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

Calgary4LIfe · 01-05-2024, 02:03 PM

I do think the whole conversation about "Sutter hates Kids" thing is overblown somewhat. Lots of prospects have cut their teeth in the NHL under Sutter.

Treliving signed experienced vets to win. Sutter played those vets. Last season's camp, the only prospect that really stood out to me was Zary, but he was sent down in part because he had a leg injury and didn't play a whole lot in his first pro season, so he probably needed the development time.

Kylington - though not exactly a rookie, but definitely someone who most people would not think was a 'Sutter type of player', broke out under Sutter.

I think Conroy did two things this season:
1) Didn't sign a bunch of vets/PTOs
2) Made the philosophical move towards: "If a vet and a rookie are equal, pick the rookie".

Sutter would pick the rookie when the rookie showed better than the vet. Why? Because the vet - over the course of a season - would make less mistakes. Almost all coaches will pick vets over rookies/young players for that simple reason. It was Conroy making the distinction early on, as well as stating the explanation for not wanting to sign PTOs as stating that PTO vets would look better at first, but over the course of a season, the young guys will look better (and I agree with this).

It is a rare coach that doesn't share Sutter's philosophy, and you hear the same complaints around the league about a every team's coach not giving the young guy a chance. More often then not, the gripe is about a prospect like Phillips who dazzles in the AHL, but doesn't have much NHL upside. Sometimes a prospect needs more development time, and eventually when the coach is replaced, and that certain prospect is brought up (after having more development time) suddenly the argument becomes: "See, that coach had it in for him and didn't give him the opportunity!", when it was really about the development time. Strangely enough, I think the last coach on the Flames that was really good with giving rookies a chance and putting them in positions to succeed was Hartley (which is why I always thought that one additional year could have made a big difference for guys like Bennett, but being so divisive in the room counters that positive developmental environment).

All I know for sure is that I like the philosophical approach that Conroy has instilled in this organization, and i like how Huska has been coaching this team. Early on this season when the Flames came out and did an instant nosedive, I found his press conferences interesting, especially when comparing him to Geoff Ward. Ward didn't seem to have answers, and often gave vague responses. Huska seemed sure of what needed to be done, and was thoughtful and calm with his responses.

Klapka, Kerins, Jones, Pettersen - I would bet all of them see a call-up at some point this season too.

01-05-2024, 02:03 PM	#46
Calgary4LIfe Franchise Player Join Date: Jun 2010 Exp:	I do think the whole conversation about "Sutter hates Kids" thing is overblown somewhat. Lots of prospects have cut their teeth in the NHL under Sutter. Treliving signed experienced vets to win. Sutter played those vets. Last season's camp, the only prospect that really stood out to me was Zary, but he was sent down in part because he had a leg injury and didn't play a whole lot in his first pro season, so he probably needed the development time. Kylington - though not exactly a rookie, but definitely someone who most people would not think was a 'Sutter type of player', broke out under Sutter. I think Conroy did two things this season: 1) Didn't sign a bunch of vets/PTOs 2) Made the philosophical move towards: "If a vet and a rookie are equal, pick the rookie". Sutter would pick the rookie when the rookie showed better than the vet. Why? Because the vet - over the course of a season - would make less mistakes. Almost all coaches will pick vets over rookies/young players for that simple reason. It was Conroy making the distinction early on, as well as stating the explanation for not wanting to sign PTOs as stating that PTO vets would look better at first, but over the course of a season, the young guys will look better (and I agree with this). It is a rare coach that doesn't share Sutter's philosophy, and you hear the same complaints around the league about a every team's coach not giving the young guy a chance. More often then not, the gripe is about a prospect like Phillips who dazzles in the AHL, but doesn't have much NHL upside. Sometimes a prospect needs more development time, and eventually when the coach is replaced, and that certain prospect is brought up (after having more development time) suddenly the argument becomes: "See, that coach had it in for him and didn't give him the opportunity!", when it was really about the development time. Strangely enough, I think the last coach on the Flames that was really good with giving rookies a chance and putting them in positions to succeed was Hartley (which is why I always thought that one additional year could have made a big difference for guys like Bennett, but being so divisive in the room counters that positive developmental environment). All I know for sure is that I like the philosophical approach that Conroy has instilled in this organization, and i like how Huska has been coaching this team. Early on this season when the Flames came out and did an instant nosedive, I found his press conferences interesting, especially when comparing him to Geoff Ward. Ward didn't seem to have answers, and often gave vague responses. Huska seemed sure of what needed to be done, and was thoughtful and calm with his responses. Klapka, Kerins, Jones, Pettersen - I would bet all of them see a call-up at some point this season too.