Does Roger Neilson belong in the Hall of Fame?

[Big Phil]

Yes I know he was inducted in 2002 as a coach so its obvious he's in there. And let me start of by saying that Neilson was a very loved man throughout Hockey, universally and has always had the reputation as a good man.

As for his stats, he coached 1000 games. He had 460 wins. No Stanley Cups though. He led the Rnagers to first place overall in '92. The knock I have against Roger is that teams did very well after he left them. The Rangers won the Cup in '94 a year after he left, then the Panthers reach the Cup final in '96 after he's gone. I'll give him credit for coaching the Leafs and Flyers to good teams and having to put up with Ballard and then Clarke. And he was a master of the rule book no doubt. (once used a defensman as a goalie in a penalty shot and the defenseman poked checked him). Stuff like that helped him get in I think, but was he HOF material as a coach?

Click to read more...

 

[reckoning]

And he was a master of the rule book no doubt. (once used a defensman as a goalie in a penalty shot and the defenseman poked checked him).

I believe the defenceman was Ron Stackhouse when Neilson was coaching in Peterborough and it worked nearly every time. Absolutely brilliant.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Strictly based on his NHL record he doesn't deserve induction.

IMO his got in beacuse:he coached for a long time, he's generally very well liked, his innovations (use of video), and finally his coaching for the Petes.

 

[Lowetide]

Easy to justify his HOF status. The guy changed the way the game is coached and therefor played. Extremely influential.

 

[Hasbro]

Nobody told Roger Neilson to get elected to the hall of fame.

 

[El_Scoobo]

Sure-fire hall of famer imo. His innovative coaching techniques are an example of his worthiness. There should be a place for him in the hall.

 

[ClassicHockey]

I met Roger Neilson at the HHOF inductions and found out what I already knew, that he was a very friendly person. He was the type of person that if you emailed a question, he would take the time to email you back with an answer even though he didn't know who you were.

I know a lot of people in the hockey business and they all thought the world of Roger Neilson.

But should he have been inducted to the HHOF? He did have a lengthy career with some success but never won many championships. He was an extremely hard worker as a coach.

But I fail to understand how he has been hailed as a great innovative coach. He did use video for scouting and teaching but he wasn't the first by a long-shot.

Its true his moves meant that the rule book had to be changed but they were not innovative. In my mind, innovative means things that made the game better.
Putting big Ron Stackhouse in net to rush the puck carrier on a penalty shot and throwing extra players out on the ice when they were already two men short, or sending his dog on the ice were not really good for the game. In my mind, that type of thing was more mocking the game. Maybe that's not a good word, but surely, those things do not warrant entry into to the HHOF as an 'innovator.'

Neilson had a lot of negatives when rating him as a coach. He didn't always develop younger players, he was known as one of the worst 'goon' coaches and he never did win many championships - certainly not the Stanley Cup.

But since there are guys here who think he was innovative and those 'innovations' helped get him into the HHOF, please respond what these innovations were and how they benefited the game. I'd like to know.

Sure-fire hall of famer imo. His innovative coaching techniques are an example of his worthiness. There should be a place for him in the hall.

 

[Dolemite]

Sure-fire hall of famer imo. His innovative coaching techniques are an example of his worthiness. There should be a place for him in the hall.

 

[#66]

I met Roger Neilson at the HHOF inductions and found out what I already knew, that he was a very friendly person. He was the type of person that if you emailed a question, he would take the time to email you back with an answer even though he didn't know who you were.

I know a lot of people in the hockey business and they all thought the world of Roger Neilson.

But should he have been inducted to the HHOF? He did have a lengthy career with some success but never won many championships. He was an extremely hard worker as a coach.

But I fail to understand how he has been hailed as a great innovative coach. He did use video for scouting and teaching but he wasn't the first by a long-shot.

Its true his moves meant that the rule book had to be changed but they were not innovative. In my mind, innovative means things that made the game better.
Putting big Ron Stackhouse in net to rush the puck carrier on a penalty shot and throwing extra players out on the ice when they were already two men short, or sending his dog on the ice were not really good for the game. In my mind, that type of thing was more mocking the game. Maybe that's not a good word, but surely, those things do not warrant entry into to the HHOF as an 'innovator.'

Neilson had a lot of negatives when rating him as a coach. He didn't always develop younger players, he was known as one of the worst 'goon' coaches and he never did win many championships - certainly not the Stanley Cup.

But since there are guys here who think he was innovative and those 'innovations' helped get him into the HHOF, please respond what these innovations were and how they benefited the game. I'd like to know.

Totally agree with everything in this post. IMO he has many more flaws and minuses than pluses. That being said he's popular, so that might be enough to get him in. I'll bet that Don Cherry gets in too.

 

[DaveMatthew]

He did use video for scouting and teaching but he wasn't the first by a long-shot.

Umm... actually, he was. He got the idea while coaching the Petes and then he brought it over to the Leafs. They were the first NHL team to use video equipment and within 7 years, everyone was using it.

 

[ClassicHockey]

Not even close.

The Leafs filmed their home games since 1944 and regularly screened the films for the players as teaching sessions in practices. The Rangers did it in the 50's and so did Detroit.
Punch Imlach used the new videotape machines in the mid 60's to show mistakes to the players in the dressing room between periods. Scotty Bowman made a lot of use of video when he started coaching St. Louis.

Umm... actually, he was. He got the idea while coaching the Petes and then he brought it over to the Leafs. They were the first NHL team to use video equipment and within 7 years, everyone was using it.

 

[Sens Rule]

I have no problem whatsoever in having him in the Hall of fame as a builder. There are alot of guys in their that did far less than he did, like all of the hockey announcers or reporters for starters. Neilson may not have been the greatest coach or have the best record but he was a great coach and his use of video in coaching an scouting was innovative. He didn't invent it but he certainly used it in mways no one else had and to a far greater extent than others did.

He ran so many hockey schools, he took hockey schools to places on the globe no one else ever had like Israel and other places. He is a true builder of hockey and what he did for the sport was far more than his role as a head coach. He was also an Assitant coach, a junior coach, a scout and as I said before a teacher. He's career in hockey as a whole was far greater than the stats he had as a head coach.

Kudos for the Sens and Jacques Martin for letting him coach the last couple of games that put him to exactly 1000 in his career later after he was sick. Classy act for a classy guy who is a true Hall of Famer.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think he belongs in the HHOF. His teams were always tactically strong. His strategies were sound. Many of his teams were of average talent at best, but he was able to get the most out of them. He seemed to surround himself with players who could/would execute his system to a T. He excelled at getting the most out of his players, and even many of his highly-skilled players, who may not have normally enjoyed playing such a defensive system, would go through a wall for him.

We can sit here and argue about the definition of innovation all we want, but his capitalization of the rule book (some might even call it exploitation or manipulation) was a reflection of his tireless work ethic, his strategy and his ability to outthink just about anybody. Did he pioneer the use of video? No. But nobody can deny Neilson's influence in making video as prevalent in coaching at all levels.

The recurring strike against him is that he never won a Stanley Cup. He's likely one of the best coaches not to get a ring. But how many times was he on a team that had a legitimate shot at the Cup. 1992 with the Rangers. And it's not his fault Mike Richter gave a centre ice shot in Game 4 in the Cup quarter-final, with his Rangers primed to take a 3-1 on Pittsburgh. The other chance was in 2003 with Ottawa, but his health had deteriorated so much by then that his tactical contributions were minimal.

Note to Phil: Neilson was canned halfway through the 1992-93 season. (They were actually over .500 when he was fired). The Rangers proceeded to flounder the rest of the season and miss the playoffs. The 1993-94 team that won the Cup had a considerably different look, and Richter had finally recovered from the 1992 centre ice shot.

When he was inducted into the HHOF, the recurring comment I heard was "it's about time." In fact, his induction that year received most of the media coverage, a very rare feat for a coach.

 

[Wetcoaster]

IMHO he is in the HHOF because he belongs there but not just for his NHL career.

What I would like to see is a non-NHL trophy named for him similar to the Lester Patrick Trophy in the US.
http://www.nhl.com/hockeyu/history/trophies/patrick.html

The trophy would honour outstanding service to hockey by distinguished individuals (players, officials, coaches, executives, and referees) in Canada be it in pro or amateur ranks. It seems odd to me that we do not have such an award already and Roger seemed to embody that ideal.

 

[VanIslander]

Every Canucks fan says yes!

He led Vancouver to its first Stanley Cup Finals in '82 and invented the "Towel Power" move with his raising of a stick with a towel against Chicago.

He has long been known as one of the geniuses of the game.

Captain Video is a deserved member of the HHOF.

 

[Dolemite]

He led Vancouver to its first Stanley Cup Finals in '82 and invented the "Towel Power" move with his raising of a stick with a towel against Chicago.

Something that just about every single majoe pro and college team have copied from that moment on.

 

[ClassicHockey]

I think that the posters here are forgetting that we're talking about entry into the Hockey Hall of Fame and that means the inductee has to have demonstrated superior abilities and accomplishments. Taking teams to a final or semi-finals is not an extraordinary achievement. Its been done a lot and if you coach long enough, chances are that it will happen.

Did Neilson make the difference behind the bench bringing his team to glory and championships because of his superior coaching? Did his methods bring his team over the top? His teams fell short many times. In fact, Neilson was fired as a coach from a awful lot of places.

I know he coached teams that upset other, maybe better teams. But that also has happened with a lot of coaches. What was his strategy in those upsets - both in the NHL & Junior hockey?. And I don't mean sending out huge Peterborough defenceman Bob Neely out with a cast on his arm to beat on a younger, smaller opponent and winning the series because of intimidation. Or smiling when hearing that Mario Lemieux's arm is broken. Or playing the trap or instructing his team to freeze the puck whenever they are in trouble.

There are a lot of knowledgeable posters here who should be able to list extraordinary abilities or innovations. I'm sorry but putting a white towel on a hockey stick and raising it to mock the referee just doesn't cut it. Neilson didn't make that famous, the marketing people and the fans did. The video thing is something, but he wasn't a pioneer, And some will say that he placed too much emphasis on video.

I applaud the hockey schools etc. but I could name other coaches that had long time hockey schools or went overseas to instruct players.

Was Neilson a sentimental choice? I think so. Did he have some sympathetic friends on the selection committee. Of course he did.

Why is he really in the Hall of Fame?

Every Canucks fan says yes!

He led Vancouver to its first Stanley Cup Finals in '82 and invented the "Towel Power" move with his raising of a stick with a towel against Chicago.

He has long been known as one of the geniuses of the game.

Captain Video is a deserved member of the HHOF.

 

[jiggs 10]

No.






That said, MAYBE he gets in as a builder 30 years down the road for some of the "innovations" he used, but he was a less-than-.500 coach. Does Jacques Demers get in? He at least won a Cup, and had a better winning percentage! Nothing against Roger Neilson, everyone seems to have great respect for him as a person, but he was not one of the very best at his profession, which is what the HOF is for.

 

[Big Phil]

No.






That said, MAYBE he gets in as a builder 30 years down the road for some of the "innovations" he used, but he was a less-than-.500 coach. Does Jacques Demers get in? He at least won a Cup, and had a better winning percentage! Nothing against Roger Neilson, everyone seems to have great respect for him as a person, but he was not one of the very best at his profession, which is what the HOF is for.

No he is clearly an above .500 coach. He had 1000 games and won 460. Remember tha also includes ties.

 

[justsomeguy]

I'll bet that Don Cherry gets in too.

Since broadcasters aren't "really" in the Hall of Fame, I'll take that bet.

A better arguement can probably be made for enshrinment as a builder rather than as a coach, given his long and varied involvement in so many aspects of the game over such an extended period of time.

It can't be denied that being well thought of by a select group of 18 men and maintaining a presence in the game after retirement certainly helps a nomination along.

Jean-Claude Tremblay strikes me as someone who really ought to have been inducted years ago but he wasn't the friendliest fellow and he committed the unpardonable sin of abandoning the Habs for that upstart league. Not sure he's been forgiven for that yet.

Lorne Chabot is another guy who hasn't made the grade yet. He died young and has very few, if any guys on the committee who were old enough to remember him. If it was simply a matter of numbers and silverware, he'd be in. All his contemporaries and peers have been admitted.

The fact that the large majority of the selection committee come from an NHL background has given the HHoF a certain bias over the years, leading many folks to suggest that a better name would be the NHL Hall of Fame.

At some point they're going to have to deal with women. given the widespread popularity of the "girls' game" there are probably a lot of pioneers of that side of the sport that will come up for consideration.

I'm sure that families of a number of deceased players also lobby for their ancestors to be recognized.

It is difficult to be more universal in outlook when you can only admit four players a year. While it ought to ensure that standards are kept high, in recent years have had folks selected that, while they enjoyed very good careers, are not to my mind more deserving than a lot of "forgotten" men.

I would really like to be a fly on the wall when the Star Chamber deliberates, if only to find out what they order in for lunch whan things bog down.

 

[tinyzombies]

Not even close.

The Leafs filmed their home games since 1944 and regularly screened the films for the players as teaching sessions in practices. The Rangers did it in the 50's and so did Detroit.
Punch Imlach used the new videotape machines in the mid 60's to show mistakes to the players in the dressing room between periods. Scotty Bowman made a lot of use of video when he started coaching St. Louis.

The Leafs did film their home games (and games of other teams on the road) and the coaches watched them, and sometimes the players. But Punch was not a technical coach at all, he was strictly a taskmaster who tried to intimidate the Leafs into playing better. F. Mahovlich said so in Scotty Bowman's biography. He said Bowman was a much more technical coach, though he too didn't really deviate too much from his basic systems he used earlier in his career. His genius was that he knew players and matchups. Later in his career in Pittsburgh, after Bob Johnson's death, he learned to be less authoritarian and became a modern coach.

Neither guy was as technical as Nielson. Roger Nielson was probably the first highly technical coach in the NHL. He's not the first to use video, but he was the first to install highly complex tactics. He did a great job with several teams, but was often a victim of bad owners and GMs, including Bowman in Buffalo.

I think Nielson goes in based on his pioneering alone, let alone the masterful jobs he did in Toronto, Vancouver and Buffalo (with a depleted Year 2 Bowman team).

 

[ClassicHockey]

I wouldn't write off the coaches before Neilson as not being technical.

Hap Day had those game films screened in front of the Toronto players and slowed them down, used freeze frame and pointed out errors and opponents strategy. I think you can say that Roger Neilson was more 'technical' because he had more advanced technical equipment that Hap Day had. In a sense, Neilson's job was easier because of the equipment and cameras that were used in his time.

Players from the 40's & 50's have told me that they had to attend these video sessions. Players under Neilson tell me that they didn't actually watch any video, but that Neilson provided each player with a 'report'.

I really think that Roger Neilson gets far too much credit for pioneering the video aspect of coaching. I suppose thats' because posters here just don't know what took place before Neilson, who had the advantage of the Toronto media blowing his horn as a technical guy with the use of film.

I have quite a few of those Leaf game films going back to the 1944-45 season and most were Leaf home games.

Can you tell me something about the games they filmed on the road? I haven't seen any film like that or heard that was done.

The Leafs did film their home games (and games of other teams on the road) and the coaches watched them, and sometimes the players. But Punch was not a technical coach at all, he was strictly a taskmaster who tried to intimidate the Leafs into playing better. F. Mahovlich said so in Scotty Bowman's biography. He said Bowman was a much more technical coach, though he too didn't really deviate too much from his basic systems he used earlier in his career. His genius was that he knew players and matchups. Later in his career in Pittsburgh, after Bob Johnson's death, he learned to be less authoritarian and became a modern coach.

Neither guy was as technical as Nielson. Roger Nielson was probably the first highly technical coach in the NHL. He's not the first to use video, but he was the first to install highly complex tactics. He did a great job with several teams, but was often a victim of bad owners and GMs, including Bowman in Buffalo.

I think Nielson goes in based on his pioneering alone, let alone the masterful jobs he did in Toronto, Vancouver and Buffalo (with a depleted Year 2 Bowman team).

 

[MS]

He's really borderline.

No Cups, no Adams award. 12th all-time in games coached, 11th in wins.

His NHL resume is comparable to (and probably behind) guys like Jacques Demers, Brian Sutter, and Brian Murray, and I don't think any of those guys have a hope in hell of going to the HHOF.

Most of his 'innovations' seem be be trifling and somewhat silly exploitations of loopholes in the rulebook. It's surprising he never tried sticking a 900-lb fat guy in goal to block the entire net.

On the other hand, whether he 'invented' the use of video scouting/analysis or not, he was certainly something of a pioneer in that regard.

Ultimately, whether you think he goes in or not probably depends on the value you place on being a great ambassador for the sport. Which he definitely was.

 

[Chili]

I don't have a big issue with Roger in the Hall. He was certainly someone who dedicated his life to the game of hockey and helped alot of others along the way, including help fans understand the game better.

His induction does make it clear to me though that there are numerous others just as deserving. Three that come immediately to mind are Herb Brooks, Viktor Tikhonov and Ivan Hlinka. All three made large contributions to the game within their native countries and should be recognized in the Hall, in my opinion.

I'm sure we could name a number of others as well.

 

[jamiebez]

But since there are guys here who think he was innovative and those 'innovations' helped get him into the HHOF, please respond what these innovations were and how they benefited the game. I'd like to know.

In the last few years of his life, Roger was consulted by the NHL whenever they were interested in changing official rules, to see if he could come up with any loopholes. A few that I can think of that he came up with:
- if the puck goes through the crease on an icing, icing is waived off (since, presumably, the goalie could have played it, I guess)
- in the days before shootouts, a team pulling their goalie in OT to get a 5-on-4 advantage would forfeit their single overtime loss point if they lost on an empty-net goal. Not sure if this rule is still in place.

Did these things benefit the game? I don't know. Were they innovative? Yes.

I think if you combine his creativity, along with a very good coaching record (10th all-time in games coached when he retired) you get a Hall of Famer, no questions asked.