The Future of....Bryan Murray & Cory Clouston

SpezDispenser wrote:

strachattack wrote:
Do we know for a fact Clouston isn't a teacher?

I'm not gonna say, because I really don't know, but what I gather from reading + hearing what people in the know have said, he's really a poor communicator - and that's the 2nd most important thing behind a teacher with all these young guys coming up. And I don't mean he doesn't get his message across, again, not sure about that, but he certainly has a hard-arse demenour about him that I think gets really badly lost in a locker room where everything has gone wrong. The shelf-life for coaches like Clouston, Hartley, Andy Murray, Hitchco_cock, etc. isn't usually longer than 2 or 3 years tops - and we're seeing it now with Clouston I think.

The asterix that I'd put here is that like most of us in here, I can only use what others have said and I have zero basis for making these comments.

Fair enough. For the record, I didn't mean to challenge you specifically on this notion. I was just curious if there was any knowledge - gossip or otherwise - regarding this factoid.

Hoags wrote:

strachattack wrote:
Do we know for a fact Clouston isn't a teacher?

In that video when Karlsson is told he's going to the All-star game he automatically assumed since he was being called into CC's office it was bad news.

If the only reason you get called into the head coach's office is because it's bad news, it's safe to say you're not much of a teacher (ie. I'll only talk to you if you're doing something wrong).

Apparently the players learn more in Clouston's pre/post game interviews than they do at practice.

Clouston and his system isn't good for established teams like ours was. He doesn't play favorites if you play his system you get promoted and/or PP time, if you play bad you're demoted, this usually happens within the 1st period, his near-constant micro management of the lines makes establishing chemistry really hard.

That's a good way to lose the vets in the room who probably feel they have some entitlement. Remember his scapegoating and "demotion" of Kovalev ?

This is why our 3rd/4th line players flourish under him but our top players slump. I don't think he is used to coaching really talented players who make way more money than him.

It's funny you mention that Karlsson video because it was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of Clouston's coaching style. Karlsson did look a little worried. The fact Clouston told him to remove his socks off of his shoulder too was telling. ie/ hey kid, you're on camera and being invited to the All Star Game, look like a man and not some punk. It was like your dad giving you a slap to the head and told to stand up straight and straighten your tie.

That's an interesting take on the difference between our 3rd/4th lines v.s. the top 2 lines. That certainly makes sense.

strachattack wrote:
Fair enough. For the record, I didn't mean to challenge you specifically on this notion. I was just curious if there was any knowledge - gossip or otherwise - regarding this factoid.

No, I didn't take it that way. I think he's a good teacher + a bad communicator which would equal a pretty bad fit on a team full of youngsters. It's high time to cut ties IMO, we tried, it didn't work, his contract is up...don't think it'll be a hard decision for whoever the GM turns out to be.

Now Bryan Murray is a completely different story. I personally wondered aloud if he had the stones to trade one of the real veterans on this team under contract, ie Mike Fisher, and he responded to that quite well indeed. I wouldn't have cried if he forced Phillips out as well, but he did well on that one as well (don't let anyone tell you that 3.1 X 3 with a VERY limited NTC isn't a great deal for Chris Phillips). I was a little upset after the season ended last year when we didn't retain Cullen or Sutton and essentially lost those two 2nd rounders, but signing Bobby Butler was a major, MAJOR coup - I would equate that to a mid-to-low first rounder, so that cures some of the blues from that.

Going forward, I'd say it depends now on if he can persuade a couple of the high profile university kids to sign here, Da Costa + Thompson let's say, + the way he handles himself at the draft + what he does on July 1 (not much please!!!!!!!), but I'd be VERY tempted to keep him around for another couple of years. That's right Big Ev another COUPLE of years.

strachattack wrote:It's funny you mention that Karlsson video because it was the first thing that came to mind when I thought of Clouston's coaching style. Karlsson did look a little worried. The fact Clouston told him to remove his socks off of his shoulder too was telling. ie/ hey kid, you're on camera and being invited to the All Star Game, look like a man and not some punk. It was like your dad giving you a slap to the head and told to stand up straight and straighten your tie.

That's an interesting take on the difference between our 3rd/4th lines v.s. the top 2 lines. That certainly makes sense.

I personally didn't mind the interaction between Karlsson and Clouston that one time, Karlsson a child, he needs coddling and structure as well, but the point about the 3/4 lines was very astute.

But that's just authority. Let's be clear: in his first press conference clouston proclaimed that he was NOT a player's coach and he wasn't there to be their friend. so this isn't a case of him saying he's someone else and not living upto that notion.

And clouston is not a monster.

Michallica wrote:But that's just authority. Let's be clear: in his first press conference clouston proclaimed that he was NOT a player's coach and he wasn't there to be their friend. so this isn't a case of him saying he's someone else and not living upto that notion.

You have to be a player's coach nowadays. There was an article some time ago (which I think I posted) that talked about how coaching has changed. It included quotes from Lindy Ruff who commented on how things are different and how he had to change his approach and demeanor. Notice how he's one of the few old school coaches who is still successful.

Obviously you can't be a push over, there's a fine line in there somewhere.

SpezDispenser wrote:

strachattack wrote:
Fair enough. For the record, I didn't mean to challenge you specifically on this notion. I was just curious if there was any knowledge - gossip or otherwise - regarding this factoid.

No, I didn't take it that way. I think he's a good teacher + a bad communicator which would equal a pretty bad fit on a team full of youngsters. It's high time to cut ties IMO, we tried, it didn't work, his contract is up...don't think it'll be a hard decision for whoever the GM turns out to be.

Now Bryan Murray is a completely different story. I personally wondered aloud if he had the stones to trade one of the real veterans on this team under contract, ie Mike Fisher, and he responded to that quite well indeed. I wouldn't have cried if he forced Phillips out as well, but he did well on that one as well (don't let anyone tell you that 3.1 X 3 with a VERY limited NTC isn't a great deal for Chris Phillips). I was a little upset after the season ended last year when we didn't retain Cullen or Sutton and essentially lost those two 2nd rounders, but signing Bobby Butler was a major, MAJOR coup - I would equate that to a mid-to-low first rounder, so that cures some of the blues from that.

Going forward, I'd say it depends now on if he can persuade a couple of the high profile university kids to sign here, Da Costa + Thompson let's say, + the way he handles himself at the draft + what he does on July 1 (not much please!!!!!!!), but I'd be VERY tempted to keep him around for another couple of years. That's right Big Ev another COUPLE of years.

If we move on from Clouston i'm ok with that. If he gets re-signed I won't Wing Dang Doodle and moan about it and open to being convinced it's a good move. Murray on the other hand I feel more strongly about. I really hope he sticks around in some capacity. I want his hand on the steering wheel of this re-build. I want the scouts to remain and if it means hiring Tim Murray to continue the philosophy of the team their attempting to build so be it. I would also be happy with a one year or two year extension. I fear a new GM could disrupt the plan and so far I like the plan. A new GM can be hired in a year or two and hopefully will only need to "tinker" here and there to build a cup contender.

Hoags wrote:
You have to be a player's coach nowadays. There was an article some time ago (which I think I posted) that talked about how coaching has changed. It included quotes from Lindy Ruff who commented on how things are different and how he had to change his approach and demeanor. Notice how he's one of the few old school coaches who is still successful.

Obviously you can't be a push over, there's a fine line in there somewhere.

Yeah, the school of Ruff and Babc_ock = they demand the highest effort at all times and will punish the players that don't abide, but they're quick to pat your on the back for good work.

There has to be a balance, and I'm not sure Clouston has it.

strachattack wrote:If we move on from Clouston i'm ok with that. If he gets re-signed I won't Wing Dang Doodle and moan about it and open to being convinced it's a good move. Murray on the other hand I feel more strongly about. I really hope he sticks around in some capacity. I want his hand on the steering wheel of this re-build. I want the scouts to remain and if it means hiring Tim Murray to continue the philosophy of the team their attempting to build so be it. I would also be happy with a one year or two year extension. I fear a new GM could disrupt the plan and so far I like the plan. A new GM can be hired in a year or two and hopefully will only need to "tinker" here and there to build a cup contender.

I'm in that boat too, but there are definitely people who's heads are gonna explode if Murray's kept around.

SpezDispenser wrote:
I'm in that boat too, but there are definitely people who's heads are gonna explode if Murray's kept around.

That's the spoiled Ottawa Senators fan base talking. Murray took over after that run and since we haven't come close since clearly he's a bad GM and needs to be fired and replaced by Pierre McGuire

Even though a lot of unexpected Dung happened since and I think we just caught lightning in a bottle that year. I don't think a 1 line team like the Sens were will ever win the Cup.

Its simple.....appoint Tim Murray as the new GM, and let him hire a new coach of his liking with the obvious blessing of Murray. you retain the scouts and identical philosophy.

Seriously, MY head will explode if Pierre Mcguire is hired.

Hoags wrote:That's the spoiled Ottawa Senators fan base talking. Murray took over after that run and since we haven't come close since clearly he's a bad GM and needs to be fired and replaced by Pierre McGuire

Even though a lot of unexpected Dung happened since and I think we just caught lightning in a bottle that year. I don't think a 1 line team like the Sens were will ever win the Cup.

Yeah, it's highly unlikely to say the least. We had the guy in net who was on a hot streak as well though, and because the CASH line was destroying teams on their own, less attention was paid to Fisher's line and Kelly's line - and they did quite well in their shadows.

And then there was that magical shutdown pairing of Volchenkov/Phillips who were blazing a trail into the entire hockey world's hearts by playing so hard.

Tough situation to try to repeat that after being put to death by the Ducks unfortunately.

Clouston in Ottawa reminds me of Scott Gordon in New York. Both similar coaches stifling their teams.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/24/islanders-blog-coaching-is-key/

If this NHL season has taught us anything it’s this — coaching is everything. There’s one big reason why the Islanders no longer look atrocious, and that reason is Jack Capuano’s coaching.

Jack may not be the most brilliant coach in the history of hockey, but he was smart enough to get the Islanders back to just playing hockey. Gone is Scott Gordon’s ridiculous system of constant forechecks and the constant talk of cycling. Gone is Gordon’s overcomplicated system that was clearly stifling the young team. If we’ve learned nothing else from the Islanders recent success it’s that Gordon was a bad coach, and coaching makes a difference.

Reminds me of a certain coach we all know in Ottawa.

Hoags wrote:Clouston in Ottawa reminds me of Scott Gordon in New York. Both similar coaches stifling their teams.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/24/islanders-blog-coaching-is-key/

If this NHL season has taught us anything it’s this — coaching is everything. There’s one big reason why the Islanders no longer look atrocious, and that reason is Jack Capuano’s coaching.

Jack may not be the most brilliant coach in the history of hockey, but he was smart enough to get the Islanders back to just playing hockey. Gone is Scott Gordon’s ridiculous system of constant forechecks and the constant talk of cycling. Gone is Gordon’s overcomplicated system that was clearly stifling the young team. If we’ve learned nothing else from the Islanders recent success it’s that Gordon was a bad coach, and coaching makes a difference.

Reminds me of a certain coach we all know in Ottawa.

Dave "Sparky" Allison?

Hoags wrote:Clouston in Ottawa reminds me of Scott Gordon in New York. Both similar coaches stifling their teams.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/02/24/islanders-blog-coaching-is-key/

If this NHL season has taught us anything it’s this — coaching is everything. There’s one big reason why the Islanders no longer look atrocious, and that reason is Jack Capuano’s coaching.

Jack may not be the most brilliant coach in the history of hockey, but he was smart enough to get the Islanders back to just playing hockey. Gone is Scott Gordon’s ridiculous system of constant forechecks and the constant talk of cycling. Gone is Gordon’s overcomplicated system that was clearly stifling the young team. If we’ve learned nothing else from the Islanders recent success it’s that Gordon was a bad coach, and coaching makes a difference.

Reminds me of a certain coach we all know in Ottawa.

It does, but it isn't the most unbiased look at Gordon/the Isles that I've ever seen. Sounds like the blogger always hated Gordon - which might be fair enough - but you always have to look at things from both perspectives.

For example: now that Clouston has a real goalie + a group of young players who don't question him, they're having success and being a really hard group to play against. Does that take Clouston partially off the hook? IMO, yes it does, it really does. The old guard were NOT taking to his system (or perhaps lack thereof) and there wasn't enough hard work being shown and the goaltending was at a pee-wee level. Should we re-sign Clouston? Doubtful unfortunately for him. We have a clean slate to work with this summer, doubt he makes the cut.

SpezDispenser wrote:
For example: now that Clouston has a real goalie + a group of young players who don't question him, they're having success and being a really hard group to play against. Does that take Clouston partially off the hook? IMO, yes it does, it really does. The old guard were NOT taking to his system (or perhaps lack thereof) and there wasn't enough hard work being shown and the goaltending was at a pee-wee level. Should we re-sign Clouston? Doubtful unfortunately for him. We have a clean slate to work with this summer, doubt he makes the cut.

I've never had Clouston on the hook to begin with I just don't think he has the character to be a winner. He doesn't strike me as a good motivator and communicator, this team has rarely looked comfortable or confident on the ice. They play like a bunch of robots. It's all about the system, if you play it you get ice time, that's why 3rd/4th liners flourish under him.

The power play is by far the most frustrating, it's like they don't even practice it. I watch other teams (including NJ) moving around far more effectively and trying to get the puck to their "go to" guys like Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Chara etc. We can't even get in the zone half the time and when we do we screw around on the boards passing the puck aimlessly back and forth.

And then people blame Bryan Murray why Gonchar (pretty much a $5.5M PP specialist) aren't working out in Ottawa.

Hoags wrote:I've never had Clouston on the hook to begin with I just don't think he has the character to be a winner. He doesn't strike me as a good motivator and communicator, this team has rarely looked comfortable or confident on the ice. They play like a bunch of robots. It's all about the system, if you play it you get ice time, that's why 3rd/4th liners flourish under him.

The power play is by far the most frustrating, it's like they don't even practice it. I watch other teams (including NJ) moving around far more effectively and trying to get the puck to their "go to" guys like Kovalchuk, Ovechkin, Chara etc. We can't even get in the zone half the time and when we do we screw around on the boards passing the puck aimlessly back and forth.

And then people blame Bryan Murray why Gonchar (pretty much a $5.5M PP specialist) aren't working out in Ottawa.

Yeah, I completely agree. I don't think he's a good enough communicator at all. In fact, I agree with everything you've written - which is why I doubt we'll see him back. Although, Spezza certainly is flourishing under Clouston - or maybe that was just his time to put it all together.

Malcolm Gladwell is one of "the most effective communicators of our time." Might he be the solution behind the bench?