When I think of winners, I think back to the 70's Habs as maybe the most dominant core ever assembled in hockey.  In a similar class of winners are the NY Islanders that followed and the Edmonton Oilers after them.  When I think of losers, I think of the Leafs... Years and years of shitty Leaf teams, despite a number of excellent players to have passed through that city... 

But, what makes some teams clearly winners, while others are clearly losers? 

The 2007 Sens had a certain intangible (call it panache) to match their talent.  They had confidence that you could see and feel.  Larry Robinson commented (after his Devils were beaten by the Sens) that the Sens were "impressive and dominant" and had "considerable speed and talent".  He was almost in awe of the Heatley, Spezza, and Alfie line (as were many in the NHL) with their quick transition game and one-two-three punch.

Yet that same Sens team turned into complete losers within months of those positive comments being made about them.  How?

I have never been able to fully understand the reason for such an incredible fall from grace.  The loss of Chara was considerable, I think.  The Ducks' pounding of the team and their bullying of the Sens' otherwise soft defence (during the Cup final) also seemed to permanently deflate a few players like Philips and Fisher.  Others like to blame Emery and his distractions, or Gerber's weakness, for screwing up the mojo. Others will point to Redden or one of the many coaches...

Only the players know for sure, but the reality is that the change was dramatic.

My theory is that the biggest change was in their heads and hearts. 

If you remember 2007, it was also the year that Phil Mickleson won the Masters golf tournament, playing that Sunday with ice running through his veins.  I was there and I followed him and Fred Couples on that Sunday.  It was friggin' amazing.  Every putt with confidence - never really a question that he would not be able to get it done.  Yet the same Phil Mickleson would soon fall apart in the US Open, only a few months later with an 18th hole mental flameout.  All this to say that much of winning comes down to mental focus, confidence, and the impact it has on actual performance.

My fear is that the current Sens lack any of that.  How quickly can you get it back once it is is lost?  It took Lefty a while and he's just one person... 

Could the Sens go on a run and build on a few early wins?  Pascal Leclaire may provide that intangible... who knows?  The defence core doesn't really suggest that possibility, but you never know. Then there is that whole Heatley thing... A timely trade could change everything in a flash.

All I know is that the same guys who lived and played together as winners no longer have that chemistry.  Heatley and Spezza may in fact still be friends and play well together, or they may not.  The point is invalid as long as Heatley wants out anyway. Arguably, Kovalev is not really a winner and his shitty comments about Ottawa being the best of a bad situation for him demonstrates that clearly, as far as I am concerned.  

Worse, could be a long stretch of bad Sens teams, because good players would certainly shy away from Ottawa.  This isn't the city to attract wealthy young men, as was recently debated on another blog. Ottawa is no L.A., San Jose, or Anaheim.  Winning neutralizes a lot of that perception, losing magnifies it.

My hope is that Murray will go with a new younger team, built around Leclaire, Foligno, Karlsson and that tall drink of water we just drafted on D (and more young guys we've yet to meet).  We need a new crop of young guys that we either draft or trade for, to grow up here and find that lost "esprit de corps", like the one we had with guys like Redden (but better still).  Funny how guys like Foligno and Shannon raise spirits and provide hope...

If you believe that winning starts in the head and in the heart, then you need a core of like-minded players to buy into a singular culture and who subscribe to a winning attitude; a group that feeds on a string of positive events over a long time.  A team like the old Habs, modern day Detroit - but certainly not like the Rangers or the Leafs of the past many decades.  

The winning dynasties of the 70s and 80s were long-lasting, because those teams were tight and operated on the premise that they were winners. I think you have to build that just as you build your culture - like the 67s did under Killer for decades, as Jacques Martin did with the young Sens of the past - by slowly working a system and integrating youngsters into the culture.  That doesn't come quickly through free-agency.  Again... Just look at all those Leaf teams.

Lets not go down that road - the road of perpetual losers.