Pat Quinn as Sens' Coach?

Since we're assessing Clouston lets also not forget the plummet that our PK has taken under his watch going from top ten to high teens doesn't look good on the resume. How about the Power Play? Not great either. It ain't all sunshine and roses with this coach. By the end of the season we'll have a pretty good idea of where we stand with him.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Since we're assessing Clouston lets also not forget the plummet that our PK has taken under his watch going from top ten to high teens doesn't look good on the resume. How about the Power Play? Not great either. It ain't all sunshine and roses with this coach. By the end of the season we'll have a pretty good idea of where we stand with him.

PK can be partially explained by the lose of McAmmond and Vermette though. Those guys ate alot of PK minutes. PP loses Vermette as well. That's why I'd like to see Regin in there a little more, particularly on the PK.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Since we're assessing Clouston lets also not forget the plummet that our PK has taken under his watch going from top ten to high teens doesn't look good on the resume. How about the Power Play? Not great either. It ain't all sunshine and roses with this coach. By the end of the season we'll have a pretty good idea of where we stand with him.

That's true actually. I'm surprised by the PP especially considering that Bongo's was one of the tops in the league. Perhaps he needs some good assistant coaches?

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Since we're assessing Clouston lets also not forget the plummet that our PK has taken under his watch going from top ten to high teens doesn't look good on the resume. How about the Power Play? Not great either. It ain't all sunshine and roses with this coach. By the end of the season we'll have a pretty good idea of where we stand with him.

That is fair enough...

One thing I will note, in about Clouston's third or fourth game, after the powerplay came off the ice with a poor effort, Clouston ripped Carvel a new one. It was AWESOME.

I think he is a bit handicapped in inheriting all of his coaching staff rather than picking his guys. Generally Head coaches are afforded the opportunity to bring in their people. Just sayin'

Perhaps Greg Mole lacky Murray insider Carvel could finally be given the axe and Clouston can run the bench all by himself? Nah. As long as Murray's around he'll want his fly on the wall. God forbid a Head coach run his bench on his own.

MurderOnIce wrote:

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Since we're assessing Clouston lets also not forget the plummet that our PK has taken under his watch going from top ten to high teens doesn't look good on the resume. How about the Power Play? Not great either. It ain't all sunshine and roses with this coach. By the end of the season we'll have a pretty good idea of where we stand with him.

That is fair enough...

One thing I will note, in about Clouston's third or fourth game, after the powerplay came off the ice with a poor effort, Clouston ripped Carvel a new one. It was AWESOME.

I think he is a bit handicapped in inheriting all of his coaching staff rather than picking his guys. Generally Head coaches are afforded the opportunity to bring in their people. Just sayin'

Carvel has dirt on Murray obviously. I don't think Clouston will have any say until he loses the Interim tag though. But as long as Murray is in Ottawa, it appears that we are stuck with Carvel, who I am now going to refer to as the Teflon Don, for how many times he's avoided the axe.

Once Clouston gets the team working the basic's properly he will improve these areas I think. Our powerplay is quite predictable....

It is the sidewall to down-low, cross crease pass...

As far as the PK goes, we will miss Vermette there. I think they are trying to be aggresive (Alfie had a shortie last night but we got burned twice) and they have to settle it down a bit.

They are both areas of concern however.

I am sure we have improved our 5 on 5 play tremendously (I do not have stats to back that statement up though) *exposed to embarassingly incorrect statement*

MurderOnIce wrote:
One thing I will note, in about Clouston's third or fourth game, after the powerplay came off the ice with a poor effort, Clouston ripped Carvel a new one. It was AWESOME.

Really? That's very interesting. Carvel's time might be coming to a close.

haha! Carvel got chewed out! Sweet!

I tend to agree with Hemlock where i think there's something going on behind the scenes with Carvel (who in my view should have axed a LONG time ago). Someone put forth the rumor, if you will, that Carvel is basically Murray's eyes and ears in the locker room, which certainly made me do a double-take; however, at this juncture, I think it's safe to say the players have PROBABLY figured out who the 'leak' could be. LOL

504Heater wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:
One thing I will note, in about Clouston's third or fourth game, after the powerplay came off the ice with a poor effort, Clouston ripped Carvel a new one. It was AWESOME.

Really? That's very interesting. Carvel's time might be coming to a close.

I am not sure based on one incident but it was animated for sure and I love that in a coach. Make sure everyone who is to blame, gets blame... including the assistant coach. Plus if you do it on the bench everyone knows it is going on, even the players who basically get the crap indirectly. Nice way to do things with a team who were certainly in a beaten down state at the time.

MurderOnIce wrote:
I am not sure based on one incident but it was animated for sure and I love that in a coach. Make sure everyone who is to blame, gets blame... including the assistant coach. Plus if you do it on the bench everyone knows it is going on, even the players who basically get the crap indirectly. Nice way to do things with a team who were certainly in a beaten down state at the time.

For sure. Clouston can be intimidating as well.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Perhaps Greg Mole lacky Murray insider Carvel could finally be given the axe and Clouston can run the bench all by himself? Nah. As long as Murray's around he'll want his fly on the wall. God forbid a Head coach run his bench on his own.

i seriously can't believe Murray would stoop that low, honestly, what is he giving Carvel for his snitching, or do I want to know? he is the only piece that has stayed in place through all the head coaches though.

Interesting how the thread has become a debate over whether Clouston should become the 09/10 coach, as opposed to if he will become the 09/10 coach.

I think we all agree he has shown he can do a good job as Sens' interim bench boss.

My question was if the politics of the situation might preclude him from getting the job as Melnyk might want a high-profile guy like Quinn.

Hence my suggestion Quinn might be offered the HC gig and Clouston the assistant or 'associate' title.

As for guessing what Bryan Murray will do, he's survived in the hockey business this long, by being a shrewd politician and choosing his words carefully.

Whatever he decides to do, he'll have a well constructed explanation.

I would suggest we consider then, that this is the same guy who hired Craig Hartsburg on a three year deal and a mandate for change, only to fire him two thirds of the way into the season--with a reasonable explanation in hand.

Bryan Murray will do what he thinks works for him.

Hartsburg was remarkably unsuccessful. In Murray's defense I think he held on as long as he could. If Hartsburg was behind the bench another day, we would have a new coach and GM today. There was no explanation required, we all saw the results and pressured the team for change. None of that suggests he would push aside a successful young coach he hired at the whim of ownership.

Cap'n Clutch wrote:Perhaps Greg Mole lacky Murray insider Carvel could finally be given the axe and Clouston can run the bench all by himself? Nah. As long as Murray's around he'll want his fly on the wall. God forbid a Head coach run his bench on his own.

Carvel seems to be talking into his watch an awful lot.

davetherave wrote:Interesting how the thread has become a debate over whether Clouston should become the 09/10 coach, as opposed to if he will become the 09/10 coach.

I think we all agree he has shown he can do a good job as Sens' interim bench boss.

My question was if the politics of the situation might preclude him from getting the job as Melnyk might want a high-profile guy like Quinn.

Hence my suggestion Quinn might be offered the HC gig and Clouston the assistant or 'associate' title.

As for guessing what Bryan Murray will do, he's survived in the hockey business this long, by being a shrewd politician and choosing his words carefully.

Whatever he decides to do, he'll have a well constructed explanation.

I would suggest we consider then, that this is the same guy who hired Craig Hartsburg on a three year deal and a mandate for change, only to fire him two thirds of the way into the season--with a reasonable explanation in hand.

Bryan Murray will do what he thinks works for him.

To be fair, wasn't there a rumour about Murray wanting Peter Deboer as his first choice, and Melnyk balked after meeting him in the Barbados due to the money demands ?

I'm sure someone can confirm/deny this.

RobbyJ wrote:

davetherave wrote:Interesting how the thread has become a debate over whether Clouston should become the 09/10 coach, as opposed to if he will become the 09/10 coach.

I think we all agree he has shown he can do a good job as Sens' interim bench boss.

My question was if the politics of the situation might preclude him from getting the job as Melnyk might want a high-profile guy like Quinn.

Hence my suggestion Quinn might be offered the HC gig and Clouston the assistant or 'associate' title.

As for guessing what Bryan Murray will do, he's survived in the hockey business this long, by being a shrewd politician and choosing his words carefully.

Whatever he decides to do, he'll have a well constructed explanation.

I would suggest we consider then, that this is the same guy who hired Craig Hartsburg on a three year deal and a mandate for change, only to fire him two thirds of the way into the season--with a reasonable explanation in hand.

Bryan Murray will do what he thinks works for him.

To be fair, wasn't there a rumour about Murray wanting Peter Deboer as his first choice, and Melnyk balked after meeting him in the Barbados due to the money demands ?

I'm sure someone can confirm/deny this.

Whether it was Murray or Melnyk wanted DeBoer is the part of the story I haven't heard...my understanding was that money was not the only issue.

MurderOnIce wrote:Hartsburg was remarkably unsuccessful. In Murray's defense I think he held on as long as he could. If Hartsburg was behind the bench another day, we would have a new coach and GM today. There was no explanation required, we all saw the results and pressured the team for change. None of that suggests he would push aside a successful young coach he hired at the whim of ownership.

MOI, don't you remember how Bryan Murray proclaimed that Hartsburg was the 'right' coach for the team? Here's what he said at the time:

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/HomeMainStories/2008/06/14/5877936-sun.html

"It appeared to me that one guy thrived on the scrutiny, thrived on the pressure and one guy wanted the opportunity to be in Ottawa," said Murray. "Whether we agree or not, there's a little more interest in hockey than there are in some markets. With the fan support comes the need to be successful.

"This franchise has been very successful and we want to continue that trend. I just felt after talking to the last couple of candidates, Craig's history in the game (as a player) and coach along with the (experience of coaching Canada at the world juniors). I felt with him going through that pressure cooker and the fact he wanted this job badly, he was the right person and the kind of person we want here. We wanted a guy that wants to be here and wants the opportunity to lead this team to where we want to be."

You don't think Bryan Murray knew what Hartsburg's challenges were? You don't think Murray didn't know the team had issues?

He picked Hartsburg. He is responsible--to a degree--for Hartsburg's failure (inasmuch as Hartsburg was the architect of his own demise). But you'll never hear him say that.

Make no mistake about it, Bryan Murray says what he thinks he should say to support his position. That's what survival in the executive suite is all about.

And Bryan Murray, is above all, a survivor.