kipwinger

Until I hear differently, Z will be fine and back in the lineup soon. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard "Bertuzzi is done, you don't get over this" or "Helm is done, you don't get over this". Zetterberg's got all the access to space aged technology and healthcare that money can buy. He's gonna be fine.

I hope that you're not suggesting that I have recently begun saying Weiss has been bad...he hasn't and I've never said so. I've definitely said that we need him playing better, and that's never going to happen with the two millstones around his neck (Cleary and Sammy). But if you have somehow got the impression that I've changed my tune on Weiss, I assure you, I haven't. He's still a good signing and a really good player. Nobody could score with his wingers.

There you go fabricating things again. We only lost one game due to being physically dominated. You're suggesting that it's a recurring theme. This season, it hasn't happened "three times", it doesn't happen "all the time". It happened once. And here you are to champion the cause of "getting tougher" because it's such a recurring problem. It's so disingenuous it's almost laughable. Also, how am I on a power trip? I literally have ZERO power over anything that happens on this site. I'm not even a mod. I agree, he cleaned up his act. But not because of retaliation, but rather because of the monster suspension he got. It actually proves that retaliation DOESN'T WORK.

Nope, I'm the guy who recognizes when someone uses a non-representative example as evidence in order to try and validate a point of view which is itself off base. It's like saying cars are stupid because yours broke down yesterday, or football players are criminals because Ray Lewis killed a guy. It's not hard to see through, you just need some "critical thinking skills" in fancy first semester psych terminology.

This whole thread is reactionary, and at the same time premeditated. It's hard to be both at once; in fact, it's almost impossible. Yet here we are. Some people obviously want the Wings to play a "more physical" type of game, which typically boils down to more fighting. So we wait, and when we finally lose a game in which we're physically dominated, they jump up and say "See! If we were just tougher then this wouldn't happen." It's opportunistic, and at the same time utterly predictable. Here's the problem with this thread in a nutshell. We lost seven games in a row before the last Ottawa game, and physicality and fighting played no role in any of those losses. Yet, I didn't see people jumping up to start "the Wings need to get faster" threads, or "the Wings need a better positional goalie" thread, or "the Wings need a better transition game" thread. But sure as s***, the first time we get hit a little bit there will be a "the Wings need to get more physical" thread. This isn't about the Wings playing better. It's a post hoc way of justifying your desire to see the Wings get in more fights. If that's how you feel just say so, but don't try to manipulate the truth. And don't make it seem like this is some glaring need because it has barely been a factor this season. The argument is a cheap, unsophisticated attempt to pull the wool over our collective eyes. It would be insulting if it weren't so glaringly obvious.

I was not able to watch last Wednesday or Sunday's games. However, I've been told that Smith played quite well in both. I did see Friday's game and didn't think he looked bad. I've always been quite vocal about how bad Smith was playing, and he was playing quite terribly at one point, but if he's turned the corner on that then he deserves to be recognized for that as well. So "atta boy" Smith.

I certianly don't think that he's earning his money, don't get me wrong. I just also don't think he's been as bad as he's been made out to be around here. That's all. In general this team has been absolutely horrid for quite a while, and I see no reason to single Quincey out as if he's somehow been worse that the rest of the garbage we've put out on the ice recently. I mean, there are people saying Quincey is terrible for having 3 assists, 22 pims, and -12, but giving a pass to Smith and his 1 assist, 26 pims, and -8. Truth is, neither have played very well, but both are better than what their detractors make them out to be. Difference is, Smith has "potential" and occasionally punches a guy, so he gets a pass while Kyle gets the blame.

I don't want to turn this into a blame game, we're all aware of who the LGW whipping boys are. But if you look at the stats, we currently rank 15th in goals against, and 20th in goals for. So, other than copping out and saying "we need to improve both", who does the failure fall on...the offense or the defense? Here's something things to consider... 1) Jimmy has been pretty shaky at times this season, arguably making the defense look worse than it really is. 2) Transition game starts with the defense and it has been bad this year, arguably making the offense look worse. 3) We've given up three or more goals 12 times and scored three or more goals 10 times. 4) Injuries have, so far, disproportionately affected the offense. Presumably making it less productive. Ok discuss. And please don't just start singling people out, it's boring...and intellectually lazy. The first person to do it will be admitting that they are a meat-headed sack of s*** by default.

Well just to play devil's advocate, given how bad our offense is and how hard it is for us to score, one could argue that Quincey (along with everyone else on the team) has an artificially inflated +/-. Also, he's being utilized as a defensive defenseman and doesn't see PP time at all. Therefore, he's not expected to score much. In 2009-2010 Brad Stuart got lots of ice time, scored 20 pts. (with a much better offensive team), and was -12. Yet nobody would ever have said he was our worst defender...let alone our worst player (as some are mentioning). Why? Mostly because people hate Quincey and liked Stuart based on his style of play. And a little bit because sometimes people fail to realize that unlike most other positions in most other sports, defensive defensemen don't have too many individual indicators of success. Their team can make them look REALLY good (2009 Stuart) or REALLY bad (2013 Quincey).

I wasn't so much asking top six forward vs. top four d-man, but rather, whether the offense or the defense should shoulder the responsibility for this mediocre performance...and why they are responsible. Obviously, it only makes sense that you'd want to improve whatever one you picked, but I wanted to avoid the blame game and also the we need to trade for "player x" game.

I never saw it coming. But considering hindsight is 20/20, it makes you wonder if being a forward all those years ago helped him get to the next level? Most defensemen who are his size and taken late in the draft have skating issues. Ericsson skates pretty well. With his size and ability to skate he's got all the tools, he just needed to learn positioning and decision making. But those are teachable. Try teaching someone like Hal Gill to skate like Ericsson. I guess what I'm trying to say is, Ericsson probably looked terrible when he was draft age because he hadn't been playing defense long and his decision making and positioning were likely lacking. But if you looked at it from a "he's huge and can skate" angle, and assumed the other assets would come with experience, then it's not really a surprise that he's as good as he is.

I guess I'm going to put this here because I don't know where else. Anybody have any idea why Phoenix waived Rostaslav Klesla? I mean, I understand he's not a superstar, but I always thought he would at least be a top four shutdown guy on a lot of teams. He's huge, not too old, and seems to be in good health. I can't figure this one.

Well clearly you've chosen to ignore the part where I said that it's not realistic to think you can get rid off ALL injuries, but it is reasonable to think you can get rid of those injuries caused by things that are already against the rules of the game.

No you didn't. Here's what you actually said when Quincey was traded for... "I may be in the minority here, but I think this is a nice deal. Kyle is a big upgrade over Kindl, he is much better (maybe not tougher) than Commodore, he will be a nice addition here. Welcome back Kyle! and for those who think a first was too much, not only is the first gonna be at least in the bottom 4, it may be #30 overall, just like everyone is saying, but consider this, when was the last time Holland even used his first? The first is so low every year he usually trades it away for another 2nd round pick. Which he has done at least the last two season's. This could mean Holland isn't done, he has said Smith will be coming up soon to get some playing time, maybe Kindl is on his way out, who know's. But as minor as this deal was, it is a little exciting. Quincey will make an impression, trust me. Where are all the folks that were complaining just last week about how we lost him to waivers a few years ago. They should be happy!" And here's where you said it...http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/topic/71668-kyle-quincey-traded-to-detroit-in-3-team-trade-tbl-col/page-5?hl=%20trade%20%20quincey You are aware that when you say things on a forum, and then flip flop later, people can look it up right?

To respond to the first part of your argument, I agree. It is fact and situation specific. And the outcome of this lawsuit will determine where we draw the line concerning employer vs. employee responsibility. To respond to the second part. Nobody is talking about separated shoulders, or eye injuries. I agree, those are inherent risks which come with the game. I don't think you can get those out of the game without fundamentally changing the way it's played. But you absolutely can get rid of MOST head trauma without changing the game. Why? Because fighting and hitting the head are already against the rules. Individuals ignore the rules when doing those things. Make the penalties so stiff that players no longer ignore the penalty, and the behavior will stop. Sure, accidental hits to the head and/or concussions resulting from the head hitting the boards or the head hitting the ice will still happen. Nobody is talking in absolutes here. But if those are the only means of getting head trauma, and they're accidental, then it's reasonable to say that they're accepted risks because accidents can't be avoided Fights and head hits are not accidental, they're intentional, and they're a violation of the rules. It's not unrealistic for players to think that they can play hockey without being punched in the face or hit in the head. Just like they can (and should) expect to play hockey without being slew footed, or given a B.C. two-hander.

That's a good post. I didn't know that about Webster. The league needs to get VERY serious about enforcing proper hitting techniques.

Yeah but it's not like I'm talking about something fantastic or utopian. I'll tell you how to reduce concussions to an occasional level so that hockey is as safe as it can be without destroying the game. Make fighting a game misconduct, and give VERY severe suspensions for anyone who hits illegally, graduating upward to a lifetime ban for guys like Raffi Torres and the like. There are literally hundreds of really hard hits every year that are perfectly clean, do not cause concussions, and don't require supplemental discipline. Here's one from last season as an example...

You know, honestly this forum throws a lot of s*** at you most of the time, and most of the time it doesn't really bother me. But for some reason, I'm genuinely dismayed by this one. Irrationally blame Bettman or the refs? I don't care. Claim Howard sucks? Don't care. Argue that Tootoo's name should be in the rafters? Do. Not. Care. But I can't help but get frustrated by the degree of obtuseness it takes to suggest that a person should not do something rather than expect that they can do it safely. Hell, I work on the fifth floor of my office building. If I don't want to die in a building collapse is the onus on me to quite my job, or on my employer to build a safe building?

First of all, the players are arguing that they didn't fully know the risks. Secondly, this "don't take the risk if you're not willing to live with the consequences" argument is friggin' stupid. Just because there's a latent risk inherent in something doesn't mean you shouldn't make it safer. That's like saying, "if you don't want to get smashed by a drunk driver then you shouldn't drive" or "if you don't want to get botulism you should only eat fresh food". You should be able to drive AND avoid drunks, you should be able to eat canned food AND not get poisoned, and you should be able to play hockey AND not have degenerative brain diseases. And here's the kicker...you should be able to do all that without it being a crap shoot. Jesus, you people act like it's got to be an either/or scanario. Most of us live in a country that can send a probe to Mars, clone a sheep, or harness nature to create energy, yet you act like it's unrealistic (and unreasonable) for hockey players to want to play the game they love AND be safe too.

Literally NOBODY is saying that ALL concussions can be eliminated. Also, NOBODY is saying that clean hits should be eliminated in an effort to ensure nobody ever gets hurt in a hockey game again. The only thing being debated, and in this case adjudicated, is whether or not the NHL should (or has) done everything it possibly could to eliminate concussions (or long term brain injuries) which occur as a result of an illegal hit. Hell, none of the plaintiffs are even calling for fighting to be removed from the game...though IMO they should.

Yeah, or you could just ban fighting (since it's against the rules anyway) and force guys to hit each other in the shoulders and chest like they're supposed to.

What!?! You mean Babs is using a guy in a role he's not suited for? He'd never do that!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish, and if Americans watched hockey like Canadians they would.

Sure, and you've made some reasonable points. But as someone else said, it's kind of a misnomer to suggest that concussions are only the result of elbows and dirty hits. Plenty of concussions are simply the result of how fast the game is, which is something the NHL can control for the safety of the player. Furthermore, the "they know what to expect" argument may or may not be true, but it doesn't really matter. Just because you knew your industry is dangerous doesn't mean your employer doesn't have to do everything necessary to mitigate danger. I was in the Army for a long time, deployed overseas and all that. Pretty dangerous job obviously, and I knew it was. But because I knew it was dangerous doesn't mean the military doesn't have to enforce safety policies, or protect soldiers from each other (e.g. sexual assaults), or conduct investigations into long term side effects of military career (e.g. veteran suicide rates), etc. Saying "you knew what to expect" doesn't matter in the most dangerous industry on earth, and it shouldn't matter in hockey either.

Well unless you're a Roman Gladiator it's the responsibility of your employer to make sure you're safe at work. That's true of every job in the civilized world, and it's true of hockey. I don't think it's too much for the players to ask that they be able to have a career in hockey without suffering severe brain injuries as a result.