Canucks News N Notes 25-26

[UWSaint]

I haven't seen Green, Tockey or Boudreau really excel at this. I give all 3 only a 6/10, but all 3 coulda been 8/10

Vigneault was an 8 or better. What separated AV from these guys is that AV built systems around players, not forcing players into systems. AV's first team with the Canucks played nothing like his 5th team, and that's because personnel rolled over and he adjusted. The connection here with teaching to improve strengths (as opposed to mitigate weaknesses in individual games) is simply putting players in a position where they can capitalize on their existing strengths -- so even if there isn't an intentional philosophy to focus on making the good better, there's the power of repetition and reward at play.

I don't know that I would classify BB as having a similar flaw to Tockey or Green. His issues were different -- it was that the players weren't sure what was expected of them. To the creative and those with a sixth sense, this was liberation. To those just trying to play at an NHL place, they was chaos.

It would be interesting to see the counterfactual world where BB was supported, not undermined, and the defensive personnel was at least at an average level.

[UWSaint]

Who the FUCK is Tochey or Tocky?

Tockey or Tockey Hockey is Rich Tocchet or Rick Tocchet style hockey.

[Meds]

I haven't seen Green, Tockey or Boudreau really excel at this. I give all 3 only a 6/10, but all 3 coulda been 8/10

Vigneault was an 8 or better. What separated AV from these guys is that AV built systems around players, not forcing players into systems. AV's first team with the Canucks played nothing like his 5th team, and that's because personnel rolled over and he adjusted. The connection here with teaching to improve strengths (as opposed to mitigate weaknesses in individual games) is simply putting players in a position where they can capitalize on their existing strengths -- so even if there isn't an intentional philosophy to focus on making the good better, there's the power of repetition and reward at play.

I don't know that I would classify BB as having a similar flaw to Tockey or Green. His issues were different -- it was that the players weren't sure what was expected of them. To the creative and those with a sixth sense, this was liberation. To those just trying to play at an NHL place, they was chaos.

It would be interesting to see the counterfactual world where BB was supported, not undermined, and the defensive personnel was at least at an average level.

The beginning of AV's tenure also coincided with the Canucks' best era of homegrown talent that was built by Burke/Nonis beginning to step into their own, and then augmented by some very good additions after Gillis took the reins.

In order of importance and impact.....

1. Hank and Dank became 1st line players the year before Vigneault arrived and would only improve and become a team driving duo going forward.

2. Luongo was acquired by Nonis during the summer, giving the Canucks a legit top-3 goaltender for the first time ever, this stabilized a young and growing team and gave them confidence to take risks without the puck ending up in their net every time the risk went sideways. As much as he gets shit on for some of his comments and his playoff choke-jobs, Luongo's positive impact on this team (particularly at the stage it was at) is undeniable.

3. He had a very strong leadership group in those first 2 seasons with Linden, Naslund, Morrison, Salo, Ohlund, and Willie Mitchell, providing some veteran mentorship as the torch was being passed to the next generation.

3. Ryan Kesler, Alex Burrows, and Kevin Bieksa, would all become regulars in Vigneault's inaugural campaign. Bieksa was a 42 point top-4 RHD that year, Burrows and Kesler would take another few seasons to hit their full stride, but those were 3 key young pieces to the puzzle that would inherit the leadership mantle alongside Hank and Dank.

4. Alex Edler would become a regular NHL'er in Vigneault's second year.

5. Jannik Hansen would make the jump from the farm and was quickly seen as an up and coming 3rd line forechecking winger.....he would prove to provide 2nd line support at times as well.

6. Mason Raymond was next on the scene, and following him was Cory Schneider, who was already percolating in-house but projected to be a top-10 NHL starter.

7. In 2008 Mats Sundin would be signed and spend half of a season with the Canucks. He would provide a serious boost in confidence for some of the young forwards, notably Kesler credits him with being the guy who helped him become a top-6 forward. Sundin would also provide 8 points in 8 playoff games.

8. Sundin's short-lived time in Vancouver would be followed up with the acquisition of Mikael Samuelsson and Christian Ehrhoff, both guys had significant impact and filled much needed roles in their respective positions. The former providing 2nd line scoring while spending time on the top-2 lines, the latter adding some serious mobility as and offensive punch to the blueline.

9. Dan Hamhuis, Manny Malhotra, and Chris Higgins, would all be acquired during the summer of 2010, and Chris Tanev would be signed just prior to that as an undrafted free agent.

None of these are meant to discredit Vigneault. As a head coach he did very very well to put these pieces in the right places to be successful, as well as adjust his systems to best compliment the strengths of his roster. However, it is undeniable that he was a benefactor of some smart in-house core building and did not have to deal with the hatchet job of roster building and in-house leadership void, that plagued this organization from the time the Sedin retired until probably when Hughes was named captain in 2023. It is also worth pointing out that Vigneault's greatest strength as a coach was also his greatest weakness.....he gave too much to the players and was not good at holding the leaders in the room accountable with "tough-love" when it was needed.

[UWSaint]

• None of these are meant to discredit Vigneault. As a head coach he did very very well to put these pieces in the right places to be successful, as well as adjust his systems to best compliment the strengths of his roster. However, it is undeniable that he was a benefactor of some smart in-house core building and did not have to deal with the hatchet job of roster building and in-house leadership void, that plagued this organization from the time the Sedin retired until probably when Hughes was named captain in 2023. It is also worth pointing out that Vigneault's greatest strength as a coach was also his greatest weakness.....he gave too much to the players and was not good at holding the leaders in the room accountable with "tough-love" when it was needed.

There were many good moves in the period -- and there were many players brought in who performed better for AV than they ever did elsewhere. Sammuelsson. Ehrhoff. I'd say Hamhuis and Mitchell. And internally -- guys that weren't supposed to be all that being more -- Bieksa, Burrows. I'd even put Kesler in this category -- never going to be more than a third line center when drafted.

It is impossible to tell how much of that was the internal motivation of the player, how much was the mix of teammates, how much the skills coaching, how much being put in positions to succeed (also coaching). There was no shortage of talent in Vancouver during the later Greene, BB, and Tocchet years, but the only complete season they outperformed their talent was Tocchet's first full season. And the Canucks have had better than average and sometimes great goaltending the whole time (when the starter was healthy). Plus, there was no shortage of talent getting drafted or being traded for -- how much of the player's failures came to do with being steered poorly due to coaching. I think Juolevi was his own thing and Virtanen was so clearly limited that management's failure to move him when there was a market after the 19 goal season was a waste of an asset.
But coaching was no small contributor to (IMO) Goldobin and Podkolzin's failure, Tryamkin going back to Russia, and Hutton failing to take a step forward after surprisingly making the team.

But during AV's tenure, outperforming the talent was the rule. You can look at the AV years and compare them to the WCE era that preceded it. Were those AV teams really better from a personnel perspective? In goal, absolutely. Elsewhere, compared to the other teams in the league, I'd say no. But under AV they reached another level. Again, the players and mix matter. But the simple analysis of overperforming v. underperforming talent must have something to do with coaching.

[Ronning's Ghost]

But the simple analysis of overperforming v. underperforming talent must have something to do with coaching.

How much of that difference would you say is due to systems design, and how much to other factors, such as roles, linemates and/or pairings?

I find it curious, that tidbit about Tocchet's frustration that management didn't trade Petey - with the insinuation that hat may have played in Tocchet's decision to bolt for Philadephia. Tocchet likes his warriors, but who doesn't? There appears to be a bit of a trend of skilled Euros and players like them being shipped out (ironically, not long after they were signed): Sprong, Kuzmenko, and Mikheyev which you could argue were instigated by Tocchet. Can't argue with that season he won the Adams, but Tocchet has his roster archetypes - and if players don't fit his archetypes, they get gone quick - traded out or sent down to Abby. The fact he essentially threw his hands up at Petey and wanted him gone reveals a shortcoming e

Interesting. My impression had been that in the NHL, a coach's job was more about making the best of the players management sent him, as opposed to the NFL, where teams most teams are willing to build a team around the system their head coach wants to run (with significant exceptions in both cases, of course).

Is this something that is changing about the NHL? A special case with the relationship between Tocchet and the Canucks ownership/management group? Or did NHL coaches always have more roster say than I thought?

I thought it was a strange disconnect that hamstrung the Canucks in the era that I thought represented their best chance at a championship so far. Keith Ballard, was -- considered in isolation -- a pretty decent defenceman, but on a team with a coach who didn't want him, he was a waste of an asset / cap space. What went wrong, there? Is there normally some communication process to keep that from happening?

(This your big chance, Chef, to explain why Gillis was a uniquely incapable GM.)

[Meds]

I find it curious, that tidbit about Tocchet's frustration that management didn't trade Petey - with the insinuation that hat may have played in Tocchet's decision to bolt for Philadephia. Tocchet likes his warriors, but who doesn't? There appears to be a bit of a trend of skilled Euros and players like them being shipped out (ironically, not long after they were signed): Sprong, Kuzmenko, and Mikheyev which you could argue were instigated by Tocchet. Can't argue with that season he won the Adams, but Tocchet has his roster archetypes - and if players don't fit his archetypes, they get gone quick - traded out or sent down to Abby. The fact he essentially threw his hands up at Petey and wanted him gone reveals a shortcoming even from an Adams-winner (so was Tortorella, so what does that say?). No small feat to turn Petey from a shrinking violet in the corners into something more Barkov-esque, but throwing your hands up because your star player can't play through an injury and needs kid gloves is not exactly a great look from an Adams-winner.

To be fair, Sprong and Kuzmenko were both pretty useless in their own end. Neither of them possessed much of a 2-way game. Mikheyev was a decent PK'er and knew his way around his own side of center.....but he was butter soft and injured more than he wasn't.

Under Tocchet, Pettersson showed us that he has hockey IQ for all situations. Prior to Tocchet we already knew that he had some fire in his belly.....the problem with Pettersson was that he didn't know how to control that fire and it often spread to between his ears, and not in a good way. As much as EP (and others) thought of JT as a hothead, Scooter was equally as dysfunctional. JT couldn't accept feedback on how to be a team leader and appropriately mentor young players.....Pettersson also can't handle critical feedback regarding his personal performance.

When those are your two options, as a coach, you are always going to go with the guy who can carry the entire team. Pettersson would pout and it would derail him for a game or even more. JT might quit on a play and have 10 minutes of a period where he sulked or was in a funk.....but he was still a more effective player in those times than Pettersson was during his sulks, and quite often he would either get hit, or throw a hit, and snap out of it.

I think a bunch of people here said that both players should have been dealt. Clearly that was the right move considering what HW let us in on earlier this week regarding both players.

[Todd Bersnoozi]

Vigneault was an 8 or better. What separated AV from these guys is that AV built systems around players, not forcing players into systems. AV's first team with the Canucks played nothing like his 5th team, and that's because personnel rolled over and he adjusted.

I remember when MG came on, I thought AV was going to be a goner. MG wasn't convinced that AV was going to be his man and most new GMs like to bring in their own guy. AV was known as a defensive coach, but MG wanted the team to open it up and play a more possession game. To his credit, AV adjusted and the rest is history. The team played some great hockey and became a contender for a few years there.