All things 2014 Playoffs

wprager wrote:I'm actually not sure if baseball teams have captains, but they sure don't wear a 'C'.  I think in football you actually have the captains calling the coin toss but, again, no 'C'; same in soccer.

Point still stands -- no other major team sports so clearly identifies a captain (and alternates).  And I've heard a lot of talk, recently, on whether hockey really needs a captain.

As to Tim's question, the debate here has been that you cannot expect other players to play the 200' game and give a crap if the guy wearing the 'C' doesn't.  I've said all along (and so have plenty of former players) that you need leadership in the room and on the bench from far more than the guy wearing the 'C'.  Spezza has his faults -- no doubt, but hanging the team's Dung-poor excuse of a season on the shoulders of one guy is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.

So you move Spezza and who is the whipping boy after that?  

Cory Seesy.

wprager wrote:I'm actually not sure if baseball teams have captains, but they sure don't wear a 'C'.  I think in football you actually have the captains calling the coin toss but, again, no 'C'; same in soccer.

Point still stands -- no other major team sports so clearly identifies a captain (and alternates).  And I've heard a lot of talk, recently, on whether hockey really needs a captain.

As to Tim's question, the debate here has been that you cannot expect other players to play the 200' game and give a crap if the guy wearing the 'C' doesn't.  I've said all along (and so have plenty of former players) that you need leadership in the room and on the bench from far more than the guy wearing the 'C'.  Spezza has his faults -- no doubt, but hanging the team's Dung-poor excuse of a season on the shoulders of one guy is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.

So you move Spezza and who is the whipping boy after that?  

When the guy who wears the "C" does what he wants, others will do the same.  Like it or not that's how the world and hockey work.  If your boss goofs off chances are you will too, doesn't mean there are not other people there willing to work hard or put the effort in but things fall apart. 

Also, Spezza was THE problem, he was the biggest one though.  There are other issues like youth, inexperience, inconsistency (coaching and players)... but they should get a chance to sort it out and they will.  Spezza has had a decade to sort out his issues and hasn't. 

Who is the new whipping boy once Spezza is gone?  Not sure but I would guess Cowen as that has already started.

wprager wrote:I'm actually not sure if baseball teams have captains, but they sure don't wear a 'C'.  I think in football you actually have the captains calling the coin toss but, again, no 'C'; same in soccer.

Point still stands -- no other major team sports so clearly identifies a captain (and alternates).  And I've heard a lot of talk, recently, on whether hockey really needs a captain.

As to Tim's question, the debate here has been that you cannot expect other players to play the 200' game and give a crap if the guy wearing the 'C' doesn't.  I've said all along (and so have plenty of former players) that you need leadership in the room and on the bench from far more than the guy wearing the 'C'.  Spezza has his faults -- no doubt, but hanging the team's Dung-poor excuse of a season on the shoulders of one guy is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.

So you move Spezza and who is the whipping boy after that?  

are you trying to downplay the importance a team appointed captain who is slacking off has on the rest of a team? really??? c'mon man.
think of it this way, you see the boss coming in to work 3 days out of 5 and playing solitaire on his computer, hell he's out the other two days playing golf! do you think the rest of the office feels like giving their 100%? same Dung different pile.

Faceoffs > leadership.  Prager 101

You win the puck, you win the game.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

wprager wrote:I'm actually not sure if baseball teams have captains, but they sure don't wear a 'C'.  I think in football you actually have the captains calling the coin toss but, again, no 'C'; same in soccer.

Point still stands -- no other major team sports so clearly identifies a captain (and alternates).  And I've heard a lot of talk, recently, on whether hockey really needs a captain.

As to Tim's question, the debate here has been that you cannot expect other players to play the 200' game and give a crap if the guy wearing the 'C' doesn't.  I've said all along (and so have plenty of former players) that you need leadership in the room and on the bench from far more than the guy wearing the 'C'.  Spezza has his faults -- no doubt, but hanging the team's Dung-poor excuse of a season on the shoulders of one guy is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.

So you move Spezza and who is the whipping boy after that?  

Cory Seesy.

Kayser Seezy?

NEELY wrote:

wprager wrote:I'm actually not sure if baseball teams have captains, but they sure don't wear a 'C'.  I think in football you actually have the captains calling the coin toss but, again, no 'C'; same in soccer.

Point still stands -- no other major team sports so clearly identifies a captain (and alternates).  And I've heard a lot of talk, recently, on whether hockey really needs a captain.

As to Tim's question, the debate here has been that you cannot expect other players to play the 200' game and give a crap if the guy wearing the 'C' doesn't.  I've said all along (and so have plenty of former players) that you need leadership in the room and on the bench from far more than the guy wearing the 'C'.  Spezza has his faults -- no doubt, but hanging the team's Dung-poor excuse of a season on the shoulders of one guy is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction.

So you move Spezza and who is the whipping boy after that?  

When the guy who wears the "C" does what he wants, others will do the same.  Like it or not that's how the world and hockey work.  If your boss goofs off chances are you will too, doesn't mean there are not other people there willing to work hard or put the effort in but things fall apart. 

Also, Spezza was THE problem, he was the biggest one though.  There are other issues like youth, inexperience, inconsistency (coaching and players)... but they should get a chance to sort it out and they will.  Spezza has had a decade to sort out his issues and hasn't. 

Who is the new whipping boy once Spezza is gone?  Not sure but I would guess Cowen as that has already started.

You tried to use that lame argument before. My boss controls my annual review and can fire me. Spezza has little-to-no input on player evaluations (at least it's not the 'C' that would gain him admittance to those kinds of conversations).

Was Spezza a problem two seasons ago when he led the team in scoring, had the top per game ice time among forwards, decent +11 (Alfie at +16 was the best forward) and was the team's best face off guy (plus took more than a third of all face offs)? Same player, same coach, so the argument about him not being on the same page as the coach or clashing with MacLean goes right out the window.

I'm not saying he can ever be that same player, he's clearly lost a step, but no-one would argue that he did not improve (speed) as the season went along, so it's not improbable that he will be even stronger/faster after a full off season spent training rather than rehabbing his back/knee.

NEELY wrote:Faceoffs > leadership.  Prager 101

Not what I was saying.

Misinterpreting (misrepresenting?) other posters. NEELY 101.

No denying Toews' leadership qualities and abilities.  But to say a supporting cast isn't as important is ridiculous.  All you gotta do is look back to last season when the hawks were losing and toews had a mini breakdown in the penalty box, and brent seabrook went and calmed him down. So its easy to come down on spezza, but there's gotta something more from the rest of the committee as well.

Look at voracek in game 2 against the rangers, moment they go down 2-zip, he's on the bench calming everybody down.  So yeah.....having one main leader is bull crap.  But they better at least show that they give a Dung, something spezza hasn't done.  We do forget, it was really his first time as captain.  Hell he didn't even get a shot whenever alfie was injured, and the sens gave the 'C' to heatley in that home opener in 2008-2009.  bleh.

Michallica wrote:No denying Toews' leadership qualities and abilities.  But to say a supporting cast isn't as important is ridiculous.  All you gotta do is look back to last season when the hawks were losing and toews had a mini breakdown in the penalty box, and brent seabrook went and calmed him down.  So its easy to come down on spezza, but there's gotta something more from the rest of the committee as well.

Look at voracek in game 2 against the rangers, moment they go down 2-zip, he's on the bench calming everybody down.  So yeah.....having one main leader is bull crap.  But they better at least show that they give a Dung, something spezza hasn't done.  We do forget, it was really his first time as captain.  Hell he didn't even get a shot whenever alfie was injured, and the sens gave the 'C' to heatley in that home opener in 2008-2009.  bleh.

No one is saying that the supporting cast isn't important, it's extremely important.  What people are saying is a crappy leader/captain can crush the supporting cast. If one guy follows what Spezza does (Zack Smith for example) then he isn't doing what he needs to do for the team to win. If then someone follows Smith then they aren't doing their job, etc, etc, etc.

Having guys that can help support the captain and leaders on a team is a key component in any successful team, company, w/e. Having a boss/captain/leader that doesn't care or doesn't want to fall in line with what the team/company is doing then that trickles down. That's the entire point and that's Spezza's failure as a leader and a player in general to this point. He does what he likes, he has an idea of how the game should be played and frankly his idea and view is and always has been terribly ignorant.

Sodenberg is quite good.

So, Alfie, do you think the Red Wings can come back from being down 3-1?

No sweep for the Sharks. Kings survive to live another day.

I'll say this about the Sens missing the playoffs, you get way more into every other team without them in there and the playoffs in general.  Also you see how far away the Sens truly are.

NEELY wrote:I'll say this about the Sens missing the playoffs, you get way more into every other team without them in there and the playoffs in general.  Also you see how far away the Sens truly are.

I've watched entire games involving other teams in these playoffs and I can assure you that I'm not into any of them. Especially not the highly over-rated Wings. The Sens managed to find a way to play themselves out of the playoffs but they should be better than the Wings and they are certainly not far from the Penguins or Tampa Bay, who obviously made it in.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

NEELY wrote:I'll say this about the Sens missing the playoffs, you get way more into every other team without them in there and the playoffs in general.  Also you see how far away the Sens truly are.

I've watched entire games involving other teams in these playoffs and I can assure you that I'm not into any of them. Especially not the highly over-rated Wings. The Sens managed to find a way to play themselves out of the playoffs but they should be better than the Wings and they are certainly not far from the Penguins or Tampa Bay, who obviously made it in.

That's what sucks about missing the playoffs this year. With the East so weak, it's pretty much only Boston that stands above the rest. Although I must say the Rangers have looked really good the past couple of games. It should be a Rags/Bruins Conference Final.

SeawaySensFan wrote:

NEELY wrote:I'll say this about the Sens missing the playoffs, you get way more into every other team without them in there and the playoffs in general.  Also you see how far away the Sens truly are.

I've watched entire games involving other teams in these playoffs and I can assure you that I'm not into any of them. Especially not the highly over-rated Wings. The Sens managed to find a way to play themselves out of the playoffs but they should be better than the Wings and they are certainly not far from the Penguins or Tampa Bay, who obviously made it in.

Boston, St.Louis, Chicago, San Jose, Anaheim, Colorado... Ottawa isn't anywhere near these teams.

NEELY wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:

NEELY wrote:I'll say this about the Sens missing the playoffs, you get way more into every other team without them in there and the playoffs in general.  Also you see how far away the Sens truly are.

I've watched entire games involving other teams in these playoffs and I can assure you that I'm not into any of them. Especially not the highly over-rated Wings. The Sens managed to find a way to play themselves out of the playoffs but they should be better than the Wings and they are certainly not far from the Penguins or Tampa Bay, who obviously made it in.

Boston, St.Louis, Chicago, San Jose, Anaheim, Colorado... Ottawa isn't anywhere near these teams.

You were singing a different tune to start the year my friend   I told you people we weren't going to challenge for the division...

They're close to Colorado and Anaheim though. The Avs are basically us from last year, and the Ducks are the Caps of the West. Both teams are nothing special, no defense.

Aso the Wings are garbage. Way too many Europeans who play the same style.