Official: Murray signs 3-year extension as GM!

Big Ev wrote:LOL now the real truth comes out. Didn't want to include this season in his stats, eh?

Freakin' wikipedia. My fault for using that link.

wprager wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Big Ev wrote:We all know the goalies deflated but at the beginning, as rooneypoo has stated before, they weren't the reason why we sucked. Our offense was nowhere to be found. Somebody's got to take the blame for our worst offensive year EVER.

I blame having Spezza out for 20 games, Michalek for 16 and The Alfie for 28.

ya. We didn't just lose a lot of players to injury, we lost the majority of the offensive heavyweights. Considering that Kovalev kova-loafed, Foligno took his time warming up, and Regin Dung the bed, there wasn't a lot of offense to spread around.

Nah, this was before Spezza got injured...and Alfie and Michalek were still in there as well. The goalies were fine for the first month.

Regin and Foligno shouldn't have been relied on as much anyway.

Goalies were not *fine*. Elliott was OK but Leclaire was the anointed #1 so they kept playing him and he kept losing. It's not like he had a .950 SV% and was losing. He had decent stats but it's the types of goals that went in that killed the team. Every time they mad a mistake (and they made a few) the puck was in. He never saved their bacon like Anderson has done, and the team stopped being a team.

The goalies pretty much stood on their heads this year from October through most of November. I don't need to look these things up, I watched all the games -- every single blessed painful moment this year. The goalies Dung the bed from late November and after, for sure, but they don't deserve the blame for our early Dung start. We weren't scoring goals, at all, in the early going. The goalies do deserve the blame for doing precious little to help things out after they started to go bad, too, no question.

I don't know why people insist on misremembering.

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Big Ev wrote:We all know the goalies deflated but at the beginning, as rooneypoo has stated before, they weren't the reason why we sucked. Our offense was nowhere to be found. Somebody's got to take the blame for our worst offensive year EVER.

I blame having Spezza out for 20 games, Michalek for 16 and The Alfie for 28.

ya. We didn't just lose a lot of players to injury, we lost the majority of the offensive heavyweights. Considering that Kovalev kova-loafed, Foligno took his time warming up, and Regin Dung the bed, there wasn't a lot of offense to spread around.

Nah, this was before Spezza got injured...and Alfie and Michalek were still in there as well. The goalies were fine for the first month.

Regin and Foligno shouldn't have been relied on as much anyway.

Goalies were not *fine*. Elliott was OK but Leclaire was the anointed #1 so they kept playing him and he kept losing. It's not like he had a .950 SV% and was losing. He had decent stats but it's the types of goals that went in that killed the team. Every time they mad a mistake (and they made a few) the puck was in. He never saved their bacon like Anderson has done, and the team stopped being a team.

The goalies pretty much stood on their heads this year from October through most of November. I don't need to look these things up, I watched all the games -- every single blessed painful moment this year. The goalies Dung the bed from late November and after, for sure, but they don't deserve the blame for our early Dung start. We weren't scoring goals, at all, in the early going. The goalies do deserve the blame for doing precious little to help things out after they started to go bad, too, no question.

I don't know why people insist on misremembering.

I don't know R'Poo. Yeah, I remember the goalies standing on their heads but then letting in a weak one.

TheAvatar wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:

Big Ev wrote:

spader wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

Big Ev wrote:We all know the goalies deflated but at the beginning, as rooneypoo has stated before, they weren't the reason why we sucked. Our offense was nowhere to be found. Somebody's got to take the blame for our worst offensive year EVER.

I blame having Spezza out for 20 games, Michalek for 16 and The Alfie for 28.

ya. We didn't just lose a lot of players to injury, we lost the majority of the offensive heavyweights. Considering that Kovalev kova-loafed, Foligno took his time warming up, and Regin Dung the bed, there wasn't a lot of offense to spread around.

Nah, this was before Spezza got injured...and Alfie and Michalek were still in there as well. The goalies were fine for the first month.

Regin and Foligno shouldn't have been relied on as much anyway.

Goalies were not *fine*. Elliott was OK but Leclaire was the anointed #1 so they kept playing him and he kept losing. It's not like he had a .950 SV% and was losing. He had decent stats but it's the types of goals that went in that killed the team. Every time they mad a mistake (and they made a few) the puck was in. He never saved their bacon like Anderson has done, and the team stopped being a team.

The goalies pretty much stood on their heads this year from October through most of November. I don't need to look these things up, I watched all the games -- every single blessed painful moment this year. The goalies Dung the bed from late November and after, for sure, but they don't deserve the blame for our early Dung start. We weren't scoring goals, at all, in the early going. The goalies do deserve the blame for doing precious little to help things out after they started to go bad, too, no question.

I don't know why people insist on misremembering.

I don't know R'Poo. Yeah, I remember the goalies standing on their heads but then letting in a weak one.

Look, I remember the games. I remember the commentators saying, 'when the hell is this team going to score for the goalies?', especially for Leclaire.

I'm not a stats guy -- I remember the games well enough, & I remember my impression of them -- but, still, look at those pre-December stats:

Leclaire: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/2844/gamelog;_ylt=AnMiL6Tk7hrFudhx5CRz6ebCfgM6

Elliott: http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/4136/gamelog;_ylt=AnMiL6Tk7hrFudhx5CRz6ebCfgM6

In 9 games, Leclaire let in more than 3 goals 2 times. The team in front of him scored 15 goals in those 9 games. That's 1.66 goals per game.

In 18 games, Elliott let in more than 3 goals 6 times, with 2 SOs. In those 18 games, the team in front of him scored 47 times (including a few empty netters). That's 2.61 goals per game.

Combined, in the first 27 games -- i.e., October & November -- the goalies held the opponents to 3 goals or less on 18 occasions (with 2 SOs). Collectively, the goalies gave up 74 goals in that period -- a GAA of 2.74. Meanwhile, the team in front of them scored a whopping 62 goals, or 2.29 goals a game.

You don't win in this league scoring 2.29 goals per game on average. Look at the current stats right now:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.htm?fetchKey=20112ALLAAAAll&sort=avgGoalsPerGame&viewName=summary

2.29 goals per game would put at 2nd last, even lower than our current 2.33 goals per game.

Our scoring this year, particularly at the outset, was woeful. Ottawa fans, stop blaming your goalies for everything. Your team couldn't score this year. That was the first, and main, problem. The goaltending fiasco ensued. If the players lost faith in the goalies behind them, well, I think the goalies lost faith first with the team in front of them because they just weren't scoring any goals for them.

as always i'm late to the party..... But i'm so freakin' happy about this extention!!!! woop woop! 3 more years of top notch drafting and just maybe, just maayyyybe BM builds up another Stanley cup winning team.



3 years is much longer then i thought he'd be on for. very happy. hopefuly he won't be too old and start Dung his nappy.

What stats are you looking at, RP?

1st game Leclaire lost 2-1 to Buffalo. Fine, he had good stats. But next game out it's a 5-1 to the freaking' Leafs! Game after that the team stands on its head and he blows it late and loses in OT to the Caps. I'm sure you remember that game. Next game he faced 3 shots and Elliot came in for the win.

Look at the SV% -- it's all over the freaking map!

Leclaire's SV% in October was .902, then it slipped to .893 in November. One of those 9 games he lasted 3 shots (perfect SV% woo-effin'-hoo) and in another he faced 12.

Good goalies find ways to win. It wasn't just one game, or two -- he won once in 10 games!

NEELY wrote:

SDH89 wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SDH89 wrote:Probably the best for the long term future of this team.

Now time to snag a new head coach, please don't let Cameron be our only option.

We already have a better option behind the bench right now.

Did Cory tell you that? I don't understand the pro-Clouston around here, he's done nothing to warrant an extension with this team.

You mean 2 out of 3 winnings seasons, developing players like Lee and Karlsson, and having a well above 500 record in his time in Ottawa doesn't warrent a 2nd chance? Hmmm, interesting.

No matter how you slice it though, there was enough talent to make the playoffs this season, and at the end of the day he lost the room and couldn't get his veterans to perform like they should, and the young guys like Regin and Foligno didn't develop the way they should. Murray said it time and time again, players need guidance. I mean, the way Philips and Gonchar played this year is just atrocious and he's gotta take some blame in that. I don't know if the system is good or not but the players weren't on the same page, clearly.
Karlsson has been awesome offensively this year but his positionings are still very bad some nights. Compare that to the way Subban has developped in Montreal this year under the Montreal coaching staff, I think it's fair to say they have done a better job. And Subban was pretty bad at the beginning of the year.
I actually wouldn't mind him back short term here for the simple reason I don't like what's out there right now (unless Lindy Ruff is out there), but I'm not gonna stand here and say Clouston deserves to be back.
If you wanna see how a coach develops young players, look at what KK has done this year in Bingo:
- Obrien back from the dead
- Wick, Wiercioch and Daugavins pretty bad at the beginning of the year, now they look like pros and perform well every single night. Butler, Condra and Greening we all know what they can do now.
- Team overachieving even if BUtler, Condra, Greening and Zack Smith were here for a long period of time
Let's face it, Clouston has done nothing with Butler, Condra and Greening. They looked good the minute they were up here that's because they were developed well in the minors.
Also I still don't forget the way he was badly outcoached by Bylsma last year.

Bottom line is Murray probably speaked with the vets already, and he knows what will happen with CLouston. If he stays, we will know Murray has determined bad goaltending and floaters on the team made hiim look bad.
If he is not re-signed, Murray has juged he has not done a good enough job with the group.

Seriously guys, look at what Dan Bylsma is doing in Pittsburg with that roster. That's what you call a good coach, every single player is buying in, from veteran to rookie.
Clouston is a good game analyzer I think, he just doesn't communicate well and it shows in his interviews.

marakh wrote:

NEELY wrote:

SDH89 wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

SDH89 wrote:Probably the best for the long term future of this team.

Now time to snag a new head coach, please don't let Cameron be our only option.

We already have a better option behind the bench right now.

Did Cory tell you that? I don't understand the pro-Clouston around here, he's done nothing to warrant an extension with this team.

You mean 2 out of 3 winnings seasons, developing players like Lee and Karlsson, and having a well above 500 record in his time in Ottawa doesn't warrent a 2nd chance? Hmmm, interesting.

No matter how you slice it though, there was enough talent to make the playoffs this season, and at the end of the day he lost the room and couldn't get his veterans to perform like they should, and the young guys like Regin and Foligno didn't develop the way they should. Murray said it time and time again, players need guidance. I mean, the way Philips and Gonchar played this year is just atrocious and he's gotta take some blame in that. I don't know if the system is good or not but the players weren't on the same page, clearly.
Karlsson has been awesome offensively this year but his positionings are still very bad some nights. Compare that to the way Subban has developped in Montreal this year under the Montreal coaching staff, I think it's fair to say they have done a better job. And Subban was pretty bad at the beginning of the year.
I actually wouldn't mind him back short term here for the simple reason I don't like what's out there right now (unless Lindy Ruff is out there), but I'm not gonna stand here and say Clouston deserves to be back.
If you wanna see how a coach develops young players, look at what KK has done this year in Bingo:
- Obrien back from the dead
- Wick, Wiercioch and Daugavins pretty bad at the beginning of the year, now they look like pros and perform well every single night. Butler, Condra and Greening we all know what they can do now.
- Team overachieving even if BUtler, Condra, Greening and Zack Smith were here for a long period of time
Let's face it, Clouston has done nothing with Butler, Condra and Greening. They looked good the minute they were up here that's because they were developed well in the minors.
Also I still don't forget the way he was badly outcoached by Bylsma last year.

Bottom line is Murray probably speaked with the vets already, and he knows what will happen with CLouston. If he stays, we will know Murray has determined bad goaltending and floaters on the team made hiim look bad.
If he is not re-signed, Murray has juged he has not done a good enough job with the group.

if we're trying to get our defensive prospects to be better i think the guy we should be looking at is Muller. i'm not sure he's the best idea as head coach but he'd be great as an assistant. too bad that's what he is right now so unless he gets offered the head coaching job he's not gonna jump ships.

marakh wrote:Seriously guys, look at what Dan Bylsma is doing in Pittsburg with that roster. That's what you call a good coach, every single player is buying in, from veteran to rookie.
Clouston is a good game analyzer I think, he just doesn't communicate well and it shows in his interviews.

Is Bylsma available? .... Oh, he isn't? So why are we even comparing them? Clouston has shown to be better than Paddock and Hartsburg. Is Kleinendorst better that Hartsburg was? Certainly not if you compare their records. Hartsburg won Coach of the Year in the OHL; KK has not similar awards. But does that mean Craig is a better NHL coach than Kurt would be? Of course not.

Personally, I don't want another coach with no NHL experience coming in as an experiment. And neither Muller nor Cameron have any head-coaching experience in the NHL. Muller has at least been behind the bench for a while, so of those two I'd take Muller. But here we have a coach who is familiar with the players and who has shown in the past to be able to get the most out of the players. When he took over from Hartsburg the team played much better than expected. The next season they finished 5th when everyone expected them to miss the playoffs, and all that while dealing with a ton of injuries. People here were talking about the Jack Adams. This year starts off with his highest minutes-per-game defenseman breaking his leg his first day on ice and his best shot-blocker replaced with Gonchar and no cap room. Goaltending was a bust all around, plus the nagging injuries to Alfie and Fisher. Regin came into camp with his head full of headlines and I think so did a few other players (hey, we finished 5th and got better in the off-season).

Frankly, if Clouston's biggest downfall is that he cannot communicate with players like Kovalev, Gonchar and Ruutu then I'm OK with not having those kinds of players on the team. And as much as I liked Fisher he just seemed completely disinterested being here. Maybe being married to Underwood but not being able to spend much time with her had something to do with it, but he really hasn't changed much since changing his address.

wprager wrote:Leclaire's SV% in October was .902, then it slipped to .893 in November. One of those 9 games he lasted 3 shots (perfect SV% woo-effin'-hoo) and in another he faced 12.

Good goalies find ways to win. It wasn't just one game, or two -- he won once in 10 games!

My point is that, in October and November, our goalies kept the opposition to 3 goals or less on 18 of 27 occasions -- or 2/3rds of the time -- with a collective GAA of 2.74. That's pretty decent. Meanwhile, the team in front of them was offensively challenged to say the least -- they scored 2.29 goals per game on average in that same period. 2.29 = an abysmally low number.

Again, our main problem at the start of this year was not crappy goaltending, it was a total lack of goalscoring. The bad goaltending ensued afterward.

rooneypoo wrote:

wprager wrote:Leclaire's SV% in October was .902, then it slipped to .893 in November. One of those 9 games he lasted 3 shots (perfect SV% woo-effin'-hoo) and in another he faced 12.

Good goalies find ways to win. It wasn't just one game, or two -- he won once in 10 games!

My point is that, in October and November, our goalies kept the opposition to 3 goals or less on 18 of 27 occasions -- or 2/3rds of the time -- with a collective GAA of 2.74. That's pretty decent. Meanwhile, the team in front of them was offensively challenged to say the least -- they scored 2.29 goals per game on average in that same period. 2.29 = an abysmally low number.

Again, our main problem at the start of this year was not crappy goaltending, it was a total lack of goalscoring. The bad goaltending ensued afterward.

Sorry, wprager and RP, the problem wasn't singular. I don't understand why you guys are debating the single problem that resulted in the poor start--there isn't one. You're both right. The team couldn't score to save its life, and (with incredibly few exceptions) the goalies couldn't steal a game and tended to let incredibly deflating, weak goals get past them.