Brent Sutter Interview on FAN960

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think this is exactly what it was. It's not really his fault, but it was a problem nonetheless.

I agree that this is likely what happened, but it also is somewhat his fault. He was comfortable but he was also the Captain.

reading his comments when he went to Pittsburgh were like a knife to the heart. He was talking about the training regimes and atmosphere and all these other things that they did that he liked and it make me think:

You're the captain man, its partly your responsibility to shape the atmosphere of the team and to bring teammates into training.

But he didnt. He 'led by example' which is hockey-code for 'did his own thing and other people followed if they wanted to. Or not. Whichever.

[chummer]

Originally Posted by Locke

A client of mine bought a Honda Pilot off of Brent Sutter yesterday.

I wonder if it was a rebuild.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Locke

I agree that this is likely what happened, but it also is somewhat his fault. He was comfortable but he was also the Captain.

reading his comments when he went to Pittsburgh were like a knife to the heart. He was talking about the training regimes and atmosphere and all these other things that they did that he liked and it make me think:

You're the captain man, its partly your responsibility to shape the atmosphere of the team and to bring teammates into training.

But he didnt. He 'led by example' which is hockey-code for 'did his own thing and other people followed if they wanted to. Or not. Whichever.

Oh yeah for sure I definitely agree. But it was coaching and management's job to quell that out and nobody seemed to have the balls.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by chummer

I wonder if it was a rebuild.

I advised him to double-check. If it was rebuilt it has a serious impact on it's CCA value however, when he looked at the CarFax, it indicated that a rebuild may have been a good idea but they hung on a little while longer and wound up selling it for cheap instead.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by codynw

No you don't. Lots of teams get great players later in the draft. And no, I'm not talking about the incredibly slim chance of a player Datsyuk in the 7th round.

Giroux - 22nd overall
Kopitar - 11th overall
Getzlaf - 19th overall
Perry - 28th overall

Being a bottom team makes it a lot harder to miss, but you certainly don't need to be a bottom team to find top players.

4 in 11 years

[dustygoon]

Other part that i heard was that Brent mentioned talking it over with Ken (rebuild and coming back as coach). I never heard him say feaster's name once although i was driving and the sound was cutting in and out.

And his tone when he said Gio was his captain in his third year was something he was dying to get off his chest it sounded like.

[drewtastic]

Originally Posted by Locke

I agree that this is likely what happened, but it also is somewhat his fault. He was comfortable but he was also the Captain.

reading his comments when he went to Pittsburgh were like a knife to the heart. He was talking about the training regimes and atmosphere and all these other things that they did that he liked and it make me think:

You're the captain man, its partly your responsibility to shape the atmosphere of the team and to bring teammates into training.

But he didnt. He 'led by example' which is hockey-code for 'did his own thing and other people followed if they wanted to. Or not. Whichever.

I tend to agree with this assessment as it relates to Iggy's last few seasons here. And I put the blame for it squarely on Mike Keenan's shoulders. I had rarely seen a player lead his team like Iginla did in 2004. Keenan, however, made it acceptable for players to think they were able to win on skill alone, and he diminished the importance of effort (which Hartley has re-introduced). Iginla changed from a guy who played all important situations (including the PK) to a guy who was allowed to float back on D and focus almost exclusively on offense.

I will view it as two lost years of Iginla under Mike Keenan. And I lament the long term effect Keenan's tenure had on the team.

[ForeverFlameFan]

Originally Posted by codynw

No you don't. Lots of teams get great players later in the draft. And no, I'm not talking about the incredibly slim chance of a player Datsyuk in the 7th round.

Giroux - 22nd overall
Kopitar - 11th overall
Getzlaf - 19th overall
Perry - 28th overall

Being a bottom team makes it a lot harder to miss, but you certainly don't need to be a bottom team to find top players.

I agree with this. It just depends on who you draft. Klimchuk and Poirier are good examples. Drafting early just means you have a better chance of getting a quality player. But with a good scouting group, you can definitely find some late gems.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Oh yeah for sure I definitely agree. But it was coaching and management's job to quell that out and nobody seemed to have the balls.

Which is the part that isnt his fault, but again, the catalyst for action or inaction was Iginla, directly or indirectly, it all revolved around him and he invariably became bigger than the team and in some ways bigger than the club.

That part may have been through no fault of his own, but if that was the atmosphere he has to assume some responsibility for it as he was given the task of leading it and instead he sort of let everyone sort of fend for themselves and thus we saw the direction-less few years at the end of his tenure.

[Tyler]

Oh look, here's a link to the actual interview:

http://pmd.fan960.com/audio_on_deman...-Interview.mp3

[Coach]

Yeah Locke, you and I are on the same page for sure. It wasn't an accident that when Baertschi came up the first time it pushed the pace of everything. Because this 19 year old kid didn't know that you don't try harder than the captain and everyone else now had to try as hard as Baertschi was just to not look like a lazy sack by comparison.

Despite losing more, I am much happier watching a team of overacheivers giving it their all every night vs a team of floating millionaires.

[Otto-matic]

Originally Posted by Locke

Fair enough.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yeah Locke, you and I are on the same page for sure. It wasn't an accident that when Baertschi came up the first time it pushed the pace of everything. Because this 19 year old kid didn't know that you don't try harder than the captain and everyone else now had to try as hard as Baertschi was just to not look like a lazy sack by comparison.

Despite losing more, I am much happier watching a team of overacheivers giving it their all every night vs a team of floating millionaires.

Yeah, we're definitely on the same page. I really liked Iggy, but it was time for him and the team to part ways.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Locke

Which is the part that isnt his fault, but again, the catalyst for action or inaction was Iginla, directly or indirectly, it all revolved around him and he invariably became bigger than the team and in some ways bigger than the club.

That part may have been through no fault of his own, but if that was the atmosphere he has to assume some responsibility for it as he was given the task of leading it and instead he sort of let everyone sort of fend for themselves and thus we saw the direction-less few years at the end of his tenure.

No doubt. When the club is ignoring the obvious signs that the team is going nowhere in order to give it a couple more kicks at the can to appease a vet, he's definitely bigger than the club.

[Fischy13]

Originally Posted by Zevo

You don't want the kids to get destroyed though. They need to develop properly. Just look north for that example. They are sooo no good.

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

(okay, 1 comment)

Yes it does because if you ride your horses to the end, you're going to have a scorched-earth rebuild and are likely to get better quality picks. If you rebuild sooner, you probably don't dip as deep. In the end, there is really no way of knowing in advance which would be a quicker rebuild (and the outcome is likely similar) so why not take one more shot with the vets?

Not saying it's a better way to go, but it is certainly understandable because there are no guarantees of a faster rebuild either way.

Originally Posted by codynw

No you don't. Lots of teams get great players later in the draft. And no, I'm not talking about the incredibly slim chance of a player Datsyuk in the 7th round.

Giroux - 22nd overall
Kopitar - 11th overall
Getzlaf - 19th overall
Perry - 28th overall

Being a bottom team makes it a lot harder to miss, but you certainly don't need to be a bottom team to find top players.

My point is, when deciding to rebuild or not, what does it matter how good your young players are?? We still had the option to keep the good vets then like we have now. What's the difference if either our old players or young players are no good?? The Flames are still no good at the end of the day. Not only that, but some of the vets were the wrong ones to have around for the young guys at that time.

Holding off like King/Feaster did damaged the Flames two fold. They received less of a return on their prized pieces, and also delayed the inevitable for 2 years. I get you want the right guys so we aren't like the Oilers, we still have Gio/Glenncross/Cammy (up until this summer), just like they did back then. This decision was costly in just the fact of the value we lost in 2 years of Iginla.

I also get there is the slim chance of hitting these home runs late in the first round, the Flames scouting hasn't proven to me they can do that. The recent picks (Porier and Klimchuk) look okay but they are a ways away from determining if they are Giroux/Perry/Getzlaf calibre. I'm not holding my breath they reach that high of potential. I'll take the higher probabiliy of the Bennett and Monahan picks any day.

I'm with Brent on this one, it was time back then.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by drewtastic

I tend to agree with this assessment as it relates to Iggy's last few seasons here. And I put the blame for it squarely on Mike Keenan's shoulders. I had rarely seen a player lead his team like Iginla did in 2004. Keenan, however, made it acceptable for players to think they were able to win on skill alone, and he diminished the importance of effort (which Hartley has re-introduced). Iginla changed from a guy who played all important situations (including the PK) to a guy who was allowed to float back on D and focus almost exclusively on offense.

I will view it as two lost years of Iginla under Mike Keenan. And I lament the long term effect Keenan's tenure had on the team.

Its somewhat depressing how Keenan and Darryl continue to haunt us from beyond the grave.

It was Darryl's Stanley Cup year with LA, that King/Feaster (IIRC) said if they make the playoffs, anything can happen. So then we signed Hudler (good) and Wideman (bad) and gave Tanguay that 4 year contract extension. Which I guess is what Brent was referring to what he said him (and Dave Lowry) disagreed with management direction and they went their seperate ways, which I guess this interview ties up loose ends.

[Flash Walken]

"The young kids aren't good enough." Should be all the motivation you need to rebuild.

Teams with a great looking future don't rebuild their rosters.

God, how unbelievably myopic and telling. That statement boggles the mind.

"We're almost out of gas. Do we pull over to get more or do we gun it and hope we get where we want to go?

GUN IT!"

[mile]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Its somewhat depressing how Keenan and Darryl continue to haunt us from beyond the grave.

It was Darryl's Stanley Cup year with LA, that King/Feaster (IIRC) said if they make the playoffs, anything can happen. So then we signed Hudler (good) and Wideman (bad) and gave Tanguay that 4 year contract extension. Which I guess is what Brent was referring to what he said him (and Dave Lowry) disagreed with management direction and they went their seperate ways, which I guess this interview ties up loose ends.

That logic never made sense. The Kings might have been the 8th seed that year but they were built like a contender. It made no sense to group them in that "anything can happen" category. In addition to that, when Darryl took over the Kings points percentage under him was 62.2%, good enough to win the Pacific Division that year. The Kings were a 3rd seed team put in the 8th seed because of their record before the coaching change.

[Tinordi]

Brent Sutter got a raw deal. Bent inherited a deeply entitled group of veterans led by Iginla. If Iginla wasnt flat out insubordinate he still didn't bring the players into Brents system.

What a mess those last three years were. It's what happens when you let a player get bigger than the team.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by mile

That logic never made sense. The Kings might have been the 8th seed that year but they were built like a contender. It made no sense to group them in that "anything can happen" category. In addition to that, when Darryl took over the Kings points percentage under him was 62.2%, good enough to win the Pacific Division that year. The Kings were a 3rd seed team put in the 8th seed because of their record before the coaching change.

I think both you and I knew that, but I don't think King/Feaster knew that, unfortunately.