Yzerman Finally Won Because He Changed His Game

[toob]

NHL legend says that Steve Yzerman was a high scoring center who had to conform to a team game, learn defense and make hard sacrifices to finally win a cup. While this is often praised as a sign of greatness, and is undoubtedly a great example of Yzerman's character and will to succeed, was it actually a good thing in hockey terms that he had to change what he was good at in order to finally succeed? You often hear about the importance to play your own brand of hockey, and dictate the play against the opposition. What if his one dimensional offense had been successful in winning the Stanley Cup without the prolonged struggles to the top the way a young team like Chicago did with guys like Patrick Kane? Is it a failing of sorts that Yzerman couldn't power the Red Wings to victory playing a run and gun style of hockey? Would that have ultimately takem away from his legend?

i dont even think "NHL legend" of Yzerman is that oversimplified (if not just flat out incorrect)

just look at the Red Wings in the late 80s early 90s and then look again at the Red Wings in the late 90s early 00s and maybe consider that even though Yzerman was a lot better as a player earlier the rest of the team was a lot worse

if the Wings in the late 90s early 00s had prime Yzerman (from the late 80s early 90s) instead of older Yzerman then that team becomes a dynasty

it isnt too hard to see why Yzerman had to make some changes if you look at the context of Yzerman and the Red Wings in the mid 90s:

individual:
Yzerman was nearing age 30
he had neck/back injuries throughout the 94 season
he had injuries to both knees during the 95 season

team:
Fedorov had established himself as an elite scorer
the team finally had offensive depth (and not only at center like before)
team defense wasnt good and the defensemen were offensively inclined
goaltending was shaky and always seemed to crumble in the playoffs

league:
the league itself was (generally speaking) shifting to a more defensive game with expansion and other bad teams keeping up with the talented teams by playing defensive systems

so Yzerman is going to be worse offensively anyway because of age and injuries and the team doesnt need him to carry the offense anymore but rather it needs to tighten up defensively and the coach wants to instill a total team commitment to defense...

why should it be held against Yzerman for adapting to and excelling in a new role (that was more suitable to him at that stage in his career anyway due to age and injuries) instead of refusing to change?

sure if Yzerman played on a team that didnt demand so much from its forwards defensively he could have scored more (even though he had already lost a step)

if he played in a offensively favorable context like Selanne and Kariya did in Anaheim or Jagr did in Pittsburgh where they could just run and gun then Yzerman could have scored 100 points instead of being a point per game

and even if he played in a context like Sakic and Forsberg in Colorado which was still more open than Detroit he could have scored about 90 points

Regardless of fact vs myth, it does seem like the Yzerman legend benefited from the perceived struggle to become a better defensive player. Had he simply won easy breezy with a run and gun Red Wings team at a young age at the top of his offensive game with nary a mind to defensive details, I just feel like his greatness would have been lessened. Another poster put it well by saying that swapping an offensive Yzerman from the 80s into the Wings 1997-2002 rosters and a defensive Yzerman into the 80s probably wouldn't have changed the Wings fortunes. But the evolution of his game sure helped raise the Yzerman mythology.

i think quite the opposite happens

aside from the very likely scenario that prime Yzerman on those late Red Wings teams wins more cups (and more Conn Smythes) there wouldnt be a need to foil his later defensive game with a massively underrated earlier defensive game

 

[toob]

What is indisputable: Yzerman's game evolved over time. Concurrently, the Wings won more. "Coincidence" perhaps in the minds of some. Personally, I'll trust my own eyes (what I and any basic observer of the game at the time saw)....and side with the opinion of Devellano, Bowman and other HOF hockey people.

have you considered that maybe it is possible that Devellano is being revisionist? i dont know exactly when that statement was made (and id like the exact statement instead of a paraphrase and commentary from the quoted poster) but it looks to be recent...

perhaps Jimmy D is remembering things in a distorted retrospective manner because Jacques Demers praised Yzerman’s defensive play when he was coaching him in the late 80s (various times during the 88 and 89 seasons) and Bryan Murray called Yzerman one of the best two way forwards when he was his coach and general manager in the early 90s (February 93 to be exact)

most telling is that Steve Yzerman himself seems to disagree with Devellano’s assessment and he said it right on the cusp of his 1st cup when the media was making a big deal about his defensive transformation:

"I always considered myself a decent two-way player," he said. "It's just that I never got noticed about playing defense until I stopped scoring."

i think it is much more difficult for a contemporary statement to be revisionism than statements made well after the fact

with that being said yes Yzerman’s game changed in the mid 90s and yes he became better defensively at that point but Yzerman was never as bad defensively as Devellano seems to imply here

THAT idea seems to be revisionist

When your best players commit to working equally across the entire rink and adapting to every style of play, the rest of your roster follows. And if that roster is talented, winning follows, as well.

yes Yzerman probably deserves credit for being the first to adopt the system Bowman wanted and selling it to his teammates but they had to buy into it themselves to play the way they did for it to succeed

the most important factor in the 97, 98, 02 cups was a good and deep team playing good team D

one player cant win it by himself and Yzerman’s early career is a huge testament to that

also you seem to be implying some things in your post so i just want to clarify:

do you believe that Yzerman was a better player in the 2nd half of his career than in the 1st half of his career?

do you believe that it was mainly Yzerman’s improvement defensively which allowed the Red Wings to start winning cups?

do you believe that earlier offensive Yzerman would not win cups if he had a strong supporting cast around him (such as the one later defensive Yzerman had)?

i dont believe any of those things

One recalls John Tortarella dogging Vinny Lecavalier to apply himself more. Torts got ripped by some for it. He persisted. Lecavalier's game matured. By no means should that be misinterpreted to suggest he became a Selke winner or Cam Neely II, but the change was obvious. And his team won. Again, "coincidence", "luck", etc. according to some. Not this observer.

the Stevie-Vinny comparison is interesting but i dont think it holds much water unless maybe if you apply it to Jacques Demers coming and getting the most out of Yzerman after 86 and not Bowman way later in 95

and Jacques Demers deserves the most credit in making Yzerman the player he was... not Bowman

but Yzerman never won anything under Demers

why? because the late 80s Red Wings were far inferior to the 04 Lightning regardless of Yzerman’s effort

but effort among other things usually gets unnoticed when you dont win

as an example let us look at Yzerman's 02 playoff run (probably the most cited example of his second half transformation into a winner through his leadership and determination and defensive play)

Yzerman played through pain here for sure but he played through pain many times before (just one example being the 91 playoffs where he hurt his knee in game 3 vs the Blues but kept playing despite the injury - people probably remember that series by his disappointing statline of 6 points in 7 games even though all 6 points came in the first 3 games before injury)

Yzerman was quite a leader here but he was quite a leader before (just one example being the entire 89 season where a bunch of teammates (Klima, Kocur, Probert) were having all sorts of on and off ice problems and yet Yzerman made up for their absence on the ice and tried to help them off the ice)

and Yzerman wasnt actually too strong defensively in the 02 playoff run either because he couldnt skate well (he had to play on Fedorov's wing for a reason)

dont get me wrong Yzerman was very good in the playoff run and it is a really good example of who he was but this kind of stuff had been present throughout his entire career...

he just started getting noticed for it in the 2nd half of his career

and i guess those who didn’t notice it earlier will label it revisionism

 

[RabbinsDuck]

If later-career Yzerman played like Mark Messier in his late 30s - with a sense of entitlement, demanding first line minutes, 1st PP time and ignoring defense - maybe that team never wins a Cup.

 

[Trottier]

yes Yzerman probably deserves credit for being the first to adopt the system Bowman wanted and selling it to his teammates but they had to buy into it themselves to play the way they did for it to succeed

Of course they had to buy in, no disagreement there. And it starts with your most talented (big minute) players buying in. That they did is a tribute to the players and a HOF coach. As evidenced by the Cups.

the most important factor in the 97, 98, 02 cups was a good and deep team playing good team D

Agreed, again.

one player cant win it by himself and Yzerman’s early career is a huge testament to that

Never suggested as much. But don't imply that all players are equal. You get a lot of the "it's a team game" meme around here and of course, it is. But some players are much more valuable to the success of a team than others. Put it this way: if Detroit's fourth liners, circa 1997 were buying into Bowman's demands but Feds, Shanny and Yzerman for some odd reason wanted to play pond hockey, Detroit goes nowhere.

do you believe that Yzerman was a better player in the 2nd half of his career than in the 1st half of his career?

Define the timeframe for "2nd half". Was he a better hockey player (as opposed to fantasy league player) circa mid-90s as opposed to mid- to late-80s? Absolutely. He contributed more consistently in more areas of the ice night to night. Small details, perhaps to some. But in reality, significant, IMO. And one recalls the knock on Yzerman in the late 80s. (As opposed to discussing it in theory now, 20+ years later).

Let me put it another way: if Yzerman's career trajectory followed along the lines of the '80s version (big offensive numbers, no team success) and did not include the latter day version (his game and the player maturing to they point they did and him being a major contributor to the Wings winning Cups), he would never be compared to Bryan Trottier and Joe Sakic today...and instead would be discussed alongside Marcel Dionne. No disgrace, of course, but not the same thing, not by a longshot.

do you believe that it was mainly Yzerman’s improvement defensively which allowed the Red Wings to start winning cups?

"Allowed", no. Contributed? Absolutely.

do you believe that earlier offensive Yzerman would not win cups if he had a strong supporting cast around him (such as the one later defensive Yzerman had)?

Hypothetical. But moot. For he would not have lasted on Detroit under Bowman had he not adapted. Being a smart, maturing TEAM player who prized winning over his own shiny numbers, he did. Winning does not happen in a vaccum. Yes, teams win Cups. And, teams are comprised of players...who perform or not. Yzerman was a better performer by most hockey standards (again, not fantasy league standards) by the time Detroit started winning famously. (And again, that is not to imply that he was a cherry picking waif earlier in his career. We're talking about small, but highly important degrees of change.)

i dont believe any of those things

That's cool.

 

[tjcurrie]

Wasn't the Yzerman rumor for Yashin ? Can you imagine that one going down ? Probably no Cups for Detroit.

 

[octopi]

Some other people on the Wings 97 Cup roster
Brendan Shanahan, Igor larionov, Sergei Fedorov, Vlad Konstantinov, Nick Lidstrom, Slava Fetisov


The Russian contingent brought in a puck cycling style that other teams had no answer for.Fedorov was at the top of his game, and Yzerman was just past hi peak. Larionov was starting on the downside, but was an insane passer. With Kris Draper centering the 4th and "Grind line", the Wings rolled 4 lines, 3 with world class centers.And then Konstantinov, Lidstrom and Fetisov were great at moving the puck up. Larry Murphy wasn't half bad either. Doug Brown could sub with the R5 unit. It was magnificence itself.

 

[Trottier]

Wasn't the Yzerman rumor for Yashin ? Can you imagine that one going down ? Probably no Cups for Detroit.

Yikes!

Even a great roster like those late 90s Wings' team would have had a hard time carrying that heartless passenger around as a top minutes forward. Shanny probably would have kicked his ass in the lockeroom by his third game with the team.

The Hockey Gods saw justice. A great player went on to win famously ...and a pulseless "talent" never once contributed to any team success. (But he was soooo skilled!" )

In case you can't tell, my least favorite fraud NHLer of all time. Perfect example of when your "star" player refuses, despite repeated requests from multiple coaches, to add dimensions to his game and contribute in the non-sexy, non stat-centric aspects of the game. Failure follows, in perpituity.

 

[redbull]

Yikes!

Even a great roster like those late 90s Wings' team would have had a hard time carrying that heartless passenger around as a top minutes forward. Shanny probably would have kicked his ass in the lockeroom by his third game with the team.

The Hockey Gods saw justice. A great player went on to win famously ...and a pulseless "talent" never once contributed to any team success. (But he was soooo skilled!" )

In case you can't tell, my least favorite fraud NHLer of all time. Perfect example of when your "star" player refuses, despite repeated requests from multiple coaches, to add dimensions to his game and contribute in the non-sexy, non stat-centric aspects of the game. Failure follows, in perpituity.

The Devils have cleared some roster space and Carol Alt is fairly close to the Jersey shore.....so do we see a love connection? Imagine Lou, Gandler and Yashin in the same room. I'm sure there are some NJ fans that salivate at the thought of Yashin-Kovalchuk, Parise-Zajac. That would be a sight to see.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Disagree. Fedorov was always a well rounded two way presence, evidenced by the fact that he won the Selke the year he won the Hart in 1994 when he was a 56 goal scoring, 120 point producing megastar, and again in 1996 when he topped 100 points.

The production drop was more of an issue of Fedorov apparently mailing it in in the regular season.

Not saying he was bad defensively, but I think Fedorov's game evolved more in the late 90s as he was used in more defensive situations than he was before. The makeup of the team changing also helped improve the defensive play of others, Fedorov included. They went from having the likes of Dino Ciccarelli and Ray Sheppard to players like Brendan Shanahan and Doug Brown. While they were always strong offensively, the team just got better as a whole defensively, as did individual players.

 

[overg]

Speaking of romanticized history, Fedorov's stint at Defense has become one. Sergei's switch to defense was not so much a compliment of his defensive ability, but rather was one of those crazy Bowman experiments which was done because he was struggling terribly on offense. Fedorov was smack dab in the middle of one of his his disinterested, offensive funks, so Bowman threw him back on D to try and get him more involved and just to see what the heck would happen. Fedorov was passable back there, but I've seen more than one person claim he could have won a Norris trophy, which was not even remotely true.

As for the myth of Yzerman, I understand the point many are making in this thread. At the same time, I think there's a lot of validity to the legend, and I think a lot of it comes from Yzerman's teammates (Draper probably has a hundred quotes about this on his own). When Yzerman a) readily accepted reduced ice time (playing not much more than the other three centers many nights, b) preached a commitment to defense, and c) started throwing himself in front of shots (Shanahan did this too for a while, they both gave me heart attacks every time they did it), pretty much every Wing had to accept that the Red Wings were now about sacrifice and hard work. If a guy who scored 155 points in a season could go down to block a shot, what excuse did a 20 point player have for not doing the same? If the Captain and most popular player said "I'll accept whatever ice time you think is best," who else was really going to complain?

This even went to things like salary. Yzerman was one of a handful of players who deferred salary to get Hull. That sort of less personal money = better team overall mentality continues to this day, as I think it's fair to say Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk have all taken less than market value to play for the Wings. That "hometown discount" philosophy the Wings seem to get so often is directly traceable to Yzerman.

So no, it's not quite as simple as "Yzerman got better at defense, Wings won." Rather, it was more his attitude toward the Wings, and really leading a "team first" mentality that created his legend.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Speaking of romanticized history, Fedorov's stint at Defense has become one. Sergei's switch to defense was not so much a compliment of his defensive ability, but rather was one of those crazy Bowman experiments which was done because he was struggling terribly on offense. Fedorov was smack dab in the middle of one of his his disinterested, offensive funks, so Bowman threw him back on D to try and get him more involved and just to see what the heck would happen. Fedorov was passable back there, but I've seen more than one person claim he could have won a Norris trophy, which was not even remotely true.

As for the myth of Yzerman, I understand the point many are making in this thread. At the same time, I think there's a lot of validity to the legend, and I think a lot of it comes from Yzerman's teammates (Draper probably has a hundred quotes about this on his own). When Yzerman a) readily accepted reduced ice time (playing not much more than the other three centers many nights, b) preached a commitment to defense, and c) started throwing himself in front of shots (Shanahan did this too for a while, they both gave me heart attacks every time they did it), pretty much every Wing had to accept that the Red Wings were now about sacrifice and hard work. If a guy who scored 155 points in a season could go down to block a shot, what excuse did a 20 point player have for not doing the same? If the Captain and most popular player said "I'll accept whatever ice time you think is best," who else was really going to complain?

This even went to things like salary. Yzerman was one of a handful of players who deferred salary to get Hull. That sort of less personal money = better team overall mentality continues to this day, as I think it's fair to say Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk have all taken less than market value to play for the Wings. That "hometown discount" philosophy the Wings seem to get so often is directly traceable to Yzerman.

So no, it's not quite as simple as "Yzerman got better at defense, Wings won." Rather, it was more his attitude toward the Wings, and really leading a "team first" mentality that created his legend.

Nice post.

 

[Trottier]

As for the myth of Yzerman, I understand the point many are making in this thread. At the same time, I think there's a lot of validity to the legend, and I think a lot of it comes from Yzerman's teammates (Draper probably has a hundred quotes about this on his own). When Yzerman a) readily accepted reduced ice time (playing not much more than the other three centers many nights, b) preached a commitment to defense, and c) started throwing himself in front of shots (Shanahan did this too for a while, they both gave me heart attacks every time they did it), pretty much every Wing had to accept that the Red Wings were now about sacrifice and hard work. If a guy who scored 155 points in a season could go down to block a shot, what excuse did a 20 point player have for not doing the same? If the Captain and most popular player said "I'll accept whatever ice time you think is best," who else was really going to complain?

This even went to things like salary. Yzerman was one of a handful of players who deferred salary to get Hull. That sort of less personal money = better team overall mentality continues to this day, as I think it's fair to say Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk have all taken less than market value to play for the Wings. That "hometown discount" philosophy the Wings seem to get so often is directly traceable to Yzerman.

So no, it's not quite as simple as "Yzerman got better at defense, Wings won." Rather, it was more his attitude toward the Wings, and really leading a "team first" mentality that created his legend.

Good stuff.

This medium lends itself to dumbed down pronouncements and misrepresentation, i.e., "Yzerman improved defensively, Wings won, so a legend was fabricated."

...Which, in turn, spurs equally specious, myopic stat-centic rebuttals: "Simply put Yzerman's 155 point season on the '97 Wings and they still win! Easy as that!"

There are many factors that contribute to the maturation (and contribution) of a player, his game and his team. You addressed them.

Context.

Thank you for articulating it in this case.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I was going to say this.

To me, 1984-1994 Yzerman was more valuable, no question. You just can't teach/train that kind of offensive wizardry. Of course, some will say he was better and more valuable than ever before once he got better defensively. That's a major stretch.

Put the 1995-2004 Yzerman on those 80s wings and they still suck. Put the high-flying 1984-1994 Yzerman on the cup-winning Wings and they still breeze to three cups.

Teams win cups. Players contribute. Throughout Yzerman's career he was always capable of being a player who contributed to a winner, just in different ways at different times. Of course, it was only when Detroit got better, that they won.

Fully agree here and will add one more point.

The myth and legend of Yzerman is at the heart of team sports since I can remember.

The star player sacrificing some points or personal praise and putting his team before him.

Some Marxists might call this capitalistic reinforcement but it is quite simply a common theme in team sports.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Fully agree here and will add one more point.

The myth and legend of Yzerman is at the heart of team sports since I can remember.

The star player sacrificing some points or personal praise and putting his team before him.

Some Marxists might call this capitalistic reinforcement but it is quite simply a common theme in team sports.

While Trottier was not as offensively effective later in his career like Yzerman, I have always admired Trottier for taking a third-line defensive role later in his career - and I believe he was a heck of a lot more valuable to those 2 Cup winning teams in Pittsburgh than his points indicate.

I admire that more than if he had gone to an expansion team and played empty 1st line 60-70 pt seasons padding his career stats - which he probably could have done.

 

[norrisnick]

Speaking of romanticized history, Fedorov's stint at Defense has become one. Sergei's switch to defense was not so much a compliment of his defensive ability, but rather was one of those crazy Bowman experiments which was done because he was struggling terribly on offense. Fedorov was smack dab in the middle of one of his his disinterested, offensive funks, so Bowman threw him back on D to try and get him more involved and just to see what the heck would happen. Fedorov was passable back there, but I've seen more than one person claim he could have won a Norris trophy, which was not even remotely true.

As for the myth of Yzerman, I understand the point many are making in this thread. At the same time, I think there's a lot of validity to the legend, and I think a lot of it comes from Yzerman's teammates (Draper probably has a hundred quotes about this on his own). When Yzerman a) readily accepted reduced ice time (playing not much more than the other three centers many nights, b) preached a commitment to defense, and c) started throwing himself in front of shots (Shanahan did this too for a while, they both gave me heart attacks every time they did it), pretty much every Wing had to accept that the Red Wings were now about sacrifice and hard work. If a guy who scored 155 points in a season could go down to block a shot, what excuse did a 20 point player have for not doing the same? If the Captain and most popular player said "I'll accept whatever ice time you think is best," who else was really going to complain?

This even went to things like salary. Yzerman was one of a handful of players who deferred salary to get Hull. That sort of less personal money = better team overall mentality continues to this day, as I think it's fair to say Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk have all taken less than market value to play for the Wings. That "hometown discount" philosophy the Wings seem to get so often is directly traceable to Yzerman.

So no, it's not quite as simple as "Yzerman got better at defense, Wings won." Rather, it was more his attitude toward the Wings, and really leading a "team first" mentality that created his legend.

What's funny here is that Devellano is one of them.

 

[Hardyvan123]

While Trottier was not as offensively effective later in his career like Yzerman, I have always admired Trottier for taking a third-line defensive role later in his career - and I believe he was a heck of a lot more valuable to those 2 Cup winning teams in Pittsburgh than his points indicate.

I admire that more than if he had gone to an expansion team and played empty 1st line 60-70 pt seasons padding his career stats - which he probably could have done.

Trotts was slipping fast offensively in his last 2 years for the NYI before going to Pittsburgh to play an important role on those 2 cup teams but not a top 5 role in terms of importance and maybe not even top7,8.

Eif he had the chance to pad his stats it's highly unlikely that he could have topped 40-50 points.

Still a great player and a great TEAM player for his entire career.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Speaking of romanticized history, Fedorov's stint at Defense has become one. Sergei's switch to defense was not so much a compliment of his defensive ability, but rather was one of those crazy Bowman experiments which was done because he was struggling terribly on offense. Fedorov was smack dab in the middle of one of his his disinterested, offensive funks, so Bowman threw him back on D to try and get him more involved and just to see what the heck would happen. Fedorov was passable back there, but I've seen more than one person claim he could have won a Norris trophy, which was not even remotely true.

As for the myth of Yzerman, I understand the point many are making in this thread. At the same time, I think there's a lot of validity to the legend, and I think a lot of it comes from Yzerman's teammates (Draper probably has a hundred quotes about this on his own). When Yzerman a) readily accepted reduced ice time (playing not much more than the other three centers many nights, b) preached a commitment to defense, and c) started throwing himself in front of shots (Shanahan did this too for a while, they both gave me heart attacks every time they did it), pretty much every Wing had to accept that the Red Wings were now about sacrifice and hard work. If a guy who scored 155 points in a season could go down to block a shot, what excuse did a 20 point player have for not doing the same? If the Captain and most popular player said "I'll accept whatever ice time you think is best," who else was really going to complain?

This even went to things like salary. Yzerman was one of a handful of players who deferred salary to get Hull. That sort of less personal money = better team overall mentality continues to this day, as I think it's fair to say Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk have all taken less than market value to play for the Wings. That "hometown discount" philosophy the Wings seem to get so often is directly traceable to Yzerman.

So no, it's not quite as simple as "Yzerman got better at defense, Wings won." Rather, it was more his attitude toward the Wings, and really leading a "team first" mentality that created his legend.

Agree with everything here, especially the revisionist history regarding Fedorov. I've seen that posted so many times and wonder if people are just making it up.

 

[JT Dutch*]

perhaps Jimmy D is remembering things in a distorted retrospective manner because Jacques Demers praised Yzerman’s defensive play when he was coaching him in the late 80s (various times during the 88 and 89 seasons) and Bryan Murray called Yzerman one of the best two way forwards when he was his coach and general manager in the early 90s (February 93 to be exact)

... Devellano absolutely is feeding this legend, and why not? It's convenient, simple, and most people will buy it (examples are right here in the thread).

most telling is that Steve Yzerman himself seems to disagree with Devellano’s assessment and he said it right on the cusp of his 1st cup when the media was making a big deal about his defensive transformation:

"I always considered myself a decent two-way player," he said. "It's just that I never got noticed about playing defense until I stopped scoring."

... Clearly Steve Yzerman knows very little about his own game, if you ask Devellano.

with that being said yes Yzerman’s game changed in the mid 90s and yes he became better defensively at that point but Yzerman was never as bad defensively as Devellano seems to imply here

... Exactly. With time and experience, Yzerman did become somewhat better defensively, but he never was close to being poor and the "doesn't play 200 feet" myth of the past is just that - a myth. He got better by playing and practicing with better players, especially the better defensive players the Wings were bringing in through the mid-90s.

yes Yzerman probably deserves credit for being the first to adopt the system Bowman wanted and selling it to his teammates but they had to buy into it themselves to play the way they did for it to succeed. the most important factor in the 97, 98, 02 cups was a good and deep team playing good team D

... A defensive system isn't much without the talent to pull it off, and Detroit had the talent. Bowman's no dummy, he knew the Wings were a very talented group when he took them over, and the team's acquisitions made them still better.

Never suggested as much. But don't imply that all players are equal. You get a lot of the "it's a team game" meme around here and of course, it is. But some players are much more valuable to the success of a team than others. Put it this way: if Detroit's fourth liners, circa 1997 were buying into Bowman's demands but Feds, Shanny and Yzerman for some odd reason wanted to play pond hockey, Detroit goes nowhere.

... What does this even mean??? At what time did any of those three players have a reputation for playing "pond hockey"? What would make you believe they would start doing that?

Define the timeframe for "2nd half". Was he a better hockey player (as opposed to fantasy league player) circa mid-90s as opposed to mid- to late-80s? Absolutely.

... It's debatable whether he was a better player or not. He certainly had better players around him, which made him look better - and it's baffling why this simple fact just gets thrown to the side when discussing players like Yzerman. He scored at the rate he did early on in his career because that's what the team needed him to do, just to be competitive once in a while. Once he was surrounded by a team of stars and solid role players, he didn't need to score as much, which in turn convinced some people (like you) that he must have been playing much better defensively, when he really wasn't.

Let me put it another way: if Yzerman's career trajectory followed along the lines of the '80s version (big offensive numbers, no team success) and did not include the latter day version (his game and the player maturing to they point they did and him being a major contributor to the Wings winning Cups), he would never be compared to Bryan Trottier and Joe Sakic today...and instead would be discussed alongside Marcel Dionne. No disgrace, of course, but not the same thing, not by a longshot.

... What a crock. If Yzerman continued to have teammates the caliber of Dionne's, he would never have won a Cup. Like, say, if he had actually been traded to Ottawa. No way he wins a Cup. Would that have made him a worse player? Only in your eyes and in the eyes of people who can't or won't acknowledge the contributions of other talented players on a team. To say there's a "longshot" between a player like Yzerman and a player like Dionne is pure crap, imo. Where were the players Dionne played with who can compare to players like Shanahan, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Konstantinov, Kozlov, and Larionov? They're simply not there. Is that Dionne's fault?

Being a smart, maturing TEAM player who prized winning over his own shiny numbers, he did.

... It's a lot easier to be a team player when you're playing on a great team.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here are some bits of info from Bowman discussing his idea behind placing Fedorov on defense:
http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/11/scotty_bowman_talks_about_form.html

"His father would look at his ice and if he didn't get 20 minutes, well (he was upset) ... so one year I said 'OK, if you want to play more, Sergei, why don't you try defence?' I talked to Wayne Gretzky about that six or seven years ago and he said to me, 'I couldn't play forward and defence. Mario couldn't do it. Jagr couldn't play defence. But Sergei could. He was a hell of a player.' ''

Fedorov wasn't producing much offensively, so they moved him to D to get him going and to give him more ice time. They paired Fedorov up with Larry Murphy. Sergei's skating ability and speed is most likely why Bowman was willing to experiment with Fedorov on defense.

Detroit was considered one of the best teams in the NHL three years prior to their first Stanley Cup in 41 years. Many hockey journalists had selected Detroit to reach the Cup Finals in '93 (against the Penguins). They were upset in the playoffs in '94 by the Sharks. They reached the Cup Finals, only to get swept by New Jersey in '95. The Colorado Avalanche beat them in the Conference Finals in '96. So what changes led to Detroit's back-to-back Cup wins in '97?

They got rid of a lot of players who were considered defensive liabilities. They gave a player like Larry Murphy a second chance and he surprised many with his turnaround. The Wings waived goodbye to Coffey, Primeau, Ciccarelli, Sheppard, Burr, etc. and became a much more physical and aggressive team with the additions of Shanahan, McCarty, Lapointe, Maltby, Kocur, etc.

The Wings' puck possession game was one of the reasons why they were such a great team defensively. Their team GAA was very low throughout the 90s. Yzerman (and Fedorov) were individual players early in their careers. Just watch footage of them handling the puck on their own for a good duration of their shifts, not sharing the puck much with their linemates. That started to change as they grew older and matured. The entire team adapted to the system that the Wings employed, one that they continue to apply to this very day.

 

[Trottier]

... What does this even mean??? At what time did any of those three players have a reputation for playing "pond hockey"? What would make you believe they would start doing that?

Apparently, exaggeration (noted as such) to make a point is lost on you. The comment about "pond hockey" was not meant to be taken literally, or to imply that was the style of those players. It was meant to emphasize the simple truth that a team follows its leaders. That one has to re-explain this is odd.

... It's debatable whether he was a better player or not. He certainly had better players around him, which made him look better - and it's baffling why this simple fact just gets thrown to the side when discussing players like Yzerman. He scored at the rate he did early on in his career because that's what the team needed him to do, just to be competitive once in a while. Once he was surrounded by a team of stars and solid role players, he didn't need to score as much, which in turn convinced some people (like you) that he must have been playing much better defensively, when he really wasn't.

Apparently, as you say, it is debatable. Which is fine. I stated my opinion. (And please do not misrepresent and dumb down my opinion - I know from watching the player his entire career that he matured over time as a player in multiple areas, including defense.) You disagree. Unsure why that would bug you. Likewise, unsure who is throwing "to the side" the fact that Yzerman's Wing's teams of the '90s were superior to the earlier versions. Seems like a strawman. I see no one doing that. I do see some who recognize that the two points are not mutually exclusive. Namely, he could have better teammates AND be a better player...which in turn equals Cups.

... What a crock. If Yzerman continued to have teammates the caliber of Dionne's, he would never have won a Cup. Like, say, if he had actually been traded to Ottawa. No way he wins a Cup. Would that have made him a worse player? Only in your eyes and in the eyes of people who can't or won't acknowledge the contributions of other talented players on a team. To say there's a "longshot" between a player like Yzerman and a player like Dionne is pure crap, imo. Where were the players Dionne played with who can compare to players like Shanahan, Fedorov, Lidstrom, Konstantinov, Kozlov, and Larionov? They're simply not there. Is that Dionne's fault?

Niiiiice response there. It's my opinion. You disagree. Which, for some odd reason, evokes: "what a crock". Why not simply make your point and respect the fact that when evaluating the upper eschelon of players, when most everything else among two players is equal, some of us place winning into the equation...and others, like yourself, do not? Horrors! We happen to disagree. So the opinion that differs from yours must be "pure crap". Best you direct your misguided anger elsewhere.

... It's a lot easier to be a team player when you're playing on a great team.

Sure. Easy as pie. Just "leech" off them. (I learned that here.)

 

[unknown33]

Sometimes I wonder if certain people on here skipped PE class their whole life. (let alone playing for a team)

 

[Brewsky]

NHL legend says that Steve Yzerman was a high scoring center who had to conform to a team game, learn defense and make hard sacrifices to finally win a cup. While this is often praised as a sign of greatness, and is undoubtedly a great example of Yzerman's character and will to succeed, was it actually a good thing in hockey terms that he had to change what he was good at in order to finally succeed? You often hear about the importance to play your own brand of hockey, and dictate the play against the opposition. What if his one dimensional offense had been successful in winning the Stanley Cup without the prolonged struggles to the top the way a young team like Chicago did with guys like Patrick Kane? Is it a failing of sorts that Yzerman couldn't power the Red Wings to victory playing a run and gun style of hockey? Would that have ultimately takem away from his legend?

Well, it also helped having Fedorov, Shanahan, Larionov, Kozlov, Lidstrom, Murphy, Konstantinov, Fetisov etc....like said, the early 90s team is just FAIL compared to the late 90s team.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Nice post. A few thoughts: Yzerman's evolution was gradual but I do think Bowman nurtured, maybe even forced, a process that Yzerman and Murray had started. That is to echo the sentiments of others who think that Yzerman was trying to maximize his talents and adapt to the team around him. OTOH, I remember the Senator trade rumors and think they were legit which means that Yzerman may not have been up to defensive snuff even mid-way through his career. The balance of my memory and direct evidence from others here seems to support the idea that Bowman DID force a change in Yzerman even more than Yzerman's knee injury.

You would be correct sir