Epsilon
#basta
I didn't really want to touch this one (because who wants to go negative against a guy with cancer?) but reading a lot of tripe on the main board and in the hockey media about WHAT AN OUTAGE~! it is that Pat Burns wasn't inducted into the Hall of Fame (which they apparently decided needed an encore this week due to the HoF ceremony), I feel compelled to make the following argument.
There is currently no "Coaches Wing" of the Hall of Fame. Now personally I think the Hall would benefit from making that distinction, but for now any coach inducted has gone in under the "Builders" category.
I've done a quick but somewhat thorough scan of the NHL coaches who are in the HHoF. Of those who were not inducted as players, but rather has builders, almost all of them were in addition general managers, owners, or "team builders" in some capacity other than just being an on-ice coach. There are the obvious ones such as Scotty Bowman, the Patricks, Art Ross, and so on. Other examples include Herb Brooks, Bob Johnson, and Rudy Pilous (along with many others of course).
The only coaches I can find that do not have extensive and/or significant stints in upper management or ownership are Al Arbour, who coached a new team into a dynasty and spent 20 years as that team's coach (in addition to other time spent in management roles between coaching stints), and roger Neilson, who is most well known for innovations he brought to the game.
Now, on to Pat Burns. Obviously he was an outstanding hockey coach, and no one would argue otherwise. If there was a Hall designation for pure coaching, he would be a shoo-in. But how does he fit as a builder? As successful as he was (a Stanley Cup and multiple Adams trophies), Burns never spent more than 4 seasons as the coach of a single team. He also never built a team from the ground up the way Arbour (and other coaches) did. In fact, every team he joined had its most successful season in his first year behind the bench. He was undoubtedly a great motivator and tactician with an experienced lineup, but never really did anything outside of that setting.
Burns doesn't fit as a builder, and until the HoF decides to explicitly honor coaches, I just don't think he belongs, even if that makes me unsentimental.
There is currently no "Coaches Wing" of the Hall of Fame. Now personally I think the Hall would benefit from making that distinction, but for now any coach inducted has gone in under the "Builders" category.
I've done a quick but somewhat thorough scan of the NHL coaches who are in the HHoF. Of those who were not inducted as players, but rather has builders, almost all of them were in addition general managers, owners, or "team builders" in some capacity other than just being an on-ice coach. There are the obvious ones such as Scotty Bowman, the Patricks, Art Ross, and so on. Other examples include Herb Brooks, Bob Johnson, and Rudy Pilous (along with many others of course).
The only coaches I can find that do not have extensive and/or significant stints in upper management or ownership are Al Arbour, who coached a new team into a dynasty and spent 20 years as that team's coach (in addition to other time spent in management roles between coaching stints), and roger Neilson, who is most well known for innovations he brought to the game.
Now, on to Pat Burns. Obviously he was an outstanding hockey coach, and no one would argue otherwise. If there was a Hall designation for pure coaching, he would be a shoo-in. But how does he fit as a builder? As successful as he was (a Stanley Cup and multiple Adams trophies), Burns never spent more than 4 seasons as the coach of a single team. He also never built a team from the ground up the way Arbour (and other coaches) did. In fact, every team he joined had its most successful season in his first year behind the bench. He was undoubtedly a great motivator and tactician with an experienced lineup, but never really did anything outside of that setting.
Burns doesn't fit as a builder, and until the HoF decides to explicitly honor coaches, I just don't think he belongs, even if that makes me unsentimental.
