Post-Game Talk: Sens @ Flames - Sat 10PM

[Burrowsaurus]

I would agree that we don't want to make any rash moves. This is why I wouldn't want to trade picks or prospects for Chris Stewart. I am not a fan of tanking, though - I think the fans are owed a full effort to win, and many teams in the last few years have proven that once you make the playoffs, anything can happen with some goaltending and some bounces.

We've done the "goaltending and some bounces" thing before. We made it to the second round. And we unable to sustain both those variables the next year. Because relying on exposed goalies and getting bounces is unsustainable.

Note: I didn't mind our defensive play against the flames. We got exposed a little but it's not as of it was scoring chance after scoring chance.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

I'll just post this here.

We should play it out and not make any panic moves. This isn't a playoff team but there is a strong foundation for one. Getting a high pick or two this year can really help us out.

Agreed. Especially this year, when a panic move has the potential to cost a first round pick (maybe McDavid), a potential top 6 guy like Puempel, or a young guy on the roster who could easily be a useful player for us for the next decade for a panic solution that does nothing fro us.


As for the "best players play"....it's easy. Hockey is a chess game on ice. You use the guys who are the best fit for the situation, while also recognizing what is best for players in each particular situation.

If a guy is injured/out of shape and isn't moving at 100%, you don't put him in a position to make it worse.

If a guy is young and/or inexperienced, you feed them small, bite- sized portions of the NHL game.

If a guy is poor defensively, you don't put him out short-handed or on defensive-zone faceoffs. Same with a player who can't do anything offensively with offensive faceoffs/zone starts (unless you're protecting a lead with minutes left in the game).

Just looking at overall icetime in a game is like looking only at plus/minus. You have to look at what situations players are used in.

 

[Super Cake]

This team is still a bubble team. Nothing more, nothing less. We have as much of a chance at making the playoffs as any bubble team in the east.

We are still in the last wildcard spot by the way.

I also would bet 1 million dollars that the Sens won't end up with a top 5 pick. That is just not how the Sens roll in these type of situations.

 

[Alex1234]

If "best players play" is such a complicated notion open to various interpretations, why say it at all then? Imagine you're a player, you score 5 goals in 6 games or whatever, and your ice time doesn't change. How are you supposed to interpret "best players play"? Either "best players play" is easily understood by all and then it should be enforced consistently, or you need a PhD to interpret it and then only Greening can get close to grasping it and so it's useless.

I think you're overanalyzing this. It could be you and a few others don't like the negative tone of the forum right now (maybe overly negative given the expectations we should have about the team and how they've played with respect to that expectation, or maybe justifiably negative given what some see as possible improvements that are not being considered by the coach) and you are reacting to that.

I find that most people who are showing this negativity (at least myself right now) are actually pretty happy with the players overall. We are Sens fans! But I definitely am frustrated by the fact that my beloved players are not being put in a position to succeed. Neil is one of my all-time favorite players, and I hate it that he's given assignments that he's no longer able to complete. This coach is making Neil look bad. He's making Legwand look bad. He's making Phillips look bad.

this

 

[Cosmix]

I think we have a serious problem with our team systems. Year after year it's the same stupid issues. It's not working, and frankly it's frustrating hockey to watch. I want to clone Ceci and Lazar, and hand everyone else their walking papers.

Lazar - Lazar - Lazar
Lazar - Lazar - Lazar
Lazar - Lazar - Lazar
Lazar - Lazar - Lazar
Condra

Ceci - Ceci
Ceci - Ceci
Ceci - Ceci

That might be very good defensively, but we would not score many goals!

 

[starling]

"Yeah, let's go make some panic moves now", said no one ever.

 

[Cosmix]

Although I am not happy about the results from the 3 game western road trip (3 points out of a potential of 6), as the team needs to be better than 50% to make the playoffs, I think the results are OK. The team got one point playing against one of the better teams in the league (Vancouver), got two points in beating one of the lesser teams in the league (Edmonton), and failed to get any points from a team that is rebuilding (Calgary), which we should have beaten but didn't due to some mistakes, so I am not happy, but not disheartened by what happened. Hopefully the team will improve in the next few games and get sufficient points to keep in the playoff hunt.

 

[Hossa18]

If "best players play" is such a complicated notion open to various interpretations, why say it at all then? Imagine you're a player, you score 5 goals in 6 games or whatever, and your ice time doesn't change. How are you supposed to interpret "best players play"? Either "best players play" is easily understood by all and then it should be enforced consistently, or you need a PhD to interpret it and then only Greening can get close to grasping it and so it's useless.

I think you're overanalyzing this. It could be you and a few others don't like the negative tone of the forum right now (maybe overly negative given the expectations we should have about the team and how they've played with respect to that expectation, or maybe justifiably negative given what some see as possible improvements that are not being considered by the coach) and you are reacting to that.

I find that most people who are showing this negativity (at least myself right now) are actually pretty happy with the players overall. We are Sens fans! But I definitely am frustrated by the fact that my beloved players are not being put in a position to succeed. Neil is one of my all-time favorite players, and I hate it that he's given assignments that he's no longer able to complete. This coach is making Neil look bad. He's making Legwand look bad. He's making Phillips look bad.

Very well said.....I have always said that it is hard to blame a player when they are being put in a position to fail. It is not Neil's fault if he is playing too many minutes or on the ice in the last minute of a tie game with the faceoff in our zone, that's on the coach and that to me is when he should be questioned. So, going back to the best players play analogy, is Neill the best player in that situation? Unfortunately to some, if you question the coach, you are being negative and you are not a fan.

 

[chipsens]

Weircioch would have been abused on D with his pee-wee footspeed and his ballerina strenght.

...

Karlsson +2 again, and I don't even think he was very good, shows how +/- is a ****** stat.


With a better PP we could've burried them, PPs were like 4-0 for us at some point, no traffic in front, Legwand waiting on the halfwall with Mac in the corner Turris way too far from Karlsson we have no option.

I think PW could work on 1st PP unit with Karlsson. I disagree about PW being a pushover...he's no big moose like Cowen or Gryba, but he's a good passer and getting better defensively.

 

[BonkTastic]

Unfortunately to some, if you question the coach, you are being negative and you are not a fan.

Who is saying this? What strawman are you arguing here?

 

[Quo]

I guess I just don't see it.

Neil has looked fine in his role this year. Playing physical, playing good defense. Yes he adds next to nothing offensively but we've known that for years. Am I right in saying that he's still seeing the least ice-time among all our forwards through our games thus far? How does "getting too many minutes" fit in this context?

Phillips has looked better in his role than he has in years.

Legwand, also, unspectacular on the PP at points, but mostly fine. That was never his strength, used out of necessity really as the kids get used to the game and Mac gets used to the kids, but on FO's and on the PK he's been valuable. We're seeing Hoffman and Stone a bit more on the PP of late. They, too, failed to convert in Calgary though.

Add to that, the players who have looked on the up in Cowen, Hoff, Gryba, Lazar, Stone...I guess the coaches have nothing to do with them being put in a 'position to succeed' and it's just their godly abilities alone that sees them playing generally good hockey. Though, you know, that kid line is very sheltered, don't get many starts in the defensive zone - that probably has something to do with being effective ya think?

It's been our name players that have largely dropped the ball this season and have yet to put forth consistent efforts. We need our top offensive players in Ryan and Karlsson to play like they can all the time and start converting more. Can't say they have frankly.

I'm just not seeing the reason for these gripes right now. Especially in the volume in which they occur. **** me I guess.

 

[Ice-Tray]

If "best players play" is such a complicated notion open to various interpretations, why say it at all then? Imagine you're a player, you score 5 goals in 6 games or whatever, and your ice time doesn't change. How are you supposed to interpret "best players play"? Either "best players play" is easily understood by all and then it should be enforced consistently, or you need a PhD to interpret it and then only Greening can get close to grasping it and so it's useless.

Something the coach said, without further explanation. I'm sure the concept is pretty clear in his head, and I bet the the players know what it means too. The fact that YOU don't understand what it means shouldn't surprise you, given that you have no knowledge of what goes on with the team beyond what happens on the ice, and what the coach chooses to tell you. Best to just accept that you don't know what he means by it, and that they do.

I think you're overanalyzing this. It could be you and a few others don't like the negative tone of the forum right now (maybe overly negative given the expectations we should have about the team and how they've played with respect to that expectation, or maybe justifiably negative given what some see as possible improvements that are not being considered by the coach) and you are reacting to that.

I'm not sure why anyone would LIKE the negative tone around here, but I for one get the feeling that it's far more than a few people, and am well aware that many, many solid posters don't post anymore because of it. Perhaps it's you who should take a moment to consider the atmosphere your helping to create.

Also, we SHOULD NOT have high expectations for this team right now. Playoffs would be an over achievement for this squad at this time, and yet some people will find themselves upset when it doesn't happen. As for the coaching comment, as I always say, when a decision is being made by a group of professionals, that is contrary to what you think (when you have nothing on the line, and are reinforced by hindsight) it is best to AT LEAST consider that rather then them being fools, that perhaps YOU might be missing some key piece of information. Thinking this way does not mean you can't question decisions, but it would mitigate how foolish you and other sound when trying to act as if any of you have even the slightest clue of what it is you're talking about.

I find that most people who are showing this negativity (at least myself right now) are actually pretty happy with the players overall. We are Sens fans! But I definitely am frustrated by the fact that my beloved players are not being put in a position to succeed. Neil is one of my all-time favorite players, and I hate it that he's given assignments that he's no longer able to complete. This coach is making Neil look bad. He's making Legwand look bad. He's making Phillips look bad.

From my perspective it appears as though you have no idea what you're talking about, and the only person being made to look bad is you, by you. As far as I can see, the coaching staff is doing one hell of a job putting players in roles and positions where they are best to succeed. It's the reason why we have been winning games with the squad we have. And for the record, Neil has been playing great in his limited role and minutes this year.

 

[BonkTastic]

If "best players play" is such a complicated notion open to various interpretations, why say it at all then?

Why do we discuss any of the empty platitudes that sports figures spit out?

 

[Ice-Tray]

I agree; we got zilch. We're not in the dressing-room, we're not pro hockey players, we're not pro coaches. We know nothing. We're not experts! So should that be the end of all discussion in this forum? Or do we have the right to criticize anyway with whatever little we think we know? Do us citizens have to right to vote even though we know nothing about the intricate complexity of politics and the economy?

Yes, yes, defend your rights to free speech! Jesus, why is that some poster have to go to this tired point in defence of what amounts to pointless speculation backing unreasonable assumptions.

Here's the thing man, there's a difference between discussion, and intelligent discussion.

There is A LOT of the former, as is your entrenched right, but some of us prefer to deal solely with the later and are tired of sifting through the crap.

 

[WhiteLight*]

I guess I just don't see it.

Neil has looked fine in his role this year. Playing physical, playing good defense. Yes he adds next to nothing offensively but we've known that for years. Am I right in saying that he's still seeing the least ice-time among all our forwards through our games thus far? How does "getting too many minutes" fit in this context?

Phillips has looked better in his role than he has in years.

Legwand, also, unspectacular on the PP at points, but mostly fine. That was never his strength, used out of necessity really as the kids get used to the game and Mac gets used to the kids, but on FO's and on the PK he's been valuable. We're seeing Hoffman and Stone a bit more on the PP of late. They, too, failed to convert in Calgary though.

We need more than ''OK'' and ''fine'' players. Good teams have good players. Positive difference makers, not guys who at their best won't hurt you.

 

[Quo]

We need more than ''OK'' and ''fine'' players. Good teams have good players. Positive difference makers, not guys who at their best won't hurt you.

Nobody should disagree with this (though I'd argue that 'OK' and 'fine' still fall on the positive end of the spectrum for the above mentioned role players), but until the youth we've invested in matures into what management believes they will be, until the players we've flashed a lot of scratch at and carry the largest responsibilities play up to standard, this is what we have to work with.

edit: I don't spend my days screaming at chickens because they're not hawks.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Agreed. Especially this year, when a panic move has the potential to cost a first round pick (maybe McDavid), a potential top 6 guy like Puempel, or a young guy on the roster who could easily be a useful player for us for the next decade for a panic solution that does nothing fro us.


As for the "best players play"....it's easy. Hockey is a chess game on ice. You use the guys who are the best fit for the situation, while also recognizing what is best for players in each particular situation.

If a guy is injured/out of shape and isn't moving at 100%, you don't put him in a position to make it worse.

If a guy is young and/or inexperienced, you feed them small, bite- sized portions of the NHL game.

If a guy is poor defensively, you don't put him out short-handed or on defensive-zone faceoffs. Same with a player who can't do anything offensively with offensive faceoffs/zone starts (unless you're protecting a lead with minutes left in the game).

Just looking at overall icetime in a game is like looking only at plus/minus. You have to look at what situations players are used in.

This post mirrors my opinion, and therefore I like it.

I guess I just don't see it.

Neil has looked fine in his role this year. Playing physical, playing good defense. Yes he adds next to nothing offensively but we've known that for years. Am I right in saying that he's still seeing the least ice-time among all our forwards through our games thus far? How does "getting too many minutes" fit in this context?

Phillips has looked better in his role than he has in years.

Legwand, also, unspectacular on the PP at points, but mostly fine. That was never his strength, used out of necessity really as the kids get used to the game and Mac gets used to the kids, but on FO's and on the PK he's been valuable. We're seeing Hoffman and Stone a bit more on the PP of late. They, too, failed to convert in Calgary though.

Add to that, the players who have looked on the up in Cowen, Hoff, Gryba, Lazar, Stone...I guess the coaches have nothing to do with them being put in a 'position to succeed' and it's just their godly abilities alone that sees them playing generally good hockey. Though, you know, that kid line is very sheltered, don't get many starts in the defensive zone - that probably has something to do with being effective ya think?

It's been our name players that have largely dropped the ball this season and have yet to put forth consistent efforts. We need our top offensive players in Ryan and Karlsson to play like they can all the time and start converting more. Can't say they have frankly.

I'm just not seeing the reason for these gripes right now. Especially in the volume in which they occur. **** me I guess.

The kids have been put in a position to succeed, Cowen was scratched, educated, eased back in, and is playing great. Boro is getting sheltered minutes with our other sheltered shut down guy.

In fact, I'd say that there is an emphasis on putting the youngsters in positions to succeed at the slight expense of some of our older players who are having to shoulder larger roles to allow the kids to be protected (and they need protecting).

The Turris line, EK, Phillips, are all guys that are having to play a little above their heads right now because we don't have the established talent to spread around the minutes and assignments, this is the price they pay for helping a young team grow.

The last thing we want is for the kids to start bearing the responsability for our futility. Let them celebrate great play, and enjoy sheltered play, while our vets carry the burden of the best coverage, reduced individual success, and team losses. The only problem is that some of the guys doing the heavy lifting are also youngsters, simply because we don't have the personnel.

Ideally we would have a #1 centre, a #1 defender, and another established top six winger to push everyone down into more reasonable roles, but alas we do not. As it is, i think the coaching staff is doing a great job, and it seems clear to me that they are protecting the youth of this team with the long term gain in mind, as bets they can given the resources at hand.

The ongoing sense of entitlement by some of this fanbase is sucking the very life out of this place.

 

[WhiteLight*]

Nobody should disagree with this (though I'd argue that 'OK' and 'fine' still fall on the positive end of the spectrum for the above mentioned role players), but until the youth we've invested in matures into what management believes they will be, until the players we've flashed a lot of scratch at and carry the largest responsibilities play up to standard, this is what we have to work with.

edit: I don't spend my days screaming at chickens because they're not hawks.

sure. It's not as bad this year as it was last year. Just little things like the big Greening, Michalek and Legwand contracts, when you can have a guy like Da Costa for peanuts.

I agree with you, but when kids are playing well/better than the vets, just give them a little more responsibility.

But I agree with you

The Turris line, EK, Phillips, are all guys that are having to play a little above their heads right now because we don't have the established talent to spread around the minutes and assignments, this is the price they pay for helping a young team grow.

Ceci has been pretty awesome. Gryba is a defensive beast.

Phillips is below Cowen, on par with Boro and Wier.

Lehner is on par with Anderson.

No reason not to spread out the minutes. No reason for Philly to play 24 min a game.No reason to play Karlsson 30 min a game.

this team has depth, no reason not to exploit it and play the hot hand.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

We need more than ''OK'' and ''fine'' players. Good teams have good players. Positive difference makers, not guys who at their best won't hurt you.

Agreed. The roster "is what it is". We don't have much right now in the way of high end skill or talent.

Nobody should disagree with this (though I'd argue that 'OK' and 'fine' still fall on the positive end of the spectrum for the above mentioned role players), but until the youth we've invested in matures into what management believes they will be, until the players we've flashed a lot of scratch at and carry the largest responsibilities play up to standard, this is what we have to work with.

edit: I don't spend my days screaming at chickens because they're not hawks.

I am totally stealing that one.

sure. It's not as bad this year as it was last year. Just little things like the big Greening, Michalek and Legwand contracts, when you can have a guy like Da Costa for peanuts.

I agree with you, but when kids are playing well/better than the vets, just give them a little more responsibility.

But I agree with you



Ceci has been pretty awesome. Gryba is a defensive beast.

Phillips is below Cowen, on par with Boro and Wier.

Lehner is on par with Anderson.

No reason not to spread out the minutes. No reason for Philly to play 24 min a game.No reason to play Karlsson 30 min a game.

this team has depth, no reason not to exploit it and play the hot hand.

Are you 100% certain Ceci will still be awesome if put into a top pairing role? I'm not.

Will Gryba still be a defensive beat against elite talent? His entire career has been a roller coaster of massive inconsistency. 3-4 good games this year doesn't erase that.


I fully believe, by the end of the season, the kids will have a bigger role on the team. But, right now we're taking baby steps - and that is absolutely the right thing to do. The focus this year (and next) should be developing our young guys. Giving them the best possible chance to reach their ceilings and be solid players for us for the next decade - not rushing them so we can look good by Xmas before the kids get overwhelmed and crash.

Patience.

 

[Quo]

I'd agree, the vets are being asked to shoulder a lot and have been playing a bit above their heads as a result. Exacerbated on the D by the absence of Methot.

I think we have seen the kids responsibility increase gradually to match their play. For one thing, they've started the past two games, called on to set the pace. For another, as I mentioned above, we're seeing more Stone and Hoff on the PP and more Lazar and Stone on the PK. Easy does it.

Da Costa has limitations. Top six or bust and there was no guarantee there with Zib in the fold. He wanted a one way and that wasn't happening. Legwand and Michalek at least have the proven ability to excel defensively and the ability to shift down the lineup and still have an exploitable skill.

I have a problem in that I forget about Ceci and how good he's been a lot when he's been fantastic all year. Why he doesn't see more time on the power play is actually a legit headscratcher for me, if only to not wear out Karl.

 

[Hossa18]

Who is saying this? What strawman are you arguing here?

Why are you getting defensive? Many people on here call people negative just because they disagree with what a coach does and express their opinion on it. Some just want the team to get better and disagree with what the coach is doing, and that is what being a fan is all about.

There are many posters on here who ridicule people for questioning the coach or any other opinion that they might have, that they don't agree with, and usually do it sarcastically in a belittling fashion and some do it by questioning others poster's intelligence. No need to name names as they know who they are.

 

[DrunkUncleDenis]

This team is still a bubble team. Nothing more, nothing less. We have as much of a chance at making the playoffs as any bubble team in the east.

We are still in the last wildcard spot by the way.

I also would bet 1 million dollars that the Sens won't end up with a top 5 pick. That is just not how the Sens roll in these type of situations.

Seriously. We were dead last in the league for about a 2 week span in 2009. We still ended up picking 6th.

edit: I don't spend my days screaming at chickens because they're not hawks.

Amazing analogy.

 

[BonkTastic]

Why are you getting defensive?

I'm not getting defensive.

You said that for "to some, if you question the coach, you are being negative and you aren't a fan" - I'm asking you to elaborate and identify the "some" part of that statement.

 

[DrEasy]

Why are you getting defensive? Many people on here call people negative just because they disagree with what a coach does and express their opinion on it. Some just want the team to get better and disagree with what the coach is doing, and that is what being a fan is all about.

There are many posters on here who ridicule people for questioning the coach or any other opinion that they might have, that they don't agree with, and usually do it sarcastically in a belittling fashion and some do it by questioning others poster's intelligence. No need to name names as they know who they are.

Thank you. That's all I'm getting at.

 

[DrEasy]

edit: I don't spend my days screaming at chickens because they're not hawks.

Nobody is doing this here. Unless McLean is a chicken? (edit: this has Photoshop potential)