The Best Coach In The History of The NHL

[Nifty=HHOF]

I'd give it to Toe Blake, with Al Arbour getting serious consideration along with Scotty Bowman.

 

[#66]

I'll go with Al Arbour #1 and Scotty Bowman #1A.

2nded. I'm not sure about some of the older coaches but Radar is the best coach I've ever seen at adjusting. While the Isles dynasty teams might be less star studded than some of the other all time great teams, I've always felt that they had the best team (at least from what I've seen) and thats because of AA. Besides those teams, the 93 Isles beat the Penguins 3 times in the regular season and in the playoffs pretty much because of the game plan of Al Arbour.

 

[ClassicHockey]

Some of the coaches named I agree with but others not at all.

Blake, Bowman, Arbour are obvious choices for their success and other factors.

Punch Imlach had many detractors and his teams won in spite of him.

I'm not sure about Glen Sather as in his successful years, he had an overbundance of talent to work with. But then again, his teams were winning Stanley Cups.

As much as most players liked playing for Roger Neilson, his teams were never ultimately successful and he was bounced around the league quite a bit.

I don't include Fred Shero anywhere close to being one of the best coaches, despite what the Flyers' apologists might think. Frankly, I'm surprised he was even mentioned.

Despite his supposed 'systems' and his apparently genius quotes that he would write for the players, he doesn't match up with the top coaches at all. Shero's main philopsophy was built on intimidation and anyone who tries to deny that is not being very realistic.
The question is, would his teams in Philly have had the success that they had without the intimidation of their opponents and the officials? Not a chance.

A great coach to me is one who can make a team better than they really are talent wise. A great coach is one who can be innovative but still respect the rules of the game.

Interesting what you say about Scotty Bowman - yes he was a great tactician and strategist. He was also not liked by his players and that was planned on his part.

I know Bowman a little and I've spent some time talking to him about hockey and I found him to be extremely pleasant and he shared a lot of great insights about the game.

Bowman. The guy often went against conventional hockey wisdom. Wasn't much for line-matching or consistent linemates. He was tough, occasionally gruff and very demanding. Having met the man and talked with him for a few minutes, he'll never be confused with the best personality or the best talker in the game. But somehow he was an excellent motivator. He was a brilliant tactician and strategist. His teams were always well-prepared. And despite his faults, he was always able to get the most of every team he coached.

After Bowman, my list would likely be Toe Blake, Al Arbour, Fred "The Fog" Shero and Glen Sather. Tommy Ivan, Jack Adams and Punch Imlach, even though their coaching style is very old-school, would be up there. I wouldn't rate Roger Neilson in the top 10, although I firmly believe he deserves to be in the HHOF. As much as I like Cherry, Harry Sinden was a better coach.

 

[Ol' Jase]

Scotty Bowman is grossly overrated. HE always went to teams on the cusp of greatness. Maggie the Monkey could have coached those teams to victories. Hell, I'll even go one further: Mario Tremblay could have coached those teams to victories.

You did miss the sarcasm smilie, right? Because if you believe this to be true, a little re-education may be in order.

 

[snuffelapagus]

Scotty Bowman is grossly overrated. HE always went to teams on the cusp of greatness. Maggie the Monkey could have coached those teams to victories. Hell, I'll even go one further: Mario Tremblay could have coached those teams to victories.

Ding, ding, ding!

You are right sir! Bowman was among the greatest, but his reputation as the undisputed greatest bench man ever is specious at best.

I'll even go one further: Bowman was responsible for three of the greatest choke jobs ever:

- 1993 Penguins (extremely heavy Cup favorites lose to Turgeon-less Isles in round 2)
- 1994 Red Wings (Stanley Cup darlings lose to expansion Sharks in 1st round)
- 1996 Red Wings (If this team wins the Cup, every Wings apologist alive would say they were the greatest single season team ever)

Thank you Loose Cannon.

IMO this, along with the Patrick Roy Myth, ranks among hockey's undeservedly least questioned platitudes.

 

[Sens Rule]

Ding, ding, ding!

You are right sir! Bowman was among the greatest, but his reputation as the undisputed greatest bench man ever is specious at best.

I'll even go one further: Bowman was responsible for three of the greatest choke jobs ever:

- 1993 Penguins (extremely heavy Cup favorites lose to Turgeon-less Isles in round 2)
- 1994 Red Wings (Stanley Cup darlings lose to expansion Sharks in 1st round)
- 1996 Red Wings (If this team wins the Cup, every Wings apologist alive would say they were the greatest single season team ever)

Thank you Loose Cannon.


IMO this, along with the Patrick Roy Myth, ranks among hockey's undeservedly least questioned platitudes.

Scotty can't hear your criticism because he has his many Stanley Cup rings stuffed in his ears.

 

[bfire]

It's gotta be Scotty. He's a mastermind!

 

[cfrancis]

Bowman

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Not on the cusp of greatness then.



Another team with their best years behind them.

The Old Time All Star Blues had no competition and were the sorriest excuse of cup finalists. They would have been in 6th place if they were to replace ANY of the teams in the other division. The Sabres were on the cusp. Bowman was the GM and then later coach and took that team down faster than the Titanic hitting an ice berg. Good coach? Yes? Greatest ever? Hardly. Monkeys could have coached his cup winners and got the same result.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

You did miss the sarcasm smilie, right? Because if you believe this to be true, a little re-education may be in order.

Even Oljase could have coached the 70s Habs to the cup, and obviously he isn't a great communicator as evidenced by his need to use emoticons!

 

[The_Eck]

Bowman. The guy often went against conventional hockey wisdom. Wasn't much for line-matching or consistent linemates. He was tough, occasionally gruff and very demanding. Having met the man and talked with him for a few minutes, he'll never be confused with the best personality or the best talker in the game. But somehow he was an excellent motivator. He was a brilliant tactician and strategist. His teams were always well-prepared. And despite his faults, he was always able to get the most of every team he coached.

After Bowman, my list would likely be Toe Blake, Al Arbour, Fred "The Fog" Shero and Glen Sather. Tommy Ivan, Jack Adams and Punch Imlach, even though their coaching style is very old-school, would be up there. I wouldn't rate Roger Neilson in the top 10, although I firmly believe he deserves to be in the HHOF. As much as I like Cherry, Harry Sinden was a better coach.

Great points. Bowman was also able to adapt and succeed in the different eras of hockey (70's,80,90's, 2000's).

 

[Ol' Jase]

Even Oljase could have coached the 70s Habs to the cup, and obviously he isn't a great communicator as evidenced by his need to use emoticons!

Wow, that really helps to justify you argument. Nice job, professor.

 

[The_Eck]

Ding, ding, ding!

You are right sir! Bowman was among the greatest, but his reputation as the undisputed greatest bench man ever is specious at best.

I'll even go one further: Bowman was responsible for three of the greatest choke jobs ever:

- 1993 Penguins (extremely heavy Cup favorites lose to Turgeon-less Isles in round 2)
- 1994 Red Wings (Stanley Cup darlings lose to expansion Sharks in 1st round)
- 1996 Red Wings (If this team wins the Cup, every Wings apologist alive would say they were the greatest single season team ever)

Thank you Loose Cannon.

IMO this, along with the Patrick Roy Myth, ranks among hockey's undeservedly least questioned platitudes.

Roy has won more conn smythes than any player in the history of the game.

Yup, I agree Pat Roy is not a clutch goalie.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Some of the coaches named I agree with but others not at all.

Blake, Bowman, Arbour are obvious choices for their success and other factors.

Punch Imlach had many detractors and his teams won in spite of him.

I'm not sure about Glen Sather as in his successful years, he had an overbundance of talent to work with. But then again, his teams were winning Stanley Cups.

As much as most players liked playing for Roger Neilson, his teams were never ultimately successful and he was bounced around the league quite a bit.

I don't include Fred Shero anywhere close to being one of the best coaches, despite what the Flyers' apologists might think. Frankly, I'm surprised he was even mentioned.

Despite his supposed 'systems' and his apparently genius quotes that he would write for the players, he doesn't match up with the top coaches at all. Shero's main philopsophy was built on intimidation and anyone who tries to deny that is not being very realistic.
The question is, would his teams in Philly have had the success that they had without the intimidation of their opponents and the officials? Not a chance.

A great coach to me is one who can make a team better than they really are talent wise. A great coach is one who can be innovative but still respect the rules of the game.

Interesting what you say about Scotty Bowman - yes he was a great tactician and strategist. He was also not liked by his players and that was planned on his part.

I know Bowman a little and I've spent some time talking to him about hockey and I found him to be extremely pleasant and he shared a lot of great insights about the game.

I'm not saying that Bowman was a jerk or anything. He was approachable and willing to talk with fans. He's a very good public speaker, with plenty of stories to share and his insights and analysis. But the consensus around the league is he'll never win personality of the year. As far as talking, his Detroit partner in crime, Kenny Holland, is much better at that. When it comes to interviews, Bowman is still very much relevant and in demand, but that's more a reflection of his ability to break a situation down, than his outright interview skills.

But when it comes to evaluating coaching ability, personality and interview skills doesn't enter my evaluation. And when it comes to coaching, even though he could be unconventional, nobody beats Bowman. If you want personality, hire Pom Pom Tremblay.

One of the great motivational tactics used by Bowman during his tenure with the Wings was a brief satirical video each year. I was able to watch a few of them. (A rarity, as it's something generally not shown to the public). One year they spoofed the Mel Gibson/William Wallace speech from Braveheart. Another was the Israelites crossing the sea in The Ten Commandments. Funny stuff. It gave the players some lighter moments right before the playoffs, while driving home the importance of what lies ahead.

I think Imlach is the type of coach who when he was winning, his players tolerated him. (Witness the Leafs in the 1960s). But when they weren't winning, they didn't want to be around him. I don't know how long his shtick would last in today's NHL, as I think he'd be tuned out by Christmas. But he got results.

Sather was one who was the perfect coach for the situation presented to him in Edmonton. His emphasis on speed and skill was tailor-made for the Oilers. Right man at the right place at the right time. A defensive-minded coach, or a purely systems coach (Jacques Martin or Ken Hitchcock, for example, or even Roger Neilson) would not have enjoyed the same level of success in Edmonton as Slats did. And Slats was an excellent motivator.

I think #66 made a great point with Arbour. His work with the Islanders in 1992-93 is one of the finest displays of coaching I'll ever see. He had the perfect system and the right ideas to beat that Pittsburgh team. Even in 1991-92, the Islanders were a team that most picked to finish at or near the bottom of the league. They pushed for the final playoff spot until the end of the season, and were ahead of Pittsburgh at the two-thirds point. Have the Islanders ever won a playoff series without Arbour behind the bench?

 

[God Bless Canada]

Ding, ding, ding!

You are right sir! Bowman was among the greatest, but his reputation as the undisputed greatest bench man ever is specious at best.

I'll even go one further: Bowman was responsible for three of the greatest choke jobs ever:

- 1993 Penguins (extremely heavy Cup favorites lose to Turgeon-less Isles in round 2)
- 1994 Red Wings (Stanley Cup darlings lose to expansion Sharks in 1st round)
- 1996 Red Wings (If this team wins the Cup, every Wings apologist alive would say they were the greatest single season team ever)

Thank you Loose Cannon.

IMO this, along with the Patrick Roy Myth, ranks among hockey's undeservedly least questioned platitudes.

Pinning any of those losses on Bowman would be a mistake. In the case of the 1994 and the 1996 Wings, those were teams that were not built for the playoffs. They were designed to succeed in the regular season. (Goaltending also betrayed them, horribly, in the 1994 series versus San Jose).

The additions of Larry Murphy (a two-time Cup champion) and Brendan Shanahan (the dominant power forward) were the missing pieces that the Wings needed. Two other differences between 1995-96 and 1996-97 were a greater emphasis on defence by implementing the left wing lock, and putting less of an emphasis on the regular season, and a greater emphasis on the playoffs. Both those came from Bowman.

As for 1993: for one thing, Bowman was going up against the one coach of the last 30 years who could be described as an equal, or close to it: Al Arbour. Lemieux was far from 100 per cent, his back was really troubling him, and nobody stepped up, unlike the year before, when a lot of guys elevated their play in his absence.

I've always felt that the Turgeon injury was the best thing that could have happened to the Islanders. Not only because Turgeon is soft and has a knack for disappearing, but because the entire team stepped up in his presence, and a lot of guys played the best hockey of their career. And for whatever reason, teams match up better with some than others. The Islanders were the only team in the league to beat the Pens three times in the regular season that year.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I'd say Blake, Bowman and Arbour are the top 3. The order is irrelevant.

 

[#66]

Pinning any of those losses on Bowman would be a mistake. In the case of the 1994 and the 1996 Wings, those were teams that were not built for the playoffs. They were designed to succeed in the regular season. (Goaltending also betrayed them, horribly, in the 1994 series versus San Jose).

The additions of Larry Murphy (a two-time Cup champion) and Brendan Shanahan (the dominant power forward) were the missing pieces that the Wings needed. Two other differences between 1995-96 and 1996-97 were a greater emphasis on defence by implementing the left wing lock, and putting less of an emphasis on the regular season, and a greater emphasis on the playoffs. Both those came from Bowman.

As for 1993: for one thing, Bowman was going up against the one coach of the last 30 years who could be described as an equal, or close to it: Al Arbour. Lemieux was far from 100 per cent, his back was really troubling him, and nobody stepped up, unlike the year before, when a lot of guys elevated their play in his absence.

I've always felt that the Turgeon injury was the best thing that could have happened to the Islanders. Not only because Turgeon is soft and has a knack for disappearing, but because the entire team stepped up in his presence, and a lot of guys played the best hockey of their career. And for whatever reason, teams match up better with some than others. The Islanders were the only team in the league to beat the Pens three times in the regular season that year.

I've always felt that way too. It also allowed more time for Penguins killer "Chicken Parm". IMO there was no mistake who won that series for the Isles and that was AA. He just took center ice away from the Penguins and made every play go against the boards which made for a grinding type series even though some of the score totals wouldn't really show that.

IMO he just has a combo of assets like no other and he seems loved like a father by his old players. Everyone and their mother knows about how he went at it with Potvin yet Potvin says nothing but great things about him. There's a very thin line between molding a player and just playing headgames and giving insults and AA seemed to walk that line well.

 

[MacDaddy TLC*]

Roy has won more conn smythes than any player in the history of the game.

Yup, I agree Pat Roy is not a clutch goalie.

Roy was great when he wanted to be. There were times though, where he single handidly lost games and series' for his team, none more obvious and memorable than his statue of Liberty-esque performance that handed the Red Wings the Series and the Cup in 2002.

 

[mcphee]

People tend to look at the 70's Habs and figure every game was 6-0 and they had no real competition. Bowman played that team like a violin. A lot of talented teams never won. The Habs had a target on them those years and for 4 in a row Bowman made all the right moves. That team always was adjusting. Lemaire replaces, Mahovlich, play Gainey a few games with Lafleur. Sit Tremblay before playing a tough road game to get him playing mad, Bowman always got the best out of his guys.

I won't argue Bowman against Arbour,Blake or Irvin, a great coach is a great coach. I will say that of the many people I've heard discussing hockey, Bowman has the most insight. His brother was also a great English teacher.

 

[therealdeal]

Daryl Sutter or Craig MacTavish.

Yeah, I said it.

 

[Hadoop]

Scotty Bowman.

 

[snuffelapagus]

Pinning any of those losses on Bowman would be a mistake. In the case of the 1994 and the 1996 Wings, those were teams that were not built for the playoffs. They were designed to succeed in the regular season. (Goaltending also betrayed them, horribly, in the 1994 series versus San Jose).

The additions of Larry Murphy (a two-time Cup champion) and Brendan Shanahan (the dominant power forward) were the missing pieces that the Wings needed. Two other differences between 1995-96 and 1996-97 were a greater emphasis on defence by implementing the left wing lock, and putting less of an emphasis on the regular season, and a greater emphasis on the playoffs. Both those came from Bowman.

As for 1993: for one thing, Bowman was going up against the one coach of the last 30 years who could be described as an equal, or close to it: Al Arbour. Lemieux was far from 100 per cent, his back was really troubling him, and nobody stepped up, unlike the year before, when a lot of guys elevated their play in his absence.

I've always felt that the Turgeon injury was the best thing that could have happened to the Islanders. Not only because Turgeon is soft and has a knack for disappearing, but because the entire team stepped up in his presence, and a lot of guys played the best hockey of their career. And for whatever reason, teams match up better with some than others. The Islanders were the only team in the league to beat the Pens three times in the regular season that year.

You can rationalize away all you wish, but the fact remains that Bowman was author of three of the greatest playoff failures in the post-expansion era. Bowman was out-coached in '93 and by your own admission did not prepare his team adequately for the playoffs in '94 and '96. Add the embarassment that was the 1995 Finals and you have four consecutive years of monumental underachieving.

Again, I do not argue that Bowman is not among the coaching greats. I merely refuse him being handed the mantle of unquestioned greatest ever coach ever (see especially all the one sentence posts in this thread just stating or proclaiming "Bowman" with no support whatever) without pointing out some major blemishes on his resume.

As for the person deriding my mentioning of the "Patrick Roy Myth": Yes, Roy can be compared to some the all time greats but I feel he is similar to Bowman in that he is handed his "greatest ever" crown quite blindly. Most overlook the fact that he was out-goaltended in the playoffs quite often by other goaltenders many claim to be not in his class.

Again, cheers to Loose Cannon for looking beyond the blindly accecpted and tiresome bromides spewed forth as fact. Cheers also to the Bowman and Roy fans such as God Bless Canada and McPhee who at least back up their opinions with some insightful comments as opposed to the commonplace slew of sarcasm and emoticons.

 

[Canucks5551]

Bowman, his 9 cup rings don't lie.

 

[God Bless Canada]

You can rationalize away all you wish, but the fact remains that Bowman was author of three of the greatest playoff failures in the post-expansion era. Bowman was out-coached in '93 and by your own admission did not prepare his team adequately for the playoffs in '94 and '96. Add the embarassment that was the 1995 Finals and you have four consecutive years of monumental underachieving.

Again, I do not argue that Bowman is not among the coaching greats. I merely refuse him being handed the mantle of unquestioned greatest ever coach ever (see especially all the one sentence posts in this thread just stating or proclaiming "Bowman" with no support whatever) without pointing out some major blemishes on his resume.

As for the person deriding my mentioning of the "Patrick Roy Myth": Yes, Roy can be compared to some the all time greats but I feel he is similar to Bowman in that he is handed his "greatest ever" crown quite blindly. Most overlook the fact that he was out-goaltended in the playoffs quite often by other goaltenders many claim to be not in his class.

Again, cheers to Loose Cannon for looking beyond the blindly accecpted and tiresome bromides spewed forth as fact. Cheers also to the Bowman and Roy fans such as God Bless Canada and McPhee who at least back up their opinions with some insightful comments as opposed to the commonplace slew of sarcasm and emoticons.

I don't think those Wing teams in 1994 and 1996 were underprepared. They had a team that was built for the regular season. When you watched them in the playoffs, you could tell they weren't a playoff-type team. Didn't have enough grit. Not enough toughness. That's why the addition of Shanahan was so big. He gave them that element they didn't have. Murphy was, IMO, the very final piece - a player who knew what it took to win.

Even in the 1995 playoffs, when they reached the Stanley Cup final, they were outplayed by Chicago for most of the Conference Final. Detroit won in five, but there were a couple games when they were lucky to win.

I don't think any coach, in any era, with any system, could have won with Detroit circa 1994 to 1996. There's a difference between being a great regular season team, and a great playoff team.

As stated before, one of the biggest differences between Pittsburgh in 1992 and 1993 was desire to win. When Lemieux went down against the Rangers in 1992, Pittsburgh looked finished. They were down 2-1 at one point in the series against the President's Trophy champions. Yeah, Richter gave up a centre-ice goal to Francis in Game 4, but that entire Pens team stepped up. Jagr broke out. Barasso played the best hockey of his career. Guys like Francis, Tocchet and Stevens stepped up. Shawn McEachran was called up from the minors and played great.

That was missing in 1993. When Lemieux's back acted up, reducing his effectiveness, the Pittsburgh players didn't raise their play to another level. That's reflective of the players, not Bowman. Yes, Arbour was typically masterful, and everyone on the Islanders stepped up in Turgeon's absence. But the difference between the 1992 and 1993 Penguins is startling.

 

[mcphee]

You can rationalize away all you wish, but the fact remains that Bowman was author of three of the greatest playoff failures in the post-expansion era. Bowman was out-coached in '93 and by your own admission did not prepare his team adequately for the playoffs in '94 and '96. Add the embarassment that was the 1995 Finals and you have four consecutive years of monumental underachieving.

Again, I do not argue that Bowman is not among the coaching greats. I merely refuse him being handed the mantle of unquestioned greatest ever coach ever (see especially all the one sentence posts in this thread just stating or proclaiming "Bowman" with no support whatever) without pointing out some major blemishes on his resume.

As for the person deriding my mentioning of the "Patrick Roy Myth": Yes, Roy can be compared to some the all time greats but I feel he is similar to Bowman in that he is handed his "greatest ever" crown quite blindly. Most overlook the fact that he was out-goaltended in the playoffs quite often by other goaltenders many claim to be not in his class.

Again, cheers to Loose Cannon for looking beyond the blindly accecpted and tiresome bromides spewed forth as fact. Cheers also to the Bowman and Roy fans such as God Bless Canada and McPhee who at least back up their opinions with some insightful comments as opposed to the commonplace slew of sarcasm and emoticons.

You can make the arguemnet that 'getting there' is a big part of greatness. Is Bobby Cox a great manager ? You'll get the arguemnet that anyone could win with that lineup, but there's something to be said for getting there. I'd imagine in most sports, the guys that has lost the most finals can also be considered a great coach/manager.

Is the greatest coach a guy who consistently takes an average team to some degree of success ? I won't argue absolutes here, because there are too many conditions involved. With regards to Bowman though, I can't imagine being a GM and wanting someone else to run the team.

Patrick Roy ? There were times when he was simply the 2nd best goalie in a series. Moog and Vernon come to mind. He wasn't always the clear best there is in the NHL. He was more, in my mind, a guy who could seize an occasion and win. I don't know how to say who the best goalie in Mtl. was. I respect the work done by some of our posters trying to provide a means of comparison, but I just believe that there are too many variables to be absolute. If you measure by who performed the best,fine, I don't argue. If you measure by having 20 golaies standing there for a draft and having to pick 1, well I don't know.

In Mtl., who was the choice between, McNeil,Durnan,Plante,Dryden and Roy ? Tough call.