Nice Senators Information Site

Here's a good site with loads of information about our players and other stuff: http://forecaster.faceoff.com/faceoff/hockey/depthchart.cgi?Ott

jamvan wrote:Here's a good site with loads of information about our players and other stuff: http://forecaster.faceoff.com/faceoff/hockey/depthchart.cgi?Ott

Looks good except Neil listed as our 2nd line RW. Could it be the limit of our depth at that position?

MurderOnIce wrote:

jamvan wrote:Here's a good site with loads of information about our players and other stuff: http://forecaster.faceoff.com/faceoff/hockey/depthchart.cgi?Ott

Looks good except Neil listed as our 2nd line RW. Could it be the limit of our depth at that position?

Yeah tell me about it. Looks like we need a decent right winger. Isn't Vermette a C too? I'm confused. Either way, good look to see where players rank.

Jordo wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:

jamvan wrote:Here's a good site with loads of information about our players and other stuff: http://forecaster.faceoff.com/faceoff/hockey/depthchart.cgi?Ott

Looks good except Neil listed as our 2nd line RW. Could it be the limit of our depth at that position?

Yeah tell me about it. Looks like we need a decent right winger. Isn't Vermette a C too? I'm confused. Either way, good look to see where players rank.

That's why I see Glen Murray as being a nice addition. Vermette has always floated between wing and center.

jamvan wrote:

Jordo wrote:

MurderOnIce wrote:

jamvan wrote:Here's a good site with loads of information about our players and other stuff: http://forecaster.faceoff.com/faceoff/hockey/depthchart.cgi?Ott

Looks good except Neil listed as our 2nd line RW. Could it be the limit of our depth at that position?

Yeah tell me about it. Looks like we need a decent right winger. Isn't Vermette a C too? I'm confused. Either way, good look to see where players rank.

That's why I see Glen Murray as being a nice addition. Vermette has always floated between wing and center.

Do we really want to roll the dice on Murray though? He hasn't played a full season since the lockout, and hasn't put up decent numbers in that period either.

I guess it depends on what he'll be asking, but I put alot of question marks on his hockey card in 2008/2009.

jamvan wrote:Here's a good site with loads of information about our players and other stuff: http://forecaster.faceoff.com/faceoff/hockey/depthchart.cgi?Ott

We should maybe add it to the site in a Widget or something?

Move Fisher to right wing, Vermette to centre and Foligno to left. That's your second line.

Neil can play on the fourth line with Bass (centre) and Ruutu. The Pestilence line.

I think a lot of people are hung up about 4th line players making the league minimum or at least less than a million. Pittsburgh had a very effective 4th line with Roberts and Laraque -- definitely not league minimums there. I would prefer to put your up-and-comers on the third line where they would see enough ice time to develop their skills and strut their stuff a bit. So I'd play the likes of Winchester, Zubov, Regin there. Alternate two of them on the third line with McAmmond and Donovan.

Dang, the more I think about it the more I see that we have too many forwards.

wprager wrote:Move Fisher to right wing, Vermette to centre and Foligno to left. That's your second line.

Neil can play on the fourth line with Bass (centre) and Ruutu. The Pestilence line.

I think a lot of people are hung up about 4th line players making the league minimum or at least less than a million. Pittsburgh had a very effective 4th line with Roberts and Laraque -- definitely not league minimums there. I would prefer to put your up-and-comers on the third line where they would see enough ice time to develop their skills and strut their stuff a bit. So I'd play the likes of Winchester, Zubov, Regin there. Alternate two of them on the third line with McAmmond and Donovan.

Dang, the more I think about it the more I see that we have too many forwards.

Just not enough sure fire second line talent. I think Foligno and Zubov Could do it but not for sure.

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:
Just not enough sure fire second line talent. I think Foligno and Zubov Could do it but not for sure.

We have five for-sure top-six players. But in general, your scoring line(s) should have a goal-scorer, a set-up guy and a crasher. So, really, you only need four top-six type guys for your top two lines, and the third guy is the one digging the puck out of corners, banging the puck carrier and blocking the goalie's view. If we got another top-six type player I would argue that we should spread the six of them out with two on each line, then add players like Foligno, Neill, Bass and have three effective scoring lines. Then we'd still have Ruutu to be the dung-stirrer on the fourth line.

wprager wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:
Just not enough sure fire second line talent. I think Foligno and Zubov Could do it but not for sure.

We have five for-sure top-six players. But in general, your scoring line(s) should have a goal-scorer, a set-up guy and a crasher. So, really, you only need four top-six type guys for your top two lines, and the third guy is the one digging the puck out of corners, banging the puck carrier and blocking the goalie's view. If we got another top-six type player I would argue that we should spread the six of them out with two on each line, then add players like Foligno, Neill, Bass and have three effective scoring lines. Then we'd still have Ruutu to be the dung-stirrer on the fourth line.

BTW, I only have censored words because I think it's hillarious when the censored word is used. I agree in theory with your concept but then why was it sooo hard to split up the top line and have two effective lines?

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:

wprager wrote:
We have five for-sure top-six players. But in general, your scoring line(s) should have a goal-scorer, a set-up guy and a crasher. So, really, you only need four top-six type guys for your top two lines, and the third guy is the one digging the puck out of corners, banging the puck carrier and blocking the goalie's view. If we got another top-six type player I would argue that we should spread the six of them out with two on each line, then add players like Foligno, Neill, Bass and have three effective scoring lines. Then we'd still have Ruutu to be the dung-stirrer on the fourth line.

BTW, I only have censored words because I think it's hillarious when the censored word is used. I agree in theory with your concept but then why was it sooo hard to split up the top line and have two effective lines?

I think Heatley/Spezza was the (almost) unbreakable duo. Alfie was moved to the second line on a few occasions. The problem may be that Alfredsson, as your captain and best player, deserves first line status. Maybe a rookie coach didn't have the balls to do what may be interpreted as a demotion of your best player. Frankly, I would do away with the top-line mentality altogether and go with the 1A/1B approach.

Or 1A/1B/1C.

By the way, Cornny asked for Sens avatars on another thread, and I found a couple of links with some very nice ones (there's the one of Schaefer's hit on Connolly in a slow-mo animated gif; there's one of Angelina Jolie in a Sens jersey -- lots of choices). I'll post those here as well:

http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u236/mozhfboards/?start=all
http://www.sensnation.com/library/avatars/

wprager wrote:

Cap'n' Clutch wrote:

wprager wrote:
We have five for-sure top-six players. But in general, your scoring line(s) should have a goal-scorer, a set-up guy and a crasher. So, really, you only need four top-six type guys for your top two lines, and the third guy is the one digging the puck out of corners, banging the puck carrier and blocking the goalie's view. If we got another top-six type player I would argue that we should spread the six of them out with two on each line, then add players like Foligno, Neill, Bass and have three effective scoring lines. Then we'd still have Ruutu to be the dung-stirrer on the fourth line.

BTW, I only have censored words because I think it's hillarious when the censored word is used. I agree in theory with your concept but then why was it sooo hard to split up the top line and have two effective lines?

I think Heatley/Spezza was the (almost) unbreakable duo. Alfie was moved to the second line on a few occasions. The problem may be that Alfredsson, as your captain and best player, deserves first line status. Maybe a rookie coach didn't have the balls to do what may be interpreted as a demotion of your best player. Frankly, I would do away with the top-line mentality altogether and go with the 1A/1B approach.

Or 1A/1B/1C.

By the way, Cornny asked for Sens avatars on another thread, and I found a couple of links with some very nice ones (there's the one of Schaefer's hit on Connolly in a slow-mo animated gif; there's one of Angelina Jolie in a Sens jersey -- lots of choices). I'll post those here as well:

http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u236/mozhfboards/?start=all
http://www.sensnation.com/library/avatars/

Thanks a lot now he'll be changing his Avatar every 10 minutes. :lol!: