[Official] Fire/Tolerate Travis Green Thread

[BROCK HUGHES]

Baumer/Brown out and bring in experienced guys behind Green. One of which would be the likely turn too if we fire Green mid season at all. Which is why I like Guy Boucher. Experienced guy, always have good PP. just look at the Sens roster and tell me with a straight face they should be a 20% efficiency PP team?

Agree,,I'm not a Green fan really,,think he should be back in Utica .Baumgartner is a joke as a defensive coach,think Newel Brown is over rated ...A new Gm would bring in his own guys,so what are we waiting for..

 

[PetterssonSimp]

Agree,,I'm not a Green fan really,,think he should be back in Utica .Baumgartner is a joke as a defensive coach,think Newel Brown is over rated ...A new Gm would bring in his own guys,so what are we waiting for..

Dim Jim and Daft John can join Baumer/Brown in the new Uber Aqua is bringing in immediately after the final game. They can be sent to moon hopefully. I’ll take anywhere but Vancouver’s management or coaching staff employment line.

 

[4Twenty]

It would be nice if this thread title could get changed from firing, to just coach talk.

I just looked it up, Green signed a 4 year deal.

What do we think about him after nearly 2 years on the job? What does he do well? What needs work?

I can't see him going into that 4th year as a lame duck, so what will need to happen next year for him to get an extension?

 

[Cupless44]

I used to be a Green fan but he is losing me. His affliction to play veteran plugs who don't produce is getting on my nerves. When you coach a team that hasn't made the playoffs for 4 years with the worst combined record in the NHL you need to use the last meaningless games to find out answers on your young players to see if they are part of the solution next year. His tough love on young players... aka double standards for ineffective veterans....I don't think is good for developing young players.

There are easily identifiable plugs such as Schaller, Grandlund, Eriksson who should be off this team next year. No reason why Motte cannot sit out some games. How does it serve this team for next year to have Schaller playing over Zack MacEwen for the last 10 games? How does it help this team going forward to play Plug Beagle 17 minutes and Adam Gaudette 9 minutes? etc etc

Green needs to learn a better balance of establishing his winning culture and developing a non contending team for a better future. Pretty clear the young players on this team have been dragging around the mostly useless veterans for most of the year. If Markstrom wasn't standing on his head it would be even more obvious how bad this team is.

 

[iceburg]

It would be nice if this thread title could get changed from firing, to just coach talk.

I just looked it up, Green signed a 4 year deal.

What do we think about him after nearly 2 years on the job? What does he do well? What needs work?

I can't see him going into that 4th year as a lame duck, so what will need to happen next year for him to get an extension?

Good suggestion.

The Good
1. In general he is good at getting his players to play an up tempo game. This is a necessity in the current NHL.
2. He seems to understand the psychology of players. I know it drives some people crazy but I think he has a decent strategy with each player, particularly young players, to get the most out of them. I see Hutton and Virtanen as prime examples. It doesn't always work but he understands that he needs to figure out what motivates a player to help them grow.
3. For the most* part he makes players earn there icetime.
4. He has used some creative ways to utilize strengths in the line-up. E.g. Horvat taking all the faceoff then changing when Sutter and Beagle were both out.

The head scratchers
1. I said for the most part above because I have no idea why it took almost two seasons to sit Pouliot. I would say the same for some of the veterans (Eriksson and Granlund).
2. The powerplay is predictable and awful despite having two high end snipers. WHile this is Newell Brown's role to coach the pp, ultimately, if it isn't working and they don't change it, it is on Green.

What does he need to do to get an extension?
1. WIN - it's the only measure that matters in coaching land.

 

[Zippgunn]

It would be nice if this thread title could get changed from firing, to just coach talk.

I just looked it up, Green signed a 4 year deal.

What do we think about him after nearly 2 years on the job? What does he do well? What needs work?

I can't see him going into that 4th year as a lame duck, so what will need to happen next year for him to get an extension?

How much does he make a year? Remember FAQ will throw money at problems...

 

[mossey3535]

1. Forechecking system is ok, but they break down in their own zone. Might by more on Baumer, but he's still the head coach.
2. I don't think he does a good job motivating the young players who don't have their own internal drive (i.e. Bo, Petey). His only tactic seems to be scratching them for no reason and calling them out in the media. Very much an old-school coach in that regard.
3. Deployment absolutely puzzling sometimes. Almost 100% sure he picks the special teams personnel, because nobody in their right mind would have kept trotting Pouliot out there when Edler was injured for as long as he did. Ditto for leaving Edler on PP1 despite him being ineffective - fits with his known biases towards Winterhawks and vets.
4. Yes, EVERY NHL COACH has a vet bias. While TG's is not as bad as WD's, that is not a high bar to clear.
5. Some bad WD-esque decision making where he has plugs out or double shifts them for no reason. This would be ok if said scrubs were actually playing well, but in general they haven't been.
6. Double standards. The vets are absolute dogshit most night but are impossible to take out of the lineup.
7. If #6 is not true, then he just doesn't see the game correctly. Most objective observers would not look at Loui every night and think "oh what a steady dependable player who is really putting in his all".
8. Goalie management is not great, overplays his starter and doesn't choose the starter based on the team they're facing. A weakness of most NHL HCs to be fair.
9. Line matching is decent.
10. Overplays his good players and underplays the young guys, even if they earn it over the vets. I just think his whole shift management could be better.

I would say that he has hit a sophomore slump as a coach. I feel like he could develop further and improve, and his 4-year term means that we have the option to fire him when the painful times are over. Still, he has to learn lessons faster and become more creative.

 

[Steely Van]

Canucks Army has an good article called, What is the future of Nickolay Goldobin, and takes a few nice shots at Green with substance to back it up.

 

[I am toxic]

Canucks Army has an good article called, What is the future of Nickolay Goldobin, and takes a few nice shots at Green with substance to back it up.

The double standard of Goldy's treatment compared to Schaller/Loui/Granlund could not be more obvious to the most casual observor. What's equally bad is the lengths people go to defend this treatment.

Is Goldy doing enough given his ice time with EP? No. But he is doing far more with his TOI than those, and yet sits about as much as those combined. Terrible coaching. De-motivates and devalues an asset with upside. Rewards crap play. Demonstrates to the room that it is not about merit. Just a terrible message.

So sad to see a coach try to fit a round peg into a square hole, instead of using the tools given. Who's that coach with that expansion team that went to the SCF last year in their first season?

Anyway, it could be far worse, we could have the LAK interim coach. What a nightmare that would be.

 

[Melvin]

The double standard of Goldy's treatment compared to Schaller/Loui/Granlund could not be more obvious to the most casual observor. What's equally bad is the lengths people go to defend this treatment.

Is Goldy doing enough given his ice time with EP? No. But he is doing far more with his TOI than those, and yet sits about as much as those combined. Terrible coaching. De-motivates and devalues an asset with upside. Rewards crap play. Demonstrates to the room that it is not about merit. Just a terrible message.

So sad to see a coach try to fit a round peg into a square hole, instead of using the tools given. Who's that coach with that expansion team that went to the SCF last year in their first season?

Anyway, it could be far worse, we could have the LAK interim coach. What a nightmare that would be.

He doesn't sit more than those players combined.

 

[I am toxic]

He doesn't sit more than those players combined.

Yeah, I never said more than them combined. And the point stands - for example, by Feb 2 Goldy was sat 7 times, Granlund and Loui zero. That is bad coaching, no matter how it is dressed up.

 

[Melvin]

Yeah, I never said more than them combined. And the point stands - for example, by Feb 2 Goldy was sat 7 times, Granlund and Loui zero. That is bad coaching, no matter how it is dressed up.

Again, green is a moron and a dinosaur but there's no double standard here. Granlund and Eriksson are his top forward penalty killers. They play a different role.

Leivo has essentially replaced Goldobin. That's the comparison you should be making. Goldobin, Baertschi and Leivo are the same thing. Eriksson, Granlund, Schaller and Motte are a different thing.

 

[I am toxic]

Again, green is a moron and a dinosaur but there's no double standard here. Granlund and Eriksson are his top forward penalty killers. They play a different role.

Leivo has essentially replaced Goldobin. It is what it is.

Agreed about Leivo, Goldy needed to bury more chances and ramp up his defensive game. Doesn't change that other players should have been sat long before him. Doesn't change that the coach praises Eriksson for crap, and criticizes Goldy for average or above average play. It is what it is - bad coaching, bad development, bad asset management. Lose-lose-lose.

Just not as bad as Willie D.

 

[Hyzer]

Agree,,I'm not a Green fan really,,think he should be back in Utica .Baumgartner is a joke as a defensive coach,think Newel Brown is over rated ...A new Gm would bring in his own guys,so what are we waiting for..

Newell Brown's awful PP has plagued this team for way too many years.

Yet he always f***ing crawls back.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Agreed about Leivo, Goldy needed to bury more chances and ramp up his defensive game. Doesn't change that other players should have been sat long before him. Doesn't change that the coach praises Eriksson for crap, and criticizes Goldy for average or above average play. It is what it is - bad coaching, bad development, bad asset management. Lose-lose-lose.

Just not as bad as Willie D.

It’s the coaches fault that Goldy can’t score?

 

[Balls Mahoney]

I'm a fairly big Green fan. I think he's done a fairly decent job of developing the kids this year. I'm not particularly sure what there is to criticize him for. I find his coaching to be somewhat logical which is quite refreshing from wanting to put my fist through the screen during Willie D games.

Goldobin has been handed a lot of ice time with prime players and has struggled through some of the worst snake bitten luck I've witnessed. Not sure what you want Green to do about this?

 

[NoRaise4Brackett]

Goldobin's physical compete level sucks, and he doesn't play well in his own end. If he isn't scoring, then he isn't helping in any way.

However, he actually has scoring potential, unlike the other pressbox candidates...

I think it's a case of Goldobin just not doing the things asked of him, and Green likely giving up

I think Green has done a pretty decent job, I'd like to see what he could do with a better roster.

 

[tyhee]

Yeah, I never said more than them combined. And the point stands - for example, by Feb 2 Goldy was sat 7 times, Granlund and Loui zero. That is bad coaching, no matter how it is dressed up.

I'm not so sure Green is wrong in this approach. I'm not sure he's right, either, but I think we have to avoid looking at things simplistically and thinking we know more than we do.

Last season Green sat Ben Hutton. Canucks Army criticized that too, just as they've criticized the handling of Goldobin this season, pointing out that Ben Hutton was a better and more effective defenceman than some defencemen who were playing regularly.

Green didn't just sit Hutton. At the start of the offseason he publically ridiculed his offensive output. He's recently been quoted as saying Goldobin's output over the last 20 games isn't good enough. Their age and experience levels are/were similar. Last season Hutton was a 24 year old 3rd year pro, this season Goldobin is a 23 year old 4th year pro.

Ben Hutton came back after the summer a harder working player. I don't think he's any more skilled, offensively or defensively, but he's worked hard. He plays regularly and has on numerous occasions played first-pairing minutes.

Is it possible that Green is taking the same approach with Goldobin? Goldobin sits. Green has now been quoted that his offensive output the last 20 games isn't good enough. Goldobin has the skill and ability to be better than he is.

Different players sometimes need different approaches. Goldobin may or may not respond positively this summer. I don't know if the tough love approach will work with him over the long term.

My guess is that it will only work in short spurts. Then the question becomes, is Goldobin a good enough player, producing enough, that it makes sense to play him even with his continual defensive lapses.

I wonder about the handling of Goldobin, just as last season I wondered about the handling of Hutton, but don't think it makes sense to compare the handling of young players who have more to give and could be useful in the future with the handling of veterans who are what they are and aren't going to be part of the important parts of the future.

Again, I'm not saying Green's approach is right, but I learned a long time ago that when someone who isn't an idiot tends to make sense seems to be making no sense at all, the most likely thing is that I am missing his or her line of thinking.

I don't pretend to know whether Green is going to be a good NHL coach or not, but am confident that those that think he is an idiot are missing his line of thought. He's not stupid and he's not a moron, despite the opinions on this board to the contrary.

 

[Cupless44]

Again, green is a moron and a dinosaur but there's no double standard here. Granlund and Eriksson are his top forward penalty killers. They play a different role.

Leivo has essentially replaced Goldobin. That's the comparison you should be making. Goldobin, Baertschi and Leivo are the same thing. Eriksson, Granlund, Schaller and Motte are a different thing.

They do play a different role but Green seems to have too much of a love for plugs who dont score that he perceives "play a 200 foot game" one of the most over used useless phrases in hockey". How many of them does he need in his starting line up?

I also don't like his archaic thinking that his team should have two scoring lines and two checking lines. In today's hockey there are teams with fast talented lines that get offence out of their 3rd and even 4th lines. Those are the teams that are winning and worth watching.

 

[Cupless44]

I'm not so sure Green is wrong in this approach. I'm not sure he's right, either, but I think we have to avoid looking at things simplistically and thinking we know more than we do.

Last season Green sat Ben Hutton. Canucks Army criticized that too, just as they've criticized the handling of Goldobin this season, pointing out that Ben Hutton was a better and more effective defenceman than some defencemen who were playing regularly.

Green didn't just sit Hutton. At the start of the offseason he publically ridiculed his offensive output. He's recently been quoted as saying Goldobin's output over the last 20 games isn't good enough. Their age and experience levels are/were similar. Last season Hutton was a 24 year old 3rd year pro, this season Goldobin is a 23 year old 4th year pro.

Ben Hutton came back after the summer a harder working player. I don't think he's any more skilled, offensively or defensively, but he's worked hard. He plays regularly and has on numerous occasions played first-pairing minutes.

Is it possible that Green is taking the same approach with Goldobin? Goldobin sits. Green has now been quoted that his offensive output the last 20 games isn't good enough. Goldobin has the skill and ability to be better than he is.

Different players sometimes need different approaches. Goldobin may or may not respond positively this summer. I don't know if the tough love approach will work with him over the long term.

My guess is that it will only work in short spurts. Then the question becomes, is Goldobin a good enough player, producing enough, that it makes sense to play him even with his continual defensive lapses.

I wonder about the handling of Goldobin, just as last season I wondered about the handling of Hutton, but don't think it makes sense to compare the handling of young players who have more to give and could be useful in the future with the handling of veterans who are what they are and aren't going to be part of the important parts of the future.

Again, I'm not saying Green's approach is right, but I learned a long time ago that when someone who isn't an idiot tends to make sense seems to be making no sense at all, the most likely thing is that I am missing his or her line of thinking.

I don't pretent to know whether Green is going to be a good NHL coach or not, but am confident that those that think he is an idiot are missing his line of thought. He's not stupid and he's not a moron, despite the opinions on this board to the contrary.

Sitting 3 games in a row for Tim Schaller? That doesn't help any players career or development.

 

[Get North]

Firing Green will literally do nothing, but hold this rebuild back. This roster isn't close to competing for the playoffs and they are. He deserves the chance to coach this team once they are competitive IMO, a lot of our young players are playing well. He's not embarrassing either, you can see that the players listen to him. Torts was yelling at players and you could see none of them listened to him.

He's turned Virtanen into a NHLer when he didn't look like he was going to become one. 4th in goals on the team, pretty impressive without playing with Pettersson or Horvat for the most part.

Hutton struggled under Torts. Now he's a top 4 D-man.

Regardless, I'm not letting go of a coach who benched Schaller for a long period of time, then in his 1st game got him to play his best game of his NHL career.

 

[F A N]

Firing Green will literally do nothing, but hold this rebuild back. This roster isn't close to competing for the playoffs and they are. He deserves the chance to coach this team once they are competitive IMO, a lot of our young players are playing well. He's not embarrassing either, you can see that the players listen to him. Torts was yelling at players and you could see none of them listened to him.

He's turned Virtanen into a NHLer when he didn't look like he was going to become one. 4th in goals on the team, pretty impressive without playing with Pettersson or Horvat for the most part.

Hutton struggled under Torts. Now he's a top 4 D-man.

Regardless, I'm not letting go of a coach who benched Schaller for a long period of time, then in his 1st game got him to play his best game of his NHL career.

Not that I'm calling for a coaching change, but I can't see how a coaching change would hold this rebuild back. I mean there's Sheldon Keefe if you want a coach with a similar pedigree and reputation. I also think that a good coach is a good coach is a good coach. If Quenneville would come here, I actually think he might be a good fit for the Canucks with Benning (who seems to allow his head coaches a lot of autonomy and influence) and ownership.

Hutton also never played under Torts.

 

[Fatass]

Not that I'm calling for a coaching change, but I can't see how a coaching change would hold this rebuild back. I mean there's Sheldon Keefe if you want a coach with a similar pedigree and reputation. I also think that a good coach is a good coach is a good coach. If Quenneville would come here, I actually think he might be a good fit for the Canucks with Benning (who seems to allow his head coaches a lot of autonomy and influence) and ownership.

Hutton also never played under Torts.

What are the odds our owner hires, or allows his GM to hire, an experienced coach like JQ?

 

[I am toxic]

I'm not so sure Green is wrong in this approach. I'm not sure he's right, either, but I think we have to avoid looking at things simplistically and thinking we know more than we do.

Last season Green sat Ben Hutton. Canucks Army criticized that too, just as they've criticized the handling of Goldobin this season, pointing out that Ben Hutton was a better and more effective defenceman than some defencemen who were playing regularly.

Green didn't just sit Hutton. At the start of the offseason he publically ridiculed his offensive output. He's recently been quoted as saying Goldobin's output over the last 20 games isn't good enough. Their age and experience levels are/were similar. Last season Hutton was a 24 year old 3rd year pro, this season Goldobin is a 23 year old 4th year pro.

Ben Hutton came back after the summer a harder working player. I don't think he's any more skilled, offensively or defensively, but he's worked hard. He plays regularly and has on numerous occasions played first-pairing minutes.

Is it possible that Green is taking the same approach with Goldobin? Goldobin sits. Green has now been quoted that his offensive output the last 20 games isn't good enough. Goldobin has the skill and ability to be better than he is.

Different players sometimes need different approaches. Goldobin may or may not respond positively this summer. I don't know if the tough love approach will work with him over the long term.

My guess is that it will only work in short spurts. Then the question becomes, is Goldobin a good enough player, producing enough, that it makes sense to play him even with his continual defensive lapses.

I wonder about the handling of Goldobin, just as last season I wondered about the handling of Hutton, but don't think it makes sense to compare the handling of young players who have more to give and could be useful in the future with the handling of veterans who are what they are and aren't going to be part of the important parts of the future.

Again, I'm not saying Green's approach is right, but I learned a long time ago that when someone who isn't an idiot tends to make sense seems to be making no sense at all, the most likely thing is that I am missing his or her line of thinking.

I don't pretend to know whether Green is going to be a good NHL coach or not, but am confident that those that think he is an idiot are missing his line of thought. He's not stupid and he's not a moron, despite the opinions on this board to the contrary.

Thanks for the measured response.

I am not sure Hutton came back a harder working player (he already worked hard) but even if my judgement is wrong and he did come back a harder working player, I am not sure Green gets credit. But I'll never know, as I don't know Ben and I won't ask those who do know. But just like Goldy, Green's treatment of Hutton the prior season and off-season is bad coaching, in my eyes.

All the coaches that I consider good emphasize process over result. They understand among other things that PDO will fluctuate with luck/bounces and they look to those things that a player controls when evaluating their performance. It is bad coaching to emphasize results over process.

I certainly don't think Green in an idiot at all, I think he is quite intelligent. But his philosophy with respect to development/youth/"vets"/forcing players into systems rather than adapting systems to players/ the emphasis on results over process is something that I disagree with, and further I think it is bad, old-school coaching. If Granlund or Eriksson were tearing it up and putting in a consistent honest effort, I would have no issues with the benchings as Goldy has certainly not taken advantage of the opportunity to solidify his spot in the lineup. But Goldy being inconsistently good does not justify benching him over players who are inconsistently bad, and have less upside as well.

And there are repercussions. The treatment of Goldy vs Granlund/Eriksson gets noticed in the dressing room, and it impacts team building negatively. Truly a lose-lose-lose situation, consistent with a team that has been the worst team in the NHL over an extended period of time now.

 

[Jimnastic]

They do play a different role but Green seems to have too much of a love for plugs who dont score that he perceives "play a 200 foot game" one of the most over used useless phrases in hockey". How many of them does he need in his starting line up?

I also don't like his archaic thinking that his team should have two scoring lines and two checking lines. In today's hockey there are teams with fast talented lines that get offence out of their 3rd and even 4th lines. Those are the teams that are winning and worth watching.

How many 200 footers?
Everyone except:
1. The goalie, and
2. The backup goalie.