1990: Terry Crisp Fired
- Thread starter Hockeyholic
- Start date
The Panther
Registered User
Basically, yes. But he coached the Flames for only three seasons (1987-1990).
The Flames finished 1st overall in 1988, 1st overall in 1989, and 2nd overall in 1990. Crisp had a win-percentage of 67%.
And he got fired for it. Tough crowd, eh?
The Flames were a playoff disappointment in '88, but they lost to dynasty Edmonton when Crisp was a rookie-coach, so you can't put too much of that on him (having said that, most people expected them to beat Edmonton that year, and instead they got swept). In 1989 the stars aligned (or Gretzky was traded, take your pick) and the Flames finished 1st overall and won the big Cup... but they were 1 shot away from being eliminated in the first round by lowly Vancouver, which was a major scare. Then, in 1990, the Flames go down in the first round to lowest-seed Los Angeles.
So, two of those three playoffs had to be considered major disappointments. I think there were maybe some behind-the-scenes issues of discord with The Flames in 1989-90, too -- some of the leaders (McDonald, Peplinski) were suddenly gone, and some big personalities (Gilmour, Fleury) were in the locker room. Maybe Crisp was thought to be losing control a bit, I'm not sure. But I also think it was not only that they lost to L.A. (some sketchy officiating in the decisive game, btw) but the way they lost that mattered.
When the Cup Champions lose 2-1 in overtime, and then come back the next night and lose 12-4, you know there's something wrong with the team culture.
tony d
Registered User
I remember this, again given they won the Cup in 1989 I'm not sure I fire my coach that following yr.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,739
- 16,129
i'm guessing he catastrophically lost the room.
famously, he would not get on board with brett hull, who midway through his rookie year was tied with nieuwendyk for the league lead in rookie scoring (nieuwy ended up with 50 goals and won the calder, hull kept getting healthy scratched). so hull got traded, and the flames won the cup. but then you turn around and in the summer of 1990, after the flames were upset by the kings, there's smiling brett hull, finishing third for the hart trophy behind messier and bourque and breaking jari kurri's all-time record for goals by a RW.
now is not the time to relitigate the brett hull for ramage trade, but i think it was part of a bigger trend. crisp also rode gary roberts, who as a youngster was apparently the polar opposite of the old man roberts.
here's a passage from brett hull's autobiography--
in 1990, roberts broke through on a line with makarov, but makarov also reportedly vocally did not enjoy terry crisp hockey.
here's makarov:
i don't know about other guys but maybe after winning the cup and getting the monkey off their backs they decided they didn't need to put up with him anymore?
they replaced him with doug risebrough, who played with a lot of those guys on the mid-80s flames and was crisp's assistant coach. i'm guessing he was crisp's good cop? here's another passage from hull's autobiography--
famously, he would not get on board with brett hull, who midway through his rookie year was tied with nieuwendyk for the league lead in rookie scoring (nieuwy ended up with 50 goals and won the calder, hull kept getting healthy scratched). so hull got traded, and the flames won the cup. but then you turn around and in the summer of 1990, after the flames were upset by the kings, there's smiling brett hull, finishing third for the hart trophy behind messier and bourque and breaking jari kurri's all-time record for goals by a RW.
now is not the time to relitigate the brett hull for ramage trade, but i think it was part of a bigger trend. crisp also rode gary roberts, who as a youngster was apparently the polar opposite of the old man roberts.
here's a passage from brett hull's autobiography--
in 1990, roberts broke through on a line with makarov, but makarov also reportedly vocally did not enjoy terry crisp hockey.
here's makarov:
i don't know about other guys but maybe after winning the cup and getting the monkey off their backs they decided they didn't need to put up with him anymore?
they replaced him with doug risebrough, who played with a lot of those guys on the mid-80s flames and was crisp's assistant coach. i'm guessing he was crisp's good cop? here's another passage from hull's autobiography--
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,739
- 16,129
ran a quick db search. here's what came up--
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
May 8, 1990 Tuesday
Dictatorial style was Crisp downfall as coach of Flames
BY AL STRACHAN
CHICAGO
Like the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and the democratization of Eastern
Europe, the firing of Terry Crisp as coach of the Calgary Flames was a
sign of the changing times.
Dictators are no longer in fashion, either in the National Hockey
League or in the real world, and Crisp's coaching style, unfortunately,
bordered on dictatorship.
In announcing Crisp's firing yesterday, general manager Cliff Fletcher
said in Calgary: "It is the feeling of our organization that to maximize
the potential of our hockey club . . . it necessitates a change of coach."
A minor surprise was that a replacement wasn't announced.
"I have a person in mind," said Fletcher, who has fired only two other
coaches in his 18 years as Flames general manager. "I'm not going to
speculate or play 20 questions on who may or may not be a candidate."
Crisp didn't attend the news conference and didn't return phone calls.
"No one is trying to hang Terry Crisp for the fact we lost to L.A. in
six games," Fletcher said. "It is a responsibility that has to be shared
by everyone in the organization."
Fletcher hinted Crisp's firing may be followed by player moves.
Away from the immediate trappings of the game, Crisp is a pleasant man.
He is effervescent, friendly and accessible. But when called upon to
exercise his responsibilities as a coach, he followed the tenets that he
had been exposed to as a player, and that he himself had used with great
success in junior hockey.
The NHL is not junior hockey. Today, many players come from Europe,
where the approach to the game is often less intense. Many come from U.S.
colleges and are academically oriented. Even Canadian juniors are much
better educated than their predecessors, with the majority graduating from
high school. Furthermore, junior hockey is played by teen-agers. NHL
hockey, for the most part, is played by men.
In the specific case of the Flames, many of the veterans had played a
large portion of their careers under Bob Johnson, a former coach at the
University of Wisconsin.
Johnson had a passion for meetings. He held them at all hours of the
day and night. Some were for the entire team, some for specific units and
some for individuals. Johnson made sure that everyone knew exactly what he
was doing. He explained to each player, calmly and patiently, what he
expected that player to do and why he expected him to do it.
Coaches like Crisp, whose response to adversity is to scream at the
players, are losing their popularity throughout the sport, but in Calgary,
where Johnson's influence was still strong, Crisp immediately faced a
solid barrier of resistance.
The first time he stood on the dasher to scream at a referee, the
players were horrified. "I wanted to push him onto the ice," one said. "
We're professionals. The day of that kind of activity is long gone."
Crisp's choice of vocabulary was something less than exemplary as well.
"Did you hear some of the things he was saying?" another player asked. "I
was embarrassed. There were families there, people I know, and you could
hear him cursing all over the building."
To his credit, Crisp did honestly try to change. He calmed down behind
the bench and this year, he tried to adopt a more modern approach to his
players. But the damage had been done. The players, rightly or wrongly,
had lost respect for him. They sardonically referred to him as "the
mastermind" because they felt that his coaching tactics were not up to
date.
Among other things, they felt that the Flames should work toward
emulating the swirling style used by the hated Edmonton Oilers. They felt
that their defencemen should be encouraged to jump in and join a rush
rather than be told to stay back. They felt that Crisp didn't always dress
the right players for a given situation.
Most importantly, they felt that they won the Stanley Cup last season
despite Crisp, not because of him.
There will be those who argue with this assesssment. Probably, the
vehemence of the disagreement will rise in direct proportion to the age of
those disagreeing. They will point to Crisp's Stanley Cup, and to his
coaching record that is second-best in league history, and say that he
deserves to be kept on.
But the best coaching percentage belongs to Scott Bowman, who was a
very strong influence on Crisp, and who is also out of work, having fallen
prey to the same syndrome that has affected Crisp.
Bowman still has a splendid hockey mind, but his approach, which he in
turn learned from another great coach, Toe Blake, is one of confrontation
and dictatorship.
Toe Blake's style wouldn't work today. The same is true of Dick Irvin
Sr. or Punch Imlach or any of the old-style disciplinarians. Times have
changed and whether the old hockey establishment likes it or not, it is a
fact that to be successful, today's players have to be urged and
encouraged more than threatened and abused.
Mike Keenan of the Chicago Blackhawks comes closest to the old-line
coaches (he too is a disciple of Bowman's), but Keenan has made
concessions to the era. He employs psychologists, professional motivators,
therapists, statistical analysts and anyone else who might be able to
bring his team's game into the nineties.
Terry Crisp's fatal flaw was that his game was still in the seventies.
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
May 8, 1990 Tuesday
Dictatorial style was Crisp downfall as coach of Flames
BY AL STRACHAN
CHICAGO
Like the crumbling of the Berlin Wall and the democratization of Eastern
Europe, the firing of Terry Crisp as coach of the Calgary Flames was a
sign of the changing times.
Dictators are no longer in fashion, either in the National Hockey
League or in the real world, and Crisp's coaching style, unfortunately,
bordered on dictatorship.
In announcing Crisp's firing yesterday, general manager Cliff Fletcher
said in Calgary: "It is the feeling of our organization that to maximize
the potential of our hockey club . . . it necessitates a change of coach."
A minor surprise was that a replacement wasn't announced.
"I have a person in mind," said Fletcher, who has fired only two other
coaches in his 18 years as Flames general manager. "I'm not going to
speculate or play 20 questions on who may or may not be a candidate."
Crisp didn't attend the news conference and didn't return phone calls.
"No one is trying to hang Terry Crisp for the fact we lost to L.A. in
six games," Fletcher said. "It is a responsibility that has to be shared
by everyone in the organization."
Fletcher hinted Crisp's firing may be followed by player moves.
Away from the immediate trappings of the game, Crisp is a pleasant man.
He is effervescent, friendly and accessible. But when called upon to
exercise his responsibilities as a coach, he followed the tenets that he
had been exposed to as a player, and that he himself had used with great
success in junior hockey.
The NHL is not junior hockey. Today, many players come from Europe,
where the approach to the game is often less intense. Many come from U.S.
colleges and are academically oriented. Even Canadian juniors are much
better educated than their predecessors, with the majority graduating from
high school. Furthermore, junior hockey is played by teen-agers. NHL
hockey, for the most part, is played by men.
In the specific case of the Flames, many of the veterans had played a
large portion of their careers under Bob Johnson, a former coach at the
University of Wisconsin.
Johnson had a passion for meetings. He held them at all hours of the
day and night. Some were for the entire team, some for specific units and
some for individuals. Johnson made sure that everyone knew exactly what he
was doing. He explained to each player, calmly and patiently, what he
expected that player to do and why he expected him to do it.
Coaches like Crisp, whose response to adversity is to scream at the
players, are losing their popularity throughout the sport, but in Calgary,
where Johnson's influence was still strong, Crisp immediately faced a
solid barrier of resistance.
The first time he stood on the dasher to scream at a referee, the
players were horrified. "I wanted to push him onto the ice," one said. "
We're professionals. The day of that kind of activity is long gone."
Crisp's choice of vocabulary was something less than exemplary as well.
"Did you hear some of the things he was saying?" another player asked. "I
was embarrassed. There were families there, people I know, and you could
hear him cursing all over the building."
To his credit, Crisp did honestly try to change. He calmed down behind
the bench and this year, he tried to adopt a more modern approach to his
players. But the damage had been done. The players, rightly or wrongly,
had lost respect for him. They sardonically referred to him as "the
mastermind" because they felt that his coaching tactics were not up to
date.
Among other things, they felt that the Flames should work toward
emulating the swirling style used by the hated Edmonton Oilers. They felt
that their defencemen should be encouraged to jump in and join a rush
rather than be told to stay back. They felt that Crisp didn't always dress
the right players for a given situation.
Most importantly, they felt that they won the Stanley Cup last season
despite Crisp, not because of him.
There will be those who argue with this assesssment. Probably, the
vehemence of the disagreement will rise in direct proportion to the age of
those disagreeing. They will point to Crisp's Stanley Cup, and to his
coaching record that is second-best in league history, and say that he
deserves to be kept on.
But the best coaching percentage belongs to Scott Bowman, who was a
very strong influence on Crisp, and who is also out of work, having fallen
prey to the same syndrome that has affected Crisp.
Bowman still has a splendid hockey mind, but his approach, which he in
turn learned from another great coach, Toe Blake, is one of confrontation
and dictatorship.
Toe Blake's style wouldn't work today. The same is true of Dick Irvin
Sr. or Punch Imlach or any of the old-style disciplinarians. Times have
changed and whether the old hockey establishment likes it or not, it is a
fact that to be successful, today's players have to be urged and
encouraged more than threatened and abused.
Mike Keenan of the Chicago Blackhawks comes closest to the old-line
coaches (he too is a disciple of Bowman's), but Keenan has made
concessions to the era. He employs psychologists, professional motivators,
therapists, statistical analysts and anyone else who might be able to
bring his team's game into the nineties.
Terry Crisp's fatal flaw was that his game was still in the seventies.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,739
- 16,129
The Toronto Star
April 12, 1990, Thursday, FINAL EDITION
Flames' chances burnt by a Crisp
CALGARY - There is still hope for the Calgary Flames as they slither along the cutting edge. But their plight demands action and conviction, the kind of execution Cliff Fletcher has loathed during his career as general manager. He has to remove his coach and he has to do it now. Not when the National Hockey League playoffs end. Not when the defending Stanley Cup champions are eliminated. Today. Now. While there's still a chance.
To sit and do nothing is to watch the Flames drag a hunting knife across their throats. They are losing this Smythe Division semifinal as much as the Los Angeles Kings are winning it. They are losing it badly.
With Terry Crisp behind the bench, the Flames have degenerated into a frustrated, predictable club. There is no direction, no leadership. Every other night, stunned players are forced to admit they are surprised by L.A.'s forechecking, penalty killing and defence. Surprised? In the playoffs? By a fourth-place opponent? No wonder Calgary lost 12-4 in Game 4 and is trailing 3-1.
"The Kings are playing a very disciplined game, which we haven't seen from them before," defenceman Ric Nattress said. "As a team, they're playing a great team game and that's what we're not doing . . . We're just focused in the wrong direction and it shows."
Dictating the game
Since the series opened last Wednesday, Crisp has been reacting to whatever it is the Kings are doing. Despite the fact Calgary has superior talent and depth, L.A. is dictating the style of game and playing that style better than the Flames. It's clutch, grab, hook, stay close to your man, stay away from stupid penalties, pressure Calgary's point men on the power play and let Wayne Gretzky do his thing. Not that the Flames have found a way to stop Tony Granato, let alone The Great One.
"Gretzky's playing great hockey, but they have a lot of guys doing that. They didn't play like that in the regular season," the Flames' Joel Otto said. "We've given them that winning feeling. Now we have to take it away."
Oddly enough, the Kings put a stranglehold on this series by losing Game 2 at the Saddledome. With Calgary ahead 5-1 in what has been its only win so far, the Kings kept coming back and coming back until the Flames finally scored into an empty net for an 8-5 final. It was then that the Kings, playing without Gretzky and his trick back, realized Calgary wasn't so invincible.
"That game," said forward Dave Taylor, the second-leading scorer in the playoffs, "gave us a lot of confidence. It showed us that if we stuck to our system we could win."
Abrasive nature
And the Flames haven't done enough to knock L.A. off its system. In the swirling chaos that was Tuesday's first period at the Great Western Forum, Crisp never once called a timeout to settle his shaken players. He stood back and did nothing as the Flames panicked, took penalties and collapsed like a gutted building.
Not that the players are interested in following Crisp. They've disliked his bellowing, abrasive nature since he took over from Bob Johnson three years ago. Fletcher has met with key players to try and ease the friction. The players met with Crisp and asked him to chill out. But now, when they need each other the most, the two sides have grown so far apart that it's too late for reconciliation. Much too late.
For the ever-cautious Fletcher, who has fired only one coach in his 17 years with the Flames, the last hope is to change coaches. Fletcher called Tuesday's humiliation "an embarrassment to the organization." He must surely understand that the best man for this crisis is assistant GM Doug Risebrough. The players respect him. They'd play for him. His appointment would give the Flames the strategist they so badly need as well as an emotional lift.
As they have shown us many times, the best team to beat the Flames remains the Flames. They must correct that soon. Before the knife slips and the Flames go quietly into the grave.
April 12, 1990, Thursday, FINAL EDITION
Flames' chances burnt by a Crisp
CALGARY - There is still hope for the Calgary Flames as they slither along the cutting edge. But their plight demands action and conviction, the kind of execution Cliff Fletcher has loathed during his career as general manager. He has to remove his coach and he has to do it now. Not when the National Hockey League playoffs end. Not when the defending Stanley Cup champions are eliminated. Today. Now. While there's still a chance.
To sit and do nothing is to watch the Flames drag a hunting knife across their throats. They are losing this Smythe Division semifinal as much as the Los Angeles Kings are winning it. They are losing it badly.
With Terry Crisp behind the bench, the Flames have degenerated into a frustrated, predictable club. There is no direction, no leadership. Every other night, stunned players are forced to admit they are surprised by L.A.'s forechecking, penalty killing and defence. Surprised? In the playoffs? By a fourth-place opponent? No wonder Calgary lost 12-4 in Game 4 and is trailing 3-1.
"The Kings are playing a very disciplined game, which we haven't seen from them before," defenceman Ric Nattress said. "As a team, they're playing a great team game and that's what we're not doing . . . We're just focused in the wrong direction and it shows."
Dictating the game
Since the series opened last Wednesday, Crisp has been reacting to whatever it is the Kings are doing. Despite the fact Calgary has superior talent and depth, L.A. is dictating the style of game and playing that style better than the Flames. It's clutch, grab, hook, stay close to your man, stay away from stupid penalties, pressure Calgary's point men on the power play and let Wayne Gretzky do his thing. Not that the Flames have found a way to stop Tony Granato, let alone The Great One.
"Gretzky's playing great hockey, but they have a lot of guys doing that. They didn't play like that in the regular season," the Flames' Joel Otto said. "We've given them that winning feeling. Now we have to take it away."
Oddly enough, the Kings put a stranglehold on this series by losing Game 2 at the Saddledome. With Calgary ahead 5-1 in what has been its only win so far, the Kings kept coming back and coming back until the Flames finally scored into an empty net for an 8-5 final. It was then that the Kings, playing without Gretzky and his trick back, realized Calgary wasn't so invincible.
"That game," said forward Dave Taylor, the second-leading scorer in the playoffs, "gave us a lot of confidence. It showed us that if we stuck to our system we could win."
Abrasive nature
And the Flames haven't done enough to knock L.A. off its system. In the swirling chaos that was Tuesday's first period at the Great Western Forum, Crisp never once called a timeout to settle his shaken players. He stood back and did nothing as the Flames panicked, took penalties and collapsed like a gutted building.
Not that the players are interested in following Crisp. They've disliked his bellowing, abrasive nature since he took over from Bob Johnson three years ago. Fletcher has met with key players to try and ease the friction. The players met with Crisp and asked him to chill out. But now, when they need each other the most, the two sides have grown so far apart that it's too late for reconciliation. Much too late.
For the ever-cautious Fletcher, who has fired only one coach in his 17 years with the Flames, the last hope is to change coaches. Fletcher called Tuesday's humiliation "an embarrassment to the organization." He must surely understand that the best man for this crisis is assistant GM Doug Risebrough. The players respect him. They'd play for him. His appointment would give the Flames the strategist they so badly need as well as an emotional lift.
As they have shown us many times, the best team to beat the Flames remains the Flames. They must correct that soon. Before the knife slips and the Flames go quietly into the grave.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,739
- 16,129
The Globe and Mail (Canada)
April 16, 1990 Monday
Crisp and Fletcher may be key figures in Flames' shakeup
AL STRACHAN
LOS ANGELES
When it was all over, the primary emotion among the Calgary Flames seemed
to be one of relief.
It has been a long, bleak season for the Flames. Now, it is over. The
Flames, the Stanley Cup defending champions, are not defending any more.
They are out of the playoffs.
The loss to the Los Angeles Kings in the Smythe Division semi-final
four games to two left the players dejected and morose. But there were no
tears. The misery remained within well-defined boundaries.
The players felt that they had been subjected to intense pressure from
every angle for an unbearably long period of time - ever since the hot
summer days of August when a "voluntary" training camp was staged prior to
their Soviet tour.
Over seven long months, the problems persisted. They never did get
around to playing as well as they wanted to. The local fans seemed to be
unduly demanding. The popular Jim Peplinski was forced off the team and
his departure upset those who were left. Most important, the players'
relations with coach Terry Crisp, which have always been strained, got
worse and worse as the season progressed.
The players offered only backhanded, lukewarm defences of Crisp when
asked for their opinions on the record. Off the record, they carved him.
Crisp's problems did not go unnoticed by management. For Saturday's
crucial sixth game, which the Kings eventually won in overtime, a radical
change in coaching tactics was undertaken.
Crisp is usually joined behind the bench by one of his assistant
coaches, either Tom Watt or Paul Baxter. The other watches the game from
the press box. On Saturday night, they were both at ice level and
assistant general manager Doug Risebrough donned the headset.
It seemed to be a strange time of the year to start shuffling coaching
assignments. The Flames were penalized twice for too many men on the ice.
In his dealings with the media during the season, Crisp was
consistently open and helpful. But the veteran players, who remember the
subdued, scholastic approach of Bob Johnson, have never taken to the
volatile, frenetic - and often extremely critical - approach of Crisp.
It is not mandatory that players like their coach, but they should
respect him. The Flames don't respect Crisp.
They feel that his offensive system is too simplistic for today's
hockey and that his behind-the-bench game lacks flair. They feel that he
is unable to counter moves by opposition coaches and that as a result, the
players are put at a disadvantage.
For instance, the Flames' power play was an integral part of the team's
regular-season success. But when the Kings started shutting it down
regularly and taking the key man, Al MacInnis, out of the attack by
pressuring him intensely, the Flames were unable to make suitable
revisions.
The power play scored only twice in 33 attempts against the Kings and
one of those goals came on a penalty shot. When a Kings' shorthanded goal
is factored in, the power play gets only a plus-one rating over six games.
Vancouver Canuck coach Bob McCammon does not hesitate to say that the
Flames are a predictable team. Their tactics don't change, even from year
to year, he says, and they never adapt to the opposition's innovations.
All this could spell trouble for Crisp. Even though Calgary general
manager and president Cliff Fletcher is notoriously loyal and has employed
only five coaches in the franchise's history (only was was fired) he may
have to act now. Fletcher and his front-office associates felt that the
Flames were poised to win a series of Stanley Cups. They have won one
under Crisp, but on two other occasions were knocked off by teams over
which they were heavily favored.
There is speculation that the house-cleaning may go beyond the coach.
Fletcher himself may retire. He has been actively grooming Risebrough as a
successor with the idea that Risebrough would take over in a year or two.
Now, Fletcher, tired of the pressure and heavy demands of the job, may
decide to move up his retirement date and turn the reins over to
Risebrough right away.
If that should happen, there is a distinct possibility that Bob Gainey,
a former teammate of Risebrough with the Montreal Canadiens, would become
Crisp's successor. The Calgary organization is already heavily loaded with
former members of the Montreal organization. Gainey would fit in nicely.
Even though the nature of the fallout is open to speculation, it is
almost certain that something will happen. Trades will be made. The
Swedish players, Jonas Bergqvist and Roger Johansson, will probably not be
invited back. Players who avoid the physical game will be shuffled off to
be replaced by defencemen who can clear the front of the net and forwards
who will go into the corners.
Almost certainly, some of these moves will be made very soon, probably
before the National Hockey League's June draft.
The players know this. They sense that the Crisp era is over. They
sense that the winds of change will be blowing through Calgary and that
those winds will be refreshing. That's why their feelings of despondency
are tempered by feelings of relief.
April 16, 1990 Monday
Crisp and Fletcher may be key figures in Flames' shakeup
AL STRACHAN
LOS ANGELES
When it was all over, the primary emotion among the Calgary Flames seemed
to be one of relief.
It has been a long, bleak season for the Flames. Now, it is over. The
Flames, the Stanley Cup defending champions, are not defending any more.
They are out of the playoffs.
The loss to the Los Angeles Kings in the Smythe Division semi-final
four games to two left the players dejected and morose. But there were no
tears. The misery remained within well-defined boundaries.
The players felt that they had been subjected to intense pressure from
every angle for an unbearably long period of time - ever since the hot
summer days of August when a "voluntary" training camp was staged prior to
their Soviet tour.
Over seven long months, the problems persisted. They never did get
around to playing as well as they wanted to. The local fans seemed to be
unduly demanding. The popular Jim Peplinski was forced off the team and
his departure upset those who were left. Most important, the players'
relations with coach Terry Crisp, which have always been strained, got
worse and worse as the season progressed.
The players offered only backhanded, lukewarm defences of Crisp when
asked for their opinions on the record. Off the record, they carved him.
Crisp's problems did not go unnoticed by management. For Saturday's
crucial sixth game, which the Kings eventually won in overtime, a radical
change in coaching tactics was undertaken.
Crisp is usually joined behind the bench by one of his assistant
coaches, either Tom Watt or Paul Baxter. The other watches the game from
the press box. On Saturday night, they were both at ice level and
assistant general manager Doug Risebrough donned the headset.
It seemed to be a strange time of the year to start shuffling coaching
assignments. The Flames were penalized twice for too many men on the ice.
In his dealings with the media during the season, Crisp was
consistently open and helpful. But the veteran players, who remember the
subdued, scholastic approach of Bob Johnson, have never taken to the
volatile, frenetic - and often extremely critical - approach of Crisp.
It is not mandatory that players like their coach, but they should
respect him. The Flames don't respect Crisp.
They feel that his offensive system is too simplistic for today's
hockey and that his behind-the-bench game lacks flair. They feel that he
is unable to counter moves by opposition coaches and that as a result, the
players are put at a disadvantage.
For instance, the Flames' power play was an integral part of the team's
regular-season success. But when the Kings started shutting it down
regularly and taking the key man, Al MacInnis, out of the attack by
pressuring him intensely, the Flames were unable to make suitable
revisions.
The power play scored only twice in 33 attempts against the Kings and
one of those goals came on a penalty shot. When a Kings' shorthanded goal
is factored in, the power play gets only a plus-one rating over six games.
Vancouver Canuck coach Bob McCammon does not hesitate to say that the
Flames are a predictable team. Their tactics don't change, even from year
to year, he says, and they never adapt to the opposition's innovations.
All this could spell trouble for Crisp. Even though Calgary general
manager and president Cliff Fletcher is notoriously loyal and has employed
only five coaches in the franchise's history (only was was fired) he may
have to act now. Fletcher and his front-office associates felt that the
Flames were poised to win a series of Stanley Cups. They have won one
under Crisp, but on two other occasions were knocked off by teams over
which they were heavily favored.
There is speculation that the house-cleaning may go beyond the coach.
Fletcher himself may retire. He has been actively grooming Risebrough as a
successor with the idea that Risebrough would take over in a year or two.
Now, Fletcher, tired of the pressure and heavy demands of the job, may
decide to move up his retirement date and turn the reins over to
Risebrough right away.
If that should happen, there is a distinct possibility that Bob Gainey,
a former teammate of Risebrough with the Montreal Canadiens, would become
Crisp's successor. The Calgary organization is already heavily loaded with
former members of the Montreal organization. Gainey would fit in nicely.
Even though the nature of the fallout is open to speculation, it is
almost certain that something will happen. Trades will be made. The
Swedish players, Jonas Bergqvist and Roger Johansson, will probably not be
invited back. Players who avoid the physical game will be shuffled off to
be replaced by defencemen who can clear the front of the net and forwards
who will go into the corners.
Almost certainly, some of these moves will be made very soon, probably
before the National Hockey League's June draft.
The players know this. They sense that the Crisp era is over. They
sense that the winds of change will be blowing through Calgary and that
those winds will be refreshing. That's why their feelings of despondency
are tempered by feelings of relief.
That 1990 Kings Series was moreso what Crisp didn’t do. It’s not like the opposing coach that series (Tom Webster, who also had a short shelf life as a coach) was coaching circles around him.
Webster was merely less awful than Crisp. Kinda like the coaching equivalent of 2012 Pens/Flyers where Bryzgalov was merely less awful than Fleury.
That said, any reference of that Flames/Kings series cannot happen without the controversial Denis Morel premature blown whistle in game 6.
Webster was merely less awful than Crisp. Kinda like the coaching equivalent of 2012 Pens/Flyers where Bryzgalov was merely less awful than Fleury.
That said, any reference of that Flames/Kings series cannot happen without the controversial Denis Morel premature blown whistle in game 6.
Last edited:
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,739
- 16,129
The Toronto Star
April 17, 1990, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION
Crisp just missed the axe a year ago
Jim Proudfoot
It shouldn't happen to a nice kid from Parry Sound but then Terry Crisp must surely understand that dismissal is the inevitable fate awaiting anybody who dares to coach a team in the National Hockey League. The only means of escape is an early ascension to a managerial post. Otherwise, even the best of them get fired - sooner or later.
The Calgary Flames had a lovely pink slip prepared for Crisp a year ago but he was saved from the guillotine by his own goaltender. Then the Flames caught fire and won the Stanley Cup. And after that, of course, nobody had the nerve even to suggest changing coaches.
Possibly you've forgotten what actually took place in the opening round of the 1989 playoffs and how close to oblivion the Flames really came.
The Vancouver Canucks, who had finished 43 points behind the Calgary side during the regular Smythe Division schedule, carried the Flames into overtime in Game 7. Among the many things at stake in this all-or-nothing crisis was Crisp's job. And it was a near thing.
In quick succession, the Canucks' Petri Skriko, Stan Smyl and Tony Tanti had completely unobstructed, face-to-face scoring opportunities and Mike Vernon of Calgary beat each of them. This was an astounding exhibition of netminding. Indeed, Smyl found the experience so disheartening that he didn't score again until March 31, 1990.
Under the circumstances, in the Saddledome, the Flames had no choice but to reward Vernon by winning the match - and to get their leader a reprieve without really meaning to.
This time, however, Crisp doesn't have a leg to stand on. Those owners who want rid of him have been provided with all the evidence they need. His only hope now is that Cliff Fletcher, his boss, will hate yielding to pressure or appearing to do so.
Crisp is an emotional coach, along the lines of John Brophy. His blow-top approach was successful as long as he had a handful of sensible, respected veterans in the dressing room. Lanny McDonald, Jim Peplinski and Rob Ramage were always an antidote to Crisp's ranting and raving. Their departure, following the championship last May, made it pretty much a certainty that Crisp would be the next person through the door.
Logical successor
Paul Baxter, an assistant, is the logical successor unless there's a more extensive shake-up. If Fletcher withdraws to the club presidency in favor of Doug Risebrough, the GM-in-waiting, then the entire operation may be rebuilt. Baxter might not be Risebrough's choice. What's for sure is that the job Crisp will lose is just about the best in the NHL. Lousing it up wasn't easy.
and some semi-related bonus content in the article's leadout--
In short: If the Detroit Red Wings are really prepared to pay Brett Hull more than $1 million a year, the St. Louis Blues won't keep him . . .
April 17, 1990, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION
Crisp just missed the axe a year ago
Jim Proudfoot
It shouldn't happen to a nice kid from Parry Sound but then Terry Crisp must surely understand that dismissal is the inevitable fate awaiting anybody who dares to coach a team in the National Hockey League. The only means of escape is an early ascension to a managerial post. Otherwise, even the best of them get fired - sooner or later.
The Calgary Flames had a lovely pink slip prepared for Crisp a year ago but he was saved from the guillotine by his own goaltender. Then the Flames caught fire and won the Stanley Cup. And after that, of course, nobody had the nerve even to suggest changing coaches.
Possibly you've forgotten what actually took place in the opening round of the 1989 playoffs and how close to oblivion the Flames really came.
The Vancouver Canucks, who had finished 43 points behind the Calgary side during the regular Smythe Division schedule, carried the Flames into overtime in Game 7. Among the many things at stake in this all-or-nothing crisis was Crisp's job. And it was a near thing.
In quick succession, the Canucks' Petri Skriko, Stan Smyl and Tony Tanti had completely unobstructed, face-to-face scoring opportunities and Mike Vernon of Calgary beat each of them. This was an astounding exhibition of netminding. Indeed, Smyl found the experience so disheartening that he didn't score again until March 31, 1990.
Under the circumstances, in the Saddledome, the Flames had no choice but to reward Vernon by winning the match - and to get their leader a reprieve without really meaning to.
This time, however, Crisp doesn't have a leg to stand on. Those owners who want rid of him have been provided with all the evidence they need. His only hope now is that Cliff Fletcher, his boss, will hate yielding to pressure or appearing to do so.
Crisp is an emotional coach, along the lines of John Brophy. His blow-top approach was successful as long as he had a handful of sensible, respected veterans in the dressing room. Lanny McDonald, Jim Peplinski and Rob Ramage were always an antidote to Crisp's ranting and raving. Their departure, following the championship last May, made it pretty much a certainty that Crisp would be the next person through the door.
Logical successor
Paul Baxter, an assistant, is the logical successor unless there's a more extensive shake-up. If Fletcher withdraws to the club presidency in favor of Doug Risebrough, the GM-in-waiting, then the entire operation may be rebuilt. Baxter might not be Risebrough's choice. What's for sure is that the job Crisp will lose is just about the best in the NHL. Lousing it up wasn't easy.
and some semi-related bonus content in the article's leadout--
In short: If the Detroit Red Wings are really prepared to pay Brett Hull more than $1 million a year, the St. Louis Blues won't keep him . . .
Ensane
EL GUAPO
- Mar 2, 2002
- 15,746
- 69
I think vs's articles (good finds, as always) provide a pretty clear answer: he wasn't that great of a coach (although there's specifics about how he was tactically outclassed and stuck in the past, this quote from the 5.8.1990 article seems to sum it up best: "[m]ost importantly, they felt that they won the Stanley Cup last season despite Crisp, not because of him.") and the players hated him. Hell, one of the Toronto Star articles calls for his firing in the middle of a playoff series. That's the kind of histrionics we'd expect in the internet-era around here, but things must have been pretty bad for a notable publication to call for this.
Seems like the only reason he kept his job so long is that Cliff Fletcher was too nice of a guy (two of the articles go out of their way to mention how infrequently he fires coaches and how he has the loyalty of a golden retriever) and that they were, for the most part, winning ("everyone's happy when everyone's making money" -- said by many who've worked for an asshole boss who produces results within an incentive-based comp structure).
From a general perspective, what's striking to me is that the articles catalog the trend of the league moving away from disciplinarian coaches which I thought wasn't noticeable for at least another 5-10 years (i.e., although Keenan and Bowman are called out specifically, both would have no problem finding work in the 90s, and combine for 4 cups, and we know that Keenan wouldn't change his nature all that much). Looking at the current crop of coaches and how few still fit this mold (sup Torts!) is fascinating.
Oh, and a few additional historic gems:
Seems like the only reason he kept his job so long is that Cliff Fletcher was too nice of a guy (two of the articles go out of their way to mention how infrequently he fires coaches and how he has the loyalty of a golden retriever) and that they were, for the most part, winning ("everyone's happy when everyone's making money" -- said by many who've worked for an asshole boss who produces results within an incentive-based comp structure).
From a general perspective, what's striking to me is that the articles catalog the trend of the league moving away from disciplinarian coaches which I thought wasn't noticeable for at least another 5-10 years (i.e., although Keenan and Bowman are called out specifically, both would have no problem finding work in the 90s, and combine for 4 cups, and we know that Keenan wouldn't change his nature all that much). Looking at the current crop of coaches and how few still fit this mold (sup Torts!) is fascinating.
Oh, and a few additional historic gems:
Keenan getting down with fancy stats...who knew he was such a progressive mind!
The roots of the "clutch and grab" era? Interesting to see these tactics praised.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,739
- 16,129
okay here's one more terry crisp anecdote--
THEO FLEURY He never, ever once called me by my first name ever, or my last name. It was either ‘Numbnuts’, ‘Peckerhead’, ‘F*** face’, ‘Flower’. He never ever called me by my name. Which was fine with me. He could call me whatever he wanted, just as long as he put me in the lineup.
TERRY CRISP What players don't understand is, when you've got a nickname from a coach, that's a sign of respect. I read Theo’s book, and I know he said, ‘He called me this, and he called me that, and he called me ‘Flower’. Some of my friends read that book, and they said, ‘Crispy, did you really say that to him?’ And I said, ‘I'm going to go on record: I did not call him ‘Flower.’ (Laughs) I would just to say to guys, ‘If I'm on your case, and if I'm on your butt, I care about you. And I want you getting better. If you no longer hear from me and silence reigns supreme, you’re on your way out.’ Theo said, ‘Man, he really must have loved me then.’ (Laughs)
The oral history of the 1989 Stanley Cup champion Calgary Flames: Part One | The Hockey News
THEO FLEURY He never, ever once called me by my first name ever, or my last name. It was either ‘Numbnuts’, ‘Peckerhead’, ‘F*** face’, ‘Flower’. He never ever called me by my name. Which was fine with me. He could call me whatever he wanted, just as long as he put me in the lineup.
TERRY CRISP What players don't understand is, when you've got a nickname from a coach, that's a sign of respect. I read Theo’s book, and I know he said, ‘He called me this, and he called me that, and he called me ‘Flower’. Some of my friends read that book, and they said, ‘Crispy, did you really say that to him?’ And I said, ‘I'm going to go on record: I did not call him ‘Flower.’ (Laughs) I would just to say to guys, ‘If I'm on your case, and if I'm on your butt, I care about you. And I want you getting better. If you no longer hear from me and silence reigns supreme, you’re on your way out.’ Theo said, ‘Man, he really must have loved me then.’ (Laughs)
The oral history of the 1989 Stanley Cup champion Calgary Flames: Part One | The Hockey News
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,145
Part of what makes you a great coach is that there are opportunities for you right away. Only the expansion Tampa Bay Lightning asked him to coach. Which he did from 1992-'97. He didn't have a lot of success, but who would in that situation?
As for Calgary, let's face it, Crisp or not, that team had issues from the top to bottom. Their problems not only continued with Crisp but you can argue they intensified. 1991 same story. 1992 that team was a mess and they made one of the worst trades in NHL history. 1993 another choke job. 1994, ditto. 1995 was a bit of a different team by then but same results, losing Game 7 of overtime - at home - to a weaker opponent.
If you combine that with Crisp's personality and yelling at the players then you can assume something is going to happen. Hey look, someone's head was going to roll for 1990. It may as well be the coach.
As for Calgary, let's face it, Crisp or not, that team had issues from the top to bottom. Their problems not only continued with Crisp but you can argue they intensified. 1991 same story. 1992 that team was a mess and they made one of the worst trades in NHL history. 1993 another choke job. 1994, ditto. 1995 was a bit of a different team by then but same results, losing Game 7 of overtime - at home - to a weaker opponent.
If you combine that with Crisp's personality and yelling at the players then you can assume something is going to happen. Hey look, someone's head was going to roll for 1990. It may as well be the coach.
Hockeyholic
Registered User
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,145
It is for sure. But it happens. Sometimes even sooner. Al MacNeil got fired after winning in 1971.
The Flames losing in 1990, and so ugly as well, meant someone was going to pay for that. They scored 348 goals that year and even at the time I felt this but they were incredibly deep. Their scoring was spread out. I looked it up, they had 9 players with at least 54 points. I figured that has to be about as good as there is in NHL history, and you know what, it is.
Only the 1971 Bruins and 1975 Canadiens had 9 players with that many. Neither team won the Cup, strange as it may be with that depth.
Not the Isles, not other Habs teams, not the Penguins, not the Oilers had 9 players with at least 54 points. I know those teams had higher peaks with their players, but I am just saying, the 1990 Flames share the record of 9 players.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,739
- 16,129
hell, i would have fired alain vigneault between games six and seven of the first round of the 2011 playoffs.
actually, i would have fired him after the 2010 season but who's counting?
of course, not being a maniac i would not have hired john tortorella to replace him (actually, i was hoping to punt vigneault and get the late brad mccrimmon in 2008, when the team missed the playoffs and mccrimmon was passed up for the atlanta job).
actually, i would have fired him after the 2010 season but who's counting?
of course, not being a maniac i would not have hired john tortorella to replace him (actually, i was hoping to punt vigneault and get the late brad mccrimmon in 2008, when the team missed the playoffs and mccrimmon was passed up for the atlanta job).
Bari
Registered User
I really liked him. I didn't like Bob Johnson, I think he hurt Brett Hull's confidence by holding him back.
blood gin
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2017
- 4,174
- 2,203
Their goaltending fell apart at the worst possible times. Mike Vernon from game 7 Overtime vs. Vancouver in 1989 never showed up again for the Flames and they desperately needed him too
With the scoring balance that that 1990 Flames team had, 99 points is almost underwhelming.
Calgary was up in game 6 late. Sure enough they give up the tying goal to Steve Duchesne and then that weird sky hook floating OT winner. But if they had an ounce of killer instinct like a recent Cup champ should they get that series back to Calgary for 7.
Bari
Registered User
I was wrong about Hull. I got it backwards and Crisp was the coach who was rough on him. I am going to make a caricature of both of them now.
Bari
Registered User
The Panther
Registered User
I agree. There was definitely a sense of "good, but not as good as before" about them that season. They were 13-11-9 as late as mid-December (post-Gretzky Edmonton was ahead of them at the time) after dominating the League the previous season. They finished the season 16-4-2, but then it all went for naught against L.A. anyway.
I don't disagree with any of that, but the real mystery is how they lost 12-4 in game four. You're the Cup champions, facing a 4th-place team, and if you lose you're down 3 games to 1. What do you do? You lose 12-4. Gilmour and Mullen were both -6 in that game, which should have been alarming.
The Panther
Registered User
So... when the Flames fired their head coach in 1990, we might say that he was...
burned to a crisp?
burned to a crisp?
blood gin
Registered User
- Jan 17, 2017
- 4,174
- 2,203
12-4 is nuts and should just never happen. That game Vernon got blitzed early and Wamsley couldn't stabilize things. It really looked like a team with no pride that was allowing somebody to walk all over them
The Panther
Registered User
Yup, and I think Terry Crisp over-reacted when he pulled Vernon too early. He yanked Vernie out of the net 11 minutes into the first period and threw in Wamsley. Now, I know Vernon had let in three goals on seven shots and Crisp wanted to shake the team up, but that's a move that reeks of desperation. I think that sent a message to the players, akin to: "Coach thinks we/Vernie aren't good enough." And obviously it had exactly the wrong effect, and the players all gave up after that.
I mean, a 0-3 deficit in the Smythe division in 1990 was not insurmountable. At that point, the thing to do is maybe call a time-out and give your players some positive support. There were lots of games then when Calgary would come back from a three-goal deficit. Crisp panicked 'cause he saw his job going down the tubes (which it did anyway, a week later).
Bari
Registered User
Does anybody know who made up the lines for the Flames during Terry Crisp's Stanley cup win? The Flames had one of the best hockey teams in history during the 88-89 season and I was wondering who played in the different lines especially the starting line up.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,739
- 16,129
i don't remember the LA/calgary series, but other than the game he got pulled it doesn't look vernon played especially badly. the other three losses were all one-goal games and two went to OT.
afaict, it's only starting in '91 that vernon becomes dan cloutier before dan cloutier. but maybe the apparently toxic atmosphere of that dressing room did something to him in that hangover-y post-cup year that he couldn't fix without leaving the team?
that LA team was no joke though. after granato-gretzky-sandstrom and robitaille-elik-taylor (and taylor was still good), rogie had added tonelli, kasper, robinson, and tough guy jay miller, plus krushelnyski from the gretzky deal. those guys had been through wars.
steve duchesne was as fine of a PP QB as the kings would ever have during the gretzky era, hell maybe ever, and they also had pre-rookie rob blake joining them after the end of his NCAA season.
this was a team with a lot of new faces learning how to play together, led by the best player in the world. sandstrom and granato came in mid-year, blake joined the team just for the playoffs, robinson and crowder were new that year, elik was called up mid-season, and they picked up brian benning mid-season. on top of the additions of gretzky, krushelnyski, mcsorley, tonelli, and kasper the year before, that's an awful lot of turnover, especially in terms of the team's identity and leadership core. but even with their defensive deficiencies that was a good team and it looks like they just clicked against a tired calgary and bickering team.
afaict, it's only starting in '91 that vernon becomes dan cloutier before dan cloutier. but maybe the apparently toxic atmosphere of that dressing room did something to him in that hangover-y post-cup year that he couldn't fix without leaving the team?
that LA team was no joke though. after granato-gretzky-sandstrom and robitaille-elik-taylor (and taylor was still good), rogie had added tonelli, kasper, robinson, and tough guy jay miller, plus krushelnyski from the gretzky deal. those guys had been through wars.
steve duchesne was as fine of a PP QB as the kings would ever have during the gretzky era, hell maybe ever, and they also had pre-rookie rob blake joining them after the end of his NCAA season.
this was a team with a lot of new faces learning how to play together, led by the best player in the world. sandstrom and granato came in mid-year, blake joined the team just for the playoffs, robinson and crowder were new that year, elik was called up mid-season, and they picked up brian benning mid-season. on top of the additions of gretzky, krushelnyski, mcsorley, tonelli, and kasper the year before, that's an awful lot of turnover, especially in terms of the team's identity and leadership core. but even with their defensive deficiencies that was a good team and it looks like they just clicked against a tired calgary and bickering team.
