I am not sure that I understand the fascination with that "fight." It looked pretty uneventful to me. Was Watson even trying to win? Perhaps he just wanted to wrestle his opponent to a tie, which is probably not a bad strategy for him. Of course, it does not send much of a message.
I did not watch the game, but someone mentioned that the Habs were going after Stutzle. If my memory serves me well, the Buffalo Sabres used to follow a memorable standard of responsive behaviour: "If you go after our star players, we're not going after you, we're going after your star players," or something like that.
Having observed Ottawa's response to various attempts to intimidate its skilled/star players, the Senators seem to uphold a very different standard: if you go after our star players, we're going after you, but only with limited force because we want to stick to our game plan and not get distracted by too many shenanigans.
This approach has some benefits. It limits the chances of escalating a tit-for-tat cycle of retribution, which would be dangerous for everyone. Also, a cycle of retribution would be far more costly for a promising team like Ottawa, as compared to a team that has less to lose, like Montreal.
However, in the long run, after a team targets a star Senators player, and Ottawa's response is limited, other teams in the league might believe that they should try the same kind of intimidation tactics against Ottawa. If Ottawa continues with its current approach, it might become increasingly difficult for the team to change anyone's perception that the star players can be pushed around.
In summary, it's fine to talk about bringing in a heavyweight, but the team's approach to handling intimidation is just as important as its musclepower. Personally, I like the idea running up the score as a response to intimidation, but it's not always realistic.
The good news for Ottawa is that star players like Stutzle are fairly resilient and unphased by attempts to intimidate. He seems to be engaged no matter what comes his way.
I did not watch the game, but someone mentioned that the Habs were going after Stutzle. If my memory serves me well, the Buffalo Sabres used to follow a memorable standard of responsive behaviour: "If you go after our star players, we're not going after you, we're going after your star players," or something like that.
Having observed Ottawa's response to various attempts to intimidate its skilled/star players, the Senators seem to uphold a very different standard: if you go after our star players, we're going after you, but only with limited force because we want to stick to our game plan and not get distracted by too many shenanigans.
This approach has some benefits. It limits the chances of escalating a tit-for-tat cycle of retribution, which would be dangerous for everyone. Also, a cycle of retribution would be far more costly for a promising team like Ottawa, as compared to a team that has less to lose, like Montreal.
However, in the long run, after a team targets a star Senators player, and Ottawa's response is limited, other teams in the league might believe that they should try the same kind of intimidation tactics against Ottawa. If Ottawa continues with its current approach, it might become increasingly difficult for the team to change anyone's perception that the star players can be pushed around.
In summary, it's fine to talk about bringing in a heavyweight, but the team's approach to handling intimidation is just as important as its musclepower. Personally, I like the idea running up the score as a response to intimidation, but it's not always realistic.
The good news for Ottawa is that star players like Stutzle are fairly resilient and unphased by attempts to intimidate. He seems to be engaged no matter what comes his way.
Last edited:
