John Stevens Shares Darryl Sutter Stories

[DazzlinDino]

Originally Posted by OminousFlames

So what I take from this as well is that.. Tkachuk and Gaudreau left because Sutter made it clear he didn't like it when they top line was more concerned about getting points, than playing for the team?

Maybe thats wht the team came up short. On the subject of Tkachuk he did have thatcyear where he seemed dialed out, vet that didn't sit well with some players. Then he seemed happy once he was promoted to the top line.

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

By all accounts, Flames wanted to move heaven and earth to keep him here and it was all the players choice to leave. If there was a huge rift, doesn’t seem like the club was too worried about it.

Nobody said "huge rift" and maybe even rift was the wrong word. Just concerns surrounding Tkachuk's happiness and the reasoning behind it (rumors of locker room issues).

[mile]

Originally Posted by OminousFlames

So what I take from this as well is that.. Tkachuk and Gaudreau left because Sutter made it clear he didn't like it when they top line was more concerned about getting points, than playing for the team?

They were both going to leave anyways because of location, it didn’t matter who the coach was

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

I don’t buy the wanted out because of Sutter stuff, especially for Johnny. I actually think for Johnny it might have been enticement to stay. But regardless, if Sutter being here contributed to either leaving then all the more reason to be glad they moved on.

And that’s not a chose Sutter over them thing in my mind. That’s just a clear indication they won’t do what it takes to win thing. This group failed time and time again in the absence of hard nose coaches who know how to win. If the presence of one makes any of them walk, I don’t think we want them.

[AC]

Originally Posted by tony-soprano

Sitting close to the Flames bench a few times during playoffs I never realized how pouty Gudbranson was..he seemed to always be bitching at Darryl when asked to do things a certain way. Didn't seem to take too well to constructive criticism from the looks of it, def wasn't surprised when he cashed out on a career year and left.

I wouldn't be so sure.

Gudbranson talked at length that he came here specifically because of Sutter and how much he trusted and valued him after their interactions in Anaheim.

IMO Gudbranson left because someone was willing to pay him $16M!

[joejoe3]

Originally Posted by AC

I wouldn't be so sure.

Gudbranson talked at length that he came here specifically because of Sutter and how much he trusted and valued him after their interactions in Anaheim.

IMO Gudbranson left because someone was willing to pay him $16M!

Gudbranson should be thanking Sutter for achieving his career year, Sutter net him that stability and a $16M contract.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I don’t buy the wanted out because of Sutter stuff, especially for Johnny. I actually think for Johnny it might have been enticement to stay. But regardless, if Sutter being here contributed to either leaving then all the more reason to be glad they moved on.

And that’s not a chose Sutter over them thing in my mind. That’s just a clear indication they won’t do what it takes to win thing. This group failed time and time again in the absence of hard nose coaches who know how to win. If the presence of one makes any of them walk, I don’t think we want them.

This core had quit on just about every coach they have had, hard nose or not. Initial success followed up by disappointment. Hartley, GG, Peters, Ward all had this happen. Now pretty much everyone is gone from the Hartley era so maybe this trend starts to reverse. NHL coaches do seem to have extremely short shelf lives, but even shorter here.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This core had quit on just about every coach they have had, hard nose or not. Initial success followed up by disappointment. Hartley, GG, Peters, Ward all had this happen. Now pretty much everyone is gone from the Hartley era so maybe this trend starts to reverse. NHL coaches do seem to have extremely short shelf lives, but even shorter here.

I don't think they ever quit on Hartley or Peters tbh.

In the case of Hartley, it's complicated of course because of the previous year's success, but I remember that year. They had a tough start as Brodie was out and the Giordano-Hamilton pair was worse together than any pair we rolled in last year's Oilers series. And they basically fought league-worst goaltending the rest of the way. If Hartley wanted more out of that team, he probably needed to change the systems, not get more commitment to his.

Peters's second year was a rough start, sure, but a small sample size of middling play, and their best defenseman had declined from a calendar year prior. Peters wouldn't have been on the hot seat if not for the reasons we're all aware of.

And GG / Wards deserved to be quit on. Ward's systems were non-existent, and GG was a caricature who kept square-pegging things that weren't working all year long (and even then, the team probably makes the playoffs if not for injuries towards the end)

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by joejoe3

Gudbranson should be thanking Sutter for achieving his career year, Sutter net him that stability and a $16M contract.

Gudbranson is basically catnip to old school hockey guys. He's big, fights, can skate a bit, handsome, and a defenseman. They go crazy for guys like him.

He's always been a 5/6 guy at best but managed to get drafted 3rd overall and has landed contracts of 2 years x 2.5M (Dale Tallon); 1 x $3.5M (Tallon), 1 x $3.5M (Jim Benning) 3 x $4m (Benning) and now 4 x $4m.

[Buff]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This core had quit on just about every coach they have had, hard nose or not. Initial success followed up by disappointment. Hartley, GG, Peters, Ward all had this happen. Now pretty much everyone is gone from the Hartley era so maybe this trend starts to reverse. NHL coaches do seem to have extremely short shelf lives, but even shorter here.

I think nearly everyone in today's NHL would have quit on Hartley. He is a hard and demanding coach and does no seem to be fair with many if not most players. Darryl is hard and demanding but he is very fair with players who want to buy in.

Glue gun was a poor hire. Brilliant hockey mind but not strong enough to lead a team to sustained success.

Ward was a stop gap coach. Career assistant. Not really head coach material at the NHL level.

Oh, and Peters. Turned out his past came back to haunt him. I would have liked to see what happened the year he stepped down. Demanding coach but apparently a jerk. Hasn't had success at the NHL level. Can probably do the job under the right circumstances.

Sutter. Top level coach. Can work with any roster. Too bad it didn't work out to hire him earlier. Of those previous coaches, only Hartley came close to Sutter's level but as I mentioned he was a jerk whose bullying ways are no longer welcome in n today's NHL.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I don't think they ever quit on Hartley or Peters tbh.

In the case of Hartley, it's complicated of course because of the previous year's success, but I remember that year. They had a tough start as Brodie was out and the Giordano-Hamilton pair was worse together than any pair we rolled in last year's Oilers series. And they basically fought league-worst goaltending the rest of the way. If Hartley wanted more out of that team, he probably needed to change the systems, not get more commitment to his.

Peters's second year was a rough start, sure, but a small sample size of middling play, and their best defenseman had declined from a calendar year prior. Peters wouldn't have been on the hot seat if not for the reasons we're all aware of.

And GG / Wards deserved to be quit on. Ward's systems were non-existent, and GG was a caricature who kept square-pegging things that weren't working all year long (and even then, the team probably makes the playoffs if not for injuries towards the end)

So two coaches that deserved to be quit on. I look at it a little differently, these guys are pros and it is their livelihood.

Peters I am 100% convinced they quit on, they absolutely hated that guy by the second season. He deserves to be quit on probably more than any of them. He was a dick before his racism came to light.

Hartley agreed is tricky, since much of his success could be attributed to luck.

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

This core had quit on just about every coach they have had, hard nose or not. Initial success followed up by disappointment. Hartley, GG, Peters, Ward all had this happen. Now pretty much everyone is gone from the Hartley era so maybe this trend starts to reverse. NHL coaches do seem to have extremely short shelf lives, but even shorter here.

I’m not sure they quit on any of the coaches.

Did they ever start with GG and Ward? Just bad all the way through. Not sure they quit on Hartley vs Hartley simply wasn’t that good, and neither was the team at that point, just a lucky season. Although I’d say it might have been luck, but Hartley got the most out of rebuilding roster.

Peter’s, they may have quit on although the way it ended well never know. Was that them quitting or just them in n their journey to playing properly?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by OminousFlames

So what I take from this as well is that.. Tkachuk and Gaudreau left because Sutter made it clear he didn't like it when they top line was more concerned about getting points, than playing for the team?

This is pure conjecture, and I wont speculate about Tkachuk, but I do wonder if thats an ancillary reason for Johnny to leave.

Gaudreau had a career year, but I bet it was hard. The demands were high. Maybe he just wanted to cash in and play out his career someplace where nobody cares? 8 more years of that kind of work, effort and pressure?

Being one of the top players in the league is hard work. Or...pot some flashy goals in Columbus for a King's ransom?

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Locke

This is pure conjecture, and I wont speculate about Tkachuk, but I do wonder if thats an ancillary reason for Johnny to leave.

Gaudreau had a career year, but I bet it was hard. The demands were high. Maybe he just wanted to cash in and play out his career someplace where nobody cares? 8 more years of that kind of work, effort and pressure?

Being one of the top players in the league is hard work. Or...pot some flashy goals in Columbus for a King's ransom?

Thinking back, I'm beginning to see what you're saying. Gaudreau loves playing hockey, loves to score goals and setting up goals. Other than that, I didn't see much else from him. He doesn't seem to push himself too much, like to be the fittest or one of the fittest guy. I give him credit though that he did try to do what Sutter asked him like play a 200 ft game. That must be a lot of hard work, and may be he's just tired of it.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Cleveland Steam Whistle

I’m not sure they quit on any of the coaches.

Did they ever start with GG and Ward? Just bad all the way through. Not sure they quit on Hartley vs Hartley simply wasn’t that good, and neither was the team at that point, just a lucky season. Although I’d say it might have been luck, but Hartley got the most out of rebuilding roster.

Peter’s, they may have quit on although the way it ended well never know. Was that them quitting or just them in n their journey to playing properly?

A significant decline in performance and results for three consecutive coaches compared from year 1 to year 2. Is it quitting on a coach? That is a term I used somewhat flippantly and in truth it's probably too harsh. But I doubt it's coincidence.

[GioforPM]

Oh, they quit on Hartley. They were not a good team either, but they quit, and they complained to the GM about him as well.

[jayswin]

I put Hartely in a different category. From everything we've heard he was borderline abusive, if not fully, and loved embarrassing players.

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by tony-soprano

Sitting close to the Flames bench a few times during playoffs I never realized how pouty Gudbranson was..he seemed to always be bitching at Darryl when asked to do things a certain way. Didn't seem to take too well to constructive criticism from the looks of it, def wasn't surprised when he cashed out on a career year and left.

This is very surprising to me

[tony-soprano]

Originally Posted by AC

I wouldn't be so sure.

Gudbranson talked at length that he came here specifically because of Sutter and how much he trusted and valued him after their interactions in Anaheim.

IMO Gudbranson left because someone was willing to pay him $16M!

Originally Posted by activeStick

This is very surprising to me

Purely based on my observation from my viewpoint; unexpected for me as well but the view watching from tv is different. Also, I haven't listened to the interview AC mentioned.

[GioforPM]

Gudbranson might just feel senior enough and trust Sutter enough to have back and forth discussions on the bench. Which aren’t bitching or pouting, just on the job communications.