[Official] Fire/Tolerate Travis Green Thread

[F A N]

Yep. Babcock is officially available.

 

[timw33]

Great time to dump your head coach and face little national media scrutiny now that Babcock is out.

 

[perrykaravello]

I’m feeling it.

Doubt it will happen but Green is not the guy for the job here.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Babcock is 100x the coach TG is, and Leafs had the guts to fire him after losing streak. We will probably reward TG with an extension soon.

 

[ayoshi]

I'd say this is the first season you could really criticize Green. The previous seasons weren't on him. Did you look at the Canucks' roster? Pure lottery team.

Benning should go before Green does. Or at least give the next GM the option to keep Green or hire someone else.

 

[xtra]

I'd say this is the first season you could really criticize Green. The previous seasons weren't on him. Did you look at the Canucks' roster? Pure lottery team.

Benning should go before Green does. Or at least give the next GM the option to keep Green or hire someone else.

Can we dream of aqua shooting his shot and bringing in both a new gm and Babcock (who is chosen by the gm)

I also think a big reason why babcock was fired was that he wasn’t Dubas guy and didn’t play the way dubas built his roster (in dubas minds) should be playing

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Fire Green! Hire Babcock!!!!

 

[LordBacon]

Get babcock the eff over here.

 

[PG Canuck]

We don't have Datsyuk/Lidstrom for Babcock, so I don't see him having any more success here than he did in Toronto.

 

[F A N]

We don't have Datsyuk/Lidstrom for Babcock, so I don't see him having any more success here than he did in Toronto.

Personally, I think this team is built much more to Babcock's liking than Toronto's roster is under Dubas.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Imagine us hiring Babcock and winning the Stanley Cup while the Leafs miss the playoffs with Sheldon Keefe. I think this Canucks team has another gear, much like the LA Kings who were a bubble team who squeaked into the 8th playoff seed before Darryl Sutter was hired and turned them into a multiple Stanley Cup winner.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

We don't have Datsyuk/Lidstrom for Babcock, so I don't see him having any more success here than he did in Toronto.

Pettersson > Datsyuk

Lidstrom > Hughes

I'd say it's about even.

 

[Nomobo]

ITS HAPPENING BOYS

Let’s hope not.

 

[tyhee]

Let the new GM fire him.

Imo this is bang on and is a point many seem to be missing.

Green isn't the major problem with the Canucks. The problem comes higher up. Switching coaches now may well result in a bump in performance, but that will only serve to mask the long-term problem that this team is poorly constructed.

Of course nobody but the owner is in a position to fire the owner or take away his say in the team's moves, but firing Green right now, even if it works out this season as well as the most optimistic hope won't do anything to help the team in future seasons. Until there is a less incompetent GM, the team is in trouble.

It could just result in a mediocre new coach getting a multi-year deal, which after this season's performance bump (assuming it happens) won't help the team at all. It would just be like signing a free agent to a multi-year high priced deal (which the Canucks aren't in any position to do these days as they've done it too often already.)

 

[VanJack]

Although it might be 'deserved' if the Canucks losing streak hits double-digits and imperils their season, I still can't see the Canucks canning Green in-season.

Firstly, unlike TO they really have nobody in Utica to promote, and I'm not sure any of the assistant coaches behind the Canucks bench would be of any interest. And unlike Bob Murray in Anaheim, Jimbo isn't coming down from the executive booth to coach this team (wouldn't that be something!}

And it would be pointless to parachute someone into the coaching position from outside the organization with an 'interim tag', even if such a guy existed out there. So it's 'Green or bust' this season---maybe both at the same time.

 

[valkynax]

We don't have Datsyuk/Lidstrom for Babcock, so I don't see him having any more success here than he did in Toronto.

now that you mentioned it...

remember when OJ was compared to Lidstrom?

let's grab Babcock and plan the parade baby!

 

[PG Canuck]

This was posted on the Leafs board regarding Keefe’s system. Loved reading an actual breakdown of the system he deploys instead of “he plays so and so too much”.

I know there are a couple threads on him, but I thought I would make a thread so people might want to know about his style, how he coaches, and his interactions with players. I will also provide tweets to help out.


Record:
Playoffs: 39-18
Calder cup, 3 conference finals
5 sweeps
Elimination games record: 11-8
Game 7(1st round is best of 5) record: 3-1
System
As we know, Dubas and Babcock said Marlies use the same system, but that's just wrong. Marlies have better support from the forwards, and they have a tighter gap.
Scott Wheeler had an article about the differences between Babcock and Keefe. I will only talk about Keefe obviously. I can't post the videos but I will try my best explaining it if it doesn't look clear.

The breakout

A lot of what makes both teams successful (the Marlies) and unsuccessful (the Leafs) starts here. What makes the two coaches different often begins in their own zone.
The Marlies have three by-design plays they use to exit their zone. The first, is a soft chip on the wall into a carry. It’s a self-pass. They practice it a lot and they
execute it extremely well.

This kind of play looks like an old-school, low-skill play — it isn’t. Where a hard dump clears the puck safely, it most often results in a turnover in a low-risk area in the neutral zone. What’s happening here is a higher risk play that, when it fails, turns the puck over at your own blue line while your forwards are going the wrong direction. The Marlies have several wrinkles to the play that they’ve schemed for too.

The benefit of a play like this is that it hits the forwards in movement. They exit together and one player isn’t ahead of the others until the pass is sent (a lot like soccer). It allows the Marlies to back off opposing teams with their speed, rather than a long chip or stretch pass that often leaves the receiving forward flat-footed.
And when the opposing team drives a winger or a defenceman up the boards to prevent the chip, the fact that all three forwards are exiting largely together allows them to have a Plan B in place. That’s where the second play — the kick — comes in.
Because the curling forward pushes away from the middle towards the boards, he’s also available for the kick. And by kick, I mean a short five-foot pass off the wall, normally with some kind of bump play where the board-side forward doesn’t handle the puck. It looks like this and acts as a third variation of the chip play

So what happens when the Marlies are under pressure below the hashmarks? The Marlies use their D in one of two ways (the third play I mentioned above is more of a 3A and 3B).
The first, is with another short pass. Instead of fleeing the zone and asking the under-pressure D to send a long attempt up ice, the Marlies curl all three forwards.
There, rather than attempt to push the opposing D back by providing a high outlet option, the Marlies play the long game and push the D back by swinging and using their foot speed to do it. The push happens after the Marlies have exited the zone. If the puck is turned over, all five Marlies are already in the defensive zone.

The ripple effect of Play 1, Play 2, and Play 3A is that against teams that sit back and stack the neutral zone, it allows the Marlies to carry the puck out — something they take advantage of whenever it’s there.

Neutral zone Transition

When (or if) either team converts the exit, they both do a nice job through the neutral zone. That’s the byproduct of the personnel they have (the majority of the Marlies and the Leafs are fast relative to their leagues) and of strong neutral zone structure. The biggest difference is that the way the Marlies’ exit begins allows them to have speed when they make their neutral zone plays.
And that activation we see from the Marlies’ defence — something players like Andreas Borgman have pointed to as the biggest difference between how Babcock and Keefe deploy their defencemen — gives them options:

More often then not, after opting to use a short pass or chip on the exit, the Marlies will carry on the entry in order to use the foot speed they gained from the curl to their advantage, rather than make a second neutral zone pass and further risk a turnover where the numbers are going the wrong direction:


And the intention of those entries is for them to always (or at least whenever it’s available) take place in the middle of the offensive zone blue line. In doing so, the carrier draws attention and has two options:

• Take advantage of poor gapping if the middle lane is left open to drive the high slot and shoot.
• Use that attention to find F2 or F3 immediately after the entry:

Offensive zone

The Leafs spread out in the offensive zone and seem hesitant to stack three forwards on one side of the ice or provide close, follow-up puck support that enables them to slide in and help the forechecking forward if he loses a battle. The end result is that because the Leafs don’t have the personnel to win a lot of those 50-50 battles, the lack of support results in plays dying.
The Marlies don’t have that problem. Part of that is because players like Moore and Brooks are excellent forecheckers and players like Marchment offer a physical presence the Leafs lack. A lot of it comes down to how they forecheck.
It’s about numbers and when the Marlies are at their best, it’s brilliant. Watch the way one player (or sometimes two) supports the forechecker or the carrier in the offensive zone below:

There are a couple of things at play there.

• The supporting player lurks close to the carrier or the primary forechecker, which means the distance from A to B if they need to help is easily closed.
• They always close that space when help is required. The three players are in a constant rotation and it allows them to receive little kicks if the forward can’t beat their man with speed or dive in on a loose puck to switch roles.

There is a lot of detail in Scott's article, but it's a decent understanding of what the Marlies do.

Style of play
Keefe is more of an attacking coach, but he also wants structure. If his team doesn't play with structure, he is not a happy guy. The guy focuses a lot on details, in fact it might be one of his best qualities.

"He understands that you have to be creative, so he lets us be creative," Liljegren told Sportsnet last season. "That's fun, but he can be hard on you, too. You have to push every day. It's a good environment for young guys to be in."
I think the biggest thing is Keefe adapts to the game, and can read a game situation.

 

[WTG]

Imagine us hiring Babcock and winning the Stanley Cup while the Leafs miss the playoffs with Sheldon Keefe. I think this Canucks team has another gear, much like the LA Kings who were a bubble team who squeaked into the 8th playoff seed before Darryl Sutter was hired and turned them into a multiple Stanley Cup winner.

Did you read all the new stuff that came out about Babcock?

He did this to Marner and Marner said Kadri.

Imagine if he did that to Pettersson?
f*** Babcock.

Get a guy who the players actually love AND coach well.
Although, I still think the Leafs decision to take a highly touted coach with a winning track record was the right move. Turns out Babcock was just f***ing insane.

 

[Grub]

No to Babcock please...

At the moment there's really no good candidates out there.

 

[swedehollow]

This was posted on the Leafs board regarding Keefe’s system. Loved reading an actual breakdown of the system he deploys instead of “he plays so and so too much”.

Watch Leafs break out with this coach. This is the type of coach Canucks needs as well. Structure leads to quick decisions and time and room to be creative. Every players knows what to do and when, and don't need to think/overthink.

TG is more of a "player developer". I'm not sure what Babcock is, but I'm pretty sure he is not what Canucks needs.

Is there a similar break-down of Canucks current system? Is there a system?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Watch Leafs break out with this coach. This is the type of coach Canucks needs as well. Structure leads to quick decisions and time and room to be creative. Every players knows what to do and when, and don't need to think/overthink.

TG is more of a "player developer". I'm not sure what Babcock is, but I'm pretty sure he is not what Canucks needs.

Is there a similar break-down of Canucks current system? Is there a system?

This will be interesting to see...minor league miracle coach...,ok..?..There's always the honeymoon stage with a new coach...Toronto is probably the most over scrutinized/toughest market for any coach....or GM.

TG is more of a "player developer" coach?..a lot of the "armchair coach" negatives here don't think so.

 

[iFan]

You guys really want to hire Babcock?

 

[iFan]

now that you mentioned it...

remember when OJ was compared to Lidstrom?

let's grab Babcock and plan the parade baby!

no one said OJ was going to be as good as Lidstrom, a scouting report said they had a comparable playing style, not to be confused with OJ potential to be a Lidstrom.

 

[strattonius]

Imagine the stupidity to fire Green just to hire Babcock.

I'm not buying the fire Green hype.

 

[valkynax]

no one said OJ was going to be as good as Lidstrom, a scouting report said they had a comparable playing style, not to be confused with OJ potential to be a Lidstrom.

And he has failed to live up to even a microfraction of that potential.

Here is a lovely link from the cesspool of reddit:


Geniuses were comparing him to Lidstrom and Bobby Orr

Yeah...