Cory Clouston didn't deserve to be fired
by Varada on Aug 24, 2011 9:24 AM EDT
in Opinion
Email
PrintThere was little to no protest from fans or media when Cory Clouston was fired about six minutes after the disastrous 2010-2011 season. The team went from 5th in the conference to 13th, even spending some time in last overall before a mild bounce-back, so someone had to take the blame, right? Completely lacking any of the coaching vocabulary required to articulate what Clouston was doing wrong, we cast about for some justification. "You can't fire the team." "He played Gonchar on the wrong side." "Kovalev and Spezza said something about bad communication." The bottom line, we've learned to accept, is that something had to change; the team spent to the cap and stank. Murray received a three-year extension, and Clouston fell on the sword.
What's wrong with this picture?
In a recent interview for TEAM 1200's TGOR (transcribed over on The 6th Sens) Clouston reflected on his performance as Senators coach, and it's both a diplomatic and compelling summary of the season from hell. In fact, after reading the transcript, I started to feel as if it wasn't much Clouston's fault at all.
A few of the more salient points, with my reactions:
On Ottawa's goaltending:
"When you play at that level, every team is so prepared and things are so structured and organized and teams are so evenly matched, that if you don't get the goaltending, you're not going to win games [...] when you consistently, like we did for a stretch of 15 to 20 games, give up a goal in the first five, six or seven shots and you're behind the eight ball consistently for about a 20 game period there, you're not going to win games."
"...the previous year when we were had goaltending problems, we were able to bring up Mike Brodeur. He went 3 and 0 for us and had a great shutout in New York that kind of turned things around for us and this year, he wasn't healthy at all. [...] And Robin Lehner, who had an excellent playoffs in Binghamton, suffered some injuries as well when we needed some relief. That left Brian Elliott with all of the pressure and it was a tough situation for him."
You could argue for a simple shift of the blame from Clouston to Elliott, but that also seems unfair: Elliott was never supposed to be the starting goaltender, and it was the organization's lack of depth, and subsequent gamble on Pascal Leclaire, that left the coach without any other option but to throw Elliott back out there night after night.
Clouston says as much:
"...now I'm not throwing Brian Elliott under the bus either [...]. He was paid as a backup. His role was a backup."
Ham-stringing the team with $4 million-plus in salary allocated to an injured goaltender, and giving up crucial second-line depth in order to obtain it, was one of Murray's gaffes. All it took for the house of cards to fall was a little bad luck.
Speaking of which...
On injuries:
"Kovalev and Michalek were coming off ACL surgeries and probably shouldn't even have been playing at the start of the year. Alfredsson again had to shut it down for the last 24 to 25 games and he needed surgery at the end of the season. Spezz he missed I believe about 20 games with a shoulder injury. Mike Fisher played with a sore collarbone/clavicle area that he ended up having surgery on at the end of the year as well. [...] Filip Kuba broke his leg in the first five of minutes of camp."
In this short anecdote Clouston mentions five out of six top-six forwards on an already thin team and a top four defenseman. Add that to a team without goaltending, and what exactly is a coach going to do to win hockey games? He could have stood on the bench with a sniper rifle and took pot-shots at the other team's stars and Ottawa probably would have still lost on most nights. Again, some of the blame has to be placed on Murray for loading the team with aging players with No Movement Clauses.
On their better-than-acknowledged performance:
"In two and a half years, I believe we were 12 or 13 games over .500. The last 25 games were a lot of fun. We traded for (Craig) Anderson and he played very well for us but we ended playing with as many as 9-10 American League callups in the last 25 games and we went 15-9-1."
"We turned the team around in the last 34 games when I got there. The following season we were picked to be 28th or 27th in the league by a lot of experts and we made the playoffs without a number one goaltender being healthy all that often during the regular season [...] we competed hard and played well. We played with a purpose and played with structure."
Another obvious point that somehow gets lost: Clouston had a winning record (95-83-20) with a deeply flawed team. There aren't many coaches, outside of the contenders like Washington, who consider firing their coach even though he has a winning record. He took a team that was in a death spiral and turned it around mid-season, which is an incredibly difficult thing to do. The next season Clouston was in the Jack Adams discussion for taking the Sens to 5th in the conference despite having to live through the Heatley debacle that offseason. Shouldn't Clouston have earned more benefit of the doubt for this? Was the success a fluke, or the failure?
Former assistant coach Greg Carvel, also fired in the cull, echoed this sentiment, pointing to both bad goaltending and the team's above-average penalty kill as dual indicators of both the team's shortcomings and relative success. He was unceremoniously jettisoned even though he lost a workhorse in Anton Volchenkov and received an elderly Sergei Gonchar in return.
The point has been made elsewhere: Coaches don't often get credit for wins, but they certainly get the blame for losses. Bryan Murray didn't exactly give his coaching staff a lot to work with. Kovalev, Cheechoo, Leclaire, Gonchar. Now go win us the Stanley Cup.
The fact is that there's a disconnect, or at least there used to be one, between Ottawa's management brain trust and the on-ice results. Murray might be a respected hockey personality, an old-school, fatherly figure who brings credibility to the organization in this Good Ol' Boy's League, but that both Murray and Melnyk once believed this team to be among the top 3rd in the league, and demanded their coaches deliver as much, seems absurd. Clouston was the victim of unreasonable expectations.
His replacement, Paul MacLean, comes from a franchise that owes its success to perfect vertical integration from the draft through the minors and up to the big club. Every facet of Detroit's system is reinforced through development. Perhaps MacLean will bring the same long-term management of prospects into a winning system, but isn't that the GM's job?
Is this just more of what Bruce Garrioch refers to as Cloustons' "excuse making?" Or was Clouston just the latest in a string of respectable and respected coaches sacrificed because they weren't able to work miracles?
Varada also writes for the Cory Clouston Fashion Review, and might just be lobbying so he doesn't have to change its name.
86 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I definitely feel that Clouston was the fall guy
When a team underachieves in the eyes of its fans, action must be taken if only to demonstrate a sense of commiserate dissatisfaction—this sells the hope that next season will be different, which, of course, sells tickets.
That said, it also seems to me that Clouston wasn’t the right fit for the makeup of the club. With the team’s playoff window rapidly closing, a coach learning on the job was a time bomb waiting to happen. I do believe that Clouston had issues communicating with his players like men instead of like boys, but I also think that’s something he’ll learn to do better.
It’s a shame it cost him his job, because I think he’d be a lot more successful with our new, young team. MacLean has the opportunity to grow with the next generation, as Martin did almost 15 years ago. Clouston was not ready for the burden of Cup-or-bust expectations, in my opinion.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
I just find so much irony in canning Clouston when he was in the exact mold of a coach of what we needed going forward. We needed someone who could get through to the younger players. Clouston was a guy who wanted hustle, forecheck and effort out there on the ice. Murray saddled him with a bunch of players who didn’t come anywhere close to that. The team gets rid of the deadwood and starts winning with AHL players, the same way when he took over the team he started winning with guys like Regin and Elliott, who were really entirely unheralded until they got called up at Clouston’s prompting. Greening and Condra come up and have unexpected success at the top level and we wonder why.
Clouston wasn’t without his flaws, but the guy seemed to show that he could win with young players. I have no idea what McLean will bring to the table, but I think given how many players got shipped out we could have challenged the “you can’t fire the players” mantra and kept Clouston in place without the need for a single fall guy.
by modsuperstar on Aug 24, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't necessarily agree with you here
I do agree that Clouston is good at motivating young players and getting them to “buy-in” to the system, and he makes middling prospects play a little bit better.
But the coach has to do what he can with what he has. Clouston can’t make excuses based on the players he had, because we saw that they could compete on the best nights, but Clouston wasn’t able to get them to do that with any consistency.
I’m also not sure Clouston will be the right guy with the young guys we have coming up. He’s great with players like Condra, Greening, Carkner, and other players who’re lower on the depth chart because they’ll work their asses off and do whatever the coach says. Better prospects, though, aren’t interested in just following orders; they need more from their coach.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Aug 25, 2011 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions
It's good to get effort from your energy guys
But you also have to get effort from your skill guys, and I feel like Clouston couldn’t get through to them. You need those guys to buy into your system more than the others in my mind, since those guys score the big points and need to/should deliver.
That's what I was trying to get at
It’s easy to get yeomen to buy in to a coach’s system. Getting the team leaders to do it is a whole different ball game.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Aug 25, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Someone had to go.
I think get Anderson was a big step in the right direction, and we didn’t have the stability in net we needed before then. Not putting Pascal Leclaire on LTIR and trying to trade for a better goalie hurt us, but even then, I don’t think we had the (healthy) strength up front to compensate for it.
But what I saw for the first half of last year was what I’ve seen in Edmonton all year was a lack of heart. The Sens didn’t WANT to play. They threw in the towel, and hardly ever played the full 40 minutes. There were times I would want to stop watching when we were up 2-0 because I knew that we could blow that lead. Hell, we blew 4-0 leads. As much as I hate them, the Leafs never give up – that tenacity is something the Sens didn’t have until the latter half of the season.
Once we got some young blood though, everything turned around. Suddenly our guys were much more hungry, and with stable goaltending, we had a shot on most nights. I’m hoping that is what we get moving forward and every team we play views us as a threat, rather than 2 easy points.
How can you have tenacity when you’re always waiting for the other shoe to drop. With Elliott between the pipes it wasn’t a case of would it, it was more a case of when. I don’t like pinning everything on him as he doesn’t deserve it, but really the confidence stems from the crease on out. If you know your goalie is going to cough up those back breaking goals how can you build confidence.
The team played with confidence with Andy between the pipes and the results showed.
by modsuperstar on Aug 24, 2011 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
2009/10 season was a fluke.
We finished 5th in the conference with a -13 goal differential, no other team has done that ever.
A lot of the team’s decline was outside Clouston’s control, but at the same time I never thought he was all that impressive a coach to begin with. Throw in the obviously toxic relationship he had with much of the roster by the end and I think it was perfectly reasonable to dismiss him.
Point of order
The St. Louis Blues in 1994 finished 5th in the West with a -13 goal differential, 270/.283.
Other teams have made the playoffs with -11, -7 etc but usually in a lower seed.
by Quizzical Quorum on Aug 24, 2011 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
Fair enough it has happened once before, guess it wasn’t a fluke.
In 2009/10 we had an usually good record in one goal games, winning at a .724 clip (good for 3rd best in the league). That’s up from having the 26th best winning percentage in one goal games in 08-09 at .447. And in 2010-11 we came back down to earth winning .545 percent of the time.
Point being it’s not a predictive stat as logically it’s highly prone to chance or luck as some would say. What stayed constant over 2009/10 through 2010-11 were the number of losses we had by 3 or more goals; 22 and 21 respectively.
We were a 5th place team in 2009/10 yet were #1 in losses by 3 goals or more(that’s 5 more than the last place Oilers had), that shouldn’t happen. It was a fluke season.
It certainly wasn't common, I think that much is obvious
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think he deserved to be fired, but he needed to be. If only to help create a changing/winning attitude within the organization. It’s hard to do that when the man that is supposed to lead you isn’t leading, even if it’s not his fault. Of course, some might say the same of Murray’s situation. But what can I say, I’m not the owner.
But yeah,. the blame isn’t totally Clouston’s. Along with a lot of people, I’m a firm believer that goaltending was our biggest problem. Sure, it wasn’t our only problem (injuries, impotent offence, leaky defense), but with half-decent goaltending the year would have been different. That isn’t Brian Elliott’s fault mind you, it’s just the way it is.
That said, if we had have had half-decent goaltending, we probably still would have been a middle-of-the-pack bottom 4 playoff team and probably done nothing anyways. So, I’m glad that the poop hit the fan because it is becoming more and more apparent that a rebuild was necessary (and we are probably 2 years late).
Anyways, just my thoughts.
It isn't Elliots fault the same way you don't expect Neil to score 50 goals.
They’re not that calibre/type of player. Elliot had flashes of brilliance, but that’s all they were – flashes. In a new organization he might be okay.
As a backup
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
rec'd
PRAISE ALFIE!!!!
by High Priest of Alfie on Aug 24, 2011 10:23 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Ha
I didn’t mean it as a slight against Elliott. I just think he’s shown that he’s an ideal backup—capable of flashes of brilliance—but he’s simply not consistent enough to carry the load as a top goalie.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 10:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Are we two years too late?
I actually think this is an area where Murray has done well. I believe he was aware of the impending need for a rebuild, and ran his drafts with that in mind. I’m pretty comfortable with Lehner’s development so far and our future blueline.
Where Murray dropped the ball, in my opinion, was his decisions to try and keep the current team afloat while setting up the future. Those blunders accelerated Senate Reform’s timeline, to the point where we’re seeing the future probably come in as one big lump as opposed to slowly phased in as they become ready.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Although I’m pretty tough on Murray, and tend towards thinking he’s made far more mistakes and bad deals than good ones, I agree generally that he’s rebuilding now and we’ll see the results in a season or two. I just think that Clouston might deserve to be around for that, especially given the youth on the team now.
MacLean seems like a likeable guy, what how much benefit of the doubt do we give him? What if the team comes out of the gate 2-15 or something? Murray’s used all of his fire-the-coach cards, I think, and for better or worse we’re stuck with MacLean.
I don't know if I feel Murray has made "more" mistakes
I definitely think they’ve had a bigger impact than any of his successes, though. Either way, I feel that the goodwill of “Muckler left him with nothing” (which I believe is true) has generally run out. Overpaying for aging veterans like Kovalev and Gonchar has nothing to do with Muckler left him—they were simply bad decisions. The way I see it, Murray deserves criticism for his mistakes. There’s plenty of blame to go around for Senate Reform, and he shouldn’t be immune.
As for MacLean, I think he deserves at least two seasons of benefit of the doubt. If we start 2-15, I wouldn’t be surprised—and I’d simply chalk it up to a young team learning a new system. He’s got the benefit of low expectations that Clouston did not have. That may be unfair, but it’s also not MacLean’s fault. He knew the state of the team when he took the job, and he’s not talking about the playoffs.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, maybe we aren’t late. But my thinking was that it could have been started two years ago. But I guess no one could really foresee what was coming. Imagine if Karlsson developed just as he did, but our team was competitive for the coming season because we spent the time getting prospects? But then again, maybe he needed a semi-competitive team for the past 2 years to have had the best development… who knows?
I wish I was psychic.
The biggest issue with that is the Euge. He was still blathering on about Stanley Cup discounts and whatnot when the team was already in decline by the time they reached the Cup finals. Going to the Cup Finals just delayed the inevitable, that the cupboards were bare after years of contending and needed to be refilled one way or the other. I think everyone was deluded into thinking we were close, but really it was a Cinderella run just like Calgary and Edmonton before us, and look where it got them.
by modsuperstar on Aug 24, 2011 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think it was a Cinderella run.
We had a talented team, and Rayzor played lights out in the playoffs. I think it was our last shot though due to age, lack of prospects etc.
Yeah we were the 4th seed
And beat everyone in the east in 5 games.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
Yeah, the excuses and reasons have been re-hashed hundreds of times. Personally, I think the extended break before the finals hurt the Senators and helped the Ducks. Also, the impunity that the league allows Pronger to play with didn’t help either. However, the Senators just couldn’t handle the Ducks’ forecheck. It basically turned out a lot like this year’s final, but more one-sided.
Rayzor did not play 'lights out' in the playoffs
I don’t mean to take away from the solid goaltending that he provided, without solid goaltending they would not have made it to the cup final. However, Ray Emery did not steal any games thoughout that cup run. He was solid and didn’t give up bad goals. I liked Ray, and still think it is too bad that things went all pear shaped between him and the team.
The team was great though, right up to the final. I agree that it wasn’t a cinderella run like Calgary & Edmonton.
I reserve the right to change my opinion. After all, it belongs to me.
It was totally a Cinderella run, it just didn’t appear as such given Ottawa had so many years of teams expected to contend for a Cup.
Ottawa played in the first round against a young Penguins team, which I know many people picked to bounce Ottawa in the first round. Then they played the #2 seeded Devils, then the #1 seeded Sabres. I think the latter 2 series could be considered upsets for sure, given Ottawa had lost to both teams in previous playoff years. I don’t know about you, but winning 3 series in a row where you were picked as the underdog spells a Cinderella team to me.
I always go back to this point, that before that playoff year TSN did their playoff hype commercials. They had a lot of the big stars, Crosby, Thornton etc in those commercials, stars from across the league. Yet no Alfie, Spezza or Heatley because nobody expected the Sens to make any noise whatsoever given they were matched against the Next One in his playoff debut.
by modsuperstar on Aug 25, 2011 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions
I still disagree with the Cinderella run, regardless of where the finish was
Just Google some pre season predictions for the 2006 – 2007 season. Ottawa was regularily predicted to be seeded 1st – 4th in the East. Even if they only finished the regular season seeded 4th, they had 105 points, behind Buffalo (113), New Jersey (107) & tied with Pittsburgh.
I even Googled some playoff predictions for heading into that year and Ottawa was picked over Pittsburgh (most of the time) & New Jersey (much of the time) & Buffalo (some of the time).
I fail to see where Ottawa was picked as the underdog in 3 series. At most they were even up with New Jersey & the Underdog in the Buffalo series.
To me, a Cinderella team is when a team is not expected to make the playoffs at the beginning of the season, does better than expected and sneaks into the playoffs but is expected to exit in the first round, then is expected to exit in the second round and then expected to exit in the third round. The 06/07 Senators team does not fit that definition.
I reserve the right to change my opinion. After all, it belongs to me.
I’d argue that if Murray walked the talk he put forth there would be much more of a winning feeling around the team. Anyone remember when Hartsburg was hired it was “Accountable this, Accountable that”. Hartsburg was a hardass on the players and they tuned him out. Clouston was also not an easygoing guy and they tuned him out. Who was the last guy to have success…Murray, who is always joking and cracking wise and so on. To me, that points to a general immaturity in the dressing room. Let’s face it, these guys know what to do. There aren’t 100 different ways of pushing a puck up the ice and preventing pucks from enterng your own net.
What’s even more alarming when you look at last year is the shift comparisons between visiting teams and the Senators. I recall some games when the average forward shift for our team was 1:15 or 1:20 at even strength while opponents were at :40 or :45. Guess which team won.
It all points to a huge sense of entitlement that I hope MacLean can rid the team.
Bryan Murray is in the perfect situation. By not having to win he can lose as much as he wants and not get judged (not that anyone in this town outside Scanlan and Silver Seven Sens would take a critical approach to him) and when the team is ready for the playoffs he’ll pull his patented:
“Make the playoffs, maybe win a game or two or a round.”
Keep expectations low, keep it mediocre and blame everyone from Muckler to coaches to players to media, but never look in the mirror. That’s how Murray works and that’s how he keeps his job…
by Quizzical Quorum on Aug 24, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
Conditioning
Seems to be an area we are stumbling on. I remember them doing post game interviews on spin bikes – they don’t do that anymore. That, plus all the injuries makes me wonder whether our strength and conditioning has suffered (combined with age)
Bad Conditioning?
So are the players lazy, the staff incompetent or both? I’d say neither.
I’d suggest the most likely explanation is that due to the atmosphere created by some members of the press the team (possibly at the urging of players) has revoked unlimited access privileges. For the most part they limit player access to hallway interviews in the presence of Senators staff.
by anothersensfan on Aug 24, 2011 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think they're lazy
I think that maybe there’s been a change there that is hurting us. Or it could be age, I dunno. It’s entirely possible they limited press access though, and I wouldn’t blame them.
Who knows. Is it October yet?
Long shifts SOP? Thats not the Clouston I remeber.
I recall him sitting guys who didn’t follow his 40-50 sec guidelines.
This isn’t the first time you’ve mentioned this flaw in CC’s game. Can you identify these long shift games?
Sorry if it seems like I’m calling you out. I’d just like to clarify this point. I look forward to your response.
by anothersensfan on Aug 24, 2011 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't think it was entirely his fault, but still he had to be let go
Given what players have hinted about him, and not just Alex Kovalev, but Jason Spezza as well, I feel a new coach was needed.
Having said that, even if Bryan Murray’s draft picks turn out great, I feel at the time he was given an extension that it wasn’t warranted either and Murray should have been let go to. I am kind of warming to Murray now though after he went all out on forwards in the draft.
An Ottawa Senators supporter in Toronto, Ontario. I am cool like that.
I agree
His extension was hard to justify at the time he got it. We might love it in hindsight years from now, but he was the one who made the moves that got the team to where they were. I don’t think that can be overlooked.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
I guess Heatley had a problem with him, too, but I think in his 2.5 years coaching he managed to squeeze blood out of a stone. It’s a shame to let a guy like that go simply because we felt like we needed a change.
I think letting him go was good for both the organization and Clouston in the long run.
Although it was not completely Clouston’s fault, he gets part of the blame like everyone else. He may have been a good fit considering he has coached our prospects, but I think it’s better for him to start somewhere fresh and his NHL experience will go a long way for him.
If he was kept here as HC he would have still been under a lot of pressure. The media and the fans wouldn’t have made things easier for him. I also think that expectations for a faster rebuild may have come about due to the fact that he has coached the Young Sens before.
I have said this before while commenting about Murray a few months back, he has made his share of mistakes that had a greater impact, but I believe that he has been working on this rebuild for a while now. It doesn’t help when the owner and fans want to win the cup ASAP. So I think he was struggling to do both, rebuild and contend. So now Melnyk is on board with Murray’s plans which is why he is still here.
by Los Blancos Chicca on Aug 25, 2011 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Clouston will be back
I think Clouston had a good run in Ottawa and it looks like he has landed on his feet. He is clearly a young coach who still has room to improve, but his performance in Ottawa was very respectable (at least in my opinion). He leaves with a winning record, which should help in future job interviews. I am sure that Murray won’t hesitate to recommend him if some other team has an opening and inquires about Clouston’s coaching skills.
A few other random points:
- Clouston’s biggest weakness, IMHO, was communicating with the media. He’d be great in a US market where that is less of an issue.
- Clouston seems to be good with young players. If he landed in a situation like Therrien did with Pittsburgh(young team on the rise), I think he would do really well.
- A year or two in junior to reflect on his NHL experience and refine his rough edges won’t hurt Clouston at all in the long run (again, IMHO).
- Clouston got his shot a little unexpectedly and younger than usual. He should have lots of years left in which to get another shot at the NHL.
- Personally, I think MacLean looks like an excellent coach. Clouston may not have deserved to lose his job, but at least the replacement should be a good one (perhaps even an upgrade).
- When Jacques Martin was let go, it wasn’t so much because he was a bad coach it was more because the team needed a change. It feels like a similar situation now. Clouston did his job well enough, but now is the time for someone different.
- If I were Clouston, after a cooling off period, I would look back happily at my time in Ottawa and see it as a good first step in the NHL. Clouston’s tenure was not far off the league average, so it’s not like he was completely scape-goated by the organization (although some fans and media like to blame him).
Some interesting points here, and I think they represent how a lot of people think. Bad communication + time for a change + MacLean looks good. All of which are assumptions. Understandable assumptions, I just don’t think they’re that solid.
Clouston might not be a great communicator, but neither is Murray, especially with the media. In fact, the Senators organization as a whole seems to have a lot of trouble with PR – the Heatley situation, marketing bungles, etc. I just don’t think it’s an organizational priority, which comes with hiring a bunch of old school hockey guys. We’ll see if MacLean can buck the trend, but right now we basically know nothing about him other than he’s going to demand that his players “skate the whole rink,” which is something every coach says.
Understandable assumptions, I just don’t think they’re that solid.
“Time for a change” is not so much an assumption as an opinion. If you don’t think it was time for a change then fine, but if I do think that then that’s fine, too.
Clouston might not be a great communicator, but neither is Murray, especially with the media.
I’d say that these two guys have similar, but opposite issues. Clouston was too tight-lipped and circumspect, so media people just made stuff up about him and the team. Murray on the other hand has a tendency to sometimes “overshare” and then the media runs wild with his quotes (for example, when Spezza was apparently upset about getting booed in the playoffs). Murray gets away with it because he is old and is never going to change. Clouston will likely improve with practice.
Good post
Hey Varada, I have given you a hard time in some of your recent posts. I just wanted to say that I enjoyed this one. I thought it was well put together and had lots of good content. Thanks for this.
Super interesting to see a huge majority of people think Clouston didn’t deserve to be fired, but should have been fired anyway.
People want to see blood for failures and they don't care whose, I guess
I’ll admit that’s how I voted, but I also think Murray should have gone with Clouston.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
It's the "a change was necessary" syndrome
In the end, I don’t think he was really bad, he just wasn’t necessarily the right fit going forward.
I think the irony is that he was the right fit going forward
He just wasn’t the right fit for the team he was coaching.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I kinda agree with that, kinda not
I think if Clouston came in now, he’d be a better fit than if he was given an extension. The fact that he wasn’t the right fit for the team he was coaching would have somewhat poisoned the environment with the returning elements going forward. The mindset that he wasn’t the right fit would continue even under the new circumstances where he was a better fit, which in itself creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where he isn’t the right fit going forward.
If any of that makes any sense at all…
Agree!
I think Clouston is a great coach should he be put in a position where he can, teach, learn and grow with a young team. The team as it exists now would be a great fit if he had never been here before.
I think it is pretty obvious that he has lost the respect of the veterans that remain on this team and that he couldn’t continue with a contract extension.
I reserve the right to change my opinion. After all, it belongs to me.
Kinda both
His contract was set to expire at the end of the season, but he was shoved out the door ASAP as soon as that happened.
I think technically he was fired
He was let go before his contract officially expired, even though I think it was by a matter of days or weeks at the most.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
Considering that Murray did it at the airport, yeah
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I don't know what was up with that
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
More disinterest in PR by the organization, I think. I always bring up that moment, as well as Alfie’s re-signing press conference (on the road…in the visitor’s dressing room…with a crooked Sens jersey on a wire hanger in the background) as examples of how ham-fisted this team is with PR. Then there’s Heatley…
It's more of a show
Looked like BM wanted to show the fans that he was doing something about righting the ship while the fan base was still hot and bothered under the collar over the horrible season.
Clouston’s contract’s just expired. BM could have waited a few days and then informed him Ottawa’s not renewing his contract. Instead, BM wanted to look like its a firing. I like Murray but telling Clouston the news at the airport’s not a sensitive move.
by whatsinaname on Aug 24, 2011 3:11 PM EDT up reply actions
what was the alternative?
Option #1 – while getting off the plane say “lets go up to the cafe and have a chat”
Option #2 – while getting off the plane say “head back to the Bank and meet me in my office @ 9:00 tonight” or “9:00 tomorrow”
Option #3 – Plan to call him up to the office the next day while the Clouston goes home that night and wonders when the call is going to come.
I think Murray did the right thing in getting it over with ASAP. No wondering by anyone. No long drive or long walk from the coaches office to the GM’s office. No sleepless nights wondering. Just a ’thank you for your service, I wish you all the best. Clean out your office tomorrow."
Thats the way I’d want it.
I reserve the right to change my opinion. After all, it belongs to me.
Everyone knows it's coming
I agree it should be done asap to end the misery for Clouston. IMO, I rather it be done in the privacy of the office the next day than the very public airport. It’s not fun for the other members of the team to have to witness the firing.
by whatsinaname on Aug 24, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I think you're right
I imagine it was a “we’ll keep paying you, but please don’t come around anymore” kind of deal.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Was there even anything left to pay him for?
I mean, I’m not sure how coaching contracts are structured. Do they get paid on a per-game/practice basis, with any applicable bonuses at the end of the season?
Beats me
I would imagine there’s some kind of base salary paid weekly or bi-weekly, though. My understanding is that the end of the NHL season is considered to be the day before the draft, with the draft marking the start of the next season.
Based on that, my expectation would be that Clouston was paid for the remainder of the season, whether it was in a lump sum upon termination or as the remainder of the contract was originally structured.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
That's not what the poll option is
The poll option says it wasn’t entirely his fault, but he needed to go. That’s how I feel, I’m in that majority. Obviously, he wasn’t helped by terrible goaltending, terrible defence, and mostly terrible offence, but at the same time there were flaws in his approach, too.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Aug 24, 2011 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes he had a kife hand and yes he had a lot of injuries, but players recognize this. Clouston did not get the usual “we all had a part to play in Clouston’s firing”, he got ripped for his communication skils and alienation of players. Did anyone watch him telling Karlsson he was on the all-star team. So warm and fuzzy and full of genuine emotion (rampant sarcasm included at no extra charge). Also, no explaination of how after 2 years of being an NHL bench boss, he could not yet co-ordinate line changes. That speaks to inability to commuinicate.
Hey, welcome to the site!
I feel that based on what players have said about him, he probably had to work on his communication skills, but I don’t think that “warm and fuzzy” is the only way to communicate. He didn’t have to be best friends with his players to get his message through to them.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions
I don’t disagree with you on the warm and fuzzy to get a message across, but when you tell someone they just made the all star team and it looks like you are pulling them aside to tell them they have cancer, you can only imagine what his communication style was like when he had to deal with negative subjects.
Who's on first?
Did we win the “who’s on first?” award for the most number of “too many men on the ice” penalties in history?
I'm pretty sure we didn't take any of those penalties after the first third of last season
It’s just another Sens cliche
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
by Mark Parisi on Aug 24, 2011 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Results or else...
Hockey is a results driven business. As a coach you get results or else. Someone’s got to take the fall to rekindle the hope that things are about to turn around. So changes were made and Clouston was part of the changes.
The blame game doesn’t solve anything. The goaltending… the lack of scoring… the defence… the coaching… What’s the difference? We just weren’t very good.
I admire Clouston for stepping forward to be interviewed. And now I just wish we’d wish him well in his new job and let him be.
I just don't think Clouston was able to put everything together
There’s no denying that Clouston is a competent coach; he wouldn’t have made it this far, and wouldn’t have a winning record in his NHL career so far, if he wasn’t. There are things he does well, and things he doesn’t do as well.
To me, there were three problems that made the fit between Clouston and the Senators not work out. These are my observations from the sideline, so take them for what they’re worth, but here goes:
1. Communication problems. They’ve been cited before, and I think it’s especially important when you’re dealing with veteran players—who Clouston, in his previous junior and AHL experience, hadn’t had much exposure to. If you’re trying to implement a system (and I think Clouston was, although I have no idea what it was), the elements of it need to be properly conveyed to the players involved. They weren’t.
2. Personality. Clouston is a workaholic, which is likely how he’s gotten as far as he has at a fairly young age. But there needs to be a realization that not everyone has that same level of commitment to devoting almost all energy to this one pursuit. When you continually push players without considering their individual personalities, simply demanding that they work as hard as you’re working, it won’t always work. Motivation is a tricky thing to grasp, mostly because different things motivate different people.
3. System. I didn’t see one, quite frankly. He was significantly better than Craig Hartsburg in this respect, don’t get me wrong, but either Clouston wasn’t able to tailor his system to the players he had, or his system simply wasn’t an NHL-calibre one.
The bottom line, to me, is that Clouston wasn’t ready to be a full-time NHL coach. His initial success may be attributable to the refreshing changes he brought to the team, but for whatever reason he wasn’t able to motivate his team to compete with consistency.
Silver Seven | Twitter | Facebook | E-mail | eBay
by Peter Raaymakers on Aug 24, 2011 12:33 PM EDT reply actions
Communication was the key
I think all other things being the same if Clouston would of had a better relationship with the players and the media he would of been kept on and that they probably would of fired one or both Asst Coaches to work Cameron in. Two tight ass coaches would have been too much. I think the issue with the players came to light more this year because as one media guy said earlier in the season, Clouston missed Richardson as a buffer. There’s always one Asst Coach who is the players guy and I think that was Luke. Players felt comfortable complaining to him about CC and Luke reworked when he took it to CC. My thought is besides the obvious Napoleon complex, I think Clouston felt whenever he was questioned he was being picked on because he has no real experience as a player except Canadian College. Our favorite guys Bruce said something on the team1200 the other day that makes me think this is true. He said Clouston almost took offense to being questioned like who was the media to question him. I think it was his insecurities not his ego, were they questioning him because he never played ? Would they question a Messier or Sutter or whoever who player. One last thing, I do think it said a lot that he was text the goalies to tell them if they were starting the next game; come on you’re the coach a five minute called wouldn’t kill you. Or at least smile and say hello to your media core.
Garrioch can't be considered an credibly objective evaluator, though
His claims that Clouston “took offense” to being questioned have to be taken with a huge grain of salt given his past behavior.
Silver Seven - The Daniel Alfredsson of Ottawa Senators Blogs
Oh..
I think the team loved Clouston..exactly why they fired him.
by Kevan Michael on Sep 12, 2011 6:32 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Silver Seven
Related FanShots on Silver Seven
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Rangers, Devils back at MSG for pivotal Game 5; NHL 13 screenshots (Playoff Puck Previews)
- CBC announces ‘While the Men Watch Hockey Night,’ sets off backlash over sexism
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 Phoenix Coyotes
- Alain Vigneault signs extension with Vancouver Canucks because he’s excellent
- Dubinsky returns for Game 5; No hearing for Brown; Spacek rips Habs (Puck Headlines)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Dubinsky, Prust back in Rangers lineup for Game 5
- Dubinsky, Prust return to Rangers lineup for Game 5 of East finals vs. Devils
- St. John's IceCaps optimistic for future despite being knocked out of playoffs
- Jackets sign Dorsett to three-year deal
- Columbus Blue Jackets sign NHL penalty minutes leader Derek Dorsett to a 3-year contract
