The Armchair Coaching Thread [MOD WARNING in OP]

[biturbo19]

Really, I liked the style of game we were playing before the new year. It's degraded, but I really don't see it as any worse than last year. The Canucks haven't been exciting since January 7, 2012. I skipped through games on the PVR back then too.

Seeing an active forecheck again was a fresh exciting thing for a brief while, but that didn't last long. The more the team has fallen into playing this Tortorella hockey, the more dull it has become, and the less successful they have been on the ice. It's not a sustainable style of play, and the more deeply the team embraces that style of defensive game, the less viable that sort of forecheck really is. There was that brief "transition period" where it looked like the players were amped up about having a fresh new face behind the bench. But at this point, it just looks like everyone wants out, the results aren't there on the ice, and it isn't even remotely fun for me to watch.

 

[biturbo19]

Seriously, i would like for someone to take a look at these caps from tonight's game and explain to me why this system Tortorella has instituted is anything other than horrendous and moronic.

This is the system now...this is what they do:

and you might think, "okay, but once everyone starts to get upright again and into position it will all be much better". But no...it ends up like this:

And people are still sitting there scratching their heads wondering why we can score, can't generate offense, have no transition game, can't contend anymore.

It's Tortorella. It's what he did in New York. And it's ****ing awful.

 

[opendoor]

It deeply saddens me to watch this team teetering on the brink of a proposed "rebuild", largely because Tortorella has run them into ground with his awful brand of no fun, no entertainment, no success hockey.

There are problems and poor decisions with the personnel and some spots that needed to be addressed and haven't been. But under a proper coach, i fully believe that this core could still compete for a Stanley Cup.

If this clown coming to town results in "blowing up" this team, that is unforgivable.

You can't honestly believe that coaches have that much of an effect on a team do you? If a coach could turn the current sack of crap we're seeing into cup contenders they wouldn't earn less than Jannik Hansen or Chris Higgins; they'd be making $10M+ a year because they'd have a bigger effect than the most elite players.

The Canucks have had two different well regarded coaches in the last 2 years and have looked like complete **** both years. Shockingly they're actually generating about 20% more scoring chances this year which shows just how awful they were last year and how good of a job elite goaltending and some good luck did of covering up their warts.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

You can't honestly believe that coaches have that much of an effect on a team do you? If a coach could turn the current sack of crap we're seeing into cup contenders they wouldn't earn less than Jannik Hansen or Chris Higgins; they'd be making $10M+ a year because they'd have a bigger effect than the most elite players.

The Canucks have had two different well regarded coaches in the last 2 years and have looked like complete **** both years. Shockingly they're actually generating about 20% more scoring chances this year which shows just how awful they were last year and how good of a job elite goaltending and some good luck did of covering up their warts.

This could be one of the lowest scoring Canuck teams of all time. I don't think there is much comparison here between last year and this year. This is a new low.

 

[Canuck Luck]

I think it's time to stack up one line so at least we have one line that can score and in the process we can figure out what we have in Schroeder, Matthias, and dalpe.

I'd like to see these lines for Thursday:

Burrows hank Kesler
Higgins Schroeder kassian
Dalpe Matthias Hansen
Sestito Richardson booth

Loads up the top line and gives management a chance to see if Schroeder can do anything when given a semi-decent chance in a top 6 role. Rotate Schroeder with dalpe and Matthias every now and then to see who shows well and who can't cut it.

If Schroeder shows he can't cut it, I would look to flip Schroeder at the draft for a 3rd round pick or a couple 4ths. Maybe package him with a 4th and try to move up into the 2nd round. If he can't cut it as a top 6 guy, better to cut our losses now than hope he turns out. He is too small to play a bottom 6 role

Dalpe, if he can't cut it, I'd keep around as a 13th foward. He has decent size, hands, and wheels for a 13th foward.

Matthias seems like he's good enough to be a 3rd/4th line player if he can't produce in a top 6 role

 

[biturbo19]

You can't honestly believe that coaches have that much of an effect on a team do you? If a coach could turn the current sack of crap we're seeing into cup contenders they wouldn't earn less than Jannik Hansen or Chris Higgins; they'd be making $10M+ a year.

The Canucks have had two different well regarded coaches in the last 2 years and have looked like complete **** both years. Shockingly they're actually generating about 20% more scoring chances this year which shows just how awful they were last year and how good of a job elite goaltending and some good luck did of covering up their warts.

You can't honestly believe that coaches can't have that much of an effect on a team do you?

Just take a gander around the league. The examples of a good coaching change catapulting a team right into contention are littered all over the place. Estimating the value of a coach's impact based on how much money they make is incredibly foolhardy. A bad coach can absolutely and completely sink an entire $64M team. A good coach can take that same group to the playoffs. There are good and bad coaches, and there is a reason that teams hire and fire these guys, and a reason that they pay them millions of dollars a year if you insist on that silly line of reasoning.

Even a team like the Winnipeg Jets or Philadelphia Flyers who were mired in a disastrous season, make a shrewd coaching swap and are now on a definitive upswing in results and making a legitimate push for a fringe playoff spot...after making a coaching change mid season.

Just because the CBA makes coaches more expendable than players with guaranteed contracts...don't mistake that for a lack of potential impact.

A dismal coach like John Tortorella can absolutely destroy a team's on-ice performance and off-ice morale. And he clearly has here.

 

[opendoor]

This could be one of the lowest scoring Canuck teams of all time. I don't think there is much comparison here between last year and this year. This is a new low.

They're 0.24 G/G off of last year's pace and last year's team likely would've ended up around the same area they are now based on how their offense was trending. They scored almost 3 G/G over the first 10-15 games last season and after that they were in the 2.35 G/G range for the remainder of the shortened season. Tortorella's Canucks had 1 fewer goal than Vigneault's after 48 games.

 

[Dontdive]

Is it possible Canucks are playing to get Tortorella fired?

Their offensive drop-off is so severe it's effectively unbelievable to me. I know injuries have hurt but every team gets them.

Don't forget not that many years ago this was the top team in the NHL when it came to scoring, at least in the regular season. Now they're lucky to get two goals a game. Two!

Is it possible that at least some of the offensive players who matter here have decided they've had enough of their coach and basically have given up on him, with it being reflected in their play?

Note I'm not saying I believe this to be the case! I honestly don't know. I'm just putting this out for discussion.

 

[discordant concord]

Tortorella doesn't have a system. He simply rides his best players to the extreme, and when they fail to produce chaos ensues.

 

[PG Canuck]

No. They just suck at his system, can't score under any coach etc etc.

 

[MikeK]

I thought they were playing like this to get AV fired?

 

[biturbo19]

They're 0.24 G/G off of last year's pace and last year's team likely would've ended up around the same area they are now based on how their offense was trending. They scored almost 3 G/G over the first 10-15 games last season and after that they were in the 2.35 G/G range for the remainder of the shortened season. Tortorella's Canucks had 1 fewer goal than Vigneault's after 48 games.

People need to give it up with this "well last year in the lockout season if we project things out the way we want to paint Torts in a positive light" routine.

It's disingenuous to what has really transpired.

Last year AV was a coach who had overstayed his welcome, managing a roster that was missing key offensive cogs...Jordan Schroeder and even Alex Burrows were relied on as our "#2C" for the bulk of that shortened campaign. That's ugly. Much worse that what Tortorella has had to work with this year.

Moreover, people are insistent on projecting out "trends" in last year's scoring...yet completely willing to gloss over the "trends" in scoring this year...which are frankly, a sharp decline to effectively NOTHING. This team has been hysterically poor at scoring in the new year...now that people are done blaming the "adjustment period" for the defensive lapses. If we are to accept the premise that it took this team some months to fully "adjust" to this Tortorella system, and we look at the offensive production since, it is absolutely unacceptable. It's pathetic.

And the real crux of the matter is...the Tortorella supporters are intent on setting AV's final year as the benchmark for performance with this team. That premise is nonsensical, as that is the very same season that got Alain Vigneault fired. That is, it was deemed unacceptable even by the management of this team. Inadequate. That is a benchmark for failure, and Tortorella has been effectively unable to meet even that low set bar. He is a **** coach, and it is the #1 problem with this team.

 

[opendoor]

You can't honestly believe that coaches can't have that much of an effect on a team do you?

Just take a gander around the league. The examples of a good coaching change catapulting a team right into contention are littered all over the place. Estimating the value of a coach's impact based on how much money they make is incredibly foolhardy. A bad coach can absolutely and completely sink an entire $64M team. A good coach can take that same group to the playoffs. There are good and bad coaches, and there is a reason that teams hire and fire these guys, and a reason that they pay them millions of dollars a year if you insist on that silly line of reasoning.

Even a team like the Winnipeg Jets or Philadelphia Flyers who were mired in a disastrous season, make a shrewd coaching swap and are now on a definitive upswing in results and making a legitimate push for a fringe playoff spot...after making a coaching change mid season.

Just because the CBA makes coaches more expendable than players with guaranteed contracts...don't mistake that for a lack of potential impact.

A dismal coach like John Tortorella can absolutely destroy a team's on-ice performance and off-ice morale. And he clearly has here.

So why were they bad under Vigneault too? And why has Vigneault failed to improve on the results of that "dismal" coach in New York?

Winnipeg going on a hot streak in the midst of a soft part of their schedule or Philadelphia improving by a few points over last year are hardly clear indicators of coaching having a big effect. And besides, they're nothing like what you're suggesting a new coach could do for the Canucks which would be something in the order of a 40-50% increase in points and probably a 40% increase in offense to get the current team to contender level performance.

And there's nothing silly with assigning value to a part of a team based on what the person is paid. The effect you're describing is basically more impact than a guy like Crosby could have on a team. If a GM thought the difference between one coach and another was that great, why wouldn't they be paid more? They don't count against the cap and there's no upper limit on salaries like there is with players.

 

[opendoor]

People need to give it up with this "well last year in the lockout season if we project things out the way we want to paint Torts in a positive light" routine.

It's disingenuous to what has really transpired.

Last year AV was a coach who had overstayed his welcome, managing a roster that was missing key offensive cogs...Jordan Schroeder and even Alex Burrows were relied on as our "#2C" for the bulk of that shortened campaign. That's ugly. Much worse that what Tortorella has had to work with this year.

Moreover, people are insistent on projecting out "trends" in last year's scoring...yet completely willing to gloss over the "trends" in scoring this year...which are frankly, a sharp decline to effectively NOTHING. This team has been hysterically poor at scoring in the new year...now that people are done blaming the "adjustment period" for the defensive lapses. If we are to accept the premise that it took this team some months to fully "adjust" to this Tortorella system, and we look at the offensive production since, it is absolutely unacceptable. It's pathetic.

And the real crux of the matter is...the Tortorella supporters are intent on setting AV's final year as the benchmark for performance with this team. That premise is nonsensical, as that is the very same season that got Alain Vigneault fired. That is, it was deemed unacceptable even by the management of this team. Inadequate. That is a benchmark for failure, and Tortorella has been effectively unable to meet even that low set bar. He is a **** coach, and it is the #1 problem with this team.

I think you're conflating "Tortorella supporters" with people who simply recognize that this is a team with a lot of holes in it that is in steep decline irrespective of who's behind the bench.

 

[canuck4life16]

need to make some adjustment.......don't know if Mattias coming in will help take some ice time off undeserving players.....I think Mattias will be loved by torts and he scream to be his type of player

 

[biturbo19]

So why were they bad under Vigneault too? And why has Vigneault failed to improve on the results of that "dismal" coach in New York?

Winnipeg going on a hot streak in the midst of a soft part of their schedule or Philadelphia improving by a few points over last year are hardly clear indicators of coaching having a big effect. And besides, they're nothing like what you're suggesting a new coach could do for the Canucks which would be something in the order of a 40-50% increase in points and probably a 40% increase in offense to get the current team to contender level performance.

And there's nothing silly with assigning value to a part of a team based on what the person is paid. The effect you're describing is basically more impact than a guy like Crosby could have on a team. If a GM thought the difference between one coach and another was that great, why wouldn't they be paid more? They don't count against the cap and there's no upper limit on salaries like there is with players.

AV was a coach who had grown stale. That happens. He had been in the organization for 8 years. It was clearly time for a change...the issue is, they made the wrong change and hired a complete dud in Tortorella.

And trying to compare the effect of a coaching change to the effect of acquiring a Sidney Crosby just further demonstrates your lack of understanding of the concept at work here.

The underlying assertion here, is that a player like Sidney Crosby would produce less effectively under John Tortorella vs his current situation under Bylsma for example. If Crosby is on pace for 110+ pts this year under Bylsma...if he were to hypothetically play under Tortorella, he would be on pace for fewer points, well into the sub-100pt range. That is the point i'm making regarding coaching impact.

It's an umbrella effect, and it's asinine to compare it to the acquisition of star scorer playing under a different coach.

 

[SgtToody]

So why were they bad under Vigneault too? And why has Vigneault failed to improve on the results of that "dismal" coach in New York?

Winnipeg going on a hot streak in the midst of a soft part of their schedule or Philadelphia improving by a few points over last year are hardly clear indicators of coaching having a big effect. And besides, they're nothing like what you're suggesting a new coach could do for the Canucks which would be something in the order of a 40-50% increase in points and probably a 40% increase in offense to get the current team to contender level performance.

And there's nothing silly with assigning value to a part of a team based on what the person is paid. The effect you're describing is basically more impact than a guy like Crosby could have on a team. If a GM thought the difference between one coach and another was that great, why wouldn't they be paid more? They don't count against the cap and there's no upper limit on salaries like there is with players.

They did make the playoffs the past two years under AV, and comfortably - and proceeded to suck, yes. Torts has done a good job of getting more players to give up. His riding his horses strategy has worked wonders - if they're not struggling, they're injured or to be...

 

[biturbo19]

I think you're conflating "Tortorella supporters" with people who simply recognize that this is a team with a lot of holes in it that is in steep decline irrespective of who's behind the bench.

I think those two are largely one and the same, within the context of this discussion.

They are those who believe in Tortorella and are somehow convinced that an entire team has suddenly and sharply regressed all at the same time directly coinciding with the arrival of John Tortorella. They aren't suspicious of the fact that nearly every single player on the roster has regressed offensively upon the arrival of John Tortorella. They are those who buy into this spin that somehow over the course of one summer, this entire team went from a playoff team to a washed up bunch of hacks which must be "blown up" and "rebuilt" because none of them can score any more...and aren't willing to examine the idea that the BIGGEST change in this team which has precipitated this great decline, was a colossally stupid coaching change.

There is little doubt that this team has some serious holes in its composition. Most teams do. But the dramatic tumble this team has taken over the last year is the product of something a lot more than that. Something that is a lot more far-reaching than the lack of a solid 2nd line winger. Poor coaching has crashed this team.

 

[NoShowWilly]

This team seems like it is trying to emulate team Canada but are only watching Jay Bouwmeester's dump and change play with all 5 in the offensive end.

 

[MrShift4]

Tortorella doesn't have a system. He simply rides his best players to the extreme, and when they fail to produce chaos ensues.

This is what I am seeing right now.


I liked him holding people accountable in the beginning. Now it is time to hold him accountable. This kind of losing streak and absolutely pathetic play falls on the coach.

 

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[Barney Gumble]

....

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Very interesting post. I do try to give Tortorella some of the benefit of a doubt in that he's simply not a good fit for this team, but while the coaching change may have been what most accelerated the transition from contender to rebuild mode, I don't necessarily think we should dump him right away. I think they key is whether or not he's able to change. Maybe that's a tall order, but I'd give him some more time to make necessary changes, and while I don't know enough to say what they might be, I do know enough to tell that changes have to be made.

 

[arttk]

Very interesting post. I do try to give Tortorella some of the benefit of a doubt in that he's simply not a good fit for this team, but while the coaching change may have been what most accelerated the transition from contender to rebuild mode, I don't necessarily think we should dump him right away. I think they key is whether or not he's able to change. Maybe that's a tall order, but I'd give him some more time to make necessary changes, and while I don't know enough to say what they might be, I do know enough to tell that changes have to be made.

I agree, I feel like you have to have some continuity at the club, can't just change the coach that many times and expect different results.

I would suggest that we get rid of Sullivan (who is apparently not very popular with the players and is in charge of the PP over Gulutzan) and hire a really good XO guy with a proven record of running a good PP that can work with Torts to fix our transition game and lame ass PP.

 

[Barney Gumble]

I would suggest that we get rid of Sullivan (who is apparently not very popular with the players and is in charge of the PP over Gulutzan) and hire a really good XO guy with a proven record of running a good PP that can work with Torts to fix our transition game and lame ass PP.

Somebody WILL have to be the fall guy in a disasterious season like this.