Wombat

I countered with the Hurricanes from 05/06 since their only active enforcer, Boulerice, was traded halfway through the season. And also, the point of his question is to imply that this Wing's team cannot win because there is no enforcer. But if he thinks Lilja is an enforcer, the intent of the question is void.

Yeah, hockeyfights.com lists these totals for the Cup winning years: 96-97 - 55 97-98 - 33 01-02 - 21 07-08 - 21 While his numbers were wrong, I think sureWhynot's point is valid; past Cup winning Red Wing teams have fought more than this one. Now, the last two Cup winning Wings teams may not be significantly higher in the grand scheme of things, but they will still need to prove to some that they can win without fighting.

I was there and I saw it. I didn't really see a reason for it. I just prefer it at home, where I just think it makes more sense. When I am in an opposing arena, I have fun but also realize I'm a "guest" at their place and I don't want to be disrespectful.

They all stink. Forget the PR and just play some hockey!

That does matter then because he asked the question: I agree with you that Lilja is not an enforcer.

Another wonderful story, thank you for sharing.

Does Boulerice truly count as he was not on the team for the 2nd half of the year? He was traded away. I doubt his name is even on the Cup. I would think for him to truly be part of the team, he has to at least be there when the season ends.

Wait... so is Lilja an enforcer or not?

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I generally don't like seeing the Octopus thrown at road games. I like it as a Detroit tradition that happens in Detroit. I think it is a bit disrespectful to throw it on the road, but to each their own.

OK, we'll mark you down in the "You can win without an enforcer camp." C-Town brought up a good point... what about Lilja? I seem to remember somebody touting him as good fighter, and perhaps being on the verge of enforcer-dom. This is another reason I was asking about definitions. Is Lilja an enforcer? I personally would say no, but he is a guy that can and will fight. But is the willingness to have a few scraps per season good enough for someone to say "that team had a fighter/enforcer on the team and won"?

So then you feel that a team does not need a bona fide enforcer to win the Stanley Cup?

That's what I was getting at with asking for definitions, and I thank both GMR and Micah for giving their opinions. I know there isn't a real definition for it, but I wanted to see what opinions were on the matter as I see too many people throwing around the word enforcer in referring to players that clearly are not.

I understand what you are trying to have as the answer (zero teams), but I'm still just trying to find out what exactly an enforcer is. Earlier you said a guy that goes against heavies is an enforcer, but here you are refining that he must also hold his own with other heavies. In general I agree with your definition, but there are some on this message board that try to put certain guys in as enforcers when they clearly are not. Drake was not an enforcer. After this run around in definitions, may I ask your opinions of the 05/06 Stanley Cup winning Carolina Hurricanes? This is a team that had only 17 fighting majors all season long. Jesse Boulerice led the team with 5 fighting majors, but was traded on January 30th to the St. Louis Blues after playing in only 26 games with the team. Does this count as a team that won a Cup without a legit enforcer?

Don't worry, I completely agree with balance. I was worried that the trade-off from Drake to Hossa would affect the balance of the team. I prefer a team with some toughness to it... not in the form of one knuckle dragger on the 4th line, but in overall team toughness. I thought last year's team had overall team toughness, and I haven't seen the same level this year. I'm not going to say though that not having a "fighter" will prevent a team from winning a cup. There are far too many variables, and really we have not had enough samples since the "European" style is still relatively new to the NHL. I have a feeling that a team can win and will win the Stanley Cup without an active fighter on the roster at some point, and this discussion will go down the same path as "can't win with an Euro-centric roster" and "can't win with a European captain". There are many ways to win in the NHL, and right now, the Wings have a system that has been guaranteeing a chance to win year in and year out. I would prefer the Wings to be more balanced, but I can't complain that they aren't giving me, the fan, a team that every year is a contender.

Sorry, I didn't see your other response before I posted a reply. But based on this, what is the definition of a heavyweight? I'm not trying to annoy you with semantics, it's just good to have a basis for a search.

I'm not talking about this year's team, because they have not won the Stanley Cup, which was the basis of your question. So, what is the definition of an enforcer?

It might depend on what the definition of an enforcer is.

Why doesn't the most skilled team win every year? Why doesn't the toughest team win every year? Why doesn't the most experienced win every year? Why doesn't the best coached team win every year? Because it's impossible to win the championship every year. I'm shocked and feel blessed that the Wings have won as many championships as they have every year. This isn't Playstation... it's real, and in real sports you have to deal with matchups, hunger, injuries, skill, toughness, and many MANY more attributes in every game of every season. The fact is that the Wings are a model franchise because each year they win a lot in the regular season, which puts them in position to legitimately compete for the championship every year. No other team in hockey can claim that every year for the past 15 years, their team has been a legit contender. Expecting anything more than being a contender is outrageous. Stanley Cup Championships are not some sort of Detroit birthright.

I was very satisfied with the first 45-50 minutes of play, but they clearly let up on the pedal for the last 10-15 minutes of regulation. There were a few times where they tried to play pretty instead of just getting a good shot on goal. I have been encouraged over the past 2+ weeks by the number of posts that the Wings seem to be hitting with shots. They are getting shots through and beating goalies, but hitting posts. They'll stop hitting the posts soon hopefully and instead hit twine.

I was not trying to imply that this was the current status of the team, it clearly is not. But I don't think the answer is one guy that pounds faces. There has to be a general team toughness, and that is what those 97/98 teams had. McCarty, Kocur (at that age), Pushor, Lapointe, Shanahan, and Konstantinov all had 4+ fights, and I don't think any were an enforcer in the true sense of the word. All were legitimate hockey players that added toughness to the team. Maybe I overstated by saying we should have 10 guys do it, but even 5 would be nice and would improve overall team toughness more than 1 true enforcer.

This photo is evidence of why I started this thread. I belive the hit was too low. Ballard is at Malkin's knee when he makes contact. Malkin didn't jump. I think too many people are taking the commentators' word at it, but he did pass the puck with his skate just before the hit, so he was on one leg. The "jump" was him flipping over Ballard. To me, it wasn't a good hit. Too low. Looking it over a few times, it looks like Ballard comes in low, puts his arm to Malkin's knees, and pushes up. Then, Malkin flips over him, because his momentum is still going forward, while his legs are stopped. I can't really call that a hip check at all. I completely agree. Especially in the heat of the battle, it can be seen as a low/borderline hit. Malkin certainly did not try to jump over the check. One foot is lifted but you have to lift your feet to skate. Ballard, when hitting him, lifted him up and flipped him. Crosby was justified in squaring up with Ballard face to face like men.

This, plus the videos, was a tremendous post. I agree with everything you posted. The hit was borderline, as the photo clearly shows. I respect Crosby for doing what he thought necessary after seeing a star on his team get hit that way.

Here's what I don't get... we have people that bemoan the fact that this Wings team does not fight, but when a guy like Ericsson does actually fight, we have the same people saying that he should not fight simply because he's not a legit middle or heavy weight. It leaves me with the impression that all that is wanted is fighting for fighting's sake, and not as a legit part of the NHL game. I think Ericsson's fight was the perfect example of a just fight in the NHL. Was it an epic fight? Hell no! It was not a great fight by any stretch, but it was a legitimate fight for real reasons. Buffalo took offense at a hit, and started a scrum. A couple guys got out of hand in the scrum, and Ericsson stepped up to fight one of the perpetrators. That is the type of fight I want to see in the NHL... I don't want to see two heavies say "good luck" to each other in the faceoff circle and then start their pointless sideshow fight. The number of fighting majors per team does not show team toughness. Would Detroit be tougher if they had 82 fights, but all were from one guy that fights every game while the rest of the team remains soft? I don't think so, and I don't think it would aid in the "protection" or "enforcing" that is wanted. I would think that fans that see this team is too soft would LOVE that Ericsson stepped up and would hope that it encouraged others to stand up. Instead of having one guy that fights every game, I'd rather have 10 different guys that fight every 20 games or so. The first "team" would have 82 fights, but the second would be a tougher overall team, and one that could more adequately enforce, despite having only 40 fights. No legit heavies, but every single line would boast a guy or two that would step up when the situation dictated it must happen. That, in my mind, is enforcing.

I think you're a little off-base on this. I don't think that the "powers that be" in the Wings organization look that down on Downey. The main reason Downey has been in GR most of the season is because of the Red Wings' cap situation. The Wings are loathe to lose roster players. Their hand was completely forced in the Quincey situation and I don't think the Wings liked losing a legit NHLer for nothing. And that's the problem up front... the Wings have too many legit NHLers and are completely against the cap. The Wings are also quite loyal, so players like Maltby aren't going to be waived to make room. If memory serves, Downey had to clear waivers and did... so every NHL team already had a chance to add him to their lineup for no cost but his contract. As much as many of us here rag on guys like Maltby and Kopecky among others, I doubt either would pass through waivers unscathed. Note that I'm not arguing against Downey (I like what he adds to the team and wished he had a regular 7-8 minute shift on the 4th line). It's just that the Wings have a lot of nice assets right now and they weren't looking to move any of them, and unfortunately Downey was caught in the numbers game. If anything, I wish they had not resigned McCarty and instead had Downey up all year. what I am arguing is that there is no conspiracy in the Wings front office to crush any sense of fighting out of the team, or to keep Downey down. It's simply how the roster stacked up this year, and if they hadn't been about 63 cents from the cap, we would have seen a lot more up/down from Grand Rapids from Downey/Helm/Leino/Abdelkader/Ericsson, among others.

As an aside, Detroit's record in games in which a Wing has received a fighting major is 8-1-2. Of course, it can also be said that teams playing Detroit are 3-8-0 when they fight the Wings.