Yzerman, Messier, Sakic, what made them such great leaders?

[BenchBrawl]

I object to the op.

I haven't noticed the "presence" of leadership of Sakic like I have of Messier and Yzerman. I have watched hockey since the 1970's and in terms of THE "IT" FACTOR, a certain gravitas, Messier and Yzerman have it. Clarke, Potvin, Gretzky, Bourque, Stevens, Peca too.

Aside: In today's game, eh, I wonder if BPA in the plastic that touches food these days is partly responsible for the lack of exceptional leaders. Or maybe there's a cultural reason...

Toews?

 

[Big Phil]

Messier would throw his grandmother down the stairs in order to win. Yzerman was a leader on the ice through example. He worked hard, he was fearless, he blocked shots, etc. Sakic was the quiet leader. More like Beliveau that way in that he was a classy example on and off the ice.

Here is the thing with someone like Yzerman. It is 1996 for instance and the Red Wings get bounced out by the Avs. He hasn't won a Cup yet and despite the rumours that he was going to be traded in years past I will be perfectly honest with you I always thought he had a big heart then too. Him winning the Cup didn't all of the sudden make me think he had a big heart. I think he already did have that courage. He made the World Cup team very easily that year, it was a given.

 

[The Panther]

Yzerman's rep basically went like this:

1983 to 1985:
Great young star!
1985-86:
OMG, is he really all that?
1986 to 1991-ish:
Great superstar; great young captain; possibly most universally-respected player of this period
1992-ish to 1996:
Good player but missing intangibles to be a leader
1997 to 2000:
Great leader, champion
2001-ish onward:
Legend in his own time

 

[GMR]

Messier would throw his grandmother down the stairs in order to win. Yzerman was a leader on the ice through example. He worked hard, he was fearless, he blocked shots, etc. Sakic was the quiet leader. More like Beliveau that way in that he was a classy example on and off the ice.

Here is the thing with someone like Yzerman. It is 1996 for instance and the Red Wings get bounced out by the Avs. He hasn't won a Cup yet and despite the rumours that he was going to be traded in years past I will be perfectly honest with you I always thought he had a big heart then too. Him winning the Cup didn't all of the sudden make me think he had a big heart. I think he already did have that courage. He made the World Cup team very easily that year, it was a given.

Are you saying you didn't think Yashin could have led those Red Wings teams to a Cup?

 

[BadgerBruce]

Trust is everything.

Trust between the Leader and the other players and Trust between the Leader and the team management/coaching staff.

Leaders are conduits between these groups.

When a player is strong on the ice and respected by his teammates but also 100% buys into what the head coach and GM are selling, he becomes the trusted carrier pigeon who delivers messages in both directions.

Example: a club’s brain trust decides at the 60-game mark to implement a playoff-style defensive structure. 3-4 players are chasing individual performance bonuses based on offence, and so big bucks are at stake for these guys.

Management needs the captain to buy in and embrace the change and then get these 3-4 players to totally buy in. He’s a crucial link in the chain.

But it’s a 2-way street. This Leader also carries the players’ message to management, and the players must completely trust him to look out for them and believe that management will listen to their Leader.

Example: an in-your-face head coach rides an underperforming rookie very hard, every day. It’s the captain who privately tells the coach to back off, that the young rookie is dealing with 3 nagging injuries, homesickness and a crisis of confidence the head coach is only making worse. The rookie could not have that conversation with the head coach — so the Captain does. And that rookie now knows that his Leader looks out for him and that’s absolute gold moving forward.

Yzerman and Sakic eventually became GMs. So did Bobby Clarke and Bob Gainey before them. All 4 captains were trusted by team management and by their teammates. Can’t be a management stooge or you lose the players’ trust. Can’t be a constant apologist for the players or you lose management’s trust. Very delicate balance, which is probably why most teams these days have “leadership groups.”

Messier is a different story altogether.

 

[Big Phil]

Are you saying you didn't think Yashin could have led those Red Wings teams to a Cup?

Did Yashin ever prove that he was the type of player who was fit for the postseason? He was historically bad in the playoffs on what were very good Senators team. No, he did not have Yzerman's game that was needed to get Detroit over the hump. It is 1998, Yzerman wins the Conn Smythe. Are you taking Yashin on the Wings over him? Neither am I.

 

[Retire91]

I think the two main qualities that I recall about Yzerman is the rarity of combining a world-class skillset and humility in the same person. When you have that level of talent it sometimes comes with a swagger that alienates people and interferes with the ability to connect with people. The best leaders, IMO, bring the skills and intelligence to the table enough so that any player of any skill set can look up to them, but they are not above the little unheralded things a team needs, and they inject a calm humility into the organizational culture. You can lead a team in points but that doesn't mean you automatically lead the hearts and minds of your teammates.

 

[Thenameless]

Beliveau, Clarke & Messier were the best leaders ever in the NHL; Sakic, Yzerman, etc are easily a tier below if not more.

I agree. I really don't even see Yzerman and Sakic as much of a leader-type at all. That's not to say that they weren't awesome players, but yeah, Beliveau, Clarke, and Messier certainly fit the bill better.

 

[GreatGonzo]

They were all on elite teams while contributing on their own to their success. It’s that simple. Leadership in hockey gets so blown up and over exaggerated. Sure it’s important and sure those 3 had a great impact in the locker room and on the ice, but they also happen to be among the 3 best players to ever play the game. Their character and work ethic earned them the “C” and respect, but it was their talent while surrounded by more talent that won them so
Many championships. I mean Messier played behind Gretzky for 4/6 of his cups. He wasn’t the captain, he wasn’t even their best player, but his contribution was obvious.

Yzerman was seen as a choker for YEARS until he was past his offensive prime and in his early 30s, before Detroit built a juggernaut around him. Sakic also had a hard time getting Quebec anywhere until the arrival of Forsberg and Roy.

They became legendary leaders of the sport because of their clutch play, their attitudes, and their success......but what made a lot of that possible was their talent and skill first and foremost.

 

[psycat]

Consistency, showing up to work and all that I suppose. That said neither of the three would be known as an all time great leader if they played for middling teams their entire careers.

So let's say in part due to their own work ethic and in part luck/media narrative.

 

[wetcoast]

To answer the OP in a word, winning.

People make too much of a deal about leadership in sports.

Stan Smyl was a great leader he just didn't play on very good teams.

People always talk about players leadership but does any of the 3 players players listed by the OP get better at leadership or did their teams just happen to win thus somehow make their leadership narrative different?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Did Yashin ever prove that he was the type of player who was fit for the postseason? He was historically bad in the playoffs on what were very good Senators team. No, he did not have Yzerman's game that was needed to get Detroit over the hump. It is 1998, Yzerman wins the Conn Smythe. Are you taking Yashin on the Wings over him? Neither am I.

no one's going to agree with me, but hear me out. of course yashin wasn't as good as yzerman, but if there was one single NHL team that yashin could have succeeded with as a poor man's beliveau, it would have been detroit in mid-to-late '90s.

while he completely dgaf in the NHL playoffs, what was he doing all those springs after losing in the first round? well, he was being a sundin-on-team-sweden-esque warrior and captain of the russian world championship teams.

the guy was apparently a god in russian hockey.

here's lebrun:

Unwanted in the NHL, or at least at his price, Yashin took his game back home. It's a decision that should have surprised no one. Having had the chance to cover six IIHF World Championships from 2000-05, I witnessed Yashin as a constant for Russia, proudly wearing his country's colors at a spring tournament shunned by many NHL stars.

So, it only stands to reason Yashin was there ready to help his country's start-up league; and to understand his legacy at home, look no further than "Team Yashin," one of the two All-Star teams that will be on the ice Saturday.

now surround this big skilled goal scorer in the DPE with fetisov and larionov, and switch him off as fedorov's 1a center, and well you never know.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Leadership is such an overloaded term. You can be a great leader by setting an example with your work ethic. You can be a great leader by being a "rah-rah" motivator & cheerleader. You can be a great leader by being emotional and inspirational. You can be a great leader by being light & funny in the locker room to keep your team loose. Hell, you can be a great leader by just being the best player on the ice. All of those qualities can bring out the best in your teammates. (note: the best teams tend to have multiple players that, in total, can check all those boxes).

It's really hard to compare and quantify how valuable each player was as a leader, given that 1) they often bring different elements to the table, and 2) we aren't there to see it first-hand. You can only go off of what their teammates & coaches say in hindsight.

What we know is this: Messier, Sakic, and Yzerman all had strong work ethics and led by example on the ice. Messier was emotional, inspirational, and constantly challenged his teammates to rise to the occasion. Yzerman was likely not as vocal as Messier (others in those late 90s Red Wings teams, like Shanny and Chelios, seem to have been more vocal) but was an inspiration on the ice with his work ethic, his skill, and his willingness to sacrifice his body. Sakic was even quieter than Yzerman (and similarly had vocal guys like Lemieux & Roy alongside him) but was unbelievably disciplined and focused, which rubbed off on his teammates. He was a leader through his "classiness", similar to Beliveau.

With Yzerman and Sakic, their "quieter" demeanor was easily misunderstood for "lack of leadership" earlier in their careers when their teams weren't winning. And strangely enough, when their teams started winning, they became pegged as great leaders. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they weren't bad leaders early on, they were just miscategorized by the media who had an expectation of what a captain should look & sound like (e.g., Messier). "It's fine if you're quiet on a winning team (e.g., Beliveau), but if you're quiet on a losing team, you must be a loser".

Today, we can easily see the leadership qualities of the vocal guys (e.g., Wheeler), and we can appreciate the leadership of the more reserved players that lead by example and have had team success (e.g., Crosby, Bergeron). But it begs the question - who all are the misunderstood great leaders & teammates who are/were categorized as "losers" because they weren't overly vocal, and because they never got to play on great teams?

 

[Big Phil]

no one's going to agree with me, but hear me out. of course yashin wasn't as good as yzerman, but if there was one single NHL team that yashin could have succeeded with as a poor man's beliveau, it would have been detroit in mid-to-late '90s.

while he completely dgaf in the NHL playoffs, what was he doing all those springs after losing in the first round? well, he was being a sundin-on-team-sweden-esque warrior and captain of the russian world championship teams.

the guy was apparently a god in russian hockey.

here's lebrun:


now surround this big skilled goal scorer in the DPE with fetisov and larionov, and switch him off as fedorov's 1a center, and well you never know.

You never know, that's why I always like judging a player on what we do know and what we did see. He underwhelmed in his career. It wasn't as if he didn't have some good players with him in Ottawa either. Those were pretty good teams and nothing to show for it.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

You never know, that's why I always like judging a player on what we do know and what we did see. He underwhelmed in his career. It wasn't as if he didn't have some good players with him in Ottawa either. Those were pretty good teams and nothing to show for it.

i think part of this discussion is if they’d traded yzerman home, would judging on what he did come to an extremely different estimation on who he was as a player than how we remember him now.

as for yashin, i think he was a guy who liked to be around fellow russians, was more comfortable and engaged that way. jagr as similar. detroit had the unique leadership group that he would have responded to. which is not an argument about leadership in his favour per se, but goes with this conversation that some (most?) guys’ leadership qualities need specific conditions to succeed. this would be an extreme example of that.

 

[GMR]

There's no doubt that Yashin in Detroit would have been better for him personally. More Russian players around, better overall team, not as much pressure of being captain of a Canadian franchise, etc. However, it's hard to envision the Red Wings being better off. Yzerman was the heart and soul of the team and still their best player in the late 90's.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

There's no doubt that Yashin in Detroit would have been better for him personally. More Russian players around, better overall team, not as much pressure of being captain of a Canadian franchise, etc. However, it's hard to envision the Red Wings being better off. Yzerman was the heart and soul of the team and still their best player in the late 90's.

oh of course not, there is almost zero percent chance detroit is better off with yashin than yzerman. maybe zero in fact.

 

[Fixxer]

The media!

 

[Big Phil]

i think part of this discussion is if they’d traded yzerman home, would judging on what he did come to an extremely different estimation on who he was as a player than how we remember him now.

as for yashin, i think he was a guy who liked to be around fellow russians, was more comfortable and engaged that way. jagr as similar. detroit had the unique leadership group that he would have responded to. which is not an argument about leadership in his favour per se, but goes with this conversation that some (most?) guys’ leadership qualities need specific conditions to succeed. this would be an extreme example of that.

Then again, Ottawa had nowhere to go but up in the mid 1990s. We know for sure they had good teams later in that decade, so maybe Yzerman is the key that helps them get over that hump.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Then again, Ottawa had nowhere to go but up in the mid 1990s. We know for sure they had good teams later in that decade, so maybe Yzerman is the key that helps them get over that hump.

actually yeah, that's a nice alternate scenario.

so assume jimmy d lets yzerman go after '96.

yzerman is excellent post-peak two-way yzerman through the 90s, while most of the ottawa guys other than alfredsson are really not ready yet, but he's broken down yzerman by the time hossa becomes hossa and havlat breaks the lineup.

but ironically, i can see yzerman's last hurrah in '02 pushing that senators team past toronto and into the finals against colorado.

white/brunet yzerman alfredsson
mceachern bonk hossa
arvedson fisher havlat
hull ylonen neil

i'd love to have watched that series. no chara would be a bummer though.

 

[Staniowski]

actually yeah, that's a nice alternate scenario.

so assume jimmy d lets yzerman go after '96.

yzerman is excellent post-peak two-way yzerman through the 90s, while most of the ottawa guys other than alfredsson are really not ready yet, but he's broken down yzerman by the time hossa becomes hossa and havlat breaks the lineup.

but ironically, i can see yzerman's last hurrah in '02 pushing that senators team past toronto and into the finals against colorado.

white/brunet yzerman alfredsson
mceachern bonk hossa
arvedson fisher havlat
hull ylonen neil

i'd love to have watched that series. no chara would be a bummer though.

In the early '90s - actually in 1991 - there were rumours that Yzerman would be traded to Quebec as part of a package for Lindros. Yzerman said that, like Lindros, he would never play for Quebec, even if he was traded there, and he also said he wouldn't play for Ottawa, his hometown team.

I don't know whether he ever changed his mind about this in later years.

 

[frisco]

20/20 hindsight.

My Best-Carey

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

At this point in time leadership is probably underrated if anything. It was likely overrated in the past by people favoring heroic narratives, but it now gets ripped almost more than it gets praised.

You dont have to believe in folk legends to understand the importance of leadership to an organization. You just have to have some experience with organizations and understand how they can be affected by good and bad leadership.

The internet has brought about the ascent of millennial know-it-alls who dont have any of the attributes required for leadership and are thus not willing to see them in others as that would feel belittling to themselves. Its easier to hide behind the idea that some guys just got “lucky” and others didn’t because that makes it easier to rationalize ones own failings.

 

[K Fleur]

At this point in time leadership is probably underrated if anything. It was likely overrated in the past by people favoring heroic narratives, but it now gets ripped almost more than it gets praised.

You dont have to believe in folk legends to understand the importance of leadership to an organization. You just have to have some experience with organizations and understand how they can be affected by good and bad leadership.

The internet has brought about the ascent of millennial know-it-alls who dont have any of the attributes required for leadership and are thus not willing to see them in others as that would feel belittling to themselves. Its easier to hide behind the idea that some guys just got “lucky” and others didn’t because that makes it easier to rationalize ones own failings.

Millennials killed leadership too!?

Damn...

 

[Johnny Engine]

Naw, nobody killed leadership, but a small subset of my generation definitely created a market for the kind of media TheMoreYouKnow is talking about.

After all, Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews are both millennials.