• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Guest blueadams

How big of an impact has losing Scotty had on our franchise?

Rate this topic

24 posts in this topic

I've got a buddy - that knows a lot more about hockey than I could ever hope to - that's been claiming for quite a while now that letting Scotty Bowman go (as opposed to hiring his son to keep him here) was the biggest mistake that Mike Illitch ever made. I haven't followed chicago closely enough to know, for sure, who they already had before Scotty got there - as their 'senior advisor of hockey operations' - and who they've gotten since...but, obviously, they've made great strides since he's been there while we've...well...what?

It may just be a coincidence, but doesn't it seem like we've sort of been heading downhill since he left (in a bit of a rut)? Some of our better prospects/younger players really haven't blossomed: Filppula, Hudler, Ericsson, Kindl (while those that have left have: Fleischman(sp?), Kopecky, and Leino). Our team's really lacked the toughness and grit that it takes to win in the post-season for the last 2/3 seasons. Our defensive fundamentals really haven't been quite the same.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this theory, but I did think that it was interesting, and I wanted to hear what the board's thoughts on the matter were. Regardless of how old or 'retired' he is, imo, a guy like Scotty has an impact on every aspect of a hockey program. From scouting/drafting/free agency/trades to player development to philosophy to game-by-game coaching to salary cap management...Scotty has an opinion, and it's heard, and it's good.

Looking forward to hearing opinions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He had an impact on the team, but not a big one in his last few seasons.

It's an organizational thing, and Holland, Babcock and Devellano had the biggest impact on the team in terms of hierarchical decision making. Bowman was just a special advisor of some kind. Not quite a consigliere. ;)

He's had a bigger influence in Chicago, since he's like their Senior VP or something like that.

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly it took a year or three to get back on track after he left, but it wasn't devastating. The Wings are a really stable organization. As far as him being with the Hawks, isn't he just an advisor? I think the Hawks success has come from a combination of sucking for years and winning the draft lottery, combined with adopting the well-known Red Wings model that most teams should've adopted by now.

EDIT: Oh, we're taking about Bowman's advisor role here in Detroit, not coaching. I don't see that hurting us, honestly. He was an advisor in a small role. Right now we're rolling with players we drafted before he left, and since he wasn't a defensive coach or a goalie coach I don't think we can pin the struggles of the last two seasons or so on his departure.

Clearly it took a year or three to get back on track after he left, but it wasn't devastating. The Wings are a really stable organization. As far as him being with the Hawks, isn't he just an advisor? I think the Hawks success has come from a combination of sucking for years and winning the draft lottery, combined with adopting the well-known Red Wings model that most teams should've adopted by now.

Edited by VM1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly it took a year or three to get back on track after he left, but it wasn't devastating. The Wings are a really stable organization. As far as him being with the Hawks, isn't he just an advisor? I think the Hawks success has come from a combination of sucking for years and winning the draft lottery, combined with adopting the well-known Red Wings model that most teams should've adopted by now.

EDIT: Oh, we're taking about Bowman's advisor role here in Detroit, not coaching. I don't see that hurting us, honestly. He was an advisor in a small role. Right now we're rolling with players we drafted before he left, and since he wasn't a defensive coach or a goalie coach I don't think we can pin the struggles of the last two seasons or so on his departure.

yes, we are still rolling with players he was a part of drafting (what happens when pav and hank pass their primes...in 4 or 5 years?). and no, i believe that his official title is 'senior advisor of hockey operations.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what heading downhill means. This team still is in the top 3 WC teams every season since Bowman retired as a coach, and still has been since he joined the Blackhawks. The Hawks might/will barely make the playoffs and have an absolutely horrendous cap issue to deal with.

I would never underrate Bowman because he was one of the best coaches in NHL history if not the best, but Kenny was more instrumental in building the team, and he's still GM. I think Bowman really wanted to be with his son so really can't blame the Detroit organization for not keeping him much the same as Stevie Y wanting to call shots in the same manner.

Edited by Shoreline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a buddy - that knows a lot more about hockey than I could ever hope to - that's been claiming for quite a while now that letting Scotty Bowman go (as opposed to hiring his son to keep him here) was the biggest mistake that Mike Illitch ever made. I haven't followed chicago closely enough to know, for sure, who they already had before Scotty got there - as their 'senior advisor of hockey operations' - and who they've gotten since...but, obviously, they've made great strides since he's been there while we've...well...what?

It may just be a coincidence, but doesn't it seem like we've sort of been heading downhill since he left (in a bit of a rut)? Some of our better prospects/younger players really haven't blossomed: Filppula, Hudler, Ericsson, Kindl (while those that have left have: Fleischman(sp?), Kopecky, and Leino). Our team's really lacked the toughness and grit that it takes to win in the post-season for the last 2/3 seasons. Our defensive fundamentals really haven't been quite the same.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this theory, but I did think that it was interesting, and I wanted to hear what the board's thoughts on the matter were. Regardless of how old or 'retired' he is, imo, a guy like Scotty has an impact on every aspect of a hockey program. From scouting/drafting/free agency/trades to player development to philosophy to game-by-game coaching to salary cap management...Scotty has an opinion, and it's heard, and it's good.

Looking forward to hearing opinions

Fleischmann has blossomed?? Really? More so than Filppula or even Hudler? Okay.. and Kopecky? Don't make me laugh, most Chicago fans hate him just as much as we did.

Having Scotty here wouldn't have meant Ericsson would be playing like the new Lidstrom right now. Kindl has been good for the most part and shows potential, give him a year or two.

Lack of toughness and grit 2 out of the last 3 years? Hell, 2 out of the last 3 years we were in the SCF! Last year was a down year sure, we ONLY made it to the 2nd round, which obviously means the Wings are going downhill..if only Scotty was here to make the salary cap disappear, just like he's doing for the Hawks who can still miss the playoffs..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fleischmann has blossomed?? Really? More so than Filppula or even Hudler? Okay.. and Kopecky? Don't make me laugh, most Chicago fans hate him just as much as we did.

Having Scotty here wouldn't have meant Ericsson would be playing like the new Lidstrom right now. Kindl has been good for the most part and shows potential, give him a year or two.

Lack of toughness and grit 2 out of the last 3 years? Hell, 2 out of the last 3 years we were in the SCF! Last year was a down year sure, we ONLY made it to the 2nd round, which obviously means the Wings are going downhill..if only Scotty was here to make the salary cap disappear, just like he's doing for the Hawks who can still miss the playoffs..

I do know several Hawks fans and I can tell you for a fact that they hate Fleischamnn so no big loss there. I will say that I think that lack of toughness and grit post comes from the lack of the Grind Line. I'll end this by saying I miss Darren McCarty..... One of my favorite Hockey Player as a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do know several Hawks fans and I can tell you for a fact that they hate Fleischamnn so no big loss there. I will say that I think that lack of toughness and grit post comes from the lack of the Grind Line. I'll end this by saying I miss Darren McCarty..... One of my favorite Hockey Player as a kid.

agreed. it's the structure of our team that sucks. the lack of physical players across the board. kronwall - haven't seen him hit anyone all season. stuart - was supposed to be a physical player, haven't seen him hit anyone in the last two or three seasons. ericsson - the softest 6-5 player in the history of the game, perhaps. kindl - soft as butter. salei - i don't know why he doesn't hit anyone, as he's a skill-lacking stay-at-home defenseman, but he certainly doesn't. rafalski - would break a hip if he ever tried hitting anyone. lidstrom - he's never hit anyone. there's your whole defense. one guy, kronwall, that you at least used to need to keep your head up for.

forward lines - draper, the grind-liner, one of the softest players in the game, and has been his entire career. miller, soft. eaves, less soft, but still soft...another "tough" guy that rarely takes anyone off their feet or fights. abdelkader, he at least hit people in the playoffs last year. where has he been, i don't know? cleary, he used to hit people, didn't he? whatever happened? franzen - right up there with ericsson in terms of the softest big men in the game today. bertuzzi - right there as well. we get a flash of it every once in a while. and it sucks. but he's just afraid of paralyzing people maybe? or maybe it's his back. either way, very, very soft big man. flip and huds are two of the softest guys in all of male professional sports. modano, clearly, doesn't believe that he's here to hit anyone.

helm gives you everything he's got. pav gives you everything he's got. hank gives you everything he's got. homer gives you everything he's got. that's about it as far as "toughness" is concerned with this team though - and not one of those guys can lay the lumber. this team is soft, soft, soft, and it has been for a while. and that's why we're not gonna do s*** in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blueadams, Maybe you should watch a few more games. This years team has been more physical than any Wings team in the past 5 years. Abby, Helm, Cleary, Miller, and yes even your "softies" Stuart, Bert, Salei have been taking the body quite regularly this season.

To the original topic, I think what Bowman did in his final few years as advisor is help teach the RW staff how to evaluate players/opponents. He was far more effective as a coach where he had direct control of the on ice product. The Wings scouting staff is second to none and I believe this is due to Scotty's knowledge. Heck, he probably left because there was little left here from his squads, he taught his craft, and really did want to work with Stan to pass on his hockey legacy.

Edited by hockey&beer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets see, Scotty goes to Mr. Illitch & says he wants to go work with his son. The same son who had been through two rounds of treatment for cancer, including stem-cell replacement. Letting Scotty go work with his son? Not a mistake really. By the same token, letting Stevie go to Tampa Bay to become a GM? Not a mistake. That's called caring about your employees like they're family & putting their needs above yours. That is the type of behavior that makes the Red Wings organization special.

Now not putting #6 in rafters, that's probably Illitch's biggest mistake as an owner at this point.

Nightfall likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets see, Scotty goes to Mr. Illitch & says he wants to go work with his son. The same son who had been through two rounds of treatment for cancer, including stem-cell replacement. Letting Scotty go work with his son? Not a mistake really. By the same token, letting Stevie go to Tampa Bay to become a GM? Not a mistake. That's called caring about your employees like they're family & putting their needs above yours. That is the type of behavior that makes the Red Wings organization special.

Now not putting #6 in rafters, that's probably Illitch's biggest mistake as an owner at this point.

go back and get your grade three (learn to read). i said that the mistake was not hiring scotty's son here, to keep scotty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelios, now in office, should fill the holes... I'm not worried. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go back and get your grade three (learn to read). i said that the mistake was not hiring scotty's son here, to keep scotty.

Wasn't Scotty's son the assistant GM of the Hawks? And wouldn't he have to take a demotion to work for the Wings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blueadams, Maybe you should watch a few more games. This years team has been more physical than any Wings team in the past 5 years. Abby, Helm, Cleary, Miller, and yes even your "softies" Stuart, Bert, Salei have been taking the body quite regularly this season.

That isn't exactly an achievment to shout about. Also, no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Scotty's son the assistant GM of the Hawks? And wouldn't he have to take a demotion to work for the Wings?

could've easily made him and nill both 'assistant gm's.' there's more than enough work to go around for two of holland's 'assistants.'

Blueadams, Maybe you should watch a few more games. This years team has been more physical than any Wings team in the past 5 years. Abby, Helm, Cleary, Miller, and yes even your "softies" Stuart, Bert, Salei have been taking the body quite regularly this season.

To the original topic, I think what Bowman did in his final few years as advisor is help teach the RW staff how to evaluate players/opponents. He was far more effective as a coach where he had direct control of the on ice product. The Wings scouting staff is second to none and I believe this is due to Scotty's knowledge. Heck, he probably left because there was little left here from his squads, he taught his craft, and really did want to work with Stan to pass on his hockey legacy.

the fact that you refer to THIS team as being 'physical' speaks volumes to how long it's been since we've actually had a 'physical' team here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the fact that you refer to THIS team as being 'physical' speaks volumes to how long it's been since we've actually had a 'physical' team here.

This.

Wings have no bite. We've got huge guys like Ericcson that are actually afraid to hit people. Then we've got guys like Kronwall that get ejected anytime they do check someone, legal or not.

Abbey got a 2:00 penalty for checking.

But yes, Wings have no physical presence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

could've easily made him and nill both 'assistant gm's.' there's more than enough work to go around for two of holland's 'assistants.'

Really? What makes you think that? In regards to both statements. So the Wings easily hire someone they don't know just because they're Scotty's son? And there's more than enough work to go around? What the hell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go back and get your grade three (learn to read). i said that the mistake was not hiring scotty's son here, to keep scotty.

So let's have a little lesson on sentence structure shall we? If indeed your main point was that the mistake was not hiring Stan, to use a journalism idiom, you buried your lead. By putting "as opposed to hiring his son to keep him here" in parentheses, you are actually including that as a secondary thought to the main point of "...letting Scotty go...was the biggest mistake that Mike Illitch ever made" based on the way you structured your sentence. You are presenting that as a possible option to keep Scotty here which also means that you could have easily included something to the effect that Mr. Illitch also had the option of not hiring Stan & just holding Scotty to his contract.

Shall I even go into how you presented this as a theory your "buddy" had & that you also mentioned that you're "not saying that I agree or disagree with this theory"? Seems to me that you're a little more invested in this theory than you originally stated based on getting your panties in a bunch & trying to insult my reading comprehension skills just because you didn't like my opinion. Maybe you need to stick to line combo threads. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? What makes you think that? In regards to both statements. So the Wings easily hire someone they don't know just because they're Scotty's son? And there's more than enough work to go around? What the hell?

1) I'm sure that the wings know Stan Bowman.

2) Even if they didn't know Stan Bowman, yes, you do hire someone you 'don't know' in order to keep Scotty in your organization.

3) How many league's are there in the world that the wings have scouts working in? 10? More? Yes, I'd say that there's more than enough work to go around for two assistant gm's.

So let's have a little lesson on sentence structure shall we? If indeed your main point was that the mistake was not hiring Stan, to use a journalism idiom, you buried your lead. By putting "as opposed to hiring his son to keep him here" in parentheses, you are actually including that as a secondary thought to the main point of "...letting Scotty go...was the biggest mistake that Mike Illitch ever made" based on the way you structured your sentence. You are presenting that as a possible option to keep Scotty here which also means that you could have easily included something to the effect that Mr. Illitch also had the option of not hiring Stan & just holding Scotty to his contract.

Shall I even go into how you presented this as a theory your "buddy" had & that you also mentioned that you're "not saying that I agree or disagree with this theory"? Seems to me that you're a little more invested in this theory than you originally stated based on getting your panties in a bunch & trying to insult my reading comprehension skills just because you didn't like my opinion. Maybe you need to stick to line combo threads. :D

good one..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I'm sure that the wings know Stan Bowman.

2) Even if they didn't know Stan Bowman, yes, you do hire someone you 'don't know' in order to keep Scotty in your organization.

3) How many league's are there in the world that the wings have scouts working in? 10? More? Yes, I'd say that there's more than enough work to go around for two assistant gm's.

You really seem to know a lot about how the Wings management conducts business. Tell me, how do they take their coffee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really seem to know a lot about how the Wings management conducts business. Tell me, how do they take their coffee?

European

(lots of cream, lots of sugar...kind of 'soft')

Edited by blueadams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's have a little lesson on sentence structure shall we? If indeed your main point was that the mistake was not hiring Stan, to use a journalism idiom, you buried your lead. By putting "as opposed to hiring his son to keep him here" in parentheses, you are actually including that as a secondary thought to the main point of "...letting Scotty go...was the biggest mistake that Mike Illitch ever made" based on the way you structured your sentence. You are presenting that as a possible option to keep Scotty here which also means that you could have easily included something to the effect that Mr. Illitch also had the option of not hiring Stan & just holding Scotty to his contract.

Shall I even go into how you presented this as a theory your "buddy" had & that you also mentioned that you're "not saying that I agree or disagree with this theory"? Seems to me that you're a little more invested in this theory than you originally stated based on getting your panties in a bunch & trying to insult my reading comprehension skills just because you didn't like my opinion. Maybe you need to stick to line combo threads. :D

great post! i too was thinking about the 2nd part. if this is just some theory from a friend, he sure is trying really hard to defend the position from anyone who even slightly disagrees.

regarding the OP, i think its bullocks. the hawks getting good has little to do with bowman. they had tons of top picks from years of cellar dwelling and managed to ride them while they were on entry level deals. the hawks still were generally mismanaged the last few years, but have been extremely lucky. the campbell contract is one of the worst in hockey, huet was a gigantic bust, and they barely made the playoffs the year after the cup. they aren't some fantastic dynasty in progress; they are one hit wonders. its funny how people actually thought the core was important. tampa bay had a great core after their cup and had problems making the playoffs. several other teams have had the same problems.

conversely, the wings continue to replenish their team. while it has been several years now since the gigantic diamonds in the rough picks of datsyuk and zetterberg, they are still showing the ability to pick quality guys and develop them. regardless of how much he gets hammered on here, ericsson had 15 points and was +8. not bad for the last pick of the draft. helm this year took huge steps to become more than just a bottom 6 PK guy and is very close to being a legit secondary scoring threat. the wings saw good potential from tatar and mursak this year which continues to replenish the team. the team has shown it can bring in vets like bertuzzi that contribute. they made a great waiver pickup to get drew miller.

i just don't see how this team can really be considered mismanaged or somehow deficient because bowman is gone. sure its a loss when a great hockey mind like bowman leaves the organization. but it was going to happen eventually.

plus, are there any quotes from back then that imply stan was even seriously considering leaving the hawks? he started there in 01, and perhaps they had been grooming him to become the GM much like we groomed holland? i honestly don't recall the events of back then, but we often assume everyone will instantly jump to come to detoit. yet some people do have better opportunities elsewhere.

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