Ottawa Senators Top Ten: Hockey IQ

[Sens Rule]

The team needs to forcibly tell Philipps we don't need him on the ice anymore. He was great for us once upon a time but those years are long gone and we don't need him anymore. If he wants to continue with this organization in a coaching/support role I'm sure there's one available for him.

If not, thanks for the memories Chris, but we need to move on. Championship organizations know when it's time to move on from guys when their time is past. This organization has let far, far more superior players go when compared to Philips.



why are we even letting him compete for a spot in training camp?

Because he is signed to an NHL contract? The Cap hit is there even if he retires? And it is July 1st. We don't know what will happen by training camp.

 

[pm88]

Because he is signed to an NHL contract? The Cap hit is there even if he retires? And it is July 1st. We don't know what will happen by training camp.

I understand that but I have absolutely no idea why Murray even signed him to that contract extension. His game has been awful for the past 3-4 seasons and it was completely unnecessary to keep him. I understand about having a veteran presence back there but you already have Methot who's been in this league for almost 10 years now

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

WOW, how did I forget Pageau!!!!

He's definitely top 3!

Karlsson


Stone
Pageau
Cond.....
Methot etc...

 

[16w]

i'm curious as to how karlsson's hockey iq factors into his game 6 performance against montreal.

he played 32 minutes and was taking marathon shifts which obviously made him less effective than if he played his regular 27. by the third period, he was prone to making more errors than normal and could barely get out of first gear.

if this was a coaching decision he gets a pass, but i have a feeling it was more a product of karlsson feeling like he had to do everything, resulting in him ultimately doing nothing.

the guy is an amazing talent but i think someone with more experience and higher hockey iq would not spread themselves that thin...

 

[Minister of Offence]

i'm curious as to how karlsson's hockey iq factors into his game 6 performance against montreal.

he played 32 minutes and was taking marathon shifts which obviously made him less effective than if he played his regular 27. by the third period, he was prone to making more errors than normal and could barely get out of first gear.

if this was a coaching decision he gets a pass, but i have a feeling it was more a product of karlsson feeling like he had to do everything, resulting in him ultimately doing nothing.

the guy is an amazing talent but i think someone with more experience and higher hockey iq would not spread themselves that thin...

That's not hockey iq

 

[Sens Rule]

i'm curious as to how karlsson's hockey iq factors into his game 6 performance against montreal.

he played 32 minutes and was taking marathon shifts which obviously made him less effective than if he played his regular 27. by the third period, he was prone to making more errors than normal and could barely get out of first gear.

if this was a coaching decision he gets a pass, but i have a feeling it was more a product of karlsson feeling like he had to do everything, resulting in him ultimately doing nothing.

the guy is an amazing talent but i think someone with more experience and higher hockey iq would not spread themselves that thin...

Alfredsson did that in the playoffs many times earlier in his career. He just tried to do too much. Actually making himself worse. In regards to hockey IQ... I think Alfie kind of overrode his sometimes in playoffs before 2007. Like his brain said pass the puck... And he decided we needed a goal and he took the puck to the net himself instead... As an example. A crazy desire to win can lead to a player not making the best decisions. But properly channeling aggression and drive, while kind of a hockey IQ thing (to me) in an overall way... A superstar down 2 games in a series and just going Rocket Richard and trying to score through a couple of guys... Isn't really about intelligence... It is about heart. And there are worse things then wanting to win too much. In time greats figure out how to do it better.

I didn't really see what you did for Karlsson vs Montreal though... But it might have happened... And we were really behind in the series by then... It isn't really a problem if he did. You want your leader/captain/best player to try to take over a game and make a difference. Most greats have to learn how to do that and not throw off the rest of their game. So if that happened... EK will learn.

I remember Karlsson going physical... But in a positive way. That huge hit was badass!!! To me Karlsson raised his game big time come playoffs. And not much negative came from an agressive, hungry focussed Karlsson. The Senators just did not play well enough. Habs were better. We, as a team, played hard. We have nothing to be embarrassed about we just lost. And probably everyone, including Karlsson learned a lot from it.

 

[elicw10]

1) Erik Karlsson. Thinks the game at that different level that separates the merely good from the truly exceptional.
2) Chris Phillips. His legs are no longer with him, but he was never exactly the player with the best physical tools.
3) Craig Anderson. Reads the play very well, smart and economical in the net.
4) Mark Stone. Compares to a poor-man's Brett Hull. Slow, slow, slow. But knows where scoring happens.
5) Chris Neil. A player who knows his role. Sometimes intelligence isn't measured in IQ points alone, but in knowing your own limitations and value.
6) Clarke MacArthur. The definition of a NHL player. Smart, deliberate, just solid NHL level play.
7) Jean-Gabriel Pageau. Similar to Neil in the sense he knows his role. Effective utilization of a mediocre skill set.
8) Milan Michalek. Slowed by injury, he nevertheless occupies the MacArthur stratosphere of understanding the NHL game.
9) Kyle Turris. He may one day move up on this list, as he has grown tremendously since his arrival. Capable of two-way play, eager to learn.
10a) Bobby Ryan and 10b) Marc Methot. Solid NHL players, who have a stronger skill set than the Pageau's and Stone's of the world. However they show a solid understanding of what it takes to be a pro.

HM) Zibanejad and Lazar. Will likely see both on this list in 1-3 years.

 

[DylanSensFan]

• Karlsson
• Stone
• Ryan
• Zibanejad
• Turris

• MacArthur
• Lazar
• Pageau
• Michaelek
• Hoffman

 

[Sens Rule]

To the above. Brett Hull is the opposite of Stone in nearly every conceivable way. And peak Brett Hull was far from slow.

The only thing they have in common is elite hockey sense or IQ or whatever you choose to call it.

 

[DylanSensFan]

To the above. Brett Hull is the opposite of Stone in nearly every conceivable way. And peak Brett Hull was far from slow.

The only thing they have in common is elite hockey sense or IQ or whatever you choose to call it.

I don't think Hull really had that Elite of a hockey sense. In fact I would consider him mostly dull witted, rather being in the right place at the right time and having a skillful shot. Stone is head and tails smarter than Hull in most facets of the game.

 

[Sens Rule]

I don't think Hull really had that Elite of a hockey sense. In fact I would consider him mostly dull witted, rather being in the right place at the right time and having a skillful shot. Stone is head and tails smarter than Hull in most facets of the game.

Are you freaking serious? Really? Brett Hull could sneak into a scoring spot... When he was the MVP of the league and getting 70/80 goals a year. Do you think every player on the other team was trying to cover Hull? And knew Oates or Janney were totally going to pass to him? And yet... 50,60,70 or 86 goals!

Saying Brett Hull was dim witted in hockey sense is like saying Pavel Bure was as good a skater as Brad Marsh. How the heck did he always get open?

Hull was no fitness buff. He was however uber-elite in hockey sense. He was maybe the best player of all-time at getting open... When everyone and his grandmother was trying to cover him.

Hull didn't really train like an animal or anything... And was not known for his defence... Yet he PKd on a stacked Detroit team... He scored at elite levels well into his late 30's in the dead puck era. Hull was capable of being a full on dominanting performance at virtually anything involved in playing a hockey game. He might not have done it all the time... But he sure could and did come playoff time or in the biggest best on best games. How could a slow, dim witted guy who wasn't even in his top condition often... Be one of the greatest players of his era and all-time? Magic!

Stone has crazy hockey sense. Among the best I have seen on the Senators... Right up there with Alfredsson and Karlsson. Hull has over 844 NHL goals. 1581 points. Unlike Alfredsson he was not among the hardest working guys in the NHL... Sure he had one of the best shots of all-time... He also had among the greatest hockey IQs of all time. How the heck did he score 844 goals and 1581 points if he was "slow,slow,slow?" (Which he wasn't). And stupid?

I mean come on. I love Stone but are we going to say he has Gretzky level hockey IQ now?

I am guessing you never watched Brett Hull play. He was wicked smart. He might not be a typical 2-way forward. But he seemed to kinda be key to Cups past his peak on Dallas and Detroit. Who beat Team freaking Canada on Team USA as maybe the best player? Oh that dim witted, slow, slow, slow guy. How was Brett Hull so great if he was stupid and slow? I guess he was the luckiest guy ever? Maybe he had a superpower like Longshot of the X-Men and he just got lucky 1600 times through some mutant power? Couldn't be because he had one of the most naturally gifted hockey brains in the history of the sport? You know who his dad is? Probably not [mod]

Like seriously... Your post could be the dumbest in HFboards history. And I have been on these boards for 10 years.. [mod]

 

[Vesa Awesaka]

Uhhh... yaaa so...i dont think Anderson's best attribute is his hockey sense. i think hes just technically a very solid goalie. He is very economical in net and likes to really cut down the angles almost to a fault when he challenges so far out and dmen lose their man. Anderso doesnt struggle when it comes to hockey sense he just hasnt really shown me his anticpation is off the charts

Hammond in very limited time seemed to anticipate the play very well.

Ill be honest. I dont think i ever watched Hull unless it was at the tail end of his career but for some reason i thought he was slow too

 

[DylanSensFan]

Are you freaking serious? Really? Brett Hull could sneak into a scoring spot... When he was the MVP of the league and getting 70/80 goals a year. Do you think every player on the other team was trying to cover Hull? And knew Oates or Janney were totally going to pass to him? And yet... 50,60,70 or 86 goals!

Saying Brett Hull was dim witted in hockey sense is like saying Pavel Bure was as good a skater as Brad Marsh. How the heck did he always get open?

Hull was no fitness buff. He was however uber-elite in hockey sense. He was maybe the best player of all-time at getting open... When everyone and his grandmother was trying to cover him.

Hull didn't really train like an animal or anything... And was not known for his defence... Yet he PKd on a stacked Detroit team... He scored at elite levels well into his late 30's in the dead puck era. Hull was capable of being a full on dominanting performance at virtually anything involved in playing a hockey game. He might not have done it all the time... But he sure could and did come playoff time or in the biggest best on best games. How could a slow, dim witted guy who wasn't even in his top condition often... Be one of the greatest players of his era and all-time? Magic!

Stone has crazy hockey sense. Among the best I have seen on the Senators... Right up there with Alfredsson and Karlsson. Hull has over 844 NHL goals. 1581 points. Unlike Alfredsson he was not among the hardest working guys in the NHL... Sure he had one of the best shots of all-time... He also had among the greatest hockey IQs of all time. How the heck did he score 844 goals and 1581 points if he was "slow,slow,slow?" (Which he wasn't). And stupid?

I mean come on. I love Stone but are we going to say he has Gretzky level hockey IQ now?

I am guessing you never watched Brett Hull play. He was wicked smart. He might not be a typical 2-way forward. But he seemed to kinda be key to Cups past his peak on Dallas and Detroit. Who beat Team freaking Canada on Team USA as maybe the best player? Oh that dim witted, slow, slow, slow guy. How was Brett Hull so great if he was stupid and slow? I guess he was the luckiest guy ever? Maybe he had a superpower like Longshot of the X-Men and he just got lucky 1600 times through some mutant power? Couldn't be because he had one of the most naturally gifted hockey brains in the history of the sport? You know who his dad is? Probably not [mod]

Like seriously... Your post could be the dumbest in HFboards history. And I have been on these boards for 10 years.. [mod]

I never said Hull was slow. And I think I may have mistaken some of his off ice interviews as making him seem dim witted. I was also only about 10 or so when Hull was having his hay days. He definitely could produce. But you also have to look at the others who were producing in that period of time. It was a lot easier to score 50 goals in that era. Stone would definitely be on par with Hull regarding hockey sense and perhaps even scoring in that time.

 

[aragorn]

1) Erik Karlsson. Thinks the game at that different level that separates the merely good from the truly exceptional.
2) Chris Phillips. His legs are no longer with him, but he was never exactly the player with the best physical tools.
3) Craig Anderson. Reads the play very well, smart and economical in the net.
4) Mark Stone. Compares to a poor-man's Brett Hull. Slow, slow, slow. But knows where scoring happens.
5) Chris Neil. A player who knows his role. Sometimes intelligence isn't measured in IQ points alone, but in knowing your own limitations and value.
6) Clarke MacArthur. The definition of a NHL player. Smart, deliberate, just solid NHL level play.
7) Jean-Gabriel Pageau. Similar to Neil in the sense he knows his role. Effective utilization of a mediocre skill set.
8) Milan Michalek. Slowed by injury, he nevertheless occupies the MacArthur stratosphere of understanding the NHL game.
9) Kyle Turris. He may one day move up on this list, as he has grown tremendously since his arrival. Capable of two-way play, eager to learn.
10a) Bobby Ryan and 10b) Marc Methot. Solid NHL players, who have a stronger skill set than the Pageau's and Stone's of the world. However they show a solid understanding of what it takes to be a pro.

HM) Zibanejad and Lazar. Will likely see both on this list in 1-3 years.

Hummm .... interesting .... and well done.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Yea let's put Neil who takes terrible penalties late in games top 5 in IQ.

 

[Sens Rule]

I never said Hull was slow. And I think I may have mistaken some of his off ice interviews as making him seem dim witted. I was also only about 10 or so when Hull was having his hay days. He definitely could produce. But you also have to look at the others who were producing in that period of time. It was a lot easier to score 50 goals in that era. Stone would definitely be on par with Hull regarding hockey sense and perhaps even scoring in that time.

Well I hope you are right and last years Stone was like Hull was in Calgary his rookie year.

Then Stone will be one of the best players of this generation. He will absolutely destroy every team record Heatley and Alfredsson have in terms of points and goals. He will lead Team Canada to best on best victories.

So basically we get a way better Heatley with a 15 year prime? Or maybe Alex Ovechkin without the physicality? Sign me up.

I really get annoyed when people say really ridiculous things about guys like Brett Hull or Paul Coffey... And believe they weren't very great at all.

Do you realize at all how ridiculously great Brett Hull was? His entire career? He played a decent chunk of his career in the dead puck era too. He is not just a bloated stat from the high scoring era of the 80's, early 90's.

Saying Stone is as smart or as good a scorer as Brett Hull is either absurd praise for Stone... And I very, very, very much wish and hope that it comes true. Or just not at all comprehending Hull's greatness at all. Like he was Cheechoo without the hernia problems or something? I just don't even understand it. How

It is like saying Karlsson is as good or better then Bobby Orr. Or saying Alfredsson was better then Jean Beliveau. You can say it all you want. But it diminishes the one who says it.

You realize Brett Hull was an entire magnitude or maybe two of them greater then Daniel Alfredsson or Marian Hossa right? He is like peak Stamkos so far but better.. And for 15 years. He was far, far more then his peak. His career numbers were not accumulated like Gartner or Recchi... He was straight out a total superstar. He was possibly the absolute best hockey player in the world for a year or two when Mario was injured and broken. He rocked Team Canada multiple times.

I just hope you realize what you are stating when you are saying Hull was dim witted or that Stone would be his equal in that time period in even scoring. It is saying Stone is better then Stamkos and Kane and Heatley and Kovalchuk.... Better then everyone but Crosby and Ovechkin. And even that is debateable for Hull's 3 year peak.

Do you think the comparable's in goal scoring for Stone will be Rocket Richard, Mike Bossy, Pavel Bure, Alex Ovechkin, Gordie Howe? Those are the "peers" that Brett Hull has at scoring goals. Do you really think Stone is likely to be that kind of scorer?

I really hope Stone is. I really, really do. I thought I was really expecting more then almost anyone in believing Stone would be top 10 in points sometimes during his career. You think he is going to be a top 10 winger all-time I guess.

I really hope you are right.

 

[aragorn]

1. Stone
2. Karlsson
3. Methot (defensively)
4. Turris
5. Hoffman
6. MacArthur
7. Lazar
8. Pageau
9. Michalek
10. Philips/Ceci

 

[Minister of Offence]

Yea let's put Neil who takes terrible penalties late in games top 5 in IQ.

That isn't really hockey IQ either.

A lot of people mistake hockey IQ/hockey sense with general intelligence or an inability to keep emotions in check in crucial minutes of hockey games.

 

[SAK11]

I wouldn't have Neil and Phillips on this list. If they are on the list because they've been in the league for so long, I think that's a different type of hockey smarts than what someone like Mark Stone has. In terms of in-game hockey IQ, I've never seen that as a strength for Phillips or Neil. In fact, they've both made numerous 'what were you thinking' plays over the years. As someone else mentioned with Phillips, and I think it's true with Neil as well, they've learned more by repetition than instinct. If Phillips truly had one of the higher hockey IQs on the ice, you'd see him make better outlet passes instead of going off the glass, and giving the puck away so often. If Neil was smarter, you'd see him get open for a shot more often, or complete a nice pass, or even realize that the smarter play is sometimes to go for the puck, not the man. That's what I've seen from the likes of Karlsson and Stone, who I view as easily the two players with the highest hockey IQs on the team. I would Kyle Turris third, who I think has great hockey instincts and reads the game well.

It's a difficult debate as I'm looking at it more from an on the ice perspective while others might look at it as general hockey intelligence. On the ice, Phillips doesn't make the quickest decisions and has his share of mistakes, some of which are mental. Off the ice, Phillips is a 1200 game veteran who surely has great knowledge of the game.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

That isn't really hockey IQ either.

A lot of people mistake hockey IQ/hockey sense with general intelligence or an inability to keep emotions in check in crucial minutes of hockey games.

Not really, I mean, his role is picking fights/aggressiveness in games and using his intelligence in that regard. Some are brilliant at it like Ruutu was and Glencross.

Neil is dumb a lot of the time.

 

[Minister of Offence]

Not really, I mean, his role is picking fights/aggressiveness in games and using his intelligence in that regard. Some are brilliant at it like Ruutu was and Glencross.

Neil is dumb a lot of the time.

No one in the game applies hockey sense to this part of the game.

Hockey sense is not an argument of dumb and smart. It's puck smart and puck dumb.

Condras probably the games best example of hockey sense. Because if he had the hockey sense of a normal bottom 6er he'd have been looking for a real job after school.

 

[Minister of Offence]

Fighters take on the role of fighter because they don't have hockey sense or other skills (usually).

 

[Sens Rule]

Not really, I mean, his role is picking fights/aggressiveness in games and using his intelligence in that regard. Some are brilliant at it like Ruutu was and Glencross.

Neil is dumb a lot of the time.

I would say Neil is an all-time great in this regard. Meaning all tough/pest fighters ever. He is in the top tier.

He can understand when to change the momentum of a game and how.

He rarely takes bad penalties at key times.