdles. Starting Schneider in game 6 vs CHI was a great move (greatly derided at the time I might add), and Luongo comes out in game 7 to have the best games of his playoffs (I might add, I found it interesting that everyone seemed to think Boucher starting Smith in game 5 of the BOS/TB series was a great move...). AV has mixed up nearly every defensive pairing to get a great balance between toughness, has shifted nearly every forward line except for the top line, and sat players at appropriate times, all through the playoffs.
I do not think that I think AV is the best coach in the game, because he certainly is not. But I don't know how one cannot acknowledge that as a 3-time Adams award nominee and coach of one of this year's cup finalists, he is at least an above average coach. I guess I'm just trying to understand your opinion, and where you are getting it from. |
Edited by - nuxfan on 05/28/2011 23:01:09 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 01:49:01
|
Sorry, i know i said i'm pretty much done with this, but this deserves a reply.....
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
OK, I couldn't resist. Alex, I have to say you might have the most blinded opinion I have ever read. Not only are you trying to argue that your opinion is fact, but you are getting personal about it. It's not that people don't see what you see. It's that they don't agree.
Beans, i totally understand that both sides are opinions and i'm not trying to state that mine is fact, i'm trying to prove to you, and others, that you guys are either allowing your dislike to cloud your view of AV or are not realizing he's doing exactly what coaches you claim are good have done. Willus says earlier that JQ outcoached AV in the first round. His reasoning? Well because they came back from 3-0 down and to OT in game 7 vs the top team in the league. This is from coaching? What'd he do? He inserted Bolland, who was deemed healthy and watched his team wake up and finally play up to their capabilities including riding a hot young goalie. You or i would have done the same thing and inserted Bolland and gave a little pep talk. Did i miss something else he did? Did they really change their style of play and go to a trapping system? If they did do something like that, it must have been very subtle. See where i'm going?
One of you also mentioned that Boucher is good because Tampa has changed their style of play 3 times already in the playoffs? Really? Have they? Honestly, i've not watched a ton of their games but do realize they made some changes in taking out Washington by playing a trapping style, but did they stray from their norm to beat (barely) a depleted Pittsburgh team or lose to Boston? From what i saw of those series, they seemed to play their usual style? How does that equate to changing their style 3 times???
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I don't see a genius coach in AV. I see a unbelievable talented and deep team that has found their way to the Cup. They have not dominated anyone. They won, but not dominated. Can you acknowledge that??
Absolutely, i can acknowledge that, and even agree with it. I've never called AV a genius, i agree they're deep and they have not dominated anyone. What's your point though? Are you saying AV is the reason the didn't dominate anyone? Is he holding them back or something?
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And it's not like they won by changing anything to counter the other team.
Like it's been discussed, they haven't had to. BUT, AV has made roster/personel changes, shuffled lines, changed goalies and most importantly, kept them disciplined. *Note-i throw this in for you. I don't necessarily credit the coach for all things discipline, but i do recall you adamantly arguing last year that he's ultimately responsible.* Therefore, as i've mentioned a few times already, if he's responsible for them last year being undisciplined, you pretty much have to give him some credit for their discipline this year. Surely YOU, can acknowledge that?
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
But again, I don't expect anyone to agree with that as it's an opinion. But before people start making comments like 'those in glass houses' or 'some continue to fail to acknowledge' perhap you should look in the mirror. By calling down someone for not seeing your opinion and dismissing their opinion, are you not being hipocritical???
Again, i'm only dismissing an opinion that is unfairly representing two (or more) coaches. You conveniently want to claim that AV has little to do with the Vancouver success this year, however, he was mostly to blame the past couple of years they failed to advance. Further, you praise guys like Babcock for his success. Has he won with a bunch of scrubs or something? Cuz the last time i looked, he has coached some pretty darn good Detroit teams!
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
It's opinion. It's not fact. People don't have to agree with your opinion simply because it's yours. I believe that Vancouver is winning because they are a very good hockey team. I think that TB made it as far as they did because they are a very well coached hockey team. I think that Chicago nearly put Vancouver out because they are a very well coached hockey team. I believe that Detroit nearly came back against SJ because they are a very well coached team. I believe that SJ was a better team in most of the games against Vancouver but didn't capitalize on their chances. I think that Washington was the best team going into the playoffs but have a completely garbage coach and that's the reason they lost. I believe that Pittsburgh is incredibly well coached and would have been unstoppable in the playoffs had they had their two best players.
I rambled on to hopefully indicate clearly what an opinion is. Some of them you will agree with, others you will not. You can acknowledge them without agree with them.
I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or a smartass with this paragraph, but to be honest, i agree with most of what you've said. I'd add to some of it, such as i agree Chi is a very well coached team, however, i put more on the players than i do the coach for the comeback. Same goes for Det, very well coached, but not necessarily the reason they came back. I think you're lacking faith in the maturity, resolve and all around skill of that Detroit team. They're so good, and so experienced, that i think they'd have played the same with you, me or maybe even sahis behind the bench.
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I acknowledge your opinion that AV is a good coach. I simply do not agree. Is that ok, or am I going to get told I have a man crush for some coaches or a hate on for Vancouver??? I'm sure it will be one of the two.
One of the two? Oh, you mean the man crush or the hate on thing? Nah, that's ok. You see, what you consider a good coach and what i consider a good coach is obviously different.
What bothers me, and this obviously was between Willus and i, is when i get called ignorant for a comment that was simply an opinion and then have to listen to crap like this:
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
1st point:
You need to work on your reading comprehension then. Go back and read the quote again. It says "poor coaching" not poor coach. This I already explained once. Not going to again. Read what is there, not what you think is there.
Really? Really? I need to work on reading comprehension? That's really grasping man. It says poor coaching not poor coach? That's what you're gonna go with willus? That's the best you can do huh? Sad. Where the f*** does poor coaching come from? If that's the best you can do to defend what you clearly got called out on, then i'm just wasting my time.
That's really pretty sad.......
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 06:12:27
|
I should have learned and stayed to my first thought and not argued this right now. If it can not been seen that TB played a highly offensively focused game against Pitt through the 1st 4 games, followed by a 1-3-1 trap to win the series I can't show it. If someone can not see that TB stayed with the 1-3-1 trap against Washington will a high focus of one-on-one defense, I can't show it. If someone can not see that TB started against Boston with a high pressure forecheck and more offensive focus in the first 3 games and then went back to the 1-3-1 trap for the remaining 4, again I can't show that.
Just one quick question. In the Nashville series, where Vancouver had an average offensive output at best, what did AV do to free up the highest scoring team in the NHL for more chances??? What was the strategy to get the 2 of the 3 highest scoring players in the NHL a few more chances each game??? What did AV do to slow down the SJ offensive from completely pelting his goalie??? When Chicago was throwing everything they had at the Canucks, what was the system or style change that slowed the attack?? As others say they can't see how other coaches do things, maybe I am missing what AV is doing. Please, enlighten me. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 10:54:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus says earlier that JQ outcoached AV in the first round. His reasoning? Well because they came back from 3-0 down and to OT in game 7 vs the top team in the league. This is from coaching? What'd he do? He inserted Bolland, who was deemed healthy and watched his team wake up and finally play up to their capabilities including riding a hot young goalie. You or i would have done the same thing and inserted Bolland and gave a little pep talk. Did i miss something else he did? Did they really change their style of play and go to a trapping system? If they did do something like that, it must have been very subtle. See where i'm going?
[
What bothers me, and this obviously was between Willus and i, is when i get called ignorant for a comment that was simply an opinion and then have to listen to crap like this:
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
1st point:
You need to work on your reading comprehension then. Go back and read the quote again. It says "poor coaching" not poor coach. This I already explained once. Not going to again. Read what is there, not what you think is there.
Really? Really? I need to work on reading comprehension? That's really grasping man. It says poor coaching not poor coach? That's what you're gonna go with willus? That's the best you can do huh? Sad. Where the f*** does poor coaching come from? If that's the best you can do to defend what you clearly got called out on, then i'm just wasting my time.
That's really pretty sad.......
Your first paragraph is revealing. Thank you.
Sure anyone would have thrown Bolland back in the line up, he's their 2nd centre. But that's where it ends for you. He just magically made everything better. You haven't considered several things. One being the right and left hand shot players. Have a look at the centre's on both rosters. What do you notice? Chicago lacked a RHS centre. When Bolland came back Quenneville utilized him appropriately to the Hawks advantage. One of the reasons San Jose was not able to beat Vancouver was McLellan's inability to utilize his left and right hand shots.
It's not that subtle, you just have to know what you are looking at.
Geometry.
And finally, I'm not grasping at anything. The fact of the matter is, you still have not comprehended what I said. There was no contradiction in what I said, just a lack of understanding on your part. With that I will retire from this conversation. No point continuing any more. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 12:57:56
|
quote:
I should have learned and stayed to my first thought and not argued this right now. If it can not been seen that TB played a highly offensively focused game against Pitt through the 1st 4 games, followed by a 1-3-1 trap to win the series I can't show it. If someone can not see that TB stayed with the 1-3-1 trap against Washington will a high focus of one-on-one defense, I can't show it. If someone can not see that TB started against Boston with a high pressure forecheck and more offensive focus in the first 3 games and then went back to the 1-3-1 trap for the remaining 4, again I can't show that.
I don't think anyone is questioning that Boucher has proven to be a very very good coach, and his configuration moves have been well reported - hence the TB success this season. What does that have to do with AV's coaching?
With the exception of the WSH series, TB has spent a significant amount of time down or tied in their series. That is when coaches have to make adjustments, because it is obvious that what they're doing is not winning games.
At the end of the day, AV has had the luxury of not having to tinker too much with a system that has proven itself during the regular season and (when utilized) during the post season too. VAN has not been down in a series yet this season, and have only been tied twice. He's just been using the tools (from a very deep toolchest) that he has to get the job done, within the system they have set up. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 16:16:52
|
My point to Boucher was three fold. Firstly, directed toward's Alex, and I quote:
"Between you and Willus, all we've heard is how great all these other coaches are, including Boucher? WHO??? Really?""
Secondly, to Alex and I quote:
"One of you also mentioned that Boucher is good because Tampa has changed their style of play 3 times already in the playoffs? Really? Have they? Honestly, i've not watched a ton of their games but do realize they made some changes in taking out Washington by playing a trapping style, but did they stray from their norm to beat (barely) a depleted Pittsburgh team or lose to Boston? From what i saw of those series, they seemed to play their usual style? How does that equate to changing their style 3 times???"
Finally, it was to show a coach who alters a system to the competition. Something AV has not done. Still, I liken it to a kid banging his head against a wall. Two outcomes, either a concussion or a hole. Vancouver is drilling that hole.
It's a good point Nuxfan. Vancouver has not been down much at all and that has a certain luxury to it. AV has a deep tool chest, and no one can argue with winning. I am not one to talk hypotheticals, but just out of curiousity, let's say that Chicago scores in OT rather than Vancouver or Nashville finds a way to score just 2 or 3 more goals over 6 games and knocks out Vancouver.
Who would have shouldered that blame?? They players or the coach??? |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 22:19:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I should have learned and stayed to my first thought and not argued this right now. If it can not been seen that TB played a highly offensively focused game against Pitt through the 1st 4 games, followed by a 1-3-1 trap to win the series I can't show it.
First things first, i not only gave credit where i figured credit was due, i also conceded that i didn't see a lot of TB games. Still, this is what you come back with? So, now all you've done is wasted more of my time to go back and look at numbers. So, TB played their highly offensive game in the first 4 to find themselves down 3-1. Great, outshot in every game! So, they made some changes and trapped! Result, outshot in the next 3 as well, and FYI, not even close! One heckuva trap system! Way to go Boucher! Even if he's not nominated, they should give him coach of the year!
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
If someone can not see that TB stayed with the 1-3-1 trap against Washington will a high focus of one-on-one defense, I can't show it. If someone can not see that TB started against Boston with a high pressure forecheck and more offensive focus in the first 3 games and then went back to the 1-3-1 trap for the remaining 4, again I can't show that.
I've got so much to reply to i'll skip this. Considering i have already agreed that TB changed to beat Washington and the fact that no matter what i say about their series vs Boston you'll counter with more garbage, i'm gonna leave this alone. BTW, i wasn't being a smartass when i questioned whether or not TB really changed their style 3 times. I was really just questioning it and wondering if that was indeed true? You still don't have me convinced. Keep up the effort though.....
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Just one quick question. In the Nashville series, where Vancouver had an average offensive output at best, what did AV do to free up the highest scoring team in the NHL for more chances??? What was the strategy to get the 2 of the 3 highest scoring players in the NHL a few more chances each game???
NOTHING!!! Is that the answer you were looking for? While JQ or Babcock might have made some changes, AV just simply laughed and watched Ryan Kesler put up point after point after point and win the series for them. **Disclaimer - the writer of this is making a random guess as he has no clue as to what exactly the Canucks coach did and this is pure speculation, albeit, very realistic speculation** Beans, remember that Trotz guy you considered one of the better coaches? Well, perhaps he should have considered playing his big dmen against the Kesler line instead of the twins? Just sayin'........
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
What did AV do to slow down the SJ offensive from completely pelting his goalie??? When Chicago was throwing everything they had at the Canucks, what was the system or style change that slowed the attack?? As others say they can't see how other coaches do things, maybe I am missing what AV is doing. Please, enlighten me.
I, and nuxfan, have pointed out the necessary changes AV has made to HELP get the Canucks to where there are. I capitalize "HELP" because i still think (MY OPINION) it's got far more to do with the players than the coach! If you need me to repeat them, just scroll up and re read!
I love how you and willus are still too stubborn to concede that everything AV's been blamed for in the past that has now changed, gets him ZERO credit now? Your turn to enlighten me! |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 22:33:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
Willus says earlier that JQ outcoached AV in the first round. His reasoning? Well because they came back from 3-0 down and to OT in game 7 vs the top team in the league. This is from coaching? What'd he do? He inserted Bolland, who was deemed healthy and watched his team wake up and finally play up to their capabilities including riding a hot young goalie. You or i would have done the same thing and inserted Bolland and gave a little pep talk. Did i miss something else he did? Did they really change their style of play and go to a trapping system? If they did do something like that, it must have been very subtle. See where i'm going?
[
What bothers me, and this obviously was between Willus and i, is when i get called ignorant for a comment that was simply an opinion and then have to listen to crap like this:
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
1st point:
You need to work on your reading comprehension then. Go back and read the quote again. It says "poor coaching" not poor coach. This I already explained once. Not going to again. Read what is there, not what you think is there.
Really? Really? I need to work on reading comprehension? That's really grasping man. It says poor coaching not poor coach? That's what you're gonna go with willus? That's the best you can do huh? Sad. Where the f*** does poor coaching come from? If that's the best you can do to defend what you clearly got called out on, then i'm just wasting my time.
That's really pretty sad.......
Your first paragraph is revealing. Thank you.
Sure anyone would have thrown Bolland back in the line up, he's their 2nd centre. But that's where it ends for you. He just magically made everything better. You haven't considered several things. One being the right and left hand shot players. Have a look at the centre's on both rosters. What do you notice? Chicago lacked a RHS centre. When Bolland came back Quenneville utilized him appropriately to the Hawks advantage. One of the reasons San Jose was not able to beat Vancouver was McLellan's inability to utilize his left and right hand shots.
It's not that subtle, you just have to know what you are looking at.
Geometry.
*Insert HUGE LOL*.... So, he changed up and got a RHS in there! Oh, i get it, great move, oh wait, isn't that from that Bolland guy???? Why didn't he do something earlier and maybe put Sharp (RHS fyi) into that role before his team was down 3-bagel??? Geometry.......LOL, big LOL!
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
And finally, I'm not grasping at anything. The fact of the matter is, you still have not comprehended what I said. There was no contradiction in what I said, just a lack of understanding on your part. With that I will retire from this conversation. No point continuing any more.
Ah, how convenient. Instead of "retiring from this conversation", why don't you man up and explain how i've "still not comprehended what you said"??? C'mon, i'll gladly apologize if you can explain how your take has gone from poor coaching, to avg coaching, to poor coaching doesn't necessarily mean a poor coach, etc. What a frickin' joke.....i really hope you are done with this!!! |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 22:43:10
|
quote:
I am not one to talk hypotheticals, but just out of curiousity, let's say that Chicago scores in OT rather than Vancouver or Nashville finds a way to score just 2 or 3 more goals over 6 games and knocks out Vancouver.
Who would have shouldered that blame?? They players or the coach???
Ultimately, it falls on both - the players, for failing despite being the better team (in either case), and the coach, for not properly adjusting his system to beat the lesser team when they showed a backbone. Had either of the first 2 rounds gone the other way, I have no doubt that AV would no longer be the coach of VAN - and at a high level, it would be because his system had failed to make the best use out of the players he had. The Canucks have played a system all year long that they believe in - had the team failed, then the system would have failed, and it would be time to bring in a new coach with a new way of doing things.
However, I agree with you that hypotheticals suck here - the same question can be asked about any series over the years. The playoffs are full of "what ifs", but so far, AV is proving that he's doing things right and winning series. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2011 : 22:45:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I am not one to talk hypotheticals, but just out of curiousity, let's say that Chicago scores in OT rather than Vancouver or Nashville finds a way to score just 2 or 3 more goals over 6 games and knocks out Vancouver.
Who would have shouldered that blame?? They players or the coach???
Easiest question of the week......THE COACH!!! You happy now? And i'm not just saying this to please you, it would absolutely be AV. Normally i'd use the excuse that you can't simply fire 20+ players therefore the coach has to go, but in this case, i'd agree, AV would have had enough chances and would have lost his job. But, are there not good coaches out there who've been fired before? No? Never? Every coach, well most anyway, have an expiry date sotospeak, and have to move on eventually.
Bottom line is, you guys continue to ignore the facts. You blamed AV for all bad things Canucks that are now not bad. Those "no longer bad things", you give him no credit for. Do you not understand what i'm saying??? |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2011 : 03:50:42
|
so willus beans what you;re saying is Jacques Martin awsome right?
"I led the league in "Go get 'em next time." - Bob Uecker
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2011 : 09:56:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
*Insert HUGE LOL*.... So, he changed up and got a RHS in there! Oh, i get it, great move, oh wait, isn't that from that Bolland guy???? Why didn't he do something earlier and maybe put Sharp (RHS fyi) into that role before his team was down 3-bagel??? Geometry.......LOL, big LOL!
Ah, how convenient. Instead of "retiring from this conversation", why don't you man up and explain how i've "still not comprehended what you said"??? C'mon, i'll gladly apologize if you can explain how your take has gone from poor coaching, to avg coaching, to poor coaching doesn't necessarily mean a poor coach, etc. What a frickin' joke.....i really hope you are done with this!!!
Re: 1st paragraph
Laughing right back at you kid. You just proved once again how little you know about hockey. You go ahead and think what you like though.
Re: 2nd paragraph
I can't help you. You don't know the difference between a noun and a verb. You are now misrepresenting what I said. Coaching and coach are not the same. For the last time, I said, he is an average COACH because he can achieve good results in the regular season and then we see poor COACHING from him in the playoffs. Much like many coaches in the league.
I would suggest you buy yourself a book on Coaching Hockey and Grammar as you really could use it. Read the grammar book first though.
Good day.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2011 : 11:01:59
|
Willus, i'm really wanna be done with this so i just reread everything you've said. While i have to say that we obviously have different ideas of what's avg and what's good, i will say this, as i promised.
I apologize. I saw where you said he's an average coach. Personally, i consider him a good coach, not great, but good. Maybe my "good" is your "average"? Either way, i have no need to read a book on grammar to know the difference between coaching and a coach, however, i'd expect good coaching from a good coach, simple as that. Sure, i guess a coach, like a player could have an off night, series, year, etc but i still think you're failing to give AV the credit he deserves this season. I understand that in your world, advancing far in the playoffs is everything. Surely if you were the GM in Nashville, Mr. Trotz would be coaching elsewhere quite some time ago! I also understand in your world that AV should have gotten the Canucks deeper into the playoffs in the past, even though they were eliminated by a better team each of the 3 years he took them to the playoffs, two of which went on to win the Cup (Ana in 07 and Chi last year). This also helps me understand that i'm fortunate you're not my boss!
Now though, he has taken them to the final. One of two things is going to happen and this is how i see it. He wins the cup, and people like you will claim he did it because his team was so good, he didn't have to do anything and anyone could have gotten that team there. Or, he loses in the finals, and "he's a poor coach" or "he got outcoached", etc comes back. Bottom line is, you're not seeing the big picture of all he's done to contribute to this team being as good as they are!
Can you say for a fact that Ryan Kelser would be playing the way he is if he were elsewhere playing for someone else? Maybe, just maybe, Vigneault has had something to do with him? How about Lapierre? While he's not in the running for the Conn Smythe, he's played a significant role especially in Manny's absence. Think Gillis would have considered him if not for AV having coached him before? Get where i'm going yet?
Bottom line is this, you may think i know nothing about coaching and it's "geometry", but i get the feeling you have a little to learn / understand yourself.
Good day, back atcha.... |
|
|
|
admin
Forum Admin
Canada
2341 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2011 : 11:13:23
|
| Boyz. It's getting a little personal here. Knock it down a notch and avoid the personal statements please. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2011 : 13:47:01
|
Alex, I was not expecting anyone to say anything but the coach in that case. Sure the players are responsible for the play on the ice and they would share the blame, but I would have said coach too. But I fail to see your point in
"Bottom line is, you guys continue to ignore the facts. You blamed AV for all bad things Canucks that are now not bad. Those "no longer bad things", you give him no credit for. Do you not understand what I'm saying???"
I do not understand what you are saying. If fact, this is contradictory. Let me give you an example. Passing the puck in front of your net is a horrible hockey play. That is the common opinion of anyone who watched hockey. However, if a player does pass the puck in front of his net and it leads to a break out pass for a break away goal, does that make it a good play off of a sudden?? No, it's still a bad play. So if you are saying that AV would have been responsible for a loss to Chicago or Nashville, then how is he responsible for the wins??
I think that, in many ways, Vancouver is winning in spite of their coach. But they are winning, so it doesn't matter does it. |
|
|
|
nuxfan
PickupHockey All-Star
3670 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2011 : 15:23:52
|
quote:
So if you are saying that AV would have been responsible for a loss to Chicago or Nashville, then how is he responsible for the wins??
I think that, in many ways, Vancouver is winning in spite of their coach. But they are winning, so it doesn't matter does it.
Then I have to ask, if not team success, what is your measure of a good coach? The question you pose goes for any coach - if they are responsible for the losses, then they must be in some way responsible for the wins.
The coaches that are widely regarded as "good coaches", have all enjoyed at least some measure of team success as well - good teams make coaches look good. Conversely, I have yet to see a good team win consistently despite bad coaching. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 05/30/2011 : 15:56:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Alex, I was not expecting anyone to say anything but the coach in that case. Sure the players are responsible for the play on the ice and they would share the blame, but I would have said coach too. But I fail to see your point in
"Bottom line is, you guys continue to ignore the facts. You blamed AV for all bad things Canucks that are now not bad. Those "no longer bad things", you give him no credit for. Do you not understand what I'm saying???"
I do not understand what you are saying. If fact, this is contradictory. Let me give you an example. Passing the puck in front of your net is a horrible hockey play. That is the common opinion of anyone who watched hockey. However, if a player does pass the puck in front of his net and it leads to a break out pass for a break away goal, does that make it a good play off of a sudden?? No, it's still a bad play. So if you are saying that AV would have been responsible for a loss to Chicago or Nashville, then how is he responsible for the wins??
I think that, in many ways, Vancouver is winning in spite of their coach. But they are winning, so it doesn't matter does it.
Okay, here's where you misunderstood me. I answered your question of "who would shoulder the blame" (if Chi had beaten Vancouver) with "the coach". THAT is what i referred to as the easiest question. I think everyone on this planet would agree that AV would have been terminated had they not advanced past the first round this season. No where did i say he would be "responsible" for the lass. Do i feel he'd be more responsible than the players? NO, i really don't. The Canucks team this season is superior to the Blackhawks and i kid you not that i feel they should have beaten them with ANY, and i mean ANY coach behind the bench.
Let's face it, good coaches get fired all the time, it happens. It's common knowledge that often teams need a change and it's usually the coach who goes!
As far as AV being responsible for the wins vs Chi and Nash, that's not what i was getting at. My apologies if that's how it came off, but i'm admittedly the type of person who believes coaches do have a bearing on games, but not as much as the players! Let's face it, take a coach away, and a team CAN still win. Take the team away, and the coach is pretty useless. I know that's a bit silly, but i'm trying to make a point.
What i've been trying to say, is that you have continuously blamed Vigneault for the losses, but refuse to give him any credit for the wins. You blamed him for not being able to keep his players under control (that was your biggest issue with the Canucks and it clearly fell on AV as the coach). NOW, he's got them under control, they're winning, and you wanna claim that they're simply winning because they've got a really good team. How can you blame him for the lack of team success and call it his fault for the undisciplined play, yet not give him any credit now that they are playing disciplined hockey and winning? That's where i'm confused.
I get it, you don't like the Canucks (let's face it, that's no secret) and you're not a fan of AV. I'm okay with that. Dislike the guy all you want, but, as you've done with Kesler, give the guy a break when he accomplishes the things you were hard on him for before!
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Who will the Canucks face? 
