WorkingOvertime

I would do this in a second. However, I don't see the Rangers trading Prust with the year he is having there.

I read elsewhere that Prust said the punch surprised him so he went down. Prust did fight later in the game though, so he was alright.

Here an enforcer is designated as a player like Boll, Prust, Neil, Konopka, Rupp, etc, and not someone like Boogard, Koci, Gillies, etc. I think that most of the enforcer debate revolves around a person's hockey history, and I am hoping this poll can prove (or disprove) my theory.

I never said someone had to be 'going somewhere' to play competitive hockey- that was an aside. IMO competitive hockey is travel. I didn't state this initially because I'm not knowledgeable on European youth hockey. I don't agree with this. I grew up playing with coaches who had played, and I'm not sure what respect I would have for one that didn't- not in a personal way, but as a teacher of hockey. Until you've been punched in the face, checked from behind, two-handed, slew-footed, etc I don't think you have a real grip on the physical nature of the sport.

I'm surprised how many are voting that they played competitive NA hockey. I would define it as Peewee or older travel hockey (or competitive high-school). Anything lower has much less of a physical presence. Personally, I played A/AA/AAA travel, high-school, and college club. A lot of people I know played juniors, but these days anything less than Jr. A is pretty useless (but certainly an experience) in 'going somewhere' with hockey.

Per Mlive- http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/2011/01/red_wings_recall_cory_emmerton.html

Plenty of teams have enforcers who are decent point producers. Neil and Prust are two of them. Beyond that, I'm not sure how you can measure helping a team. From 24/7 it's obvious Bylsma (sp? on my phone) thinks a fight brings something unmeasurable- he gave Engelland a higher rating because of a fight. Also, the Flyers carry Shelley almost every game and still are in first in the East. The Blues carry a few fighters and they do well. Pens always have at least two of of Engelland, Godard, Rupp, and Asham dressed. For the fighters not producing points, I'm not sure the difference is measurable. However, these are not the enforcers being advocated here.

Not going to participate in your own poll? We've had our arguments on here, but I think we agree (for once) on the rule changes. I'd be interested to see your answer to this 'poll'.

What if you were GM, piecing together the Wings? Not to say any of us would do a good job, but this poll is basically a play the GM poll (your opinion).

.

.

.

Use short handed TOI, TOI, FO% (if relevant), hits, points, etc. to defend your accusations of these 'pylon' players though. My argument for players like this is that they provide as much (or close to) of these measures as our current 12th/13th forwards while bringing other (less measurable) things to the team.

I'd prefer to keep this discussion in the other thread since this is more of a poll to get people's opinions. However, Konopka and Rupp are far from pylons. Rupp had 19 points last year (pylon?). Konopka's strengths can be found in the other thread. If you don't think Konopka could produce the same (or close to the amount) as Miller with Helm, Eaves instead of Gillies, Martin thae I think we have very different views of Konopka.

As I said in the topic, the player would be of the skill level of Konopka, Rupp, Neil, etc. To me, this is similar (+ or - a few points) to what we will see from Miller or Draper on the point production side.

I agree. Eliminating the trapezoid is the only thing I agree with. Everything else is fine, and I think changing rules hurts the casual fan. I'm all for improvement, but I don't think more goals is improvement, and there are few (if any) changes I would agree with.

In general. I tried to leave it ambiguous so the results weren't skewed by people's feelings for any one player. Basically, it is your overall feeling about the subject- if you think the Wings should have a player like this or not.

I usually use him as an example because he is redundant (and not under a LT contract). Miller is a good player but it probably comes off that I don't think that. He PK's well and is a solid 4th liner (better than most). However, Eaves, Draper, Helm, and Abby can all do most of what Miller does and more. Therefore, while Miller isn't bad by any measure, he is an easy player to suggest people in place of. Konopka plays with Gillies and Martin most of the time. Gillies is the type of enforcer that most here don't want, and Martin is a decent fourth liner IMO. However, you cannot tell me that with Helm and Eaves on his line that Konopka would not produce more than he is now.

Have you ever seen Konopka play? How many Isles games have you watched this year or Lightning games last year? I'd post his stats but I'm on my phone. To say Konopka is useless shows a lack of knowledge on your part.

You're off base here. No poster in this thread suggested we have a pure enforcer, or a team of them. The argument is, and has been, why not have a Neil, Konopka, Prust, etc in the lineup in place of someone like Miller?

On other forums people are calling it a cheap-shot. To me, it was within the code. However, I expect Gleason to answer for himself when he sees Orr, Rosehill, or Brown next.

I think you're missing the point. No one is suggesting the Wings trade for Godard, King, etc. The Wings don't need someone like that. However, Neil, Konopka, Rupp, etc can all play as well as Miller and stand up for their teammates. This isnthe type of player the Wings would benefit from.

IMO Miller has improved but I wouldn't say he has been the catalyst of that lines success recently. Unless Abby were making bad plays defensively, it would take a lot for me to want him out for Miller. Like Eaves, I'd like to see Abby play with better talent. Tatar and Mursak will be good NHLers but they are both rookies. Abby seems to thrive when he isn't the best puck-handeler (I mean for setting up- not moves) on the line.

He got robbed of the game winner. While his play has suffered he certainly is not the weak link in the team. Would you play Miller above Abby? Fighting would have been pointless. He was tired and likely would have lost. I'm one of the more pro-enforcer posters here but fighting in the last minute of a game when nobody has wronged your team is pointless.

Really? Really? He hits, creates chances, and can put up points. If you were watching, he was at the end of his shift after coming within two inches of scoring the game winner. It would have been pointless for him to fight a better fighter with thirty seconds left in the game.