All Ottawa Senators Head Coach discussions

[JD1]

The pens had the 2nd best reg season record in the league in two of those years and we were missing our best player to injury in the lockout year. All the while you are discounting Boston missing 3 top 4 D and the pens missing Letang and starting Fluery over Murray as key factors and i am the one being strange?

missing 3 of those top 4 guys led to McAvoy playing didn't it? Where's he stand in the ranking of Boston d man right now? Ask that on the Bs board I bet 50% or better say their best D is McAvoy

Disingenuous is a word you use often. Fleury was largely credited as being the reason they made it to the ECF. Throwing that in. ..your grasping...or being disingenuous. ...only you know the answer there but I'd bet on disingenuous

Wasn' me that said it but someone today said they don't know what happened to you because you used to be level headed. I second that sentiment. imo you've gone from level headed to a leader of the all negative squad.

 

[JD1]

Your scenario isn't far fetched, it's unrealistic and impossible since Melnyk doesn't own the team out right and has a hefty debts against it. SO, the percentage of possibility of mine happening is irrelevant since yours has a ZERO percent possibility of happening, therefore mine is infinitely more likely to happen!

ding ding ding. ...new info here....who owns the team along with Melnyk ?

 

[SAK11]

The pens had the 2nd best reg season record in the league in two of those years and we were missing our best player to injury in the lockout year. All the while you are discounting Boston missing 3 top 4 D and the pens missing Letang and starting Fluery over Murray as key factors and i am the one being strange?

You might want to look at the details of the Pens games that you chose to look at- one win was the last game of the regular season when Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, and Niskanen sat out, another was when Malkin was hurt, one was after MacLean was fired in 2014/15 [and the Pens were playing awful hockey], one was without Crosby who was concussed and Staal who was hurt, and one was with Brad Thiessen starting in net. But you ignore the year Ottawa went 1-6-1 against Pittsburgh because Ottawa was the team not at full health...

Regardless of all that, I shouldn't have to explain to you why a decent amount of regular season success against a good team is different than coming within 1 goal of beating Pittsburgh in the Eastern Conference Finals last year. That's just a silly comparison.

I'm also fully willing to admit that there were a variety of factors to our success. You seem stuck on Fleury playing a few games [and playing well until game 3] and Boston's injuries. [and as far as Boston's injuries go, missing Krug, McQuaid, and Carlo was a huge hit to their blue line, and only partially made up for by McAvoy, but people are acting like Ottawa was 100% healthy, even though Karlsson had 2 hairline fractures, Methot was continuing to re-grow a fingertip. Not sure if Ceci or Smith were 100% after missing the end of the season, and Turris and Stone certainly didn't appear 100%.
Sure, we were healthier, but how much so is certainly debateable].

Anyway, the system was undoubtedly a contributor to our success. Moving forward, Boucher needs to make adjustments, and just about everyone needs to play better.​

 

[Micklebot]

missing 3 of those top 4 guys led to McAvoy playing didn't it? Where's he stand in the ranking of Boston d man right now? Ask that on the Bs board I bet 50% or better say their best D is McAvoy

Disingenuous is a word you use often. Fleury was largely credited as being the reason they made it to the ECF. Throwing that in. ..your grasping...or being disingenuous. ...only you know the answer there but I'd bet on disingenuous

Wasn' me that said it but someone today said they don't know what happened to you because you used to be level headed. I second that sentiment. imo you've gone from level headed to a leader of the all negative squad.

Lets say MacAvoy wouldn't have gotten a chance without the injuries. Their still down two top 4 dmen, and Krejci playing 2 games. Boston was a depleted team, and MacAvoy, while he did play well, was still a rookie thrown into the fire. He's better player today than he was that series, which is to be expected, so talking about how he's now their top D in the minds of many Boston fans isn't really relevant to what he was during that series. The points still stands, and is still a very strong point.

Fluery had a good couple of series prior to the ECF no doubt, he has always been capable of spurts of great play, but Murray was significantly better in that series and brings a leavel of calm to the team that Fluery never has. Go ask Pens fans who they though was better since you went down the road of asking opposing teams fans opinions.

My issue is people saying the system brought us to 1 game of the SC. Well, that's not really what happened imo, a number of factors contributed to where we got. Something were clearly only positive like Karlsson's level of play, while others like our system had positives and negatives, like every system. My biggest issue is some are acting as though it's beyond criticism because we made it as far as we did. Well thats bull. There were clear issues with the system and how Boucher coached the team last year, that are still present this year. People were vocal about the issues last year, but everyone ignored them or downplayed them because the team managed to scrap by and make a deep run. Well, now that Karlsson can't hide the issues, people are more vocal about them, but some want to continue to ignore that they exist.

 

[Micklebot]

You might want to look at the details of the Pens games that you chose to look at- one win was the last game of the regular season when Crosby, Malkin, Fleury, and Niskanen sat out, another was when Malkin was hurt, one was after MacLean was fired in 2014/15 [and the Pens were playing awful hockey], one was without Crosby who was concussed and Staal who was hurt, and one was with Brad Thiessen starting in net. But you ignore the year Ottawa went 1-6-1 against Pittsburgh because Ottawa was the team not at full health...

Regardless of all that, I shouldn't have to explain to you why a decent amount of regular season success against a good team is different than coming within 1 goal of beating Pittsburgh in the Eastern Conference Finals last year. That's just a silly comparison.

I'm also fully willing to admit that there were a variety of factors to our success. You seem stuck on Fleury playing a few games [and playing well until game 3] and Boston's injuries. [and as far as Boston's injuries go, missing Krug, McQuaid, and Carlo was a huge hit to their blue line, and only partially made up for by McAvoy, but people are acting like Ottawa was 100% healthy, even though Karlsson had 2 hairline fractures, Methot was continuing to re-grow a fingertip. Not sure if Ceci or Smith were 100% after missing the end of the season, and Turris and Stone certainly didn't appear 100%.
Sure, we were healthier, but how much so is certainly debateable].

Anyway, the system was undoubtedly a contributor to our success. Moving forward, Boucher needs to make adjustments, and just about everyone needs to play better.​

So should we also mention that Crosby was coming off a concussion in the series that your so fond of pointing out that we shut him down in?

Karlsson playing injured is certainly noteworthy, but it doesn't impact the discussion about the system, because his level of play was among the highest it`s ever been. Methot seemed fine by the Rangers series. Every team has nagging injuries mind you, not every team loses chucks of their top players outright.

We can agree to disagree about how critical the system itself was to our success, but one thing I wholeheartedly agree with you on is that moving forward, adjustments are needed if we are to continue to employ it.

 

[Pancakes Pancakes]

there is such a thing as far fetched and then there is this.

I couldn't be bothered to explain why what you posted can't happen but it can't.

So in other words, you can't explain it.
We are all experts on a message board.

 

[JD1]

So in other words, you can't explain it.
We are all experts on a message board.

oh I can explain it.....but I just couldn't be bothered.

 

[SAK11]

So should we also mention that Crosby was coming off a concussion in the series that your so fond of pointing out that we shut him down in?

Karlsson playing injured is certainly noteworthy, but it doesn't impact the discussion about the system, because his level of play was among the highest it`s ever been. Methot seemed fine by the Rangers series. Every team has nagging injuries mind you, not every team loses chucks of their top players outright.

We can agree to disagree about how critical the system itself was to our success, but one thing I wholeheartedly agree with you on is that moving forward, adjustments are needed if we are to continue to employ it.

Well Crosby managed 7 even strength points coming off that concussion in the 3 games against Washington plus the 6 Nashville games, so it was apparent that we did a better job than those two teams of slowing him down at even strength. And it wasn't just Crosby- Malkin scored just 3 even strength points against us, Kessel had 1, Guentzel was invisible. As previously mentioned, they had more trouble scoring against us than any other team they faced.

As far as the bolded part goes, I actually took a quote directly from you from that playoff run that I put into my last post questioning how much healthier Ottawa really was compared to Boston. You have changed your tune a little bit from back then, but I get it, this season has brought out the negativity in many and rightfully so.

 

[JD1]

Lets say MacAvoy wouldn't have gotten a chance without the injuries. Their still down two top 4 dmen, and Krejci playing 2 games. Boston was a depleted team, and MacAvoy, while he did play well, was still a rookie thrown into the fire. He's better player today than he was that series, which is to be expected, so talking about how he's now their top D in the minds of many Boston fans isn't really relevant to what he was during that series. The points still stands, and is still a very strong point.

Fluery had a good couple of series prior to the ECF no doubt, he has always been capable of spurts of great play, but Murray was significantly better in that series and brings a leavel of calm to the team that Fluery never has. Go ask Pens fans who they though was better since you went down the road of asking opposing teams fans opinions.

My issue is people saying the system brought us to 1 game of the SC. Well, that's not really what happened imo, a number of factors contributed to where we got. Something were clearly only positive like Karlsson's level of play, while others like our system had positives and negatives, like every system. My biggest issue is some are acting as though it's beyond criticism because we made it as far as we did. Well thats bull. There were clear issues with the system and how Boucher coached the team last year, that are still present this year. People were vocal about the issues last year, but everyone ignored them or downplayed them because the team managed to scrap by and make a deep run. Well, now that Karlsson can't hide the issues, people are more vocal about them, but some want to continue to ignore that they exist.

we went 4-0 against Boston during the regular season. The other day we discussed and agreed that our playoff roster was stronger than the regular season 98 point roster. right? you play what you have. we won 4-2. I'm certainly not suggesting our playoff run was entirely due to the system. We had a deep roster. Enough of everything to be successful.

Murray took over the net in Pittsburgh after they shit the bed and were down 4-0 after 1. I was at that game. He never got the net back. The series was tied at 1 at the point and we had only scored 2 goals in 2 games. There's no credible way to cite Fleury as a reason we were in that series. Even shitting the bed in that first period Pittsburgh had only given up 6 goals in 7 periods.

Boucher's system isn't that much different than many others. They'd benefit from more forecheck. But it isn't reason we are losing this year. We're losing because of unimaginably bad goaltending from Anderson and a level of play far below what the team requires from Karlsson. No system can survive those two situations given the rest of the roster.

So I'd say the system was helpful last year and it contributed to the team going in a good run and this year the system isn't why we are losing. Too much credit and too much blame

 

[Que]

Boucher's system isn't that much different than many others. They'd benefit from more forecheck. But it isn't reason we are losing this year. We're losing because of unimaginably bad goaltending from Anderson and a level of play far below what the team requires from Karlsson. No system can survive those two situations given the rest of the roster.

While I don't disagree that Andy and EK are the two biggest factors for our teams overall success, there is enough talent on this roster to play good hockey without either - they've done it before.

We lost a lot of heart and character in the offseason. The playoff run was supposed to foster a new generation of gritty leaders for us and it hasn't. I look at JGP, Smith, Hoffman and Ceci as players I really expected to step it up this season and haven't.

The cherry on top of course is - in a vacuum - the Duchene deal looked good, but the intangibles Turris brought are sorely missed right now. Neil, Kelly, Methot, MacArthur, Borowecki, Turris, Wideman (he competes, no question) have all been absent in our current slump. That's a heart that's been gutted.

 

[JD1]

While I don't disagree that Andy and EK are the two biggest factors for our teams overall success, there is enough talent on this roster to play good hockey without either - they've done it before.

We lost a lot of heart and character in the offseason. The playoff run was supposed to foster a new generation of gritty leaders for us and it hasn't. I look at JGP, Smith, Hoffman and Ceci as players I really expected to step it up this season and haven't.

The cherry on top of course is - in a vacuum - the Duchene deal looked good, but the intangibles Turris brought are sorely missed right now. Neil, Kelly, Methot, MacArthur, Borowecki, Turris, Wideman (he competes, no question) have all been absent in our current slump. That's a heart that's been gutted.

I completely agree that there is enough talent on the roster to be better than we've been without EK. After his initial 10 games....he had a ton of points but it was evident he wasn't himself....it's been a total tire fire I think without him dressed we'd have faired better. Chabot taking over the PP QB role and everyone else stepping up a few minutes....I can't see anyone else matching that -25 or whatever it is.

Managing without him I think is easier than having him, expecting him to be himself and getting the level of play we have

 

[Tuna99]

I completely agree that there is enough talent on the roster to be better than we've been without EK. After his initial 10 games....he had a ton of points but it was evident he wasn't himself....it's been a total tire fire I think without him dressed we'd have faired better. Chabot taking over the PP QB role and everyone else stepping up a few minutes....I can't see anyone else matching that -25 or whatever it is.

Managing without him I think is easier than having him, expecting him to be himself and getting the level of play we have

Also think Logan Brown deserves some credit for his PP presence and getting that going. He had natural chemistry with Ryan on the PP and definitely deserved more games.

 

[Micklebot]

...
So I'd say the system was helpful last year and it contributed to the team going in a good run and this year the system isn't why we are losing. Too much credit and too much blame

This is basically what I'm getting at. The system is ok, but has flaws. Way too much credit imo was given to it last year, and certainly too much blame this year. Like almost any system, it can be effective when players buy in 100% and execute well. Perhaps I'm coming off as to harsh on it's impact from last year, but frankly, to me, it was just there. Yes, our system allowed us to stay in games by defending well in a sort of bend but don't break way, but it also really hindered our ability to get ahead in the first place. To be frank, I thought the team played some of it's best hockey when they were pushing the pace and sending 2 forcheckers in. I would have liked to see us mix it up more, and send 2 in more frequently, but that seemed to be a first 10 mins of the game only thing.

But, there are obvious flaws with the way Boucher has run things. From day one, we have been to quick to sit back with a lead and have allowed teams to regain momentum as a result. We have inexplicably played not to lose rather than to win, even in OT. It's not a systems issue, but Boucher is far to hesitant to play his young players. Everyone has been saying this is a young man's league ever since the last lockout, but for whatever reason, we want nothing to do with it. We are shortening the bench too much, resulting in fatigue later in the game, this relates to the complete lack of trust in young players. The PP has been inexcusably bad relative to the talent we can put out there.

I've said it before, I am for giving Boucher a chance to right the ship. I certainly think there are areas he needs to change as note above, but overall, there is a good base to work from. I may not support your idea of extending him (though I understand and respect the logic behind it), but wouldn't fire him in the offseason and certainly not right now. In the end though, it will probably come down to the end of year outgoing interviews. If Dorion does his interviews with the players and staff and feels that Boucher has lost the room, or is resistant to addressing systemic issues, it's probably best to cut him loose.

 

[Tuna99]

This is basically what I'm getting at. The system is ok, but has flaws. Way too much credit imo was given to it last year, and certainly too much blame this year. Like almost any system, it can be effective when players buy in 100% and execute well. Perhaps I'm coming off as to harsh on it's impact from last year, but frankly, to me, it was just there. Yes, our system allowed us to stay in games by defending well in a sort of bend but don't break way, but it also really hindered our ability to get ahead in the first place. To be frank, I thought the team played some of it's best hockey when they were pushing the pace and sending 2 forcheckers in. I would have liked to see us mix it up more, and send 2 in more frequently, but that seemed to be a first 10 mins of the game only thing.

But, there are obvious flaws with the way Boucher has run things. From day one, we have been to quick to sit back with a lead and have allowed teams to regain momentum as a result. We have inexplicably played not to lose rather than to win, even in OT. It's not a systems issue, but Boucher is far to hesitant to play his young players. Everyone has been saying this is a young man's league ever since the last lockout, but for whatever reason, we want nothing to do with it. We are shortening the bench too much, resulting in fatigue later in the game, this relates to the complete lack of trust in young players. The PP has been inexcusably bad relative to the talent we can put out there.

I've said it before, I am for giving Boucher a chance to right the ship. I certainly think there are areas he needs to change as note above, but overall, there is a good base to work from. I may not support your idea of extending him (though I understand and respect the logic behind it), but wouldn't fire him in the offseason and certainly not right now. In the end though, it will probably come down to the end of year outgoing interviews. If Dorion does his interviews with the players and staff and feels that Boucher has lost the room, or is resistant to addressing systemic issues, it's probably best to cut him loose.

This is what worries me. Why as an organization are we constantly looking to keep the players happy. I want players that are happy when we win, and are happy being in a winning organization. We need as a organization to at some point stick together, or we’ll forever be on this wheel of mediocrity. Winning makes everything fun, but it’s hard work. And the last thing I want is Dorion listening to the players because we’ve been down that road, and it leads to nowhere.

Unless we hire Eminem to do the pep talks and Rhianna to coddle the players they’ll never to be happy with the coaches.

 

[pzeeman]

Unless we hire Eminem to do the pep talks and Rhianna to coddle the players they’ll never to be happy with the coaches.

OK, I'm motivated...

 

[JD1]

This is basically what I'm getting at. The system is ok, but has flaws. Way too much credit imo was given to it last year, and certainly too much blame this year. Like almost any system, it can be effective when players buy in 100% and execute well. Perhaps I'm coming off as to harsh on it's impact from last year, but frankly, to me, it was just there. Yes, our system allowed us to stay in games by defending well in a sort of bend but don't break way, but it also really hindered our ability to get ahead in the first place. To be frank, I thought the team played some of it's best hockey when they were pushing the pace and sending 2 forcheckers in. I would have liked to see us mix it up more, and send 2 in more frequently, but that seemed to be a first 10 mins of the game only thing.

But, there are obvious flaws with the way Boucher has run things. From day one, we have been to quick to sit back with a lead and have allowed teams to regain momentum as a result. We have inexplicably played not to lose rather than to win, even in OT. It's not a systems issue, but Boucher is far to hesitant to play his young players. Everyone has been saying this is a young man's league ever since the last lockout, but for whatever reason, we want nothing to do with it. We are shortening the bench too much, resulting in fatigue later in the game, this relates to the complete lack of trust in young players. The PP has been inexcusably bad relative to the talent we can put out there.

I've said it before, I am for giving Boucher a chance to right the ship. I certainly think there are areas he needs to change as note above, but overall, there is a good base to work from. I may not support your idea of extending him (though I understand and respect the logic behind it), but wouldn't fire him in the offseason and certainly not right now. In the end though, it will probably come down to the end of year outgoing interviews. If Dorion does his interviews with the players and staff and feels that Boucher has lost the room, or is resistant to addressing systemic issues, it's probably best to cut him loose.

to be clear. ...I'm not saying extend him per se

if the objective next year is play the youth I think the team needs to hire a new coach with a multi year deal OR extend Boucher.

a coach is always in win now mode unless they have a guaranteed contract that makes the immediate w/l record financially irrelevant to them.

if Boucher goes into next year without an extension I can't see him having any interest in player development

 

[BatherSeason]

to be clear. ...I'm not saying extend him per se

if the objective next year is play the youth I think the team needs to hire a new coach with a multi year deal OR extend Boucher.

a coach is always in win now mode unless they have a guaranteed contract that makes the immediate w/l record financially irrelevant to them.

if Boucher goes into next year without an extension I can't see him having any interest in player development

Whats interesting in all of this is that Boucher would probably win more games if he played the youth instead of Burrows/Dumont/Thompson/Pyatt/Oduya. This is going to be his downfall.

 

[JD1]

Whats interesting in all of this is that Boucher would probably win more games if he played the youth instead of Burrows/Dumont/Thompson/Pyatt/Oduya. This is going to be his downfall.

ya that is certainly possible

 

[pzeeman]

to be clear. ...I'm not saying extend him per se

if the objective next year is play the youth I think the team needs to hire a new coach with a multi year deal OR extend Boucher.

a coach is always in win now mode unless they have a guaranteed contract that makes the immediate w/l record financially irrelevant to them.

if Boucher goes into next year without an extension I can't see him having any interest in player development

I think the objective this year has to be "play the youth." GB needs to get the message from those who decide his future that his points total for this year does not count - only how he's able to adapt the system and the roster to work in the NHL-ready younger talent. If he can't/won't do that, then he's earned his walking papers. But he's a smart man.

I have a lot of hope that, even without a rebuild or extensive retool, next year will be much better. A healthy 65, an Anderson "on" year (or another NHL competent goalie), NHL experienced youth and a really really good piece out of the 2018 draft. Put those parts together and the 2019 pick will be in the high teens.

For tonight, it seems that message has not been passed on yet.

 

[BatherSeason]

If he can't/won't do that, then he's earned his walking papers

I think he earned his walking papers about a month ago. Unfortunately, until his appearance in Buffalo, Pierre Dorion has gone AWOL

 

[Philadelphia Collins]

Frustrating seeing the good teams in the NHL trending towards speed and youth while Boucher loads our team up with 30-something grinders.

We are 3rd last in the NHL, the seasons over and our youngest forward is 25, smh. Why are we playing Dumont? What future does he have with us?

 

[coladin]

I think the objective this year has to be "play the youth." GB needs to get the message from those who decide his future that his points total for this year does not count - only how he's able to adapt the system and the roster to work in the NHL-ready younger talent. If he can't/won't do that, then he's earned his walking papers. But he's a smart man.

I have a lot of hope that, even without a rebuild or extensive retool, next year will be much better. A healthy 65, an Anderson "on" year (or another NHL competent goalie), NHL experienced youth and a really really good piece out of the 2018 draft. Put those parts together and the 2019 pick will be in the high teens.

For tonight, it seems that message has not been passed on yet.

If he is playing youth, he is basically telling his players and leadership group that he doesn't believe in them, which is why they have to try and win and make the playoffs, as silly and unrealistic as it may be. Crazy as it is, Mark Stone still thinks they can make the playoffs. Last thing you want to do is put in youth at this point. But, believe me, the point in time will come as they will continue to unravel, that youth will be played. But we will have to wait until the trade deadline when Ottawa officially becomes sellers.

It is easy for many here to say "play the youth" and "tank thread" etc...but you all have to remember that the players are trying to win. They don't want to suck . But with terrible goaltending and terrible play by their laughing, always joking captain, this team is doomed...and there is not enough talent to compensate for that. And no coach will change that, or any system if your goalie cannot make routine saves. And you star player has checked out.

 

[BatherSeason]

laughing, always joking captain

Captains aren't allowed to laugh?? Straight from the Don Cherry school of hockey. I think I saw Mark Stone smile last week at practice, is that not OK too?

 

[topshelf15]

Meh, not point in firing the coach now.Besides we wont be getting a experienced head coach in the off season...They cost too much

 

[Tnuoc Alucard]

Whats interesting in all of this is that Boucher would probably win more games if he played the youth instead of Burrows/Dumont/Thompson/Pyatt/Oduya. This is going to be his downfall.

There is absolutely no way of proving this ......... 100% conjecture on your part