Thursday, March 1, 2012

Brent Sutter Thinks Post Whistle Scrums Are Important To Getting Wins In The NHL Which Is Bizarre

Quoteth Sutter:

"I watched the game (Tuesday) night between Philadelphia and San Jose. It was a 1-0 hockey game, and it was a complete war. Everything in the offensive zone was directed to the net, and everyone was crashing the net. It didn't matter whether it was in one zone or the other," Sutter explained. "This time of year, it's not so much about Xs and Os... It's a nuts and bolts game now. There's going to be scrums after whistles, you've got to win the battles. You've got to go nose to nose."

I don't know. You guys like this? I think it's horseshit.

I'm looking at the boxscore of that game. It's a game, to me, that looks like it was played between two teams that observed the X's and O's. It's a close game, 23 shots to 26, between two teams that are pretty good offensive teams (Both teams have + double digit goal differentials). That suggests to me it was a close game. That suggests to me both teams were playing 'their game' or 'their system' or however you want to put it. There were only 3 penalties taken, and one of them, a delay of game for shooting the puck over the glass, is also suggestive of team play that observes the X's and O's; instead of doing the But7er/Comeau thang and trying to force the puck up the ice and turning it over, the player tried to do the 'right' thing and shoot the puck off the glass and down the ice.

I didn't see the game, so I don't know if it was a 'complete war' or not, but if it was, it looks like trench warfare as opposed to the naked emotion of the Saracen horde, which is what Sutter seems to be calling for at the end of his quote. What's also head scratching is that time and time again you have heard Sutter say that he wants this team to be a puck possession team. Is 'Puck Possesion' not synonymous with 'X's and O's'?

Let's move on to the latter part of the quote, though: "There's going to be scrums after whistles, you've got to win the battles."

What? What the fuck is this idiocy? Read that quote from beginning to end. Maybe I am crazy, but is he suggesting the Flames are losing because they aren't winning the scrums after the whistle?

Maybe I am crazy, because it looks like to me the Flames are losing because over the last four games they have been outshot by 52. Just by watching the games, it looks like the Flames don't have a ton of real NHL defencemen, and the forwards aren't doing them any favours by passing the puck poorly and turning it over all the time.

I'm not sure what winning the scrums after the whistle would do to fix these problems, and I'm a little surprised why nobody in the press conference asked Sutter why he does.

I think I kinda know what the guy was trying to say; that the team needs to be more engaged in the game. I also know that whining about the teams identity several years after you have been hired to be that teams coach is an extremely bad look.

Game time! Which quote is worse: Keenan's assertion that the team didn't practice the powerplay, or Sutter's assertion that the team would win more games if it won more post whistle scrums?

Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias Ken King should be fired.


  1. I think you have fucked up. You start by saying you whatched the Philly-SJ game and describe it in detail then a few lines later you say you didnt see it. ????????????????????????

  2. He was quoting Butter at the beginning.

  3. Brent Sutter is a complete and utter moron of a coach. At this point I'm sure I could outcoach him.

    His decisions make no sense. The team can't score, is terrible 5 on 5, can't defend a lead worth shit, can't get out of the zone, can't win faceoffs and can't outshoot opponents.

    He's done as an NHL after this year. He's so stupid, no GM will ever hire him after analysing his actions.