Mike Sullivan

[columbia]

Pretty psyched that they ditched that loser FHCMJ and brought a real leader in.

Discuss.

[Rx6687]

Johnston is a good coach, just not a great fit for this team. If the Pens somehow manage to win a Cup this season or go far in the playoffs, it will be due in part to the defensive structure he taught them. He will catch on somewhere else eventually and be fine.

Sound familiar????

[columbia]

FHCMT was/is a really good NHL coach, so, no, I don't see the similarities.

[Rx6687]

Also, some props to Rutherford. Two years ago, the 4th line consisted of:

Glass + Vitale + Adams (total of 10g 28a, 38pts)

Versus this season, Matt Cullen: (13g, 12a, 25pts)

Production from the bottom 6 matters...and unlike Coach Abysmal, their current coach knows how to utilize his 4th line and not set them up to consistently fail.

[Rx6687]

FHCMT was/is a really good NHL coach, so, no, I don't see the similarities.

MJ is a very good coach IMO. He knows the X's and O's of the game.

[columbia]

FHCMT was/is a really good NHL coach, so, no, I don't see the similarities.

MJ is a very good coach IMO. He knows the X's and O's of the game.

That's great - conceptually - by one has to be a leader of men to succeed at the NHL level.

[Algernon]

FHCMT was/is a really good NHL coach, so, no, I don't see the similarities.

MJ is a very good coach IMO. He knows the X's and O's of the game.

MJ **** sucked.

Horribad.


Horrible coach.


Hhhhhooorrrrrrrrrrible.



Neutered best player on the planet

[mikey]

Source of the post Production from the bottom 6 matters...and unlike Coach Abysmal, their current coach knows how to utilize his 4th line and not set them up to consistently fail.

Right. This matters. It's not like a new coach comes in and starts with fresh slate. The problem you highlighted here plagues Bylsma in Buffalo too, check the numbers.

The locker room was in bad shape at the end of Bylsma and the team played a very loose game - to put it gently...the whole thing was fast and loose...obviously the guy that comes in and turns off the faucet to the pond hockey game isn't going to be very popular with the players. And sure, he had his shortcomings, every coach does pretty much, but he had a pretty unenviable task which was bring back professional culture to a team that had fallen into disarray in a few regards...that's the part that sounds most familiar to me, when Michel Therrien came in and replaced an actual loser in Eddie Olczyk...that's a coach that never had any business coaching professional hockey...hell, he barely has any business being a color commentator at this level...

So while it's super to hurl out insults at guys like David Perron and Mike Johnston and Rob Scuderi and all these guys, it's not taking into account a much bigger picture. That doesn't mean that their replacements Carl Hagelin, Mike Sullivan and Trevor Daley, respectively, aren't doing a good job. They all are, really great right now. It's a cycle that this team has gone through before and many teams go through...some guys might get seen as the bad guy, the villain, when really they were doing a good job as a coach, by its purest definition...Bowman, Constantine, Therrien, Johnston, etc...

And just like Bylsma was the "breath of fresh air" when he took over and "wow, this is great!" "So long to that loser Therrien..." all that nonsense, here we are again...gotta think dot dot dot...

[columbia]

If it makes you feel better to ride that sicken ship to bottom of the ocean, go for it.

[Avyran]

*Shrug* Therrien took the Pens to the Stanley Cup finals. Johnston did no such thing. I get that he helped change the locker room or whatever. But he doesn't have any reason to give the benefit of the doubt, mikey. There's no results to show it in any of his career (just as, as of yet, there is none for Sullivan, though his assistant time has more results).

[Algernon]

That's a myth.

Babcock. Q. Sutter. Etc

Perpetually good coaches on Perpetually good teams.


Bylsma sucked as coach of USA Olympic team too.

[Rx6687]

*Shrug* Therrien took the Pens to the Stanley Cup finals. Johnston did no such thing. I get that he helped change the locker room or whatever. But he doesn't have any reason to give the benefit of the doubt, mikey. There's no results to show it in any of his career (just as, as of yet, there is none for Sullivan, though his assistant time has more results).

Last season, like several others before it, was ruined by injuries. Can't blame MJ for having no puck moving defensemen left. Who knows how far they may have gone otherwise. I'm not saying it was wrong to fire him when they did - clearly it wasn't working. But that's not because he was a terrible coach.

[FistOfCaufield]

I've read this "leader of men" thing quite a few times - can anyone expand on what that actually means, maybe even with some specifics instances where the leadership actually came into play?

I mean these 20-35 year old men are being paid millions of dollars - are you telling me that their performance is based on the coach likeability? If so - that's not a leader of men, that's a daddy that the kids like vs the daddy the kids don't like.

[shmenguin]

FHCMJ would do a great job taking a bad team and getting them into 10th place in their conference.

That's his ceiling as a head coach. Good strategist when he doesn't have talent.

[shmenguin]

I've read this "leader of men" thing quite a few times - can anyone expand on what that actually means, maybe even with some specifics instances where the leadership actually came into play?

I mean these 20-35 year old men are being paid millions of dollars - are you telling me that their performance is based on the coach likeability? If so - that's not a leader of men, that's a daddy that the kids like vs the daddy the kids don't like.

Their performances are influenced by what they're being asked to do. "I know you're good at playing this way, and it's worked well for you and the team in the past. But play this way instead - even though it neither makes sense on paper nor has yielded any positive results in terms of w's and l's so far over 100+ games".

^ leader of men, this is not. It's not all rah rah stuff. He had no idea what he was doing - as it relates to getting the most out of his roster. I didn't like seeing Sid sulk for 20 games or whatever. But if it got us here, then good.

And I'm not saying he needed to go back to coachless bylsma mode - just needed to let his players be themselves better.

[Beveridge]

He's done a good job to date. He has won as many playoff series in his career as a head coach as Mike Johnston has.

This debate is stupid until then and will then still be stupid.

I don't care who the coach is. Just win, baby.

[mikey]

If it makes you feel better to ride that sicken ship to bottom of the ocean, go for it.

I'm not sure how that response relates to the post to be honest. Which raises a red flag to me that this oddly-timed thread is: maybe-chest-thumping, unnecessary bait thread or fairly shortsighted...but it can't be neither of those...it can be both, I don't really know...but I pointed out the obvious cyclical nature of this and got back a fairly personalized response...gotta think dot dot dot...

[mikey]

FHCMJ would do a great job taking a bad team and getting them into 10th place in their conference.

That's his ceiling as a head coach. Good strategist when he doesn't have talent.

I can't imagine what you must have thought when Sullivan took over, a guy who has not had nearly as illustrious of a coaching career as Johnston and a guy who has very poor offensive teams throughout almost his entire career...whereas Johnston was the complete opposite. This seems like convenient ignorance aided by 40 games of foresight...

Johnston, by nature, is a very offensive minded coach that is capable of bringing the absolute most of the talent he has...as we saw in Vancouver (NHL) and Portland (WHL) for more than a decade...he made use of defensemen in an offensive manner that they really had no business being at...

Here, he saw what a mess was left behind and set out to fix it...you can't lay a foundation over a sinkhole...

[shmenguin]

Regarding how I felt about Sullivan...I felt nothing about Sullivan. As it relates to he success of him and his genius predecessor, those types of analyses seem to be worth slightly more than nothing.

I like the "foundation" line, though. Half our team wasn't around for the bulk of johnston's tenure. I guess he left postit notes around the lockerroom for the new guys.

[shmenguin]

^ lets expand on that

During the "foundation" period, Crosby was at his worst. Letang wasn't far behind. Kunitz same. Maatta too. And Perron. Malkin seemed neutral. Same with kessel. The young d-men who knows. The old vets like Cullen and Fehr are static. Same with bonino.

So what's the theory, here? That all those guys who were at their worst were just trying to figure things out, and then they finally did at, coincidentally, the exact same time Johnston got the boot? That's a good story and man that poor coach...the narrative got all flipped around on him.

This wouldn't have anything to do with a coach on a message board overestimating the legacy of him and his peers, I'm sure.

But I'll listen, if you want to explain more why a bunch of veterans took so long to learn basic hockey - and reconcile that not only with their lousy play but also their lousy attitudes.

[Beveridge]

Has their defense been Bylsma level bad since opening back up the offensive game? That's the point being made. A defensive foundation had to be rebuilt. Johnston forgot to take off the safety and Sullivan knew where it was at apparently.

I have no idea if it ever would have or not under Johnston, we'll never know. The point is there was no defensive foundation and our blue line isn't that great, yet it's still playing solid now. Yes there is credit to Sullivan on that as well. Another point being made that is correct is that if the insistence is still to give Therrian credit for what Bylsma did then it's a load of dung to give Sullivan credit for the turnaround while ignoring Johnston.

[Rocco]

FHCMT was/is a really good NHL coach, so, no, I don't see the similarities.

MJ is a very good coach IMO. He knows the X's and O's of the game.

At this point there's little evidence to suggest he's a good NHL coach. He has one season where his team faded badly down the stretch and half of another one where his team looked out of sorts.

[Rocco]

Has their defense been Bylsma level bad since opening back up the offensive game? That's the point being made. A defensive foundation had to be rebuilt. Johnston forgot to take off the safety and Sullivan knew where it was at apparently.

I have no idea if it ever would have or not under Johnston, we'll never know. The point is there was no defensive foundation and our blue line isn't that great, yet it's still playing solid now. Yes there is credit to Sullivan on that as well. Another point being made that is correct is that if the insistence is still to give Therrian credit for what Bylsma did then it's a load of dung to give Sullivan credit for the turnaround while ignoring Johnston.

Before the All Star Break: 30.9 shots against/game (23rd), 2.44 goals allowed/game (21st)
After the All Star Break: 27.7 shots against/game (3rd fewest), 2.41 goals allowed/game (5th best)

[FistOfCaufield]

Their performances are influenced by what they're being asked to do. "I know you're good at playing this way, and it's worked well for you and the team in the past. But play this way instead - even though it neither makes sense on paper nor has yielded any positive results in terms of w's and l's so far over 100+ games".

^ leader of men, this is not. It's not all rah rah stuff. He had no idea what he was doing - as it relates to getting the most out of his roster. I didn't like seeing Sid sulk for 20 games or whatever. But if it got us here, then good.

And I'm not saying he needed to go back to coachless bylsma mode - just needed to let his players be themselves better.

Okay - so now we are getting into strategic coaching decision as opposed to this "he screams louder, looks tough, and doesn't make weird faces when the other team scores - so he is a better leader" garbage. In that case I think it's very fair to look at what Johnston had when coming here and what he was trying to do with it. I think it's fair to say it didn't work out as well as Johnston had hoped and perhaps the entire organization came to the realization that this team can't miss the playoffs working on a defensive game given the talent available, and Johnston was putting a round peg in a square hole. This talent needs to attack to be successful. Sullivan - along with some solid acquisitions made by his GM changed the identity of this team into an attacking team with speed.

I don't think it's a matter of Johnston not knowing what he was doing back there, but I don't think anyone on this board at the beginning of this year would have objected to someone saying "I think Johnston needs to introduce some structure into the Penguins in their own end and in the neutral zone, they can't win playoff hockey with this pond hockey stretch pass influence they still have, especially if they lose a few defensemen".

[shmenguin]

Bylsma - no nuance
Johnston - bad nuance

I don't think the latter is any better than the former. In fact, in this case, it was objectively worse.