Confirmed with Link: Canucks fire John Tortorella, Mike Sullivan (not Glen Gulutzan)

[Barney Gumble]

Yeah. When it comes to this situation, there are plenty of candidates who may have any number of reasons to "leak" this sort of stuff out about Tortorella. Starting at the top of the list of reasons, given the way he departed New York...Tortorella is a guy that a lot of players simply do not seem to like or respect. Add in the other reasons, like players who had down years and their agents, potentially looking to explain some things and salvage the situation without coming out and directly saying it in the media themselves, a disgruntled ex-manager who may have had his hand forced in hiring the clown in the first place, heck even a lowly member of the team's equipment staff who Torts treated like garbage...those guys are often the wallflowers of an organization leaking info like this.

So some player's leaked out unflattering stuff about Torts because they had an axe to grind (eg., he wasn't a good coach, etc.,). What is their excuse about sleepwalking for the last season+ when Vigneault was coach?

There were alot of reasons to fire Torts; however some of the blame for this past season has to go with the players.

 

[Jyrki21]

yep.

Here's my read on Torts: So confident he was doing things the right way, he didn't care to stop and second guess what he was doing. He ran things by his gut instinct, which was often wrong. Opponent video represented second guessing. Practice represented second-guessing as well, and further fatigued the players he was playing to overwhelm with minutes.

It would appear that ideologues have the same effect on hockey teams as they do on countries...

 

[Diamonddog01]

When I see Gary Mason breaking news now, I can't help but think of his recent "the Aquilinis are going to sell the team, oh wait no they're not"..

As for 'not practicing enough' I thought the line earlier this year was that with Western Conference travel there wasn't time to practice frequently enough to train the players to play the system (despite their clear confusion).. wonder how this jives with that.

Anyway there's a ton here that is appalling if true, and if true it's great to have that kind of dysfunction out of the way (and Torts is under the bus where he belongs).

Of course with this further supporting the notion that the Aquilinis have been waist deep in hockey operations, perhaps in the grand scheme things are as troubling as ever.

So Gary Mason is only credible when it comes to rumours we want to believe?

Gotcha.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Dan murphy and iain macintyre both said they had not heard this burrows scoop by mason. Dan murphy seemed a bit skeptical of it but mason just got his own story wrong a few weeks back about the team being for sale. Dan also said regarding him not talking to travis greene he didnt know that either for whatever its worth. Also said he never heard them complain about not practicing enough, most he heard was the occasional time he heard a player ask why they didnt practice on this day, but also added not practicing enough would be low on a players list of concerns this season.

Yup. Pretty hard to take any of this seriously. Somewhat surprised that so many seem to be believing it, and running with it.

I wonder when the sale will be finalized...

 

[mossey3535]

Well of course the answer is somewhere in the middle as usual. I'll add links as I find them. Here's my take:

Not talking to Travis Green - I doubt it, 75% FALSE. Not only not corroborated as orca mentioned but several times the player I would expect Torts to promote (Archibald) was the one who came up rather than a guy like Jensen or Corrado. I think it's pretty clear he had some say in this, which would mean he talked to the coach.

Also, he's made some off-hand comments that I'm sure many have forgotten about Jensen where he talked about strides they had made in the minors. To me that implies he had talked to Green at some point. Not only that, but do you really think Torts would just accept whoever they fobbed off on him? That he wouldn't complain if they brought up a guy he didn't like? Yeah I don't think so.

Not practicing enough - 99% TRUE, we already have a couple of reports of this from local media where Kesler said it was ridiculous they had to practice forecheck and Gulutzan was the one to run practices.

Burrows buyout - I would say 99% FALSE Seems kind of stupid since there was no reason for him to be bought out when Torts was hired (came off leading us in goals previous season). And Tort's job was already in jeopardy by the time the off-season even rolled around to be able to buy Burrows out. Also seems at odds with comments he made about Burrows even when Burr was really struggling. To be honest I don't think Torts has the ability to be subtle enough to keep his mouth shut if he wanted Burrows bought out.

Didn't watch opposition video - I would say 90% FALSE. Since I feel they definitely looked at video of the opposition during 24/7, which I will double check. In fact it has been reported that the reason that he did not have structured practices is because he preferred to do video work. There's a small chance he changed what he did here but seeing as Torts is so stubborn, I don't see him changing what he did in NYR in the space of only a couple of years.

Also, by definition looking at tape of your team means you've looked at some opposition tape ... since they are in the game tape as well.

David Booth altercation - I would say 80% TRUE. I can imagine Torts going haywire for something like that for no reason. He's also been reluctant to praise Booth compared to Burrows and said he was a weird guy in public. So on one level it makes sense.

Anyways, not defending Torts by any means especially because I am a strong believer in structured practice and simulation of game situations in practice. But some of this "information" seems iffy. The things that seem plausible are things we've already known so I'm not too impressed, with the exception of the Booth incident.

 

[mossey3535]

So some player's leaked out unflattering stuff about Torts because they had an axe to grind (eg., he wasn't a good coach, etc.,). What is their excuse about sleepwalking for the last season+ when Vigneault was coach?

There were alot of reasons to fire Torts; however some of the blame for this past season has to go with the players.

Bingo. For example, even if the practice is unstructured, if the leaders on the team really know what they're doing they can take it upon themselves to structure it.

Again, Torts should have been fired just for this. But I think the players are getting a pass because there is so much scapegoat to go around (Torts, Gillis). Many guys like Edler and Weise were not that good under both Torts AND AV.

 

[dave babych returns]

So Gary Mason is only credible when it comes to rumours we want to believe?

Gotcha.

Ohh you nailed me! Good one!

Just remind me, where did I say he is credible at all?

 

[Diamonddog01]

Ohh you nailed me! Good one!

Just remind me, where did I say he is credible at all?

Oh I don't know Dave, a statement such as

"Of course with this further supporting the notion that the Aquilinis have been waist deep in hockey operations, perhaps in the grand scheme things are as troubling as ever."

kinda indicates you find him credible in regards to this particular issue does it not?

I do enjoy watching the backpedaling though.

 

[Wisp]

Mossey is such an apologist when it comes to Torts.

 

[mossey3535]

Mossey is such an apologist when it comes to Torts.

He should probably get an apologist who disapproved of his firing. I thought he deserved it.

 

[biturbo19]

Well of course the answer is somewhere in the middle as usual. I'll add links as I find them. Here's my take:

Not talking to Travis Green - I doubt it, 75% FALSE. Not only not corroborated as orca mentioned but several times the player I would expect Torts to promote (Archibald) was the one who came up rather than a guy like Jensen or Corrado. I think it's pretty clear he had some say in this, which would mean he talked to the coach.

Also, he's made some off-hand comments that I'm sure many have forgotten about Jensen where he talked about strides they had made in the minors. To me that implies he had talked to Green at some point. Not only that, but do you really think Torts would just accept whoever they fobbed off on him? That he wouldn't complain if they brought up a guy he didn't like? Yeah I don't think so.

Not practicing enough - 99% TRUE, we already have a couple of reports of this from local media where Kesler said it was ridiculous they had to practice forecheck and Gulutzan was the one to run practices.

Burrows buyout - I would say 99% FALSE Seems kind of stupid since there was no reason for him to be bought out when Torts was hired (came off leading us in goals previous season). And Tort's job was already in jeopardy by the time the off-season even rolled around to be able to buy Burrows out. Also seems at odds with comments he made about Burrows even when Burr was really struggling. To be honest I don't think Torts has the ability to be subtle enough to keep his mouth shut if he wanted Burrows bought out.

Didn't watch opposition video - I would say 90% FALSE. Since I feel they definitely looked at video of the opposition during 24/7, which I will double check. In fact it has been reported that the reason that he did not have structured practices is because he preferred to do video work. There's a small chance he changed what he did here but seeing as Torts is so stubborn, I don't see him changing what he did in NYR in the space of only a couple of years.

Also, by definition looking at tape of your team means you've looked at some opposition tape ... since they are in the game tape as well.

David Booth altercation - I would say 80% TRUE. I can imagine Torts going haywire for something like that for no reason. He's also been reluctant to praise Booth compared to Burrows and said he was a weird guy in public. So on one level it makes sense.

Anyways, not defending Torts by any means especially because I am a strong believer in structured practice and simulation of game situations in practice. But some of this "information" seems iffy. The things that seem plausible are things we've already known so I'm not too impressed, with the exception of the Booth incident.

There is plenty of blame and accountability to go around. But most of this doesn't really make any sense.

1.Torts regularly seemed surprised by and unaware of attributes of players when they were called up. And the fact that someone like Archibald was called up instead of Jensen in no way corroborates the idea that Torts was in regular contact with Green. It very easily could just be, as Gillis indicated quite clearly and publicly at the time, that the GM wanted to keep Jensen down there for developmental purposes. Or Tortorella simply asked for "a bottom-6 guy" or "the biggest guy with the most stiffness" and Gillis obliged, or that Torts simply didn't seem interested in the day to day call-ups/downs or concerned knowing anything about the progress in the minors, leaving Gillis to handle it all himself. There are a huge number of very plausible explanations for what you're describing...to make the leap from "they called up Archibald instead of Jensen" to "Torts must have been in constant contact" counter to the report here...is basically unreasonable.

2.From my impression of the "didn't watch video" comments, it's referring to not going over the film of upcoming opponents with the team as part of the pre-scouting and gameplanning process. Not that Tortorella didn't necessarily watch video himself, or that they didn't watch video of their own previous games. That's a completely different context, and having watched an opponent's game from 2 months ago right after they played them last, isn't even close to the same thing as breaking down some important trends and tendencies from a game that opponent just played 2 days before with the same roster and adjustments. Arguing that semantically "they had to have watched opponents film by definition while watching their own" is completely and totally irrelevant to the point and where the issue lies in this report.

And honestly, the idea of assigning a "percentage true" is ridiculous. True and False are absolutes. Either he did these things, or he didn't. There may be some extenuating circumstances around the claims, and there may be some related information or details to the claim that weren't included...but "75% FALSE" doesn't mean anything.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

Probability.

 

[Verviticus]

but "75% FALSE" doesn't mean anything.

it means "25% TRUE"

 

[Ninebreaker]

Well of course the answer is somewhere in the middle as usual. I'll add links as I find them. Here's my take:

Not talking to Travis Green - I doubt it, 75% FALSE. Not only not corroborated as orca mentioned but several times the player I would expect Torts to promote (Archibald) was the one who came up rather than a guy like Jensen or Corrado. I think it's pretty clear he had some say in this, which would mean he talked to the coach.

Also, he's made some off-hand comments that I'm sure many have forgotten about Jensen where he talked about strides they had made in the minors. To me that implies he had talked to Green at some point. Not only that, but do you really think Torts would just accept whoever they fobbed off on him? That he wouldn't complain if they brought up a guy he didn't like? Yeah I don't think so.

From what I remember, Doug Maclean sort of confirmed this today on Team1040.

 

[thefeebster]

Didn't watch opposition video - I would say 90% FALSE. Since I feel they definitely looked at video of the opposition during 24/7, which I will double check. In fact it has been reported that the reason that he did not have structured practices is because he preferred to do video work. There's a small chance he changed what he did here but seeing as Torts is so stubborn, I don't see him changing what he did in NYR in the space of only a couple of years.

Also, by definition looking at tape of your team means you've looked at some opposition tape ... since they are in the game tape as well.

In 24/7, they went over their own tapes, as in the tapes of the previous games they played. I remember he was praising Stralman's positioning on a play and slagging Boyle on what he was doing in the corner.

Let's say they played the Penguins last night, they watch that. Sure, it's opposition tape in the technical sense, but what i believe they mean is the upcoming team's tape, in prep for the next game. For instance, what if they are playing the Flyers in a day. Shouldn't he himself watch even the tape on the Flyers last few games to determine how to defend against them? Exploit their weaknesses? Need to stay up to date with how they are moving on the PP, moving the puck. This is what i would assume is required in developing a game plan against your opponents.

EDIT: Oops, biturbo basically said all of this in his post.

 

[Chubros]

Really good coaches take things one step further and actually show their teams tapes of the next night's games so they can see their mistakes ahead of time and avoid them. The trick is to avoid the whole time loop paradox thing.

 

[LiquidSnake]

Doug Maclean stated on 1040 today that he heard the same thing about Torts not talking to Green ever.

So I'd say that's 100% true

 

[ddawg1950]

Doug Maclean stated on 1040 today that he heard the same thing about Torts not talking to Green ever.

So I'd say that's 100% true

Unless of course, he heard it from Mason.

 

[Type Not Specified]

In 24/7, they went over their own tapes, as in the tapes of the previous games they played. I remember he was praising Stralman's positioning on a play and slagging Boyle on what he was doing in the corner.

Let's say they played the Penguins last night, they watch that. Sure, it's opposition tape in the technical sense, but what i believe they mean is the upcoming team's tape, in prep for the next game. For instance, what if they are playing the Flyers in a day. Shouldn't he himself watch even the tape on the Flyers last few games to determine how to defend against them? Exploit their weaknesses? Need to stay up to date with how they are moving on the PP, moving the puck. This is what i would assume is required in developing a game plan against your opponents.

EDIT: Oops, biturbo basically said all of this in his post.

Maybe the assistants did that. I can't fathom an NHL team in 2014 going into a game without having watched their opponent at all, and I seem to recall a couple of scenes where Tortorella was talking to his players about some pretty specific things that the other team does.

It's still pretty shocking that Torts himself wouldn't have looked at some of the video himself though... shocking enough that I'm hesitant to believe it.

 

[Horrorshow]

Maybe the assistants did that. I can't fathom an NHL team in 2014 going into a game without having watched their opponent at all, and I seem to recall a couple of scenes where Tortorella was talking to his players about some pretty specific things that the other team does.

It's still pretty shocking that Torts himself wouldn't have looked at some of the video himself though... shocking enough that I'm hesitant to believe it.

Is it though? This is a guy who wouldn't hold or attend game day skates, and would drive back to point grey after his mandatory morning media scrum (this was reported throughout the season and was INSANE from the get go). Thats what? 1.5-2? 3? Hours of travelling a day instead of working on/with your hockey team?!?

Its pretty clear how few ***** were given by Torts.

 

[Type Not Specified]

Is it though? This is a guy who wouldn't hold or attend game day skates, and would drive back to point grey after his mandatory morning media scrum (this was reported throughout the season and was INSANE from the get go). Thats what? 1.5-2? 3? Hours of travelling a day instead of working on/with your hockey team?!?

Its pretty clear how few ***** were given by Torts.

I agree that makes no sense at all (and it was Point Roberts... Point Grey would have made a lot more sense!) but I just don't see how a guy could coach in the NHL for 10 years and win a Stanley Cup if he was as much of a clown as he's being made out to be.

Barry "Stamkos is a bust" Melrose was a total gongshow when he got hired in Tampa in 2008, and he lasted all of 16 games. If Tortorella is really as bad as we're led to believe, I don't think he would have lasted as long as he did in Tampa, New York or even here.

I'm not saying there weren't some serious issues with him... I just don't think we should jump to such dramatic conclusions based on a few bits of information coming from unknown sources.

 

[biturbo19]

Bingo. For example, even if the practice is unstructured, if the leaders on the team really know what they're doing they can take it upon themselves to structure it.

Again, Torts should have been fired just for this. But I think the players are getting a pass because there is so much scapegoat to go around (Torts, Gillis). Many guys like Edler and Weise were not that good under both Torts AND AV.

So we're going to blame the "team leaders" now, for not staging a mutiny and actually doing the coach's job for him, running their own practices? I'll bet Tortorella would've loved having the team practicing "behind his back".

 

[dave babych returns]

Oh I don't know Dave, a statement such as

"Of course with this further supporting the notion that the Aquilinis have been waist deep in hockey operations, perhaps in the grand scheme things are as troubling as ever."

kinda indicates you find him credible in regards to this particular issue does it not?

I do enjoy watching the backpedaling though.

Read the rest of the post you quoted, it's pretty obvious to someone who isn't looking for a disagreement that I'm skeptical of Mason.. to say the least.

But yes with no context I can see why my choice of words there is misleading.

 

[mossey3535]

So we're going to blame the "team leaders" now, for not staging a mutiny and actually doing the coach's job for him, running their own practices? I'll bet Tortorella would've loved having the team practicing "behind his back".

Ok, look. Just because you guys have a very black and white opinion of this matter doesn't mean I suggested a mutiny.

I already said Tortorella deserved to be fired, but I think there are a lot of nuances to how this team ultimately collapsed. And the players bear their own responsibility, which is why part of this core needs to be turned over. Unfortunately that is being muted by how easy it is to look at Tortorella and (rightly) call him a gong show.

 

[mossey3535]

From what I remember, Doug Maclean sort of confirmed this today on Team1040.

Then I stand corrected. I understand that I am just spitballing and speculating on these things.