Alain Vigneault

[vadim sharifijanov]

You say it like it's almost a bad thing.

Personally, I loved how AV did this. The micromanagement aspect to him made him very successful. I mean, put it this way... in a game, you only have x amount of chances to score goals. Why wouldn't you want your best offensive players to take as many chances as possible in that x amount of time?

to a degree, that was a winning strategy by AV. you won't hear me complaining about daniel's art ross season, though i'd argue that henrik's art ross season (when AV didn't manage as much) was the more successfully coached season.

but often he took it too far, to the degree where your best players are taken completely out of the flow of the game. the sedins, like rick nash, are not plugs. a good plug does exactly what he's gold, always makes the safe play, almost always plays in the same situation, against mostly the same competition. what differentiates a bona fide NHL plug from a guy who can't stick is that he can come in cold and still do exactly the same simple thing.

usually, your creative skill players need to be involved to be creative. you don't let your stars sit on the bench for five minutes at a time and get cold and then still expect them to control the flow of the game. AV didn't always sit the sedins for too long (though the first LA series, when the sedins begged him to put them on the PK because we were taking too many penalties is a good example of AV being too married to being AV). but it happened more often than it should have, imo.

long story short, i want to emphasize the difference between managing icetime and zone starts, which is a smart thing to do, and micro-managing, which is what AV sometimes ended up doing instead of deviating from the plan when the O-zone/ES/PP opportunities didn't present themselves.

 

[Gormo]

He might drive you insane.

 

[canuck4life16]

He loves plugs

 

[Satoru Gojo]

I really enjoyed the style of hockey he coached from 2009 onwards, but let me tell you, that guy cant adjust worth s**t in the playoffs

 

[SillyRabbit]

Good coach for offence?

I think you're mistaken there.

He's a good coach at defence (see: Canucks team in 2007 that had no talent) but he cannot coach offence very well.

He also loves to sit back with the lead, rather than keep pressure on the other team.

 

[yoss]

I dont find being able to talk to the media a good thing. Nor a bad thing. Its an irrelevant thing in terms of coaching and is basically for the fans.

So i like that about HIM, but for the most part his positives and negatives are so vague. (not just you)

I mean, give me an example of some young guys he would have sit on the bench for the entire game rather than send him down to the AHL. Give me an example of young guys he would sit for an entire game after 1 or 2 bad defensive plays. NOT BAD, like u got scored on and its your fault. Like, you were in a bad position... and though you almost scored a goal for us, you almost let one in too. You can sit for 20 minutes now.


What do you mean he sits on leads? Up a goal and he chooses to sit back and play a trap? or something


and what do u mean hes a fursterating coach?

Some games going into nearly the last half of the third with a one goal lead he would have guys basically dump the puck in and line change, and then repeat. They didn't even seem to bother trying to gain the zone and it was like a giant penalty kill as another poster has mentioned already.

The infuriating thing about watching this was inevitably the other team would score, and even if they didn't it was boring as hell to watch.

2 or 3 goal leads were not safe either late in the game. I realize all teams can get like this and then the momentum starts to shift, but it was sitting on a lead taken to new, never before dreamed of levels. And then on cue the obligatory turn over pass into the middle of the ice- or a forced turnover of some kind in the waning minutes (or seconds) of the game and in goes the puck to tie things up.

Offensively it wasn't as bad as that in 2011, so I think he still has it in him to play an uptempo style game but it sure wasn't the case the last year or two. At least to me, I can only speak for myself.

 

[mossey3535]

Here's all you need to know about Alain Vigneault: he will do anything he can to win the game at hand. That's both his greatest strength and his greatest weakness.

How does he approach this? He does it by expecting his guys to be pros, and giving them a lot of freedom and autonomy. He's very much like a corporate boss in that way. He offers a calm, composed, even-keeled approach. He's very much about the process and being consistent in his attitude.

For example, if he sees a guy who he thinks is great at both ends (Kesler), he will play him over and over and really lean on him. He'll take guys he's not so confident in but who have offensive skill and micromanage them to provide offence without costing the team defensively (well, theoretically). This is what I'm talking about when I say 'win the game at hand'. However the drawback to that is that it pigeonholes certain players. He also doesn't look at the 'big picture' which is why Kesler was still playing 20+ minutes after we'd locked up playoff spots or the President's Trophy.

Because of his consistency he's good at coming up with a team gameplan and then having his team implement it. This is where he's been a little unpredictable though: for most of his career and the first two years here he was clearly a defence-first coach. When he was asked to coach a more up-tempo style, he did so very successfully. However, as the 2011 playoffs wore on you could see him gradually abandon that plan. He tried to do everything at once in the last two years - play 'safe' hockey but still have aggressive elements like d-men pinching. It was an utter failure.

So the question is very much like the one we have for Torts - what kind of coach are we going to see this year?

He isn't going to change tactics within a playoff series - that's part of the drawback of his consistency. His whole mantra is to trust his guys and trust the system he has implemented which is why he doesn't change it or his demeanor very much. I think it's a great way to coach for the regular season. Over that kind of slog with lots of meaningless games his steadiness is at it's best. In a playoff series with tons of variables changing period to period and game to game, steadiness can be a real drawback.

You see this as well with our 'meltdowns'. IMO if your leaders are strong enough his style is perfect. But since he is so hands off and dependent on his players to provide leadership, motivation and accountability it leads to situations where the players feel a little lost without the traditional guidance (and sometimes good old fashioned coercion) hockey players usually expect from the head coach.

If he's patient where it isn't appropriate like with the abortion of a 'system' we played in the last two years, it can be disastrous. However, the players we have weren't suited to the way he wanted to play. You can see that as stubbornness, absolute faith in his players, or the GM's failure to give him what he needed.

He does have a tendency to have scapegoats and favourites but every coach is like that. To be honest even though I wanted him fired for awhile (I wasn't impressed by him in Montreal beforehand) I think my only real consistent criticism is he needs to watch his mouth in the media. He has a tendency to make comments about players that may or may not have been communicated to the player in person beforehand. To me it's a tendency that is totally at odds with his general approach.

However you can't argue his general success, especially in the regular season.

 

[StringerBell]

He's a good coach, but the system he ran for the last two years was disturbingly low event. The center always had to wait to leave the defensive zone until the puck was cleared, players weren't allowed to carry the puck into the middle of the ice, loves his cycle... He's probably not the coach to solve your scoring issues.

 

[Mofletz]

Come playoff time you guys won't have a 4th line. Kassian had a few games were he played a grand total of 2 minutes.

 

[Free Edler]

Very good coach who is obviously not without his flaws (even though I disagree with the 'he can't coach young players' meme that has gotten popular around here), just ran out of time and the message got stale. We needed a new voice.

 

[denkiteki]

As a New York Ranger fan, I liked Torts as a coach. Thought we had a good chance to win with him. He made us into strong contenders. But hes gone, and I am quite happy with your ex-coach, AV.

I was just wondering... I heard all the major stuff and seen all the small stuff. I am aware hes bringing us sleep science, advanced stats, coordinators in the suites, more assistant coaches, he likes zone line changing, he likes to do his hw. The small stuff, seems like a likeable coach, seems to love NY. Open to media.

Can you guys tell us more about the guy though? The in between stuff. Like what kind of lines does he role with.

Does he like the top 6, bottom 6. Or how does he create lines
What does he look for in his best players. What kind of players does he play the most
I know hes very focused on the offense, and I am aware that the Nucks were very overall strong in the last few years but how is the defense? How is the system

Do the fans get to understand in depth about his line changing system. Do the advanced stats ever get told to the fans?

Just shed some more light on the specifics of his coaching

All those stuff you heard about has nothing to do with AV. They were put in place AFTER MG became GM. AV was coach before MG was GM and none of those were in place.

Before MG took over the team, AV's style was basically defense, defense, defense, and more defense. Basically a trap style game, try to win every game 1-0, 2-1, etc... and it was pretty successful since he had Luongo playing very well those few years.

Then shortly after MG took over and gave him some talent, he opened up the game for a bit, leading to high offense style play and allowing pretty much every dman to jump up in the rush, have the green light, etc. Also MG was advertising a fast pace/open hockey style during every interview he did so this style probably has more to do with the GM than AV.

My guess is if AV had his choice of system, it'll be a trap style game but he'll probably give his D a chance to jump up. The last few years, 'nucks have always been near the top in offense from defense. As soon as your team gets the lead tho, expect him to have 4 man back with no forecheck and trying to trap/hold the lead for 40 minutes (not kidding, he did that so many times the last 2 seasons it wasn't funny).

Every so often he will call someone out for under preforming and for whatever reason, when he calls someone out, it works. He'll also change lines a LOT even when they are working... no idea why but he just does it. Even a lot during games. He won't play rookies much if they make any mistake in their own zone (i.e. not good for youth development). Often time if you make a mistake in your own zone (and is a rookie/not one of his favorites), you won't see the ice in the 3rd or OT... even if you were having a great game (Hodgson had this happen a few times, Grabner too).

He is horrible with his timeout (basically never use it at the right time, only seems to use it when one of his Assistants or core players ask for it... always to rest the D almost). He also seems to give his "favorites" more leeway than anyone else. I.e. Raymond was kept on the 2nd line forever while not producing... Rome was playing ahead of Ballard and kept playing even if he made mistakes while Ballard misses a game for making 1 mistake (or it seemed that way).

If you get to SOs, he's probably as random as you get. Tho part of the reason might be the 'nucks just don't have any great options so he's going random. Only thing constant is if you score, you'll go again next time... if you score a few times, you get a few more misses before you get taken off the rotation. But how you get on the rotation seems fairly random/unpredictable and its not like we have much SO success...

He does do a bit of line matching but often tries matching top line vs top line instead of checking line vs top line. Sometime it works (due to the Sedins style of getting the puck + never giving it up) but sometime it doesn't (Sedins also aren't the best at getting back the puck once they lose it). He doesn't go overboard with line matching like some coaches do tho (namely 5s shifts just to try to get the right personal out, nor 5 men units all that often).

As far as strength goes... he pretty much forces defensive effort if you want to play. If you don't play defense, you're not getting much ice time so you know most of your forwards will be accountable. For the most part, when he plays the trap system, it gets results in the regular season (as proven by the 'nucks regular season success). He does get offense from the defense tho you could argue part of that is from the personal he has to work with... for the most part 'nucks have been near the top in terms of that stat the entire time he was here. That said, he has only had 1 good playoff run (while getting to the playoff every year except 1 i believe) which might suggest his success is limited to regular season.

 

[AmazingNuck]

Maybe Vigneault will succeed in NYR. He did well here.

His biggest problem is that he doesn't adjust. He'll sit on a 1 goal lead in the third no matter what. He'll micromanage his zone starts no matter what. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. People here criticize him for micromanaging, yet they claim he's a bad coach because he doesn't micromanage enough. What?

Each coach comes with their benefits and their flaws. He's a great X's and O's guy. He's good at developing young players. He'll bench some of your guys with massive prejudice. He can coach both defense and offense. Personally, I think you guys will do well, as long as you guys aren't insistent on playing an offensive brand. He's a better defensive coach than offensive coach.

EDIT:

Honestly, it's hard to fault Vigneault for what happened these last two years. The team should not have been playing offensive hockey, but he was pressured to by Gillis. The 2010-11 brand was successful because of transitional play and the powerplay, but once the Canucks lost Ehrhoff, the whole system broke down. I credit Vigneault for trying everything to cover up the Sedins' lack of foot speed.

I mean, the 2010-11 system was so reliant on having a puck rushing defenseman... did Gillis not see this? Did Vigneault not see this? Even though the Sedins won the Harts and the Art Rosses, the system hinged so much more on Ehrhoff than either of them.

 

[AmazingNuck]

Good coach for offence?

I think you're mistaken there.

He's a good coach at defence (see: Canucks team in 2007 that had no talent) but he cannot coach offence very well.

He also loves to sit back with the lead, rather than keep pressure on the other team.

His strategy did lead to two consecutive President's trophies. He sits back on leads so he can conserve his players' energy. Having them apply pressure all game is tiring.

 

[yoss]

For what it's worth, I thought he was one of the better coaches this organization has had and I hope he does well with the Rangers. It'll be interesting to keep tabs on him and I'm sure the media will be all over the coaching and team comparisons between the two, I'm curious to see where our respective teams end up in the standings when all is said and done.

I'm an easy guy to please, all I ask for as a result from the regular season is a playoff spot. Hopefully both of our new coaches can do that much at the very least.

 

[AmazingNuck]

You say it like it's almost a bad thing.

Personally, I loved how AV did this. The micromanagement aspect to him made him very successful. I mean, put it this way... in a game, you only have x amount of chances to score goals. Why wouldn't you want your best offensive players to take as many chances as possible in that x amount of time?

The same reason that the best running backs don't run on every single possession. The same reason that the best player on NBA teams don't shoot 60 times a game. The same reason that aces in the MLB don't start every single one of their team's games.

The players tire out.

I'll give Vigneault credit for keeping the Sedins fresh physically, but mentally, they were at a point where there was little creativity in their game. They only had to play offense and that basically made them stale.


Another reason? In basketball, ball movement and getting the rest of the team involved is crucial to winning. Having 5 players that can score any time makes the offense much more dynamic and improves all of their chances because the defense must stay honest. If the opposing team knows that only the Sedins are going to be threats to score, are the Canucks not that much easier to shut down?


The last reason I'll point out is: offense and scoring is a great motivator for players to play defense. Think about when you played sports: after you scored a goal or hit a three pointer, you were excited and motivated, so when it was your turn to defend, weren't you a lot more focused and in the game?



Logically, yes, you have the best chance of scoring on a play if you have your best players on the ice every single time there's a scoring chance. Historically, you have the best chance of winning when every line you put out is a threat to score because they've scored before... for the Canucks, the bottom lines never scored because they rarely got the chance to score.


Hopefully Torts will be different.

 

[Vancouver_2010]

His strategy did lead to two consecutive President's trophies. He sits back on leads so he can conserve his players' energy. Having them apply pressure all game is tiring.

what is the exchange rate for president trophy for a stanley cup? Face it, the trophy itself is useless and no one (excluding canucks fan) will remember we have won that pointless trophy twice in a row.

AV simply is a bottom-ten coach with a great team to work with, he has Mike Gillis to thank for. If its not him, AV should be fired a lot earlier.

 

[AmazingNuck]

He's a good coach, but the system he ran for the last two years was disturbingly low event. The center always had to wait to leave the defensive zone until the puck was cleared, players weren't allowed to carry the puck into the middle of the ice, loves his cycle... He's probably not the coach to solve your scoring issues.

You can't blame Vigneault for any of that. His centres were slow AND his defensemen were slow.. unless you want to trust Kesler or Schroeder with puck-handling, and in the middle of the ice?

I like Kesler as much as the next guy, but he's never been great with the puck in the neutral zone.

 

[AmazingNuck]

what is the exchange rate for president trophy for a stanley cup? Face it, the trophy itself is useless and no one (excluding canucks fan) will remember we have won that pointless trophy twice in a row.

AV simply is a bottom-ten coach with a great team to work with, he has Mike Gillis to thank for. If its not him, AV should be fired a lot earlier.

Considering you completely ignored the context of my post, the post before mine, and the general purpose of this thread, your condescending tone is unwarranted.

What do you base this "bottom-ten" claim on? Can you name me 20 better coaches? Can you provide reasons for these 20 better coaches? Because if there are 20 better coaches in the league, I'm sure the Canucks would have been prevented from winning a playoff series at all.


Vigneault was personally extended by Gillis. He found another job in one of hockey's biggest markets almost instantly. You base your opinion on Vigneault because he's the only coach you've been exposed to, yet why would he have a job so quickly in such a big market if he was a bottom 10 coach?

"If its not him, AV should be fired a lot earlier."

Did you just figure that out? Considering Gillis WAS HIS BOSS, I think it goes without saying that AV would've been fired if not for Gillis. :

 

[Vancouver_2010]

Considering you completely ignored the context of my post, the post before mine, and the general purpose of this thread, your condescending tone is unwarranted.

What do you base this "bottom-ten" claim on? Can you name me 20 better coaches? Can you provide reasons for these 20 better coaches? Because if there are 20 better coaches in the league, I'm sure the Canucks would have been prevented from winning a playoff series at all.


Vigneault was personally extended by Gillis. He found another job in one of hockey's biggest markets almost instantly. You base your opinion on Vigneault because he's the only coach you've been exposed to, yet why would he have a job so quickly in such a big market if he was a bottom 10 coach?

"If its not him, AV should be fired a lot earlier."

Did you just figure that out? Considering Gillis WAS HIS BOSS, I think it goes without saying that AV would've been fired if not for Gillis. :

That is why i feel for Rangers fan. Frankly i will feel for chicago fans if he coaches the hawks instead, I dislike the Hawks with a passion and still don't want AV to screw them over.

Better coach than AV (I am not claiming good coaches, but just upgrades)
Marc Crawford, John Tortorella, Claude Julien, Bob Hartley, Joel Quenneville, Darryl Sutter, Mike Babcock, Dan Bylsma, Peter Laviolette, Craig MacTavish, Paul MacLean, Dave Tippett, Pat Quinn, Ron Wilson, Ken Hitchcock, Randy Carlyle, Barry Trotz, Guy Boucher. Some of the coaches in the nhl are rookies so far and have the benifit of the doubt to them.

 

[AmazingNuck]

That is why i feel for Rangers fan. Frankly i will feel for chicago fans if he coaches the hawks instead, I dislike the Hawks with a passion and still don't want AV to screw them over.

Better coach than AV (I am not claiming good coaches, but just upgrades)
Marc Crawford, John Tortorella, Claude Julien, Bob Hartley, Joel Quenneville, Darryl Sutter, Mike Babcock, Dan Bylsma, Peter Laviolette, Craig MacTavish, Paul MacLean, Dave Tippett, Pat Quinn, Ron Wilson, Ken Hitchcock, Randy Carlyle, Barry Trotz. Some of the coaches in the nhl are rookies so far and have the benifit of the doubt to them.

I see names. I see no support.

 

[Vancouver_2010]

I see names. I see no support.

I will post reasons later, i can't right now because i am tired. Definitely within this week.