Last weekend for Murray / Clouston

SeawaySensFan wrote:Having Clouston on a one-year deal probably empowered some dissidents in the room too.

Either way, I doubt he's kept around if The Ringmaster has his heart set on rewarding Cameron's loyalty.

NEELY wrote:We'll see, I think CLouston has proven he is a capable NHL coach and deserves at least a 1 year extension to prove once again he can get results with a group everyone doubts.

Anahiem got rid of Babcock and Detroit gladly snatched him up... turned out pretty well for The Wings. Turned out well for The Ducks as well with Carlyle, great hireing by Burke.

I think SSF makes a good point about one of the drawbacks of a 1-year term for a head coach. Granted, the Sens cleaned house and potentially excised those who resisted CC. I think it's a valid concern, though, when the team is only willing to lock in for 1-year.

I don't know the right answer. I know that CC made some absolutely bone-headed decisions this year, but I also know that he seems to have resolved some of the recurring problems (PK has been fantastic, the Too Many Men era appears to be over, etc). Should he stay on? Maybe. Will he? After EM's comments about Cameron, probably not.

spader wrote:I think SSF makes a good point about one of the drawbacks of a 1-year term for a head coach. Granted, the Sens cleaned house and potentially excised those who resisted CC. I think it's a valid concern, though, when the team is only willing to lock in for 1-year.

I don't know the right answer. I know that CC made some absolutely bone-headed decisions this year, but I also know that he seems to have resolved some of the recurring problems (PK has been fantastic, the Too Many Men era appears to be over, etc). Should he stay on? Maybe. Will he? After EM's comments about Cameron, probably not.

I think a 1-year deal is fine in the current climate. Clouston is far from perfect too, that's a fact, but he does have the ability to win games in the NHL more often than he loses.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

spader wrote:I think SSF makes a good point about one of the drawbacks of a 1-year term for a head coach. Granted, the Sens cleaned house and potentially excised those who resisted CC. I think it's a valid concern, though, when the team is only willing to lock in for 1-year.

I don't know the right answer. I know that CC made some absolutely bone-headed decisions this year, but I also know that he seems to have resolved some of the recurring problems (PK has been fantastic, the Too Many Men era appears to be over, etc). Should he stay on? Maybe. Will he? After EM's comments about Cameron, probably not.

I think a 1-year deal is fine in the current climate. Clouston is far from perfect too, that's a fact, but he does have the ability to win games in the NHL more often than he loses.

You're probably right. Like I said (or at least hinted), I'm not sure that CC's abilities necessarily have much to do with the decision at this point. EM seems to have made up his mind. It's really a matter of how much agency BM has and what his opinion is on the CC/Cameron question.

There were those reports earlier in the season that BM wanted to fire CC. If those rumours were true, then there is no way CC is coming back…if not…well, then we’re back to square one.

tim1_2 wrote:There were those reports earlier in the season that BM wanted to fire CC. If those rumours were true, then there is no way CC is coming back…if not…well, then we’re back to square one.

No? BM can't change his mind? CC certainly made changes.

I guess we just have to wait and see if this is indeed the "Last weekend for Murray / Clouston."

spader wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:There were those reports earlier in the season that BM wanted to fire CC. If those rumours were true, then there is no way CC is coming back…if not…well, then we’re back to square one.

No? BM can't change his mind? CC certainly made changes.

You can say whatever you want, but that’s the kind of flip-flopping that I think Melnyk would not respect, especially with Murray’s track record with coaches. Again, I’m not saying it’s right or wrong to retain Clouston, but if those reports were true (and that’s a big “if”), then Clouston will NOT be back.

tim1_2 wrote:

spader wrote:

tim1_2 wrote:There were those reports earlier in the season that BM wanted to fire CC. If those rumours were true, then there is no way CC is coming back…if not…well, then we’re back to square one.

No? BM can't change his mind? CC certainly made changes.

You can say whatever you want, but that’s the kind of flip-flopping that I think Melnyk would not respect, especially with Murray’s track record with coaches. Again, I’m not saying it’s right or wrong to retain Clouston, but if those reports were true (and that’s a big “if”), then Clouston will NOT be back.

I see an important distinction between considering new information (like the altered play of the team, resolution of recurring problems, etc) and "flip-flopping." There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, especially if the original comment was reactionary (considering the poor play to start the year).

Sens went from last in the league for Too Many Men penalties (22) last year, to being first this year (6).

It was under Clouston that Spezza went from Tin Man to Mississauga Miracle.

Best PK in the league anchored by Chris Phillips (league worst plus/minus at one point) and Lee. The same Pk that lost Alfie, Kelly and Fisher.

Certainly it helps having a legit #1 goalie between the pipes, but not all of these changes can be attributed to that.

Also, as NEELY (I think) pointed out earlier, maybe the reason he didn't pay Gonchar/Karlsson on their off-wings on the PP is because of the lack of confidence in the goaltending. The whole style of play changed since Anderson came in.

wprager wrote:
Also, as NEELY (I think) pointed out earlier, maybe the reason he didn't pay Gonchar/Karlsson on their off-wings on the PP is because of the lack of confidence in the goaltending. The whole style of play changed since Anderson came in.

The few times they played D-men on their off-side on the PP they'd usually bobble the puck, cause a SH breakaway and Elliott would do what he does best. But that may have been lack of practice, Gonchar was doing that for years in Pittsburgh.

Did they really change their style of play ? Haven't really paid attention if its still the same 1-man forecheck (CC used 2 when he arrived in Ottawa I think).

This is the last weekend for Murray... on his OLD contract!

Hey-O!

Clouston is out... that much is clear to Melnyk. is it clear to BM? the Cameron countdown starts now.

So if Bylsma can't get Kovalev going either... does that help Clouston?

shabbs wrote:So if Bylsma can't get Kovalev going either... does that help Clouston?

No one in Montreal could get him going either. They even sent him home.

shabbs wrote:This is the last weekend for Murray... on his OLD contract!

Hey-O!

Hey, you can't "Hey-O!" your own post! Poor netiquette. I've been letting it slide with some posters adding a to their own posts. No more. Time to be more vigilant.

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:This is the last weekend for Murray... on his OLD contract!

Hey-O!

Hey, you can't "Hey-O!" your own post! Poor netiquette. I've been letting it slide with some posters adding a to their own posts. No more. Time to be more vigilant.

I'll Hey-O whatever the hell I want to Hey-O.

Hey-O!!!!

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:This is the last weekend for Murray... on his OLD contract!

Hey-O!

Hey, you can't "Hey-O!" your own post! Poor netiquette. I've been letting it slide with some posters adding a to their own posts. No more. Time to be more vigilant.

I'll Hey-O whatever the hell I want to Hey-O.

Hey-O!!!!

spader wrote:

shabbs wrote:

wprager wrote:

shabbs wrote:This is the last weekend for Murray... on his OLD contract!

Hey-O!

Hey, you can't "Hey-O!" your own post! Poor netiquette. I've been letting it slide with some posters adding a to their own posts. No more. Time to be more vigilant.

I'll Hey-O whatever the hell I want to Hey-O.

Hey-O!!!!