Pat Burns for the HHOF?

[Big Phil]

Should he get in eventually?

If so, would you have thought this prior to him getting cancer or does his sickness qualify as a better reason?

If he gets in Burns would be in as a builder. He was a good coach of course.

Here's my thought: The push for him to get into the HHOF started once he made public appearances with his cancer. Maybe he does not have long to live, who knows? I wish him godspeed and hope he beats it though, we all do.

But we would judge him mostly on his coaching. Was he an impact coach? Other than the 3 Jack Adams awards did anything stand out about him? He won a Cup and went to the final another time, but so has Peter Laviollette. The knock I have on Burns is that while the Adams is a nice trophy to win, it doesn't neccesarily mean you were the best coach all year, just that your team improved. In all three instances Burns was run out of the city three years or less after he won each Adams trophy.

Did Burns leave a great impact on the game? I look at a guy like Roger Neilson. Maybe he gets in the HHOF because of a wave of sympathy. But he also is credited with being "Captain Video" and forcing the NHL to change some rules (Neilson would leave his goalie's stick along the ice in front of the net when he pulled him, and replaced a goalie with a forward on a penalty shot).

The truth is there are guys like Pat Quinn, Mike Keenan and Fred Shero who have had a bigger impact on the game and a better resume. None are in the HHOF. Burns is almost like the equivalent of Ron Wilson right now. Not good enough. Wilson is a fine coach, but did nothing significant outside of the 1996 World Cup.

This is my opinion. Share yours.

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I voted "yes," but that is in a hypothetical world where the HOF has a "coach's" wing. As a "builder?" I'm not sure.

Like you said, Keenan and Quinn might have had "bigger impacts" than Burns, but I think Burns was consistently the better coach (especially compared to Quinn).

Fred Shero obviously deserves induction over Burns or any other coach, of course.

 

[jkrx]

Keenan however was not able to adapt to a different era which resulted in very very bad years for him.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Keenan however was not able to adapt to a different era which resulted in very very bad years for him.

Keenan from 79-94 has a resume that is tremendous. Possibly the best ever from the coach of a non-dynasty.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pat Burns

If we are looking at coaching ability and success then Pat Burns' record is insufficient for HHOF induction.

Pat Burns had the good fortune to land head coaching jobs in post disaster scenarios replacing the following. Jean Perron in Montreal who had lost a talented young team because he could not coach or discipline. Tom Watt in Toronto, simply a lame coach. Steve Kasper in Boston who was given the job before he was ready and Kevin Constantine in New Jersey - never could figure out how KC fooled Lou into hiring him. Pattern was always the same, great success the first year, Adams Trophy deep playoff run including a SC in NJ, then losing the team as the seasons went by.

The reason that he would lose the team is very simple. At crucial times he would be outcoached - and we are not talking great coaches - Terry Crisp, Barry Melrose, Paul Maurice. Eventually the players figure things out and the coach loses the team.

Sympathy vote perhaps. Ability no.

 

[Big Phil]

It's a scary world when Canadiens1958 and I agree on something, but I agree with that post. I don't think Burns did anything that stood out. Did he leave a strong impact on the game? There are lots of coaches with his credentials that I would never consider "builders". Now if there was a coaches wing in the HHOF you'd have to consider him. But since the method for coaches getting into the HHOF is so strict (GMs and Owners too) by the standards of the HHOF Burns does not deserve it.

But in all honesty, other than goalies, there isn't any position harder than a coach to get into the HHOF. And even the goalie thing is debatable. Also on a side note, while I think people may be bias against him, Don Cherry to this day is waiting to get into the HHOF. If the voters can't recognize the contribution this man has had on the game as we know it then how should Burns have a chance?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

The whole notion of a "builders" wing is a farce, and only used as a convenient excuse when they want to keep someone out of tha Hall, ala Fred Shero.

90% of the coaches and GM's that are in the Hall of Fame are in their because they were great coaches and/or great general managers, and that's the way that it should be.

The best coaches, GM's and owners should be in the HHoF, just like the best players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Criteria

It's a scary world when Canadiens1958 and I agree on something, but I agree with that post. I don't think Burns did anything that stood out. Did he leave a strong impact on the game? There are lots of coaches with his credentials that I would never consider "builders". Now if there was a coaches wing in the HHOF you'd have to consider him. But since the method for coaches getting into the HHOF is so strict (GMs and Owners too) by the standards of the HHOF Burns does not deserve it.

But in all honesty, other than goalies, there isn't any position harder than a coach to get into the HHOF. And even the goalie thing is debatable. Also on a side note, while I think people may be bias against him, Don Cherry to this day is waiting to get into the HHOF. If the voters can't recognize the contribution this man has had on the game as we know it then how should Burns have a chance?

One of the challenges facing the HHOF is creating a different niche in certain categories as hockey evolves.

"Builders" was adequate in 1945 when the idea of a HHOF saw its first concrete steps. Many of the founders who were not very good players made important contributions that deserved recognition while others Art Ross, Lester Patrick to name a few had success as players, coaches, GMs, owners, innovators, etc so "Builders" was a nice catchall category.

The issue with Don Cherry is that as a player or a coach he does not have a pedigree. As a media personality perhaps, but not as a "Builder" in the sense of a Foster Hewitt. Once this hurdle is cleared then there might be some options for contributors from such backgrounds.

 

[jkrx]

Keenan from 79-94 has a resume that is tremendous. Possibly the best ever from the coach of a non-dynasty.

I know. I just pointed out a big plump in his resume. Because it is big.

His treatment of Shayne Corson during his tenure in Blues is probably one of the most unprofessional things I've seen a NHL coach do.