There are other issues, but the prime reason to try a new tack is atmosphere. Put simply, Sutter does not foster a jovial, creative atmosphere. Coming after the shambles of 1996-2003, that no-nonsense approach was a tonic. But now it's become a shroud that muffles everything with predictable personnel choices and a throwback mentality that makes Don Cherry look progressive.
Bruce Dowbiggin hits the nail on the head in today's Herald. I agree with just about everything he writes, save for his criticism of the Langkow contract.
I'll have my own take on this shortly, alongside what is going to be some very interesting stuff from WI on the cap issues but, for a preview, check my comments on last night's Matchsticks and Gasoline gamethread.
I've been done with Sutter since early this year. And now I'm definitely done.
Posts
3 comments:
Wow...I've not been in the "fire Sutter" camp and don't generally like Dowbiggen. However, it does make a person think. I'm willing to listen to more arguments from both sides of the aisle...I've read all of your comments on M&G but look forward to your laying out the entire case. I only ask, if I can be so presumptious, that you list Sutter positives as well...
I'll definitely list the positives as well. Because, I'm happy to admit, there are a lot of those. But it comes down to whether the Flames want to be a playoff team or a Stanley Cup team, and I'm convinced they won't be the latter under Darryl — or Ken King.
(Also for the record, I usually don't like Dowbiggin either, but this was a really coherent, well laid out piece.)
I've alway found Dowgiggin to be pretty good. He has had alot of criticism of the Flames where required (Kipper, Iggy, Dion, Sutter) and his IDLM column is always a must read for me.
Post a Comment