Pat Burns, great coach, but short tenures

[whcanuck]

So I was thinking about Pat Burns (RIP), one of the best coaches to ever stand behind an NHL bench. The man is still the only coach to win the Jack Adams award three times, and he did it with three different teams! He would come to a city, and almost immediately transform the culture and locker room of a franchise. Look at Montreal, Toronto and Boston....New Jersey was already pretty good he just made them better.

He took Montreal to the finals the first year, narrowly losing to Calgary. He performed absolute magic with the Leafs in in 1992-93, getting them within one win of the team's first finals appearance in 26 years. Then in Boston, they go from 61 points the year before he got there to 91 points in that 1997-98 season, a 30 point jump! Finally he was rewarded with a well-deserved Stanley Cup title in New Jersey in 2003. NJ went from a first round ouster in 2002, to its 3rd Cup finals appearance in 4 years, in large part due to Burns' leadership.

My question is this, given his abilities to motivate and push players to be their best, how come he never lasted longer than 4 seasons for any of the 4 teams he coached? I've heard he was very demanding and perhaps it wore players down over time? What can you guys tell me?

Click to read more...

 

[FerrisRox]

So I was thinking about Pat Burns (RIP), one of the best coaches to ever stand behind an NHL bench. The man is still the only coach to win the Jack Adams award three times, and he did it with three different teams! He would come to a city, and almost immediately transform the culture and locker room of a franchise. Look at Montreal, Toronto and Boston....New Jersey was already pretty good he just made them better.

He took Montreal to the finals the first year, narrowly losing to Calgary. He performed absolute magic with the Leafs in in 1992-93, getting them within one win of the team's first finals appearance in 26 years. Then in Boston, they go from 61 points the year before he got there to 91 points in that 1997-98 season, a 30 point jump! Finally he was rewarded with a well-deserved Stanley Cup title in New Jersey in 2003. NJ went from a first round ouster in 2002, to its 3rd Cup finals appearance in 4 years, in large part due to Burns' leadership.

My question is this, given his abilities to motivate and push players to be their best, how come he never lasted longer than 4 seasons for any of the 4 teams he coached? I've heard he was very demanding and perhaps it wore players down over time? What can you guys tell me?

One of my happiest days as a fan of the Montreal Canadiens was the day it was announced that Pat Burns was stepping down as the head coach of the team.

His style of play - while effective - was so incredibly boring to watch. Watching the Montreal Canadiens play in the 1992 playoffs was an absolute chore, and seeing them barely limp past the Hartford Whalers was painful. He sucked the life out of that team, crushed the creativity and style of Denis Savard and drained any semblance of offence from that roster.

After he left to join the Maple Leafs, he did the same thing there, though that fan base, after decades of irrelevance was happy to trade entertainment for actual success, but man, any time Doug Gilmour wasn't on the ice for those teams, it was just sluggish, chip-it-out-and-dump-it-in hockey that was boring as hell. Thankfully Gilmour provided some drama and entertainment because the rest of the team certainly did not. Once Leafs fans got over the excitement of actually seeing their team win for a change, it started to become more and more clear that the team was boring as hell to watch under Burns.

Meanwhile, with Burns gone, the Canadiens acquired Vincent Damphousse and Brian Bellows bia trade and won the Stanley Cup the first season without him.

He was an effective coach in terms of turning teams around or taking them to the next level, but I found watching Burns-coached teams to be a slog.

 

[brachyrynchos]

Sometimes after a while, the method and message starts to fall on deaf ears, and players begin tuning the coach out. GMs are under pressure to win, too, and realize that some guys will only take you so far. Burns was a perfect fit for the Devils and the way they played, not so much w/ BOS and TOR, either the right coach but the wrong players, or the wrong coach for who that team had. He did win the Jack Adams 3 times with 3 different teams, and happy he got to win a Cup.

 

[Big Phil]

I've sort of used this argument as to why he shouldn't have gotten into the HHOF. Coaches are usually inducted based on a pretty high standard but it seemed to me the whole "3 Jack Adams" awards thing along with the fact he died and Doug Gilmour always spoke highly of him is what got him in I think. I wasn't a fan of him getting in. I literally lost a couple of Facebook friends for that very reason just by posting it.

I think his style wore thin eventually. I agree that he used Savard terribly on what should have been better Habs teams. Savard had 10 years of carrying the Hawks on his back but they still traded him the season after he had 80 points in 60 games. Burns was stubborn, I can say that as a Leaf fan for sure. He did drain the talent out of teams pretty quickly, which is why I think he had success in New Jersey.

But he did wear thin with the players, with fans, with management rather quickly and I think that gets glossed over with him a lot nowadays.

 

[FerrisRox]

I think his style wore thin eventually. I agree that he used Savard terribly on what should have been better Habs teams. Savard had 10 years of carrying the Hawks on his back but they still traded him the season after he had 80 points in 60 games. Burns was stubborn

He also cost the Montreal Canadiens Claude Lemieux. Burns' couldn't deal with Lemieux, treated him horribly (he infamously once embarrassed Lemieux by refusing to allow the training staff to go out on the ice to tend to him because Burns deemed his apparent injury a dive) and then pouted like a petulant child when General Manager Serge Savard tried to mend the riff between the two of them. Ultimately Savard knew he was forced to choose and shipped Lemieux to New Jersey. I wish he had kept Claude and sent Burns packing.

 

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[Chief Nine]

I've always had a lot of respect for Pat Burns but the record speaks for itself. It's pretty clear that he wore out his welcome in short order. Fair to say that John Tortorella is a good comparison with Pat Burns.

 

[VanIslander]

As Hitchcock said when he took the Dallas job again: 'There is a shelflife for coaches... players are asked to do difficult things... unnatural things."

Pushing players to perform at the best works only so long, especially with ex-cop type barking-orders coaches. Burns was demanding and tough but widely respected and players responded well to him for a while.

 

[Big Phil]

He also cost the Montreal Canadiens Claude Lemieux. Burns' couldn't deal with Lemieux, treated him horribly (he infamously once embarrassed Lemieux by refusing to allow the training staff to go out on the ice to tend to him because Burns deemed his apparent injury a dive) and then pouted like a petulant child when General Manager Serge Savard tried to mend the riff between the two of them. Ultimately Savard knew he was forced to choose and shipped Lemieux to New Jersey. I wish he had kept Claude and sent Burns packing.

The funny thing is, Burns actually got a LOT of respect from people when he did that. Claude Lemieux was someone that wore out a welcome faster than a door-to-door salesman. I can understand doing that as a coach.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The funny thing is, Burns actually got a LOT of respect from people when he did that. Claude Lemieux was someone that wore out a welcome faster than a door-to-door salesman. I can understand doing that as a coach.

Toe Blake always took care of issues internally behind closed doors. Never lost the room. Burns regularly used the media to promote himself and denigrate his players.

Plus Burns was far from a strong in game coach.

 

[FerrisRox]

The funny thing is, Burns actually got a LOT of respect from people when he did that. Claude Lemieux was someone that wore out a welcome faster than a door-to-door salesman. I can understand doing that as a coach.

A lot of respect from whom? Certainly not from Serge Savard.

 

[tony d]

Burns was an all time great coach but as with all coaches there is a shelf life. Guy is among the top 15-20 coaches of all time.

 

[Big Phil]

A lot of respect from whom? Certainly not from Serge Savard.

I would compare it to when Ulf Samuelsson got one-punched by Tie Domi. Yeah, it was wrong, but there were a lot of private (and public) high fives to Domi because Ulfie had it coming for a long time. Same thing here, Claude was known as someone who embellished things. He was the classic "Boy who cried wolf". You never knew what was genuine or not with him when he was lying on the ice hurt or not. Burns may have given him hell behind closed doors, who knows, or maybe he was just fed up with him by then. I can understand that for sure.

What I am saying is that privately I think Burns got some silent high-fives for that.

Toe Blake always took care of issues internally behind closed doors. Never lost the room. Burns regularly used the media to promote himself and denigrate his players.

Plus Burns was far from a strong in game coach.

I agree, I have issues with him as a coach in terms of "greatness" among the HHOF.

 

[FerrisRox]

I would compare it to when Ulf Samuelsson got one-punched by Tie Domi. Yeah, it was wrong, but there were a lot of private (and public) high fives to Domi because Ulfie had it coming for a long time. Same thing here, Claude was known as someone who embellished things. He was the classic "Boy who cried wolf". You never knew what was genuine or not with him when he was lying on the ice hurt or not. Burns may have given him hell behind closed doors, who knows, or maybe he was just fed up with him by then. I can understand that for sure.

We can agree to disagree.

I certainly have no respect for a coach that goes out of their way to publicly embarrass a player. I think it's cowardly and it can't help but do damage in the locker room to know your coach is that vindictive and willing to embarrass a guy.

Additionally, anybody that respected Tie Domi for being an absolute low life and coward and sucker punching a player is, in my opinion, an idiot.

To each their own.

 

[Big Phil]

We can agree to disagree.

I certainly have no respect for a coach that goes out of their way to publicly embarrass a player. I think it's cowardly and it can't help but do damage in the locker room to know your coach is that vindictive and willing to embarrass a guy.

Additionally, anybody that respected Tie Domi for being an absolute low life and coward and sucker punching a player is, in my opinion, an idiot.

To each their own.

It was one of those "Ulf had it coming for years" type of things. I don't know, like it or not, that was part of the mood around the league when it happened.

I am not a big fan of coaches embarrassing players publicly either, I just wonder how much Claude antagonized Burns to make him do that. I am guessing this isn't the first time Burns would have told him "Get up and suck it up" and with what we know about Claude that should come as no surprise to people who saw his career. So there might be a backstory. Burns might have told him not to roll around faking things prior to that.

Burns wasn't a "great" coach per se, but I don't remember him doing stuff like that in Toronto.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

Strong personality who could elevate an underachieving team to respectability, and maybe to contention. Such coaches tend to have a short shelf life: they have short-term success that increases the expectations, and the inevitable backlash against the coach's personality combined with the inability to meet the increased expectations means that the coach is shown the door.

I think such coaches also tend to be overrated, as their early success is regarded as the true picture while the inevitable collapse is seen as more of the players quitting. This leads off into some side argument about modern players and how soft and spoiled they are, which simply amplifies when the fired coach catches on elsewhere and achieves short-term success with another team.

To me, Bryan and Terry Murray are both good examples of what early success and increased expectations do.

I loved the thoughts/opinions in this quote....and I never would've thought to lump Pat Burns and Mike Keenan together with similar traits/coaching styles. You guys think Keenan and Burns are two peas in a pod? Or does that require more dissection?

 

[Big Phil]

I loved the thoughts/opinions in this quote....and I never would've thought to lump Pat Burns and Mike Keenan together with similar traits/coaching styles. You guys think Keenan and Burns are two peas in a pod? Or does that require more dissection?

I think in hindsight players will talk more kindly about Burns than Keenan. Maybe it is because one is alive and the other isn't, I don't know. But Keenan seemed to draw the ire of more players. Granted, he could coach my team anyday, but in an age of multi millionaire players he started to wear thin. I honestly don't think these guys are a lot different than Bowman or Babcock today in their approach. Neither coach was the type to hold your hand. They were all rugged in their approach.

 

[The Panther]

I don't think Pat Burns belongs in the Keenan category of burning through players and wearing out his welcome. Burns rubbed a few guys the wrong way and was inflexible, which meant he made some enemies and eventually wore out his welcome in three towns, but at least there was a conventional hockey logic to what he did -- a "method to his madness".

Keenan was just completely nuts about 75% of the time. From running franchise players out of town (Savard, etc.), to benching prime Brian Leetch, to giving a 10-minute shift, or whatever it was, to Kovalev to "show him who's boss", to dressing-down 35-year-old Gretzky in front of the Blues' players and subsequently driving him off the team, to running Vancouver even further into the ground, to this, to that -- the list goes on. I mean, this is a guy for whom Messier, Leetch, and Lowe had to visit in his office during the '94 playoffs to tell him he was nuts.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

I don't think Pat Burns belongs in the Keenan category of burning through players and wearing out his welcome. Burns rubbed a few guys the wrong way and was inflexible, which meant he made some enemies and eventually wore out his welcome in three towns, but at least there was a conventional hockey logic to what he did -- a "method to his madness".

Keenan was just completely nuts about 75% of the time. From running franchise players out of town (Savard, etc.), to benching prime Brian Leetch, to giving a 10-minute shift, or whatever it was, to Kovalev to "show him who's boss", to dressing-down 35-year-old Gretzky in front of the Blues' players and subsequently driving him off the team, to running Vancouver even further into the ground, to this, to that -- the list goes on. I mean, this is a guy for whom Messier, Leetch, and Lowe had to visit in his office during the '94 playoffs to tell him he was nuts.

Interesting to learn the dressing down of Gretzky!! I knew/heard later on that Gretz got sick of Keenan, but was there a specific indicent(s) made public knowledge?

 

[blood gin]

After the initial "Burns effect" wore off he refused to change and adapt. Yes he did come in, change the culture immediately. Install a boring defensive style (well we already had one. But in other locales) and just grind a team down. It worked at the start but he never took his foot off the gas. Players eventually tuned out the barking and commands. They could only take so much.

 

[Mayor Bee]

[deleted]

 

[MarkStone]

Burns and Tortorella have always kind of in my mind been Bill Parcells like in turning teams around quickly into having contender like runs that fade out pretty quickly. Can quickly build or continue a culture of winning but won't be the guys that sustain it or last long term with the same team.

 

[The Panther]

Interesting to learn the dressing down of Gretzky!! I knew/heard later on that Gretz got sick of Keenan, but was there a specific indicent(s) made public knowledge?

Pronger talked about it once in an interview (somebody may have a link). Basically, the Blues were destroyed in one game, and Keenan ripped into Gretzky in the dressing room. Pronger said he could see Gretzky's mind turning it over, as in, "Yeah, I don't need this...".

 

[Blackjack]

Burns and Tortorella have always kind of in my mind been Bill Parcells like in turning teams around quickly into having contender like runs that fade out pretty quickly. Can quickly build or continue a culture of winning but won't be the guys that sustain it or last long term with the same team.

Interesting that you mention Tortarella, I never liked him much and I really hated him after the John Grahame thing, but I've heard that he's a much different coach now for Columbus. I think coaches can improve over time.

He was a really good coach for the Devils. Yes, the 2003 team had a strong roster, but they were probably the second best team in the league after Ottawa. In game 7 of the ECF Jeff Friesen turned the puck over early in the third period and it led to the tying goal. Burns could have benched Friesen for that, but Friesen was on the ice to score the game winner with a couple of minutes left.

 

[FerrisRox]

Lemieux was already legendary for laying on the ice or thrashing around like an Italian soccer player nearly every time he got hit. So in the 89 SCF, Lemieux got brushed, flopped down, and laid there. The trainer went to jump onto the ice, and Burns grabbed him and prevented him from going out to attend to Lemieux - who of course needed no assistance.

Why are you explaining an incident that I clearly cited and was discussing?