How was Scotty Bowman as a coach- players' coach, extremely difficult, etc. | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

How was Scotty Bowman as a coach- players' coach, extremely difficult, etc.

SportsPhan8

SportsPhan8

Registered User
Nov 24, 2013
198
3
New Jersey
I consider him the best HC ever, or, if people disagree, he's definitely in the conversation. A lot of times people read and hear about how he's clashed with certain people- although it seems it was for the right reasons/for the reason of having the best team on the ice.

We all know his stats/Cup wins/records, etc. But I'd like to gain some perspective and people's opinions on how he was as a coach- did most of the players over the years like him, was he extremely difficult to deal with, etc.? He doesn't strike me as a every game screamer, like a Peter Laviolette, but I could be wrong.

For me, from reading certain conversations he's had regarding certain players in the past, it seems all he did and said was 100% for winning, and not for making ever single person happy, which I can respect.

Thoughts?
 
overg said:
Steve Shutt's famous quote about Bowman probably says all that needs to be said.

"You hated him for 364 days a year. And on the 365th day, you collected your Stanley Cup rings."
Click to expand...

lol.....so true, even for us habs fan
 
Also quite manipulative. Would really pile the abuse onto guys playing smaller roles, to let the rest of the team know what they were in for if they ended up in the doghouse. Aaron Ward was a favourite whipping boy.

He liked to read about historical army generals, and co-opted their tactics for his own purposes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brucejohnjennerlawso and Sentinel
Far from a players coach. Ken Dryden said that Bowman knew that the players wanted easy practices, a smiling coach, etc. but that they could live without all of that. What they wanted most was to win. He would make them win and they knew that. Bowman was just someone who played with your mind a lot. He'd lean over to a player and say "Are you tired?" In other words, that player hasn't done enough work in the game and SHOULDN'T be tired. Psychological stuff like that.

I would have wanted to win, but I'll admit I would have hated a coach like Bowman. So you have to look at the trade off.
 
ForsbergForever said:
Didn't Mario Lemieux and the Pens basically refuse to play for him at one point during the 92-93 season, which contributed to Bowman leaving the team after the season?
Click to expand...


Ya MARIO LEMIEUX felt that he wasn't getting as much POWER PLAY time as he wanted even though he was getting the Most POWER PLAY time on the team.

Bowman lasted 1 CUP with PENGUINS but what IF he was the Coach of the Failed PENS who got UPSET in the 1993 Playoffs in GAME 7 by the lowly NY ISLANDERS do you think with BOWMAN behind the Bench would have made a difference??

MARIO was a Coach Killer, If he thought he wasn't getting the "Ice Time" "Power-Play Time", Empty Net Time or played in Overtime he had the power to get that coached FIRED!!! MANY Players have voiced their opinions on that over the years and said MARIO had so much POWER back in the day but when you think about it he did help the team get better even though the team gave up the season before they drafted him and traded away players and played 3rd string goalies to lose so they would get the 1st Pick, LOL.

It would have been interesting to see KIRK MULLER a PENGUIN and MARIO a NEW JERSEY DEVIL eh.

NOT ONLY THAT SCOTTY BOWMAN RAN THE 1981 TEAM CANADA TRAINING CAMP LIKE A BOOT CAMP (Gretzky said so himself as other players said it was the worst experience ever, 4 coaches, 4 assistant coaches, what a mess)
 
Last edited:
RedWingsMan1951 said:
Ya MARIO LEMIEUX felt that he wasn't getting as much POWER PLAY time as he wanted even though he was getting the Most POWER PLAY time on the team.

Bowman lasted 1 CUP with PENGUINS but what IF he was the Coach of the Failed PENS who got UPSET in the 1993 Playoffs in GAME 7 by the lowly NY ISLANDERS do you think with BOWMAN behind the Bench would have made a difference??

MARIO was a Coach Killer, If he thought he wasn't getting the "Ice Time" "Power-Play Time", Empty Net Time or played in Overtime he had the power to get that coached FIRED!!! MANY Players have voiced their opinions on that over the years and said MARIO had so much POWER back in the day but when you think about it he did help the team get better even though the team gave up the season before they drafted him and traded away players and played 3rd string goalies to lose so they would get the 1st Pick, LOL.

It would have been interesting to see KIRK MULLER a PENGUIN and MARIO a NEW JERSEY DEVIL eh.

NOT ONLY THAT SCOTTY BOWMAN RAN THE 1981 TEAM CANADA TRAINING CAMP LIKE A BOOT CAMP (Gretzky said so himself as other players said it was the worst experience ever, 4 coaches, 4 assistant coaches, what a mess)
Click to expand...

Bowman WAS behind the bench of that game 7 in '93. He left after that President's Trophy season because he couldn't get Lemieux to commit to playing defense in the way he later would w/ Yzerman.
Not sure he was the best ever, but yes, he's in the conversation w/ Blake, Arbour, Sather and Tikhonov.
 
Last edited:
From what I've read about him, he was careful about which players he was tough on. In Montreal, his two most frequent targets for criticism were Pete Mahovlich and Steve Shutt, both of whom were thick-skinned and could shrug it off. With another player who might be more sensitive, Bowman would ease up on him.
 
Some decent snip-its here, I can remember vividly fans being shocked about Ciccarelli

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/capitals/longterm/1998/stanleycup/articles/bowman15.htm

Before this season, when Ken Holland was elevated to the post of general manager, Bowman served as director of player personnel for Detroit as well as coach. As Holland put it, "he was the guy whose philosophy everyone had to buy into. If they didn't buy in, they weren't here for very long." Players such as Dino Ciccarelli, Paul Coffey and Ray Sheppard were cast off, moves that were sometimes unpopular but certainly necessary to Bowman.

Bowman even had some problems with beloved Red Wings captain Steve Yzerman, and the situation almost came to a boil in 1995 with rumors that Yzerman was going to be dealt to Ottawa. But the two worked out their differences, both on and off the ice, and Yzerman has become one of Bowman's supporters.

"I found that you really have to prove yourself with him, regardless of your past record," Yzerman said. "It just took a while for me to adjust to what he was trying to do, but it went pretty smoothly after that. He's really driven. Winning is important, and during the season, he demands that guys come to practice and play every day."
 
Read The Game by Ken Dryden to get a huge amount of perspective about Bowman. Heck in writing this the book was about Bowman as much as any individual person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim MacDonald
double5son10 said:
Bowman WAS behind the bench of that game 7 in '93. He left after that President's Trophy season because he couldn't get Lemieux to commit to playing defense in the way he later would w/ Yzerman.
Not sure he was the best ever, but yes, he's in the conversation w/ Blake, Arbour, Sather and Tikhonov.
Click to expand...


Oh my, I'm losing my marbles faster than I thought LOL.
You are right BOWMAN was coaching the Penguins during the 1993 Playoff disaster upset. And Yes LEMIEUX probably didn't want to play a 2 way game and play a more defensive game like BOWMAN had other star players do.

That team was so red hot during the season and just think if they made it to the FINALS it would have been the KINGS vs PENGUINS (#66 vs #99).
We all know the PENGUINS would have beaten the KINGS probably in 5 games as the KINGS had no business and it was a cinderella surprise run.

The KINGS had only 2 players to Score 30+ Goals and 1 Player with 100+ Points,
The PENGUINS had 5 Players with 30+ Goals, 4 Players with 100+ Points,

Penguins had 5 Players with 90+ Points and a 50+ and 60+ Goal Scorers and they were all in their prime. KINGS had a lot of young and old veterans on the team and didn't have many players in their prime.
 
RedWingsMan1951 said:
Oh my, I'm losing my marbles faster than I thought LOL.
You are right BOWMAN was coaching the Penguins during the 1993 Playoff disaster upset. And Yes LEMIEUX probably didn't want to play a 2 way game and play a more defensive game like BOWMAN had other star players do.

That team was so red hot during the season and just think if they made it to the FINALS it would have been the KINGS vs PENGUINS (#66 vs #99).
We all know the PENGUINS would have beaten the KINGS probably in 5 games as the KINGS had no business and it was a cinderella surprise run.

The KINGS had only 2 players to Score 30+ Goals and 1 Player with 100+ Points,
The PENGUINS had 5 Players with 30+ Goals, 4 Players with 100+ Points,

Penguins had 5 Players with 90+ Points and a 50+ and 60+ Goal Scorers and they were all in their prime. KINGS had a lot of young and old veterans on the team and didn't have many players in their prime.
Click to expand...

Gretzky was the near unbeatable prime Gretzky of old. If I was the Kings I think I would rather have faced the Pens and Mario then Patrick Roy playing his lights out.

Sure the Pens were deeper and more talented but Gretzky vs Mario. I still think Gretzky wins the battles and the war. Even old beat up Gretzky versus at his peak Mario.

And I love Mario too. But head to head Gretzky mostly owned Mario. Gretzky was the best big game player EVER. And if he got to play Mario for the Cup... he woulda been at his all-time best.
 
Scotty Bowman

reckoning said:
From what I've read about him, he was careful about which players he was tough on. In Montreal, his two most frequent targets for criticism were Pete Mahovlich and Steve Shutt, both of whom were thick-skinned and could shrug it off. With another player who might be more sensitive, Bowman would ease up on him.
Click to expand...

Very true. Bowman understood that each player had to be handled differently to produce the optimal team result.

One thing that no one has mentioned is that Scotty Bowman is a product of a working class neighbourhood, raised during the depression followed by WWII.

Players - coaches to be from such backgrounds were raised with a work ethic and coached by elders with an even stronger work ethic. The elders worked 50 hour weeks, hard labour, wher no one had the luxury of fatigue. Players of such coaches learned from a very young age that fatigue was just another opponent to overcome. Bowman just carried this attitude into the NHL, though he eventually mellowed after some setbacks after he left the Canadiens.
 
Canadiens1958 said:
Very true. Bowman understood that each player had to be handled differently to produce the optimal team result.

One thing that no one has mentioned is that Scotty Bowman is a product of a working class neighbourhood, raised during the depression followed by WWII.

Players - coaches to be from such backgrounds were raised with a work ethic and coached by elders with an even stronger work ethic. The elders worked 50 hour weeks, hard labour, wher no one had the luxury of fatigue. Players of such coaches learned from a very young age that fatigue was just another opponent to overcome. Bowman just carried this attitude into the NHL, though he eventually mellowed after some setbacks after he left the Canadiens.
Click to expand...

Bowman was a very hard coach. His true brilliance was exposed by mostly letting Lafleur be Lafleur in his peak years. He realized Lafleur was all instinct and no systems or coaching. He did expect a lot from Guy and he did expect him to plsy hard, but as everyone else was rigidly following a system (when few others were employing them) he realized he could not really impose it in Lafleur and he reaped the results.

With Mario he met a battle of wills he could not win. And who knows who was the better one to win a 66 vs Bowman debate?

With Yzerman he made him play responsible. He punished a lackadaisical Fedorov playing him on D. He helped the Wings deep team win by putting the best players on warning and expecting the elite from his elite.
 
double5son10 said:
Bowman WAS behind the bench of that game 7 in '93. He left after that President's Trophy season because he couldn't get Lemieux to commit to playing defense in the way he later would w/ Yzerman.
Not sure he was the best ever, but yes, he's in the conversation w/ Blake, Arbour, Sather and Tikhonov.
Click to expand...

Hap Day won 5 Stanley Cups in 10 years of coaching, he'd have to be in there as well.......
 
should be added that the players who played under him and went onto being coaches or managers all said that they were better coaches because of him and the players the year after he left thought they would play better without him--they went sideways
 
Last edited:
Sens Rule said:
Gretzky was the near unbeatable prime Gretzky of old. If I was the Kings I think I would rather have faced the Pens and Mario then Patrick Roy playing his lights out.

Sure the Pens were deeper and more talented but Gretzky vs Mario. I still think Gretzky wins the battles and the war. Even old beat up Gretzky versus at his peak Mario.

And I love Mario too. But head to head Gretzky mostly owned Mario. Gretzky was the best big game player EVER. And if he got to play Mario for the Cup... he woulda been at his all-time best.
Click to expand...

Actually, Gretzky was playing very much like the post-Suter pre-lockout Gretzky. His 40 points in 24 games, or 1.67 points/game, is very much in line with his surrounding full seasons (1.64 and 1.60 points/game in 91-92 and 93-94 respectively), especially considering that 92-93 was an anomalously high-scoring season. If Gretzky was still at his peak, he could have been putting up 50+ points in 24 games rather than only 40.

(Of course, in 86-87, Gretzky had only 34 in 21 for 1.62 points/game, but he was playing through a concussion after the series against the Jets.)

As for Bowman and the Pens, unless he could cure fatigue, Lemieux was probably gassed after his heroic comeback, putting up only 18 points in 11 games.
 
Black Gold Extractor said:
Actually, Gretzky was playing very much like the post-Suter pre-lockout Gretzky. His 40 points in 24 games, or 1.67 points/game, is very much in line with his surrounding full seasons (1.64 and 1.60 points/game in 91-92 and 93-94 respectively), especially considering that 92-93 was an anomalously high-scoring season. If Gretzky was still at his peak, he could have been putting up 50+ points in 24 games rather than only 40.

(Of course, in 86-87, Gretzky had only 34 in 21 for 1.62 points/game, but he was playing through a concussion after the series against the Jets.)

As for Bowman and the Pens, unless he could cure fatigue, Lemieux was probably gassed after his heroic comeback, putting up only 18 points in 11 games.
Click to expand...

PPG is not a really relevant. The 92/93 playoffs was all about the truly great players taking their teams on their backs and delivering wins. Gilmour vs Gretzky. Gretzky vs Roy. Never in my years as a fan was hockey so much about individual players playing like monsters and willing their teams to playoff wins. That is why it was still vintage peak Gretzky in 92/93. At least in the playoffs, even it he had lost a half step. This was his last hurrah at being full Gretzky. Game 7 vs Toronto.

I am just saying I would rather have faced Barrasso vs Roy at his absolute best, even if it meant Mario and the two time defending champs, president Trophy Pens.
 
Black Gold Extractor said:
Actually, Gretzky was playing very much like the post-Suter pre-lockout Gretzky. His 40 points in 24 games, or 1.67 points/game, is very much in line with his surrounding full seasons (1.64 and 1.60 points/game in 91-92 and 93-94 respectively), especially considering that 92-93 was an anomalously high-scoring season. If Gretzky was still at his peak, he could have been putting up 50+ points in 24 games rather than only 40.

(Of course, in 86-87, Gretzky had only 34 in 21 for 1.62 points/game, but he was playing through a concussion after the series against the Jets.)

As for Bowman and the Pens, unless he could cure fatigue, Lemieux was probably gassed after his heroic comeback, putting up only 18 points in 11 games.
Click to expand...

Unless I am reading the list wrong, the playoff points went like this:
Gretzky 40
Gilmour 35
Sandstrom 25

Fourth or fifth highest total in a playoffs, and if Gilmour isn't on a crazy pace(2 4 points games and 2 3 point games), Gretzky almost doubles anyone else in the playoffs. The playoffs were not high scoring like the regular season was(that I can tell, maybe someone has data to suggest otherwise.) Gretzky was in full-on God mode those playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel
Black Gold Extractor said:
Actually, Gretzky was playing very much like the post-Suter pre-lockout Gretzky. His 40 points in 24 games, or 1.67 points/game, is very much in line with his surrounding full seasons (1.64 and 1.60 points/game in 91-92 and 93-94 respectively), especially considering that 92-93 was an anomalously high-scoring season. If Gretzky was still at his peak, he could have been putting up 50+ points in 24 games rather than only 40.

(Of course, in 86-87, Gretzky had only 34 in 21 for 1.62 points/game, but he was playing through a concussion after the series against the Jets.)

As for Bowman and the Pens, unless he could cure fatigue, Lemieux was probably gassed after his heroic comeback, putting up only 18 points in 11 games.
Click to expand...


Ya Gretzky was unbelievable with the KINGS in the 1993 Playoffs. He had the team on his back, You think he would have beaten a deep Pens team eh.
That was a great playoff series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom