Speculation: Tocchet, do we really need him?

[sensodyne17]

Canucks are in the mushy middle. Not enough talent to contend. Tocchet is doing the best he can with a middling roster. Maybe some of the floor hockey crowd here can actually give us an alternative and the reasons why.

There's literally no substance here from those guys that complain about Tocchet.

Everyone just says "NO OFFENSE BLAH BLAH".

It's like... have you looked at the personnel on the ice?

The roster sucks right now and the Canucks still need to do major surgery up front and also fix their $11.6M problem.

 

[Grifter3511]

Can anyone look at the Canucks lineup and objectively say that this offense deserves to be anywhere but the bottom of the league?

O'Connor, Sherwood, Suter, Blueger, Aman, Hoglander, Bains....

We have a heavily underperforming 1C, a 2-3 C, two complimentary top 6 wingers who bring nothing on their own, and then a whole bunch of the above (ideal 4th liners or ahlers with possible 3rd line upside).

Then there's Garland. Heart of a warrior, often in the guise of a 3rd liner.

They're likeable players, but they're pretty garbage as far as being an NHL offense is concerned. I honestly can't see this group producing much more, even if the reins were turned over to a Boudreau-type.

 

[bossram]

They were better defensively last year by far. Zadorov and Cole were huge on the back-end and everyone was playing well and healthy. Don't need stats to prove that, just watch the games.

I never said that their defensive shift hasn't affected their offensive generation. The way you and many others are looking at this is a tunnel-vision, hyper-focused perspective on "offensive generation". If you look all the hard stats, then you it's easy to say the Canucks are terrible offensively - and a lot of you want to attribute that blame to Tocchet which doesn't make sense.

Like I said - you (and others) want us to lose 5-3 instead of 2-1? I'm not sure how that's going to change anything in the standings at the end of the day.

The coaches coach, players play. The play has been atrocious offensively across the board - players are double clutching, not hitting the net, hesitant to shoot, too many blocked shots, unwillingness to go the dirty areas ("Guts of the ice"). Tocchet has said the entire year: "Players are not making plays, too much dump and chase, need to want to have the puck to make plays, not moving their feet enough, over passing and not going to the dirty areas to score etc." He's expressed the SAME concerns to the public that everyone else has.

Like just watch the game man. Let's not just look at stats and not use context.

Who can drive play (outside of Hughes) now that Pettersson has disappeared and Miller is gone? Drive play meaning consistently carrying the puck into the zone and making plays to generate scoring chances. It's not Boeser, DeBrusk, Bleuger, Suter, Sherwood, Joshua right now.

Who? Sometimes Chytil? Sometimes Garland? Maybe Hoglander if he isn't sitting in the penalty box for a offensive zone penalty or not benched for a stupid turnover. Pettersson can maybe like one in three games right now.

Who can drive offensive play on the defensive side with no Hughes? It's not MP, Myers, DPetey, Soucy, Forbort, Mancini, Juulsen. Hronek can at times and has played reasonably well with Hughes gone - but he's not an offensive dynamo like Hughes is... he's more of a two-way defenseman. Myers can in a blue moon but he also mistakes a lot of mistakes while trying to drive plan.

So when you take off the nerd glasses, you can count on one hand the number of offensive play drivers we have in the lineup... Chytil, Garland, Hoglander and Hronek. None of which are our elite/top players. No team is going to score goals when you only have 4/5 guys that can drive offense.

We are forced to play defensive hockey out of our current personnel. If you can't see that then I don't know how to help you.

You can deploy whatever system you want in your fantasy land but this team as constructed, without Hughes, is a bubble wildcard team which is exactly where they are at.

Yes, I watch the games. Anyone can see this team is not creating offense, by design.

And yes, you are now literally making incoherent, contradictory arguments. First, your argument was that Tocc was not inhibiting offense. Then you changed your argument to say that Tocc switched to a more defensive orientation this season (despite the Canucks being worse defensively in reality), in order to protect the goalies. And this switch necessarily inhibited their offensive production. So which is it? Is Tocc's system inhibiting offense or not?

If you can show (via quote) where I said I wanted the Canucks to lose 5-3, then I'll concede. I'll wait. Please show me.

Anyone with eyes can see that the team does not even attempt to do anything interesting offensively. This is by design. The stats corroborate this. Every argument you provide has been refuted by multiple people, and now you're literally making incoherent and contradictory arguments.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Then there's Garland. Heart of a warrior, often in the guise of a 3rd liner.

They're likeable players, but they're pretty garbage as far as being an NHL offense is concerned. I honestly can't see this group producing much more, even if the reins were turned over to a Boudreau-type.

So it's settled. Keep Tocchet.

 

[sensodyne17]

Yes, I watch the games. Anyone can see this team is not creating offense, by design.

And yes, you are now literally making incoherent, contradictory arguments. First, your argument was that Tocc was not inhibiting offense. Then you changed your argument to say that Tocc switched to a more defensive orientation this season (despite the Canucks being worse defensively in reality), in order to protect the goalies. And this switch necessarily inhibited their offensive production. So which is it? Is Tocc's system inhibiting offense or not?

If you can show (via quote) where I said I wanted the Canucks to lose 5-3, then I'll concede. I'll wait. Please show me.

Anyone with eyes can see that the team does not even attempt to do anything interesting offensively. This is by design. The stats corroborate this. Every argument you provide has been refuted by multiple people, and now you're literally making incoherent and contradictory arguments.

Incoherent, contradictory arguments? That's cute - super cute of you. You think going from Vezina goaltending to journeyman goaltending doesn't impact the offensive side of things - your opinion on this topic is already diminished. I'll try to engage one more time but it's clear you don't understand, and not trying to.

I never said Tocchet was not inhibiting offense. You're literally making up assumptions to fit your narrative. I've been defending Tocchet since the beginning indicating that the personnel on the ice is a WAY bigger issue - and is the core/foundational issue when it comes to offense. I just listened to Hansen on the radio and he said it best - it doesn't matter who's behind the bench right now... the team won't be able to score goals consistently with the way the roster is constructed. He also said the players have to be way better and that they ultimately bear the responsibility of the play on the ice. With that said, I have said many times that Tocchet's focus is a structured, shut-down system that mimics a playoff-type environment - we saw how effective that was last year when we had A) the right personnel and B) the personnel playing to their potential. Right now we have neither.

I do believe Tocch has deployed a more defensive structure because we lost our Vezina level goaltending to insulate Lankinen and Silovs - it's a reasonable and educated coaching strategy to deploy given the fact that we have to rely on our so-so journeyman backup to undertake starting duties.

Tocchet's system is playing to his personnel strengths which is trying to build a suffocating defense that protects the guts of the ice. The system does inhibits offensive potential but that DOES NOT mean it's an ISSUE. The ISSUE is that Pettersson and Boeser looks completely lost. What coaching system can make Boeser faster? What coaching system can make Petey want to shoot the puck?

Hoglander, Garland, Joshua, Sherwood (despite a hot start), and Blueger are all slumping at the same time. Hughes have been hurt for a while now and he's our main offensive play driver.

People say... oh why do we dump and chase? The question isn't why do we dump and chase, the real question is who can carry the puck in the zone and make a play right now based on their skill? Right now, just a couple.

Can anyone look at the Canucks lineup and objectively say that this offense deserves to be anywhere but the bottom of the league?

O'Connor, Sherwood, Suter, Blueger, Aman, Hoglander, Bains....

We have a heavily underperforming 1C, a 2-3 C, two complimentary top 6 wingers who bring nothing on their own, and then a whole bunch of the above (ideal 4th liners or ahlers with possible 3rd line upside).

Then there's Garland. Heart of a warrior, often in the guise of a 3rd liner.

They're likeable players, but they're pretty garbage as far as being an NHL offense is concerned. I honestly can't see this group producing much more, even if the reins were turned over to a Boudreau-type.

Thanks for exercising some common sense.

I don't blame Allvin for this whole Miller/Petey debacle but he needs to find a fix because the personnel is by far the biggest issue and not the coaching systems.

We have one top six forward that's performing like a top six forward and that's DeBrusk.

 

[sensodyne17]

This is the Vigneault conversation during the 2007/2008 season all over again. Win the Jack Adams after a great yet lucky year, then everything falls off the rails next year.

You got one guy playing at a Hart level (Luongo/Hughes) who you want to build around, a defense that can’t stay healthy, and an extremely pop-gun offense. Heck, a lot of the older core leadership guys left at the end of that season (Linden/Naslund/BMo), and we’re trending in that direction again (Miller/Boeser).

Like they did with Vigneault, you give the guy some grace after this season, but let him know the expectations are to play a more up-tempo style next year. Two years later that same coach who couldn't coach offense, who had drilled Montreal/Vancouver into only playing the trap, put together the 2nd best offense, and then the best offense in the league the year after.

Tocchet is a good coach, best we've had since - Alvin needs to get him the horses to execute this off-season and then evaluate half way through next year.

Great post.

Glad MG didn't fire AV. Tocchet's a 10x better coach than the likes of Travis Green, Willie D, Bruce Boudreau. He's the best coach we've had since AV.

 

[bossram]

Incoherent, contradictory arguments? That's cute - super cute of you. You think going from Vezina goaltending to journeyman goaltending doesn't impact the offensive side of things - your opinion on this topic is already diminished. I'll try to engage one more time but it's clear you don't understand, and not trying to.

I never said Tocchet was not inhibiting offense. You're literally making up assumptions to fit your narrative. I've been defending Tocchet since the beginning indicating that the personnel on the ice is a WAY bigger issue - and is the core/foundational issue when it comes to offense. I just listened to Hansen on the radio and he said it best - it doesn't matter who's behind the bench right now... the team won't be able to score goals consistently with the way the roster is constructed. He also said the players have to be way better and that they ultimately bear the responsibility of the play on the ice. With that said, I have said many times that Tocchet's focus is a structured, shut-down system that mimics a playoff-type environment - we saw how effective that was last year when we had A) the right personnel and B) the personnel playing to their potential. Right now we have neither.

I do believe Tocch has deployed a more defensive structure because we lost our Vezina level goaltending to insulate Lankinen and Silovs - it's a reasonable and educated coaching strategy to deploy given the fact that we have to rely on our so-so journeyman backup to undertake starting duties.

Tocchet's system is playing to his personnel strengths which is trying to build a suffocating defense that protects the guts of the ice. The system does inhibits offensive potential but that DOES NOT mean it's an ISSUE. The ISSUE is that Pettersson and Boeser looks completely lost. What coaching system can make Boeser faster? What coaching system can make Petey want to shoot the puck?

Hoglander, Garland, Joshua, Sherwood (despite a hot start), and Blueger are all slumping at the same time. Hughes have been hurt for a while now and he's our main offensive play driver.

People say... oh why do we dump and chase? The question isn't why do we dump and chase, the real question is who can carry the puck in the zone and make a play right now based on their skill? Right now, just a couple.

1. Let's get this out of the way. So, you can't show where I said I want them to lose? Let's just confirm this yes? You made that up yes?

2. Yes. Your original argument was that Tocc (via his system design) was not inhibiting offense. This is you, quoted below, bolded for effect:

Does everyone suddenly think these are system issues? Who realistically can we say is being held back by a system? The problem is that this team has gone through probably the worst luck out of any team in the NHL this year... insane amount of injuries to top guys, half of the roster (or more) regressing, crazy amount of drama, going from Vezina goaltending to one of the worst in the league.

I know it's not a coaching issue because your tertiary/secondary role players are still producing and having good years. For the most part, Garland, DeBrusk, Suter, Sherwood, Myers, Blueger and other role players have been playing up to their standards this year. The top guys have been disappointing (Petey, Boeser, Miller while he was here, Hughes). Hughes is only disappointing from an availability/injury perspective.

Here you are, bolded saying you don't think it's a coaching issue or systems issue. I.e., the lack of offense is not by design, by Tocc. You have now switched your argument to say that yes, Tocc's emphasis on defense this year (which again, is not materially different from their defensive play last year), has in fact affected how much offense they can produce, and this is systemic.

Yes, you are putting forth incoherent, nonsensical arguments. In part 1, you say Tocc had no effect on offense. In part 2, you say Tocc is having an effect on reducing offense, but it's a net positive. These are directly in conflict.

It is laughable you are criticizing me when you can't actually organize your thoughts logically or coherently.

 

[sensodyne17]

1. Let's get this out of the way. So, you can't show where I said I want them to lose? Let's just confirm this yes? You made that up yes?

2. Yes. Your original argument was that Tocc (via his system design) was not inhibiting offense. This is you, quoted below, bolded for effect:

Here you are, bolded saying you don't think it's a coaching issue or systems issue. I.e., the lack of offense is not by design, by Tocc. You have now switched your argument to say that yes, Tocc's emphasis on defense this year (which again, is not materially different from their defensive play last year), has in fact affected how much offense they can produce, and this is systemic.

Yes, you are putting forth incoherent, nonsensical arguments. In part 1, you say Tocc had no effect on offense. In part 2, you say Tocc is having an effect on reducing offense, but it's a net positive. These are directly in conflict.

It is laughable you are criticizing me when you can't actually organize your thoughts logically or coherently.

Brother - you are literally arguing semantics.

Everybody and their mom knows that Tocchet coaches a defensive-minded, well-structured, shut-down style that mimics a playoff environment. The coaching system can excel as long as we have the right personnel and the players playing up to their potential. We saw that last year.

I've been consistent with my messaging across this thread and that is Tocchet is NOT the problem. Systems are not an issue because the personnel can't execute a high-level/fast paced offense to a net positive outcome. You can't expect a team with three third lines and no Quinn Hughes to score a lot. Without Hughes playing and Boeser and Pettersson disappearing, this team is a bottom five offense. It doesn't matter which coach is behind the bench when you don't have the horses. You're too hyper-focused on your opinion to zoom out and look at the big picture. You can put the greatest coach in hockey history behind this roster and the results won't be much better. We just don't have the firepower right now.

 

[credulous]

I've been consistent with my messaging across this thread and that is Tocchet is NOT the problem. Systems are not an issue because the personnel can't execute a high-level/fast paced offense to a net positive outcome. You can't expect a team with three third lines and no Quinn Hughes to score a lot. Without Hughes playing and Boeser and Pettersson disappearing, this team is a bottom five offense. It doesn't matter which coach is behind the bench when you don't have the horses. You're too hyper-focused on your opinion to zoom out and look at the big picture. You can put the greatest coach in hockey history behind this roster and the results won't be much better. We just don't have the firepower right now.

it's a bottom 5 offense with hughes playing

 

[bossram]

Brother - you are literally arguing semantics.

Everybody and their mom knows that Tocchet coaches a defensive-minded, well-structured, shut-down style that mimics a playoff environment. The coaching system can excel as long as we have the right personnel and the players playing up to their potential. We saw that last year.

I've been consistent with my messaging across this thread and that is Tocchet is NOT the problem. Systems are not an issue because the personnel can't execute a high-level/fast paced offense to a net positive outcome. You can't expect a team with three third lines and no Quinn Hughes to score a lot. Without Hughes playing and Boeser and Pettersson disappearing, this team is a bottom five offense. It doesn't matter which coach is behind the bench when you don't have the horses. You're too hyper-focused on your opinion to zoom out and look at the big picture. You can put the greatest coach in hockey history behind this roster and the results won't be much better. We just don't have the firepower right now.

Okay, again, let's get it straight because you can't answer simple questions.

1. You made up that I said I want them to lose 5-3. Correct? You cannot quote that, correct?

2. If by "semantics", you mean your own arguments in your words, as I quoted them, then yes I am arguing them. Let's just confirm which of your contradictory arguments you are sticking with: Either that Tocc has no effect on offense, OR that Tocc has switched to a "defensive system that impedes offense, but is a net positive" line of logic you pivoted to. Which is it? Why can you not answer this?

You can't have a discussion if you literally do not know what you're arguing.