Dictatorship to Democracy?
- Thread starter Cat Herder
- Start date
Fandlauer
Registered User
Stylizer1
SENSimillanaire
Spezza should have been captain still until Karlsson earned it. Now that the team has been stripped down Melnyk will take a back seat and let Dorion be a GM.
Stylizer1
SENSimillanaire
"although a recent push at the box office, with several thousand seats sold in the past week, will create a decent crowd. Not that they all paid. Every season ticket holder was offered an additional two free seats for the opener, an indication that papering the house to avoid embarrassment is back in vogue in Ottawa after several years of legitimate crowd totals."
does anyone doubt that this is boro?
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 65,252
- 49,869
I like that it draws attention to the fans vs Melnyk as a possible if not likely reason for the empty seats.
As well as
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 65,252
- 49,869
NOPE. Boro was trying to reign Karl in,,, he is saying he thinks the D will be better,, I think a lot of this messaging comes from Boro.
See having a player like Karlsson being given what Boro would think is special treatment would not sit well with him.
IMO if Karl was signed and was in the lineup things would have the same positive vibe they have now... its about turning the page and moving on and he would be the band leader behind that.. Some of the things the players are saying are being interpreted as pointing the finger negatively at Karl.,. maybe that's the way it is, but its an interpretation at this point.
Gil Gunderson
Registered User
Yes now we can play like complete shit and not have our best player get frustrated. Never mind that we had the worst possession numbers in the league when he was not on the ice and among the best when he was.
Yay team!
Yay team!
its so strange how the same people that talk about all the "whining" from ex players don't say a word about the amount of bs that comes out of boros mouth... like hes quickly going from likeable goon to dislikeable rat
danielpalfredsson
youtube dot com /watch?v=CdqMZ_s7Y6k
- Aug 14, 2013
- 16,575
- 9,269
Chris Stevenson clarified that comment as not being malicious by the players, that Karl was a big personality and that with no captain leadership would now be done by committee.
robsenz
Registered User
- Apr 15, 2007
- 3,560
- 2,423
Spezza should have never been the captain, it was just an attempt to keep him happy, which it obviously didn't. Karlsson was a bit young, but giving the "C" to a young player is the trendy thing now. I would much rather have an aging veteran wear the "C". Should have been Phillips when Spezza was named captain.
Stylizer1
SENSimillanaire
From all accounts Spezza was the leader in the room. Even when Alfie was there Spezza was a voice. Spezza should not have been traded and should have been supported as Captain. Too much pressure for Karlsson to carry the team. While Karlsson was captain he wasn't nearly in front of the camera like Spezza and Alfie were. This team was never about building anything and never wanted to resign Spezza. They thought they could speed up the maturity of the team by going with Karlsson and letting the rest follow but as displayed in the Hoffman situation there was a lack of ultimate respect between players. As good as a company guy Phillips was he would of only been picked because of longevity and not influence on the game. Best players on the team usually get the C in any sport at most levels.
Phillips would have been an awesome Captain. I long for the days when guys like Alfie, Phillips, Neil, Fisher and Redden had a handle on things. I wasn’t Redden’s biggest fan but looking back I appreciate him more now then I did back then!
Wallet Inspector
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2013
- 5,761
- 5,010
To be perfectly frank I really don't care if Karlsson was a tough captain. He has the skills to justify it, and some players need a kick in the butt to play to their full potential.
swiftwin
★SUMMER.OF.PIERRE★
- Jul 26, 2005
- 23,584
- 12,966
As I posted in the other thread, this is my interpretation of that quote:
There's no denying that Karlsson was by far the best player on the team in his time here. I truly believe he's a good guy, and by no means a bad influence in the locker room. However, when a single player, especially a defenseman, is that much better than everybody else (aka. God made him on the 7th day), I believe it starts to create some weird dynamics on the rest of the room.
For example, everything the team and the coaching stuff does revolves around accentuating Karlsson's skillset, which is scary because Karlsson has a very very unique skillset. The 1-3-1 Boucher implemented with is was built around Karlsson. It was built around having the LD as an anvil on the left side, and have the RD be the puck retrieval and transition player. Fantastic for Karlsson. For Ceci? Maybe not so much. Ceci would have benefited from a different system that does not put so much focus on him being the sole source of the breakout. Not only that, but Ceci was also asked to play some of the toughest minutes in the league in order to maximize Karlsson's offensive minutes. Over the years, we've argued with people to death on the main boards about Karlsson not playing on the PK, etc. This is the flip side of that issue. Ceci was like one of those servants that carries the King around in his chair.
I'm just using Ceci as one example. The PP is another example. Our PP struggled alot, why? We focused too much on Karlsson. The rest of the team started to use Karlsson as a crutch, and stood around, waiting for him to work his magic at the top of the umbrella. We rarely ever worked the puck down low or at the half boards. If the other team could isolate Karlsson, our PP was neutralized. Or what about the forwards who constantly had to cover Karlsson when he went on a rush?
Look at the ridiculous Karlsson on/off stats. They were absolutely outrageous for this reason.
The thing is though, even if Karlsson kinda sucked the oxygen out of the room and suppressed other players (again, not in a malicious or intentional way), he was still so good that it still made us a better team overall. Think of it like a video game where you min/max a unique and unorthodox build that only works in a very specific situation (such as having a special talent like Karlsson). Ultimately, I'm not saying that we're going to be better off without Karlsson. I'm just saying that the hole he leaves behind is not going to be as big as people make it out to be. The systems will be built around the team as a whole instead of an individual player, and his prime minutes will be spread around to other players more evenly. This is where that "We're going from a dictatorship to a democracy" anonymous quote from the Sens dressing room came from.
I'm not trying to do any character assassination. It's something I've actually pondered about for years, and posted about a few times.
It'll be interesting to see how the team performs now that the load of responsibility is spread around a bit more.
There's no denying that Karlsson was by far the best player on the team in his time here. I truly believe he's a good guy, and by no means a bad influence in the locker room. However, when a single player, especially a defenseman, is that much better than everybody else (aka. God made him on the 7th day), I believe it starts to create some weird dynamics on the rest of the room.
For example, everything the team and the coaching stuff does revolves around accentuating Karlsson's skillset, which is scary because Karlsson has a very very unique skillset. The 1-3-1 Boucher implemented with is was built around Karlsson. It was built around having the LD as an anvil on the left side, and have the RD be the puck retrieval and transition player. Fantastic for Karlsson. For Ceci? Maybe not so much. Ceci would have benefited from a different system that does not put so much focus on him being the sole source of the breakout. Not only that, but Ceci was also asked to play some of the toughest minutes in the league in order to maximize Karlsson's offensive minutes. Over the years, we've argued with people to death on the main boards about Karlsson not playing on the PK, etc. This is the flip side of that issue. Ceci was like one of those servants that carries the King around in his chair.
I'm just using Ceci as one example. The PP is another example. Our PP struggled alot, why? We focused too much on Karlsson. The rest of the team started to use Karlsson as a crutch, and stood around, waiting for him to work his magic at the top of the umbrella. We rarely ever worked the puck down low or at the half boards. If the other team could isolate Karlsson, our PP was neutralized. Or what about the forwards who constantly had to cover Karlsson when he went on a rush?
Look at the ridiculous Karlsson on/off stats. They were absolutely outrageous for this reason.
The thing is though, even if Karlsson kinda sucked the oxygen out of the room and suppressed other players (again, not in a malicious or intentional way), he was still so good that it still made us a better team overall. Think of it like a video game where you min/max a unique and unorthodox build that only works in a very specific situation (such as having a special talent like Karlsson). Ultimately, I'm not saying that we're going to be better off without Karlsson. I'm just saying that the hole he leaves behind is not going to be as big as people make it out to be. The systems will be built around the team as a whole instead of an individual player, and his prime minutes will be spread around to other players more evenly. This is where that "We're going from a dictatorship to a democracy" anonymous quote from the Sens dressing room came from.
I'm not trying to do any character assassination. It's something I've actually pondered about for years, and posted about a few times.
It'll be interesting to see how the team performs now that the load of responsibility is spread around a bit more.
swiftwin
★SUMMER.OF.PIERRE★
- Jul 26, 2005
- 23,584
- 12,966
Another way to put it, is because Karlsson is a defenseman, and because he had such a unique skillset, the team had to work around Karlsson in order to maximize his potential. Where as other superstars, like Crosby or McDavid, simply play the position like other centermen, but just do it better than anybody else.
Countdown0
Deep Breath... nope, still mad!
Jonathan Toews is jokingly referred to as "Captain Serious", in no small part because he takes the game seriously and doesn't f*** around, holding his team mates accountable if they aren't playing like they should. He's also led Chicago to 3 Cups in his time as captain.
You're Captain SHOULD hold you to a standard. EK clearly holds himself to a certain standard of play, otherwise he wouldn't be nearly as good as he is. You don't become a superstar without a certain level of self discipline. So, if this IS players taking a shot at Karlsson, and I'm not saying that it is, then they need to f***ing grow up.
You're Captain SHOULD hold you to a standard. EK clearly holds himself to a certain standard of play, otherwise he wouldn't be nearly as good as he is. You don't become a superstar without a certain level of self discipline. So, if this IS players taking a shot at Karlsson, and I'm not saying that it is, then they need to f***ing grow up.
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
- Jun 10, 2011
- 34,884
- 9,305
So many subtle digs against Karlsson for a few years now, but you still claim not to be against the kid? Come on, Cat.
It's a brilliant strategy. Your best players can't get mad if you don't have any.
Gil Gunderson
Registered User
Looks like the hometown boys won’t get an earful after that game.
CHARACTER
CHARACTER
NyQuil
Big F$&*in Q
Stylizer1
SENSimillanaire
He wasn't falling off a cliff and wanted out because of an inept front office with no direction. Spezza didn't need to be the go to guy on this team forever but he filled a spot that has yet to be filled adequately. We were always better off with him in our line up. His back to back final 60 point seasons were a result of this team cheaping out on his line mates and not him as a player in decline. His situation in Dallas was different than the one he was accustomed to in Ottawa.
BonHoonLayneCornell
Registered User
I agree. It felt like the logical time to move on, but at the same time, likely a big reason he wanted out was because of how the team was operated. I wouldnt want to hang around a team that cant spend while im watching my career take the down turn.
Stylizer1
SENSimillanaire
I don't think their ever is a right time to move on from a player who is one of your cornerstone pieces. Those are the guys you reward and build around like Alfie. Without Spezza Alfie doesn't score nearly as much. Thorton, Chara, Zetterberg, Datsuyk, Lundqvist, Price aren't players you move on from when you are trying to build a winner, they are keys to maintain some sense of a foundation.
