All Hockey talk all the time

Spezza dropped the gloves against Markov last season.

The non-"hate to lose mentality" is in part because they simply can't do anything about their losing because they're not good enough to win.

Give them more skill and speed, and the swagger returns and then that stuff will happen more.

Also, I'll take Smith, Volchenkov, Ruutu, Neil etc. over Kostopoulos, Begin, Laraques and Komisarek.

I think you're under-rating the Sens in terms of grit.

asq2 wrote:Also, I'll take Smith, Volchenkov, Ruutu, Neil etc. over Kostopoulos, Begin, Laraques and Komisarek.

I think you're under-rating the Sens in terms of grit.

Not at all...I was just speaking to your point about 'skill teams'. No question that Smith, Volchenkov, and Neil among others have toughness. Jarkko Ruutu IMHO is mostly mouth (and teeth) so far as a Sen LOL...but let's give him a pass.

As for the word 'grit' as well as the overused 'sandpaper', what do those really mean?

Michel Bergeron often talks about 'team toughness', and the question is, do the Senators have 'team toughness'?

That toughness is the mentality that says, 'I don't care if your team has more talent, I'm going to make you earn this game'. It's a culture that says to the opponent that whatever the result, they will leave the rink 'black and blue', mentally and physically, for their trouble. It's the mentality that says, 'My stats mean nothing if my team doesn't win.'

Wouldn't you agree the Senators have shown a lack of 'team toughness' more than once this season?

Again, this is not a knock on the players...as you say, there is a talent gap there. But don't you think there needs to be a culture of 'team toughness' implemented in order for the Senators to progress?

When Bryan Murray said he wanted to make the Senators 'tougher to play against', he didn't just mean that getting Smith and Ruutu were the solution. He meant that he wanted the entire team to be mentally tougher--including being more disciplined and accountable--and physically tougher.

Guy Carbonneau went through this in Montreal earlier this year when he called out his players for their lack of team toughness.

Claude Julien and Todd McLellan, to name two, constantly preach--and enforce--team toughness.

Looking forward, as always, to this discussion.

By the way, thanks again to everybody who has voted in the 'What should the Sens do next poll'--this is shaping up to be a very interesting result.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:Also, I'll take Smith, Volchenkov, Ruutu, Neil etc. over Kostopoulos, Begin, Laraques and Komisarek.

I think you're under-rating the Sens in terms of grit.

Not at all...I was just speaking to your point about 'skill teams'. No question that Smith, Volchenkov, and Neil among others have toughness. Jarkko Ruutu IMHO is mostly mouth (and teeth) so far as a Sen LOL...but let's give him a pass.

As for the word 'grit' as well as the overused 'sandpaper', what do those really mean?

Michel Bergeron often talks about 'team toughness', and the question is, do the Senators have 'team toughness'?

That toughness is the mentality that says, 'I don't care if your team has more talent, I'm going to make you earn this game'. It's a culture that says to the opponent that whatever the result, they will leave the rink 'black and blue', mentally and physically, for their trouble. It's the mentality that says, 'My stats mean nothing if my team doesn't win.'

Wouldn't you agree the Senators have shown a lack of 'team toughness' more than once this season?

Again, this is not a knock on the players...as you say, there is a talent gap there. But don't you think there needs to be a culture of 'team toughness' implemented in order for the Senators to progress?

When Bryan Murray said he wanted to make the Senators 'tougher to play against', he didn't just mean that getting Smith and Ruutu were the solution. He meant that he wanted the entire team to be mentally tougher--including being more disciplined and accountable--and physically tougher.

Guy Carbonneau went through this in Montreal earlier this year when he called out his players for their lack of team toughness.

Claude Julien and Todd McLellan, to name two, constantly preach--and enforce--team toughness.

Looking forward, as always, to this discussion.

In every sport I've played, this is what the coach has tried to reinforce.
You can't sulk and sag when you are scored on. You can't blame each other (or the refs, or the ice, or the phase of the moon...) when things aren't going right. You can't whine and complain about not doing the role that you want to.

You do what you have to do, you do it the best you can, you keep doing it no matter what, and you accept the consequences of what you all do as a team.

The Senators haven't done this since they ran into the Ducks in the SCF.

Acquiring one player, then, would not improve team toughness, would it?

Tougher to play against can mean a couple of things. If you can get the puck quickly up the ice, you'll have more of an opportunity to crash and bang in the opposition's zone.

That relates to skill.

This team needs skill and mobility, then we'll worry about toughness.

asq2 wrote:Acquiring one player, then, would not improve team toughness, would it?

Tougher to play against can mean a couple of things. If you can get the puck quickly up the ice, you'll have more of an opportunity to crash and bang in the opposition's zone.

That relates to skill.

This team needs skill and mobility, then we'll worry about toughness.

We are agreed that all elements need to be in balance.

Looking at the team (and this may be what Bryan Murray saw) there may have been too much emphasis on skill, and not enough toughness.

As I said, and as we agree--it's not one player. It's a team thing.

IMHO one of the most successful examples is Claude Julien's transformation of the Bruins. But you can also look at Brent Sutter and the New Jersey Devils.

Both of these clubs have instituted a T-E-A-M First culture (in the Devils' case, that culture is synonymous with Lou Lamoriello).

Can Hartsburg and Murray do it in Ottawa? Odd as this may sound, the failures of the first half may be the most compelling reasons why the deliberate shift in the team's identity may begin to succeed in the second half.

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:Acquiring one player, then, would not improve team toughness, would it?

Tougher to play against can mean a couple of things. If you can get the puck quickly up the ice, you'll have more of an opportunity to crash and bang in the opposition's zone.

That relates to skill.

This team needs skill and mobility, then we'll worry about toughness.

We are agreed that all elements need to be in balance.

Looking at the team (and this may be what Bryan Murray saw) there may have been too much emphasis on skill, and not enough toughness.

As I said, and as we agree--it's not one player. It's a team thing.

IMHO one of the most successful examples is Claude Julien's transformation of the Bruins. But you can also look at Brent Sutter and the New Jersey Devils.

Both of these clubs have instituted a T-E-A-M First culture (in the Devils' case, that culture is synonymous with Lou Lamoriello).

Can Hartsburg and Murray do it in Ottawa? Odd as this may sound, the failures of the first half may be the most compelling reasons why the deliberate shift in the team's identity may begin to succeed in the second half.

What? We have a total of 5 skill players: the top line, Vermette and Lee.

We could have pursued skill and speed like Streit but instead pursued grit and toughness in Smith.

I'm of the opposite position. We've been trying too much to respond to being dominated physically by the Ducks and we've lost our ability to get to a level where we could play against the Ducks in the process.

The trading of skill for toughness has been in effect since trading Corvo for Commodore, and the only thing we've done to address this has been the drafting of Karlsson and Petersson.

Yes, toughness is nice when playing against the West, but we no longer have the skill or speed to get to the Finals. And successful teams like Detroit aren't exactly bruising.

Talking about Boston, they are still all about skill, mobility and speed.

Look at their forward group: Savard, Krejci, Kessel, Bergeron, Ryder, Kobasew, Wheeler, Sturm. Lots of skill and speed there.

On defence, they have a number of mobile guys too like Hunwick and Wideman. And Boston is reputedly looking for another fast, skilled PMD on defence. That's why you see all those proposals like Bergeron for Ryan Whitney.

Or look at your team, Chicago. Up front they have skill like Kane, Toews, Havlat, Sharp and Versteeg, and on D have mobile guys like Keith, Campbell and Barker.

I'd say we resemble Boston and Chicago far more in terms of grit than in terms of skill or speed.

We are not in disagreement here; but IMHO it is worth looking at Boston and Chicago in terms of their balance.

Why do they win? The skill and toughness on these teams are balanced with a T-E-A-M attitude.

As good as Kessel is, Claude Julien sat him when he felt Kessel didn't perform.

As good as Khabibulin is, management waived him when they felt he was putting himself above the team.

Both Boston and Chicago also have a tradition, as 'Original Six' teams and Stanley Cup winners, and a set of intrinsic values that have survived their lean years.

Being one who remembers the six-team league, my affinity for Chicago has not so much to do with their place in the standings as the fact that I relate to the character --or at least my personal impression of it--of the team. So when I watch the Hawks, I remember Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Glenn Hall, Pierre Pilote, Keith Magnuson, Tony Esposito, Steve Larmer, Dirk Graham and so on and so on. Their greatness as hockey players is part of what today's Blackhawks are expected to live up to.

I sometimes wonder why the Senators do not evoke more often the hallowed tradition of what was, in its time and at its apex, the NHL's most winning team.

When I see a game at Scotiabank Place, I could be in any hockey arena...I don't get a sense of history.

Ottawa has a huge hockey tradition. My family, in its own small way, was part of that, as my grandfather played for the old Rideau Valley Lumber Kings back in 1906, and my uncles played for the Ottawa Montagnards and RCAF Flyers. I remember Scotty Bowman and the Hull-Ottawa Canadiens, with Bobby Rousseau and Gilles Tremblay. I saw Darryl Sittler face off against Denis Potvin as OHA rivals. And there so many great NHL players from Ottawa, who carry on the tradition of this city as a great hockey town.

But I do not sense that the modern Senators are imbued with that tradition; yet the Stanley Cup banners that hang from the rafters proclaim that tradition.

While hockey is a business, it is also a sport with a noble quality.

The old cliche, you play for the symbol on the front, and not the name on the back, is rooted in a fundamental truth.

One can engage, as you are in a most informed way, in comparative analysis of finite elements.

But I would respectfully suggest the character, and culture of the team is as important--some could argue more important--than the elements.

A most interesting discussion, and many thanks.

8)

Khabby was waived because Huet was signed, making him a 6mil+ backup essentially.

Tukker wrote:Khabby was waived because Huet was signed, making him a 6mil+ backup essentially.

That statement is correct...however you don't waive $6,75MM Stanley Cup winning goaltenders simply because they've become 'a backup'.

There were clearly issues at that point pertinent to 'Bulin's role on the team.

Happily for both parties, Nik came back and showed he could work in tandem with Huet.
8)

When cap issues arise, you do.

To make it clear, I'm not arguing, just sparking discussion :D

Tukker wrote:When cap issues arise, you do.

To make it clear, I'm not arguing, just sparking discussion :D

Absolutely agree with you...but bear in mind that the cap issue was not the principal reason for the waiver move.

Had Khabby played up to his contract value, the Hawks would not have gone out and gotten Huet in the first place.

There had been an impasse in goal, and Tallon had been trying to deal Nik to clear cap space, but also because it seemed Khabby really didn't want to be Hawk--but found no takers because 'Bulin's performance had been a letdown.

So in this case there were a variety of factors in play. 8)

At this point, as you know, the issue of cap space is still there, but Khabby and Huet are both playing well, so it's tough for Tallon to break up his winning duo.

And there's really no reason to...if the Hawks make the playoffs and go more than one round, the investment in Khabby will have paid off.

Nik being a UFA in June, the Hawks are no longer on the hook for his salary, and they have the very promising Antti Niemi waiting in the wings along with Corey Crawford.

So the cap space issue goes away...

One can detect the wily counsel of Scotty Bowman in all of this. :pirat:

A very enjoyable discussion...thanks!

davetherave wrote:

asq2 wrote:Acquiring one player, then, would not improve team toughness, would it?

Tougher to play against can mean a couple of things. If you can get the puck quickly up the ice, you'll have more of an opportunity to crash and bang in the opposition's zone.

That relates to skill.

This team needs skill and mobility, then we'll worry about toughness.

We are agreed that all elements need to be in balance.

Looking at the team (and this may be what Bryan Murray saw) there may have been too much emphasis on skill, and not enough toughness.

As I said, and as we agree--it's not one player. It's a team thing.

IMHO one of the most successful examples is Claude Julien's transformation of the Bruins. But you can also look at Brent Sutter and the New Jersey Devils.

Both of these clubs have instituted a T-E-A-M First culture (in the Devils' case, that culture is synonymous with Lou Lamoriello).

Can Hartsburg and Murray do it in Ottawa? Odd as this may sound, the failures of the first half may be the most compelling reasons why the deliberate shift in the team's identity may begin to succeed in the second half.

I've been saying, for a while now, that I have a feeling the Hartsburg can be our Brent Sutter. I really hope it happens.

That would be a good thing.

asq2 wrote:
I'd say we're pretty mean. Fisher, Neil, Volchenkov and Schubert are great hitters who will sometimes cross the line. Alfredsson, too, and he'll hit you with a puck as well. Then we've got Spezza spearing people and Sharko Ruutu.

I'd say we're mean enough. Kronwall and Stuart are hitters, they're not Chris Prongers though.

Chicago is another team that doesn't really have mean-ness but succeeds.

I'd much prefer targetting skill and speed than more intangibles.

Because, right now our results are intangible.

Sharko Ruutu. Hee-hee, har-har.

Sharko. Also known as 'Jaws' Ruutu...the competitor with an insatiable hunger for wins. A player who takes a bite out of the opposition.
:lol!: