Greatest Senators #5

[saskriders]

1: Daniel Alfredsson - 63%
2: Erik Karlsson - 92%
3: Jason Spezza - 63%
4: Alexei Yashin - 26%

Added Hoffman to the poll

Tell me who to add


Also, Yashin. I am dissapoint

Click to read more...

 

[Real Smart Sens Fan]

5. Phillips
6. Anderson
7. Heatley
8. Redden
9. Hossa
10. Fisher/Bonk/Chara...iunno. shis hard.

 

[Deku]

Phillips
Heatley
Hossa
Redden
Anderson

 

[18Hossa]

Gotta go with Marian Hossa.

 

[operasen]

Chara made us impactful on Defence. He is responsible for developing Phillips and others. Set a gold standard. Should NEVER have kept Redden over Chara.

 

[Grizz MacArthur]

My all time favorite Senator, Marian Hossa.

 

[tony d]

Hossa

 

[LuckyPierre]

It's Heatley. 50g, 100pt seasons back to back, single season goal and point total franchise records, and a finals run.

Heatley
Hossa
Redden
Chara
Phillips
Fisher

 

[SENSational]

In what world is Phillips ahead of Chara. Chara was always the better D here.

 

[saskriders]

In what world is Phillips ahead of Chara. Chara was always the better D here.

Longevity by a long shot.

 

[Stuzchuk]

Missed Hossa in the list... voted Redden (should have been Hossa)

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Longevity by a long shot.

don't need an opinion poll for longevity

 

[saskriders]

don't need an opinion poll for longevity

But it plays into being a great Senator.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

But it plays into being a great Senator.

How exactly? Is there a consistent number of points / game of service that we can apply? Or is it just a feel thing, where one can feel the player has been here a reasonably adequate amount of time to warrant consideration for being a great Senator?

How should we weigh the subjective great ability vs objective longevity in rating relative greatness? How much more longevity would a player of considerably less ability have to have before they would be considered to be greater than a player with substantially more ability?

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

But it plays into being a great Senator.

Nah. The thing is, you can keep playing for a team forever by just being a "good character guy" and not fouling up too much, just being average. That doesn't make you great. What makes you great is being a cut above the rest of the players, being a finalist for awards, being regarded by your peers as being one of the best at your position.

In Ottawa especially, this is not a very demanding media or fan market, so you can just get into that "Donovan/Phillips Groove" and be average and enjoy. I was never a huge Spezza fan, but he did take it too much from fans because he was good at the job of hockey.

Chris Phillips was solid, he was at times well above average, but never "great". Voted for Hossa here, he was fantastic.

 

[saskriders]

How exactly? Is there a consistent number of points / game of service that we can apply? Or is it just a feel thing, where one can feel the player has been here a reasonably adequate amount of time to warrant consideration for being a great Senator?

How should we weigh the subjective great ability vs objective longevity in rating relative greatness? How much more longevity would a player of considerably less ability have to have before they would be considered to be greater than a player with substantially more ability?

I think those questions are largely subjective. I do think it is largely a feel thing and that to an extent it is intangibles. I would also argue that the specific moments a player contributed to can contribute to their legacy. For instance Phillips has a cup run and the 03 game 6 ECF OT goal. Hossa never went that far with the team or scored a goal that big for the Sens.

 

[PoutineSp00nZ]

Redden doesn't get enough credit for turning the Senators into a serious contender. He gave the Senators their first star defenseman, its no coincidence that they first made the playoffs in his first year in the league.

If we're talking players who contributed the most to the Senators, he has to be in the discussion this high.

 

[Engineer]

How exactly? Is there a consistent number of points / game of service that we can apply? Or is it just a feel thing, where one can feel the player has been here a reasonably adequate amount of time to warrant consideration for being a great Senator?

How should we weigh the subjective great ability vs objective longevity in rating relative greatness? How much more longevity would a player of considerably less ability have to have before they would be considered to be greater than a player with substantially more ability?

Why haven't you voted hasek in every poll then?

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Hossa easily

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Why haven't you voted hasek in every poll then?

Because there are several players who had a higher peak as a Senator than a guy who played half a season with the team.

 

[Hossa]

Hossa, obviously.

 

[topshelf15]

Where the hell is Randy Cunnyworth???

 

[Xspyrit]

Longevity by a long shot.

The results of these polls are/will be skewed because you didn't explain this in the OP. You can tell right away by this mini debate around Phillips longevity that people value things very differently so you have to establish the criterias for them.

To me, when you talk about the greatest Senators (Modern Era), you have to evaluate how good they were, but also how many games they played for the team in the regular season AND the playoffs, and how much success they had with the team and individually.

As a reference, you can find a lot of infos here :

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/OTT/leaders_career.html

Why haven't you voted hasek in every poll then?

hehe super good point.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Why haven't you voted hasek in every poll then?

oh is that Dominik Hasek? ... good goalie .. subjectively, not a big enough fan to vote him in over players like Karlsson, Alfredsson, Spezza, Yashin.... so far

Excellent question though. Why'd you pick him?