Senators sign Cameron to an Extension

[ScottM]

 

I'm a little late with this, between being busy and having internet problems at home, but the Senators signed head coach Dave Cameron to a two-year extension on Thursday. Personally, I love this move. It didn't take long for things to turn around after he was brought on board. He seems to have a good rapport with the youngsters.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/ottawa-senators-sign-head-coach-dave-cameron-to-two-year-extension/article25024082/

[yave1964]

@ScottM

Well deserved my friend, I have always been a fan of Paul McLean and feel he did a good job in Ottawa but when he was let go and Cameron took over, the change worked wonders in Ottawa.

It seems to work that way in Hockey more than any other sport. Football, teams are generally loath to change coaches midseason because of the elaborate playbook, baseball, it usually (tho not always) signals a downward spiral. But in Hockey, how many times has a coaching change midseason sparked a moribund team into greatness? Change the coach or change the goalie when the team is down, last year Ottawa did both with smashing results.

[2nd String Champ]

@ScottM

Well deserved my friend, I have always been a fan of Paul McLean and feel he did a good job in Ottawa but when he was let go and Cameron took over, the change worked wonders in Ottawa.

It seems to work that way in Hockey more than any other sport. Football, teams are generally loath to change coaches midseason because of the elaborate playbook, baseball, it usually (tho not always) signals a downward spiral. But in Hockey, how many times has a coaching change midseason sparked a moribund team into greatness? Change the coach or change the goalie when the team is down, last year Ottawa did both with smashing results.

 

I know this is an old thread but the Sens were a .500 team when the coach left and they were a .500 team allll the way at the end of the season until Hammond won 20 games in a row on his own. The Sens would have missed the playoffs by like 15 games if Hammond hadn't aligned the planets.

[ScottM]

I know this is an old thread but the Sens were a .500 team when the coach left and they were a .500 team allll the way at the end of the season until Hammond won 20 games in a row on his own. The Sens would have missed the playoffs by like 15 games if Hammond hadn't aligned the planets.

 

Hammond was a big part of it, but to say it was only because of him is incorrect. Look at the way Stone, Hoffman, Zibanejad, Lazar, etc. improved their play at the end of the year. The return of Methot from his injury helped to solidify the defensive unit and allowed Karlsson to play his game. Quite frankly, the whole team seemed to step up their play in support of Hammond. There were a lot of pieces to it, and every one was necessary. On top of that, the Sens were never more than 14 points out of a playoff spot. That's a lot, but it's nowhere near 15 games.

 

It's not hard to prove that, either. The team's offense was much better late in the season. In the last 30 games, the team scored four or more goals 12 times. Compare that to 13 times in the first 52 games of the season. That's an increase from 25% of the time to 40% of the time. If you want to compare McLean's time to Cameron's, it's just as pronounced. In the 27 games that McLean coached, the team scored 4+ only five times. That's 18% of the time. In Cameron's 55 games, they did it 20 times, or 36% of the time. It seems pretty clear that Cameron got better production out of the young players. As for the record, I'd point out that Robin Lehner played 16 games under Cameron and went 4-10-2. That's going to drag the record down. Lehner was just dreadful last year. I don't blame that on Cameron.

[2nd String Champ]

Ahh, I meant 15 points. The "games" was a typo. I think Hammond was the root and his terrific numbers won them games all on their own. Of course it does take an entire team to win games.... usually.

the change worked wonders in Ottawa.

That is what stuck in my mind when I replied. "worked wonders" isn't at all how I would have put it. .500 for pretty much the whole year except for the last 2 months = ouch! since they blamed the former coach for their woes, I would have expected a better year following the change.

 

Really though, they sent Bishop away to be a starter in Tampa, they got nothing in return, lost the two best players in back to back seasons and didn't replace them. No coach can keep on climbing with the top talent leaving and the remaining players floating on past performances.

[ScottM]

Ahh, I meant 15 points. The "games" was a typo.

 

Gotcha.

 

That is what stuck in my mind when I replied. "worked wonders" isn't at all how I would have put it. .500 for pretty much the whole year except for the last 2 months = ouch! since they blamed the former coach for their woes, I would have expected a better year following the change.

 

The offense did improve greatly, so in that respect, it worked wonders. I go again back to Cameron having to rely on Lehner in net until Hammond came along, and the fact that Methot was out for so long. No Anderson, No Methot, and the defensive side was going to hurt... badly.

 

 

Really though, they sent Bishop away to be a starter in Tampa, they got nothing in return, lost the two best players in back to back seasons and didn't replace them. No coach can keep on climbing with the top talent leaving and the remaining players floating on past performances.

 

They were slow on Alfie and blew that, but Spezza had become discontented and needed to go. The Bishop trade... yeah... one of the many reasons I don't think much of Murray as a GM. The Alfie situation too, for that matter.