Hartsburg says: "All Must Share The Blame"

In today's Ottawa Citizen, Ken Warren's article and interview with Craig Hartsburg lays out the ex-Sens coach's current situation and his take, a few months down the road, on what went wrong with the team. IMHO interesting reading, especially his comments on Bryan Murray's stated reasons for the firing.


All must share blame: Hartsburg

Top on down responsible for team's struggles, Sens' ex-coach says

By Ken Warren, The Ottawa Citizen April 4, 2009 9:51
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/must+share+blame+Hartsburg/1463309/story.html


Life has been no picnic for Craig Hartsburg since he was fired as the Ottawa Senators' head coach two months ago.

As much as he tries to put his Groundhog Day grounding behind him, it's difficult to wash his hands of an event he concedes remains "fairly embarrassing to me."

Even after a couple of trips to try and get away from it all, the emotions connected with what happened during his 48-game stint behind the Senators' bench won't go away so easily.

On top of that, he's also dealing with family concerns, grieving the death of his father-in-law to cancer earlier this week.

"It hasn't been a lot of fun," Hartsburg said in an interview from his home in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont.

He wants to look ahead, and has thrown his name out for consideration for a coaching position with Canada's team at the world championships in Switzerland later this month, but he's also not skating away from the past.

Hartsburg acknowledges making mistakes as the Senators' coach. At the same time, he also suggests that the Senators won't become a contending team again until everyone in the organization accepts their role in the club's plummet from the top of the Eastern Conference standings to a non-playoff team for the first time since 1996.

"If everybody learns from it, they will be better," Hartsburg said. "But if people don't want to take responsibility and want to point fingers elsewhere, they're in denial. I'm not in denial. There are things I should have done differently. The key is for everybody, right from the top on down, to take responsibility."

General manager Bryan Murray accepted his role in the mess after he replaced Hartsburg with current coach Cory Clouston, saying, "I've changed the coach, but it's definitely on my shoulders. Everything that happens here I take full responsibility for and I should. I took this job, I've taken other jobs, to be accountable."

During Hartsburg's run as coach, it became increasingly obvious that the players
Murray provided him either couldn't -- or wouldn't -- buy into his structured approach, which was built around a defence-first mentality.

The Senators had a record of 17-27-7 under Hartsburg and were particularly vulnerable if they allowed the first goal in games, usually unable to rally.

In defence of the coach, Martin Gerber, who was expected to be the club's No. 1 goaltender, wasn't very good and also allowed far too many weak goals early in games.

While supposed back-up Alex Auld was solid in November, allowing the Senators to tread water in the battle for a playoff spot, he then struggled in December and January as the club lost any real hope of making the postseason.

Hartsburg endured plenty of criticism from fans and media because the Senators ranked last in the NHL in offence for much of the season, he makes no apologies for the style he embraced and brought to the team.

"I came in with a plan, a vision of what would work when I was hired," he said.

"There was no structure (before), they needed a tighter defensive structure. That was clear to me when I arrived. There are things that I could have done differently, but I was always honest and I came with integrity in my work. I said it after I was fired. I feel bad, I feel like I let a lot of people down. I think I'm a good coach, but it's unfortunate that it didn't work out for me.

"Two years ago, they had success with a wide-open style (going to the Stanley Cup finals). I was brought in because of who I am. I have had success at different levels, with teams playing a structured game."

Clearly, the approach didn't work here, with stars Jason Spezza, Dany Heatley, Daniel Alfredsson, Mike Fisher, and the since-traded Antoine Vermette, all criticized for having sub-par seasons, perceived to not always be sacrificing enough of their individual success for team success.

Hartsburg, however, says he has "a lot of respect for a lot of players" and claims "I have no real bitterness, especially to the players, because I know what they go through."

For the many critics who tried to help out Hartsburg by suggesting he bench star players more often, he is steadfast in his belief that such a form of punishment doesn't work. He insists that it's usually better to allow them to play their way out of struggles.

"I know people said, 'Why doesn't he bench this guy or that guy?' I never thought benching superstars was the answer. I trusted that they could play through it. Maybe at times, I wish I wasn't so hard on them (verbally). I take some lessons from it. It wasn't lots of fun at times, but life is full of good and bad."

Hartsburg is still watching his share of hockey, keeping a casual eye on the Senators' situation as he does so. He realizes the Senators have produced better early results under Clouston (16-10-3, despite returning home from Thursday night's 2-1 loss to the Boston Bruins with a 2-4-0 record on the road trip).

Clouston has introduced a system which is more aggressive than Hartsburg's game plan, providing the club's offensive players with more scoring opportunities, but

Hartsburg believes there's also a bigger-picture message which came through the dressing-room door along with Clouston.

"When I got fired, Bryan (Murray) told me, 'The direction of the team is not where I wanted it to be and we're at the point where we have to embarrass the players. I hope it embarrasses the players because this is the last chance. If they don't (respond), we have to blow the team up.' They've put a lot of money into a lot of players. I'm sure that's the message they've conveyed to the players. It's the last kind of wake-up call for a group of players."

Hartsburg isn't looking for sympathy and his opinions shouldn't be construed as sour grapes.

In many ways, he agrees with comments made by Murray earlier this week that a team can't win if the star players don't play up to their potential. He says there's more pressure on high-profile players than there has even been, particularly because of the limits of the salary cap and the fact that salaries are so public.

-----

As there has been much discussion, and many, varied, and, often heated, opinions, expressed on this topic in the GM Hockey Forum, our esteemed members will no doubt have some pertinent and provocative commentary on Hartsburg's views and Warren's interpretations.

Looking forward to your comments!

Could this be the least shocking thing I have read... or just basically what I have been saying for the last 6 months.

They already embarassed Heatley publicly, so he mailed it in.

If the high profile stars dont want the pressure, dont sign the contract and get the cash! Dont play in Ottawa! Its pretty simple.

Interesting. It's been brought up a lot but what the hell was Murray thinking when he hired Hartsburgh? If a high flying system got them to the cup under his own watch as coach, why would he bring in a tight defensive coach and expect the same results or better? The team is not built to play that style obviously and he is the first person who should have known this considering he coached them for two seasons. My only guess is that he must have thought a tight defensive system might have made them competitive enough to suffer through the lean years of holes left by cap issues and/or this is the type of team he wants to build in the future. A big tough, tight checking team. Either way, it failed.

IMHO Hartsburg was very clear in this article/interview about why he was hired: to address the lack of a system and implement the desire by management to change the focus of the team.

Hartsburg is who he is. So it was not, as we see from his and Murray's exchange, that he was a bad coach--it was that he was the wrong coach.

Clouston has been more successful...so far. He's obviously a good coach, but the players had reached the end of their rope when Hartsburg was fired.

And, as romantic and 'feel good' as the notion may be, the players haven't demonstrated they can 'turn it around'.

In contrast, teams like St Louis and Nashville, both struggling to keep up, have turned their seasons around.

What Hartsburg says about the Senators' future, is, IMHO, relevant. After years of making the playoffs, a sense of entitlement set in with the Ottawa Senators...as if the post season were a 'given'.

Hartsburg knows about winning and losing, and he knows there are no givens except you have work to your a$$ off every night. That's what he did as a player, and has in his career as a coach.

The Senators will have to work their a$$es off if they want to make it back to the playoffs next year.

Thats exactly what it is Dave, a sense of entitlement. You look at guys like Spezza, Heatley, even Fisher to a certain extent you have been in the playoffs every year they have been here and have never faced any real adversity.

To this day I dont believe the Sens have ever made any kind of signifigant come back in a playoffs series that they have won. They have never had the ability to win those close games where they might have to actually pay a price to score a goal, and I could go on and on.

This team needs to be torn down in terms of where the tallent is and how it is built. The mistakes have been made and it SHOULD be crystal clear to people where now, it's time to fix it.

A culture of hard work, in your face, resposible hockey is what needs to installed in Ottawa. Not gonna happen with the 2 goofs up front.

strachattack wrote:Interesting. It's been brought up a lot but what the hell was Murray thinking when he hired Hartsburgh? If a high flying system got them to the cup under his own watch as coach, why would he bring in a tight defensive coach and expect the same results or better? The team is not built to play that style obviously and he is the first person who should have known this considering he coached them for two seasons. My only guess is that he must have thought a tight defensive system might have made them competitive enough to suffer through the lean years of holes left by cap issues and/or this is the type of team he wants to build in the future. A big tough, tight checking team. Either way, it failed.

Sens' downfall started in december of 07, and the reason was because the turnovers were unbelievable and the overall defensive game was awful. So what do you do to address that? you replace Corvo with Smith and Meszaros with Kuba, then you hire a defensive coach who will implement a defensive system.
It didn't work out, but it was the thing to do.

A good coach, maybe. But a very good (or great) coach would know when and how to adjust. This isn't highschool where you can say my way or the highway. These are players with 10+ years of experience -- and success -- playing in this league.

He preached accountability but never practiced it.

He yelled at his players (his own admission) and publicly vented his frustrations in the media -- you can't build trust that way and without trus the players aren't going to follow through the hard places.

The players lost their conditioning under his watch.

davetherave wrote:IMHO Hartsburg was very clear in this article/interview about why he was hired: to address the lack of a system and implement the desire by management to change the focus of the team.

Hartsburg is who he is. So it was not, as we see from his and Murray's exchange, that he was a bad coach--it was that he was the wrong coach.

Clouston has been more successful...so far. He's obviously a good coach, but the players had reached the end of their rope when Hartsburg was fired.

And, as romantic and 'feel good' as the notion may be, the players haven't demonstrated they can 'turn it around'.

In contrast, teams like St Louis and Nashville, both struggling to keep up, have turned their seasons around.

What Hartsburg says about the Senators' future, is, IMHO, relevant. After years of making the playoffs, a sense of entitlement set in with the Ottawa Senators...as if the post season were a 'given'.

Hartsburg knows about winning and losing, and he knows there are no givens except you have work to your a$$ off every night. That's what he did as a player, and has in his career as a coach.

The Senators will have to work their a$$es off if they want to make it back to the playoffs next year.

Neely4Life wrote:Could this be the least shocking thing I have read... or just basically what I have been saying for the last 6 months.

They already embarassed Heatley publicly, so he mailed it in.

If the high profile stars dont want the pressure, dont sign the contract and get the cash! Dont play in Ottawa! Its pretty simple.

Now *that* I can agree with.

wprager wrote:A good coach, maybe. But a very good (or great) coach would know when and how to adjust. This isn't highschool where you can say my way or the highway. These are players with 10+ years of experience -- and success -- playing in this league.

He preached accountability but never practiced it.

He yelled at his players (his own admission) and publicly vented his frustrations in the media -- you can't build trust that way and without trus the players aren't going to follow through the hard places.

The players lost their conditioning under his watch.

No argument there.

When Hartsburg was hired, I said he was the wrong coach. A good coach, but the wrong coach.

Good coach for junior level players, bad coach for the NHL. That's pretty much the long and the short of it.

504Heater wrote:Good coach for junior level players, bad coach for the NHL. That's pretty much the long and the short of it.

504H, I used to think your assessment was pretty harsh, but you are indeed correct.

A guy like Hartsburg, who always played for pride, can communicate that to, and motivate, juniors.

'Accountability' means something very different to young players who are aspiring to NHL careers.

When it comes to selfish, overpaid professionals, they need a coach who's a hard SOB and doesn't take any crap.

Hartsburg, in his own words, was much too compassionate for his own good.

davetherave wrote:

504Heater wrote:Good coach for junior level players, bad coach for the NHL. That's pretty much the long and the short of it.

504H, I used to think your assessment was pretty harsh, but you are indeed correct.

A guy like Hartsburg, who always played for pride, can communicate that to, and motivate, juniors.

'Accountability' means something very different to young players who are aspiring to NHL careers.

When it comes to selfish, overpaid professionals, they need a coach who's a hard SOB and doesn't take any crap.

Hartsburg, in his own words, was much too compassionate for his own good.

I think you also have to look at Hartsburg's inability to bend from his system which so obviously wasn't working though.

asq2 wrote:I think you also have to look at Hartsburg's inability to bend from his system which so obviously wasn't working though.

Disagree. Hartsburg should have never been hired to coach the Senators. Period. Wrong coach for this job.

They needed a Hartley/Hitchcock type.

Clouston is in that Hartley/Hitchc0ck mould.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:I think you also have to look at Hartsburg's inability to bend from his system which so obviously wasn't working though.

Disagree. Hartsburg should have never been hired to coach the Senators. Period. Wrong coach for this job.

They needed a Hartley/Hitchcock type.

Clouston is in that Hartley/Hitchc0ck mould.

Don't think so. Hartsburg, by his own admission, yelled at the players. Clouston lets his icetime distribution do the talking. When a player does well he tells them so right on the bench, then he backs it up by giving them icetime. Hartsburg also did a lot of his talking to the media, which kills any kind of trust you could hope to build up. There are a few, select players who actually repsond well to being called out in public. But even if it does work, it only works for a short time (see: Kovalev) because the trust is gone. Yeah, it sounds corny and all, but if you want guys to go through a wall for you they've got to trust you first.

It's a little bit like the difference between managing, say, menial labourers versus managing professionals, like software programmers. With the labourers it's very easy to see who's doing well and who's not, and to get an exact measure of productivity. It's also very easy to boot someone out and replace him. In software development it's extremely difficult to accurately (and evenly) measure performance, and you have to be much more careful about how to motivate (and be very aware about the possibility of negatively motivating someone). And a software developer is much more difficult to replace than a menial labourer -- very similar in some ways in how it's easier to replace a minor leaguer than an NHL player.