GMRwings1983

I don't think any team will trade for Downey. There's better enforcers out there, even in the minors, for them to make a move for a guy like this. I do, however, see this as lessening McCarty's role on the team, if he does decide to come back.

Good. Let's hope he doesn't have to wait for an injury in order to play, especially if Babcock doesn't play Lilja in the top 6 on defense.

If Sammy is not in the top 6, then he's pretty much useless unless it's as an injury filler. So yes, I would have him sitting in the press box along with everyone's favorite cartoon character, Kopecky. Guys like Maltby and McCarty are necessary as grinders and checkers. You can't have guys like Sammy and Hudler playing on a so-called checking line. They're either scorers or scratches. With that said, I'd actually dress Hudler, and put him on the same line as Helm, and make that our 4th line along with Downey. Those 2 played well with Maltby or Mac, so I don't see them doing any worse with Downey on their line. So to sum up, my bottom six would consist of Draper, Maltby, Cleary, Hudler, Helm and Downey. If yours looks different, so be it.

The 3rd line is generally the shut-down, defensive line. If Draper and Maltby are on the 4th line, who's going to be the shut-down line? Certainly not Cleary, Hudler and Helm. Two of those guys aren't that good defensively. There's no way they should get more minutes than Draper, unless they're in the top 6, which they won't be, since our top 6 forwards are already set, barring injury.

It would be a new role for Sammy, since he's never really been a 3rd line checker exclusivelly. The problem with Sammy, as many have mentioned, is that he can either be on the 2nd line where most fans hate him, or on the bench, because he's not thought as a guy that can be a checker or grinder on the 3rd or 4th line. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I'd rather have Maltby in that spot, where we've had a good shut down line for a long time. No reason to change all that just to obtain more scoring. The biggest benefit I see with your suggestion is that neither Draper nor Cleary are guys who shoot often, so if Sammy does his usual stupid routine in the offensive end, it wouldn't take away from those guys offensively. But defensively, I take Maltby over Sammy any day in that role. I don't think Draper would mind either.

I don't have any actual quotes from Holland if that's what you mean. My guess is that because the NHL doesn't want any on-ice deaths, that likely means Holland has instructed Lilja not to fight. The last thing the Wings want is to be labeled as a team with a killer on it.

I saw GMR listed so many times in your post that I felt kind of scared for a while. My question for you is who are these better options that you speak of to play on the checking/shut down line with Draper. Cleary I'm guessing is one of them, but who's the other. Kopecky has proven nothing, and neither Sammy, Hudler or Helm are checkers or defensive players. Maltby has the best chemistry with Draper. They need to stay together because of their experience at being able to shut down opposing lines.

I felt like a pervert watching the 16 year old Americans, so I know how he feels about the Chinese girls who looked twice as young.

Perfect trade for McCabe. He goes from somewhere where he's under constant scrutiny and criticism from the media, to a place where no one can even spell hockey. He could shoot 10 goals this year into his own net on purpose, and no one in south Florida would even take notice.

Forget it, Dabura. I'm done defending those arguments. I'm not going through all that again. If you don't like what I've written so far, then too bad. I'm not expecting to convince someone as stubborn and as arrogant as you. You keep contradicting yourself and making feeble attempts at trying to insult me at every turn. At this point, anything I write is going to result in you acting like a complete *******. You've obviously taken this too personally. Neither of us thinks the other has anything constructive as an argument, so why bother?

What does the "totally be lights-out" reference allude to? If it alludes to us not winning, you misquoted me. If not, explain, because I don't remember using such a phrase. You have to be careful in attributing phrases like that. Everything else is pretty much right on.

Ah, there you go again. I never stated that we needed to fight to win. You just brought up the idea of my talking about sending messages and getting tougher, which I have indeed talked about. However, I never said that any of that was necessary in order to win. As I've said before, there's more to pride than winning. I think you just can't find any instance of me saying that we needed to fight to win games, so now you're making petty excuses and trying to put words into my mouth as you say I'm doing to others. Show me some proof, Dabura, or else you're a hypocrite in more than one way. It sounds like you want to continue misquoting me to continue the thread, even though I've stated that I think it should already be closed. What are you trying to accomplish at this point?

Fair enough. I don't remember ever labeling your personally as anti-enforcer, but if I did, I apologize.

Give what up? You're the one twisting posts. I never said we need to fight to win. Also, I never said that fighting is an essential part of the Wings system. Of course it's not, or else we wouldn't be having this debate. Why would I have to back that up with proof, if I never said it? You're contradicting everything I say, and yet accusing me of it. Now who's a hypocrite?

Decent post. As I sort of stated in my last post, it all comes down to a disagreement over what we define as being anti-enforcer. Your definition is more flexible, while my opinion is more cut and dry. I'm generally an extremist on either one side or another. Never down the middle. Maybe it's because I've spent time on other forums where the word enforcer means something different than it does on LGW. Anyway, I think it's time for this post to get closed, because there's no more use in arguing over what a certain phrase means to someone as opposed to others.

I'm too tired to argue with anyone else. Too much has gone around already. You should have jumped in earlier with your insult. Many pro-fighting posters just aren't here anymore on LGW. Also, Mac was an enforcer in 2002. He wasn't a top heavy, but he wasn't a middleweight either. But then again, since you seem to know so much about who is and isn't an enforcer, educate me as to why Mac wasn't an enforcer in 02. BTW, who in the hell are you? Have I argued with you before? Perhaps, like I said it's my definition of pro and anti-enforcers. I'm not here to make everyone love GMR and agree with him all of a sudden. I'm just stating my opinion on your positions much like you're stating your opinions of mine.

He was still an enforcer no matter how many fights he had in 2002. Sorry if you don't like my definition, but it is my definition and not anyone else's. I'm not trying to cater to every idiot who happens to dislike my view on enforcers. I'm just tired of people who contradict themselves and then call me out for it.

Go get your shinebox.

Does anyone else think the Chinese women's gymnastics team was lying about their age, as several media outlets have suggested? Those girls looked like they were about 8.

Lilja would be a heavy on any other team. Holland is holding him back in the fighting department. Also, Cleary could be a top 6 forward for several teams. That's not a marginal player if you ask me.

Pro-enforcer posters are those who want an enforcer on the team, and believe that there is a place for one on the team as well as some need for it. I have explained this several times now. Anti-enforcer posters think otherwise in at least one of those areas. To me, if you're pro-enforcer, then you'd be pushing for the Wings to have an enforcer like I've been doing. Sorry if I've offended all the esteemed geniuses here who don't like to be called out for their hypocrisy. BTW, you just made the mistake of saying that we won without an enforcer. We've had one on the roster for all 4 Cups. Maybe they didn't win the Conn Smythe, but they were still part of the team. Thanks for playing.

How can you not like Mark Mowers? If he stuck around longer, he might have been my new Lilja.

No, just jaded from arguing with hypocrites. Everyone is saying that they're not anti-enforcer, and then they make half page posts about how the Wings don't need one, or that we shouldn't have one because we just won the Cup, even though both Downey and McCarty are enforcers who are both part of this team. If you don't think the Wings need an enforcer, then you're anti-enforcer. How f***ing hard is that to comprehend?

God, you're worse than a woman. I already stated that his PK is part of it, but that Holland's loyalty is still the biggest reason for why he's here. Show me where I contradicted that. Now write that on a piece of paper and glue it to your wall, so that you won't be so damn confused.

To me when you state someone should be in the press box, that is the equivalent of saying that they're useless as a regular, and should be a healthy scratch. It sounds like you want him gone since you think there are better options. Also, I never said that you had anything against him personally or wanted him gone because he's Maltby. Why call me out for something I never said, and then tell me that I can't comprehend?