Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Penguins off day talk thread: Yes, Sully is still the coach

Status
Not open for further replies.
0*ZjYSm_q36J4KChdn
 
  • Like
Reactions: Randy Butternubs, Pens x, eXile3 and 2 others
Victor Z said:
The prior ownership (Burkle/Morehouse) were big-time pinkos and they made changes when necessary. Maybe they left the hockey decisions to actual hockey people and knew when to stay out of the way?

John Henry is right there with the previous owners politically, but that's hardly the reason why the love the smell of Sully's .
Click to expand...
They don't just like Sully, they have GREAT reverence for him. They view him as an institution here. Their actions, including that pre mature extension speak to that.
 
Icarium said:
Yes but what if we end up giving the Sharks the 8th overall pick rather than the 14th?!? Wouldn't that be a calamity of biblical proportions?!?

Seriously, the justifications for postponing any and all radical changes into some vague future are becoming ever more desperate. I can see why a GM might need to talk like that, lest he ruffles someone's feathers, but why do posters on an internet board? Yes, the WBS options are not too exciting. But still the chance of them actually surprising us positively is far greater than Harkins learning how to score goals or Carter finding the fountain of youth. You roll the dice if you have nothing much to lose.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I fail to see what would be so bad about us doing a proper evaluation of what we have in WB/S and then either clearing house or maybe even finding something cheap we can use for the next year.
 
SEALBound said:
Agreed. To be fair though - list out who we have in WBS and we'll see that we've largely went through them all at one point or another. The only maybes are Frasca, Svejkovsky, Ansons, and Andonovski (There's Poulin but he's hurt). That's pretty lean group to make the comparison to. As much as I hate Sullivan and Jeff Carter, I can at least understand why Sullivan would take Carter over Ansons for example.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't think what this team has going on in the prospect pool is any great shakes. At least insofar as what is NHL-available. But can we truly say that what we HAVE seen has gotten a fair shake? Some I'm fine moving on from as "nothing there" but certainly not all.

If this team really wanted a youth movement they could have already started it and results wouldn't be any worse is what I'm saying. But that's just a thing for them to say. Mike Sullivan isn't going to play youth at least to any degree that offers them a chance at success.
 
DesertedPenguin said:
I don't think you need to change coaches to make a fair assessment of a player's ability to contribute at the NHL level. That's what you have a scouting staff for. They assess players on other teams with bad coaches all of the time.
Click to expand...
Well, they've had 53 games to do that already.

Now they have 29 more games they could see what they look like under a good coach....or at least a different coach.

More data is better.
 
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Sullivan is here after Sid retires. Not hoping for that, but it could happen.
 
SEALBound said:
Another thing I will say is that, clearly the roster has been constructed in the:

Scoring line 1
Scoring line 2
Defensive line 1
Defensive line 2

Mold which is as problematic as anything. So if you have the whole in the bottom 6 and you've dedicated that line to defense, then yeah, you are going to bring up the guy that fills that role the best. It's why Puustinen on the 3rd/4th line is so cringy.

Now this is a general, structural problem that is 100% a Sullivan issue.
Click to expand...
It's also something that Dubas specifically addressed and suggested he wouldn't do again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MeinerEiner, Andy99 and SEALBound
BlindWillyMcHurt said:
Oh I don't think what this team has going on in the prospect pool is any great shakes. At least insofar as what is NHL-available. But can we truly say that what we HAVE seen has gotten a fair shake? Some I'm fine moving on from as "nothing there" but certainly not all.

If this team really wanted a youth movement they could have already started it and results wouldn't be any worse is what I'm saying. But that's just a thing for them to say. Mike Sullivan isn't going to play youth at least to any degree that offers them a chance at success.
Click to expand...
I want Sullivan gone because I don't think he's a good coach for this group anymore.

I don't necessarily agree with the last sentence because we've seen the lines like ZAR, DOC, Puustinen (to an extent), POJ, and Ludvig all get time recently.

I think the bigger worry or "better structured" worry is - Mike Sullivan would be putting talented offensive young guys in bottom 6 defensive roles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BlindWillyMcHurt
DesertedPenguin said:
It's also something that Dubas specifically addressed and suggested he wouldn't do again.
Click to expand...
Fixable too. Find an offensive minded 3C. Say you make ZERO moves:

Jake-Sid-Rakell
DOC-Malkin-Puustinen
Smith-New 3C-Rust
Nietto-Eller-Acciari

Not hard. Dubas could have potentially done that mid-season too. Could have even tried that with Poulin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dennis Reynolds
SEALBound said:
Now this is a general, structural problem that is 100% a Sullivan issue.
Click to expand...
Love everything about your post except this line.

It's 100% a Sully idea, because we've watched him shoehorn players into these roles for years now.

But Dubas didn't have to kowtow to him this summer.

He could have told him 'no,' but he didn't. That's on him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akapidots, SEALBound, Big Friggin Dummy and 2 others
pistolpete11 said:
Well, they've had 53 games to do that already.

Now they have 29 more games they could see what they look like under a good coach....or at least a different coach.

More data is better.
Click to expand...
Good data is better.

Ever had a job where you get a new boss and everyone is on their toes for a couple of weeks, but they eventually fall back on old habits?

That's what happens with midseason coaching changes, except for rare occasions. So you get guys performing above their norms, and that skews your evaluation.

Using a coaching change to spark a team or completely change a strategy is one thing. Using it to evaluate individual players isn't.
 
Mario cared about winning. It was personal with him. And in the Mario era of Pittsburgh he brought us 5 cups. What a legend. I don't blame him for taking his step back...

But with revenue sharing, it's still going to be profitable to own a bottom feeder NHL team.... and that's the appealing part to conglomerate like FSG. The Penguins are just another notch in their belt. Another asset to leverage debt against. Their motivation to put a winning product on the ice is secondary to their bottom line. And their bottom line won't be effected by the Pens being a sub-top-20 team. It will be effected by firing coaching staff and still having to pay them, while having to search and hire a total new one....
 
  • Like
Reactions: luiginb and BlindWillyMcHurt
PensPlz said:
Mario cared about winning. It was personal with him. And in the Mario era of Pittsburgh he brought us 5 cups. What a legend. I don't blame him for taking his step back...

But with revenue sharing, it's still going to be profitable to own a bottom feeder NHL team.... and that's the appealing part to conglomerate like FSG. The Penguins are just another notch in their belt. Another asset to leverage debt against. Their motivation to put a winning product on the ice is secondary to their bottom line. And their bottom line won't be effected by the Pens being a sub-top-20 team. It will be effected by firing coaching staff and still having to pay them, while having to search and hire a total new one....
Click to expand...
I am pretty much of this opinion as well, which is pretty depressing.
 
DesertedPenguin said:
Good data is better.

Ever had a job where you get a new boss and everyone is on their toes for a couple of weeks, but they eventually fall back on old habits?

That's what happens with midseason coaching changes, except for rare occasions. So you get guys performing above their norms, and that skews your evaluation.

Using a coaching change to spark a team or completely change a strategy is one thing. Using it to evaluate individual players isn't.
Click to expand...
lol
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: Big Friggin Dummy and pistolpete11
PensPlz said:
Mario cared about winning. It was personal with him. And in the Mario era of Pittsburgh he brought us 5 cups. What a legend. I don't blame him for taking his step back...

But with revenue sharing, it's still going to be profitable to own a bottom feeder NHL team.... and that's the appealing part to conglomerate like FSG. The Penguins are just another notch in their belt. Another asset to leverage debt against. Their motivation to put a winning product on the ice is secondary to their bottom line. And their bottom line won't be effected by the Pens being a sub-top-20 team. It will be effected by firing coaching staff and still having to pay them, while having to search and hire a total new one....
Click to expand...
Man, this is way off base.

Mario cared about getting paid. The whole reason he bought the team was to get what he was owed.

If he only cared about winning, he would have found ways to make the team more competitive prior to the salary cap instead of selling off every valuable part. Let's not forget that Mario was owner when Jagr was traded for financial reasons.

Mario was also the one who repeatedly flirted with moving the team.

Once the cap was put in place, Mario and Burkle were willing to spend to it to make the team competitive. But it's ridiculous to suggest he only cared about winning. The money mattered a great deal.
 
DesertedPenguin said:
Good data is better.

Ever had a job where you get a new boss and everyone is on their toes for a couple of weeks, but they eventually fall back on old habits?

That's what happens with midseason coaching changes, except for rare occasions. So you get guys performing above their norms, and that skews your evaluation.

Using a coaching change to spark a team or completely change a strategy is one thing. Using it to evaluate individual players isn't.
Click to expand...
I think collecting the same data over and over again on the same players playing the same shitty, stale system often out of positions that would be to their strengths is the bad data.
 
BlindWillyMcHurt said:
One of my least favorite tropes in hockey.

Well that and people shitting themselves over faceoffs.

This team was leading the league in faceoff percentage last I looked BTW. Yeah it's... really making that huge difference everyone insists that it totally does.
Click to expand...
What is? The idea of a PK specialist?
 
My father complains all the time. This hurts. That hurts. I can't walk as I used to. I forget things.

What he is struggling to accept is that nothing really is wrong. He simply is getting older. Something that happens to us all. There is no magic remedy.

The Pens are in the same boat. Some here simply are having the same trouble that my father is in accepting it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ryder71 and luiginb
Yeah, I don't agree that Mario was 100% all about winning. Dude shrugged when JR was years into brainless dipshit GMing and Sully was already exposed as a fraud in 2020. If JR didn't do this team a favor and piss his pants before stomping off, he might still be the GM on this team.

Ownership, recent as well as present, has failed this team just as much as the FO and coaching has imo.
 
eXile3 said:
What is? The idea of a PK specialist?
Click to expand...

Yes. Well... more specifically coaches wetting themselves over HAVING to have them.

I'm here to tell you that anyone can PK. It's not some sacred lost art than only a handful of elite specialists in the league are capable of. It's an excuse to get ham and eggers on the team that reminds the coach of himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eXile3
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom