The Sullivan Problem

[FLPensFan]

Is there any player that actually overachieved under Sullivan during the past five years? He seems to suck life out of players who were good elsewhere

Whoa, that's a great point. I was going to say Kessel which is on the fringe of 5 years, but his talent overoad any coaching issues I suppose.

ERod?

Yeah, I would say he is one. He overachieved, made one mistake, was banished off the team, and continued to flourish elsewhere, including winning a Cup last year.

[Puck-Lurker]

Is there any player that actually overachieved under Sullivan during the past five years? He seems to suck life out of players who were good elsewhere

Whoa, that's a great point. I was going to say Kessel which is on the fringe of 5 years, but his talent overoad any coaching issues I suppose.

ERod?

Yeah, I would say he is one. He overachieved, made one mistake, was banished off the team, and continued to flourish elsewhere, including winning a Cup last year.

I mean, I mightily struggle to think of anyone else. Rust maybe. I think he's one of those players that maxed out a few times in his time here. Kind of hard to claim it as overachieving, considering the contracts he got though. Pettersson in the same vein. Both harder to defend than ERod, who we should have resigned on the cheap.

[Pruezy11881]

Sheary?

[ahawk9]

When those young guys came up in Sully's first season, it gave the team a goose with their energy, and they contributed mightily to the team winning the Cup. Sheary came out smokin' and ended up with an overtime game-winner in the Final, which was unreal. He leveled off, though he really was pretty sweet for a while when he first came up. Kuhnhackl had a great goal against Washington (I think shorthanded) in '16 or '17 (can't remember). Wilson was solid, and Big Game Bryan was born - not to mention Guentzel being good from his first callup in '17. Sullivan knew those guys from WB-S so he trusted them in a lot of situations. That's 5 young guys who had regular spots on a championship team. Anyone new now does not have his trust, and it seems hard to earn, so they pay the price for their own - and others' - mistakes.

[Daniel]

Sheary?

Sheary's a good call. At one point he was better than any 1st round draft pick from his draft eligibity year. People talk about Sid making him better, and of course that's the case, BUT Sheary earned the spot and that has to count for something.

[Daniel]

When those young guys came up in Sully's first season, it gave the team a goose with their energy, and they contributed mightily to the team winning the Cup. Sheary came out smokin' and ended up with an overtime game-winner in the Final, which was unreal. He leveled off, though he really was pretty sweet for a while when he first came up. Kuhnhackl had a great goal against Washington (I think shorthanded) in '16 or '17 (can't remember). Wilson was solid, and Big Game Bryan was born - not to mention Guentzel being good from his first callup in '17. Sullivan knew those guys from WB-S so he trusted them in a lot of situations. That's 5 young guys who had regular spots on a championship team. Anyone new now does not have his trust, and it seems hard to earn, so they pay the price for their own - and others' - mistakes.

I think how the Penguins handled the influx of WBS kids was great. Some move up to the first line, others move to other teams. The problem is they didn't keep with that program and gave Rust one contract too many. This team always does better when relying on kids from WBS over random NHL scrubs. Since they've never really had blue chip prospects come through WBS it's not like the expectations would be high. Just get one good 3C and have 8-10 kids rotate until 5-6 settle into the bottom 6. Couldn't be worse than what we've seen and what if someone turns into the next Rust or Guenztel. Never know now because they weren't given a chance and left the organization. Hard to earn a spot on the NHL team with 12 NHL contracts with no room for competition.

[100565]

Sheary?

Sheary's a good call. At one point he was better than any 1st round draft pick from his draft eligibity year. People talk about Sid making him better, and of course that's the case, BUT Sheary earned the spot and that has to count for something.

“ Is there any player that actually overachieved under Sullivan during the past five years?”

Sheary played <10 games for Pens during past 5 years.

No one has overachieved during the past five years.

[100565]

I thought last year’s team tuned the coach out. This year’s team is taking it to a whole new level!

[Antonio]

So did Sheary perform because of Sullivan or because of a prime age Sid or just because of his own talent level? I think there is often a serious conflation of Sullivan being "a good coach" with having talents on the team that could produce results regardless of the person behind the bench. The question is...did Sullivan do something that allowed or encouraged Sheary to succeed that would not have happened with a different coach? I certainly can see numerous cases where Sullivan clearly had a negative impact on players with regards to their production, effort, attitude, overall statistics, etc...not a lot of cases where I see the "top 2 or 3 coaches" **** manifesting itself in a clear positive impact.

Sheary produced 97 points in 192 games here. .505ppg
He produced 53 points in 153 games in Buffalo. .346ppg.
He produced 102 in 206 games in Washington. .495ppg.

I would argue he benefited more from the generational talents (with an S) he played with here than anything the Boston Blockhead contributed. His production dropped in Buffalo, where he went to a worse team, then rebounded to a similar level over the same amount of time in Washington. He does not show the hallmarks of what players do when they come here...which is either decline from previous norms, or decline, then leave and restore themselves. If Sullivan was a great coach and was responsible for the production of Sheary, I would expect something where leaving here resulted in a consistent and marked decline...but we never saw it. He played with Ovechkin and Kuznetsov a fair amount in Washington, thus a high level talent pool that allowed him to play like he did here...that indicates to me that the talent he was with was the key...similar talents, similar production. No reason to think the variable is the Top 2 Twit. I think the cases where we see players playing here and succeeding in a way that could not be reproduced by them in other places with similar talent, line assignments, roles, etc, which would indicate the coach, the structure, the instruction, etc are the reason are very few and far between.

[Daniel]

So did Sheary perform because of Sullivan or because of a prime age Sid or just because of his own talent level? I think there is often a serious conflation of Sullivan being "a good coach" with having talents on the team that could produce results regardless of the person behind the bench. The question is...did Sullivan do something that allowed or encouraged Sheary to succeed that would not have happened with a different coach? I certainly can see numerous cases where Sullivan clearly had a negative impact on players with regards to their production, effort, attitude, overall statistics, etc...not a lot of cases where I see the "top 2 or 3 coaches" **** manifesting itself in a clear positive impact.

Sheary produced 97 points in 192 games here. .505ppg
He produced 53 points in 153 games in Buffalo. .346ppg.
He produced 102 in 206 games in Washington. .495ppg.

I would argue he benefited more from the generational talents (with an S) he played with here than anything the Boston Blockhead contributed. His production dropped in Buffalo, where he went to a worse team, then rebounded to a similar level over the same amount of time in Washington. He does not show the hallmarks of what players do when they come here...which is either decline from previous norms, or decline, then leave and restore themselves. If Sullivan was a great coach and was responsible for the production of Sheary, I would expect something where leaving here resulted in a consistent and marked decline...but we never saw it. He played with Ovechkin and Kuznetsov a fair amount in Washington, thus a high level talent pool that allowed him to play like he did here...that indicates to me that the talent he was with was the key...similar talents, similar production. No reason to think the variable is the Top 2 Twit. I think the cases where we see players playing here and succeeding in a way that could not be reproduced by them in other places with similar talent, line assignments, roles, etc, which would indicate the coach, the structure, the instruction, etc are the reason are very few and far between.

I think all three are correct but Sullivan didn't just throw a dart at the wall and hit Sheary. Sheary earned the spot, had great chemistry with Sid, and Sullivan recognized it and put them together. I think Sullivan hit lightning in a bottle those first few years and had the perfect team to run his system. The fact that the NHL caught up and overtook the Penguins doesn't diminish his accomplishments.

[FLPensFan]

So did Sheary perform because of Sullivan or because of a prime age Sid or just because of his own talent level? I think there is often a serious conflation of Sullivan being "a good coach" with having talents on the team that could produce results regardless of the person behind the bench. The question is...did Sullivan do something that allowed or encouraged Sheary to succeed that would not have happened with a different coach? I certainly can see numerous cases where Sullivan clearly had a negative impact on players with regards to their production, effort, attitude, overall statistics, etc...not a lot of cases where I see the "top 2 or 3 coaches" **** manifesting itself in a clear positive impact.

Sheary produced 97 points in 192 games here. .505ppg
He produced 53 points in 153 games in Buffalo. .346ppg.
He produced 102 in 206 games in Washington. .495ppg.

I would argue he benefited more from the generational talents (with an S) he played with here than anything the Boston Blockhead contributed. His production dropped in Buffalo, where he went to a worse team, then rebounded to a similar level over the same amount of time in Washington. He does not show the hallmarks of what players do when they come here...which is either decline from previous norms, or decline, then leave and restore themselves. If Sullivan was a great coach and was responsible for the production of Sheary, I would expect something where leaving here resulted in a consistent and marked decline...but we never saw it. He played with Ovechkin and Kuznetsov a fair amount in Washington, thus a high level talent pool that allowed him to play like he did here...that indicates to me that the talent he was with was the key...similar talents, similar production. No reason to think the variable is the Top 2 Twit. I think the cases where we see players playing here and succeeding in a way that could not be reproduced by them in other places with similar talent, line assignments, roles, etc, which would indicate the coach, the structure, the instruction, etc are the reason are very few and far between.

I think all three are correct but Sullivan didn't just throw a dart at the wall and hit Sheary. Sheary earned the spot, had great chemistry with Sid, and Sullivan recognized it and put them together. I think Sullivan hit lightning in a bottle those first few years and had the perfect team to run his system. The fact that the NHL caught up and overtook the Penguins doesn't diminish his accomplishments.

To me, it's kind of like...look back at a team in the early days of the NFL, at a time where it was a super run-heavy league. Teams like the Packers or Dolphins may have won some Super Bowls with those offenses, but the league evolved. The offensive style morphed and changed. Teams caught up and passed that way of doing things.

For the Penguins, it's no small feat that Sullivan won back to back Cups. But teams evolve. The Penguins got older while the rest of the league got younger. The "speed" the Penguins once had is gone for them, while a good third of the league is faster than the Penguins. To me, Sullivan's system is outdated. Yes it worked back then, but things change. I don't believe he hasn't made adjustments, but, I do believe his adjustments aren't enough. It needs an overhaul.

I felt something similar with Bylsma before he got canned. I think he became arrogant, but in a different way, I often wondered if his system was sustainable. The Penguins were good, but, they also had an extremely high number of man games lost to injury each year. I began to really question if his system lead to more injuries and was good enough to win, but just wasn't sustainable to run season after season. You couldn't stock enough players in your system to account for the injuries.

Hats off to Sullivan. It's not diminishing his accomplishments to say his system is no longer one that gives teams trouble, whether it is because of the evolution of the game, teams getting younger, the current team not able to execute it proficiently, or a combination of all of that.

That's why, even if Sullivan is great at developing players (not saying he is, just a stretch to discuss keeping him), I'm not sure his system is right for the NHL moving forward. I cannot tell because I haven't seen it properly or consistently executed in at least 3 years now.

[Daniel]

So did Sheary perform because of Sullivan or because of a prime age Sid or just because of his own talent level? I think there is often a serious conflation of Sullivan being "a good coach" with having talents on the team that could produce results regardless of the person behind the bench. The question is...did Sullivan do something that allowed or encouraged Sheary to succeed that would not have happened with a different coach? I certainly can see numerous cases where Sullivan clearly had a negative impact on players with regards to their production, effort, attitude, overall statistics, etc...not a lot of cases where I see the "top 2 or 3 coaches" **** manifesting itself in a clear positive impact.

Sheary produced 97 points in 192 games here. .505ppg
He produced 53 points in 153 games in Buffalo. .346ppg.
He produced 102 in 206 games in Washington. .495ppg.

I would argue he benefited more from the generational talents (with an S) he played with here than anything the Boston Blockhead contributed. His production dropped in Buffalo, where he went to a worse team, then rebounded to a similar level over the same amount of time in Washington. He does not show the hallmarks of what players do when they come here...which is either decline from previous norms, or decline, then leave and restore themselves. If Sullivan was a great coach and was responsible for the production of Sheary, I would expect something where leaving here resulted in a consistent and marked decline...but we never saw it. He played with Ovechkin and Kuznetsov a fair amount in Washington, thus a high level talent pool that allowed him to play like he did here...that indicates to me that the talent he was with was the key...similar talents, similar production. No reason to think the variable is the Top 2 Twit. I think the cases where we see players playing here and succeeding in a way that could not be reproduced by them in other places with similar talent, line assignments, roles, etc, which would indicate the coach, the structure, the instruction, etc are the reason are very few and far between.

I think all three are correct but Sullivan didn't just throw a dart at the wall and hit Sheary. Sheary earned the spot, had great chemistry with Sid, and Sullivan recognized it and put them together. I think Sullivan hit lightning in a bottle those first few years and had the perfect team to run his system. The fact that the NHL caught up and overtook the Penguins doesn't diminish his accomplishments.

To me, it's kind of like...look back at a team in the early days of the NFL, at a time where it was a super run-heavy league. Teams like the Packers or Dolphins may have won some Super Bowls with those offenses, but the league evolved. The offensive style morphed and changed. Teams caught up and passed that way of doing things.

For the Penguins, it's no small feat that Sullivan won back to back Cups. But teams evolve. The Penguins got older while the rest of the league got younger. The "speed" the Penguins once had is gone for them, while a good third of the league is faster than the Penguins. To me, Sullivan's system is outdated. Yes it worked back then, but things change. I don't believe he hasn't made adjustments, but, I do believe his adjustments aren't enough. It needs an overhaul.

I felt something similar with Bylsma before he got canned. I think he became arrogant, but in a different way, I often wondered if his system was sustainable. The Penguins were good, but, they also had an extremely high number of man games lost to injury each year. I began to really question if his system lead to more injuries and was good enough to win, but just wasn't sustainable to run season after season. You couldn't stock enough players in your system to account for the injuries.

Hats off to Sullivan. It's not diminishing his accomplishments to say his system is no longer one that gives teams trouble, whether it is because of the evolution of the game, teams getting younger, the current team not able to execute it proficiently, or a combination of all of that.

That's why, even if Sullivan is great at developing players (not saying he is, just a stretch to discuss keeping him), I'm not sure his system is right for the NHL moving forward. I cannot tell because I haven't seen it properly or consistently executed in at least 3 years now.

His system might work for a team like Buffalo which is younger and faster. The simple fact in sports, like life, is this, when you're younger you can get by with energy and enthusiasm, when you get older, wisdom and guile. Sullivan never really worked on the wisdom and guile and none of the older guys, other than Sid, have improved in those skills. They try to play like they're 25 and better than most in the league. I think a new coach can teach using experience and slow things down to fit the slower and older team.

[ahawk9]

I was watching the NHL Network last night when they had a segment on "What do the Penguins do now?" Stu Grimson and Dave Reid both mentioned how weird it was that Sullivan (whom they both praised as a coach) hadn't been canned. Grimson said that he couldn't figure out how KD hasn't done "what 31 other teams would have done before this..." which is fire the coach. They both mentioned how regardless of how good a coach is that teams just need a change sometimes, and that this is one of those times.

Reid in particular was critical of the Eller trade saying that he was one of the few who seemed to care at this point, and that the way he was playing the Pens could probably have gotten more at the deadline. He did mention that they have some untradeable contracts and guys who no one would want right now, so maybe he was the only chip that could go at the moment. It was interesting - and in line with what most on this board have been saying for longer than we wanted - to see guys on the NHL Network basically saying that we're all not crazy in saying that you fire the coach first, then you see what you need to do next. I think not firing Sullivan is part of the reason we all are feeling that this team is spinning its wheels between admitting it's time to rebuild and keeping up the company line of "we're not that far off and Sully is the one to get us over the top." Rip the band-aid off, for expletives' sake! I'm ready. I can handle bad hockey if it's for an ultimate rebuild. I cannot handle bad hockey that comes from a stale group led by a stale coach.

[Antonio]

Well, I will stipulate to him being literally the greatest coach in NHL history if it will just mean that he will finally go the **** away and disappear.

As I have said before, I do not disagree that he has a system and that he implemented that system when he came here...nor do I dispute that the system he brought was A) a needed change for the team B) implemented by the immense talent we had at the time. Clearly, I believe that having an actual system that you can implement does not make you a good coach in any way...it makes you meet the bare minimum standard to be given an NHL job behind the bench. i stand by my long, long, looooong standing belief that he is not a good coach at all and that the success he saw was due to multiple things that had next to nothing to do with him.

But as I said...whatever, fine...Oh great and powerful Sullivan...you are the greatest coach in the history of sports...I worship you! I revere you! All coaches now and forever could never hope to learn all the details of your greatness, were they given 20 lifetimes! Now kindly **** the **** off and go **** yourself somewhere else.