Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Did Darryl Sutter Have Any Impact?


tera_ha

Recommended Posts

Did Darryl Sutter have any impact on the king's success?

I would love to see John Tortorella and Darryl Sutter head to head just like 2004 Cup finals in which Calgary lost to Tampa Bay in Game 7

I am cheering for Phoenix even though I think that LA has a better chance of comping out of conference finals. Reason for cheering For Coyotes is pretty simple. Their Goaltender and Captain are both Canadians. It is opposite for states

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A change behind the boards was going to happen anyway and was needed. If for no other reason than to simply wake the boys up, because, coach Murray wasn't necessarily "the problem". I don't believe so, anyway. GM Dean Lombardi's bacon was also reportedly in the fire as well, so, it wasn't like he was going to fire himself, right? So, he made the most logical move and brought in a coach he had already worked with in San Jose in the form of coach Sutter.

I have a difficult time understanding how anyone connect to or who follows the Canucks can suggest that the players have tuned AV out, when that appears to be what happened to coach Murray in Los Angeles. No coach who takes his club to Game 7 of the SCF and back-to-back Presidents Trophies gets "tuned out" by his players. Murray had no such success with the Kings, but, nonetheless, played a HUGE role in preparing them for the team they are today. He was the right hire for the job at the time it was vacant, but, he also had to go when he was sacked, as they had a tendency to appear lifeless and at times, dead in the water. He served his purpose, though, by turning them into a defence-oriented club (ranked #2 in the NHL this season, behind St. Louis), and their success at that is a direct effect of his emphasis on that aspect of the game.

Sutter, by contrast, gives them the task master they apparently needed behind the boards, as opposed to coach Murray and his on-ice whiteboard talks he was supposedly so known for. I'm not sure how much of their late season success can be directly attributed to coach Sutter (I think more credit should actually go to Lombardi, just as more blame in Vancouver should go to Mike Gillis), but, I don't think coach Murray is getting enough of the credit for turning them into the team we see today. At least, on defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We completely sucked for the first game, but considering how the team had been playing since the trade deadline.. I would say that games 2-5 were more or less on the right level of play.

Bottom line is, you don't get to the Stanley Cup Conference Finals by just luck. Give credit where credit is due.. they knocked out the 1st and 2nd seeds in the league and are now huge cup favorites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have the best regular season team in the league, 2 presidents trophies are proof. No one can argue that. However there is less than a half dozen players that play with intensity or heart come playoff time. Proof of that is on the golf course. The better team won, I'm fine with that as I have been with watching this team for the last 23 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you read my post wrong. I said, if the Canucks played their A-Game (like last year).. they would have won. Yea, LA is playing great in this year's playoffs, but i was countering the previous post that said "LA B-game > Canucks A-game". If that was the case, Canucks would have won definitely.

Is that why you said LA is a better team that is built for the playoffs? LA's playoff track is much worser than Canucks.. Heck they didnt even made the playoffs 6 times in 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Sutter had an impact. He brought in a no-nonsense, confident, no excuses approach - it was obviously a shake up that wound up motivating some sleeping players, and for the hard-nosed core of players on that team, the discipline suits them just fine. He seems to have commanded a certain amount of respect and cohesion.

I think Lombardi got a little lucky there - he assembled what seemed like a patchwork or mismatched characters (guys like Brown, Mitchell, Kopitar, Greene on one hand, Carter, Penner, Richards on the other...) but they have fit together quite nicely in the end and Sutter has to have something to do with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Sutter had an impact. He brought in a no-nonsense, confident, no excuses approach - it was obviously a shake up that wound up motivating some sleeping players, and for the hard-nosed core of players on that team, the discipline suits them just fine. He seems to have commanded a certain amount of respect and cohesion.

I think Lombardi got a little lucky there - he assembled what seemed like a patchwork or mismatched characters (guys like Brown, Mitchell, Kopitar, Greene on one hand, Carter, Penner, Richards on the other...) but they have fit together quite nicely in the end and Sutter has to have something to do with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A change behind the boards was going to happen anyway and was needed. If for no other reason than to simply wake the boys up, because, coach Murray wasn't necessarily "the problem". I don't believe so, anyway. GM Dean Lombardi's bacon was also reportedly in the fire as well, so, it wasn't like he was going to fire himself, right? So, he made the most logical move and brought in a coach he had already worked with in San Jose in the form of coach Sutter.

I have a difficult time understanding how anyone connect to or who follows the Canucks can suggest that the players have tuned AV out, when that appears to be what happened to coach Murray in Los Angeles. No coach who takes his club to Game 7 of the SCF and back-to-back Presidents Trophies gets "tuned out" by his players. Murray had no such success with the Kings, but, nonetheless, played a HUGE role in preparing them for the team they are today. He was the right hire for the job at the time it was vacant, but, he also had to go when he was sacked, as they had a tendency to appear lifeless and at times, dead in the water. He served his purpose, though, by turning them into a defence-oriented club (ranked #2 in the NHL this season, behind St. Louis), and their success at that is a direct effect of his emphasis on that aspect of the game.

Sutter, by contrast, gives them the task master they apparently needed behind the boards, as opposed to coach Murray and his on-ice whiteboard talks he was supposedly so known for. I'm not sure how much of their late season success can be directly attributed to coach Sutter (I think more credit should actually go to Lombardi, just as more blame in Vancouver should go to Mike Gillis), but, I don't think coach Murray is getting enough of the credit for turning them into the team we see today. At least, on defence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...