Darryl Sutter new head coach

[The_People1]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I would not agree with this. Watch Colorado and Tampa bay the last few years and you want to try and convince me that's boring low event hockey? Heck look at the conference finals, not 1 of the teams plays that way. 

 

Defensive hockey no longer has to be boring if you are employing modern tactics. 

 

No, I'm not trying to say Sutter's system is the only one that wins Cups.  I'm just saying that it can.  And furthermore, we don't have that team he needs.

[tmac70]

6 hours ago, cross16 said:

 

I would not agree with this. Watch Colorado and Tampa bay the last few years and you want to try and convince me that's boring low event hockey? Heck look at the conference finals, not 1 of the teams plays that way. 

 

Defensive hockey no longer has to be boring if you are employing modern tactics. 

Our season last year was not low-level scoring and boring. That's not to say it is perceived to look that way now. This system can play up-tempo similar style as you mentioned, you just need to move the puck quicker. To do that you need to move it faster through transition, we seem to always be .1/2 second slow in transition, bobble passes lose passes can't hold a pass, in the feet. The players have struggled to do this. It is very rare this season that we have looked fast because of incorrect inconsistent transitions and passing, and slow on retrieval. 

[jjgallow]

On 3/26/2023 at 4:28 PM, travel_dude said:

 

The disconnect comes from having a team that exceeded expectations based on the style of play.

Substitute a few pieces and we don't have the roster that fits, becuase it never really did.

The goalie was overplayed until he was the only option for the playoffs.

A 9-6 win should have set warning bells off.

The scoring was wide open, but the goalie sucked.

No change except to tighten up the offense.

No backup started because the backup was not in the plan.

 

This year we see more tight leash on play.

Didn't like the 5-1 start.

Tighten up and change things around.

 

I wonder what would have been the result of having Huberdeau with Lindholm all year.

Or Ruzicka in the lineup.

Or actuually using Valimaki.

 

Will never know.  Those things decided in camp.

 

Valimaki burns me up.

 

But....in the end, that's a GM decision.  Ruzicka is at least still an asset.   but yeah

[conundrumed]

1 hour ago, jjgallow said:

 

Valimaki burns me up.

 

But....in the end, that's a GM decision.  Ruzicka is at least still an asset.   but yeah

Hindsight.

I don't think anyone cared Valimaki got waived, he was terrible in the A last year to boot.

Can't re-write history. Great he found a place. He sucked here and deserved to be waived and get him off of the books.

Makes no difference what he does after.

[jjgallow]

5 hours ago, conundrumed said:

Hindsight.

I don't think anyone cared Valimaki got waived, he was terrible in the A last year to boot.

Can't re-write history. Great he found a place. He sucked here and deserved to be waived and get him off of the books.

Makes no difference what he does after.

 

If we go back, I was pissed and had a tantrum about it.   He was coming off an injury and we made a horrible decision about a very young developing prospect not yet in their prime in a role we needed.  You're probably  right that most people didn't care, but the biggest reason for that is he's a defenceman and typical fans aren't aware that defencemen are in the game.   Kind of like how the "defense" thread is in constant danger of being archived even though it probably should be one of our top topics.  

 

If we had doubts early and traded him for a return, I would have understood.  That would have been different.

  He's been worth a couple first rounders in his time with us and now as well too.   Yet we managed to...you know.

 

You say we can't re-write history, but we're talking in another chat about "promoting" our current first-rounder to play under what potentially will be Sutter before he is ready.

 

So maybe if we refuse to learn from our mistakes, it is possible to re-write, as in re-peat, history after all lol.

[jjgallow]

1 hour ago, conundrumed said:

Hindsight.

I don't think anyone cared Valimaki got waived, he was terrible in the A last year to boot.

Can't re-write history. Great he found a place. He sucked here and deserved to be waived and get him off of the books.

Makes no difference what he does after.

 

On Hindsight:

 

 

 

Sorry to "quote myself", and, yes...I complained about a Lot so, there's that.

 

But D is very close to my heart and should be close to the GM's heart, especially the D pipeline.

 

I maybe blame Sutter a little, he wouldn't do this to a WHL kid.   But I mostly blame BT, and did then as well as now, for reasons described.

[cross16]

13 hours ago, tmac70 said:

Our season last year was not low-level scoring and boring. That's not to say it is perceived to look that way now. This system can play up-tempo similar style as you mentioned, you just need to move the puck quicker. To do that you need to move it faster through transition, we seem to always be .1/2 second slow in transition, bobble passes lose passes can't hold a pass, in the feet. The players have struggled to do this. It is very rare this season that we have looked fast because of incorrect inconsistent transitions and passing, and slow on retrieval. 

 

That was common last year too. I actually think the reason the style is most boring this year, is they backed off their aggressiveness in the neutral zone. They play more of a collapsing, give up the blueline, take spaace away style which has limited their rush chances. That and once in the o zone they almost never send the puck east-west. It's all cycle, use the boards and use the points. They don't get the puck moving east - west and IMO you need to do in today's NHL if you want to score consistently. 

 

Not major changes but subtle. I get why Sutter did it (doesn't' feel his team is as talented so he can't risk it) but I don't agree with him. I think this team has more talent then he gives it credit for but that's his style as a coach. 

[tmac70]

5 minutes ago, cross16 said:

 

That was common last year too. I actually think the reason the style is most boring this year, is they backed off their aggressiveness in the neutral zone. They play more of a collapsing, give up the blueline, take spaace away style which has limited their rush chances. That and once in the o zone they almost never send the puck east-west. It's all cycle, use the boards and use the points. They don't get the puck moving east - west and IMO you need to do in today's NHL if you want to score consistently. 

 

Not major changes but subtle. I get why Sutter did it (doesn't' feel his team is as talented so he can't risk it) but I don't agree with him. I think this team has more talent then he gives it credit for but that's his style as a coach. 

100%, We have to take into perspective what we lost. For example, take Nate Mcknnion and Rantaneen out of the Avs lineup, or Mc Baby and Drysaddle on the Coilers, or Point and Kutzerov for Bolts,  this is actually very close to the same equivalent that we lost in JG and MT. The tentativeness and the backing off is guys not wanting to be the guy to make the mistake. Any time you go into a defensive or protection mode under these circumstances it's a recipe for disaster.

 

Last year we would get a lead or have the ability to control the pace and play of the game. Teams would then get tired and either chase or have a breakdown, it then got buried by one of three lines. This is nonexistent this year. The Wranglers have this ability this year.  They role 4 lines, if they get Duehr, Pelts, and Gibby back this team should make a major run. They can swing momentum and dictate a change in a game. The only soft spot was or is D, but with Rubbins and Gibby coming back this club is pretty well-rounded.

[jjgallow]

56 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

100%, We have to take into perspective what we lost. For example, take Nate Mcknnion and Rantaneen out of the Avs lineup, or Mc Baby and Drysaddle on the Coilers, or Point and Kutzerov for Bolts,  this is actually very close to the same equivalent that we lost in JG and MT. The tentativeness and the backing off is guys not wanting to be the guy to make the mistake. Any time you go into a defensive or protection mode under these circumstances it's a recipe for disaster.

 

Last year we would get a lead or have the ability to control the pace and play of the game. Teams would then get tired and either chase or have a breakdown, it then got buried by one of three lines. This is nonexistent this year. The Wranglers have this ability this year.  They role 4 lines, if they get Duehr, Pelts, and Gibby back this team should make a major run. They can swing momentum and dictate a change in a game. The only soft spot was or is D, but with Rubbins and Gibby coming back this club is pretty well-rounded.

 

I see it more as, we lost a number of players who were performing very well in their contract years.

 

So yes, it is like you say but maybe not quite as much.

 

For the most part I believe they were all at their peak, with the possible exception of Tkachuk.

[cross16]

1 hour ago, tmac70 said:

100%, We have to take into perspective what we lost. For example, take Nate Mcknnion and Rantaneen out of the Avs lineup, or Mc Baby and Drysaddle on the Coilers, or Point and Kutzerov for Bolts,  this is actually very close to the same equivalent that we lost in JG and MT. The tentativeness and the backing off is guys not wanting to be the guy to make the mistake. Any time you go into a defensive or protection mode under these circumstances it's a recipe for disaster.

 

Last year we would get a lead or have the ability to control the pace and play of the game. Teams would then get tired and either chase or have a breakdown, it then got buried by one of three lines. This is nonexistent this year. The Wranglers have this ability this year.  They role 4 lines, if they get Duehr, Pelts, and Gibby back this team should make a major run. They can swing momentum and dictate a change in a game. The only soft spot was or is D, but with Rubbins and Gibby coming back this club is pretty well-rounded.

 

Gilbert is ineligible to return to the Wranglers. Wasn't on their roster at the trade deadline. 

[travel_dude]

58 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

100%, We have to take into perspective what we lost. For example, take Nate Mcknnion and Rantaneen out of the Avs lineup, or Mc Baby and Drysaddle on the Coilers, or Point and Kutzerov for Bolts,  this is actually very close to the same equivalent that we lost in JG and MT. The tentativeness and the backing off is guys not wanting to be the guy to make the mistake. Any time you go into a defensive or protection mode under these circumstances it's a recipe for disaster.

 

Last year we would get a lead or have the ability to control the pace and play of the game. Teams would then get tired and either chase or have a breakdown, it then got buried by one of three lines. This is nonexistent this year. The Wranglers have this ability this year.  They role 4 lines, if they get Duehr, Pelts, and Gibby back this team should make a major run. They can swing momentum and dictate a change in a game. The only soft spot was or is D, but with Rubbins and Gibby coming back this club is pretty well-rounded.

 

Well, actually we lost two wingers not a center and winger.  And to be more accurate, we lost one winger and replaced another.  In that replacement, we told them they would play a position they haven't before, because it shouldn't matter.  Our top line last year was successful because they were a combo of "go to the net" with superior zone entries and a C that found quiet areas and hit the net with shots.  That fell apart in round 2 of the playoffs.

 

The increase in goal against may be attributed to giving up the blue line early and bad goaltending.  The lack of scoring for seems to be rooted in constant cycling of the puck and shooting from bad angles.  The PP is a lot of that.  We don't attack the net as much, and I don't mean avoiding the greasy areas.  I mean we don't cycle down low, we cycle high to low and back to high.  We tend to score more on direct shots with rebounds and players walking in directly.  

 

The PP hasn't been very successful for two years now.  The zone coverage gets a wrench thrown when players criss- cross.  Dump and chase doesn't work very well when you are sending in one.  The D skating it in, then simply skating around the net and back to the blueline makes little sense.  Shoot from every angle and drive the net for a rebound that may not be there makes little sense.  I don't know if the message is lost or the wrong message.  Maybe the messenger is past his expiry date.  The coaches alone or the players alone is hardly the reason the season is a fail.  Have to address both.  But you need someone with a holistic view to figure out the path.  It can't just be about the next year.  It has to be a long term view.    

 

 

[tmac70]

2 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

Well, actually we lost two wingers not a center and winger.  And to be more accurate, we lost one winger and replaced another.  In that replacement, we told them they would play a position they haven't before, because it shouldn't matter.  Our top line last year was successful because they were a combo of "go to the net" with superior zone entries and a C that found quiet areas and hit the net with shots.  That fell apart in round 2 of the playoffs.

 

The increase in goal against may be attributed to giving up the blue line early and bad goaltending.  The lack of scoring for seems to be rooted in constant cycling of the puck and shooting from bad angles.  The PP is a lot of that.  We don't attack the net as much, and I don't mean avoiding the greasy areas.  I mean we don't cycle down low, we cycle high to low and back to high.  We tend to score more on direct shots with rebounds and players walking in directly.  

 

The PP hasn't been very successful for two years now.  The zone coverage gets a wrench thrown when players criss- cross.  Dump and chase doesn't work very well when you are sending in one.  The D skating it in, then simply skating around the net and back to the blueline makes little sense.  Shoot from every angle and drive the net for a rebound that may not be there makes little sense.  I don't know if the message is lost or the wrong message.  Maybe the messenger is past his expiry date.  The coaches alone or the players alone is hardly the reason the season is a fail.  Have to address both.  But you need someone with a holistic view to figure out the path.  It can't just be about the next year.  It has to be a long term view.    

 

 

That's the fact. Simply changing isn't going to correct anything. If your bringing in a whole new system and coach well that's 2 years of more pain. I have no skin in the game, but I have a hard time believing that Sutter doesn't return. I would love Trevling to sign on for one more year.  I trade Hanifin or Tanev possibly Dube or Mags and get a better Dman, or possibly a top 6-9 LW,  I would basically advise Sutter that Lewis, Lucic, and Ritchie are not returning and his only options are to recruit from below, we don't have the cap space. 

[travel_dude]

17 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

That's the fact. Simply changing isn't going to correct anything. If your bringing in a whole new system and coach well that's 2 years of more pain. I have no skin in the game, but I have a hard time believing that Sutter doesn't return. I would love Trevling to sign on for one more year.  I trade Hanifin or Tanev possibly Dube or Mags and get a better Dman, or possibly a top 6-9 LW,  I would basically advise Sutter that Lewis, Lucic, and Ritchie are not returning and his only options are to recruit from below, we don't have the cap space. 

 

It doesn't take two years of pain.

You begin to see the change immediately, sometimes called the new coach bump.

You see the coach and players adjust to find the right balance.

In the current one, we see my way or the highway.

There is no adjustments, only benching.

Play my way or don't.

 

If you look at last year, you see some things that were allowed for.

Top line given a lot of rope.

If something doesn't work, they stopped doing it all the time.

Some things may not exactly match the coach's desires, but he wouldn't stop them.

 

To me, that is the biggest change.

My way worked last year, so my way is the only way.

I don't care if you found something that worked, it's only my way.

 

If you are going to make changes to either the coaches or the team makeup, or both, you need to make the right decisions.  Define what the team should be, get the right coach in place and make the roster fit that.  I don't personally care who the coach is, just make sure you aren't just recycling the same garbage.

[tmac70]

So here is the thing, this is a blended mix of crap from top to bottom.

 

1) we know that the players on the ice have not performed to standard

2) We know the coach is a grade-A dick behind closed doors and behind the curtains

3) We know the Trevling is responsible for the players on the ice. 

4) we know that any change is going to need a change on ice and off the ice as it's simply not good enough to change just one. 

 

So the underlining issue is, How much of a percentage of Sutter's antics created the performance issues on the ice or is this just a performance issue from the players?   Rumors are nobody in the organization is enjoying the season with Sutter there if you listen to Seravalli, who from what I can tell absolutely hates Sutter. Is there changes coming sounds like it, but how far and how deep who knows? IMHO the worst thing that could happen RIGHT now is we get in the playoffs. If Sutter is that stubborn and bullheaded how does this work against him, This will only deepen his position. the fact they got in even if there is only a small percentage of buy-in with the players, yeah thats not a great position of strength for anyone other than Sutter. 

[travel_dude]

48 minutes ago, tmac70 said:

So here is the thing, this is a blended mix of crap from top to bottom.

 

1) we know that the players on the ice have not performed to standard

2) We know the coach is a grade-A dick behind closed doors and behind the curtains

3) We know the Trevling is responsible for the players on the ice. 

4) we know that any change is going to need a change on ice and off the ice as it's simply not good enough to change just one. 

 

So the underlining issue is, How much of a percentage of Sutter's antics created the performance issues on the ice or is this just a performance issue from the players?   Rumors are nobody in the organization is enjoying the season with Sutter there if you listen to Seravalli, who from what I can tell absolutely hates Sutter. Is there changes coming sounds like it, but how far and how deep who knows? IMHO the worst thing that could happen RIGHT now is we get in the playoffs. If Sutter is that stubborn and bullheaded how does this work against him, This will only deepen his position. the fact they got in even if there is only a small percentage of buy-in with the players, yeah thats not a great position of strength for anyone other than Sutter. 

 

Responding to the above:

 

2) I don't know that.  Maybe some suggestion by players, maybe not.

 

3) The coach is responsible for the players that play in any given night.  BT is responsible for the roster based on who the coach will use.  Valimaki waived because Sutter did not want to play him and the cap used was prohibitive for eating popcorn.  Mackey was traded because Sutter would not play him.  BT brought up players to play and some played limited while other not a all.  BT didn't sign any PTO's because Sutter didn't want them.   

  

4) Coaching changes and players changes are not really linked as such.  We have to make changes just due to the cap.  We are losing 2+ players that are Sutter types.  We have to be careful if we are making a coaching change to not get rid of players that could thrive.  We do need to do better asset management with player aging, or just in terms of having too many of one type of player.  

 

Regarding team success, even a winning season like last year and a last ditch effort to get in this year does not justify keeping the coach or systems.  Dallas and the coach moved on.  Trotz has moved on a few times.  Other teams do it all the time.  It's not just that the coach fails.  It's what they are looking to do in the future.  

[cross16]

From Friedman's article today.

 

i have no idea (well sorry actually 1) how the Flames can possibly let Sutter return next year. 

 

Quote

It is believed a deteriorating relationship with Sutter played a major role in the GM’s decision, that the two could not continue working together and really hadn’t communicated well in some time. If Sutter didn’t have an extension, maybe the outcome is different. 

Quote

The Flames had factions this year, which included player-versus-player. That happens when your season doesn’t go how you wanted or expected. The priority must be injecting youth into the roster and making Jonathan Huberdeau work. Some of that is on the player, but it’s also on the environment around him.

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/32-thoughts-why-brad-treliving-and-the-flames-agreed-to-part-ways/

[rickross]

24 minutes ago, cross16 said:

From Friedman's article today.

 

i have no idea (well sorry actually 1) how the Flames can possibly let Sutter return next year. 

 

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/32-thoughts-why-brad-treliving-and-the-flames-agreed-to-part-ways/

Sutter will be back 💯. He got what he wanted with BT gone. The Calgary Flames are more of a disaster than any of us could have seen. This entire Apple is rotted from top down through to its core 

[travel_dude]

45 minutes ago, cross16 said:

From Friedman's article today.

 

i have no idea (well sorry actually 1) how the Flames can possibly let Sutter return next year. 

 

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/32-thoughts-why-brad-treliving-and-the-flames-agreed-to-part-ways/

 

So, it's down to Sutter vs. half the team and the GM.

GM gone.

Bean won't allow a rebuild.

Already suggesting that Markstrom will be back, even though he said they need to look at everything.

What a mess.

[The_People1]

4 hours ago, cross16 said:

From Friedman's article today.

 

i have no idea (well sorry actually 1) how the Flames can possibly let Sutter return next year. 

 

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/32-thoughts-why-brad-treliving-and-the-flames-agreed-to-part-ways/

 

4 hours ago, rickross said:

Sutter will be back 💯. He got what he wanted with BT gone. The Calgary Flames are more of a disaster than any of us could have seen. This entire Apple is rotted from top down through to its core 

 

3 hours ago, travel_dude said:

 

So, it's down to Sutter vs. half the team and the GM.

GM gone.

Bean won't allow a rebuild.

Already suggesting that Markstrom will be back, even though he said they need to look at everything.

What a mess.

 

Bean and Maloney didn't mention Sutter in their presser but it sounds like a top down evaluation will be made so Sutter will be looked at closely as well.  Maloney mentioned exit meeting with players were a bit longer than usual this season.  If there were problems with the coach, then I think we have players who won't be afraid to speak their mind, like Kadri for example.

 

If Sutter indeed went radio silent with BT, then it's not his first time.  There were rumors Darryl and Brent did not speak to each other the entire final season together.

 

There's no way Sutter's name didn't come up multiple times in BT's final discussions with upper management.  BT leaving may have been a sign that ownership is not going to fire Sutter.  We shall see in the coming days.

[420since1974]

My hope is that whichever GM that gets hired will want to trade many of the upcoming 2024 UFAs for draft picks and prospects instead of letting them walk for nothing.

That would basically force Sutter to play the younger players in the system.

That may cause Sutter to resign on his own, as he has previously stated that he does not want to coach a rebuilding team.

Of course, that would entail the GM having tpermission from ownership to do so.

It's a slim hope, but it's all I've got, as we certainly can't influence a change in ownership.

[travel_dude]

1 hour ago, The_People1 said:

 

 

 

Bean and Maloney didn't mention Sutter in their presser but it sounds like a top down evaluation will be made so Sutter will be looked at closely as well.  Maloney mentioned exit meeting with players were a bit longer than usual this season.  If there were problems with the coach, then I think we have players who won't be afraid to speak their mind, like Kadri for example.

 

If Sutter indeed went radio silent with BT, then it's not his first time.  There were rumors Darryl and Brent did not speak to each other the entire final season together.

 

There's no way Sutter's name didn't come up multiple times in BT's final discussions with upper management.  BT leaving may have been a sign that ownership is not going to fire Sutter.  We shall see in the coming days.

 

If Bean is yapping already about things that should be evaluated first, then there isn't much hope the POHO will get much of a chance to do anything actually productive.

[cross16]

29 minutes ago, travel_dude said:

 

If Bean is yapping already about things that should be evaluated first, then there isn't much hope the POHO will get much of a chance to do anything actually productive.

during the press conference Maloney admitted that the flames initially approached him to be the GM. He was the one who said no so they agreed upon this role. (Cited at this point in his career he isn’t the guy to be a GM)
 

count me surprised too if this “thorough analysis” leads to much. 

[travel_dude]

17 minutes ago, cross16 said:

during the press conference Maloney admitted that the flames initially approached him to be the GM. He was the one who said no so they agreed upon this role. (Cited at this point in his career he isn’t the guy to be a GM)
 

count me surprised too if this “thorough analysis” leads to much. 

 

I may have actually got mixed up in what I was trying to say.  What I was thinking was that Bean started talking about the goalie like he was safe, and that the team was fine, just didn't perform.  Making comments like that about the goalie takes the wind out of any GM coming in.  And what exactly does that mean about the team not performing?  Is that some kind of revelation?  Bottom 5 goaltending, drop off of 40 goals, and bottom 1/3 PP.  Seems pretty obvious.  

 

And what if the "analysis" shows it's goaltending or that coaching played the biggest part to the loss?  You just finished pumping the goalie and giving the coach an extension.

[The_People1]

1 minute ago, travel_dude said:

 

I may have actually got mixed up in what I was trying to say.  What I was thinking was that Bean started talking about the goalie like he was safe, and that the team was fine, just didn't perform.  Making comments like that about the goalie takes the wind out of any GM coming in.  And what exactly does that mean about the team not performing?  Is that some kind of revelation?  Bottom 5 goaltending, drop off of 40 goals, and bottom 1/3 PP.  Seems pretty obvious.  

 

And what if the "analysis" shows it's goaltending or that coaching played the biggest part to the loss?  You just finished pumping the goalie and giving the coach an extension.

 

Ya man.  I was hoping to hear his opinion on the health of the franchise from a big picture perspective.  Instead we got a mid-IQ hold signal on Markstrom.  Even if that's what he really thinks of Markstrom and Weegar, then he needs to confide his opinion with his new GM.  Not do a hard sales pitches in front of us.  It's his job to find someone to evaluate talent and not evaluate talent himself.

[rocketdoctor]

Sutter has to go.  Muller as well.

Cannot have the coach dictate to the GM.   BT's silence over the last few months for a guy that usually takes center of anything to do with the team is enough evidence for me.

 

Promote Huska/Love get in a better PP specialist.