In terms of “better career”:
1) Maurice has coached over 30% more games than Sutter, which is kind of a crazy stat. In a couple of years, Maurice will pass Scotty Bowman as the #1 most tenured coach in history.
2) Sutter has generally had more to work with. His early years in Chicago, that roster had tons of talent and didn’t go anywhere. Likewise his Sharks had talent up and down the lineup but were surprisingly never a 100-point team and never got past the second round. His first run in Calgary and then in LA, the teams (and era) were maybe better suited to his style and he had some deep runs. Then the second run in Calgary, there was that one brief window where everyone peaked at the same time, but otherwise he had a pretty mediocre run considering the amount of talent on those clubs.
Compare to Maurice whose run in Hartford was one of the most unfavorable situations any coach could land in. But he did get that team to a Finals appearance against all expectations. Toronto went the same way for him as it does with every other coach, then he goes back to a mediocre Carolina club and takes them on another Cinderella run. Goes to a Winnipeg franchise in turmoil and gets them back on track, then goes to Florida and makes the Panthers a quasi-dynasty comparable to Sutter’s Kings.
At their best they got around the same level of results. To me the distinction is that Maurice consistently got a little more out of his teams than you’d expect, while Sutter consistently got a little less.
