How can you say Brent is a bad NHL head coach when his record is almost .600? That would mean NHL head coaches with .500 winning percentages would be beyond bad instead of average as .500 indicates. He did a fantastic job with the Devils and IMO too many Flames fans like to pretend that the leadership in that locker room wasn't nearly as poor as it really was (we all know who is the main reason for that) by blaming Brent for missing the playoffs in those three seasons.
The devils 100 point seasons before and after he was the coach. It wasnt a young team either year. All I said was theres no data that concludes he would be good for a young NHL team.
I find its a small faction of staunch Sutter defenders that downplay anything Iginla accomplished (including 30 goals in each season under Brent.) Plus he had kiprusoff, who the same faction would has said was more of a factor to any success than Iginla was.
I think it also bears mention that Sutter took a stacked team Canada to the world championships and didnt even medal. Is Getzlaf a bad captain and horrible leader?
Anyway, I think the rebuild could have gone even faster had Calgary canned Sutter and picked up Hitchcock or another proven NHL coach earlier on.
I think it's really interesting to look back on the Iginla era in Calgary in the light of what has happened the last two seasons. I have no idea where this team will end up at the end of the year, but whatever the record, they play with heart, with confidence, and they play for each other. Players go down and others step up. This is largely due to the increased talent depth of the organization, but there is also a different attitude that this team has that the Iginla-era teams never had. Looking back on the teams post 2004 to when Iginla was traded, the most common description would have to be "underacheaver". Iginla is a phenomenal player, a great human being, but I for one am certainly looking back and wondering why he couldn't get a team of players that included top-of-their-abilitiy Kiprusoff, Regehr, Tanguay, Cammalleri, Langkow, etc to play with the kind of enthusiasm and spirit that the current Flames embody. The coaches changed, some with slightly more or slightly less success, but the truth is that the Flames never achieved their potential in those years, or even really came close to it. Did the aura of Iginla eclipse the team? Maybe. Did the expectations weigh too heavily on the locker room? Maybe. Was there division within the locker room? Maybe. But it is quite startling how quickly the turnaround has occurred. And for all the posts about how poor Hartley's first season was, it is interesting to see that in a lock-out shortened season with very little training camp, he was able to get his players playing with a lot of heart shortly after the trade deadline in that first season and has not looked back. Add this to the criticism of both Brent Sutter and Playfair who cast aspersions on the locker room mentality of the team and one has to wonder what kind of leader Iginla really was. I don't mean this as an anti-Iginla post, I just am startled at the difference in aura surrounding the team pre and post Iginla in a very short period of time.
__________________
Harry, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret. Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it, don't wait for it, just... let it happen. Could be a new shirt at the men's store, a catnap in your office chair, or... two cups of good, hot, black coffee.
So no credit when they win but ultra-derision when they lose?
It's not a binary thing. Nobody expects Canada to win every year, but they should get a medal every year, no question. If you fail at that, you failed as a coach.
Besides, it's not ultra-derision to say he was the worst in that tournament. But it's a pretty good indication he's not a good coach. If you're coaching Canada and you lose 5-1 to Finland, you are not a good coach.
Quote:
If his accomplishments are so run of the mill, why is he the only coach to ever coach Canada to consecutive Gold Medals, with an unbeaten roster along the way?
Canada won consecutive golds 1990-1991, then five consecutive golds from 1993-1997, then another five from 2005-2009. Essentially Canada wins gold every other year. If you coach that team many years, you have a pretty good chance of doing it twice in a row. In a short tournament the unbeaten champion part is more of a random event than anything.
Let me put it this way; If he's such a good coach, why has it been a decade since he had success outside of team Canada?
EDIT:
Also, it's of course possible that he used to be a really good coach when he won those medals, but has not kept up with the times. Maybe he started to suffer from inflated ego and thus he now has trouble getting his players to listen to him.
I don't know. Mostly I judge him based on the way his teams play, and from what I've seen, his teams don't look well coached to me.
I think it's really interesting to look back on the Iginla era in Calgary in the light of what has happened the last two seasons. I have no idea where this team will end up at the end of the year, but whatever the record, they play with heart, with confidence, and they play for each other. Players go down and others step up. This is largely due to the increased talent depth of the organization, but there is also a different attitude that this team has that the Iginla-era teams never had. Looking back on the teams post 2004 to when Iginla was traded, the most common description would have to be "underacheaver". Iginla is a phenomenal player, a great human being, but I for one am certainly looking back and wondering why he couldn't get a team of players that included top-of-their-abilitiy Kiprusoff, Regehr, Tanguay, Cammalleri, Langkow, etc to play with the kind of enthusiasm and spirit that the current Flames embody. The coaches changed, some with slightly more or slightly less success, but the truth is that the Flames never achieved their potential in those years, or even really came close to it. Did the aura of Iginla eclipse the team? Maybe. Did the expectations weigh too heavily on the locker room? Maybe. Was there division within the locker room? Maybe. But it is quite startling how quickly the turnaround has occurred. And for all the posts about how poor Hartley's first season was, it is interesting to see that in a lock-out shortened season with very little training camp, he was able to get his players playing with a lot of heart shortly after the trade deadline in that first season and has not looked back. Add this to the criticism of both Brent Sutter and Playfair who cast aspersions on the locker room mentality of the team and one has to wonder what kind of leader Iginla really was. I don't mean this as an anti-Iginla post, I just am startled at the difference in aura surrounding the team pre and post Iginla in a very short period of time.
Everything changed when Gio took over the leadership of this team. However, you will never get some people here to admit that there was a leadership problem before.
I'm not so interested in the team that Feaster built. There was a lot of cupboard stocking while Feaster was around, but a lot of that had to do with a lousy on-ice product and the shedding of Iginla, Bouwmeester, Regehr, and Erixon for future considerations.
What I'm more interested in is the team that Treliving is building right now. Since the last regime change, there have been 6 players marked out into the long-term plans of the franchise. Burke made the first two long-term moves, signing Matt Stajan to a 4 year deal and signing college wizard and free-agent flight-risk Johnny Gaudreau to his entry level deal.
Brad Treliving came on board, and his first two long-term moves were drafting Sam Bennett and extending TJ Brodie.
Two players that predate Brad and Brian but most definitely remain in the long-term plans of the franchise are 2012 1st rounder Sean Monahan and Flames captain Mark Giordano.
That's the skeleton of the next era of the Calgary Flames.
Gaudreau - Bennett - x
x - Monahan - x
x - Stajan - x
Gio - Brodie
So my question is who's next? who are you willing to shell out the next long term deal to? For me, I have to put my money on Lance Bouma. He doesn't seem like the kind of player that gets a long term contract offer, but I really believe in his game. At 24 he's in the perfect age range, he's valuable on the PK and plays a perfect 4th line game. He's also proven. We've got a lot of rookies performing at really high levels, but Bouma is a proven NHLer, with much less risk. I'd love to see him signed into 2020. 1.5-2M a season for 5 years. He's worth every penny in my book.
The coaching job Brent Sutter did at the 2006 WJHC was one of the best coaching jobs anyone has done at any level of hockey. That team had zero business winning Gold and was the one Team Canada in recent memory that likely should not have even won a medal but they were methodical in the way they executed his forechecking plan and were coached to play the perfect style to win.
I am not sure how many WHL games Itse gets in Finland but Red Deer under Brent in his first stint there were as well coached a team as there was in the WHL. They did everything right and didn't give away any freebie's. Any concerns about their lack of success would be due to Brent as the GM of the team not the coach.
I won't get into the NHL coaching of Sutter because it has been beaten death (and he is a hell of a lot better than many give him credit for) but as a junior coach it is assinine to say he is anything but great.
I'm not so interested in the team that Feaster built.
You should be. The majority of the team you see and are cheering for was a result of the Feaster/Weisbrod decisions. The majority of our future we point at as being so positive is a result of those same collective.
Quote:
There was a lot of cupboard stocking while Feaster was around, but a lot of that had to do with a lousy on-ice product and the shedding of Iginla, Bouwmeester, Regehr, and Erixon for future considerations.
Which was actually the result of the crap team and organization that Sutter left him. I liked Sutter, but in the end of his time in Calgary he was very guilty of ignoring the obvious and trying to do the impossible; build around an aging Iginla with little potential of achieving success.
Quote:
What I'm more interested in is the team that Treliving is building right now.
Treliving hasn't done much to make his mark on this team, and the moves he has made have been less than confidence inspiring.
Quote:
Since the last regime change, there have been 6 players marked out into the long-term plans of the franchise. Burke made the first two long-term moves, signing Matt Stajan to a 4 year deal and signing college wizard and free-agent flight-risk Johnny Gaudreau to his entry level deal.
Oh, good lord. Johnny Gaudreau was no flight risk. At no point was Gaudreau a flight risk. With Feaster/Weisbrod here there was not a single whisper of disinterest in Gaudreau or Arnold (Arnold was a bigger flight risk, and there was none there either), but even with the firing there was no talk of Gaudreau not signing. Let's not make this sound like Burke swooped in to save the day, as this is just counter to the facts of the story. If anything, Burke's commentary leading up to the firing of Feaster was the only thing that would have given any indication there was no interest in a future Flames/Gaudreau relationship. Burke did the smart thing and reached out to both kids and let them know they both in the Flames plans and followed through on the plans Feaster had laid out; signing them both at the end of the college season.
Quote:
Brad Treliving came on board, and his first two long-term moves were drafting Sam Bennett and extending TJ Brodie.
I'll give Treliving the Brodie signing, but not the draft. That was pretty early on in his tenure and I doubt he would have had any major impact on the draft plans the Flames had been building all year. I would say it was likely Burke had the most influence on any potential change in philosophy, but I'm not certain we saw much change in that regard. We'll see how the development of players goes over the next couple of seasons before we can say what long term impact the new management team has.
Quote:
Two players that predate Brad and Brian but most definitely remain in the long-term plans of the franchise are 2012 1st rounder Sean Monahan and Flames captain Mark Giordano.
So Feaster's first round pick and the captain selected by Feaster. Great decisions by Burke/Treliving! Really big decisions there!
Quote:
That's the skeleton of the next era of the Calgary Flames.
The skeleton is very important, but how they flesh that out is most important. Almost all of the players we are looking at and talking about are from that Feaster era.
Quote:
So my question is who's next? who are you willing to shell out the next long term deal to? For me, I have to put my money on Lance Bouma. He doesn't seem like the kind of player that gets a long term contract offer, but I really believe in his game. At 24 he's in the perfect age range, he's valuable on the PK and plays a perfect 4th line game. He's also proven. We've got a lot of rookies performing at really high levels, but Bouma is a proven NHLer, with much less risk. I'd love to see him signed into 2020. 1.5-2M a season for 5 years. He's worth every penny in my book.
I like Bouma. He's a heart and soul player, but he's incredibly replaceable. When you look at what is in the minors it will require a lot of hard work and some luck on his part to not be pushed out of the lineup. When you have guys like Arnold, Hanowski, Agostino, and Poirier pushing to get into the lineup you have to figure that some of the lesser lights are going to pressed to keep their jobs. Bouma and Bollig are going to have to continually prove themselves and earn their position. Because of this I don't see Bouma as a core player that you invest a long term contract on. I fully expect a kid currently on the roster, like Ferland or Granlund, to squeeze their way into that core, then followed with one or two of the aforementioned players from the farm or in the system (Gillies and Jankowski as examples).
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Good post Flash, some interesting thoughts. I still don't agree that Brent was a good NHL coach and certainly doesn't think what Brent did with Calgary was impressive.
And I think to be under that impression you have to be using divergent criteria to arrive at that point.
Jaques Lemaire is a good coach, right? Well, using the logic you use below, I'm going to prove Brent is a good coach.
Quote:
We can say Hartley had essentially the same roster and did worse than Brent Sutter to suggest Brent's a good coach but can't we also look at Mike Keenan and Brent Sutter? Sutter had arguably a better roster, one of the biggest UFA acquisitions in recent memory join his team, Mike Keenan didn't have Jay Bouwmeester on his roster.
As for Sutter having the better roster, Keenan got 120+ points from Cammalleri and Bertuzzi that wasn't on the roster for Brent and then that season lost Jokinen and Phaneuf off the roster as well.
Quote:
The next point is something I think you've rolled your eyes at before and I get it, it might sound like I'm making an excuse for a coach I like now but I think it's a fair point. In his first season in Calgary Bob Hartley didn't have a full training camp and with the compact lockout season barely had any practise time, if at all. The NHL and NHLPA ratified the new CBA on January 9th and games started on the 19th, when did players start reporting? I can't even recall at the moment but it wasn't much before that 19th start date.
I think this is trying to rationalize the immediate impact trading Iginla appeared to have on the roster Hartley was coaching. Hartley's team pre and post Iginla is one of the biggest reasons I can admit how wrong I was about Hartley. It is so stark. I am sure things like pre-season, practice time, etc., had an effect, but the team clearly changed in April of that year from an underachieving team to a hard working, always-in-it, club, and that was without a top RW, a Top D and Joey MacDonald is net.
This is ignoring that even if Hartley did get that opportunity to run a full camp, and proved himself as capable as Keenan, Playfair or Sutter, that still would have been woeful and the roster would have continued on it's downward trend.
Quote:
No disrespect but I doubt him and Lowry were happy to move on, they effectively fire. I'm sure either would have preferred NHL contracts to not having them. You almost make it seem like Brent Sutter and Lowry walked away from the situation and not the Flames who showed them the door. You're almost twisting the story here to make it better for them. They weren't offered contracts because Feaster wanted to bring in Hartley. Hartley wasn't brought in because Sutter didn't want to come back. Small but important twist IMO.
The NHL is not the be-all, end-all for everyone. Brent owns and manages a successful organization as well as having other interests outside of hockey. Coaching in the NHL is stressful and it had a rough initial impact on his family. Now he lives and works at home. He's also won it all as a player.
Brent made it clear that he went into what ended up being his exit interview knowing he wasn't going to be with the club if they weren't going to go in a different direction. Feaster confirmed that they were going to be going in a different direction, and Brent didn't appear too broken up to not be apart of that new (same) direction. He said so himself.
Now, maybe you don't believe him, or think he was trying to save face, but what lends credence to his side of the story is the fact that Lowry also left, but Hartsburg and Goalie Coach Badass Malarchuk were kept.
This is from Allan Maki
Quote:
Sutter had said this week he was willing to return and coach again. He added changes were necessary and Feaster had promised to review every player and member of the organization’s hockey operations department.
On Wednesday, the coach and GM met privately and talked about what needed to be done, personnel-wise, and how the team should look for the 2012-13 NHL season.
Feaster said it was clear Sutter and the Flames needed to part company.
“This is not about fault, blame or finger-pointing,” Feaster stated. “Brent and I had a good discussion. … As we talked, we decided this was a time for us to go our separate ways.”
Feaster declined to say what those differing ideas were. Most likely, it involved which players, including captain Jarome Iginla, should part of the team moving forward.
Sutter had his best success in Calgary this season with a younger, more enthusiastic lineup. The sense was he wasn’t able to motivate the veterans on a consistent enough basis, which resulted in the team finishing no higher than ninth in the Western Conference the past three seasons (118-90-38 overall).
“This isn’t about Brent not getting his message through,” said Feaster, who repeated that it was more about timing (Sutter’s contract was up) and differences and understanding this was simply a good way to end things. “Brent’s a good coach. I believe he’ll be coaching again in the NHL.”
Flames assistant coach Dave Lowry was told his contract would not be renewed, while assistant Craig Hartsburg and goaltending coach Clint Malarchuk were asked to stay. Both have a year remaining on their deals and will be evaluated by the new head coach. Who that will be is now open for debate.
Quote:
Again, a little correction on the twist here. From all reports it was Feaster who came to Iginla for a trade, not the big bad Iginla forcing his hand. Maybe I missed something, maybe I've completely forgotten but I don't remember much talk of Feaster trying to re-sign Iginla and Iginla refusing, forcing Feaster's hand.
Right, Feaster had been trying to negotiate an extension with Iginla all year until his agent informed Feaster that he didn't want to talk extension until after the season was over. At that point, Feaster and Co. had to contemplate the idea of losing Iginla to free agency for nothing. This forced their hand to trade him as that sort of embarrassment on top of everything else would surely have meant their jobs. In my opinion, it's chasing Iginla that led to the near disastrous O'Reilly offersheet; a last ditch effort to entice him to stay by getting a young centre that would propel them into the playoffs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
It's ironic that the Flames are playing with Brent's Wolfpack mentality now
Isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
Brent never had a hope with that rotten core led by Iginla and friends. The points a good one, same roster and Hartley did even worse.
Anyway, good discussion but Feaster was clearly not operating under the same field manual as Sutter. Too get the job Feaster had to say what they wanted to hear, that's not on Feaster that's on ownership.
Brent was very clear with the organization that it wasn't good enough to win -they needed to rebuild- and they choose to ignore him. The more that time goes on the better Brent looks.
I don't know how saying whatever it takes to get hired is a respectable quality when you can't then use that power to do anything. Like, is doing whatever it takes to get and keep your job a check in the 'pro' category?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
The team was already in decline, but IMO, BSutter ran it into the ground. He was unable to work with what he had and find a game-plan that utilized his assets.
There was no fun, no optimism, and no direction under his reign.
Yes, the core tuned him out. Is that the core's fault, or his? (probably some of both).
Yes, Hartley's record with the same team was even worse. But IMO, their death spiral had already been launched and Hartley just happened to be the guy here to watch it. I doubt any coach would have put up a better record.
I don't throw all the blame on BSutter's back by any stretch.
But how anyone can conclude his tenure here was anything but a failure is beyond me.
How do you find a game plan for a style that doesn't win games? I mean, what kind of coaching style takes advantage of soft defensive play, poor puck support and offsides? Who coaches a successful team that plays like that? Are there examples? Montreal with Therrien? Is Keenan really the comparable we want to hold up here as the example for an alternative to Brent Sutter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
^ that for sure. But there is one more thing. Again, both Brent and Hartley were the wrong coaches for the team we've had. We did not have a bad team. In fact we've had a team laden with good individual talent, many of which are still playing productively, when used properly. Darryl Sutter was the best coach for that team, because he was able to instill confidence in players about his game system, right or wrong.
And what part did him being general manager play in that, I wonder?
He had ultimate power. No one second guessed his decisions. There was no question about who was in control and what he said was THE word.
Quote:
Systems do work when they are not only followed blindly but also believed in by all players. Scotty Bowman would have also been a great coach for that team. Because he built the game around the individual talents of individual players when he saw the merit of it and, at the same time, he could have been a hardas.. with players that he thought should have played the strict system without too much improvisation.
And just like Darryl when he had his success with Calgary, when Scotty Bowman had his success, he was in control of that roster. The often used example in this comparison is Steve Yzerman nearly being moved to Ottawa due to conflicts with Bowman and his 'style'. Well, when Brent expressed similar sentiment to management, he was not backed up. This is an extension of what we first saw when Brent arrived and the division regarding his 'junior style coaching tactics' was first reported. Division with Darryl on how to coach (interference from the top), and then more of the same from up top with Feaster and King. This sort of inner turmoil creates accountability issues. Again, something Brent talked about; not having the support from management and above to do things the way he believed were necessary to win.
Quote:
Just like Darryl, Brent was rigid about his system but he did not have the experience and ability to effectively deliver the message to older, more experienced NHL players that don't give respect to their coaches unconditionally, like WHL kids.
Then that is on the players if they are unwilling to respect a former NHL captain who had played over 1000 games, going to the finals 4 times and winning once. That is just outrageous to say out loud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
How did he do a fantastic job with the Devils? They went from making the 2nd round twice in a row before him, to only making the playoffs both times under him? If I remember correctly New Jersey fans didn't give two poops when he left. The general reaction was meh.
Brent Sutter had a better record with his Devils team than Jaques Lemaire did. Does that make Brent Sutter a better coach than Jaques Lemaire? They both won the Division with the devils, but under brent they had more wins. Surely, then, Brent must be better than Lemaire. Well, I'm going to guess you don't believe that to be true and neither do I. However, if a guy can come in a year to year replicate the same results as a great NHL, surely, he's at least average at his job. Maybe even good?
You aren't remembering correctly about the reaction.
New Jersey's owner was vocally upset about Sutter leaving, thinking he'd be their long-term replacement for Lemaire.
I can readily admit Brent Sutter was ineffective at motivating his veteran players, but, as has been seen with countless other players in countless other scenarios, some guys simply won't be motivated. Playfair couldn't do it, Keenan couldn't do it, Brent couldn't and neither could Hartley. Is that all because they are weak coaches?
That team had zero business winning Gold and was the one Team Canada in recent memory that likely should not have even won a medal
North Americans lack a sense of proportion when it comes to the amount of young talent you have.
Here's the 2006 team in light of where the players were drafted.
Canada:
12 first round picks,
4 second round picks
4 third round picks
1 fourth round pick
That's a pretty typical spread for Canada. Maybe they had a couple less household names (top 5-10 picks) than some other years, but other than that there's no question that roster was, as always, one of the best in the tournament.
Here's the other top 4 teams for comparison:
USA:
12 first round picks
5 second round picks
0 third round picks
3 fourth round picks
1 fifth round pick
You should be. The majority of the team you see and are cheering for was a result of the Feaster/Weisbrod decisions. The majority of our future we point at as being so positive is a result of those same collective.
On the current Flames roster (http://flames.nhl.com/club/roster.htm) there 8 Sutter era players, 14 Feaster players, and 6 Treliving era players. So it's only a majority depending on how you count the team. On the roster page, it's 50/50.
Quote:
Which was actually the result of the crap team and organization that Sutter left him. I liked Sutter, but in the end of his time in Calgary he was very guilty of ignoring the obvious and trying to do the impossible; build around an aging Iginla with little potential of achieving success.
That crap organization left behind the crappy pieces of Brodie, Giordano, Bouma, Stajan, Glencross, Ferland, Reinhart and Backlund. So it wasn't all crap?
Quote:
Treliving hasn't done much to make his mark on this team, and the moves he has made have been less than confidence inspiring.
You have to consider that
a) nobody wanted to sign in Calgary
b) He had no idea what kind of roster he had during his first free agency
c) He didn't shell out any long term deals, and everyone was brought in as stop-gaps while he figured out just what he was dealing with.
Quote:
Oh, good lord. Johnny Gaudreau was no flight risk. At no point was Gaudreau a flight risk. With Feaster/Weisbrod here there was not a single whisper of disinterest in Gaudreau or Arnold (Arnold was a bigger flight risk, and there was none there either), but even with the firing there was no talk of Gaudreau not signing. Let's not make this sound like Burke swooped in to save the day, as this is just counter to the facts of the story. If anything, Burke's commentary leading up to the firing of Feaster was the only thing that would have given any indication there was no interest in a future Flames/Gaudreau relationship. Burke did the smart thing and reached out to both kids and let them know they both in the Flames plans and followed through on the plans Feaster had laid out; signing them both at the end of the college season.
This just isn't true. Johnny had 29 suitors lining up for him hoping he'd play out his college career, everybody knew that. When Burke took over, it put distance between the Gaudreau family and the Flames. Feaster had drafted Gaudreau and the family had developed a relationship with Jay. It made Guy Gaudreau uncomfortable about Johnny's future with the Flames during that transition.
In recent weeks, reports have surfaced Gaudreau’s mother would like to see him finish his degree in communications, graduate and attend his prom. Prevailing wisdom suggests Gaudreau will surely listen to hockey advisors and mentors who know he now needs to challenge himself at a higher level in order to keep the development curve pointing up.
A report in the South Jersey Courier-Post last Thursday had Gaudreau’s father intimating the Flames may not be an ideal fit for his son. “I know that (Flames’ GM) Brian Burke likes big boys, big hockey players. My son is not a big hockey player. He’s made it clear that he likes him or whatever, but I don’t think he’s sold on him,” Guy Gaudreau said.
The article goes on to say Johnny only ever said the right things about the Flames, so there was little reason to doubt him, but his parents were certainly iffy on the matter. He was also playing college hockey with his younger brother, which played on the family side of things as well.
I know a lot of fans were collectively holding their breath waiting for the moment he'd sign. If there was no risk, why was everyone so worried?
Quote:
I'll give Treliving the Brodie signing, but not the draft. That was pretty early on in his tenure and I doubt he would have had any major impact on the draft plans the Flames had been building all year. I would say it was likely Burke had the most influence on any potential change in philosophy, but I'm not certain we saw much change in that regard. We'll see how the development of players goes over the next couple of seasons before we can say what long term impact the new management team has.
You should give Treliving the draft, because it's his draft, and he walked up to the podium and drafted Bennett. No one else. Burke made sure to negotiate that Treliving could be a part of the draft, it seems silly to think that Burke would hire someone for the draft, only to do the draft himself under the guise of Treliving. Burke's name isn't the one attached to Bennett, it will always be Treliving.
Quote:
So Feaster's first round pick and the captain selected by Feaster. Great decisions by Burke/Treliving! Really big decisions there![/quuote]
You think the GENERAL MANAGER selects the CAPTAIN?
I was just saying that it's plain as day that Monahan and Giordano and gonna be Flames for a very long time, even if their contract status doesn't say so.
Quote:
The skeleton is very important, but how they flesh that out is most important. Almost all of the players we are looking at and talking about are from that Feaster era.
2/6 is not almost all.
Quote:
I like Bouma. He's a heart and soul player, but he's incredibly replaceable. When you look at what is in the minors it will require a lot of hard work and some luck on his part to not be pushed out of the lineup.
You think you can just replace the best shot blocker in the game? 181 Hits and 89 Shot blocks last year. He blocks them with his face for crying out loud. His face.
Quote:
When you have guys like Arnold, Hanowski, Agostino, and Poirier pushing to get into the lineup you have to figure that some of the lesser lights are going to pressed to keep their jobs.
None of those players would be vying for the same job as Bouma. He's a big-bodied PK specialist and hitter.
Quote:
Bouma and Bollig are going to have to continually prove themselves and earn their position. Because of this I don't see Bouma as a core player that you invest a long term contract on.
These guys are not even close to the same player. Bollig is a -3 with 31PIMs and he plays 9 minutes a night, 0:05 a night on the PK.
Bouma is +2 with 6PIMs and he plays 12 minutes a night, 1:45 of it on the PK.
You don't healthy scratch Bouma. I just can't believe you'd compare these two players.
Quote:
I fully expect a kid currently on the roster, like Ferland or Granlund, to squeeze their way into that core, then followed with one or two of the aforementioned players from the farm or in the system (Gillies and Jankowski as examples).
So, what I really want to know, is who do you give the next long-term deal to?
__________________
Death by 4th round picks.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to thymebalm For This Useful Post:
Can add to much to what's already been said but the main difference between Hartley and Sutter is how they approach a game when holding a lead. Hartley likes to keep his foot on the gas while Brent was always dump it in and back check, back check, back check. 3 years of Brent was utterly frustrating.
__________________
"Illusions Michael, tricks are something a wh*re does for money ....... or cocaine"
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MisterJoji For This Useful Post:
If we are going to talk about Brent being a good coach or not, then let's start talking about what constitutes a good coach.
1) A good coach knows and understands his players. Brent had 3 years to get to know this team.
2) A good coach will tailor his system around the strengths and weaknesses of his team
3) A good coach will be able to adjust his system in-game to the opposition (trying to out-coach the other team).
Did we ever see much evidence of this?
Let's see the evidence of Sutter not doing this for starters.
1) Kotalik - yeah, he was barely an NHL player at this point. Sure. No disagreement from me. Maybe he wasn't even an NHL-player at that point. However, Sutter had NO IDEA that Kotalik had a bomb of a shot, and that in every team he suited up for that he was utilized on the point in the PP. It wasn't until the Flames' internal skills competition that Sutter realized this and stated in the media that maybe he should try him on the PP. I thought he was joking - and anyways, PP time is usually something that is earned by good play. Lo and behold on the first game after his comments, he throws out Kotalik on the point.
2) Insistence on using Butler on the top pairing. People may argue how poor of a player Butler was or wasn't, but he was not a first-pairing defender by any measurement. Hartley started him there, but Butler finished as a bottom-pairing defencemen on Hartley's team.
3) 'The system'. Sutter's fabled system was fairly simple.
- Zone exists have to be up along the boards. Well, how quickly did opposing teams figure that one out? How many times did the Flames end up getting hemmed in their own zone? Teams realized this and started cheating.
- Offensive zone - all offence is off the cycle. Sutter stated that the Flames are not a team that can score off the rush.
Well, there are two very important characteristics of the Flames team that made this system impossible to play. The first is that they were the oldest team in the NHL. The second was that they were the smallest. Now tell me how an older and smaller team should have a winning system centered around cycles and board play?
Give Brent Sutter a young big team, and he will get you loads of good results. He does get some guys to buy-in - Jokinen was probably the best example of a guy buying into the system and changing his game. Glencross too. Probably some other examples that I am just not thinking too hard on.
Sutter wasn't all bad. He just wasn't the right fit and didn't seem able to adjust his system to what was given to him.
Harltey - the main argument that Hartley did even 'worse' than Sutter is because Hartley had less success. Seems pretty black and white. I give him a bit of a pass that season. Why? Two reasons - that team was trending down and everyone knows it. The pressure was incredible for the vets as the Flames made yet another coaching move and everyone knew it was just a rebuild waiting to happen. On top of this, Hartley didn't get the benefit of a real training camp. Tough to implement a brand new system on the fly essentially. Shortened season due to the lockout really made things tougher.
Since then, I find it hard to believe that Sutter would have had any more success than Hartley is experiencing now. He has been great with vets and with rookies. Would Giordano and Brodie have been THIS good under Sutter? What about Wideman? Hudler? What about all the kids like Jooris, Gaudreau, etc? Tough to say.
I think Brent will eventually coach in the NHL again, but he better come with a few different systems in his repertoire. The one he tried unsuccessfully to implement on the Flames for 3 years was one that was a poor fit for the Flames. It seemed almost like a 'cookie-cutter' system bought off the shelf with no thought as to the makeup of the team. To me, that is NOT good coaching.
As for 'out-coaching' the opposition, I can't think of any examples if Sutter has or not. No games are really standing out in my memory at the moment - which is not to say that there wasn't. I don't think Hartley has been a coach that 'out-coaches' the other teams either (with the exception of the 'brawl', though they did lose that game). I am sure both coaches out-coached the opposition and have been out-coached themselves by the opposition. I can't guess at who was better at it than the other.
What I did like about Brent Sutter was his 'wolf-pack' mentality that everyone needs to stand shoulder-to-shoulder. He was never able to get the Flames to play that way. Un-coachable at the time? Poor motivator? Poor teaching on the ice? No idea. Sutter did see the value in a team playing together and playing for one another out there. Hartley has managed to get this team (including last year) to play that way, but it may have been an easier team to do that with.
Now it comes back to 'The team Feaster built". Without a doubt, the Flames were NOT successful with Sutter. Why didn't Feaster make a coaching change before that? If you want to argue that the Vets wouldn't buy-into what Sutter was trying to implement, than ship out some players (or tell Sutter to start benching them). If the owners were 'meddling' and backing Iginla and so on, then well you have to make a coaching change. He did neither. He watched this team be a disjointed mess for his tenure until he finally admitted that he needed to blow it up.
If you go back to my other long post, I outlined some of the good things that Feaster did do (and I am 100% sure there are probably more). He wasn't as horrible as some people think he was, but he definitely is no 'builder' either. He came in and changed some of the culture that probably needed some new life breathed into it, but he also made the Flames a bit of an embarrassment as well in certain areas thanks to some of his media availabilities and the ROR fiasco.
Getting Hartley into the organization - a move I was 100% against at the very start (up until I heard Hartley's initial media availability about how he wants this team to play) - and just realizing he was a poor evaluator of talent (though initially he did go on scouting trips, though not sure how many or if it was for his entire tenure) and allowed the scouts to do make the calls.
The young team is built mostly thanks to Button and his scouting staff (big shout-out to Webster who I think the Flames will find very difficult to replace).
I stated a year or year and a half before the rebuild actually started 'officially' that the Flames were already rebuilding, but some posters actually scoffed at that notion. If you notice, Feaster STOPPED trading away the future for a win-now mentality, and started adding more scouting staff. That was a big sign that the rebuild was at least coming, and he was positioning the organization for it.
That may have been the single most positive contribution to the organization. Edmonton didn't get their ducks in a row before going into a rebuild, and now you see just a mess of a team up north. Calgary did. Darryl does deserve a lot of credit (though many fans refuse to give him any as a GM) for expanding the scouting staff and having developed the prospect philosophy (IQ, Character).
So in truth, this is not the team that Feaster built. It is the team that Sutter, Feaster and now Treliving with his acquisitions have built, along with the scouting and development staff over the years.
People always want to see a 'cut-off' of some sort that starts and ends with someone's hiring and firing. Drafting and development I think is something that is very difficult to do without massive swings in one direction. Everything is constantly evolving. Sutter doesn't get enough recognition for making huge changes to the drafting and development cycle and I think Feaster gets too much. Truth is, that they are BOTH deserving of accolades in that respect. I think you can only judge it on trends.
Also, how do you give credit? Do you think credit should be given for all changes to the GM regardless of what those changes were, or do you give the people underneath the GM credit? For instance, does Feaster get credit for Jooris? I would bet that Feaster was not the one who 'found' the kid and wanted to bring him into camp by himself. Some scout found the kid, and recommended this kid get a look at camp. Once at camp, did Feaster decide on his own to sign him, or was that decision based on what the pro (and perhaps amateur) scouts recommended as the course of action?
I don't know what the correct answer is. I think a lot of people who are very 'pro' Feaster probably give him too much credit for things he didn't do, and the ones that are very anti-Feaster give him too much credit in other areas. I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. Feaster wasn't a great GM, but he wasn't as terrible as others make him out to be. I do think trades hurt him, the ROR fiasco hurt him, and some of his media availabilities where he just says the wrong things (i.e. "Jankowski will be the best player from this draft" type of stuff) made Calgary look a bit like a laughing stock in the league. Saying "The Flames will need to find a new GM if they decide to rebuild", etc. I think ultimately, those were his downfalls.
I really did hate him. I said he was a sneaky snake in the grass when he got hired. I feel what he did to Dudley in Tampa (I believe it was Dudley - correct me if I am wrong) was what he would do to Sutter in Calgary. I just saw him as a slimy car-salesman who would backstab anyone. Even with the Jankowski pick, he knew it was a bit of a controversial pick, and he was sure to distance himself a bit (though he did smugly decide to add the 'best in the draft' comment) from that selection by saying it was Weisbrod's pick.
Personally, I didn't like him much and I thought he was embarrassing at times to the organization. However, he did do a lot of good things for the organization - as did Sutter before him, and even Button, Coates, etc. I am just glad he is gone, and Treliving is in charge at the moment. Of this I am very, very glad.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
On the current Flames roster (http://flames.nhl.com/club/roster.htm) there 8 Sutter era players, 14 Feaster players, and 6 Treliving era players. So it's only a majority depending on how you count the team. On the roster page, it's 50/50.
That must be advanced stats accounting for the roster.
Quote:
That crap organization left behind the crappy pieces of Brodie, Giordano, Bouma, Stajan, Glencross, Ferland, Reinhart and Backlund. So it wasn't all crap?
In an organization with 50 contracts that is all that Sutter had to show? That was a pretty ####ty leave. Compare that to what Feaster left Treliving and Burke. Also, how many of those players were developed in Sutter's system versus Feaster's? You're being obtuse if you think Sutter did anything as far as player development of those left behind. You want to know how bad it was, consider George Johnson's take.
You have to consider that
a) nobody wanted to sign in Calgary
b) He had no idea what kind of roster he had during his first free agency
c) He didn't shell out any long term deals, and everyone was brought in as stop-gaps while he figured out just what he was dealing with.
Come on. That is the general manager's job; to convince players to come to Calgary. Feaster managed to grab Jiri Hudler. WTF was Treliving's excuse? He didn't know the roster? He's a guy that was an Assistant GM in our conference! If he didn't have an idea about the roster he shouldn't have been hired. If a guy doesn't know the roster why is he tossing around three years deals to questionable talent? I also don't know what you call long term? Three years for a team in Calgary's situation is long term.
Quote:
This just isn't true. Johnny had 29 suitors lining up for him hoping he'd play out his college career, everybody knew that. When Burke took over, it put distance between the Gaudreau family and the Flames. Feaster had drafted Gaudreau and the family had developed a relationship with Jay. It made Guy Gaudreau uncomfortable about Johnny's future with the Flames during that transition.
This is complete bull. Gaudreau was not a flight risk because the Flames still owned his rights for another 15 months! No one could have done anything with Gaudreau until the middle of August of 2015. But hey, that was a good false narrative. This article pretty well tells you all you needed to know.
I know a lot of fans were collectively holding their breath waiting for the moment he'd sign. If there was no risk, why was everyone so worried?
Because a lot of fans don't know a helluva lot and need something to worry about ALL the time. This whole topic was discussed ad nauseam on this site, with great detail why there was no risk, and the same uniformed hand wringers continued to wring their hands like the world was coming to an end. Not surprisingly, it was the same bunch that didn't think Gaudreau had the mojo to play in the NHL.
Quote:
You should give Treliving the draft, because it's his draft, and he walked up to the podium and drafted Bennett. No one else. Burke made sure to negotiate that Treliving could be a part of the draft, it seems silly to think that Burke would hire someone for the draft, only to do the draft himself under the guise of Treliving. Burke's name isn't the one attached to Bennett, it will always be Treliving.
Holy ####, do you know how much work goes into the NHL draft for a team? This isn't a situation where you let a guy with little experience run the draft. Yeah, the guy went and called the name at the podium. I suspect that was the extent of his involvement. You yourself said he didn't know the team, so how the hell can you say he was the guy behind the draft? Burke was all about having Treliving involved with the draft because that is a great opportunity to learn about what is in the organization, and what it is lacking, from your pro and amateur scouts. This was a learning opportunity so he would know the team a lot better come free agency.
Quote:
You think the GENERAL MANAGER selects the CAPTAIN?
Yeah, the GM has input into this decision. This isn't pee wee hockey where a popularity contest decides the position. The whole management team has input into who is going to be captain. Here's an article on captaincy and how important it is, with the following money quote.
Unlike other professional sports, the role of captain on an NHL team actually is an important one -- it's even spelled out in the rule book.
Rule 6.1 states: "One Captain shall be appointed by each team, and he alone shall have the privilege of discussing with the Referee any questions relating to interpretation of rules which may arise during the progress of a game."
In addition to the captaincy holding a defined role, there are other, intangible parts of the job. It's the captain who is seen as the team leader, counted on to be accountable to the media and in most cases the public face of the franchise as well as a link between the coach and players.
Quote:
I was just saying that it's plain as day that Monahan and Giordano and gonna be Flames for a very long time, even if their contract status doesn't say so.
Went out on a limb there.
Quote:
You think you can just replace the best shot blocker in the game? 181 Hits and 89 Shot blocks last year. He blocks them with his face for crying out loud. His face.
Anyone can be replaced. ANYONE. For Bouma it could be himself that makes him expendable. He plays the game a certain way that could easily cut his career short. That's completely discounting having players step in and make Bouma expendable. If you can have a 4th line with guys that are strong defensively, and contribute offensively, wouldn't you take that as an improvement and go with it? Arnold and Agostino are perfect 3rd liners, but if there isn't room for them on the 3rd line you happily move them to the 4th. They both have non-stop motors and seem like future NHLers. They are going to make the team at someone's expense, and it's likely going to be a guy on the 4th line. I like Bouma, but I don't like his shelf life based on what else is in the Flames system.
Quote:
None of those players would be vying for the same job as Bouma. He's a big-bodied PK specialist and hitter.
These guys are not even close to the same player. Bollig is a -3 with 31PIMs and he plays 9 minutes a night, 0:05 a night on the PK.
Bouma is +2 with 6PIMs and he plays 12 minutes a night, 1:45 of it on the PK.
You don't healthy scratch Bouma. I just can't believe you'd compare these two players.
They play the same role. There are other players coming in that will play the same role. Accept it. It's the way the NHL works. Role players have a very short shelf life with one team. Bouma is one of my favorites on the Flames, but I recognize that he plays a position that sees a great turnover in talent in a very short period of time. Remember when Brandon Prust was going to be a Flame forever?
Quote:
So, what I really want to know, is who do you give the next long-term deal to?
If I have to pick a favorite probably Sean Monahan or Johnny Gaudreau. I don't know why you have a fixation on long term deals though. What is the point? A player can seem like a really solid investment today, but seem like a bad one two years later. See Jordan Eberle or David Clarkson as examples. As long as the Flames keep their best players, contract length doesn't matter.
North Americans lack a sense of proportion when it comes to the amount of young talent you have.
Here's the 2006 team in light of where the players were drafted.
Canada:
12 first round picks,
4 second round picks
4 third round picks
1 fourth round pick
That's a pretty typical spread for Canada. Maybe they had a couple less household names (top 5-10 picks) than some other years, but other than that there's no question that roster was, as always, one of the best in the tournament.
I understand the quality that Canada sends to the tournament, and if we are throwing stones at fans I would say Euro fans don't realize the quality that Canada is missing each year with guys in the NHL.
However those 12 first round draft picks are not close to as good as the usual guys.
Two goalies were fairly average at best outside of that tournament.
Barker and Bourdon the 2 first rounders on the defense. Barker is/was crap, Bourdon tough to say obviously what he would turn out to be but not the superstar defenseman like with have had. Letang obviously impressive on the defense.
A young Jonathon Toews was the only impressive forward on that team. The others are all very averge to below average.
The team wasn't crap but it was far from a favorite (behind the US and Russia for sure) and in the mix with Sweden/Finland for 3rd best team going into that tournament. They didn't win because of somoe super performance by some they won because they played a great style of game that suited them perfectly.
Can add to much to what's already been said but the main difference between Hartley and Sutter is how they approach a game when holding a lead. Hartley likes to keep his foot on the gas while Brent was always dump it in and back check, back check, back check. 3 years of Brent was utterly frustrating.
Biggest thing for me is the players believe in Hartley and buy into what he is preaching. Under Brent the players looked miserable, confused and disinterested but under Hartley they look like they are having fun. Hartley doesn't seem to mess with what doesn't work, and focuses on winning, where as Brent would continue to try something even if it wasn't working. Hartley, "while not perfect" has done a better job of rewarding players who put in the effort, but Brent kept rewarding players for bad efforts.
I was thinking the other day if Brent coached this team we would be back to micro managing and players looking miserable every time someone made a mistake.
Biggest thing for me is the players believe in Hartley and buy into what he is preaching. Under Brent the players looked miserable, confused and disinterested but under Hartley they look like they are having fun. Hartley doesn't seem to mess with what doesn't work, and focuses on winning, where as Brent would continue to try something even if it wasn't working. Hartley, "while not perfect" has done a better job of rewarding players who put in the effort, but Brent kept rewarding players for bad efforts.
I was thinking the other day if Brent coached this team we would be back to micro managing and players looking miserable every time someone made a mistake.
there are literally 6 players that played in Phoenix on Saturday who ever played for Brent. I bet if Hartley had that god forsaken team that Brent had he would have a team that looked like it was not having any fun either.
