Post-Game Talk: GM 2: Flames def. Canucks - 3-0

Status
Not open for further replies.

Numba9

Registered User
Oct 3, 2011
572
299
New Westminster, BC
I argued the Flames were the better team through 40 minutes, you used the phrase “last 15 minutes of the second”. I don’t think I’m the one constructing a narrative.

Score effects absolutely exist up/down 1, 2 and 3 goals. This is true league wide and has been known in analytics circles since... 2006 if I had to guess. If you don’t believe me, compare 5v5 adjusted last night to 5v5 raw in xG or shot share.
Just to give you some perspective, the Canucks were outshot in all 5 games against the Flames last year and 3 out 4 games the year before, didn't matter who was leading in the game. That third period was the first time in recent memory that I've seen the Canucks take it to the Flames.
 

forty47seven

Registered User
May 2, 2009
757
223
I'm glad they're making a change but I'd prefer they give Leivo back to EP. That line worked last season since Leivo can win board battles which balances out Boeser's sometimes passivity. I also think Miller has always looked good with Horvat and that pairing is what has made the 2nd line our best line so far.

Yeah Leivo hasn't been good on the PP but that's not his fault.

I'd rather exhaust all skilled options before going back to Leivo. I like Leivo's defensive game and that he can win board battles but he lacks the skill to consistently finish. I really don't see a big different between Ferland and Leivo in what they'd bring to that line. I would want Baertschi to get a look with EP before going back to Leivo.

Miller showed well with Bo in preseason and I get the desire to keep them together but that chemistry hasn't translated into production early in the season. Horvat can be the sole driver on his line anyhow. Bo showed last season he can still produce with virtually anyone on his wings.

It's not Leivo's fault he keep getting put on the first unit, much like it wasn't Sutter's fault WD kept putting him with Sedins. Josh wiffing on that prime chance on the doorstep last night was entirely his fault. I'm tired of seeing him put in prime positions only to bobble pucks and fan on shots. He's a useful player, it just sucks they feel he's a 20 goalscorer for whatever reason.

I'd perfer Leivo over Ferland with Bo/Pearson on the second line right now. Josh has a little more polish in his two way game and he gets an edge for being a right shot.
 

RobsonStreet

Registered User
Jun 4, 2004
718
288
Just to give you some perspective, the Canucks were outshot in all 5 games against the Flames last year and 3 out 4 games the year before, didn't matter who was leading in the game. That third period was the first time in recent memory that I've seen the Canucks take it to the Flames.

Fair to argue they’ve been worse than the Flames for awhile, but didn’t the Canucks actually win three of those games last year? They also outshot the Flames in the third period of the 3-1 loss (the last one they gave up 7 goals and edit: four in the third. Yikes).
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,749
7,691
West Coast
It would have to be a LOT of money for any coach who is actually any good at his craft to come here and basically commit career suicide. If they are that good then they will probably get offers from other teams and if you don't think Vancouver is at the very bottom of most potentially available coaches' lists then I just don't know what to say to you. Only the desperate newbie coaches will say yes.

Babcocks contract is 6.25 mill and that contract was "insane" at the time. If you are willing to spend that much on Eriksson there is no reason you shouldnt want to spend that money on a coach.
Again, they are willing to spend that money on a professional gaming league. Why is it an issue that they spend that money on a coach.

You say that Vancouver is an undesirable market. But they have consistently gotten "top UFA's" to sign for the Canucks (Erkisson, Vrbatta, Myers). Wouldn't this contradicts your argument?

Most coaches don't make much money compared to players plus don't go against the cap. The canucks are 100% in a position to give top end coaches enough money to coach in Vancouver. This isn't Florida. I think you overate "tough market to coach in" and underrate "$$$$$$$".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Burton

Star Ocean

Registered User
Dec 30, 2018
3,583
2,003
Crosby also has THREE cups so is NOT the same thing Ocean Boy :shakehead
WHAT HAS that to do with a 2 game pointless streak. My example was thar star players can have 2-3 games pointless streaks and the great crosby has done that

you are overreacting big time. I mean, 2 games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PuckMunchkin

Numba9

Registered User
Oct 3, 2011
572
299
New Westminster, BC
Fair to argue they’ve been worse than the Flames for awhile, but didn’t the Canucks actually win three of those games last year? They also outshot the Flames in the third period of the 3-1 loss (the last one they gave up 7 goals and edit: four in the third. Yikes).
What I've seen so far, despite the losses is that we are clearly a better team than last year, not sure if we're a playoff team but I like the fact that we can turn up the heat and put good teams back on their heels. Sure leading teams play more conservative but being outshot 18-6 in the third period is definitely outside of the norm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobsonStreet

Scorvat

Registered User
Mar 17, 2015
1,570
1,185
It would have to be a LOT of money for any coach who is actually any good at his craft to come here and basically commit career suicide. If they are that good then they will probably get offers from other teams and if you don't think Vancouver is at the very bottom of most potentially available coaches' lists then I just don't know what to say to you. Only the desperate newbie coaches will say yes.

Keenan, Crawford and Torts all came to Vancouver. McLellan, Eakins (pretty sought out the 1st time) and Tippet went to the Oilers. Wilson, Carlyle and Babcock went to the Leafs. Juliean went to the habs. Those markets, at best, are only slightly less toxic then ours and they still attract high profile head coaches. It's laughable to suggest that no head coach will come here; As long as you have the money and some talent coaches will strongly consider going anywhere, yes even the most toxic place in the world :eyeroll:
 
  • Like
Reactions: vanuck and WTG

tantalum

Hope for the best. Expect the worst
Sponsor
Apr 2, 2002
25,088
13,876
Missouri
What I've seen so far, despite the losses is that we are clearly a better team than last year, not sure if we're a playoff team but I like the fact that we can turn up the heat and put good teams back on their heels. Sure leading teams play more conservative but being outshot 18-6 in the third period is definitely outside of the norm.

I'd wager if you looked at games it would not be out of the norm for that type of shot differential when one team is sitting on a lead in the third. Also, the canucks of the last 4 seasons were also able to "turn it up" for 10-15 minutes in a game and look good. Every NHL team does for almost every game...even the bad ones. The problem is for the canucks it's only ever 15 minutes instead of much closer to 60.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RobsonStreet

RobsonStreet

Registered User
Jun 4, 2004
718
288
I'd wager if you looked at games it would not be out of the norm for that type of shot differential when one team is sitting on a lead in the third. Also, the canucks of the last 4 seasons were also able to "turn it up" for 10-15 minutes in a game and look good. Every NHL team does for almost every game...even the bad ones. The problem is for the canucks it's only ever 15 minutes instead of much closer to 60.

I can almost guarantee that from the Flames perspective, they “fell asleep in the third” and aren’t crediting a dominant Canucks team. During the prime Sedin years, I can recall too many interviews talking about the need to “win the third” and close out games. Good teams tend to build early leads and usually hold them, despite slower third periods.
 

Zippgunn

Registered User
May 15, 2011
3,929
1,628
Lhuntshi
Babcocks contract is 6.25 mill and that contract was "insane" at the time. If you are willing to spend that much on Eriksson there is no reason you shouldnt want to spend that money on a coach.
Again, they are willing to spend that money on a professional gaming league. Why is it an issue that they spend that money on a coach.

You say that Vancouver is an undesirable market. But they have consistently gotten "top UFA's" to sign for the Canucks (Erkisson, Vrbatta, Myers). Wouldn't this contradicts your argument?

Most coaches don't make much money compared to players plus don't go against the cap. The canucks are 100% in a position to give top end coaches enough money to coach in Vancouver. This isn't Florida. I think you overate "tough market to coach in" and underrate "$$$$$$$".

We tried a top flight coach in Torts, remember? Remind me again how that worked out. Not surprisingly the second he left and went to Columbus he was successful again. I have no doubt that FAQ would spend gigantic money on an elite level coach, I just don't think that there are any takers.
 

Zippgunn

Registered User
May 15, 2011
3,929
1,628
Lhuntshi
Keenan, Crawford and Torts all came to Vancouver. McLellan, Eakins (pretty sought out the 1st time) and Tippet went to the Oilers. Wilson, Carlyle and Babcock went to the Leafs. Juliean went to the habs. Those markets, at best, are only slightly less toxic then ours and they still attract high profile head coaches. It's laughable to suggest that no head coach will come here; As long as you have the money and some talent coaches will strongly consider going anywhere, yes even the most toxic place in the world :eyeroll:

"...only slightly less toxic than ours..." you make me laugh. Coaching here is the surest way to destroy a coaching career. Only a coach attempting a hail Mary career move will take that chance.
 

Scorvat

Registered User
Mar 17, 2015
1,570
1,185
"...only slightly less toxic than ours..." you make me laugh. Coaching here is the surest way to destroy a coaching career. Only a coach attempting a hail Mary career move will take that chance.

What???

What coaches career was ruined here? List them. Also explain what makes this market so much more toxic then all the other Canadian markets

Torts got hired again in 2015 and is still coaching today. Probably would have been hired sooner if not for the compensation pick attached to him. Not to mention all the baggage that surrounds him (was their before he came to us)

AV literally got hired as soon as he let go by us and is still coaching today

Even Willie D, a man who is unfairly treated around here according to you, coached Canada in the Olympics and was given a second chance last year with LA, where he predicatively failed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MS

xtr3m

Registered User
Jan 28, 2009
8,564
71
Vancouver
You say that Vancouver is an undesirable market. But they have consistently gotten "top UFA's" to sign for the Canucks (Erkisson, Vrbatta, Myers). Wouldn't this contradicts your argument?

"Top UFA's" in the eyes of Jimbo, maybe.

Ferland thought he could get more than 5.5M elsewhere. He ended up signing with Canucks for much less.

Players sign here because no one else wants them.

The narrative before was that everyone wants a chance to play with the Sedins. Now, I guess it's that everyone wants to play with the kids here or something...
 

Zippgunn

Registered User
May 15, 2011
3,929
1,628
Lhuntshi
What???

What coaches career was ruined here? List them. Also explain what makes this market so much more toxic then all the other Canadian markets

Torts got hired again in 2015 and is still coaching today. Probably would have been hired sooner if not for the compensation pick attached to him. Not to mention all the baggage that surrounds him (was their before he came to us)

AV literally got hired as soon as he let go by us and is still coaching today

Even Willie D, a man who is unfairly treated around here according to you, coached Canada in the Olympics and was given a second chance last year with LA, where he predicatively failed.

Ah youth, sometimes I feel so old being one of those unfortunate enough to have followed this team since game one. Of the 19 men who have been head coaches of this sorry franchise only NINE of them ever coached in the NHL again and three of those (Willie D, Harry Neale and Billy McCreary) didn't last even one more season before being consigned to the trash heap of hockey history. This town is NOT a place for career advancement as a hockey coach.
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,749
7,691
West Coast
We tried a top flight coach in Torts, remember? Remind me again how that worked out. Not surprisingly the second he left and went to Columbus he was successful again. I have no doubt that FAQ would spend gigantic money on an elite level coach, I just don't think that there are any takers.
This argument doesn't make sense.
Just because Torts failed in Vancouver doesn't mean the next coach will. You just need a top coach that fits the style you are trying to play. Torts clearly did not fit with the veteran core here in Vancouver. But with a younger team they are more malleable, that's probably why Torts went to Columbus and had success with a much younger core.

Think about it from a personal perspective. If you were a head coach getting paid roughly ~3 million dollars. A team comes up to you and they are willing to more than double your salary. Wouldn't you take that offer?

Wouldn't setting up your family be worth coaching in a slightly tougher market? Wouldn't you take that deal? I sure as f*** would take it.
 

Zippgunn

Registered User
May 15, 2011
3,929
1,628
Lhuntshi
This argument doesn't make sense.
Just because Torts failed in Vancouver doesn't mean the next coach will. You just need a top coach that fits the style you are trying to play. Torts clearly did not fit with the veteran core here in Vancouver. But with a younger team they are more malleable, that's probably why Torts went to Columbus and had success with a much younger core.

Think about it from a personal perspective. If you were a head coach getting paid roughly ~3 million dollars. A team comes up to you and they are willing to more than double your salary. Wouldn't you take that offer?

Wouldn't setting up your family be worth coaching in a slightly tougher market? Wouldn't you take that deal? I sure as **** would take it.

Not if I had my eye on the big picture and wanted to continue coaching after my inevitable dismissal. Coaches aren't like players; they can coach well into old age... if there are any takers. Anyways this conversation is becoming quite comic; with the ridiculous emphasis that so many here have on players salaries imagine if we hired a high end coach for $6 million a year for 5 years and nothing much changed as far as results go. The HF server would melt into a blob of metal and plastic...
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,749
7,691
West Coast
"Top UFA's" in the eyes of Jimbo, maybe.

Ferland thought he could get more than 5.5M elsewhere. He ended up signing with Canucks for much less.

Players sign here because no one else wants them.

The narrative before was that everyone wants a chance to play with the Sedins. Now, I guess it's that everyone wants to play with the kids here or something...

You are ignoring my point.
The Canucks aren't a dead franchise. They can still attract UFAs to play for them. If that's the case then they can still attract coaches even if they have to overpay.
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,749
7,691
West Coast
Not if I had my eye on the big picture and wanted to continue coaching after my inevitable dismissal. Coaches aren't like players; they can coach well into old age... if there are any takers. Anyways this conversation is becoming quite comic; with the ridiculous emphasis that so many here have on players salaries imagine if we hired a high end coach for $6 million a year for 5 years and nothing much changed as far as results go. The HF server would melt into a blob of metal and plastic...

Would you take over twice the pay if it meant you'd be under slightly more stressed?
How can you say my argument is comical but you are making an argument that cash somehow doesn't play a MAJOR factor in attracting personnel? You are the one making a ridiculous argument not me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nomobo

Nomobo

Registered User
Feb 20, 2015
6,134
2,856
Victoria
You are ignoring my point.
The Canucks aren't a dead franchise. They can still attract UFAs to play for them. If that's the case then they can still attract coaches even if they have to overpay.
Right, who would want to work in one of the most livable cities in the world?
 

Zippgunn

Registered User
May 15, 2011
3,929
1,628
Lhuntshi
Would you take over twice the pay if it meant you'd be under slightly more stressed?
How can you say my argument is comical but you are making an argument that cash somehow doesn't play a MAJOR factor in attracting personnel? You are the one making a ridiculous argument not me.

Sometimes it's best to concede your ideas are dumb then to double down on them.

Well firstly you are suggesting a totally hypothetical (and very unlikely) scenario here. Secondly I'm sure that Fredo and his stooges feel that they tried this route with Torts and it didn't work so we went with green keeners like Willie and Green. Thirdly name me any available coach that would turn this team into any sort of contender, for any amount of money. So many people here seem to think that whoever they fancy would be delighted to drop everything and throw their lot in with the Canucks; this is just not true, at least in my (admittedly limited) experience. I know a couple of local ex-NHLers who had to chance to sign here and they flat out refused even though there was serious money on the table (and this was before our current woes). This team's history and culture really work against acquiring quality people and I've heard this first hand.
 

Scorvat

Registered User
Mar 17, 2015
1,570
1,185
Ah youth, sometimes I feel so old being one of those unfortunate enough to have followed this team since game one. Of the 19 men who have been head coaches of this sorry franchise only NINE of them ever coached in the NHL again and three of those (Willie D, Harry Neale and Billy McCreary) didn't last even one more season before being consigned to the trash heap of hockey history. This town is NOT a place for career advancement as a hockey coach.

Ah so you didnt answer the questions or address any of my points in my previous post and instead pulled up some BS statistic to prove your BS argument.

I pulled up the 3 most recent coaches, not bc of my "youth", but because those coaches are the only reasonable ones to actually study, as they all coached under the same ownership group and mostly the same FO and support staff, not to mention the cities demographics, fanbase and media are more the less the same then those from 40 or 30 years ago

To address your point the last 7/8 coaches have gone elsewhere to coach with 6 of them coaching for at least 4+ years after they left here

Calgary only has 5/17 coaches that went on to coach another team, I guess they are more toxic then us

Also dont give up hope that Willie D has coached his last game ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: I am toxic

Zippgunn

Registered User
May 15, 2011
3,929
1,628
Lhuntshi
Ah so you didnt answer the questions or address any of my points in my previous post and instead pulled up some BS statistic to prove your BS argument.

I pulled up the 3 most recent coaches, not bc of my "youth", but because those coaches are the only reasonable ones to actually study, as they all coached under the same ownership group and mostly the same FO and support staff, not to mention the cities demographics, fanbase and media are more the less the same then those from 40 or 30 years ago

To address your point the last 7/8 coaches have gone elsewhere to coach with 6 of them coaching for at least 4+ years after they left here

Calgary only has 5/17 coaches that went on to coach another team, I guess they are more toxic then us

Also dont give up hope that Willie D has coached his last game ;)

Oh those pesky "BS statistics". Calgary doesn't have our legacy of shame and failure, hell they even won a Cup once. This team is one of perennial losers; one would have to be super confident in one's ability to hitch their wagon to this franchise especially with its current meddlesome owner.
 

Zippgunn

Registered User
May 15, 2011
3,929
1,628
Lhuntshi
Ah so you didnt answer the questions or address any of my points in my previous post and instead pulled up some BS statistic to prove your BS argument.

I pulled up the 3 most recent coaches, not bc of my "youth", but because those coaches are the only reasonable ones to actually study, as they all coached under the same ownership group and mostly the same FO and support staff, not to mention the cities demographics, fanbase and media are more the less the same then those from 40 or 30 years ago

To address your point the last 7/8 coaches have gone elsewhere to coach with 6 of them coaching for at least 4+ years after they left here

Calgary only has 5/17 coaches that went on to coach another team, I guess they are more toxic then us

Also dont give up hope that Willie D has coached his last game ;)

I like Willie but I fear he has "aged out" of serious contention for another NHL head coaching job. His brave decision to go to L.A. may have been a last roll of the dice for him; I seriously doubt that anybody could have made much of a difference to that squad (not with the Typhoid Mary of hockey, Ilya Kovalchuk residing there). Props to him for giving it the college try but I think we all knew it was a loser's game from the get go...
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,749
7,691
West Coast
I see you left in that last sentence, I apologize for that, it was rude and I deleted it rather quickly after reading through it.
Well firstly you are suggesting a totally hypothetical (and very unlikely) scenario here. Secondly I'm sure that Fredo and his stooges feel that they tried this route with Torts and it didn't work so we went with green keeners like Willie and Green.

Willie and Green also haven't worked out. I approach this at a different angle than you. Which gives you a higher likely hood of a positive outcome. Is going with an experienced coach more likely to bring you success or is going with an unknown more likely to give you success?

Thirdly name me any available coach that would turn this team into any sort of contender, for any amount of money.

Is going with an unknown/untried coach going to bring you closer contending either?

So many people here seem to think that whoever they fancy would be delighted to drop everything and throw their lot in with the Canucks; this is just not true, at least in my (admittedly limited) experience. I know a couple of local ex-NHLers who had to chance to sign here and they flat out refused even though there was serious money on the table (and this was before our current woes). This team's history and culture really work against acquiring quality people and I've heard this first hand.

Is this market really that much more toxic than Montreal or Toronto? I seriously doubt it. Why can they attract good coaches but the Canucks can't?
Look at who Montreal hired as their headcoach and tell me that these guys somehow can't handle the toxicity. Claude Julien went from being absolutely hated by Montreal to being their head coach. How can Montreal attract their rivals ex-head coach but the Canucks can't attract anyone? Just doesn't add up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->