Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Calgary4LIfe · 11-30-2014, 06:39 PM

If we are going to talk about Brent being a good coach or not, then let's start talking about what constitutes a good coach.

1) A good coach knows and understands his players. Brent had 3 years to get to know this team.

2) A good coach will tailor his system around the strengths and weaknesses of his team

3) A good coach will be able to adjust his system in-game to the opposition (trying to out-coach the other team).

Did we ever see much evidence of this?

Let's see the evidence of Sutter not doing this for starters.

1) Kotalik - yeah, he was barely an NHL player at this point. Sure. No disagreement from me. Maybe he wasn't even an NHL-player at that point. However, Sutter had NO IDEA that Kotalik had a bomb of a shot, and that in every team he suited up for that he was utilized on the point in the PP. It wasn't until the Flames' internal skills competition that Sutter realized this and stated in the media that maybe he should try him on the PP. I thought he was joking - and anyways, PP time is usually something that is earned by good play. Lo and behold on the first game after his comments, he throws out Kotalik on the point.

2) Insistence on using Butler on the top pairing. People may argue how poor of a player Butler was or wasn't, but he was not a first-pairing defender by any measurement. Hartley started him there, but Butler finished as a bottom-pairing defencemen on Hartley's team.

3) 'The system'. Sutter's fabled system was fairly simple.
- Zone exists have to be up along the boards. Well, how quickly did opposing teams figure that one out? How many times did the Flames end up getting hemmed in their own zone? Teams realized this and started cheating.

- Offensive zone - all offence is off the cycle. Sutter stated that the Flames are not a team that can score off the rush.

Well, there are two very important characteristics of the Flames team that made this system impossible to play. The first is that they were the oldest team in the NHL. The second was that they were the smallest. Now tell me how an older and smaller team should have a winning system centered around cycles and board play?

Give Brent Sutter a young big team, and he will get you loads of good results. He does get some guys to buy-in - Jokinen was probably the best example of a guy buying into the system and changing his game. Glencross too. Probably some other examples that I am just not thinking too hard on.

Sutter wasn't all bad. He just wasn't the right fit and didn't seem able to adjust his system to what was given to him.

Harltey - the main argument that Hartley did even 'worse' than Sutter is because Hartley had less success. Seems pretty black and white. I give him a bit of a pass that season. Why? Two reasons - that team was trending down and everyone knows it. The pressure was incredible for the vets as the Flames made yet another coaching move and everyone knew it was just a rebuild waiting to happen. On top of this, Hartley didn't get the benefit of a real training camp. Tough to implement a brand new system on the fly essentially. Shortened season due to the lockout really made things tougher.

Since then, I find it hard to believe that Sutter would have had any more success than Hartley is experiencing now. He has been great with vets and with rookies. Would Giordano and Brodie have been THIS good under Sutter? What about Wideman? Hudler? What about all the kids like Jooris, Gaudreau, etc? Tough to say.

I think Brent will eventually coach in the NHL again, but he better come with a few different systems in his repertoire. The one he tried unsuccessfully to implement on the Flames for 3 years was one that was a poor fit for the Flames. It seemed almost like a 'cookie-cutter' system bought off the shelf with no thought as to the makeup of the team. To me, that is NOT good coaching.

As for 'out-coaching' the opposition, I can't think of any examples if Sutter has or not. No games are really standing out in my memory at the moment - which is not to say that there wasn't. I don't think Hartley has been a coach that 'out-coaches' the other teams either (with the exception of the 'brawl', though they did lose that game). I am sure both coaches out-coached the opposition and have been out-coached themselves by the opposition. I can't guess at who was better at it than the other.

What I did like about Brent Sutter was his 'wolf-pack' mentality that everyone needs to stand shoulder-to-shoulder. He was never able to get the Flames to play that way. Un-coachable at the time? Poor motivator? Poor teaching on the ice? No idea. Sutter did see the value in a team playing together and playing for one another out there. Hartley has managed to get this team (including last year) to play that way, but it may have been an easier team to do that with.

Now it comes back to 'The team Feaster built". Without a doubt, the Flames were NOT successful with Sutter. Why didn't Feaster make a coaching change before that? If you want to argue that the Vets wouldn't buy-into what Sutter was trying to implement, than ship out some players (or tell Sutter to start benching them). If the owners were 'meddling' and backing Iginla and so on, then well you have to make a coaching change. He did neither. He watched this team be a disjointed mess for his tenure until he finally admitted that he needed to blow it up.

If you go back to my other long post, I outlined some of the good things that Feaster did do (and I am 100% sure there are probably more). He wasn't as horrible as some people think he was, but he definitely is no 'builder' either. He came in and changed some of the culture that probably needed some new life breathed into it, but he also made the Flames a bit of an embarrassment as well in certain areas thanks to some of his media availabilities and the ROR fiasco.

Getting Hartley into the organization - a move I was 100% against at the very start (up until I heard Hartley's initial media availability about how he wants this team to play) - and just realizing he was a poor evaluator of talent (though initially he did go on scouting trips, though not sure how many or if it was for his entire tenure) and allowed the scouts to do make the calls.

The young team is built mostly thanks to Button and his scouting staff (big shout-out to Webster who I think the Flames will find very difficult to replace).

I stated a year or year and a half before the rebuild actually started 'officially' that the Flames were already rebuilding, but some posters actually scoffed at that notion. If you notice, Feaster STOPPED trading away the future for a win-now mentality, and started adding more scouting staff. That was a big sign that the rebuild was at least coming, and he was positioning the organization for it.

That may have been the single most positive contribution to the organization. Edmonton didn't get their ducks in a row before going into a rebuild, and now you see just a mess of a team up north. Calgary did. Darryl does deserve a lot of credit (though many fans refuse to give him any as a GM) for expanding the scouting staff and having developed the prospect philosophy (IQ, Character).

So in truth, this is not the team that Feaster built. It is the team that Sutter, Feaster and now Treliving with his acquisitions have built, along with the scouting and development staff over the years.

People always want to see a 'cut-off' of some sort that starts and ends with someone's hiring and firing. Drafting and development I think is something that is very difficult to do without massive swings in one direction. Everything is constantly evolving. Sutter doesn't get enough recognition for making huge changes to the drafting and development cycle and I think Feaster gets too much. Truth is, that they are BOTH deserving of accolades in that respect. I think you can only judge it on trends.

Also, how do you give credit? Do you think credit should be given for all changes to the GM regardless of what those changes were, or do you give the people underneath the GM credit? For instance, does Feaster get credit for Jooris? I would bet that Feaster was not the one who 'found' the kid and wanted to bring him into camp by himself. Some scout found the kid, and recommended this kid get a look at camp. Once at camp, did Feaster decide on his own to sign him, or was that decision based on what the pro (and perhaps amateur) scouts recommended as the course of action?

I don't know what the correct answer is. I think a lot of people who are very 'pro' Feaster probably give him too much credit for things he didn't do, and the ones that are very anti-Feaster give him too much credit in other areas. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Feaster wasn't a great GM, but he wasn't as terrible as others make him out to be. I do think trades hurt him, the ROR fiasco hurt him, and some of his media availabilities where he just says the wrong things (i.e. "Jankowski will be the best player from this draft" type of stuff) made Calgary look a bit like a laughing stock in the league. Saying "The Flames will need to find a new GM if they decide to rebuild", etc. I think ultimately, those were his downfalls.

I really did hate him. I said he was a sneaky snake in the grass when he got hired. I feel what he did to Dudley in Tampa (I believe it was Dudley - correct me if I am wrong) was what he would do to Sutter in Calgary. I just saw him as a slimy car-salesman who would backstab anyone. Even with the Jankowski pick, he knew it was a bit of a controversial pick, and he was sure to distance himself a bit (though he did smugly decide to add the 'best in the draft' comment) from that selection by saying it was Weisbrod's pick.

Personally, I didn't like him much and I thought he was embarrassing at times to the organization. However, he did do a lot of good things for the organization - as did Sutter before him, and even Button, Coates, etc. I am just glad he is gone, and Treliving is in charge at the moment. Of this I am very, very glad.

11-30-2014, 06:39 PM	#154
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	If we are going to talk about Brent being a good coach or not, then let's start talking about what constitutes a good coach. 1) A good coach knows and understands his players. Brent had 3 years to get to know this team. 2) A good coach will tailor his system around the strengths and weaknesses of his team 3) A good coach will be able to adjust his system in-game to the opposition (trying to out-coach the other team). Did we ever see much evidence of this? Let's see the evidence of Sutter not doing this for starters. 1) Kotalik - yeah, he was barely an NHL player at this point. Sure. No disagreement from me. Maybe he wasn't even an NHL-player at that point. However, Sutter had NO IDEA that Kotalik had a bomb of a shot, and that in every team he suited up for that he was utilized on the point in the PP. It wasn't until the Flames' internal skills competition that Sutter realized this and stated in the media that maybe he should try him on the PP. I thought he was joking - and anyways, PP time is usually something that is earned by good play. Lo and behold on the first game after his comments, he throws out Kotalik on the point. 2) Insistence on using Butler on the top pairing. People may argue how poor of a player Butler was or wasn't, but he was not a first-pairing defender by any measurement. Hartley started him there, but Butler finished as a bottom-pairing defencemen on Hartley's team. 3) 'The system'. Sutter's fabled system was fairly simple. - Zone exists have to be up along the boards. Well, how quickly did opposing teams figure that one out? How many times did the Flames end up getting hemmed in their own zone? Teams realized this and started cheating. - Offensive zone - all offence is off the cycle. Sutter stated that the Flames are not a team that can score off the rush. Well, there are two very important characteristics of the Flames team that made this system impossible to play. The first is that they were the oldest team in the NHL. The second was that they were the smallest. Now tell me how an older and smaller team should have a winning system centered around cycles and board play? Give Brent Sutter a young big team, and he will get you loads of good results. He does get some guys to buy-in - Jokinen was probably the best example of a guy buying into the system and changing his game. Glencross too. Probably some other examples that I am just not thinking too hard on. Sutter wasn't all bad. He just wasn't the right fit and didn't seem able to adjust his system to what was given to him. Harltey - the main argument that Hartley did even 'worse' than Sutter is because Hartley had less success. Seems pretty black and white. I give him a bit of a pass that season. Why? Two reasons - that team was trending down and everyone knows it. The pressure was incredible for the vets as the Flames made yet another coaching move and everyone knew it was just a rebuild waiting to happen. On top of this, Hartley didn't get the benefit of a real training camp. Tough to implement a brand new system on the fly essentially. Shortened season due to the lockout really made things tougher. Since then, I find it hard to believe that Sutter would have had any more success than Hartley is experiencing now. He has been great with vets and with rookies. Would Giordano and Brodie have been THIS good under Sutter? What about Wideman? Hudler? What about all the kids like Jooris, Gaudreau, etc? Tough to say. I think Brent will eventually coach in the NHL again, but he better come with a few different systems in his repertoire. The one he tried unsuccessfully to implement on the Flames for 3 years was one that was a poor fit for the Flames. It seemed almost like a 'cookie-cutter' system bought off the shelf with no thought as to the makeup of the team. To me, that is NOT good coaching. As for 'out-coaching' the opposition, I can't think of any examples if Sutter has or not. No games are really standing out in my memory at the moment - which is not to say that there wasn't. I don't think Hartley has been a coach that 'out-coaches' the other teams either (with the exception of the 'brawl', though they did lose that game). I am sure both coaches out-coached the opposition and have been out-coached themselves by the opposition. I can't guess at who was better at it than the other. What I did like about Brent Sutter was his 'wolf-pack' mentality that everyone needs to stand shoulder-to-shoulder. He was never able to get the Flames to play that way. Un-coachable at the time? Poor motivator? Poor teaching on the ice? No idea. Sutter did see the value in a team playing together and playing for one another out there. Hartley has managed to get this team (including last year) to play that way, but it may have been an easier team to do that with. Now it comes back to 'The team Feaster built". Without a doubt, the Flames were NOT successful with Sutter. Why didn't Feaster make a coaching change before that? If you want to argue that the Vets wouldn't buy-into what Sutter was trying to implement, than ship out some players (or tell Sutter to start benching them). If the owners were 'meddling' and backing Iginla and so on, then well you have to make a coaching change. He did neither. He watched this team be a disjointed mess for his tenure until he finally admitted that he needed to blow it up. If you go back to my other long post, I outlined some of the good things that Feaster did do (and I am 100% sure there are probably more). He wasn't as horrible as some people think he was, but he definitely is no 'builder' either. He came in and changed some of the culture that probably needed some new life breathed into it, but he also made the Flames a bit of an embarrassment as well in certain areas thanks to some of his media availabilities and the ROR fiasco. Getting Hartley into the organization - a move I was 100% against at the very start (up until I heard Hartley's initial media availability about how he wants this team to play) - and just realizing he was a poor evaluator of talent (though initially he did go on scouting trips, though not sure how many or if it was for his entire tenure) and allowed the scouts to do make the calls. The young team is built mostly thanks to Button and his scouting staff (big shout-out to Webster who I think the Flames will find very difficult to replace). I stated a year or year and a half before the rebuild actually started 'officially' that the Flames were already rebuilding, but some posters actually scoffed at that notion. If you notice, Feaster STOPPED trading away the future for a win-now mentality, and started adding more scouting staff. That was a big sign that the rebuild was at least coming, and he was positioning the organization for it. That may have been the single most positive contribution to the organization. Edmonton didn't get their ducks in a row before going into a rebuild, and now you see just a mess of a team up north. Calgary did. Darryl does deserve a lot of credit (though many fans refuse to give him any as a GM) for expanding the scouting staff and having developed the prospect philosophy (IQ, Character). So in truth, this is not the team that Feaster built. It is the team that Sutter, Feaster and now Treliving with his acquisitions have built, along with the scouting and development staff over the years. People always want to see a 'cut-off' of some sort that starts and ends with someone's hiring and firing. Drafting and development I think is something that is very difficult to do without massive swings in one direction. Everything is constantly evolving. Sutter doesn't get enough recognition for making huge changes to the drafting and development cycle and I think Feaster gets too much. Truth is, that they are BOTH deserving of accolades in that respect. I think you can only judge it on trends. Also, how do you give credit? Do you think credit should be given for all changes to the GM regardless of what those changes were, or do you give the people underneath the GM credit? For instance, does Feaster get credit for Jooris? I would bet that Feaster was not the one who 'found' the kid and wanted to bring him into camp by himself. Some scout found the kid, and recommended this kid get a look at camp. Once at camp, did Feaster decide on his own to sign him, or was that decision based on what the pro (and perhaps amateur) scouts recommended as the course of action? I don't know what the correct answer is. I think a lot of people who are very 'pro' Feaster probably give him too much credit for things he didn't do, and the ones that are very anti-Feaster give him too much credit in other areas. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Feaster wasn't a great GM, but he wasn't as terrible as others make him out to be. I do think trades hurt him, the ROR fiasco hurt him, and some of his media availabilities where he just says the wrong things (i.e. "Jankowski will be the best player from this draft" type of stuff) made Calgary look a bit like a laughing stock in the league. Saying "The Flames will need to find a new GM if they decide to rebuild", etc. I think ultimately, those were his downfalls. I really did hate him. I said he was a sneaky snake in the grass when he got hired. I feel what he did to Dudley in Tampa (I believe it was Dudley - correct me if I am wrong) was what he would do to Sutter in Calgary. I just saw him as a slimy car-salesman who would backstab anyone. Even with the Jankowski pick, he knew it was a bit of a controversial pick, and he was sure to distance himself a bit (though he did smugly decide to add the 'best in the draft' comment) from that selection by saying it was Weisbrod's pick. Personally, I didn't like him much and I thought he was embarrassing at times to the organization. However, he did do a lot of good things for the organization - as did Sutter before him, and even Button, Coates, etc. I am just glad he is gone, and Treliving is in charge at the moment. Of this I am very, very glad.