Mario_is_BACK!!
ACK! ACK ACK! ACK!!!
Ron Cook? Really?
Yes, he published a piece on the same exact day. Same day Madden started going in.
Ron Cook? Really?
If you want to argue "he's laid the foundation", ok have at it
But you cannot use "he's never had a losing season" because that's been debunked with Bylsma
Since Sully has come on as coach, do you feel the team has played better or worse in those 4 seasons?
Do you feel most players have improved or regressed during his tenure?
Do you feel players have bought into his system or scoffed at it?
I've said it before that I think Sully is a good coach. But he's not the fit for this team/players anymore. Every coach has an expiration date and Sully's team smells like spoiled milk
if you're pointing at Ron Cook to support any argument you're trying to make, other than "Ron Cook should never be taken seriously", then your argument isn't all that great to begin withYes, he published a piece on the same exact day. Same day Madden started going in.
If we can take anything from this off-season/TDL, it seems to be Sully re-asserting some kind of input or control on what the roster looks like. Danev, Kahun, McCann are all 100% Sully kinds of players.
He has a play style clash with 90% of coaches. They don’t like players that don’t give full effort. Every sport you can say that.
Being a hardass never works in the long run. There’s no coaching method that works in the long run. The athletes of today are not the ones you think they used to be. Things are really different. My Way or the Highway doesn’t work. Catering to successful players does.
No one has provided any concrete evidence or logic train proving Sullivan isn't the fit. But that isn't the right question being asked anyway. The right question to ask is who gives you the best chance to compete for a Cup. Do you want a guy with a proven track record (& the only coach in the league who has won back to back Cups in the salary cap era) or some unknown quantity? And if you want the unknown quantity, why? Since a lot of guys are on here advocating for Sullivan's removal, go ahead & defend your choice from a hockey perspective.
Now to answer your questions...
In the past 4 seasons, it's no question the team has played better. They won 2 Cups. They haven't gotten below 100 points the entire tenure. Short of winning 4 cups in a row (something that hasn't happened since the 80s Islanders), what realistic expectations do you have for this team? This is why I cringe when fans get on here & blame the coach for not having a dynasty run on par with the Oilers/Islanders/Canadiens models.
The players have played better. What did they do prior to him arriving vs now? Back then, we were faced with the real possibility the Crosby/Malkin era would be defined with one Cup win.
Given the success of the team over the past 4 years, they have clearly bought into the system.
So what went wrong last year? Performance issues. Muzz had a down year. Kessel/Malkin had a combined -44. These are your top line players & that just can't happen. Johnson signing was clearly a miss, but his limitations were well known before arrival. He played better as the year went on, but his ceiling wasn't very high to begin with. Letang had a great regular season & then completely fell apart in the playoffs. Note these are not system issues but performance issues. That's on the players, not the coaching staff.
Agreed and I'm not even saying it was the wrong move. If Sully is your coach moving forward, get him players he wants. I question the Kessel for Galchenyuk trade falling under that mantra other than Sully and Kessel's relationship not meshing and time to move on
If you would have said that Mike Sullivan was going to lead us to back to back cups the day he was hired, then you're a liar
If you would have said Dan Bylsma is going to beat the mighty Detroit Red Wings 4 months later, you're also a liar
Point is, Sully was a retread coach at that moment. Dan Bylsma's claim to fame was writing a few books
Successful coaches can come from anywhere. The only true miss you can say under Mario's tenure was Johnston, so it's not like this franchise doesn't know how to pick the right horse
But this franchise fails to know when the horse needs to be put out to pasture. They should have canned Bylsma after the Philly debacle, he lasted 1 more year
Johnston should've been fired in the offseason, again the signs were brutally obvious
Now we have people finally figuring out Sully has lost the room. Would not surprise me if 1 year from today we have a new coach
No they are not different. Players will always chaff at authority. Been the same since sports were invented. The only difference is that coaches now don't bag skate teams anymore. And show me a successful metric where catering to players has resulted in dynasty runs. Show me one example. Bylsma catered to players, EJ catered to players. How did that work out?
But let's look at historical examples:
Montreal: Scotty Bowman
NY Islanders: Al Arbour
Edmonton: Glen Sather
None of these guys catered to players, instead they demanded accountability. As our core ages, relying on talent alone isn't going to happen. You need structure & discipline. Sullivan provides both.
I don't see him lasting longer than Year 2 of the contract. Either the losing (i.e., underachieving in the postseason) will lead both sides to 'mutually' part ways by Year 2 or Year 3, or the players will prompt a change before then.
Yes, he published a piece on the same exact day. Same day Madden started going in.
I don't see him lasting longer than Year 2 of the contract. Either the losing (i.e., underachieving in the postseason) will lead both sides to 'mutually' part ways by Year 2 or Year 3, or the players will prompt a change before then.
Seriously people...anybody quoting Ron Cook for anything hockey related—except for an article on columnists who are clueless about hockey—needs to stop ASAP...
he has zero connections and knows less than nothing about hockey
And there's another 2-3 years (or the end) of Sid/Geno's primes wasted by poor coaching/strategy
if you're pointing at Ron Cook to support any argument you're trying to make, other than "Ron Cook should never be taken seriously", then your argument isn't all that great to begin with
And my point is that 2 other coaches in 2 other organizations have had the same problems with Phil. It is not a Sullivan /Kessel issue. It is a Kessel/Head Coach issue.I'm pointing to it as one of the examples of the "Trade Kessel" drum beginning to beat as soon as Tocchet was out the door. He was far from alone.
And my point is that 2 other coaches in 2 other organizations have had the same problems with Phil. It is not a Sullivan /Kessel issue. It is a Kessel/Head Coach issue.
He's run three players out of town because he didn't like them and didn't want to/didn't know how to communicate with them.
Kessel, Cole, and who else? Im blanking.
Or maybe we win?I don't see him lasting longer than Year 2 of the contract. Either the losing (i.e., underachieving in the postseason) will lead both sides to 'mutually' part ways by Year 2 or Year 3, or the players will prompt a change before then.
He ran Sprong out of town by using our worst wing as if he was our worst wing. Oh boy are we reaching at this pointSprong. You could argue Reaves as well.
He ran Sprong out of town by using our worst wing as if he was our worst wing. Oh boy are we reaching at this point.
Because he sucked.Rutherford said he'd be getting a lot of playing time last year. Sullivan didn't give him a lot of playing time. He forced Rutherford's hand. It worked out, I'm not saying otherwise. But Sullivan absolutely forced him out. He forced Rutherford's hand with Reaves as well.
Or maybe we win?