HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Scotty Bowman and the Red Wings juggernaut

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-24-2013, 05:17 PM
  #1
TheMoreYouKnow
Registered User
 
TheMoreYouKnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Eire
Posts: 8,266
vCash: 500
Scotty Bowman and the Red Wings juggernaut

Scotty Bowman might be one of the biggest winners in the history of the NHL. He coached the expansion Blues to the Finals, he won five Cups in Montreal, he won a Cup in Pittsburgh and three Cups in Detroit. He also held various management roles in his time.

My question however is, how much did Scotty Bowman influence the success of the Red Wings since his arrival in 1993. When he arrived key pieces such as Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom and Konstantinov were already there. He also found (ageing) stars such as Dino Ciccarelli, Paul Coffey, Mark Howe as well as contributors such as Ray Sheppard, Steve Chiasson, Shawn Burr and promising young players in Keith Primeau and Vyacheslav Kozlov. Needless to say he already had a good team when he got there - but do they win Cups without Bowman?

The second part of the question is - how does Bowman's role stack up to that of the two other Red Wings leadership figures? Bowman was never proper GM of the Wings but he shared some general manager duties with Jimmy Devellano before Ken Holland was appointed full GM in 1997 and it was obvious that he played a role in the front office decision-making beyond that, too. Holland had been scouting director and assistant GM before he became GM. Bowman retired as coach but maintained a consultant job and a role in the organization's "brain trust" until the summer of 2008. Jimmy Devellano and Ken Holland remain in place to this day. Those three figures can rightfully be considered the names behind the Red Wings' run of success.

But do Holland and Devellano ever develop a Cup winner without Bowman? Were they lucky to hire Bowman at the right time or was Bowman lucky to walk into that situation?

Bowman left his role with the Detroit organization to advise his son in Chicago in 2008 - and the Red Wings take a slow but perceptible dive and the Hawks become an ascendant powerhouse. Pure coincidence related to the ages of the orgs' star players and natural curves of success or does Bowman simply "know" what it takes to win in ways a Holland or a Jimmy D don't?

TheMoreYouKnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-24-2013, 11:22 PM
  #2
ozzie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 871
vCash: 500
As far as helping his Son, I think that is somewhat of a coincidence. He stepped into a pretty good situation, with a team with a good core. I find it amazing they rebuilt so quickly after losing so many pieces from the 2009/10 team. But the core of Toews, Kane, Seabrook, Keith was still there. They also had some good draft picks years before 2009 for their first win. A good situation to be in.

Bowman was no fool in his later years, he placed himself in good situations, Penguins and Red Wings were to talented not to have a chance to win. Bowman to me with the Wings managed to get the most from his players and push them. Eye for talent and open mind, especially with noticing how good Lidstrom was early on.

Just ask Fedorov about Bowman's Jedi mind tricks, he got a lot more out of the Russian.

I think Bowman in Detroit was the man who made it happen. I liked Coffey and I didn't blame him for the 95 loss. But Bowman got him shipped out. I believe they might have won anyhow with Coffey in 97/98, but who knows? But Bowman made the move and they won. Those 95, 97/98 teams probably were more the brain child of Bowman at the time. Russian Five, Murphy, Feds on defense, etc.

The 2002 team was less about Bowman and more about the GM signing Hull and others.

If Bowman doesn't come to Detroit, they might win 1 cup with another coach, but I don't think they would have been as dominating for the late 90's.

I also wonder if Yzerman remains a wing or who they ship out to blame for their short comings.

I have no idea if the rumoured Yzerman trade was a Bowman push or someone else?

As a Wings fan I am thankful for Bowman, 3 cups, 4 appearances. But I think they were so deep/talented/rich that a top tier coach could have at least got 1 victory.

ozzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2013, 01:41 AM
  #3
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
In Bowman's first season, the following players played significant time:

Forwards
Fedorov
Kozlov
Ciccarelli
Yzerman
Primeau
Sheppard
Drake (traded midseason)
Burr
McCarty
Johnson
Probert
Sillinger
Kennedy
Aivazoff
Draper

Defense
Coffey
Lidstrom
Chiasson
Konstantinov
Howe
Carkner
Halkidis

Goaltending
Osgood
Cheveldae (traded midseason)
Essensa (acquired midseason)

Bryan Murray trading Drake+Cheveldae for Essensa+Bautin came at Bowman's behest; rookie Chris Osgood had stolen the starter position from former All-Star and Vezina contender (in the previous two seasons) Tim Cheveldae. Bowman wanted a veteran netminder. So Drake was packaged up with Cheveldae to acquire Essensa (who was basically equal to Cheveldae) and Bautin (who played one game and was a worthless acquisition). Effectively, Bowman's distaste for rookie goaltending cost the team Dallas Drake, who carved out a nice career as a top-six two-way forward.

After the season, Murray was let go and Devellano/Bowman took co-GM powers.

Most people look at the Shanahan trade in 1996 as the trade that put the Wings "over the top", but I look at it a bit differently. After that trade, the Wings were lacking on defense (no Coffey). What put them over the top was acquiring Larry Murphy to fill Coffey's spot. Which, admittedly, probably happened because Bowman trusted him. But the important thing is that it's recognized that the Wings, were they to enter the playoffs having not made the Murphy trade, probably don't win the Cup in 1997.

Between Bowman bringing out the defense first and LWL, and Yzerman buying in and getting everyone to buy into the philosophy, I think Bowman definitely was a major factor. I think other coaches could have won given the same situation, but it definitely would have looked different. I'd love to see what Bob Hartley would have done with that roster... Yzerman, Fedorov, Kozlov, Primeau, Sheppard, Coffey, Lidstrom, Chiasson?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2013, 05:31 AM
  #4
Crosbyfan
Registered User
 
Crosbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 7,593
vCash: 500
Just throw in the fact that Al Arbour played under Bowman in St. Louis and Bowman got him started in coaching...so his indirect influence even extends somewhat to the Islanders dynasty

Crosbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2013, 08:33 AM
  #5
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 72
Bowman deserves a lot of credit. His first few years as a wings coach were him imprinting his will upon the team despite their objections. A good portion of the team just hated him or strongly disliked him and disagreed with his decisions. They disagreed with his defense first attitude and wanted to revert to run and gun because of the firepower they had at the time when the going got tough, but he would not budge and threatened to bench players if they did not follow his gameplan.

The man stuck to his guns, with the support of upper management and forced those strong heads to bend and follow his will. it resulted in success

Read Sheppard's biography for a lot of the gritty inside the locker room thoughts at the time.

I posted some of it awhile back during the "Most hated coaches" thread and a lot of it can be substantiated if you look into old newspaper clippings from detroit if you feel like paying the few dollars a month
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
A lot of players hated Bowman in Detroit as well. Early in his tenure mind you.

In Ray Sheppard's biography, he wrote of how excited they were when Bryan Murray hired a coach to replace himself, Ilitch letting him pick, proving management wanted a winner. The wings were a bit leaderless and divided on the ice, and Bryan wanted a coach who could take 16 different egos and gel them into a winner.

The author who wrote the biography Ray went on to say he was shocked after having lunch with the team at how most of the red wing players, especially the leaders, hated Bowman and his style of coaching. One of the problems they had with Murray(Although they loved him) was his being both a coach and GM splitting his attention. Then, Bowman started bypassing Murray and going straight to Ilitch and it was said the players lost any respect they had for Bowman.

It went on about their loss to the Sharks. how Steve Y was rushed back to play before physically ready, and how despite the pounding they gave the sharks 2 games before with their run and gun style(Which they still played), Bowman decreed they were changing up for game 7 with a defense first, no risk taking game and that he would bench anyone not following his plan. Larionov was credited for his ability to defensively take Hart winning Fedorov out of games.

After they lost, Bowman trashed the team in the media about how the whole team "can't or won't play defense. We are not a good team at checking. The forwards are thinking goals and chicago".
I don't personally remember that because it was a Detroit paper, but at the time, I remember Bowman trashing just about everyone defensively except Fedorov and Konstantinov for their lackluster defensive play And Declared he was going to end this run and gun style the team plays and show them how to be winners. If they don't like it, they will be traded.

Obviously, Bowman did what he said and converted the team and gained their respect(Well, not some of them) over the years. But boy did a lot of players hate him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
There were quite a few times in the biography where they criticized Bowman's coaching and strategies. Mostly about how he should be allowing the team to run and gun like they had the previous score of years before he got there. He of course proved them wrong in the end.

Dino, Yzerman, Coffey and Sheppard were vocal in their distaste for Bowman's defense first style. But Ilitch signed Bowman for 3 more years and they knew from the rumblings that he was going to make examples of those who criticized his regime of defense. We know how that turned out
Edit: I am only reading it for the second time as Ray Sheppard's biography didn't interest me overmuch, but it is actually a good read.

heh. Apparently at ilitch's end of the year party after being swept by the devils, when Bowman arrived, every player sitting in the main living room rose and left because they were so mad at his decisions and coaching during that series. During the first 10 games of the season, he played the Sheppard/Yzerman/Dino line as the 4th line haha.
I sure don't remember that.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2013, 09:10 AM
  #6
tony d
Thanks for memories
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,184
vCash: 500
Bowman was the best coach in NHL history. He helped turn the Red Wings into a regular season giant/playoff underachiever and made them a powerhouse. Also did good work with Montreal, Pittsburgh and St.Louis.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2013, 10:34 AM
  #7
overg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 858
vCash: 500
The other thing Bowman can be credited for is getting the Wings to adopt a near complete "team first" mentality. He did this both by heavily rolling four lines (the Grind Line often played nearly as much as the first line), and by constantly juggling his line combinations. He basically instilled in the Wings the mentality that every single skater should be ready to skate in any situation, at any time. This effectively turned them into a juggernaut that could not only out-skill nearly every team in the league, but also simply keep coming at them in wave after wave after wave.

Which is not to sell the rest of the Wings organization short. They were great in nearly every facet. Illitch put money into the Wings, but left the management to his management team. That team consistently went out and got top end talent which would also buy into the Wings' system. Yzerman set the standard as a selfless leader who was willing to take less money to help the Wings win, which Lidstrom continued on after him.

Basically, the Wings were the best, or near best in a lot of areas, and that includes Bowman's role with the team.

overg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2013, 02:27 PM
  #8
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Bowman deserves a lot of credit. His first few years as a wings coach were him imprinting his will upon the team despite their objections. A good portion of the team just hated him or strongly disliked him and disagreed with his decisions. They disagreed with his defense first attitude and wanted to revert to run and gun because of the firepower they had at the time when the going got tough, but he would not budge and threatened to bench players if they did not follow his gameplan.

The man stuck to his guns, with the support of upper management and forced those strong heads to bend and follow his will. it resulted in success

Read Sheppard's biography for a lot of the gritty inside the locker room thoughts at the time.

I posted some of it awhile back during the "Most hated coaches" thread and a lot of it can be substantiated if you look into old newspaper clippings from detroit if you feel like paying the few dollars a month
Very similar to the 70's Habs take on Bowman. Steve Shutt said that the glue for that team was their unified hate for Bowman. But they respected him and played for him. I don't know how much the 70's Habs criticized his coaching strategies as opposed to coaching tactics, but if the Wings were criticizing Bowman's strategies they sound like a bunch of whiny know-it-alls. If that is the case, those Wings were probably capable of winning more Cups than they did.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-25-2013, 03:30 PM
  #9
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Bowman deserves a lot of credit. His first few years as a wings coach were him imprinting his will upon the team despite their objections. A good portion of the team just hated him or strongly disliked him and disagreed with his decisions. They disagreed with his defense first attitude and wanted to revert to run and gun because of the firepower they had at the time when the going got tough, but he would not budge and threatened to bench players if they did not follow his gameplan.

The man stuck to his guns, with the support of upper management and forced those strong heads to bend and follow his will. it resulted in success

Read Sheppard's biography for a lot of the gritty inside the locker room thoughts at the time.

I posted some of it awhile back during the "Most hated coaches" thread and a lot of it can be substantiated if you look into old newspaper clippings from detroit if you feel like paying the few dollars a month
I did a lot of digging into the Yzerman trade rumors to Ottawa in 1994, scouring deep into the Freep archives. Yzerman was convinced by the end of October that he would be moving to Ottawa. (Of course, people will bring up that Ilitch nixed the deal in the end due to fan reaction, but Stevie believed it was happening and the deal couldn't have been set up at all w/o Mr I's approval). It was all due to Bowman wanting the team to buy into the Defense First mentality. Fedorov, having come from the Soviet center system (rover), was already onboard the two-way game mentality and Bowman picked him as his #1 center. Now, some fans will say that led to friction between the two, but it didn't really. They were always on good terms, Yzerman knowing how to play dead so he could get Feds to step up when needed.

In the and, Yzerman bought into the defensive play system, did a complete 180 degrees on how he approached the game (his stats show it too), and the rest is history.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 09:02 AM
  #10
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I did a lot of digging into the Yzerman trade rumors to Ottawa in 1994, scouring deep into the Freep archives. Yzerman was convinced by the end of October that he would be moving to Ottawa. (Of course, people will bring up that Ilitch nixed the deal in the end due to fan reaction, but Stevie believed it was happening and the deal couldn't have been set up at all w/o Mr I's approval). It was all due to Bowman wanting the team to buy into the Defense First mentality. Fedorov, having come from the Soviet center system (rover), was already onboard the two-way game mentality and Bowman picked him as his #1 center. Now, some fans will say that led to friction between the two, but it didn't really. They were always on good terms, Yzerman knowing how to play dead so he could get Feds to step up when needed.

In the and, Yzerman bought into the defensive play system, did a complete 180 degrees on how he approached the game (his stats show it too), and the rest is history.
Agreed. I remember it as it was happening and looked into a lot of Detroit news articles and you are 100% correct

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 12:53 PM
  #11
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Very similar to the 70's Habs take on Bowman. Steve Shutt said that the glue for that team was their unified hate for Bowman. But they respected him and played for him. I don't know how much the 70's Habs criticized his coaching strategies as opposed to coaching tactics, but if the Wings were criticizing Bowman's strategies they sound like a bunch of whiny know-it-alls. If that is the case, those Wings were probably capable of winning more Cups than they did.
I love Shutt's exact quote:

"You hated him 364 days a year, and on the 365th day you got your Stanley Cup ring."

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 10:46 PM
  #12
silkyjohnson50
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,740
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I did a lot of digging into the Yzerman trade rumors to Ottawa in 1994, scouring deep into the Freep archives. Yzerman was convinced by the end of October that he would be moving to Ottawa. (Of course, people will bring up that Ilitch nixed the deal in the end due to fan reaction, but Stevie believed it was happening and the deal couldn't have been set up at all w/o Mr I's approval). It was all due to Bowman wanting the team to buy into the Defense First mentality. Fedorov, having come from the Soviet center system (rover), was already onboard the two-way game mentality and Bowman picked him as his #1 center. Now, some fans will say that led to friction between the two, but it didn't really. They were always on good terms, Yzerman knowing how to play dead so he could get Feds to step up when needed.

In the and, Yzerman bought into the defensive play system, did a complete 180 degrees on how he approached the game (his stats show it too), and the rest is history.
I know some posters claim that Yzerman was always very good defensively and defensively conscious, but the posts from this thread would seem to indicate otherwise, right?

silkyjohnson50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 11:36 PM
  #13
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silkyjohnson50 View Post
I know some posters claim that Yzerman was always very good defensively and defensively conscious, but the posts from this thread would seem to indicate otherwise, right?

I think so. Coaches like Lemaire and Bowman were responsible for bringing the Neutral Zone Trap and Left Wing Lock to the NHL (invented by the Czechs to thwart the Soviets' puck possession system), so there was definitely an evolving focus on defense and slowing down the rampant scoring of the 1980s. The reason the Soviet-trained centers (like Larionov and Fedorov, and Datsyuk today) were so good at two-way play is due to the way the Soviets wanted their centermen to play. I mentioned it was akin to the original Rover position (a player who went wherever needed vs a defined position). You're very familiar with Datsyuk, of course, but consider how defensively responsible he is, drifting to cover gaps if a D pinches and definitely always getting back on defense as well. This is what we call two-way play these days, but this wasn't something very common prior to the 90s.

Basically, Bowman wanted Yzerman to adopt the two-way system.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 11:58 PM
  #14
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by silkyjohnson50 View Post
I know some posters claim that Yzerman was always very good defensively and defensively conscious, but the posts from this thread would seem to indicate otherwise, right?
If you're referring to me, they back up what I have said all along.

From 83-84 to 93-94, Yzerman was a very good/elite offense-first forward who was good (and later in that span, very good) defensively. In 94-95 he switched priorities and became an elite defense-first forward who is very good offensively.

Offense was his main priority, in part because his team had nobody else that could score and in part because he was just so damn good at it. But he was always used in defensive roles as well; just not to the same degree Bowman used him. If the Selke were voted in the 80s the way it is now, it's entirely possible Yzerman might have won it.

A guy who can shut down Larionov in the 1985 WCs, or Gretzky in the 1987 playoffs, that's not a guy who's not able to play defense.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 12:20 AM
  #15
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
If you're referring to me, they back up what I have said all along.

From 83-84 to 93-94, Yzerman was a very good/elite offense-first forward who was good (and later in that span, very good) defensively. In 94-95 he switched priorities and became an elite defense-first forward who is very good offensively.

Offense was his main priority, in part because his team had nobody else that could score and in part because he was just so damn good at it. But he was always used in defensive roles as well; just not to the same degree Bowman used him. If the Selke were voted in the 80s the way it is now, it's entirely possible Yzerman might have won it.

A guy who can shut down Larionov in the 1985 WCs, or Gretzky in the 1987 playoffs, that's not a guy who's not able to play defense.

I think it had nothing to do with priorities, as in self-elected, but just how teams played in those days.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 12:30 AM
  #16
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think it had nothing to do with priorities, as in self-elected, but just how teams played in those days.
I didn't say (nor have I ever said) that it was his personal choice; simply that offense was the first priority in "Act 1" of Yzerman's career.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 08:48 AM
  #17
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Litmus Test

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
I think it had nothing to do with priorities, as in self-elected, but just how teams played in those days.
Litmus test would be how Steve Yzerman views the game today as GM in Tampa Bay. Under his leadership the Lightning have been playing like the pre Bowman Red Wings.

Conversely Chicago under Stan Bowman with a prod from dad has a team whose centers play excellent defense.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 10:13 AM
  #18
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Litmus test would be how Steve Yzerman views the game today as GM in Tampa Bay. Under his leadership the Lightning have been playing like the pre Bowman Red Wings.

Conversely Chicago under Stan Bowman with a prod from dad has a team whose centers play excellent defense.
I don't think that's a fair litmus test.

Stamkos was not drafted by Yzerman, and Yzerman is not the coach.
Ditto for Lecavalier.

Do we not forget that Yzerman's hand-picked coach had the team playing a defense-first system which caused the Flyers to REFUSE TO PLAY? Yzerman is the GM, and he hasn't had long enough to affect the team's top forwards. He's needed to focus on the defense and goaltending more; there is a very strong possibility the Lightning will end up with Seth Jones (Joe Sakic has stated they will take a forward; Florida NEEDS to take a forward because if they lose Weiss, Marcel Goc is their best center; and then we have Tampa up next) and that will help set up the Lightning blue line. Jones, Hedman, Stamkos, Bishop is a high end core for many years going forward. Add in a solid support cast (Chicago-style rebuild) and the Lightning could be looking at multiple Cups.

And Stan Bowman inherited Dale Tallon's Stanley Cup team, which already featured Joel Quenneville, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Sharp, Marian Hossa, Tomas Kopecky, and Dave Bolland (among others). So giving him (or his dad) credit for the players or the way the team in general played is ridiculous. You could argue that he might have suggested the Handzus move, but it's unlikely as the elder Bowman has lived in Buffalo since his retirement from coaching. And even then, Handzus was a minimal part of the run, and less effective than Kopecky (who actually played more wing than center, with Sharp as the 2C). And Shaw was definitely less effective than pre-injury Bolland.

You're making an example where there isn't one, because the example fits the narrative that Yzerman wanted to be run-and-gun and simply hated the idea of defense. Why don't you go ask Yzerman what players he would put on his team and what coach he would use, and see what the results would be?

EDIT: Actually, that's not necessary... we have the 2010 Olympics and the upcoming 2014 Olympics as a true litmus test. Yzerman dropped guys like Mike Green in favor of better all-around, two-way players. Defensively responsible Jay Bouwmeester was selected as an alternate, despite the fact that he finished 24th in defenseman scoring that season (and was not on pace to do any better that season as of the Olympic break). Patrice Bergeron finished the year 46th in forward scoring with 52 points, yet was taken on the main roster ahead of Martin St.Louis, Jeff Carter, and Steven Stamkos (selected as alternates), as well as Corey Perry, Chris Stewart, Antoine Vermette, and others.

He picked defense-first Mike Babcock to coach. If he wanted offensive play, Stamkos and St. Louis are on the team, and he picks Hartley.

But Steve Yzerman's Lightning team (or more accurately, Stamkos specifically), which is largely made up of players he didn't acquire, represents his philosophy on how to play hockey. Sure, we'll go with that. Based on league ranking in SA/GP, they were better defensively than offensively. Terrible goalies until Bishop, so they had a poor GD.


Last edited by pdd: 06-27-2013 at 10:30 AM.
pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 11:19 AM
  #19
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
Well...............

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
I don't think that's a fair litmus test.

Stamkos was not drafted by Yzerman, and Yzerman is not the coach.
Ditto for Lecavalier.

Do we not forget that Yzerman's hand-picked coach had the team playing a defense-first system which caused the Flyers to REFUSE TO PLAY? Yzerman is the GM, and he hasn't had long enough to affect the team's top forwards. He's needed to focus on the defense and goaltending more; there is a very strong possibility the Lightning will end up with Seth Jones (Joe Sakic has stated they will take a forward; Florida NEEDS to take a forward because if they lose Weiss, Marcel Goc is their best center; and then we have Tampa up next) and that will help set up the Lightning blue line. Jones, Hedman, Stamkos, Bishop is a high end core for many years going forward. Add in a solid support cast (Chicago-style rebuild) and the Lightning could be looking at multiple Cups.

And Stan Bowman inherited Dale Tallon's Stanley Cup team, which already featured Joel Quenneville, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Sharp, Marian Hossa, Tomas Kopecky, and Dave Bolland (among others). So giving him (or his dad) credit for the players or the way the team in general played is ridiculous. You could argue that he might have suggested the Handzus move, but it's unlikely as the elder Bowman has lived in Buffalo since his retirement from coaching. And even then, Handzus was a minimal part of the run, and less effective than Kopecky (who actually played more wing than center, with Sharp as the 2C). And Shaw was definitely less effective than pre-injury Bolland.

You're making an example where there isn't one, because the example fits the narrative that Yzerman wanted to be run-and-gun and simply hated the idea of defense. Why don't you go ask Yzerman what players he would put on his team and what coach he would use, and see what the results would be?
Chicago won both Stanley Cups - 2010 and 2013 with Stan Bowman as GM. Tallon may have drafted the players, though Bowman was Asst GM and part of the process, but it was Stan Bowman who decided which players to keep after the first SC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Bowman

Plenty of "free agent" centers available for Florida - start with Lecavalier, Briere, Ribeiro,work down or available in trade - Grabovski,etc better than Goc. No need no pass on an "if" available Seth Jones.

Guy Boucher's system with the 1-3-1 is a balanced offence/defense game.At the time of the hire Guy Boucher had the reputation of an innovative offensive coach after his Drummondville and Hamilton experience. That the Flyers and Peter Laviolette had issues with Boucher's system reflects on the Flyers weaknesses especially at the coaching level.

Don't assume that Scotty Bowman does not have access to television and video living in Buffalo.


As for Steve Yzerman as a GM, the Entry Draft and AHL team under him was offense centered. Who he inherited and who he kept are the true measure. Also his unwillingness until recently - Rick Bowness, to invest in experienced assistant coaches hurt the team defensively.

Your Chicago style rebuild comment says it all. Go back to the Scotty Bowman approach now that Yzerman's way has proven to be a failure.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 11:52 AM
  #20
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Litmus test would be how Steve Yzerman views the game today as GM in Tampa Bay. Under his leadership the Lightning have been playing like the pre Bowman Red Wings.

Conversely Chicago under Stan Bowman with a prod from dad has a team whose centers play excellent defense.
I agree. Watching Chicago the past 3+ yrs has reminded me, system-wise, of none other than the Wings under Bowman, and then indirectly while he was still influencing Babcock, who admitted to talking to Bowman every day and after every game. Their focus on puck possession, two-way play from their forwards and shot suppression is quite familiar. In fact, the way opposition coaches try to attack the Hawks is fairly reminiscent of the tactics used against those earlier Wings teams-- and possibly why the Wings matched up as well as they did against the Hawks. No other team gave them a bigger scare in spite of being quite outclassed in terms of experience (especially on the blue line).

With that said, I don't personally think that Yzerman has had time to build up a Wings' type development system, with the requisite focus on skill/skating vs size or just the sheer talent you get to pick if you draft in to the top ten. That's a luxury the Wings haven't had in eons.

@ eva. Stan Bowman has been with Chicago since 2001, in a role that was similar to Jim Nill's with Detroit. I think he had quite a bit of influence on the way that team was built, and where would he look to for inspiration or advice? Scotty Bowman raised him! You don't think some of the philosophy leaked over?

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 12:05 PM
  #21
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,742
vCash: 500
McGill

Fugu,

Well you do have to give Yzerman credit for hiring a McGill Alum in Guy Boucher, like Mike Babcock.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 12:09 PM
  #22
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
@ eva. Stan Bowman has been with Chicago since 2001, in a role that was similar to Jim Nill's with Detroit. I think he had quite a bit of influence on the way that team was built, and where would he look to for inspiration or advice? Scotty Bowman raised him! You don't think some of the philosophy leaked over?
So what you're saying is that Dale Tallon made no decisions, and that Stan Bowman is responsible for building that team? The 2010 Cup roster was almost exclusively Tallon players. He drafted guys like Toews and Kane, signed Hossa, Kopecky, traded for Sharp. The guys who make up the team's core now are there because of Dale Tallon.

Take a quick look at how Dale Tallon is building his Florida team. Notice some familiar names? Tomas Kopecky? Brian Campbell? Kris Versteeg? He has some solid players from that Hawks team, as well as picking the RIGHT guys in the draft (like Huberdeau). He's again building a contender. Will the Bowmans go down there and take his credit in a few years, or will he finally get credit?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 12:55 PM
  #23
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
So what you're saying is that Dale Tallon made no decisions, and that Stan Bowman is responsible for building that team? The 2010 Cup roster was almost exclusively Tallon players. He drafted guys like Toews and Kane, signed Hossa, Kopecky, traded for Sharp. The guys who make up the team's core now are there because of Dale Tallon.

Take a quick look at how Dale Tallon is building his Florida team. Notice some familiar names? Tomas Kopecky? Brian Campbell? Kris Versteeg? He has some solid players from that Hawks team, as well as picking the RIGHT guys in the draft (like Huberdeau). He's again building a contender. Will the Bowmans go down there and take his credit in a few years, or will he finally get credit?
I can play this game too, eva.


So what you're saying is that it was all Holland and Nill nor Bowman had any influence in Detroit, right?


Stan had a role like Nill's. If you want to discount Bowman, then you're going to have to discount Nill and Scotty in Detroit.

Scotty Bowman is extremely instrumental in tweaking rosters as well, in addition to game by game analyses and tweaks to lines and matching, strategies. He's a master at this stuff. There's a reason Quenneville consults him daily.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 12:58 PM
  #24
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,110
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Fugu,

Well you do have to give Yzerman credit for hiring a McGill Alum in Guy Boucher, like Mike Babcock.



I do. Yzerman said he wanted to find someone with new ideas, a fresh approach and a coach who wasn't afraid of thinking outside the box. I think ultimately what hurt Tampa more than any of these other philosophical type matters is the lack of either an elite defenseman or an elite goalie. I think you need one or the other to build a true contender. Boston is very fortunate in having Rask and Chara, but Chicago overcame their deficit in net by having Keith and Seabrook as their anchors.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 03:46 PM
  #25
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by silkyjohnson50 View Post
I know some posters claim that Yzerman was always very good defensively and defensively conscious, but the posts from this thread would seem to indicate otherwise, right?
Some do. I personally do not and I watched him a lot. Very fun player to watch.

He may have had some of the skills, but he would consistently like most forwards of the era, put himself out of position trying to drive the offense. He would try, like most of that era, to dipsy doodle through traffic and make those highlight reel plays instead of the safer offensive plays. He would make those iffy dangerous passes instead of the safe pass. Try to force plays that were not there. He put those things on the shelf for less gaudy stats and more shot blocking and safe plays, but more notches in the win column.

Mind you, by the standards of those days, such play was normal. Nobody is saying he was a horrendous defensive player. But he was certainly not a good one. Most offensive forwards of that era were not judged in that regard and it was not something that was often talked about unless a coach/GM was trying to prop his player up in the media. (Like Bowman talking about how good defensively Mario Lemieux was playing). Yes he played on the PK. Most of the superstars of that era did.

There was a visible transformation in the style of the team, lead by Yzerman and most notably, in Yzerman himself. There are tons of quotes out there by guys like Devellano, Ken Holland, various teammates at the time. Devellano talked in detail about how Yzerman was not a 200 foot player at the time, but praised his offensive abilities. Ken Holland has many quotes about how Yzerman's commitment to winning caused him to go from a top offensive player and transform into a great two way player.

In Sheppard's biography, it goes into detail about how much friction between Bowman and Yzerman surfaced because Yzerman(And most of the team) wanted to drop the defense and run and gun in his first season there.

heck, by 95 and 96 Yzerman was talking about how much more conservatively he was playing

Many Modern wing fans will tell you this is "revisionist history", and that Yzerman always played great defense. But the truth of the matter is they are the ones trying to revise History, and the media at the time and old newspaper articles from the time period tell the tale.

Edit2: Just because of newspaper archives.

Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/16/sp...mvp-award.html

A 15-year veteran, Yzerman has changed his playing style in recent seasons. Earlier in his career, he was primarily an attacker. Now, he gets back to cover his own end of the ice. He checks opponents, cuts off their skating angles, blocks shots and displays a well-rounded style.

Knee injuries and age have taken some of his skating speed. His hand quickness on scoring chances is not what it once was. The arrival of Russian centers like Fedorov and Igor Larionov may have taken some of the pressure off Yzerman to carry the offensive burden while demonstrating to him the dual responsibilities of centers trained in the Russian style. Another factor was the arrival of Bowman, who demanded defensive consciousness from forwards.

''He didn't really say that to me specifically,'' Yzerman said. ''It was a statement to the team. What he didn't say is 'If you don't, you're not going to play.' That was implied.''
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/17/sp...n-yzerman.html

Other members of the Wings see Yzerman's role a little differently.

''You see how hard Steve plays every night, how much he sacrifices for the team,'' said Shanahan, the Wings' wing. ''You can't do that as a team unless your captain plays that way.''

Coach Scotty Bowman said: ''Steve Yzerman has been through it all. It starts with him. When you have a player playing as hard as he does every night, it spills off.''

It wasn't always this way with Yzerman, whose career in Detroit underwent wild fluctuations before he finally settled into his current role as the team's governing spirit. In six seasons from 1987 to 1993, Yzerman averaged 122 points a season and was generally regarded as the game's third-best offensive center behind Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux. But the Wings' success, especially in the playoffs, did not equal Yzerman's individual success. When Bowman took over the team in 1993-94, the Wings were a talented, explosive offensive team that was also too soft for the playoff grind. Bowman eventually changed the makeup of the team, transforming the Red Wings into a gritty squad capable of playing a strong two-way game. And critical to that makeover was the transformation of Yzerman.

''We depended on Steve to score too much,'' is Bowman's explanation. ''When you're not expected to score 65 goals a season, you can do more things. As you get older, and get more experience, you evolve into that kind of player. I've seen it happen to a lot of players.''

But Bowman almost did not see it happen to Yzerman. Early in the 1995-96 season, the Wings were discussing a potential trade involving Yzerman with the Ottawa Senators. The story in Detroit goes that Bowman was considering the move when the Red Wings' owner, Mike Ilitch, stepped in and said Yzerman was not going anywhere. A year later, the Wings won their first Stanley Cup. Tonight they were fitted for a second ring and Yzerman was awarded the Smythe.

''I think he likes it this way better,'' Bowman said.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...an+trade&hl=en

Bowman regarded Yzerman as One dimensional.

All of this was common, agreed upon talk at the time in all hockey circles. It is only recently that more fierce wings fans try to convince everyone otherwise.


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 07-04-2013 at 09:33 PM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.