Sutter is the problem

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by Major Major

I have no problem letting players fire their coach if that group happens to have an established championship core that's been together for over a decade. Giving that kind of power to a group that hasn't done anything and whos dissenting voice seems to be driven mostly by two high priced and under performing new comers is tough to take.

Very good point. I stated this as well. This group needs to sit and wotk it out together.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by DazzlinDino

Very good point. I stated this as well. This group needs to sit and wotk it out together.

I think they sit and work together all day every day. That's the problem.

Please think through the logic of the quoted post, that Sutter is a previous cup winner, but the team isn't a cup winner, therefore he wins the conflict and gets to stay. Following this logic no roster that isn't a cup contender is ever allowed to ever want a new coach if they aren't a cup winner core(?) but their coach has won(?). No matter how toxic the coach or whatever the situation. Never mind that there are several cup champions on the team anyway. It is a completely absurd line of reasoning. Maybe they would be a cup contending core with a new coach. It's just absurd circular reasoning to justify doing nothing sorry.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Nawww, the tired empty defense of Treliving and Sutter is bloviating, and at its finest. First excuse: The team was too close to the playoffs to sell. Well, Nashville and Washington sold, so what was Calgary's excuse? Second excuse: You don't know what was offered so you can speak to that. Problem is we've heard they didn't really start taking offers until a couple hours before the deadline. Third excuse to come: Let me show you some advanced stats that tell you what a great job management has done and what a great position the organization is in... ? Empty excuses. Every single one of them. That's bloviation my friend.

Just because Nashville and Washington were in similar places in the standings, does not mean that their situations are the same. First, they both had more UFAs, and more attractive UFAs. And second, both are looking at their windows as waning. The Flames still view their window as open, if they can get the team playing to potential.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

You are aware there has been substantial turnover in players since Sutter or any other coach has been here? This argument of “this team gives up on coaches” is bogus because it isn’t the same team year-to-year. The personnel is different and the leadership varies. You can’t lump them all into a single collective.

The tuning out of, and revolting against coaches with the Flames just seems ingrained for some reason. The entire roster never turns over at once, so I wonder if there is always a few players left over after each regime, that the problem just flows into the next.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The tuning out of, and revolting against coaches with the Flames just seems ingrained for some reason. The entire roster never turns over at once, so I wonder if there is always a few players left over after each regime, that the problem just flows into the next.

Or maybe the organization just hasn't done a good job of bringing in the right coach at the right time.

[Ferarri]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Or maybe the organization just hasn't done a good job of bringing in the right coach at the right time.

There’s no such thing as the “right coach.” All guys will have their strengths and weaknesses. If anything they did bring in the “right” guy as people complained how awful and soft Ward was. Sutter brought back accountability and structure.

So now we change again to find the next “right” guy? And what exactly does that look like with this group? I mean the character of the room is pathetic if they are threatening not to come back if Sutter is boss. Tons of talk about the toxic environment from the coach, but how about the toxic player environment that a new coach would inherit. Don’t like what he has to say and the players will threaten to not come back. If I’m a coach from the outside I look at that and say this team is a hard pass.

[Major Major]

Originally Posted by saillias

I think they sit and work together all day every day. That's the problem.

Please think through the logic of the quoted post, that Sutter is a previous cup winner, but the team isn't a cup winner, therefore he wins the conflict and gets to stay. Following this logic no roster that isn't a cup contender is ever allowed to ever want a new coach if they aren't a cup winner core(?) but their coach has won(?). No matter how toxic the coach or whatever the situation. Never mind that there are several cup champions on the team anyway. It is a completely absurd line of reasoning. Maybe they would be a cup contending core with a new coach. It's just absurd circular reasoning to justify doing nothing sorry.

I didn't say a word about Sutter in my post. I think letting a room fire their coach is something that should be pretty rare and absolutely should be reserved to a trustworthy room. Is there anything within this group to indicate they would be better with a different coach? I don't trust that because they've never done it.

Otherwise, it should strictly be a management decision based on results and future outlook. Toxicity, as you put it, would be pretty far down my list if I'm being honest, as I think the fans and media attention has amplified this to be more than in a non hockey market. I wouldn't be thrilled that my players aren't happy, but I also would know that unhappy players and miserable coaches can still get results. Change any number of non coach based variables this year and you've got a comfortable playoff team.

Doesn't mean he's beyond firing, I just wouldn't let Alan Walsh do it.

[Brick]

Darryl Sutter is not the problem.

Some of the players are.

There are problems in Winnipeg too and the coach isn't the problem there either.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ferarri

There’s no such thing as the “right coach.” All guys will have their strengths and weaknesses. If anything they did bring in the “right” guy as people complained how awful and soft Ward was. Sutter brought back accountability and structure.

So now we change again to find the next “right” guy? And what exactly does that look like with this group? I mean the character of the room is pathetic if they are threatening not to come back if Sutter is boss. Tons of talk about the toxic environment from the coach, but how about the toxic player environment that a new coach would inherit. Don’t like what he has to say and the players will threaten to not come back. If I’m a coach from the outside I look at that and say this team is a hard pass.

There are 32 head coaching jobs. And every coach thinks they are a good one. Very few would look at an opportunity and say they didn't want it - and I wouldn't want anyone who did say that

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by saillias

I think they sit and work together all day every day. That's the problem.

Please think through the logic of the quoted post, that Sutter is a previous cup winner, but the team isn't a cup winner, therefore he wins the conflict and gets to stay. Following this logic no roster that isn't a cup contender is ever allowed to ever want a new coach if they aren't a cup winner core(?) but their coach has won(?). No matter how toxic the coach or whatever the situation. Never mind that there are several cup champions on the team anyway. It is a completely absurd line of reasoning. Maybe they would be a cup contending core with a new coach. It's just absurd circular reasoning to justify doing nothing sorry.

I didn't add t his post because I thought he was pretty clear and agreed with him that getting rid of of the coach is the easy answer. If those 2 guys busted their butts and made things happen out there I think they would have a lot more traction. Same thing he said, more effort or production in close games from those 2 and we would likely make the playoffs. For 2 guys that just came in and signed large contracts they should be leaders on the ice. Has this group won anything? Will they be self motivated if we get players coach. Going to be a lot harder if this group wants to get by on offence that is not supported by elite talent.

Rewarding the new guys coming in with a new coach and agenda more likely means the players have too much influence. That said, Sutter needs to rethink his approach and Brad is the guy that needs to put his foot down and have that discussion about the player concerns so we can salvage the playoffs right now. Communicating through media, agents and other sources is not the answer. The answer is they need to sit down and sort it out.

[topfiverecords]

What happened to all the talk from last year that the players liked Sutter for the fact that what was expected out of them individually, what they need to improve on etc. was crystal clear and clearly communicated better than any coach players had played for before?

[musth]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

I haven't heard anything about Lindholm, there was the rumor last offseason that somebody else asked for a trade after Gaudreau and Tkachuk left the team but that Treliving wouldn't make a deal, and there were rumors that it was one of the Swedish Players.

It's quite possible that Lindholm was the one really unhappy with how it all played out.

Word on the playground is that it was Backlund. If you believe reddit...

[Burning Beard]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

What happened to all the talk from last year that the players liked Sutter for the fact that what was expected out of them individually, what they need to improve on etc. was crystal clear and clearly communicated better than any coach players had played for before?

That was before he told people that Huberdeau was pooping obviously. That rascal.

[Ferarri]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

There are 32 head coaching jobs. And every coach thinks they are a good one. Very few would look at an opportunity and say they didn't want it - and I wouldn't want anyone who did say that

The point I'm trying to make is there is no such thing as a perfect coach. I'm sure a lot of people on this board would agree that Scotty Bowman is a legendary coach who won over 1,000 games and 9 Stanley Cups. Most people would be thrilled to get someone of his caliber.

But the flip side is not everyone agrees. Look at some of the comments from former players of his:

"Shawn Burr and Dino Ciccarelli played for Bowman in Detroit. Mikael Andersson was drafted by Bowman in Buffalo. At first, none want to relive the experience. They say they'd rather not comment. But soon, they can't stop talking. Basically he has the personality of a (expletive)," Burr said. "He is the most disrespectful person I've ever met. He's just a mean man with no social skills. You can't argue with his success as a hockey coach, but the way he treats people? That's not right. I could tell a million stories."

Sound familiar? Darryl has obviously rubbed people the wrong way. From all accounts this includes Huberdeau and Kadri. But does it describe the whole story? I'm sure there are guys on the team that like playing for him.

Toffolli is having a career year and won a cup with him. Backlund gets put into situations that players crave and was drafted by Sutter. Lucic probably has a lot of respect for him (yes I know he shouldn't be playing and he's terrible etc).

The media is going to run with the headline that there is major discontent in Calgary because it's a great story. It's the GM's job to find the truth. But people have to realize that no coach is going to be perfect and some will love the guy and others hate him. There is no magic solution when it comes to finding the perfect bench boss.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

What happened to all the talk from last year that the players liked Sutter for the fact that what was expected out of them individually, what they need to improve on etc. was crystal clear and clearly communicated better than any coach players had played for before?

The team stopped winning with regularity. I think players will put up with any coach as long as the team is winning, and they are putting up good personal numbers.

If Huberdeau could give more and Markstrom wasn't a sieve, no one would be complaining.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The tuning out of, and revolting against coaches with the Flames just seems ingrained for some reason. The entire roster never turns over at once, so I wonder if there is always a few players left over after each regime, that the problem just flows into the next.

Don't a lot of bad teams do this and not just the Flames? Coach is always the easiest scapegoat for players and fans.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

And really I don't see a name out there I really want.

Maybe Andrew Brunette since he did well in Florida after Coach Q was let go, but who knows how much of that was him vs what Quenneville had already implemented.

Travis Green...no thanks.
Alain Vigneault...not a chance.
Dave Tippett...Barf
Bruce Boudreau...I might be okay with him since he does seem to adapt to different situations well.

Personally I think Mitch Love would be okay...and I guess Ryan Huska did interview for the Detroit job last year too but I'd rather not go the assistant to coach route again.

I have said since Huska was in the AHL that I think he is not a good coach and I think he is also part of the problem. This team has way too many defensive breakdowns, that is a Huska trait. The team has struggled to score, another Huska trait. The whole coaching staff needs to go. If you absolutely had to hand the job to one of them I would much rather Muller than Huska. Just clean house and start fresh.

[TheSquatch]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I have said since Huska was in the AHL that I think he is not a good coach and I think he is also part of the problem. This team has way too many defensive breakdowns, that is a Huska trait. The team has struggled to score, another Huska trait. The whole coaching staff needs to go. If you absolutely had to hand the job to one of them I would much rather Muller than Huska. Just clean house and start fresh.

Cuz Muller's shown such genius with the powerplay?

[flamesgod]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Nawww, the tired empty defense of Treliving and Sutter is bloviating, and at its finest. First excuse: The team was too close to the playoffs to sell. Well, Nashville and Washington sold, so what was Calgary's excuse? Second excuse: You don't know what was offered so you can speak to that. Problem is we've heard they didn't really start taking offers until a couple hours before the deadline. Third excuse to come: Let me show you some advanced stats that tell you what a great job management has done and what a great position the organization is in... ? Empty excuses. Every single one of them. That's bloviation my friend.

What ufa's did we have to sell? Contenders would've had a hard time taking on players with term left. I just don't think there were that many selling options available.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by TheSquatch

Cuz Muller's shown such genius with the powerplay?

I didn' t say he did, as I said the whole coaching staff needs to go.