Greatest Senators #7

[saskriders]

1: Daniel Alfredsson - 63%
2: Erik Karlsson - 92%
3: Jason Spezza - 63%
4: Alexei Yashin - 26%
5: Marian Hossa - 38%
6: Chris Phillips - 37%

Added Van Allen

Tell me who to add next

Click to read more...

 

[edguy]

Heatley
Redden
Chara

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

I feel like Redden's impact on the team is being undervalued.

 

[edguy]

I feel like Redden's impact on the team is being undervalued.

Wade Redden is my Favourite Sens defenseman in their history. But Heatley and his 100 point seasons should come first

 

[Caeldan]

Redden
Neil
Heatley
Chara

Add Chris Kelly

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

I feel like Redden's impact on the team is being undervalued.

Bardown seems to think Redden's 6 should be retired if every team retired one number right now.

Wade Redden is my Favourite Sens defenseman in their history. But Heatley and his 100 point seasons should come first

I tend to agree with you.

 

[CanadianHockey]

Can't bring myself to vote for two seasons of exceptional play over nearly a decade of great play.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Can't bring myself to vote for two seasons of exceptional play over nearly a decade of great play.

This is the rub... To me to be considered a great , your play comes first. If your are a great player that outweighs a good player that played a great many years. I would say you need to be a Sen for a minimum amount of time... Say 3 years... You meet that minimum, its about your play... If you were great vs good you win.

 

[tony d]

Went with Wade Redden.

 

[SPF6ty9]

To me there's no question you go Redden over Heatley. Redden was a great player in his prime even making an Olympic team. I think some people may be forgetting just how good he was, I mean we were actually debating and chose him over Chara who at the time had been a Norris finalist.

Redden may have been a tier below Heatley at their best, but Redden did it for us for a decade while Heatley took his ball and went home when the going got tough.

 

[CanadianHockey]

This is the rub... To me to be considered a great , your play comes first. If your are a great player that outweighs a good player that played a great many years. I would say you need to be a Sen for a minimum amount of time... Say 3 years... You meet that minimum, its about your play... If you were great vs good you win.

I don't think this is a case of great vs good, though. Redden was a great defenceman. Never considered the best in the league, perhaps, but at his peak was considered a top-5 guy (05/06) and made a Canadian Olympic squad. He was consistently considered a #1 defenceman, was instrumental in turning our franchise into perennial contenders, and was our #1 D for both the 03 and 07 runs.

 

[Sun God Nika]

lol at Phillips over Redden.

 

[Caeldan]

Yeah, that's probably a legacy effect. I debated which way to go on that. Phillips stayed his career. Redden dropped off a cliff, took a payday in New York(can't blame him for that though) and ended up finishing his career buried in the AHL.

Redden in all honesty probably should be higher than Yashin and Hossa too.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I don't think this is a case of great vs good, though. Redden was a great defenceman. Never considered the best in the league, perhaps, but at his peak was considered a top-5 guy (05/06) and made a Canadian Olympic squad. He was consistently considered a #1 defenceman, was instrumental in turning our franchise into perennial contenders, and was our #1 D for both the 03 and 07 runs.

To me Redden prime Senator was a better player than Phillips prime Senator who has already been voted as "Greater". So that example works for me. I was never arguing against the Redden choice. You can switch the words ... its just for emphasis.. To me if the player is better and has been here for a reasonable number of years, which I said was 3 minimum they should be considered greater. We do not have a consistent way to measure "great". My point was more to longevity vs ability. I recognize that years as a Sen has some value, but IMO it should not be the most important criteria.

 

[Xspyrit]

I feel like Redden's impact on the team is being undervalued.

Absolutely. IF we are voting for players and what they did WHEN PLAYING FOR THE OTTAWA SENATORS, then Redden has to be high on the list.

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

Games Played

1. Chris Phillips 1179
2. Daniel Alfredsson 1178
3. Chris Neil 1026
4. Wade Redden 838
5. Radek Bonk 689
6. Jason Spezza 686
7. Mike Fisher 675
8. Erik Karlsson 556
9. Chris Kelly 545
10. Alexei Yashin 504

Points

1. Daniel Alfredsson 1108
2. Jason Spezza 687
3. Alexei Yashin 491
4. Erik Karlsson 456
5. Wade Redden 410
6. Radek Bonk 399
7. Marian Hossa 390
8. Dany Heatley 362
9. Mike Fisher 348
10. Shawn McEachern 304

Redden, Bonk, Fisher have to be voted. Heatley, Neil, Anderson and Chara after.

This is the rub... To me to be considered a great , your play comes first. If your are a great player that outweighs a good player that played a great many years. I would say you need to be a Sen for a minimum amount of time... Say 3 years... You meet that minimum, its about your play... If you were great vs good you win.

That is why the results of these polls are skewed because there is no concensus on the criterias to vote for.

Example, if we vote based of what you have presented, then I have Hasek very high on this list.

 

[HavlatMach9]

For me the criteria is subjective: you just know a player was a great as part of your franchise.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

Yeah, my criteria is just "who do I think of as the better Senator?" I think Redden was a better Sen than Heatley. Both comparably good at their position, but the key factor in my mind is that Redden wanted to stay. Heatley didn't.

Cael, I agree. Been voting Redden since the no-brainer EK vote... although I definitely see the argument for Spezza.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

That is why the results of these polls are skewed because there is no concensus on the criterias to vote for.

Example, if we vote based of what you have presented, then I have Hasek very high on this list.

I did say minimum of 3 years as a Sen to debunk the Hasek extreme but to keep guys like Chara and Havlat viable.

 

[JungleBeat]

Redden > Phillips

 

[OmniSens]

you guys are so sour.

 

[Neil Patrick Harris]

I feel like Redden's impact on the team is being undervalued.

I think its pretty easy for people to do the same to Heatley as well.

It may not have been for long, but the guy was part of what was once the most dangerous line in hockey, and easily the best goal-scorer this team has ever had. Much as I love Redden, I'm giving Heatley the edge, if only barely.

 

[trentmccleary]

I haven't voted on any of these yet, but I'd go:

Alfie
Karlsson
Spezza
Yashin
Hossa
Redden
Heatley
Chara
Phillips
Fisher
Anderson

I'm pretty settled on this list because I can look at just about anybody on it and make a solid case that they compete well with the player before and after them because of either performance or longevity. I don't see much of a gap between the placement of players on this list. Pick a player and I can easily argue for or against the player beside them and see reasons to move them up or down a slot, but not beyond that.

 

[Fandlauer]

Add Lambert