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

[Report] Flames sign head coach Darryl Sutter to contract extension

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Gotta be in the mix consistently to build up experience though, you almost never see teams come out of nowhere and suddenly go deep. That being said, I don't believe in the "get to the playoffs and anything can happen" narrative because it's not enough to just get there, you've got to get there and stay there consistently. We got in during the bubble and had a fun run that got everyone all amped up, and then we flubbed it the next two seasons.  

 

Getting to the playoffs is a great step, but the goal has to be able to do it consistently. People go on and on about how the goal is the cup but it's still typically the teams who are top teams year after year who go deep, sixteen teams make the playoffs every season and the odds are always going to be against you, this is why consistency is key. 

 

Building a sustainably competitive team is what eventually gets teams deep, Calgary should be a top team again but as an older team their window is likely shorter. But building a sustainably competitive team isn't easy, it requires drafting and developing well, making good value signings and trades, luck, and knowing when to hold on or cut bait. 

 

At getting to the playoffs, sure. But doing damage once actually there? I don't buy that narrative. Just because anything can happen doesn't mean it's likely. More often than not the cream rises to the top, and then every once in a while you get teams that surprise a bit and go deep like Dallas and Montreal. 

Welp just like how you don't believe the narrative of magical runs, I don't believe success over a decade ago translates to success now when the time matter most! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Sutter is one of those coaches that knows how to adapt his coaching style no matter the era. Granted, he has a lot of the good players needed to work with, but he seems to add a sense of stability no matter the team he's coaching.

 

It's almost similar to JR in terms of management that no matter the age, they're good at identifying what works in the current game. 

 

Those are the signs of good coaches/executives. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mustard Tiger said:

Welp just like how you don't believe the narrative of magical runs, I don't believe success over a decade ago translates to success now when the time matter most! 

I suppose that depends on how you personally measure success. If your bar is nothing less than a cup you're very familiar with failure as a Canucks fan. On the other hand, Sutter just coached the Flames to 50 wins last season, lead the division, and made the playoffs. Is that the ultimate success of winning a cup? Nah, but only one team a year gets to do that. 

 

If the Canucks make the playoffs this year and rattle off 40-50 wins only to get knocked out in the first round I'll still consider the season a success. End result or not, that'd be a season to be proud of and a step forward for an organization that hasn't had sustained regular season success in a very long time. 

Edited by Coconuts
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I suppose that depends on how you personally measure success. If your bar is nothing less than a cup you're very familiar with failure as a Canucks fan. On the other hand, Sutter just coached the Flames to 50 wins last season, lead the division, and made the playoffs. Is that the ultimate success of winning a cup? Nah, but only one team a year gets to do that. 

 

If the Canucks make the playoffs this year and rattle off 40-50 wins only to get knocked out in the first round I'll still consider the season a success. End result or not, that'd be a season to be proud of and a step forward for an organization that hasn't had sustained regular season success in a very long time. 

At the end of the day it will be interesting to see if they can meet expectations after massive turn over in the top end guys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mustard Tiger said:

At the end of the day it will be interesting to see if they can meet expectations after massive turn over in the top end guys

Oh def, I've never seen a team have two top players depart in the same offseason and come back looking capable of being close to just as good or better the following season, obviously they've gotta perform on ice but what Treliving was able to do is remarkable 

 

If the Flames make the playoffs one has gotta think Treliving will win GM of the year for how he was able to navigate the offseason, things could have gone so much worse 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Coconuts said:

Gotta be in the mix consistently to build up experience though, you almost never see teams come out of nowhere and suddenly go deep. That being said, I don't believe in the "get to the playoffs and anything can happen" narrative because it's not enough to just get there, you've got to get there and stay there consistently. We got in during the bubble and had a fun run that got everyone all amped up, and then we flubbed it the next two seasons.  

 

Getting to the playoffs is a great step, but the goal has to be able to do it consistently. People go on and on about how the goal is the cup but it's still typically the teams who are top teams year after year who go deep, sixteen teams make the playoffs every season and the odds are always going to be against you, this is why consistency is key. 

 

Building a sustainably competitive team is what eventually gets teams deep, Calgary should be a top team again but as an older team their window is likely shorter. But building a sustainably competitive team isn't easy, it requires drafting and developing well, making good value signings and trades, luck, and knowing when to hold on or cut bait. 

 

At getting to the playoffs, sure. But doing damage once actually there? I don't buy that narrative. Just because anything can happen doesn't mean it's likely. More often than not the cream rises to the top, and then every once in a while you get teams that surprise a bit and go deep like Dallas and Montreal. 

I understand what you mean, but that would have been more true if they had kept JG and MT. Huberdeau is how old? He's got 29 playoff games to his name (10 of those last year) and was an absolute non-factor last postseason after having what most would probably consider his career year on an absolutely stacked team. Just tough to see Calgary get past the hump, especially when McDavid proved he can single handedly dismantle them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

I understand what you mean, but that would have been more true if they had kept JG and MT. Huberdeau is how old? He's got 29 playoff games to his name (10 of those last year) and was an absolute non-factor last postseason after having what most would probably consider his career year on an absolutely stacked team. Just tough to see Calgary get past the hump, especially when McDavid proved he can single handedly dismantle them.

I mean, McDavid can single handedly dismantle just about any team on a night to night basis. I don't think looking at what happened to the Flames as something that just any team could do makes sense when McDavid is the most dangerous offensive player in the league and Draisaitl is arguably a top 5 player as well. Markstrom wasn't good enough and that combination absolutely shredded the Flames. Context matters, it's not as simple as Flames eliminated Flames and Sutter bad. 

 

Hard to get playoff reps in playing for a team that's made the playoffs 4 times in 10 years. Playoff reps are as much a team thing as a player thing. And again, context. Panthers ran into a dynasty team in Tampa two seasons in a row and predictably got ousted. I thought the Panthers would have put up more of a fight this past season but there's no writing off that Tampa team as a typical playoff matchup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

I mean, McDavid can single handedly dismantle just about any team on a night to night basis. I don't think looking at what happened to the Flames as something that just any team could do makes sense when McDavid is the most dangerous offensive player in the league and Draisaitl is arguably a top 5 player as well. Markstrom wasn't good enough and that combination absolutely shredded the Flames. Context matters, it's not as simple as Flames eliminated Flames and Sutter bad. 

 

Hard to get playoff reps in playing for a team that's made the playoffs 4 times in 10 years. Playoff reps are as much a team thing as a player thing. And again, context. Panthers ran into a dynasty team in Tampa two seasons in a row and predictably got ousted. I thought the Panthers would have put up more of a fight this past season but there's no writing off that Tampa team as a typical playoff matchup. 

Colorado made a very quick mockery of McDavid and the Oilers days after the Oilers embarrassed the Flames though. It's very simple, the Flames play bad in the playoffs. It's been consistent since 2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, HorvatToBaertschi said:

Colorado made a very quick mockery of McDavid and the Oilers days after the Oilers embarrassed the Flames though. It's very simple, the Flames play bad in the playoffs. It's been consistent since 2015

Sure, but Colorado was jockeying for top team in the league all year long, I'd argue they even made a juggernaut in Tampa look bad at times. Calgary was a team I'd have said was better than Edmonton but Edmonton's stars flipped the script and Markstrom simply wasn't the same player that series he'd been during the regular season. They'll likely be a very good team again and maybe redeem themselves, who knows. 

 

But I fully expect them to lead the division again, and if folks are going to combine the words Canucks and contention Calgary's arguably ahead of us. They're built to go for it over the next few years, time will tell us how that goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Sure, but Colorado was jockeying for top team in the league all year long, I'd argue they even made a juggernaut in Tampa look bad at times. Calgary was a team I'd have said was better than Edmonton but Edmonton's stars flipped the script and Markstrom simply wasn't the same player that series he'd been during the regular season. They'll likely be a very good team again and maybe redeem themselves, who knows. 

 

But I fully expect them to lead the division again, and if folks are going to combine the words Canucks and contention Calgary's arguably ahead of us. They're built to go for it over the next few years, time will tell us how that goes. 

Sounds like the Flames since 2015. What a fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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