View Single Post
12-03-2011, 02:02 PM
Sawdalite's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Girouxsalem
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Yeah it's definitely possible, but Howe I think was more deserving than both of them. Mark Howe not being in a lot of people, if not the majority, pretty much agreed that it was not fair. You don't hear people talking about Tim Kerr in the HOF 20 years later. He had four or five really good seasons, but that's about it. Not a knock on Kerr, I just think he's got a very slim shot.
With Kerr I agree 100%... I was just throwing that out there fro discussion sake, and to be fair... and to point out that it's really no too late. I loved Kerr and honestly believe that had he had a better back he may have coasted into the Hall over the course of time. Tim was a beast, but ultimately what he did may have did him in.

With Shero I honestly believe his omission is a crime worse than Howe's... He was the first NHL coach to hire an assistant... he understood that learning the Russians' game improved his team and his coaching... he understood the importance of film in education and scouting... he refined the role playing in teams -- dancers have o dance, singers have to sing -- ... He used psychology in his coaching and teaching... he knew how to display faith in such role players as Schultz and Kelly and played them in key times where other coaches would shorten the bench, and they rewarded him... He was a master of adjusting he game to the enemy such as in the Soviet Red Army... he was great at seeing hidden talents and incorporating certain players into his team... he had a strict 'System' and made sure his players bought into it YET he was not afraid to look the other way with a player like Kelly who he let loose at the right time to change the tempo of the game and was not afraid to replace Leach with Schulz to protect Clarke, while still keeping the offense on tract... Yada, Yada, Yada.

Sawdalite is offline   Reply With Quote