Speculation: Tocchet, do we really need him?

[sensodyne17]

I think you can [insert legend] as a HC and comments would be similar. Don't get me wrong though, Tocchet has certainly plied his trade.


Speaking of shots, at what point is the system or gameplanning to blame? DeBrusk is new but his shot rate this season is at a career low. Boeser is near career lows. Garland is at a career low. Suter is at a career low. Sherwood's shot rate was higher last season. Heinan's shot rate hasn't been this low since his time in Anaheim and his shot rate is higher since he got to Pittsburgh. Meanwhile, Chytil's shot rate is higher than his shot rate in NY.

We're all frustrated from the over-passing, reluctance to shoot, low % pass plays, dump and chase, not making plays etc.... including Tocchet. How many times has he complained to the media about these things? You can attribute the shot rate drop-off due to a various things. Having your 1C and best playmaker stink the whole year and go on leave of absence for a month and then ultimately is traded for some middling pieces is certainly going to hurt your offense. Having your other 1C completely lose his game and play like a shell of himself is also certainly going to hurt your offense. Losing your top two puck moving dman for extended period of times and/or playing hurt is certainly going to hurt your offense.

Last year was an anomaly in the sense everything went right and there were no material injuries. This year has been an absolute gongshow. Is this a system thing or has the team has completely imploded and we have to make due of what we can? I'm leaning on the accumulation of all the unlucky things that have happened over the course of the season that has completely sucked the life out the team.

Despite this... Tocch has us in a playoff spot. Firing him or letting him go just reeks of desperation and recency bias. The fact is this core does not deserve anymore coaches. Tocch has showed us his systems can succeed by taking what many thought to be a mid team, to a Game 7 Semi-Finals against Edmonton.

By all accounts, I've never heard anyone say anything bad about Tocchet and players seem to love to play for him. He's also a Stanley Cup champion and well respected given his achievements on the ice. He's sensible, stands up for his players, and embodies everything you want in a coach when it comes to leadership and accountability.

Yes, does he juggle his lines too much? Perhaps. Does his powerplay units make no sense sometimes? Perhaps. But generally, Tocchet is absolutely the right person for the job and there are few better. He's completely fixed the PK units, the overall structure, and has us competitive in every game against almost any opponent (other than a few bad apples). It's not pretty to the eyes but the players seem to be playing with synergy and know exactly what roles/spots they need to be in. The easy way to not over-think this is, the Canucks have probably the worst luck out of any team in the league when it comes to unfortunate events (injuries, drama, etc.) and are still in a playoff spot. Tocchet is not even in the top 20 list of problems right now.

 

[racerjoe]

The problem is there is levels... is tocchett a bad coach no. Is he a good coach yes. Does he have faults also yes.

As I said earlier he doesn't seem to be able to adjust and his system is not good at creating offense. We need to find him coaches to put on the team to fill those aspects.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

No, he said, quote, "you (and others) want us to lose 5-3".

Yeah, you're misquoting him. I don't know because you weren't reading his full posts or if you're trolling, but here's the full line:

"Like I said - you (and others) want us to lose 5-3 instead of 2-1?"

Here is what I said:

"He offered up a hypothetical on how playing more run and gun would lead to more 5-3 games than 2-1 games and then asked a question using similar verbiage."

That is a direct quote.

Getting offended on someone else's behalf that I interpreted someone's post as literally written is really something man.

Is this where I get to play your game and ask you to show me where I said I was offended?

I just said something because it seemed like you misread what was written, something which seems to be a trend given that I also asked you a question so that you could explain where this came from and instead accused me of 'being offended.'

 

[VanillaCoke]

Now we do know, the answer is clearly yes we do, give him the extension.

 

[bossram]

Yeah, you're misquoting him. I don't know because you weren't reading his full posts or if you're trolling, but here's the full line:

"Like I said - you (and others) want us to lose 5-3 instead of 2-1?"

Here is what I said:

"He offered up a hypothetical on how playing more run and gun would lead to more 5-3 games than 2-1 games and then asked a question using similar verbiage."



Is this where I get to play your game and ask you to show me where I said I was offended?

I just said something because it seemed like you misread what was written, something which seems to be a trend given that I also asked you a question so that you could explain where this came from and instead accused me of 'being offended.'

No. I'm not misquoting him. What you've copied is what I said he posted, I just cut off the "Like I said" portion. Unless you think that alters the meaning significantly.

No, you did not say you are offended. But you are clearly offended on his behalf. Why else are you jumping in? Just being a good citizen?

Apparently I've made an egregious mistake by copying and pasting someone else's own words. I asked the other poster very simple questions about his own argument and to prove I've said certain things, and he was unable to answer those questions.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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

Whether you like Tocchet or not, the above is plain as day: We should all be able to agree on this point.

VAN's offense is safe, predictable and done in a way so as to prevent chances against. It's why VAN is the lowest event team in the league.

 

[ManVanFan]

Whether you like Tocchet or not, the above is plain as day: We should all be able to agree on this point.

VAN's offense is safe, predictable and done in a way so as to prevent chances against. It's why VAN is the lowest event team in the league.

Only issue with the low event hockey is you have to dominate it not be dominated like the Canucks are 2 out of every 3 games.