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

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?

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).

Big Ev wrote:

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).

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

Michallica wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

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).

Right, it is everyone's fault. You insinuated that it was clouston to blame for the underachievement earlier. Regardless, the personnel changes have been made and the future is coming up brighter than we expected. I agree with a fresh start but I'm not going to sell clouston short on anything. He's been great for our team the last 2.5 seasons.

its just like when ppl turned on j. martin after the game 7 loss to toronto in 2004. so did the gm, so did the owner, and in a flash he was gone. It sickens me that one horrendous game by a goalie made the best coach in franchise history lose his job. I know that last point is debatable with Bryan Murray being an excellent coach too, but no one made more of an impact in coaching than Martin when he first arrived on the scene.

hemlock wrote:

Michallica wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

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).

Right, it is everyone's fault. You insinuated that it was clouston to blame for the underachievement earlier. Regardless, the personnel changes have been made and the future is coming up brighter than we expected. I agree with a fresh start but I'm not going to sell clouston short on anything. He's been great for our team the last 2.5 seasons.

its just like when ppl turned on j. martin after the game 7 loss to toronto in 2004. so did the gm, so did the owner, and in a flash he was gone. It sickens me that one horrendous game by a goalie made the best coach in franchise history lose his job. I know that last point is debatable with Bryan Murray being an excellent coach too, but no one made more of an impact in coaching than Martin when he first arrived on the scene.

In fairness, 2004 wasn't the first year that there were questions about whether or not Martin should have been retained. He'd had those questions in previous seasons. It wasn't a sudden turn against Martin from what I can recall.

Michallica wrote:
I'm glad Martin has now (twice!) exorcised the game 7 demons that haunted him.

SpezDispenser wrote:I think the long and the short of it was the veteran players got WAY too complacent. Whether it's Fisher sucking like a vacuum and Clouston not having the stones to sit him down when he wasn't able to 'initiate contact', or Alfie having a terrible year health-wise and production-wise, same for Spezza, Gonchar came into the locker room and probably was really surprised at how bad it was + Gonchar has done sweet F all to alleviate any of the pressures. Phillips was horrendous, like...terrible beyond words. Regin was a horrible disappointment as well, I liked the way he played, but there are results that have to come in this business. Foligno was poor - and I never said this much, but I found he didn't hustle enough from time to time to go with the lack of offense. Michalek wasn't the same until recently - when he got hurt again FFS, same with Kovalev, except by the time he was good we traded him for a Cussing 7th rounder. And on and on and on.

The players this year should absolutely be ashamed of themselves - which is a main reason why I was SO pleased that Fisher got traded - less pleased by Kelly, but that's also fine, we need youth and enthusiasm and just a huge pile of hard work to go with whatever skill we get this summer or get back from terrible years. Is Clouston the guy going forward? No way IMO, he could come back, but we need a communicator, these young guys aren't gonna dog it or they're gone, it's as simple as that, so now we need a teacher who can communicate. Got any ideas? I have one: the Bingo coach Kurt Kleinendorst.

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

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

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.

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.

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.