Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
I know it's cool and all to crap on Brent Sutter but the guy is a very good coach and his record of winning speaks for itself. He did a fantastic job in New Jersey and in Calgary he simply ran into an issue that he had never faced before in a leadership core that wouldn't buy into his system. Despite never having support from the teams leader he still managed three straight 90+ point seasons out of that team. Bob Hartley ran into the same issue in his first season as Flames head coach which is why the team finally came to their realization that it was time to part ways with #12 rather than continually trying to build around him.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
After seeing Greg Gilbert totally bomb and go through other successful junior coaches that couldn't translate to the pros like Don Hay I would much rather go with an experienced and proven NHL head coach as it's no fun watching your favorite team crash and burn around a head coach that is in over his head. If Treliving absolutely has to have a young guy I would at least hope it's a guy like Travis Green that has success coaching professional players. The junior to pro jump is too much for the majority of coaches in their first NHL stop. If a guy like Dave Lowry ever turns into a good NHL head coach the chances are it would be in his second NHL head coaching job not his first. I don't want the Flames to be the place for these guys to test the waters.
|
I actually feel Brent Sutter should be included in your second post, rather than you defending him. Exactly what made him a good coach? Results?
His stint in New Jersey was unspectacular. New Jersey was a well-oiled machine that played a system very similar to the one he decided to implement. He neither found more success there from the previous staff, nor did they experience a drop off.
Calgary? He took a perennial playoff team into 3 straight misses. That's results.
That is where your argument starts and ends. Let me expand mine further.
Let's examine Brent's system in detail.
Defensive zone exits: Along the boards. Forwards have to come back deep into the zone to help defencemen. All passes must be up along the boards to avoid coughing up the puck in high-danger areas.
Offensive zone entries/play-style: Mostly dump and chase. Forwards who carried the puck over the opposing blueline either dropped it off along the blueline towards the boards, or were to chip it into the corner and chase (that is including carry-ins). A cycle would then be established, and offence generated from the cycle.
How in the world can this system work for a team that is a) the oldest in the NHL, and b) the smallest? That was the composition of the team back then. They got murdered along the boards. Defensively, the opposing forwards/defencemen headed straight to the boards to intercept the pass as they read the system 1/3 of the way in Brent's first season, or would just intercept the forward trying to collect the puck along the boards.
Offensive cycles were difficult to generate anything off from because the opposing teams were usually bigger and younger.
This team's 'runs' happened when they played off the rush. This was when I first noticed how much better they looked, and I still remember Feaster, Sutter and even Pat Steinberg talking about how this team was not built to score on the rush. That may have been true, but they were even less built to score off the cycle.
Sutter couldn't adapt his system for the Flames. In many ways, he was Gilbert, Hay, Page... his team under-performed. Keenan - who was extremely hands off and what I considered 'semi-retired' - actually got much more from the Flames as a unit.
As for Hartley taking the team over and how much he 'sucked' - well, he took over a team that was 3 years removed from the playoffs, 3 years older, less talented and also had a Kipprusoff that was not even close to the Kipper that we all fondly remember. He also didn't get the benefit of a full training camp in that lockout-shortened season. He still made the playoffs one year on a much younger team without the reliability of a Kipper too. He had more success as a coach with the Flames than Sutter ever did.
This is why I brought up Brent - It am not being cool for crapping on Brent. I want a coach with a track record for changing systems from one team to the next, and being flexible enough playing a different style according to the composition of the team. Brent was not able to do that. To me, he was Greg Gilbert and the other junior coaches who weren't able to get it done. I am fine with a coach who is from junior, the NCAA, NHL or even from Europe - as long as he has a track record of experience playing different styles according to what the strengths and weaknesses of the teams are. Brent is just a very good and fairly recent example of a coach that wasn't.