• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Opie

Is it the media or

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

OK so I am lucky enough to be watching another one of the teams I root for in a championship, however much like when Detroit was in control of the series, all of the national media articles are on the other team.

In the SCF it was all about Pittsburgh and Therrien and Crosby, now all of the articles are about the Lakers, Jackson, and Kobe.

On the Yahoo NBA page towards the right hand edge is a section where they show related articles, they do it by team even under the Boston Celtics section, which is usually articles dedicated to the team, it is all Lakers articles. What can the Lakers do to win, whining about fouls, blah blah blah.

It was the same for the SCF, is it that the only thing Journalists can talk about is how the losing team can win, or is it that the teams I choose to root for are becoming like the Yankees.

The Wings I can understand they are winners every year, but in the NBA the Lakers would remind me more of the Yankees than the C's.

I guess if it works out like hockey, the team with all the press lost, then I am cool with it, but I was just curious if anyone else noticed this or thought it weird that the articles for both Championship series seem to focus primarily on one team, until the other team put a choke hold on the series?

I mean sure there was the Leon Powe story, but other than the feel good story the majority of articles and even sports talk radio have been about Kobe not scoring (Like Malkin and Sid early in that series) instead of the C's defense (like Detroit's).

Thoughts? or closed thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media (the broacasting network in this case) will ALWAYS prop the team that is behind in hopes of building viewership. The better case they make for a great series, the more likely a casual fan will watch

Edited by ThreeRiversFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the NBA (and basketball in general) but even though I don't know much about it I do know that Kobe is the face of the league, and Jackson is the Bowman of basketball.

Crosby is the face of the NHL......simple as that, unfortunately. Whether its just, or not each league does what it has to do to promote its sport, and that means the most popular guy gets pimped all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate the NBA (and basketball in general) but even though I don't know much about it I do know that Kobe is the face of the league, and Jackson is the Bowman of basketball.

Crosby is the face of the NHL......simple as that, unfortunately. Whether its just, or not each league does what it has to do to promote its sport, and that means the most popular guy gets pimped all the time.

See I took the Crosby over Lids, Z, or Dats as a NA vs Euro thing. Where as in the NBA Garnett, Pierce, Bryant are all North American, well actually wasn't Kobe born in Italy or spent a good chuck of his youth there?

But I do get your point, it just seems weird to me, I don't remember such one sided coverage for the Sox Rockies WS last year, and the Sox owned the Rockies.

As I remember there were stories/articles covering both teams, whether it was Beckett's domination to Holliday, or the young pitching of Col.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate the NBA (and basketball in general) but even though I don't know much about it I do know that Kobe is the face of the league, and Jackson is the Bowman of basketball.

Crosby is the face of the NHL......simple as that, unfortunately. Whether its just, or not each league does what it has to do to promote its sport, and that means the most popular guy gets pimped all the time.

A little off topic here but you made me choke on my coffee so I need to respond :P

Jackson is NOT the Bowman of basketball.

Bowman took a perpetually losing team formerly known as the "Dead Things" and turned them into the dynasty that the Red Wings are today. Jackson was carried by the greatest basketball player on the planet to some titles. Once Jordan was done in Chicago, Jackson was done. From there he went to riding the Lakers bandwagon on the backs of Shaq and Kobe. Add to the fact the he coaches teams with the dominant players of the era, the officiating in the NBA is rather suspect when it comes to the Lakers and what they can get away with. Phil Jackson may be a decent coach who can win with enough talent but he is not in the same league as Bowman. In the fact that he has a lot of hardware like Bowman, yes. In coaching ability, not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A little off topic here but you made me choke on my coffee so I need to respond :P

Jackson is NOT the Bowman of basketball.

Bowman took a perpetually losing team formerly known as the "Dead Things" and turned them into the dynasty that the Red Wings are today. Jackson was carried by the greatest basketball player on the planet to some titles. Once Jordan was done in Chicago, Jackson was done. From there he went to riding the Lakers bandwagon on the backs of Shaq and Kobe. Add to the fact the he coaches teams with the dominant players of the era, the officiating in the NBA is rather suspect when it comes to the Lakers and what they can get away with. Phil Jackson may be a decent coach who can win with enough talent but he is not in the same league as Bowman. In the fact that he has a lot of hardware like Bowman, yes. In coaching ability, not even close.

First and foremost, let me say that Bowman is a god. That being said last I checked, the Wings were not known as the "Dead Things" when Bowman arrived. They had already made major strides forward, but needed Bowman to put them over the top. The same argument I would think could be made for Jackson in Chicago and LA.

I don't know s*** about Basketball or whether or not Jackson rode the coattails of Jordan or Kobe/Shaq, but I do know the guy has 9 titles which is nothing to shy away from regardless of the talent he had around him. Bowman had the talent around him, and what he needed to do was harness it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Jackson did with Chicago and LA? You can have the greatest coach in the history of the sport, but at this high of a level if you don't have a talented team, I'm sorry you're not going to win a damn thing.

Let me ask you a question...are you a big fan of the NBA, and if you are, how does it compare to your love of the NHL? The point is, I would be willing to bet people that follow basketball and don't know a thing about hockey would refer to Bowman as the Jackson of Hockey.

Lastly, how in the hell can you realistically say that Bowman and Jackson don't compare when you're comparing apple to oranges in these two sports to being with?

Edited by Never Forget Mac #25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bowman took a perpetually losing team formerly known as the "Dead Things" and turned them into the dynasty that the Red Wings are today.

The Wings were one of the best teams in the league when Bowman took over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First and foremost, let me say that Bowman is a god. That being said last I checked, the Wings were not known as the "Dead Things" when Bowman arrived. They had already made major strides forward, but needed Bowman to put them over the top. The same argument I would think could be made for Jackson in Chicago and LA.

I don't know s*** about Basketball or whether or not Jackson rode the coattails of Jordan or Kobe/Shaq, but I do know the guy has 9 titles which is nothing to shy away from regardless of the talent he had around him. Bowman had the talent around him, and what he needed to do was harness it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Jackson did with Chicago and LA? You can have the greatest coach in the history of the sport, but at this high of a level if you don't have a talented team, I'm sorry you're not going to win a damn thing.

Let me ask you a question...are you a big fan of the NBA, and if you are, how does it compare to your love of the NHL? The point is, I would be willing to bet people that follow basketball and don't know a thing about hockey would refer to Bowman as the Jackson of Hockey.

Lastly, how in the hell can you realistically say that Bowman and Jackson don't compare when you're comparing apple to oranges in these two sports to being with?

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this.

When I look at a coach I'm not so dazzled by rings. Besides just winning championships I just don't see the comparison. Bowman worked the officials like no coach before or since. His scouting was unparalleled. He could bring the best out of his stars, completely changing their game to his style to make a winning team. Taking losing or mediocre teams and turning them around is a sign of a great coach.

True the greatest coach in the history of the sport couldn't win anything without talent. But what he COULD do is bring out that talent in the players he had. Make draft picks that other teams completely overlook that turns his team into an enduring powerhouse. Even picking up the right free agents to round out our your team for the win.

Besides that, there is talent, and then there is TALENT. Jordan was the Gretzky of basketball and ANY coach who didn't win with him in his prime should be run out of town. Who was it that coached Gretzky and Messier to all those championships? I forget right now because it doesn't really matter. My eight year old son could have been behind the bench and they still would have won. The same thing can be said for Jackson's championship teams, IMO. There was also some coach for the Dallas Cowboys who won with Aikman, Smith, and an offensive line that opened holes you could drive a bus through. Undeniable a great team. A good coach perhaps, but not one for the ages. Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronny Lott and company had someone behind the bench too. Not that it mattered much. How about the Lakers when they were truelly a dynasty. Showtime with Magic, Kareem, Worthy? Good coach, but it's the players who were truelly great. Yes this can be said to some extent in any championship team, but some are just so overloaded with talent they will make any decent coach look better than they are. I'm not picking on Jackson, I'm just saying he's not the same caliber as a Bowman, or a Parcels for that matter. As you say, Bowman was a God when it comes to coaching. Very few have that status.

A good share of people who follow the NBA and not hockey would probably look at you with a blank stare if you said Bowman. Generally you're either an NHL fan or you don't know jack s*** about it. I couldn't really care less about how basketball fans look at it.

Lastly, as far as how I could compare or not compare Bowman to Jackson when they are apples and oranges? 100% agree. That was kind of my point. I wasn't the one who brought up that comparison to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I do get your point, it just seems weird to me, I don't remember such one sided coverage for the Sox Rockies WS last year, and the Sox owned the Rockies.

Correct. The coverage for that series was extremely even-handed and the media gave both teams equal time. Made that WS a pleasure to watch without having to worry about constant stupidity (or at least biased stupidity :P) being spewed from the broadcasters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I look at a coach I'm not so dazzled by rings. Besides just winning championships I just don't see the comparison. Bowman worked the officials like no coach before or since. His scouting was unparalleled. He could bring the best out of his stars, completely changing their game to his style to make a winning team. Taking losing or mediocre teams and turning them around is a sign of a great coach.

I'm not dazzled by rings either. I'm dazzled by coaches that come into a team that is talented but can't seem to win it all, and then bring it all together to put that team over the top. This argument could be made for both Bowman and Jackson. Jackson must have brought out the best in his stars or those teams probably wouldn't have gotten over the top.

Taking losing or mediocre teams and turning them around is a sign of a great coach.

:lol: How do you feel about Ron Wilson then?

Besides that, there is talent, and then there is TALENT. Jordan was the Gretzky of basketball and ANY coach who didn't win with him in his prime should be run out of town. Who was it that coached Gretzky and Messier to all those championships? I forget right now because it doesn't really matter. My eight year old son could have been behind the bench and they still would have won. The same thing can be said for Jackson's championship teams, IMO. There was also some coach for the Dallas Cowboys who won with Aikman, Smith, and an offensive line that opened holes you could drive a bus through. Undeniable a great team. A good coach perhaps, but not one for the ages. Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Ronny Lott and company had someone behind the bench too. Not that it mattered much. How about the Lakers when they were truelly a dynasty. Showtime with Magic, Kareem, Worthy? Good coach, but it's the players who were truelly great. Yes this can be said to some extent in any championship team, but some are just so overloaded with talent they will make any decent coach look better than they are. I'm not picking on Jackson, I'm just saying he's not the same caliber as a Bowman, or a Parcels for that matter. As you say, Bowman was a God when it comes to coaching. Very few have that status.

Just like the '02 Red Wings all-star team? The answer is no, because coaching is still required (even if part of it was from Yzerman). If it wasn't, the Wings never would've beaten Colorado in Games 6 & 7. Great coaches help great teams deal with adversity. If you can honestly tell me that Jackson's teams never had to deal with any, I question your allegiance to the NBA, because there had to have been some (even though I couldn't tell you what that was seeing as that I've never followed the sport).

A good share of people who follow the NBA and not hockey would probably look at you with a blank stare if you said Bowman. Generally you're either an NHL fan or you don't know jack s*** about it. I couldn't really care less about how basketball fans look at it.

This is exactly my point. You probably know a hell of a lot more about Bowman than you do Jackson, thus you have the same bias toward him as I do. A guy who knows all about basketball (and Jackson for that matter) would probably hold him to a higher regard and rip someone apart for comparing Bowman to him.

Lastly, as far as how I could compare or not compare Bowman to Jackson when they are apples and oranges? 100% agree. That was kind of my point. I wasn't the one who brought up that comparison to begin with.

But you were the one that stated they don't compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pretty sure it was sather coaching the dynasty oilers back in the 80's.

And to the OP

I hated it but the media was really pumping up crosby in the SCF, crosby and the pens and what they were doing wrong, rarely what the wings were doing right.

Can not comment on the nba as i don't watch it, especially when the raptors are out :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Jordan won 6 titles for Jackson, do you know how I know.

I was a huge Jordan and in turn Bulls fan as a kid, what kid in the eighties wasn't!!!

But on that horrible day when the Bulls were getting ready to go for #4 straight and Jordan changed his High tops for cleats how many titles did Phil win?

How many titles did Phil win when Shaq left?

The reason the bulls surged with Jackson and not Collins had more to do with Jordan than the coaches.

MJ went from being a scorer to a guy willing to play point guard, to be NBA defensive player of the year, to a teacher and mentor to guys like Scotty and Horace, and none of that had to do with Jackson, it all had to do with Jordan not willing to lose. Look at the series against Utah, Jordan scored what 40 with a 104 degree temp.

Jackson is a good coach, but he is not the best coach ever, that would be Red.

What people forget about Scotty B is that not all that he did was in Detroit.

Lets look at the people MJ won with besides Scotty and Grant/Rodman

Luc Longley

Will Perdue

John Paxson

Steve Kerr

Bill Cartwright

Stacey King

If LA wins it this year I would say the same argument holds true for Kobe. Kobe will have to will this team to victory.

Do you know how the Lakers made a comeback in game 2, they stopped playing the triangle and went to a more free form style of offense and scored at will.

The Triangle worked with MJ because he would murder you with his jumper if you let him shoot them all night, if you jumped out at his shot he would dunk on your center, If you jumped his shot and then collapsed on him at the rim he would either make some unbelievable crazy move and score or he would feed Pippen or Grant for a 10 foot jumper.

Jordan got the snot beat out of him against the pistons for what 2 years maybe three before he was able to get past them, he didn't whine to the refs, he hit the weight room and got stronger.

Phil Jackson gets too much credit for those teams, he deserves some, but just as Bowman got too much credit for '02. Difference, Bowman got too much credit for 1 title, Jackson gets too much for atleast 6!

Having MJ then Shaq then Kobe in their respective primes is like having Howe then Gretzky and then Lemieux all in their primes.

Edited by Opie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having MJ then Shaq then Kobe in their respective primes is like having Howe then Gretzky and then Lemieux all in their primes.

Great point.

As to the OP, the biggest star gets the largest billing in the NHL and the NBA. Crosby and Kobe are the biggest stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know a lot about Basketball either, but I would put Bowman and Jackson on the same page as well.

Bowman and Jackson have had very similar careers. Bowman's Canadiens are very similar to Jackson's Bulls, and Bowman's Red Wings are very similar to Jackson's Lakers.

Jackson deserves a lot of credit for his 3 straight Champships with the Lakers. He was able to bring the egos of Kobe and Shaq together. Not a lot of coaches could do that. I think he deserves a lot of credit for bringing this years Lakers team to the Finals.

I really don't think you can say one was a better coach than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not dazzled by rings either. I'm dazzled by coaches that come into a team that is talented but can't seem to win it all, and then bring it all together to put that team over the top. This argument could be made for both Bowman and Jackson. Jackson must have brought out the best in his stars or those teams probably wouldn't have gotten over the top.

:lol: How do you feel about Ron Wilson then?

Just like the '02 Red Wings all-star team? The answer is no, because coaching is still required (even if part of it was from Yzerman). If it wasn't, the Wings never would've beaten Colorado in Games 6 & 7. Great coaches help great teams deal with adversity. If you can honestly tell me that Jackson's teams never had to deal with any, I question your allegiance to the NBA, because there had to have been some (even though I couldn't tell you what that was seeing as that I've never followed the sport).

This is exactly my point. You probably know a hell of a lot more about Bowman than you do Jackson, thus you have the same bias toward him as I do. A guy who knows all about basketball (and Jackson for that matter) would probably hold him to a higher regard and rip someone apart for comparing Bowman to him.

But you were the one that stated they don't compare.

My point is, Jackson didn't have to bring out the talent in his players, he just had to stay out of Jordan's way. Jordan was a once in a lifetime talent. Bowman had Yzerman who was a great player and an unbelievable leader but he was not the Jordan of hockey.

As you say, I don't follow basketball near as much as hockey but if the Bulls of that era had some adversity to overcome I'd like to hear from a basketball fan what it was. The closest thing I can think of is Rodman being an ass all the time. But even while being the drag queen that he was/and is, he still owned the boards for the Bulls. Also, not only was Chicago lead by MJ a team for the ages, who was their competition at the time? If my memory serves they were kind of between the Lakers and the Pistons great teams so their competition was really a notch or two below.

Ron Wilson may be a good coach, maybe. Definitely not a great one. He may be good at running drills in practice or developing plays or something but he's proven he can't get his guys to perform where it matters. He'll get ground into dogmeat by the Toronto fans/press. Unlike San Jose who seems to be overjoyed just to have a team that gets to the playoffs the people in Toronto are going to want some results. Out here hockey is a distant third when it comes to where people care about sports. They're passionate about it in Toronto to say the least. I wouldn't wish that job on my worst enemy.

Even with the all-star team that Detroit had in '02 they still needed great coaching to get over the top because not since the days of Gretzky has there been such a disparity in teams talent as there is almost always in basketball. Love them or hate them (and a good share of us here hate them) the '02 Avalanche were damn near equal to Detroit in talent. In the NBA teams become completely dominant over the league and tend to stay that way for sometimes long stretches. Be it the Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, or Spurs, it seems like one team completely runs away with it for a while until they pass the torch on to another team. There are a lot of back to back or more wins that are much more rare in hockey. Jackson rode a couple of those waves.

As far as basketball fans and Jackson compared to hockey fans and Bowman, I'm not so sure. Living in California now I know a lot of basketball fans, including Lakers fans and from what I've seen and heard from them, there is not the same kind of feelings for Jackson in basketball as there is for Bowman in hockey. If a basketball fan even knew who Bowman was, I'm not sure many of them would rip anybody for comparing Jackson to him. I could be wrong but I'm not seeing it. Of course not all hockey fans will agree with us about Bowman either. The nitwit bandwagon fans in Pittsburgh boo'd him before a game before the announcers reminded them that he won for the Pens too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is, Jackson didn't have to bring out the talent in his players, he just had to stay out of Jordan's way. Jordan was a once in a lifetime talent. Bowman had Yzerman who was a great player and an unbelievable leader but he was not the Jordan of hockey.

As you say, I don't follow basketball near as much as hockey but if the Bulls of that era had some adversity to overcome I'd like to hear from a basketball fan what it was. The closest thing I can think of is Rodman being an ass all the time. But even while being the drag queen that he was/and is, he still owned the boards for the Bulls. Also, not only was Chicago lead by MJ a team for the ages, who was their competition at the time? If my memory serves they were kind of between the Lakers and the Pistons great teams so their competition was really a notch or two below.

Ron Wilson may be a good coach, maybe. Definitely not a great one. He may be good at running drills in practice or developing plays or something but he's proven he can't get his guys to perform where it matters. He'll get ground into dogmeat by the Toronto fans/press. Unlike San Jose who seems to be overjoyed just to have a team that gets to the playoffs the people in Toronto are going to want some results. Out here hockey is a distant third when it comes to where people care about sports. They're passionate about it in Toronto to say the least. I wouldn't wish that job on my worst enemy.

Even with the all-star team that Detroit had in '02 they still needed great coaching to get over the top because not since the days of Gretzky has there been such a disparity in teams talent as there is almost always in basketball. Love them or hate them (and a good share of us here hate them) the '02 Avalanche were damn near equal to Detroit in talent. In the NBA teams become completely dominant over the league and tend to stay that way for sometimes long stretches. Be it the Lakers, Pistons, Bulls, or Spurs, it seems like one team completely runs away with it for a while until they pass the torch on to another team. There are a lot of back to back or more wins that are much more rare in hockey. Jackson rode a couple of those waves.

As far as basketball fans and Jackson compared to hockey fans and Bowman, I'm not so sure. Living in California now I know a lot of basketball fans, including Lakers fans and from what I've seen and heard from them, there is not the same kind of feelings for Jackson in basketball as there is for Bowman in hockey. If a basketball fan even knew who Bowman was, I'm not sure many of them would rip anybody for comparing Jackson to him. I could be wrong but I'm not seeing it. Of course not all hockey fans will agree with us about Bowman either. The nitwit bandwagon fans in Pittsburgh boo'd him before a game before the announcers reminded them that he won for the Pens too.

By your definition of what a great coach is, you are implying the Ron Wilson is in that category. How can you say that a great coach makes a struggling or mediocre team good and not put Wilson in that category?

As for Jackson, perhaps he isn't as great of a coach to basketball as Bowman is to hockey....as I said, I don't follow basketball, but you seem to brush him off as just some run-of-the-muck coach who just had to sit back and watch his teams win. The fact of the matter is the years leading up to their respective championships the Bulls didn't win before he came there and neither did the Lakers.

Either way, we have so derailed this thread and I greatly apologize to the OP for that. I'm not going to get into this anymore within this thread as its not what LGW is meant for.

Thanks to you and I derailing the s*** out of this thread, I must post the following:

ThreadBoring.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know a lot about Basketball either, but I would put Bowman and Jackson on the same page as well.

Bowman and Jackson have had very similar careers. Bowman's Canadiens are very similar to Jackson's Bulls, and Bowman's Red Wings are very similar to Jackson's Lakers.

Jackson deserves a lot of credit for his 3 straight Champships with the Lakers. He was able to bring the egos of Kobe and Shaq together. Not a lot of coaches could do that. I think he deserves a lot of credit for bringing this years Lakers team to the Finals.

I really don't think you can say one was a better coach than the other.

Actually he couldn't handle their egos. I'm not saying anyone could have. These are spoiled prima donna superstar punks (thank god that is an animal that frequents the NBA instead of the NHL) who have been worshipped and coddled since they were in high school who are now also millionaires. But saying he controlled their egos is crazy. They were out of control and it caused a team that could probably have dominated the league from that day until this one to come apart. They won in spite of their egos, not because Jackson controlled them.

As far as bringing this years team to the finals, kudos to him. Now lets see if he can get the job done against a better team in Boston. If he does (without too much help from the refs) then I will have a lot more respect for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By your definition of what a great coach is, you are implying the Ron Wilson is in that category. How can you say that a great coach makes a struggling or mediocre team good and not put Wilson in that category?

As for Jackson, perhaps he isn't as great of a coach to basketball as Bowman is to hockey....as I said, I don't follow basketball, but you seem to brush him off as just some run-of-the-muck coach who just had to sit back and watch his teams win. The fact of the matter is the years leading up to their respective championships the Bulls didn't win before he came there and neither did the Lakers.

Either way, we have so derailed this thread and I greatly apologize to the OP for that. I'm not going to get into this anymore within this thread as its not what LGW is meant for.

Thanks to you and I derailing the s*** out of this thread, I must post the following:

ThreadBoring.jpg

No, a good coach takes a struggling or mediocre team and makes them good. A great coach takes a struggling or mediocre team and makes them great, takes them to championships.

I didn't completely brush him off or say he wasn't a good coach. Just not on the same level as Bowman.

My apologies to the OP for derailing the thread as well, but it was a good discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taking losing or mediocre teams and turning them around is a sign of a great coach.

No, a good coach takes a struggling or mediocre team and makes them good. A great coach takes a struggling or mediocre team and makes them great, takes them to championships.

I didn't completely brush him off or say he wasn't a good coach. Just not on the same level as Bowman.

My apologies to the OP for derailing the thread as well, but it was a good discussion.

Pretty sizable contradiction. Your first post implies coaches such as Ron Wilson are great, while the second post implies something completely different.

Edited by Never Forget Mac #25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, a good coach takes a struggling or mediocre team and makes them good. A great coach takes a struggling or mediocre team and makes them great, takes them to championships.

Ok, let's review:

Scotty Bowman coached the Blues, Canadiens, Sabres, Penguins, and Red Wings. Let's look at how well those teams performed the years before he was hired:

Blues; Bowman was their first coach. They have never won a championship. Made three finals appearances in four seasons with Bowman as coach.

Canadiens; Won the Stanley Cup the year before Bowman was hired. Won four Cups in eight seasons as coach.

Sabres; Lost in round 1 the year before Bowman was hired. Never made the finals with Bowman as coach.

Penguins; Won the Cup the year before Bowman was hired. Won one Cup in two seasons as head coach.

Red Wings; Among the league's best teams in the years leading up to Bowman's hiring. Won three Cups in nine years with Bowman, with one finals loss.

In none of those situations did Bowman inherit a poor team and turn them into a Cup winner. In fact, he twice inherited a Cup winning team. The only truly mediocre teams he was hired to coach were the Blues and Sabres; his postseason results there were decent, but not championships.

Bowman isn't a great coach by your definition; meaning your definition is wrong, as Bowman is definitely a great coach. Here's a better definition:

A great coach is able to consistently get the best results possible from the players he has. A good coach will consistently get the results expected of his players (assuming they are reasonable expectations) and a poor coach will consistently get results that would be considered underachieving.

Take a look at the rosters in the NHL, and then think how that team stacks up on paper against the rest of the league, compared with how well they actually did. That gives you an indication of their coach's ability, and that is why the Adams rarely goes to the coach of the team that is picked in preseason as the President's trophy winner; because a 'good' coach will get them to that result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty sizable contradiction. Your first post implies coaches such as Ron Wilson are great, while the second post implies something completely different.

No contradiction whatsoever. My first post was too general and I clarified it and expanded it later. Wilson increased his team's standings but did not turn them around and take them on to win anything. Not a presidents trophy, not a stanley cup, not a conference championship. He made it into the playoffs, good for him. But on a great team, just getting to the playoffs is not considered an accomplishment. The fact remains, the Sharks have had an abundance of talent the last few years, especially with the addition of Thornton, and still couldn't quite get it done. Not because they weren't good enough, because, IMO at least, they underperformed. So yeah I can go along with him being a good coach. You can't convince me that he's great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No contradiction whatsoever. My first post was too general and I clarified it and expanded it later. Wilson increased his team's standings but did not turn them around and take them on to win anything. Not a presidents trophy, not a stanley cup, not a conference championship. He made it into the playoffs, good for him. But on a great team, just getting to the playoffs is not considered an accomplishment.

I couldn't agree more, but that's not what you said. You did contradict yourself.

Either way....its unimportant seeing as this thread has nothing to do with it and I'm sure the OP is pissed that it got nowhere thanks to this conversation.

The fact remains, the Sharks have had an abundance of talent the last few years, especially with the addition of Thornton, and still couldn't quite get it done. Not because they weren't good enough, because, IMO at least, they underperformed. So yeah I can go along with him being a good coach. You can't convince me that he's great.

What are you talking about? I absolutely think Wilson is the very definition of a mediocre coach that can bring a team to contention but can't win the big game. Never once did I say or imply that Wilson was a great coach. I don't think you're understanding me.

My point was that Wilson fell under your initial definition of a great coach, which you said was "taking a mediocre or lousy team and turning them around", but Wilson will never be a great coach IMO.

Edited by Never Forget Mac #25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, let's review:

Scotty Bowman coached the Blues, Canadiens, Sabres, Penguins, and Red Wings. Let's look at how well those teams performed the years before he was hired:

Blues; Bowman was their first coach. They have never won a championship. Made three finals appearances in four seasons with Bowman as coach.

Canadiens; Won the Stanley Cup the year before Bowman was hired. Won four Cups in eight seasons as coach.

Sabres; Lost in round 1 the year before Bowman was hired. Never made the finals with Bowman as coach.

Penguins; Won the Cup the year before Bowman was hired. Won one Cup in two seasons as head coach.

Red Wings; Among the league's best teams in the years leading up to Bowman's hiring. Won three Cups in nine years with Bowman, with one finals loss.

In none of those situations did Bowman inherit a poor team and turn them into a Cup winner. In fact, he twice inherited a Cup winning team. The only truly mediocre teams he was hired to coach were the Blues and Sabres; his postseason results there were decent, but not championships.

Bowman isn't a great coach by your definition; meaning your definition is wrong, as Bowman is definitely a great coach. Here's a better definition:

A great coach is able to consistently get the best results possible from the players he has. A good coach will consistently get the results expected of his players (assuming they are reasonable expectations) and a poor coach will consistently get results that would be considered underachieving.

Take a look at the rosters in the NHL, and then think how that team stacks up on paper against the rest of the league, compared with how well they actually did. That gives you an indication of their coach's ability, and that is why the Adams rarely goes to the coach of the team that is picked in preseason as the President's trophy winner; because a 'good' coach will get them to that result.

Lets say I buy into your definition of a great coach. Now tell me how that relates to Jackson. Do you honestly think that Jordan put up the numbers he did because Jackson brought it out of him at all? Or was it MJ's talent and drive that allowed him to single handedly take over a game and play on a whole different plane than anyone else on the court? Making his teammates a lot better than they actually were in the process. It didn't take greateness to coach this team, sorry. Jackson didn't make any revolutionary changes in the game of the Bulls or MJ. He was a good coach who watched Jordan lead his teams to championships.

Talk all you want about Detroit being one of the best teams when Bowman took over but they COULD NOT get it done, pretty much in the position that San Jose is in now, and most likely would not have if not for him. It was him changing the whole mindset of the team, especially with Yzerman, and making them a defense first team that got them over the top and continues to make them the great team they are to this day. How many coaches in any sport do you think have the insight to take someone like Yzerman who was a scoring machine and ask him to stop scoring so much and play some defense? The guy was putting up numbers that dwarfed anyone who wasn't named Wayne or Mario had done at the time, and his coach asks him to slow down? He could have let him just go on scoring goals and losing playoffs (Therrien and Crosby come to mind). And after coming to the realization that it needed to be done, he managed to convince a young future hall of famer who had been lighting up every goalie in the league to go along with it. The plain and simple truth is, if it wasn't for both Bowman's plan, and Yzerman's willingness to buy into it and sacrifice personal glory for his teams benefit, the Red Wings would not be the team it is today. Thank God Babs came along and has the same mindset or this great team could have faded away to being just another team that finishes near the top but never gets it done in the playoffs.

Contests over who has more rings or not aside. Things like this are what really define to me what a great coach is. Wins, losses, stats, of course these mean something, but what did a coach actually DO to make it happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I couldn't agree more, but that's not what you said. You did contradict yourself.

Either way....its unimportant seeing as this thread has nothing to do with it and I'm sure the OP is pissed that it got nowhere thanks to this conversation.

What are you talking about? I absolutely think Wilson is the very definition of a mediocre coach that can bring a team to contention but can't win the big game. Never once did I say or imply that Wilson was a great coach. I don't think you're understanding me.

My point was that Wilson fell under your initial definition of a great coach, which you said was "taking a mediocre or lousy team and turning them around", but Wilson will never be a great coach IMO.

Ah, I think I see where we got crossed up here. I don't think we have the same meaning of "turning them around". I probably should have made myself more clear initially but I meant turning them around to a championship, or at least championship contending team. Not just one with a winning record, or a brief visit to the playoffs.

As far as the OP. Scroll up a little and you'll see where the OP is actually the Bulls fan posting in support of my thoughts on Jackson and the Bulls. I'm thinking he's probably not overly pissed. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets say I buy into your definition of a great coach. Now tell me how that relates to Jackson. Do you honestly think that Jordan put up the numbers he did because Jackson brought it out of him at all? Or was it MJ's talent and drive that allowed him to single handedly take over a game and play on a whole different plane than anyone else on the court? Making his teammates a lot better than they actually were in the process. It didn't take greateness to coach this team, sorry. Jackson didn't make any revolutionary changes in the game of the Bulls or MJ. He was a good coach who watched Jordan lead his teams to championships.

Talk all you want about Detroit being one of the best teams when Bowman took over but they COULD NOT get it done, pretty much in the position that San Jose is in now, and most likely would not have if not for him. It was him changing the whole mindset of the team, especially with Yzerman, and making them a defense first team that got them over the top and continues to make them the great team they are to this day. How many coaches in any sport do you think have the insight to take someone like Yzerman who was a scoring machine and ask him to stop scoring so much and play some defense? The guy was putting up numbers that dwarfed anyone who wasn't named Wayne or Mario had done at the time, and his coach asks him to slow down? He could have let him just go on scoring goals and losing playoffs (Therrien and Crosby come to mind). And after coming to the realization that it needed to be done, he managed to convince a young future hall of famer who had been lighting up every goalie in the league to go along with it. The plain and simple truth is, if it wasn't for both Bowman's plan, and Yzerman's willingness to buy into it and sacrifice personal glory for his teams benefit, the Red Wings would not be the team it is today. Thank God Babs came along and has the same mindset or this great team could have faded away to being just another team that finishes near the top but never gets it done in the playoffs.

Contests over who has more rings or not aside. Things like this are what really define to me what a great coach is. Wins, losses, stats, of course these mean something, but what did a coach actually DO to make it happen?

I was merely debunking the suggestion that great coaches take MEDIOCRE teams and win CHAMPIONSHIPS with them.

That doesn't happen.

Great coaches take STRONG teams and win championships. You don't win without both; at least not consistently.

A good example of this is the Blues. Mike Keenan built a great roster, but he was unpopular and run out of town for trading Brendan Shanahan for Chris Pronger (how'd that work out again?) When he left, the Blues had possibly the best collection of talent in the league. Yet their team was never able to achieve postseason success. Why? Because the coaching was subpar. Quenneville got tons of credit for the Blues' 2000 President's trophy, but IMHO he was the LEAST significant factor in that season, as the Blues had two of the top five defensemen in the NHL at the time. Keenan turned Pronger from a drunk neverwillbe into an elite player. Keenan traded Phil Housley for Al MacInnis. Keenan acquired Pierre Turgeon. In fact, every key player on that 2000 Blues team was acquired by Keenan. Quenneville was simply the beneficiary of a good roster of skilled veteran players and an elite young defenseman in his best year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this