Coach AV returns next year? Yes or No

[Topper]

Bah, who gives a fuck about the president’s trophy?

Last year it meant something.

This year it is just another one of the useless banners we have floating around up in the nether regions of Rogers.

#12, #16, #19

[ukcanuck]

Bah, who gives a fuck about the president’s trophy?

Last year it meant something.

This year it is just another one of the useless banners we have floating around up in the nether regions of Rogers.

See I'm not feeling that sentiment at all . I know its not the Stanley cup and doesn't mean the team is a Stanley cup team, but heck it represents a lot of wins in the regular season.
As a fan who remembers the Canucks who couldn't win two games in a row and went for annual January swoons, the team that was embarrassed every time the Habs, Boston, Flyers, came to town, I am grateful that every night I tuned in this year I expected a win and was usually not disappointed.
I'd take a presidinks trophy every year

[Larry Goodenough]

First, you can't suggest a coaching change without offering up who the replacement would be. Firing a guy is one thing, replacing him with someone better is a whole other part. And if you offer up a replacement, you're just guessing he'll be better.

Second, I'm not even going to guess what's up with the coaching as I have never been invited into the room. So I'm not going to pretend to know if a coach has worn out his welcome.

Third, if you point to perceived mistakes Vigneault has made, most of the same mistakes have been made by Julien, Bylsma, Quenneville and Babcock in these playoffs.

Finally, if Gillis is indeed following the Detroit model of consistency, I would suspect Vigneault stays.

[donlever]

See I'm not feeling that sentiment at all . I'd take a presidinks trophy every year

Been there done that (imesho)...

Last year we were clearly the best team and statistics in nearly every category of significance indicated the same.

We slaughtered the league and won the Presidents trophy.

An accomplishment of large proportions.

This year we backed into it as a team that played beneath it's standards but garnered a ton of points playing in a shitty division.

An accomplishment not quite as grand.

Hence my opinion.

I don't want another Presidents trophy banner.

I want a Cup banner.

That's it, that's all...

[Boston Canucker]

I do think he's an excellent coach, best in Canuck history. But I think there is something to the idea that even the best coaches eventually wear out their welcome. I appreciated that he turned the room over to the team leaders, but I think he trusted them too much to pull the team out of it. My sense is the Canucks and AV part ways, and it's probably the right move.

[Meds]

But as I wonder about these things I wonder where our urgency was the first two games. Where did our fore check go? I don't think I can blame these things on AV.

Urgency was not the issue, games 3, 4, and 5, were games where we showed up and played with urgency.....but we couldn't do better than score 4 goals in 3 games. 1.33 goals for per game? Unacceptable. It is actually lower than the overall average going back to the beginning of the Finals last year. LA knew where to be to shut down our breakout, they knew where to be to shutdown our PP, they knew where to be close off our offense at 5-on-5. All this despite the urgency we showed for the last 3 games.

How many times did we watch a rebound come off Quick's pads out into the slot or far wing? I lost count. How many times did we see a Canuck skater anywhere near the loose puck that would have been a gimme into an open net with Quick down and out. It was the same story against the Bruins, and it would have won us the Cup because Thomas is SO FAR OUT OF POSITION after nearly every first save. Regardless, the system failed, and it has been failing since team's started setting up in such a way that let them cheat to our "overloaded" side of the ice and not worry about the back door play or the far side rebound because we are never there to use it. That is not players, that is coaching. Vigneault has shown an incredible talent for failing to adapt beyond juggling his lines and pairings.

In the last 3 games our goalie's numbers are better than their goalie's. We still lost. In fact, Schneider is sitting in top spot in GAA and SV% among playoff goalies. He may only have played 3 games, but he's still got better numbers than both Elliot and Quick. So, it wasn't that we ran into a hot goaltender, we simply never challenged that goaltender beyond first shot opportunities. Yes, Quick did steal the game by stoning Daniel on the breakaway last night, but that should not have been the difference in the series.

Vigneault needs to find a new home and Gillis needs to tell him as much.

[Meds]

First, you can't suggest a coaching change without offering up who the replacement would be. Firing a guy is one thing, replacing him with someone better is a whole other part. And if you offer up a replacement, you're just guessing he'll be better.

Second, I'm not even going to guess what's up with the coaching as I have never been invited into the room. So I'm not going to pretend to know if a coach has worn out his welcome.

Third, if you point to perceived mistakes Vigneault has made, most of the same mistakes have been made by Julien, Bylsma, Quenneville and Babcock in these playoffs.

Finally, if Gillis is indeed following the Detroit model of consistency, I would suspect Vigneault stays.

I'm gonna just say it, Ron Wilson.

He coached the Sharks to some great seasons, not his fault his goaltender imploded and his leaders choked. His successor in San Jose has had less success. He lost the room in Toronto, but face it, he was again hamstrung by some weak players and even weaker goaltending.

MacT doesn't have the offensive chops to do the job, though he would likely get more effort out of a few of our guys. There is also the chance he would be a disaster for a few softer players. He's in our system though, and he took a team of plumbers to game 7 of the Finals. I wonder what he could do with a talented team for a change.....

Terry Murray is another coach with a winning record who has playoff experience. His last gig was with the Kings and it ended this year. Don't know much about him as a coach other than what the statistics say.

Jaques Martins? Long shot, but he still has a winning record as a coach. And he's not a grind it out, shutdown hockey kind of coach.

[vic]

Third, if you point to perceived mistakes Vigneault has made, most of the same mistakes have been made by Julien, Bylsma, Quenneville and Babcock in these playoffs.

Julien - Cup
Bylsma - Cup
Quenville - Cup
Babcock - Cup

AV - SCF Appearance followed by mismanagement of his bench, followed by his only true prospect asking to get out of Vancouver, followed by getting "his type of player" (Kassian) and only playing him 2-3 minutes per game, followed by a furst round 5-game embarrassment to the 8th seed who had the claw to get into the playoffs and hadn't won a playoff round in over 10 years.

[Corb]

Anyone else read that piece on Mike Babcock? Maybe things aren't that rosy in Detroit either (I think mathonwy posted the link somewhere). It was an interesting read.

I'm sure that guy would have his pick of jobs, just like AV probably will.

[Larry Goodenough]

Third, if you point to perceived mistakes Vigneault has made, most of the same mistakes have been made by Julien, Bylsma, Quenneville and Babcock in these playoffs.

Julien - Cup
Bylsma - Cup
Quenville - Cup
Babcock - Cup

AV - SCF Appearance followed by mismanagement of his bench, followed by his only true prospect asking to get out of Vancouver, followed by getting "his type of player" (Kassian) and only playing him 2-3 minutes per game, followed by a furst round 5-game embarrassment to the 8th seed who had the claw to get into the playoffs and hadn't won a playoff round in over 10 years.

Ya, that's why I mentioned them. Then are good enough to win cups, then make the same coaching mistakes this season that Vigneault is accused of making. So. perhaps it's the players or circumstances more than the coach. All guys losing in spectacular fashion to underdogs. One leaving his goalie in for 8 goals. Three unable to manage their bench or motivate their players to score goals despite alot of shots, etc...

You're also focusing on the soap opera part of hockey and speculating to suit your position.

If you have personel issues, you should be calling for the GMs job.

[mathonwy]

A PT means that for 82 games of the year, the Canucks are top in the league in terms of winning more than they are losing.

When you're winning games all the time, you're creating a culture of winning and everyone likes a winner.

There is no doubt that this post season was a major step backwards in the development of that culture, but, it doesn't mean its completely derailed. (it WILL be derailed if you fire/trade everyone)

Every other Canadian team (other than the Sens) would kill to be in our position.

We win a lot and we look good doing it.

AV made that happen and as there aren't really any heir apparents out there that come to my mind that can easily replace him, AV stays for now IMO.

[Meds]

Third, if you point to perceived mistakes Vigneault has made, most of the same mistakes have been made by Julien, Bylsma, Quenneville and Babcock in these playoffs.

Julien - Cup
Bylsma - Cup
Quenville - Cup
Babcock - Cup

AV - SCF Appearance followed by mismanagement of his bench, followed by his only true prospect asking to get out of Vancouver, followed by getting "his type of player" (Kassian) and only playing him 2-3 minutes per game, followed by a furst round 5-game embarrassment to the 8th seed who had the claw to get into the playoffs and hadn't won a playoff round in over 10 years.

Ya, that's why I mentioned them. Then are good enough to win cups, then make the same coaching mistakes this season that Vigneault is accused of making. So. perhaps it's the players or circumstances more than the coach. All guys losing in spectacular fashion to underdogs. One leaving his goalie in for 8 goals. Three unable to manage their bench or motivate their players to score goals despite alot of shots, etc...

You're also focusing on the soap opera part of hockey and speculating to suit your position.

If you have personel issues, you should be calling for the GMs job.

Not sure what mistakes those coaches made.....

Julien: Moron, bufoon, had a team that fit his coaching style and a league that let them get away with it. Same team this year is struggling to get past the Capitals. Julien doesn't belong on the list unless the NHL is now the league where whichever team can beat the other team up and play the most outside the rules wins.

Bylsma: Won a Cup, hasn't returned to the big dance since. But he did get there two years in a row. The early exit by the Pen's is as much a fluke as it is Marc Andre Fleury being a total seive. He pulled him once and Johnson let in the first shot he faced and proceeded to do nothing more than hold the door open for the Flyers. He also is coaching a team that is paper thin defensively.

Quenneville: His only Cup appearance was a win, and if he hadn't won with that Blackhawks team then he should have been laughed out of the league. Goaltending was an issue, but Niemi got lucky and found a horseshoe which he has since lost. Not a problem though because they played Philly who hasn't had a good goaltender that they could rely on since Parent. Since then his team has exited in the first round once, and (hopefully) will again. Not his fault, it's a team that is 6 men deep with nothing in net.

Babcock: Coached a team of plumbers in Anaheim to the finals in front of a hot goaltender. Left the Ducks and went to Detroit and won a Cup, then went back to the finals the next year and lost. Since then the team he has been given has been aging, key components have retired, and the replacements haven't been as experienced or up to the task. Until this year the Red Wings have had only one season where they have had a true competitor in their division (Chicago in 2010-11) and now they have St. Louis and Nashville to contend with. The team is simply old. Babcock made no mistakes during the first round against Nashville, he simply lost players to injury and then found his team didn't have the depth to break through Trotz's defensive wall.

Now look at Vigneault.....

The Canucks were arguably the deepest team in the NHL. They had the experienced player core, after last year's SFC loss, to succeed in the post season. They had all-world goaltending. They had speed, more than their opponent. They had talent. They under performed for the last 3 months of the regular season and backed their way into the President's Trophy. Put Vancouver in the central or pacific division this year and they would have been scrapping for their playoff lives down the stretch and likely still be playing hockey. Instead, they were done in 5 games. Vigneault plays favorites with his players, runs on hunches rather than on the performances that are staring him in the face, and his GM gave him the exact team that he wanted to go into the playoffs. The results? Epic fail. There was only one injury of note, Daniel Sedin, but he was gone for the last 2 weeks of the season, most coaches can draw up a gameplan to counter the loss of one player. Vigneault couldn't. He couldn't inspire his team to play 60 minutes of hockey for 3 straight months. It then took 2 bad losses on home ice to start the playoffs before they woke up, and when they did, they followed coach AV's gameplan which couldn't find a goal in a net full of pucks.

[vic]

Quenneville - lost in the Conference Final then coached his team to the SCF the following year. One year later he coached a re-vamped roster to come back and force a Game 7 OT against the Canucks which he lost because of a bad clear and even better shot by Burrows.

AV - lost in the 2nd round to ANA / CHI / CHI only to coach his team (who almost blew it the first round) to the SCF followed by a first-round loss in 5 games against the 14th seeded team out of the 16 that made the playoffs.

[Lancer]

I don't buy that whole 'he's lost the room' BS. He doesn't need to be in there firing up the troops and motivating and getting 'buy-in' from the players. The leadership group in the dressing room does that now, and they back him up. The stars haven't quit.

I think it all depends on what identity and style of play Gillis decides on for next year. Do they stay the same, with a high-skill puck-possession game that tries to be gritty? Do they change it up and be a puck-pursuit, crash-and-bang forechecking group which seems to be in vogue, or be a trapping defensive shell? Is Gillis convinced that Vigneault can adapt his tactics enough to get the team to succeed?

Vigneault has done it before, but what gets me is his inability to make on-the-spot adaptations to the tactics to counter what happens in the playoffs. The other teams have figured out how to beat the Canucks - clog the areas between the red line and the Canucks' blue line, pressure the D and keep the slot clear. Get some good goaltending, some firendly playoff-style reffing and voila, you have better than even odds of beating the Canucks the way Vigenault's system works. The coaching staff has not found a way to get the puck into the slot or the crease with players in position to get the greasy goals. Hell, 2 games into the 1st round and they're still drop-passing it on neutral-zone break-ins. Newell Brown, is that really the best you got?

The other thing to consider is who's available who could coach this team the way Gillis wants them to play better than Vigneault? In a way, he's inextricably tied to the team and the franchise because who else could go in and re-write the way things are done in Vancouver without the system falling apart? You remove Vigneault, you may as well re-model the organization and give it a new identity and I don't think it's to the stage where it needs it.

Frankly, I think Vigneault can adapt as he's done before but I think he has one season left. If he can't at least make it to the conference finals next season, then I think a re-imaging of the team from coach on down is in order.

[Blob Mckenzie]

I'm gonna just say it, Ron Wilson.

I'm all for freedom of speech but this is a dumb suggestion to say the least.

I could say a bit more here but I'll leave it at that.