[POLL] Calgary Flames coaching change mega-thread—with poll

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Why does Stevens get painted as Sutter's technical coach? Since taking over the Kings dropped from 1st to 16th in possession metrics. Their style of play this year was more Hartley than Sutter. I think Sutter was fully in charge of the technical side and always has been.

You make a good point, but I did see an article from L.A. around Sutter's dismissal suggesting that he hadn't been running practices for two years.

[868904]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So you're saying you don't want Rich Preston back?

Don't worry, Preston will be available as the Ducks clean out their coaching staff!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Vinny01

I feel like the window is really only 3 years. I hope if it is clear Johnny is not going to sign an extension the Flames trade him with a year left on his deal (one of the reasons I was so pissed at 6 vs 8 years but that is a different discussion)

Darryl likely is a 3-5 year coach but he has a proven track record. 2012-2014 the Kings won 10 playoff series. Theblast 2 years he coached the Flames they raised a WC banner and a NW div banner. When he went upstairs the flames went back on the bubble until a rebuild was needed.

I say four because if we're entering the 21-22 season as a top contender with guys like Gaudreau, Monahan and Tkachuk at their peaks, you're not going to trade Gaudreau for contract reasons. Because you're going for it.

If, OTOH, things have turned into a disaster by the end of the 20-21 season, then yeah, that's a must-have conversation.

[UKflames]

Whilst Sutter has a good record I think hiring him again would be a bad step. I just don't think he can adapt to the way the game is played today.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

Why does Stevens get painted as Sutter's technical coach? Since taking over the Kings dropped from 1st to 16th in possession metrics. Their style of play this year was more Hartley than Sutter. I think Sutter was fully in charge of the technical side and always has been.

Sutter's technical, X's and O's side is severely underrated. He's a possession coach. I'm not sure if it's because it's his philosophy or just because he coaches they way that the game is played at any current time. When it called for heavy, low scoring play, he did it.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by UKflames

Whilst Sutter has a good record I think hiring him again would be a bad step. I just don't think he can adapt to the way the game is played today.

He was 79 games above .500 with the Kings and won 42 playoff games.

We're not talking about a guy who last coached in 2006. Sutter has had tremendous success in today's NHL.

[calumniate]

I'm really looking forward to some news on this! Personally I'm fine with AV or Sutter. It would be nice if they could pick their assistants.

Does anyone know if Dave Cameron was GG's pick or was he forced upon by Treliving?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

He was 79 games above .500 with the Kings and won 42 playoff games.

We're not talking about a guy who last coached in 2006. Sutter has had tremendous success in today's NHL.

I dont know why this is in doubt.

[colbym72]

I remember the Kings being kind of boring to watch in the Sutter era with always low scoring games. If it wins, I dont care, but a lot of people on here have been clamoring for entertainment value and I am not sure Sutter brings that. Correct me if I am wrong though

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know why this is in doubt.

Because he was a bad GM. Even though that's irrelevant.

Reminds me of this forum during Dion Phaneuf's last two years in Calgary. People literally decided he had a good or bad defensive game based on whether or not he scored a goal.

[DazzlinDino]

I recall Sutter saying if he is hired to coach for a team it would be to win a Cup. I think if he has a short window or shelf life we could bring in a guy like Sheldon Keefe as an assistant. This would give Sheldon Keefe the experience on what it takes to win at this level and he could be eventually groomed as Darryl's successor. Bringing in a coach with a few unknowns and having another season of failure could create a situation where it sets the franchise back gives us nothing to fall back on.

I think to some degree whoever the Flames choose, we need someone who has a proven track record as a winner and motivator. We went the route with a bit of an unknown in GG, but given the fact we have underachieved this season we really need to get it right.

[Vinny01]

Originally Posted by colbym72

I remember the Kings being kind of boring to watch in the Sutter era with always low scoring games. If it wins, I dont care, but a lot of people on here have been clamoring for entertainment value and I am not sure Sutter brings that. Correct me if I am wrong though

At least the team will hopefully be consistent and tough to play against.

If the roster remains unchanged under Sutter I don’t see them improving on their 28th place finish in goals but I could see them being top 5 in GAA.

While some worry about Johnny under Sutter I could see Bennett, Tkachuk, and Monahan thriving.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by colbym72

I remember the Kings being kind of boring to watch in the Sutter era with always low scoring games. If it wins, I dont care, but a lot of people on here have been clamoring for entertainment value and I am not sure Sutter brings that. Correct me if I am wrong though

I’m almost certain if we set up a poll it would clear that up pretty quick.

Entertaining as hell but knocked out 1st/2nd round.
Or
“Boring” team hits at least 96 points and wins the cup.

I’d be shocked if winning wasn’t over 80%.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Entertaining as hell but knocked out 1st/2nd round.
Or
“Boring” team hits at least 96 points and wins the cup.

False dichotomy alert. Nashville, Pittsburgh, Vegas, Boston, Tampa are highly entertaining and dangerous cup threat teams. Blackhawks added three cups playing uptempo.

I do not believe the Flames roster is constructed to win boring games. That is part of why Gulutzan failed.

[bax]

I think Sutter is a great coach and was a phenomenal fit for LA at the time, but I just have such a hard time imagining our roster playing Sutter hockey. It really seems like a square peg round hole type of situation.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by colbym72

I remember the Kings being kind of boring to watch in the Sutter era with always low scoring games. If it wins, I dont care, but a lot of people on here have been clamoring for entertainment value and I am not sure Sutter brings that. Correct me if I am wrong though

This is true, yes. In six years under Sutter, the Kings averaged 2.57 goals per game, but gave up 2.35. 4.92 goals per game total.

In two years under Gulutzan, we scored 2.70, but gave up 2.86. 5.56 GPG.

Now, obviously different players, different skills, etc. But I'll happily give up one goal for every seven games played to give up 1/2 less goals every game.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Check the quotes. I’m entertained if they are winning and think the “boring hockey” reasoning is idiotic.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by colbym72

I remember the Kings being kind of boring to watch in the Sutter era with always low scoring games. If it wins, I dont care, but a lot of people on here have been clamoring for entertainment value and I am not sure Sutter brings that. Correct me if I am wrong though

Winning = Entertainment
Nothing else matters.
Vegas won 2 playoff games 1-0. I expect their fans were entertained.

If you are always losing, then definitely scoring helps, but had the Flames lost all those games 6-5 instead of 2-1, it may have been more bearable to watch, but Gully would have still been shown the door.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by colbym72

I remember the Kings being kind of boring to watch in the Sutter era with always low scoring games. If it wins, I dont care, but a lot of people on here have been clamoring for entertainment value and I am not sure Sutter brings that. Correct me if I am wrong though

the first cup win he took over mid-season, but they were a low scoring team. 29th, but were 2nd best in GA.

2nd cup win and he was there all year, they were 25th in goals for but number 1 in goals against.

In the cup run here, the Flames were 19th in GF, but 3rd is GA.

So yes there is an obvious pattern to the way Sutter coaches teams to win.

That being said, I believe winning hockey IS exciting hockey, Im just not sure being that focused on one side of the game is as successful in this day and age.

[Brick]

Best coach available.

Darryl Sutter.