Speculation: Are the Sens too healthy to compete?

[SenatorArmy*]

Last year with all the injuries to key players brought out the best in Ottawa & earned them a trip to the 2nd round of the playoffs. Contrary to logic, this year the Senators compete level has fallen off dramatically despite the return of many star players. Are the Senators too healthy? Why does more talent equal a lesser team? What can we do to ensure we are less talented & more successful next year?

Click to read more...

 

[HavlatMach9]

isn't our record just about the same as last year if we only consider Eastern teams?

 

[SenatorArmy*]

isn't our record just about the same as last year if we only consider Eastern teams?

Not sure. & I guess you could argue overall we're not all that far behind where we finished last year but with the return of all the injured stars, we should be ahead.

 

[Lehner]

I think there actually is something to this, bringing up young guys that will go hard as hell to stay up. It worked last year.

If i was ever a GM I think I would always have a spot on the 3rd/4th line to award ur best ahlers every now and then.

 

[HavlatMach9]

it's also not easy to judge a shortened season because the AHL players were in a groove as they came up while some NHL players had half the season off.

 

[CanadianHockey]

The causal logic makes no sense that injuries are the source of our success. If the entire team got injured, and we called up the B-Sens, would we be more or less likely to win a Cup?

I think there are three potential factors for this season. Our stars are mismatched to MacLean's two-way puck possession system; other teams had better scouting and could exploit and counter our team structure more effectively; a smaller sample size masked the fact that our goaltending and defensive play were unsustainable.

 

[Sensinitis]

No, they are too crappy to compete.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

The guys are too comfortable. They see guys like Phillips, Greening, Condra, Michalek stink up the joint and still get generous new contracts. Why work hard when playing half-assed gives you a longer vacation and the same contract anyways?

 

[The Waffler]

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with this.

On one hand yeah, it's a different mind set. You got guys stepping up in different areas when the stars go down. Athletes have a tendency to either overcome or break under adversity. Last year was a good example of them overcoming it. Maybe because they're all healthy is why they've taken a more laissez-faire approach to a lot of these games. They think they're better than they are.

On the other hand no, they should be at their best with a healthy line-up. That's why they make cuts in training camp.

So basically yes but no is what I'm saying.

 

[StefanW]

I think the reason we succeeded last year was the stars aligned and all three goalies had career numbers.

However, I do think the OP is really interesting and worth some thought. Scotty Bowman once said that teams often play better after a key injury in the short term, but over the long haul the loss of talent catches up with them. Last year, along with riding stellar goaltending, we also had a lockout shortened season. If Bowman is right things would have eventually corrected and our team would have started to tank. We'll never know either way, but great food for thought.

 

[BigRig4]

The causal logic makes no sense that injuries are the source of our success. If the entire team got injured, and we called up the B-Sens, would we be more or less likely to win a Cup?

I think there are three potential factors for this season. Our stars are mismatched to MacLean's two-way puck possession system; other teams had better scouting and could exploit and counter our team structure more effectively; a smaller sample size masked the fact that our goaltending and defensive play were unsustainable.

All this is extremely accurate. In fairness, I was pretty fooled last year too though. I think catering to MacLean's 200 foot system is much more important than catering to lazy stars. Flashy guys win you regular season games and 200 foot guys win you cups.

 

[Baby Ryan]

Last year the team committed to Maclean's system and the goalies played a consistent game.

This year is the complete opposite.
As Lehner has put it, they "cheat" out of the system.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Last year the team committed to Maclean's system and the goalies played a consistent game.

This year is the complete opposite.
As Lehner has put it, they "cheat" out of the system.

The only players that "cheat" are the veterans and half terrible bottom 6.

 

[DrEasy]

I do think health is a factor, but I see it slightly differently. We've had two brutal seasons of late, and in both cases we had too many key players who were either returning from injury or playing through injury, i.e. players who weren't 100%:

In Clouston's last year we had Alf, Fisher, Kuba, Michalek, Kovalev who were in one of those two categories.

This year we've had Spezza, Karlsson, Bobby Ryan, Michalek and Anderson.

Last we had a lot of injuries, but those who played were at 100%. I'll take a 100% Ziba over a 70% Spezza anytime. I'll take a 100% Silfverberg over a 70% Bobby Ryan anytime, and so on...

We really really really need to convince our star players that playing through injuries or returning to the game too early is never in anybody's best interest.

 

[thinkwild]

It’s amazing how often we see that though isn’t it, where a team suffering injuries to key players, goes on a tear, only to go on a losing streak once fall their stars return from injury. It’s as if all the plumbers that had elevated their game, go back to thinking, well now these guys can do it. We can rely on our skill again and give it the ice time the plumbers were getting They lose their peskiness. You'd think we'd stop being amazed at it by now. Its a thing now like first game back after a road trip.

But I cant help but remember that the ‘pesky’ label came about because we won games that we had no business winning. We were running around in our own end, dominated for much of the game, clearly the inferior team, and yet somehow, we pulled a win out of our butts.

Now it seems, while waxing nostalgically, we refer to that aberration portion of a season as: buying in to a 200’ game, playing solid defense, a time of great coaching, and being 2 star players returning away from a Cup contender.

Maybe splashing some cold water on the face will help. Being pesky wasn’t a compliment to how great we were; it was a testament to how often our hot goalies and some puck luck pulled undeserved win after win out of our butts. I don’t think pesky is something we should want to return to.