View Single Post
06-27-2012, 09:18 AM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,449
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Johnny Engine View Post
That's his best case, given that he'd have to get in as a builder rather than a coach.
Unfortunately, the only way a coach can get in is as a builder. Just like a GM. This is why only the truly dominant coaches get in like Bowman, Arbour and Sather to name a few. If you have a dynasty then it is safe to say you were a "builder" and a big difference maker on a team and in the NHL. You would think Ken Holland will get in as a builder eventually for example.

This is why the support for Pat Burns makes me wonder a bit. I don't think people actually know the reasons a coach needs to get in, and Burns doesn't have them. He is easily behind Quinn and Keenan when it comes to success and overall impact. The other two led Canada to victory at the top level twice. Keenan won a Cup, was in a few other finals, Quinn was in the finals twice losing two close series and was in the mix a lot with the postseason. Both coaches were around longer than Burns.

As it stands now, Ron Wilson probably has a better case than Burns if that tells you something.

But back to Fred Shero. He isn't in because the Broad Street Bullies were not always liked by the mainstream NHL. We know Clarence Campbell hated them. But the committee should stop using their bias against him. He revolutionized the game and was a winner while he did it. It is true, the Habs came along and put an end to it, but there was a while when the Flyers were the toast of the NHL and their style was very successful. People hated the Flyers, and to me that screams........."impact".

Think if the Ducks in 2007 had won more than one Cup and were the best team in the NHL for three or so years. Then think of them being much more intimidating and with a better goalie. That's the Flyers right there.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote