Brent Sutter Interview on FAN960

[Tinordi]

Interesting stream of logic that Brent needed to adapt but the players didn't. Why should that be the case? Isn't the coach supposed to be the boss? Brent saw that this team wasn't good enough and that was the bottom line. No amount of adapting would have turned this team into anything more than a first round appetizer for a real team.

Interestingly we have a good counter factual in Bob Hartley. He seemed to adapt well enough, focused more on the offensive side. Where did that get the Flames? Yep still sucking.

Had Brent, with his focus on hard work, systems been here for the rebuild I speculate that we would have been just as appreciative of his approach as we are now for Hartley. The real problem was a rotten core.

[Textcritic]

^
I generally agree, but would add something else. Brent Sutter is probably a very good coach, but I often wondered if he was all that effective at communicating his message, or galvanising his players. The coach is not just responsible to implement the system. He needs also to get his players to execute, and by extension then, he needs to be able to build a team from the variety of players on his roster. This was something that I thought Hartley did very well in his first two years with the Flames: he convinced his players to play for him and to play for each other. Brent never seemed to get that kind of response.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Interesting stream of logic that Brent needed to adapt but the players didn't. Why should that be the case? Isn't the coach supposed to be the boss? Brent saw that this team wasn't good enough and that was the bottom line. No amount of adapting would have turned this team into anything more than a first round appetizer for a real team.

Interestingly we have a good counter factual in Bob Hartley. He seemed to adapt well enough, focused more on the offensive side. Where did that get the Flames? Yep still sucking.

Had Brent, with his focus on hard work, systems been here for the rebuild I speculate that we would have been just as appreciative of his approach as we are now for Hartley. The real problem was a rotten core.

Eddie Shore sold the Springfield Indians in 1976 and I don't think anyone wants him back. My way or the highway, doesn't work anymore. Also some players aren't capable of playing a certain way and to force them to, negates their talents.

As an owner, Shore could be cantankerous and was often accused of treating players with little respect. He commonly had players who had been out of the lineup perform maintenance in the Eastern States Coliseum, the Indians' home, referring to them as "Black Aces." [5] Today, the term is commonly used to refer to extra players on the roster who train with the team in case of injury.[5] During the 1967 season, the entire Indians team refused to play after Shore suspended three players without pay, including future NHL star Bill White, for what he said was "indifferent play." When the team asked for an explanation, Shore suspended the two players who spoke for the team, one of whom was Brian Kilrea. Alan Eagleson, then a little-known lawyer and sometime politician, was brought in to negotiate with Shore on the players' behalf. The battle escalated for months, ending with Shore giving up day-to-day operations of the club; the genesis of the National Hockey League Players' Association stems from that incident. Shore continued to own the team until he sold it in 1976.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

^
I generally agree, but would add something else. Brent Sutter is probably a very good coach, but I often wondered if he was all that effective at communicating his message, or galvanising his players. The coach is not just responsible to implement the system. He needs also to get his players to execute, and by extension then, he needs to be able to build a team from the variety of players on his roster. This was something that I thought Hartley did very well in his first two years with the Flames: he convinced his players to play for him and to play for each other. Brent never seemed to get that kind of response.

Sure, but even when Hartley got them to play for him in the twilight of the country club we were still a bad team.

Brent said it best himself when he said there was a certain way you have to play to win a championship in this league. Brent wanted to win a championship and be believed there was no cutting corners in how you play to do that. I think that he's been proven very right by recent Stanley Cup winners. LA, Chicago and Boston all played a full 200 ft team game with everyone, star player to grinder buying in.

Brent probably could have moved to a run and gun, again to squeak into 8th and get feasted upon but what good would that have served besides perpetuating the incredible run of mediocrity that many fans seem look back at with a sense of success.

Either you're building, in all aspects from coaching, team culture, buy in and roster acquisitions to contend for the cup or you aren't. And if you aren't building in that direct then what the hell are you doing?

Sure, he was a stubborn guy, but I actually really respect him. He wanted the Flames to play like LA recently did. The players didn't want to. I guess he could have compromised, to the longer term detriment of the team. And now we blame him for trying to instill that type of responsibility and work ethic for the team by not producing results.

Meanwhile there's a giant elephant in the room that's just sacriligious to question for many fans. The one constant (besides Kiprusoff) in the years of ineptitude and failing to live up to potential was the captain. Geez, you'd think that maybe there was more culpability there?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Sure, but even when Hartley got them to play for him in the twilight of the country club we were still a bad team...

Not really relevant to my point, but okay. I think it is fair to say that had B. Sutter been able to do the same for his much more talented teams, the results would likely have been dramatically different.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

...Sure, he was a stubborn guy, but I actually really respect him. He wanted the Flames to play like LA recently did. The players didn't want to. I guess he could have compromised, to the longer term detriment of the team...

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. The problem to me was not that B. Sutter was "a stubborn guy", it was that he was not effective at some point in the translation and implementation of what he wanted to what actually happened on the ice. I agree that the players were in large part responsible for this not happening, but no way should B. Sutter get a free pass. Part of his job is to make his players believe in what he is telling them, and he didn't do that.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

...And now we blame him for trying to instill that type of responsibility and work ethic for the team by not producing results...

Why shouldn't he shoulder some of the blame for this? If this were a simple process, then there wouldn't be a run on NHL calibre coaches. And no, he is not to blame for "trying to instill that type of responsibility and work ethic for the team," but for failing to produce results. Part of his job is figuring out how to get it done, and in the end he didn't.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Meanwhile there's a giant elephant in the room that's just sacriligious to question for many fans. The one constant (besides Kiprusoff) in the years of ineptitude and failing to live up to potential was the captain. Geez, you'd think that maybe there was more culpability there?

I'm not sure why you selected my post to make this point, since I never once factored Iginla into my suggestion. I am certainly not absolving him from responsibility for what happened, but it is pretty naive and shortsighted to attempt to project levels of culpability in a situation that we can only assess from the outside. Charging B. Sutter for his role in what happened in no way absolves Iginla for his part, and vice versa.

Again, B. Sutter appears to be marginally effective in his ability to coach NHL players to play his type of game. And I don't see any evidence from his NHL coaching career (not just in Calgary) to suggest otherwise.

[Tinordi]

Not really relevant to my point, but okay. I think it is fair to say that had B. Sutter been able to do the same for his much more talented teams, the results would likely have been dramatically different.

It's relevant because people say that Sutter failed because he didn't adapt enough to what the players wanted. Yet we then hired Hartley who did adapt to a more offensive game and the team was still bad, so... was Sutter the real problem or, was the issue the one that Brent identified in the interview that the team just frankly wasn't good enough? If that was the case then why all the blame on Brent?

Why shouldn't he shoulder some of the blame for this? If this were a simple process, then there wouldn't be a run on NHL calibre coaches. And no, he is not to blame for "trying to instill that type of responsibility and work ethic for the team," but for failing to produce results. Part of his job is figuring out how to get it done, and in the end he didn't.

Brent said it himself, sure he probably failed in getting the team into 8th. That the peak possible outcome for those teams.

If that's the case then results I wanted him to achieve were exactly what he was trying to do. Instilling responsibility and buying into a hard working championship level system. He tried and failed. Subsequently, it only worked when the last of the rotten core was shipped off and Hartley started with a relatively blank slate. Again, we're going to blame Brent for that?

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with my post. The problem to me was not that B. Sutter was "a stubborn guy", it was that he was not effective at some point in the translation and implementation of what he wanted to what actually happened on the ice. I agree that the players were in large part responsible for this not happening, but no way should B. Sutter get a free pass. Part of his job is to make his players believe in what he is telling them, and he didn't do that.

I actually give him alot of leniency on this front which is probably where the fundamental disagreement is. When you have a player that is bigger than the team. A player who is buddies with the owner. A player who just doesn't need to buy in then Dale Carnegie himself isn't going to be able to change the culture of that team.

[FAN]

Brent's system reminds me of Tort's system. With the right players, it can be an effective system, but the system requires a lot of horses to run and isn't made to adapt or maybe Brent doesn't adapt.

Brent's system just isn't the type of system to win the Cup IMO. Offense is hard to come by these days and that's why when you look at the Cup winners over the years and they are all quick at moving the puck up ice. Brent's system is fine when the team manages to stop the opposition in the neutral zone, but once the opposition enters the team's defensive zone, Brent's system is so focused on collapsing down low and making the safe play to get the puck out that it neuters most chances for playmaking. Brent's system is one reason why his teams have had trouble holding onto leads. When the puck gets hemmed in, Brent's players still try to hammer or chip it out even when there is time to make a play.

It's really not about going with a run and gun system. It's about being able to move the puck up ice quickly, which isn't something Brent's system does well.

[Where ru Chris O'Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Sidney Crosby's Hat

The year that Brent Sutter came in as coach, Darryl Sutter actually wanted to coach but was denied by higher-ups. I think Darryl could have at least made that team into one that won a round or two as coach.

Hiring Brent, (I've also heard that it was more of the Newspaper Publishers idea than Daryl's), pretty much set this franchise back 5 years within 3 of his coaching.

It nearly killed Daryl Sutter's career (he's lucky LA took a flyer on him) and he still gets flak for being a subpar GM. Above average coaching during the Brent years would have lead to 3 playoff appearances and likely winning a round. Elite coaching (which we had in Daryl) sitting in the pressbox, because Ken King wanted a fresh face, might have got us back to the finals.

There was a rift between the brothers for a long time afterward, simply because Brent and his coaching mutilated that team.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

It's relevant because people say that Sutter failed because he didn't adapt enough to what the players wanted...

I don't care much whether this is what "people" have said. I didn't say it in my post. I said that his failure was in large part a problem with his inability to sell his system to the players.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If that's the case then results I wanted him to achieve were exactly what he was trying to do. Instilling responsibility and buying into a hard working championship level system. He tried and failed. Subsequently, it only worked when the last of the rotten core was shipped off and Hartley started with a relatively blank slate. Again, we're going to blame Brent for that?

I think he certainly shoulders a large part of the blame for this, but not just because of what happened in Calgary, but for his middling results in five years of NHL coaching. No, it's not all his fault, but this is a significant part of my posts that you are missing—the blame for what happened in Calgary during B. Sutter's tenure does not rest on one principal: it was a group effort that included Sutter. Again, I'm a little confused as to why you are so happy to absolve him for any responsibility.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I actually give him alot of leniency on this front which is probably where the fundamental disagreement is. When you have a player that is bigger than the team. A player who is buddies with the owner. A player who just doesn't need to buy in then Dale Carnegie himself isn't going to be able to change the culture of that team.

If you are attempting to claim that any other NHL coach could not have effected a better response from Iginla, then I will have to disagree. There are better NHL coaches than B. Sutter—several, in fact. Iginla has now played for a few in a variety of different circumstances, be it in season, during the playoffs, and at the Olympics. He has arguably been a better, more team-committed player under practically every other coach than he was under B. Sutter. We can all speculate about the reasons for that, but I think it is more than fair to suggest that Sutter was not guiltless in this personality exchange.

But moreover, this is about more than just Sutter and Iginla. There were other players on the team upon whose ears B. Sutter's message fell with no effect. Is this all because of Iginla? I can't imagine that even a persona as big as his was so overwhelming in that dressing room so as to effectively muzzle Sutter.

Finally, it needs also to be pointed out that B. Sutter has not again coached in the NHL, and likely never will. It does not seem like this is because he had technical issues, or problems reading the game at a higher level. I would suggest that his overall record points to precisely what I have attempted to draw attention to: that he does not seem to be very effective at communicating his vision, and his message at that level. He has a history now of struggling with getting NHL players to play his way. That's all on him.

[Mango]

Originally Posted by sun

What car?

1989 LeBaron convertible.

"Drivin' around in Jarome Iginla's car...."

[FAN]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If you are attempting to claim that any other NHL coach could not have effected a better response from Iginla, then I will have to disagree. There are better NHL coaches than B. Sutter—several, in fact. Iginla has now played for a few in a variety of different circumstances, be it in season, during the playoffs, and at the Olympics. He has arguably been a better, more team-committed player under practically every other coach than he was under B. Sutter. We can all speculate about the reasons for that, but I think it is more than fair to suggest that Sutter was not guiltless in this personality exchange.

I agree with your point that Sutter can't be 100% guiltless because he could have went to war with Iginla but he didn't. With that said, there's a huge difference between Iginla joining a Cup contender with a respected captain and established leadership group than being the captain of a team that he's been looked upon to lead the room. On other teams, Iginla was forced to buy in where as in Calgary, he was the one who was suppose to force guys to buy in.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

But moreover, this is about more than just Sutter and Iginla. There were other players on the team upon whose ears B. Sutter's message fell with no effect. Is this all because of Iginla? I can't imagine that even a persona as big as his was so overwhelming in that dressing room so as to effectively muzzle Sutter.

The effect on a team when the leader doesn't rally his team together and allows cliques cannot be underestimated.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Finally, it needs also to be pointed out that B. Sutter has not again coached in the NHL, and likely never will. It does not seem like this is because he had technical issues, or problems reading the game at a higher level. I would suggest that his overall record points to precisely what I have attempted to draw attention to: that he does not seem to be very effective at communicating his vision, and his message at that level. He has a history now of struggling with getting NHL players to play his way. That's all on him.

History? For all intents and purposes, the Devils played his way. And even here, I think for the most part the team played his way. The talent didn't really fit his system and he's just not a very good coach.

[Tinordi]

I think he certainly shoulders a large part of the blame for this, but not just because of what happened in Calgary, but for his middling results in five years of NHL coaching. No, it's not all his fault, but this is a significant part of my posts that you are missing—the blame for what happened in Calgary during B. Sutter's tenure does not rest on one principal: it was a group effort that included Sutter. Again, I'm a little confused as to why you are so happy to absolve him for any responsibility.

Middling results? With a team that bought into his system he went 97-56-11 in New Jersey. Are you going to blame Brodeur's melt-down in game 7 on Sutter now too? Would be appropriate using that logic.

You also said he has a history of not getting the best out of players yet Parise turned into a superstar under his tenure and Zajac went from sophomore slump to a top 6 center. Just two examples. Salvador, Oduya, others all flourished under him. Hmm, I wonder what the difference was between NJ and Calgary. Maybe one of the differences was that NJ had better team leadership?

Anyway, I'm not saying Sutter is the bees knees. My basic point is this: Sutter's impact on the Flames ineptitude is greatly overrated. Sutter happened to preside over a period where the wheels were going to fall off anyway. People searching for causality will blame Sutter where there were much more fundamental reasons at work. Those being the team talent was overrated by most everyone, the team got older and less skilled, the team's leadership was very poor, the team had no young players coming in, and the makeup of the team with way too much money spent on defence were main reasons for the how bad they were.

Sure maybe Sutter could have squeezed water from a stone and squeaked into 8th but lets be real here. That team stunk for much greater reasons and Sutter was one of the only honest guys saying that a rebuild needed to happen.

But now, in that thankless position, we can all take turns throwing stones instead of looking at likely were the real issues.

[Tinordi]

And this line that Sutter must be a bad coach because he hasn't worked again in the NHL is supposed to be compelling?

We have no idea as to reasons why he isn't in the NHL except maybe the reason he gave when he resigned from Jersey in that he wanted to be closer to home and didn't like all the travel? But no, that couldn't be the reason... that doesn't justify my previously held conclusions on how bad he was.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

The mantra that "this team is not good enough to score off the rush" - while this was partly true, being one (if not THE) smallest and oldest teams in the NHL made it pretty obvious that they couldn't score off the cycle either.

Wow, I almost forgot about that gem of a philosophy. I can't believe a coach would actually say this to group of NHL'ers. Especially when quite a few of them have scored plenty of goals in the league.

I think Brent's issue was he was so caught up in executing every last detail of his system. It was just way to rigid for any normal player. Let's face it, hockey is a balance of team/system play and also creativity and skill. Brent never got that balance right and I think the performance of a lot of players really suffered under it. I'm not saying he should have deployed a run and gun system either, but there has to be flexibility. The team under his tenure was so scared to make a mistake that it affected their entire game, and they made mistakes anyways.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yes yes, there's a well established story on this board that Brent sucked the creativity out of the team and if only we had Keenan back we'd lock up 8th for a ignominious exit in the first round.

What point are you trying to make here? Keenan was a horrible coach. Just because I was glad to see Brent go doesn't mean I yearned for Keenan. I actually quite liked the hiring of Brent initially, and in spurts he was very good at saying the 'right thing'. He didn't get the results, the Flames were a dysfunctional group under his watch (and started with Playfair I think), and ever since Darryl stepped down as coach and Hartley was hired, this team has suffered from poor coaching.

Continue making assumptions about how fans feel to support your arguments though.

[dissentowner]

So glad Sutter went, his mismanagement of lines and Matt Stajan was just plain terrible.
He kind of reminds me of Greg Gilbert, well maybe not that bad but you get the idea.

[MrMastodonFarm]

I've never seen such a cavalcade of excuses for one coach before.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

So glad Sutter went, his mismanagement of lines and Matt Stajan was just plain terrible.
He kind of reminds me of Greg Gilbert, well maybe not that bad but you get the idea.

Kind of funny but I think GG is a great comparison. I think what Brent was trying to do was valid (i.e. the type of team Keenan was coaching would never get anywhere in the playoffs) and I agree that this team needed better attention to detail. But what they both sucked at was how to get on the same page as their players, especially their star players. I guess a lot of people don't recall, but the year Keenan was canned, the garbage day interviews you heard from Regehr and Sarich were a very different tune then what you heard from Iginla - players clearly weren't on the same page. Brent was brought in to try and get everyone on the same page and clean up the mess Keenan left behind, but his way of doing it made things worse - similar to Gilbert, not able to bridge that gap.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Anyway, I'm not saying Sutter is the bees knees. My basic point is this: Sutter's impact on the Flames ineptitude is greatly overrated. Sutter happened to preside over a period where the wheels were going to fall off anyway. People searching for causality will blame Sutter where there were much more fundamental reasons at work. Those being the team talent was overrated by most everyone, the team got older and less skilled, the team's leadership was very poor, the team had no young players coming in, and the makeup of the team with way too much money spent on defence were main reasons for the how bad they were.

Sure maybe Sutter could have squeezed water from a stone and squeaked into 8th but lets be real here. That team stunk for much greater reasons and Sutter was one of the only honest guys saying that a rebuild needed to happen.

But now, in that thankless position, we can all take turns throwing stones instead of looking at likely were the real issues.

You've got valid points here. The Flames lost 60 some goals from Cammalleri and bertuzzi walking away for nothing and got a whopping 5 back from Bouwmeester the following season. It's absolutely correct to say the Flames tied up way too much money on defense. That's obviously not on Iginla, especially if you subscribe to the notion that he doesnt like defense.

The Flames finished 4th in goals against, but couldn't score. They did play the way he wanted them to.

It's also equally valid to point out Brent was expected to return Phaneuf to his glory days of red deer, instead he's traded for trash. I fail to see how that's on Iginla.

A significant portion of fans and media alike thought Brent would bring results equal to or better than Keenan did. I'm one of a small minority (much like the Iginla detractors) who actually liked Keenan. The incredibly sad fact is he has the 2nd most playoff wins since Darryl was behind the bench.

[SuperMatt18]

The second Bouwmeester was signed the Flames needed to trade at least one of Sarich or Regehr to open up cap space for a forward.

They failed to do that and we had way too much money tied to defense. Led to a lack of forward depth, which eventually led to Phaneuf being traded for peanuts.

At the same time though B.Sutter has to take some of the blame. Stajan, Bouwmeester, Hagman, Bourque, Regehr, all had their career worse seasons or regressed under Sutter, Iginla and Tanguay never bought in to his system, and Backlund stagnated due to a lack of offensive confidence.

The only people that thrived under B.Sutter were Glencross, and round 2 of Olli Jokinen.