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

to me, it doesn't make sense to give Bryan Murray the right to hire another coach. and quite frankly, clouston is NOT that bad. He was being talked about jack adams last season, and now sense fans just want him gone asap...perfect scapegoat right?

sometimes the fanbase ticks me off. You don't want someone soft who adheres to players (like paddock and hartsburg), so you get clouston who's hardcore, demands alot from his players, and actually got them playing great hockey last year. Call it overachievement if you want, but considering the cards he's dealt, he's made the best of every situation except this season. Maybe he doesn't adhere to the veterans as much as the vets would like, but I don't care about that anymore. The vets are not the future and they've had their joy ride enough of times.

If you NEED a fresh face in the locker room, then Murray should not be picking a coach. I.E. he should not be GM next season.

SeawaySensFan wrote:What was put to the test here is the theory that you can't fire a whole team so you fire the coach. Well, the team was pretty much fired and it's been a positive change so far.

Hiring Muller would be interesting for sure but it wouldn't necessarily be an improvement on Clouston.

I hear ya SSF. Clouston gets way too much Dung in this city for the state of the senators. Last I checked, the goaltending situation can't be blamed on him, the fact that fisher and others wouldn't take nights off because of cap situation is also not on him. Maybe he wanted to make improvements, but just didn't have the available resources? He had the kids right now playing a pretty nice structural game. But no no of course its clouston's fault...all of it. He didn't utilize corey locke very well, blah blah blah

Michallica wrote:to me, it doesn't make sense to give Bryan Murray the right to hire another coach. and quite frankly, clouston is NOT that bad. He was being talked about jack adams last season, and now sense fans just want him gone asap...perfect scapegoat right?

sometimes the fanbase ticks me off. You don't want someone soft who adheres to players (like paddock and hartsburg), so you get clouston who's hardcore, demands alot from his players, and actually got them playing great hockey last year. Call it overachievement if you want, but considering the cards he's dealt, he's made the best of every situation except this season. Maybe he doesn't adhere to the veterans as much as the vets would like, but I don't care about that anymore. The vets are not the future and they've had their joy ride enough of times.

If you NEED a fresh face in the locker room, then Murray should not be picking a coach. I.E. he should not be GM next season.

...by delusional homer Sens fans. Clouston was never that great.

Hartsburg was hardcore as well. Problem is he couldn't handle the room and his system was totally wrong for the team. I read some story how every practice under Hartsburg was about the mistakes that were made in the last game regardless whether the team won or lost. Players got sick of hearing of how they sucked the last game every time.

Sometimes I wonder how much blame BM deserves for the coaching hirings ? Who else was available and how do you really know how a coach will perform ?

Is Lou Lamoriello a bad GM for hiring John Maclean ?

Hiring coaches seems like such a crapshoot.

Big Ev wrote:

Michallica wrote:to me, it doesn't make sense to give Bryan Murray the right to hire another coach. and quite frankly, clouston is NOT that bad. He was being talked about jack adams last season, and now sense fans just want him gone asap...perfect scapegoat right?

sometimes the fanbase ticks me off. You don't want someone soft who adheres to players (like paddock and hartsburg), so you get clouston who's hardcore, demands alot from his players, and actually got them playing great hockey last year. Call it overachievement if you want, but considering the cards he's dealt, he's made the best of every situation except this season. Maybe he doesn't adhere to the veterans as much as the vets would like, but I don't care about that anymore. The vets are not the future and they've had their joy ride enough of times.

If you NEED a fresh face in the locker room, then Murray should not be picking a coach. I.E. he should not be GM next season.

...by delusional homer Sens fans. Clouston was never that great.

your hero, pierre mcguire, also mentioned him. And we all know he isn't a homer sens fan. Besides, several other respected analysts mentioned him so really there's nothing here to suggest that people were out to lunch on that opinion. it was 100% valid

Hoags wrote:Hartsburg was hardcore as well. Problem is he couldn't handle the room and his system was totally wrong for the team. I read some story how every practice under Hartsburg was about the mistakes that were made in the last game regardless whether the team won or lost. Players got sick of hearing of how they sucked the last game every time.

Sometimes I wonder how much blame BM deserves for the coaching hirings ? Who else was available and how do you really know how a coach will perform ?

Is Lou Lamoriello a bad GM for hiring John Maclean ?

Hiring coaches seems like such a crapshoot.

Yeah but somehwere along the way, you'd find a good coach no? Paddock, hartsburg, and then clouston. Hartsburgs system was the main problem, it wasnt agressive at all. Plus the whole accountability part came into play where even Murray said he didn't see Hartsburg holding ppl accountable. People got comfortable then too.

and I also refuse to believe that the captain didn't have an input when they decided to extend clouston for 2 years at the end of that season. I know sometiems coaches can lose it or have a falling out with players, but the way ppl speak about clouston around here is that he was never a good coach and hasn't done diddly squat for this team. kinda pathetic

Michallica wrote:

Hoags wrote:Hartsburg was hardcore as well. Problem is he couldn't handle the room and his system was totally wrong for the team. I read some story how every practice under Hartsburg was about the mistakes that were made in the last game regardless whether the team won or lost. Players got sick of hearing of how they sucked the last game every time.

Sometimes I wonder how much blame BM deserves for the coaching hirings ? Who else was available and how do you really know how a coach will perform ?

Is Lou Lamoriello a bad GM for hiring John Maclean ?

Hiring coaches seems like such a crapshoot.

Yeah but somehwere along the way, you'd find a good coach no? Paddock, hartsburg, and then clouston. Hartsburgs system was the main problem, it wasnt agressive at all. Plus the whole accountability part came into play where even Murray said he didn't see Hartsburg holding ppl accountable. People got comfortable then too.

and I also refuse to believe that the captain didn't have an input when they decided to extend clouston for 2 years at the end of that season. I know sometiems coaches can lose it or have a falling out with players, but the way ppl speak about clouston around here is that he was never a good coach and hasn't done diddly squat for this team. kinda pathetic

That's the way pro sports are though. It's all about "What have you done for me lately?"

Big Ev wrote:

Michallica wrote:to me, it doesn't make sense to give Bryan Murray the right to hire another coach. and quite frankly, clouston is NOT that bad. He was being talked about jack adams last season, and now sense fans just want him gone asap...perfect scapegoat right?

sometimes the fanbase ticks me off. You don't want someone soft who adheres to players (like paddock and hartsburg), so you get clouston who's hardcore, demands alot from his players, and actually got them playing great hockey last year. Call it overachievement if you want, but considering the cards he's dealt, he's made the best of every situation except this season. Maybe he doesn't adhere to the veterans as much as the vets would like, but I don't care about that anymore. The vets are not the future and they've had their joy ride enough of times.

If you NEED a fresh face in the locker room, then Murray should not be picking a coach. I.E. he should not be GM next season.

...by delusional homer Sens fans. Clouston was never that great.

And yet not as bad as you want to make him out to be. This simply cannot be all on Clouston. The players as well as Murray need to take some heat for this. It's the same argument people use for Phillips in that he's bad because the team is bad. You could apply some of that logic to Clouston.

hemlock wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

Michallica wrote:to me, it doesn't make sense to give Bryan Murray the right to hire another coach. and quite frankly, clouston is NOT that bad. He was being talked about jack adams last season, and now sense fans just want him gone asap...perfect scapegoat right?

sometimes the fanbase ticks me off. You don't want someone soft who adheres to players (like paddock and hartsburg), so you get clouston who's hardcore, demands alot from his players, and actually got them playing great hockey last year. Call it overachievement if you want, but considering the cards he's dealt, he's made the best of every situation except this season. Maybe he doesn't adhere to the veterans as much as the vets would like, but I don't care about that anymore. The vets are not the future and they've had their joy ride enough of times.

If you NEED a fresh face in the locker room, then Murray should not be picking a coach. I.E. he should not be GM next season.

...by delusional homer Sens fans. Clouston was never that great.

And yet not as bad as you want to make him out to be. This simply cannot be all on Clouston. The players as well as Murray need to take some heat for this. It's the same argument people use for Phillips in that he's bad because the team is bad. You could apply some of that logic to Clouston.

Yes but when every single player has a terrible year - offensively and defensively - except for a few guys here and there, then there's something wrong with the coaching.

hemlock wrote:

Michallica wrote:

Hoags wrote:Hartsburg was hardcore as well. Problem is he couldn't handle the room and his system was totally wrong for the team. I read some story how every practice under Hartsburg was about the mistakes that were made in the last game regardless whether the team won or lost. Players got sick of hearing of how they sucked the last game every time.

Sometimes I wonder how much blame BM deserves for the coaching hirings ? Who else was available and how do you really know how a coach will perform ?

Is Lou Lamoriello a bad GM for hiring John Maclean ?

Hiring coaches seems like such a crapshoot.

Yeah but somehwere along the way, you'd find a good coach no? Paddock, hartsburg, and then clouston. Hartsburgs system was the main problem, it wasnt agressive at all. Plus the whole accountability part came into play where even Murray said he didn't see Hartsburg holding ppl accountable. People got comfortable then too.

and I also refuse to believe that the captain didn't have an input when they decided to extend clouston for 2 years at the end of that season. I know sometiems coaches can lose it or have a falling out with players, but the way ppl speak about clouston around here is that he was never a good coach and hasn't done diddly squat for this team. kinda pathetic

That's the way pro sports are though. It's all about "What have you done for me lately?"

I get that. My main argument is that if Bryan Murray is retained as GM, then he should just re-hire Clouston because how many cracks is a GM supposed to get in replacing coaches before the owner re-thinks that maybe the GM isn't hiring the right guys?

That's why I kinda think its a sticky situation. The recent moves and Melnyk's relationship and trust with Murray would suggest the he's coming back for at least one more season as GM. But we know that Murray is NOT the long term GM coming up so what do you do with the coaching situation?

Michallica wrote:
Yeah but somehwere along the way, you'd find a good coach no? Paddock, hartsburg, and then clouston. Hartsburgs system was the main problem, it wasnt agressive at all. Plus the whole accountability part came into play where even Murray said he didn't see Hartsburg holding ppl accountable. People got comfortable then too.

and I also refuse to believe that the captain didn't have an input when they decided to extend clouston for 2 years at the end of that season. I know sometiems coaches can lose it or have a falling out with players, but the way ppl speak about clouston around here is that he was never a good coach and hasn't done diddly squat for this team. kinda pathetic

Would you really find a good coach in all that time that BM has had ? I mean how was he supposed to know Paddock and Hartsburg would suck so bad. Paddock was an assistant for a while so perhaps BM should have known what kind of coach he was. Hartsburg came to Ottawa preaching accountability and failed to deliver. I think Hartsburg was a bad firing because BM knew he was a defence first coach and that's what he wanted at the time. Obviously it was a bad move, square peg into a round hole). deBoer was a leading candidate and he's not doing so well either (then again it's Florida).

Maybe the core of this team(most of whom have been sent packing) were uncoachable and too comfortable with the status quo and no coach could get those guys in line ?

Clouston was resigned based on a remarkable run for a fraction of a lost season, was that enough to judge his abilities ? Over the past 2 years we've seen how he handles the challenges of being an NHL head coach, Is he really the best we can do ? What about the associate coaches ?

I guess my point is I see so many coach hirings/firings around the NHL I can't help but wonder how a team is supposed to evaluate head coaching candidates and how can you really predict how a coach will do on a team. If BM is a bad GM for his failures in hiring coaches then he is in good company. Our problem are fairly big in Ottawa but they're not all that different from other teams and I think they show that BM had approval and was more inclined to fire a coach rather than wait it out. How much blame does BM really deserve for something which a lot of other teams haven't figured out either ?

Joe Sacco looked like a genius last year, this year not so much. Lou Lamoriello is one of the most respected GMs in the league yet his hiring of John Maclean looks one of the worst coach hirings in recent NHL history(and successfully begging Lemaire out of retirement as one of the best).

Big Ev wrote:

Michallica wrote:to me, it doesn't make sense to give Bryan Murray the right to hire another coach. and quite frankly, clouston is NOT that bad. He was being talked about jack adams last season, and now sense fans just want him gone asap...perfect scapegoat right?

sometimes the fanbase ticks me off. You don't want someone soft who adheres to players (like paddock and hartsburg), so you get clouston who's hardcore, demands alot from his players, and actually got them playing great hockey last year. Call it overachievement if you want, but considering the cards he's dealt, he's made the best of every situation except this season. Maybe he doesn't adhere to the veterans as much as the vets would like, but I don't care about that anymore. The vets are not the future and they've had their joy ride enough of times.

If you NEED a fresh face in the locker room, then Murray should not be picking a coach. I.E. he should not be GM next season.

...by delusional homer Sens fans. Clouston was never that great.

Come on...geez, he took a crappy team all the way from the ashes to 5th in the conference. What happened this year was the real Brian Elliott showed up, coupled with some of the worst individual performances I've ever seen (Fisher) + some of the MOST questionable coaching decisions I've seen in a while as well.

Delusional fans...delusional everyone who had him in the running, I guess you're just the friggin' genius there Big Ev, maybe you should GM the team.

SpezDispenser wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

Michallica wrote:to me, it doesn't make sense to give Bryan Murray the right to hire another coach. and quite frankly, clouston is NOT that bad. He was being talked about jack adams last season, and now sense fans just want him gone asap...perfect scapegoat right?

sometimes the fanbase ticks me off. You don't want someone soft who adheres to players (like paddock and hartsburg), so you get clouston who's hardcore, demands alot from his players, and actually got them playing great hockey last year. Call it overachievement if you want, but considering the cards he's dealt, he's made the best of every situation except this season. Maybe he doesn't adhere to the veterans as much as the vets would like, but I don't care about that anymore. The vets are not the future and they've had their joy ride enough of times.

If you NEED a fresh face in the locker room, then Murray should not be picking a coach. I.E. he should not be GM next season.

...by delusional homer Sens fans. Clouston was never that great.

Come on...geez, he took a crappy team all the way from the ashes to 5th in the conference. What happened this year was the real Brian Elliott showed up, coupled with some of the worst individual performances I've ever seen (Fisher) + some of the MOST questionable coaching decisions I've seen in a while as well.

Delusional fans...delusional everyone who had him in the running, I guess you're just the friggin' genius there Big Ev, maybe you should GM the team.

5th on the conference based on one streak where Elliott played out of his mind. The team hasn't been good for a while, and it didn't change under Clouston.

Big Ev wrote:
Yes but when every single player has a terrible year - offensively and defensively - except for a few guys here and there, then there's something wrong with the coaching.

oooh of course!! alfie and spezza and phillips and gonchar and kovalev and fisher and regin struggling is ALL to do with the head coach right??? wow how silly of me to think that maybe the individual players being paid million$$$ should be able to elevate their game when needed, you know, cuz theyr'e the supposed 'leaders' of the hockey club.

I totally also didn't realize that the year before when the sens made it as 5th seed, it was ALL players because Kovalev helped Fisher and Alfie found his stride after recovering from injury and spezza went on a tear and karlsson magically developed nicely thanks to the pixie dust sprinkled on him by someone not known as cory clouston. abso-freakin-loutely!

so when the team does well, its the players and everything comes into place, no thanks to the coach. but when the team sucks, hoooo-boy fire the Cussing coach! he sucks! it's cuz of him our players can't score!

Michallica wrote:

Big Ev wrote:
Yes but when every single player has a terrible year - offensively and defensively - except for a few guys here and there, then there's something wrong with the coaching.

oooh of course!! alfie and spezza and phillips and gonchar and kovalev and fisher and regin struggling is ALL to do with the head coach right??? wow how silly of me to think that maybe the individual players being paid million$$$ should be able to elevate their game when needed, you know, cuz theyr'e the supposed 'leaders' of the hockey club.

I totally also didn't realize that the year before when the sens made it as 5th seed, it was ALL players because Kovalev helped Fisher and Alfie found his stride after recovering from injury and spezza went on a tear and karlsson magically developed nicely thanks to the pixie dust sprinkled on him by someone not known as cory clouston. abso-freakin-loutely!

so when the team does well, its the players and everything comes into place, no thanks to the coach. but when the team sucks, hoooo-boy fire the Cussing coach! he sucks! it's cuz of him our players can't score!

Yeah it's the players' fault as well, duh. It's everything. You need to start fresh in every aspect.

Don't credit Clouston for Karlsson developing, which isn't saying much right about now anyway (-31).

Michallica wrote:

hemlock wrote:

Michallica wrote:

Hoags wrote:Hartsburg was hardcore as well. Problem is he couldn't handle the room and his system was totally wrong for the team. I read some story how every practice under Hartsburg was about the mistakes that were made in the last game regardless whether the team won or lost. Players got sick of hearing of how they sucked the last game every time.

Sometimes I wonder how much blame BM deserves for the coaching hirings ? Who else was available and how do you really know how a coach will perform ?

Is Lou Lamoriello a bad GM for hiring John Maclean ?

Hiring coaches seems like such a crapshoot.

Yeah but somehwere along the way, you'd find a good coach no? Paddock, hartsburg, and then clouston. Hartsburgs system was the main problem, it wasnt agressive at all. Plus the whole accountability part came into play where even Murray said he didn't see Hartsburg holding ppl accountable. People got comfortable then too.

and I also refuse to believe that the captain didn't have an input when they decided to extend clouston for 2 years at the end of that season. I know sometiems coaches can lose it or have a falling out with players, but the way ppl speak about clouston around here is that he was never a good coach and hasn't done diddly squat for this team. kinda pathetic

That's the way pro sports are though. It's all about "What have you done for me lately?"

I get that. My main argument is that if Bryan Murray is retained as GM, then he should just re-hire Clouston because how many cracks is a GM supposed to get in replacing coaches before the owner re-thinks that maybe the GM isn't hiring the right guys?

That's why I kinda think its a sticky situation. The recent moves and Melnyk's relationship and trust with Murray would suggest the he's coming back for at least one more season as GM. But we know that Murray is NOT the long term GM coming up so what do you do with the coaching situation?

I don't have that answer. I guess we'll see come the offseason.

Hoags wrote:

Michallica wrote:
Yeah but somehwere along the way, you'd find a good coach no? Paddock, hartsburg, and then clouston. Hartsburgs system was the main problem, it wasnt agressive at all. Plus the whole accountability part came into play where even Murray said he didn't see Hartsburg holding ppl accountable. People got comfortable then too.

and I also refuse to believe that the captain didn't have an input when they decided to extend clouston for 2 years at the end of that season. I know sometiems coaches can lose it or have a falling out with players, but the way ppl speak about clouston around here is that he was never a good coach and hasn't done diddly squat for this team. kinda pathetic

Would you really find a good coach in all that time that BM has had ? I mean how was he supposed to know Paddock and Hartsburg would suck so bad. Paddock was an assistant for a while so perhaps BM should have known what kind of coach he was. Hartsburg came to Ottawa preaching accountability and failed to deliver. I think Hartsburg was a bad firing because BM knew he was a defence first coach and that's what he wanted at the time. Obviously it was a bad move, square peg into a round hole). deBoer was a leading candidate and he's not doing so well either (then again it's Florida).

Maybe the core of this team(most of whom have been sent packing) were uncoachable and too comfortable with the status quo and no coach could get those guys in line ?

Clouston was resigned based on a remarkable run for a fraction of a lost season, was that enough to judge his abilities ? Over the past 2 years we've seen how he handles the challenges of being an NHL head coach, Is he really the best we can do ? What about the associate coaches ?

I guess my point is I see so many coach hirings/firings around the NHL I can't help but wonder how a team is supposed to evaluate head coaching candidates and how can you really predict how a coach will do on a team. If BM is a bad GM for his failures in hiring coaches then he is in good company. Our problem are fairly big in Ottawa but they're not all that different from other teams and I think they show that BM had approval and was more inclined to fire a coach rather than wait it out. How much blame does BM really deserve for something which a lot of other teams haven't figured out either ?

Joe Sacco looked like a genius last year, this year not so much. Lou Lamoriello is one of the most respected GMs in the league yet his hiring of John Maclean looks one of the worst coach hirings in recent NHL history(and successfully begging Lemaire out of retirement as one of the best).

I agree with everything here. It really is such an up-and-down pattern, so it makes for a difficult decision. For murray all i can see is that he's hired two bad coaches, and one good coach who actually panned out for a year and half. This season was all downhill, for everyone....so what do you do now?

It screams fresh start. New voice from top to bottom. But if the voice stays the same at the top, it really makes no sense to go with something different when you know the fate is still the same paddock, hartsburg, and clouston

Michallica I agreed with you that Murray shouldn't be retained as GM either, BTW.