Are NHL coaches more likely to succeed without NHL playing experience in today's game?

Question

Here's an interesting thought. For our recent list of championship coaches, i've noticed a number of them do not have NHL playing experience. They may have junior league and some even minor league playing experience, but many don't ever reach the NHL level.

But first, what is considered recent and what is considered a successful coach? For recent, lets just say the past 18 years dating back to 1990. As for successful, Is it the # of wins? In that case, 6 out of the top 10 all time winning coaches have NHL experience and 4 of them have won Cups. But none of the 4 Cup winners or 6 with NHL experience are from recently.

So to stick with recent, lets look at the last 15 Stanley Cup coaches accountable for the last 18 Cups. Only 4 of them have NHL experience, 5 if you count Laviolette's 12 games, and the rest have never played an NHL game! That's 11 coaches who won the Cup recently without NHL experience!

Do you think past NHL experience helps coaches at all in today's game?

Answer 1

I don't recall ever hearing Scotty Bowman laced up skates in an NHL game.

Answer 2

If that person was born to be a coach he was born to be a coach, whether or not they have had any NHL experience. Some great coaches never played in the NHL. So it is a matter of their brain make up. that makes them coaching material, Not playing ability.

Answer 3

It depends on the person. It takes know how and not spontaneously combusting when a player and/or the whole team plays badly.Being a coach of a winning team is a little  easier compared to turning a losing team into a winner. Being in the NHLdoes help b/c you understand 100% what it's like being on the ice. Wayne of course was a great player, but that doesn't mean he's the best coach. Babcock was never famous as player, but he sure turned out to be a good coach.

I've never played hockey and I bet I could do a better job coaching the Kings or Leafs...heck they couldn't get much worse..lol ohhh buuuurn...

Answer 4

I don't think having playing time in the NHL makes a difference with the coaches today. If they don't play beyond Juniors, they have more time to learn the game from a different perspective. As in not a players perspective. People that have played 15 or so years in the NHL will think more like a player, which could be a good thing and a bad thing.

I guess it really depends on the person...

Answer 5

Scotty Bowman is a good example.  He played a little minor hockey until he got injured, then went on to coaching and won 9 Stanley Cups with 3 different teams.  He's still considered the best coach in the history of the NHL.

Answer 6

Well then I do not think we want Pat Burns as our coach then...well maybe.

I think that the Game has changed so much over the past 10 years that NHL experience as a coach in the past doesn't really help (Statistically).

With the Game change and with all the new young players and the styles it could be harder for older/more experience coaches to coach their team (if that makes any sense).

Kevin Dineen would be a great canidate to be a head coach  for next season.

Answer 7

In the long ago past. Coaches were esteemed players who moved to the coaching ranks. And then in the late 1950's Toronto experimented with a minor league executive named George "Punch" Imlach. His success made the coaching position an important part of a team's success.

Many of the great coaches since that time either didn't play NHL hockey or played secondary roles on their teams

Of the top ten coaches all time only Al Arbour or Toe Blake could be considered as top players.