Confirmed with Link: Sully extended through 22-23 season

How do you feel about this?


  • Total voters
    157
  • Poll closed .

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
It's a highly relevant point that you've overlooked: coaches can be successful for this and any other team (Craig Berube was interim coach)

And those coaches you named weren't tabbed under Mario's regime, so I'm unsure why you've even listed them. Mario and Morehouse have for whatever reason been pretty successful in terms of their appointments. They got Therrien correct in that he provided them structure. They got Bylsma right too and of course Sully. The only notable failure was Johnston

With the exception of Angotti, Lemieux played under them & as we saw back then, he had pull. I forgot Pierre Creamer as well, so throw him on the list.
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
When’s the last time you were around collegiate or professional athletes?

Probably a lot longer ago than I was. Things are very, very different now.

Player psychology hasn't changed one bit. The only thing that has changed is the mediums by which they can broadcast their nonsense. Lemieux was a prima donna, Jagr certainly. Pierre Laroche was a huge prima donna. Players will always be primma donnas & will always need guidance & structure. Otherwise, coaches are superfluous.
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Sprong? Yuck. Sprong could have dealt with himself better.

Cole I agree 100%. I think we pissed away a chance at a 3rd cup with the Brassard deal.

Sprong was a bust from day 1 & still is. Cole was serviceable, but this notion that he was the reincarnation of Larry Robinson or Rod Langway is way over the top. Then again, this is the same board which has advocated for trading Letang, so I'm not surprised.
 

Mario_is_BACK!!

ACK! ACK ACK! ACK!!!
Nov 29, 2003
8,363
7,141
Charleston, SC
www.caseandpointsports.com
Player psychology hasn't changed one bit. The only thing that has changed is the mediums by which they can broadcast their nonsense. Lemieux was a prima donna, Jagr certainly. Pierre Laroche was a huge prima donna. Players will always be primma donnas & will always need guidance & structure. Otherwise, coaches are superfluous.

Player psychology is completely and totally different well beyond your superficial reasoning. Everyone is a brand, everyone has interests beyond just themselves. It’s no longer just about the game but setting yourself up long term with skills, trades and tools beyond retirement. It’s no longer about going to the rink/field/court everyday but meeting with many beyond your work place to further your exposure.

Things are vastly different than they were 30+ years ago in the examples you cited. Players view things differently and treat things differently. The rink/court/field is no longer than main focus, but another piece of the pie through which they live their lives.

Coaches abilities have to evolve as a result. They have to get and understand that it’s not just what they do at the rink anymore and that they have lives beyond their training and conditioning that didn’t exist in your 30+ year old examples.

The atmosphere and environment in which they go to work every day has changed and I’m willing to bet you dollars to donuts those successful coaches you mentioned would either have adjusted to the current mentality or had been quick flame outs for the way they treated their players.

Your continued insistence that things are the same is not based in reality.
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Player psychology is completely and totally different well beyond your superficial reasoning. Everyone is a brand, everyone has interests beyond just themselves. It’s no longer just about the game but setting yourself up long term with skills, trades and tools beyond retirement. It’s no longer about going to the rink/field/court everyday but meeting with many beyond your work place to further your exposure.

You mean like Bo Jackson & Deion Sanders...or even Brian Bosworth for that matter....

Things are vastly different than they were 30+ years ago in the examples you cited. Players view things differently and treat things differently. The rink/court/field is no longer than main focus, but another piece of the pie through which they live their lives.

Exactly, which speaks to a technological shift, not a psychological shift.

Coaches abilities have to evolve as a result. They have to get and understand that it’s not just what they do at the rink anymore and that they have lives beyond their training and conditioning that didn’t exist in your 30+ year old examples.

And you think coaches don't get that today? Wow. I guess you didn't note Sullivan traveling to see Geno a few weeks ago. But here's the thing, athletes have always been prima donnas. Ty Cobb was an egotistical jerk, Joe Namath is probably the best known example of prima donna in football, Pierre Laroche I already mentioned elsewhere. The psychology of these guys has never changed. Only the medium by which we have access has changed.

The atmosphere and environment in which they go to work every day has changed and I’m willing to bet you dollars to donuts those successful coaches you mentioned would either have adjusted to the current mentality or had been quick flame outs for the way they treated their players.

Your continued insistence that things are the same is not based in reality.

Your continued mistake of equating technological change to player psychology isn't based in reality. Players haven't changed one bit psychology wise. Only the medium by which they can now express themselves. If things like 30 for 30, Hard Knocks, Twitter, Instagram, etc., existed 30 years ago, I guarantee you all those characters I mentioned would be no different than the ones we see today...they would be all over it. And the reason is simple....they are all prima donnas. Did you ever see the movie Slap Shot? It's based on minor league hockey back in the day. And there was a lot of truth to it as well.
 

ZeroPucksGiven

Registered User
Feb 28, 2017
6,338
4,275
With the exception of Angotti, Lemieux played under them & as we saw back then, he had pull. I forgot Pierre Creamer as well, so throw him on the list.

Yes because influence as a player (even with Mario's stature) has the same pull as Mario the owner (the guy who freakin signs the checks)

You're so out in left field at this point it's comical
 

Mario_is_BACK!!

ACK! ACK ACK! ACK!!!
Nov 29, 2003
8,363
7,141
Charleston, SC
www.caseandpointsports.com
You mean like Bo Jackson & Deion Sanders...or even Brian Bosworth for that matter....



Exactly, which speaks to a technological shift, not a psychological shift.



And you think coaches don't get that today? Wow. I guess you didn't note Sullivan traveling to see Geno a few weeks ago. But here's the thing, athletes have always been prima donnas. Ty Cobb was an egotistical jerk, Joe Namath is probably the best known example of prima donna in football, Pierre Laroche I already mentioned elsewhere. The psychology of these guys has never changed. Only the medium by which we have access has changed.



Your continued mistake of equating technological change to player psychology isn't based in reality. Players haven't changed one bit psychology wise. Only the medium by which they can now express themselves. If things like 30 for 30, Hard Knocks, Twitter, Instagram, etc., existed 30 years ago, I guarantee you all those characters I mentioned would be no different than the ones we see today...they would be all over it. And the reason is simple....they are all prima donnas. Did you ever see the movie Slap Shot? It's based on minor league hockey back in the day. And there was a lot of truth to it as well.

You really think players caring about outside interests like what they do beyond the game is a “technological shift” and not a full mindset shift? This is pure delusion.
 

Beauner

Registered User
Jun 14, 2011
13,031
6,132
Pittsburgh
You really think players caring about outside interests like what they do beyond the game is a “technological shift” and not a full mindset shift? This is pure delusion.
I think that mindset is much, much more prevalent in NBA and NFL players. There's big money to be made outside the game in those sports. Hockey players are notorious for lack of personality and you don't see them signing massive endorsement deals
 

Mario_is_BACK!!

ACK! ACK ACK! ACK!!!
Nov 29, 2003
8,363
7,141
Charleston, SC
www.caseandpointsports.com
I think that mindset is much, much more prevalent in NBA and NFL players. There's big money to be made outside the game in those sports. Hockey players are notorious for lack of personality and you don't see them signing massive endorsement deals

Players are still focused on things like small companies they may start, charities they’re involved with/started, and even some hometown/low level endorsements they may have that aren’t national. It’s not just an NBA/NFL thing by any means. It may not be as big or visible as those but it’s still very much a consideration/thought.

When I worked in the ECHL these guys were worrying about those things or even finishing school. Hockey was not their sole focus as it was in the past because they’ve all realized they need to plan for life beyond hockey, something that wasn’t really considered 30 years ago.
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
Yes because influence as a player (even with Mario's stature) has the same pull as Mario the owner (the guy who freakin signs the checks)

You're so out in left field at this point it's comical

then you do not understand the history of this franchise or why Gene Ubriaco & Scotty Bowman were let go. Gene Ubriaco was a subpar coach, Scotty Bowman clearly wasn't. However, Ubriaco stated "coaching Lemieux was like trying to teach sharks table manners". Lemieux led the cabal who had Scotty Bowman barred from practice. These are facts, so to say Lemieux had little pull as a player is factually incorrect. Lemieux had plenty of pull in those days.
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
You really think players caring about outside interests like what they do beyond the game is a “technological shift” and not a full mindset shift? This is pure delusion.

players have always had outside interests, mainly about their own brand. They've had endorsement deals forever too. The only difference is the mediums to get that branding message out has grown exponentially. That's a technological shift, not a psychological one. You keep confusing rise of technological means with psychological drive points. The former has changed, the latter has not. It's not different in business. You really think the psychological drives of Bill Gates & Mark Zuckerberg are that drastically different?
 

Mario_is_BACK!!

ACK! ACK ACK! ACK!!!
Nov 29, 2003
8,363
7,141
Charleston, SC
www.caseandpointsports.com
players have always had outside interests, mainly about their own brand. They've had endorsement deals forever too. The only difference is the mediums to get that branding message out has grown exponentially. That's a technological shift, not a psychological one. You keep confusing rise of technological means with psychological drive points. The former has changed, the latter has not. It's not different in business. You really think the psychological drives of Bill Gates & Mark Zuckerberg are that drastically different?

You really don't believe that a technological rise in means for branding and expanding ones prominence is solely a "technological shift" and has zero effect on their psyche? You really, truly believe that? Because if you do I have a bridge in London to sell you.
 

ZeroPucksGiven

Registered User
Feb 28, 2017
6,338
4,275
then you do not understand the history of this franchise or why Gene Ubriaco & Scotty Bowman were let go. Gene Ubriaco was a subpar coach, Scotty Bowman clearly wasn't. However, Ubriaco stated "coaching Lemieux was like trying to teach sharks table manners". Lemieux led the cabal who had Scotty Bowman barred from practice. These are facts, so to say Lemieux had little pull as a player is factually incorrect. Lemieux had plenty of pull in those days.

So because Lemieux banned a coach from practice 30 years ago he somehow doesn't know how to pick a coach as an owner?
This has turned into an complete non sequitor from you
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
So because Lemieux banned a coach from practice 30 years ago he somehow doesn't know how to pick a coach as an owner?
This has turned into an complete non sequitor from you

Owners shouldn't be picking head coaches, that's the GM's job. Otherwise, you have a Jerry Jones/Al Davis scenario. Plus, you are missing the point. Lemieux has always (rightly or wrongly) had tremendous pull on staffing positions as both player & owner.
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
You really don't believe that a technological rise in means for branding and expanding ones prominence is solely a "technological shift" and has zero effect on their psyche? You really, truly believe that? Because if you do I have a bridge in London to sell you.

It merely amplifies what is already there. Ego is eternal, the platform by which said ego is amplified is the change.
 

BHD

Vejmelka for Vezina
Dec 27, 2009
38,124
16,511
Moncton, NB
Let's keep this thread to the players and coaching staff/management. Sports psychology is important, but we might be going off topic just a bit.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,777
7,804
Oblivion Express
Admitting you have a problem is much much different from taking actions to correct it

And what makes you believe that somebody who has identified a past weakness isn't trying to fix said weakness?

It's amazing to me that throughout all these threads not one single person has provided a suitable replacement or alternative to Sullivan. Because coaches that win multiple Stanley Cups just grow on trees like f***ing crab apples.

It's basically, lets bitch about the coach, usually using hyperbolic comments and reasoning, without offering any logical solution.
 

ZeroPucksGiven

Registered User
Feb 28, 2017
6,338
4,275
And what makes you believe that somebody who has identified a past weakness isn't trying to fix said weakness?

It's amazing to me that throughout all these threads not one single person has provided a suitable replacement or alternative to Sullivan. Because coaches that win multiple Stanley Cups just grow on trees like ****ing crab apples.

It's basically, lets ***** about the coach, usually using hyperbolic comments and reasoning, without offering any logical solution.

Well he's run 3 players out of town( sprong, Cole Kessel) so I guess you can say that he hasn't learned
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mario_is_BACK!!

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,777
7,804
Oblivion Express
Well he's run 3 players out of town( sprong, Cole Kessel) so I guess you can say that he hasn't learned

Scotty Bowman ran LOTS of players out of town over the course of his career. He did ok for himself.

And that's assuming that Sullivan was 100% responsible for Kessel not being here anymore and any sane person knows that the blame should be spread around there.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->