Official Darryl Sutter for Blues coach bandwagon thread

KingsHockey24

Registered User
Aug 1, 2013
13,947
12,249
I believe Sutter was wanting to retire and just work on his farm after leaving LA. I could be wrong though.
 

PiggySmalls

Oink Oink MF
Mar 7, 2015
6,107
3,516
AV being available would be the only reason I can think Yeo is gone. If Stillman and Army wants a name brand HC, it is AV all day long. I’m just hoping Calgary has someone else on their radar. If Caps lose early, I doubt Trotz will have his contract renewed. Those are the only 2 NHL coaches that will be likely available. I think Coach Q not getting fired saved a lot of people from getting fired.
 

kruz12

Registered User
Apr 4, 2018
35
22
I know canucks fans didnt agree with AV near the end of his stint becuase of his poor handling of their young prospects. Not enough ice time or any really to develop some of their young up and comers and instead insisted on giving mediocre AHL lifers high minutes
 

mw2noobbuster

Registered User
Jun 28, 2016
3,835
3,385
Alberta, Canada
I'd take AV over Sutter if I'm being honest. Sutter just screams Hitchcock to me. But maybe he's what it takes to make this team play defense again, who knows at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bendak

Mike Liut

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Feb 12, 2008
19,285
8,826
I know canucks fans didnt agree with AV near the end of his stint becuase of his poor handling of their young prospects. Not enough ice time or any really to develop some of their young up and comers and instead insisted on giving mediocre AHL lifers high minutes


Rangers too. Favored vets over youngsters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bendak

Dbrownss

Registered User
Jan 5, 2014
31,359
8,734
Rangers too. Favored vets over youngsters.
I dont know the extent of which rookies, but I cant think of any high profile ones. Buchnavich still seems to struggle and the eye test says Tarasenko but only a fraction of the talent. I think I read some not like his usage of Skjei...not sure though
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bendak

BlueDream

Registered User
Aug 30, 2011
25,684
14,073
Ok let's be real here, while I don't like Yeo's handling of youngsters, it wouldn't be as big of a deal if we were winning games.

So if AV can get the team to play good hockey, that's the top priority to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dbrownss

bleedblue1223

Registered User
Jan 21, 2011
51,762
14,675
Ok let's be real here, while I don't like Yeo's handling of youngsters, it wouldn't be as big of a deal if we were winning games.

So if AV can get the team to play good hockey, that's the top priority to me.
Right. I favor wins over loses.
 

wannabebluesplayer

Registered User
Apr 16, 2012
1,359
466
I am actually hoping Muller, Bannister, and AV would be 3rd. Sutter is another Hitch and lived off of Kopitar, Carter, Doughty, and Quick. The latter two, the Blues don’t have.
 

Halak Ness Monster

Registered User
Nov 11, 2010
2,531
1,447
St. Louis, MO
Someone will have to explain to me what the problem with Ken Hitchcock was.

We played structured, lock down defense and won 50 games a year. I would kill to have this team playing Hitch Hockey.

We didn't win a Cup because our top centers were Backes, Stastny, and Berglund, our goalies absolutely crumbled, and we had to play LA and Chicago and very few teams beat them.

Hitchcock took the Blues further than the great Joel Quenneville ever did(by one game in the WCF).

I'd love to see what Hitchcock could do with this team now that both our centers are better than anyone we've had in 15 years. I guarantee you we'd see much better hockey. Assuming the players don't tune him out for no reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MortiestOfMortys

TK 421

Barbashev eats babies pass it on
Sep 12, 2007
6,445
6,090
Someone will have to explain to me what the problem with Ken Hitchcock was.

We played structured, lock down defense and won 50 games a year. I would kill to have this team playing Hitch Hockey.

We didn't win a Cup because our top centers were Backes, Stastny, and Berglund, our goalies absolutely crumbled, and we had to play LA and Chicago and very few teams beat them.

Hitchcock took the Blues further than the great Joel Quenneville ever did(by one game in the WCF).

I'd love to see what Hitchcock could do with this team now that both our centers are better than anyone we've had in 15 years. I guarantee you we'd see much better hockey. Assuming the players don't tune him out for no reason.

It seemed to me that Hitch felt the need to change his system to push us over the hump and it backfired. That tight defensive zone play we had become accustomed to under him dissappear ed overnight.

Great coach prior to that fateful decision and yeah having Yeo really makes you appreciate what Hitchcock did for the Blues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halak Ness Monster

MortiestOfMortys

Registered User
Jun 27, 2015
4,740
1,702
Denver, CO
Someone will have to explain to me what the problem with Ken Hitchcock was.

We played structured, lock down defense and won 50 games a year. I would kill to have this team playing Hitch Hockey.

We didn't win a Cup because our top centers were Backes, Stastny, and Berglund, our goalies absolutely crumbled, and we had to play LA and Chicago and very few teams beat them.

Hitchcock took the Blues further than the great Joel Quenneville ever did(by one game in the WCF).

I'd love to see what Hitchcock could do with this team now that both our centers are better than anyone we've had in 15 years. I guarantee you we'd see much better hockey. Assuming the players don't tune him out for no reason.

People were too busy complaining to appreciate the success we had under Hitch. I still don’t think anybody really appreciates that we went to the WCF with him, with a team that was by just about every measure (other than goaltending) weaker than the team that Quenneville brought there way back when.

But Hitch hockey is dead and gone, we saw that with Dallas last year. Part of that was buy-in and execution, we had guys that were born into it and knew how to do it. Trying to do an about-face with that squad was a lost cause. Montgomery is a much better fit for them.

The good news is we still have some of those guys around, and in the right scheme they can and will flourish. The personnel is not the issue. Whoever thought man-to-man is the way to go is crazy, but the fact that it is persisting across coaches (Sydor and Van Ryn, Hitch and Yeo) makes me wonder where the direction is coming from. When we dropped the man-to-man after firing Hitch, we excelled, and with a stronger and healthier roster we would have gone deeper in the playoffs probably. I have no idea why we’re going back to it now, but it’s a problem for sure. Yeo was there for that, so I’m not sure why we’re trying it again now.

Once the D gets sorted out, we’ll be A-ok. I’m not sure a coaching change is the solution per se, but it’s worth noting that the PP is looking good and this was a central criticism of Yeo going into the season. If we sort out the defense there will be no reason to change the coach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halak Ness Monster

BlueDream

Registered User
Aug 30, 2011
25,684
14,073
Someone will have to explain to me what the problem with Ken Hitchcock was.

We played structured, lock down defense and won 50 games a year. I would kill to have this team playing Hitch Hockey.

We didn't win a Cup because our top centers were Backes, Stastny, and Berglund, our goalies absolutely crumbled, and we had to play LA and Chicago and very few teams beat them.

Hitchcock took the Blues further than the great Joel Quenneville ever did(by one game in the WCF).

I'd love to see what Hitchcock could do with this team now that both our centers are better than anyone we've had in 15 years. I guarantee you we'd see much better hockey. Assuming the players don't tune him out for no reason.
Because coaches can't coach forever and he's now retired? Dallas did not do well with him either, btw.

He had a good run in the NHL. But that's over.
 

mw2noobbuster

Registered User
Jun 28, 2016
3,835
3,385
Alberta, Canada
Someone will have to explain to me what the problem with Ken Hitchcock was.

We played structured, lock down defense and won 50 games a year. I would kill to have this team playing Hitch Hockey.

We didn't win a Cup because our top centers were Backes, Stastny, and Berglund, our goalies absolutely crumbled, and we had to play LA and Chicago and very few teams beat them.

Hitchcock took the Blues further than the great Joel Quenneville ever did(by one game in the WCF).

I'd love to see what Hitchcock could do with this team now that both our centers are better than anyone we've had in 15 years. I guarantee you we'd see much better hockey. Assuming the players don't tune him out for no reason.
The league was changing to a faster and quicker style and Hitch was left behind in the dust with an outdated system. The offensive output was slowly fading under his system and it was only reinforced by the disappointing season Dallas had under his tutelage despite the offensive talent they had. I liked Hitch, the team played great defense under him for many years, but it started to fall apart and he lost the locker room. Not to mention many first round exits especially the embarrassing first round exit to the Wild in 2015 with a vastly superior team. Out coached by yours truly, Michael Yeo.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->