Dabura

I was against this idea several months ago, but I've thought about it a bit, and I've persuaded myself to believe that, barring a major meltdown, the 'hawks will make the cut this season. ...And face the Wings in the 1st round.

Are you embarrassed now, watching he Wings baptize kids in the Cup while the Brashears of the world work on their short game?

For the umpteenth time, no one -- with the possible exception of NN, but he knows what he's talking about -- is suggesting the Wings feel otherwise. Enforcers have their place in the Wings' system -- it's just not a big place. At all. You're arguing against non-existent arguments.

Really? Even if this is, in fact, some really big deal "around the league," teams know (and if they don't know, will learn very quickly) that thuggery really isn't going to earn them jack s*** against this team, whether we're talking numbers on the scoreboard or stuff up in the head (e.g., "fear," "respect"). The Flames, Sharks, Ducks, Avs, Stars and Pens have all tried what you're suggesting. And, with the exception of the Ducks, they all got obliterated. The Wings know this. The league at large knows this. That's why the Wings are, for another straight season, going to preach the virtues of team toughness over pushback thuggery. And, I can guarantee you, that's a scary thought for anyone who's not a Wing.

Well, this explains a lot.

Dear Mike Babcock, Mule could've gotten a concussion that one time. Trade Sammy and Hudler and dress Downey for the playoffs. thx Love, God

No, I'm understanding perfectly well. In much the same way as you're predicting the Wings will get beaten up if they don't dress, say, Aaron Downey, everyone and his mom was saying the Flames -- and then, later, the Sharks, and then, later, the Ducks -- were going to wreak all kinds of violent havoc on the Wings. But it never really happened. If anything, the Wings physically outplayed those teams; they were very much the tougher team in those two matchups, maybe not on paper (no Donald Brashear? Oh noes!), but certainly on the ice.

Then leave it at that. Enough of this "THIS TEAM'S GONNA GET SMOKED!" nonsense. It's clear that you have a strong opinion. It's also clear that you can't translate this opinion into a cogent argument. So, again, leave it at that.

Good lawd forget it.

Kinda like how those Flames kicked their asses in 06-07? And the Sharks in 06-07? The almighty Ducks didn't even kick their asses -- they were begging for divine intervention after being owned 5-0 in their own building. And who could forget the beating the Stars put on 'em this past postseason? Those Wings -- so soft!

Um, again, no one is saying fighters are completely useless. Well, maybe NN is. Whatever. The point most if not all of us "anti-enforcers" are making is very simple: enforcers aren't terribly important to the Wings. The proof is in the goddamn proverbial pudding: Downey didn't put in a single shift during this past postseason run and Mac played measly minutes in a grinding role, fighting a grand total of once -- and that was a largely meaningless fight. And the Wings won the Stanley Cup. Handily. The Wings simply do not put a ton of stock in fighters. If this upsets you so much that you feel the need to piss and moan and ***** people out like this, might I suggest supporting, say, the Flyers?

Yeah, but we had Drake and Mac. You take out those guys...we're toast, man.

I sure do hate the offseason.

Ah, but NN didn't say he thinks it's wholly irrelevant; he said he think it's "largely irrelevant." And for a team like the Wings, it truly is. This past postseason run is proof.

The defending Stanley Cup champs pick up one of the top two-way forwards in the game in Hossa to go with accomplished all-around players Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg. You can almost hear him groaning.

Please. It was a tough series, no doubt, but if Datsyuk doesn't get called for that bogus late hooking/obstruction/whatever it was, the Wings take that series. That's not to say, "The Wings basically won." Rather, it's to say that this argument that the Ducks won because they dominated with their physical play is pretty lame. If there was any sort of "domination" on the Ducks' part, it was because the Wings had a woefully depleted blue line. People forget, but a lot of Ducks fans were scared s***less after that 5-0 rout. But that was then, this is now. The Ducks are now a crappy team whose GM is looking to leave ASAP. The Flames are, once again, "ultra tough," and, once again, destined for an early playoff exit (bank on it). The Sharks are a threat, but last season the Wings handily beat the guys who beat them. And they've lost Campbell, which is going to hurt them. The Wings were the class of the league last season. Now they've got Marian Hossa. If someone wants to head over to, I don't know, the Kings' boards and say, "Hi! I'm a Wings fan! We've got a pretty good roster, but we might only be carrying one enforcer this season. I'm worried. Thoughts?" then by all means, do so. Let me know how it goes over.

If Ozzie had really wanted to withstand the "blow," he could have stayed on his feet. Maybe "dive" is a little harsh, but there was certainly a healthy degree of embellishment. Either way, I'm not saying it was "wrong." Just that it was funny. But again, I was drunk, so....

Once again, you're putting words in people's mouths. No one (no one) has said, "Enforcers have become meaningless." What people have said is that the extent to which this team "needs" enforcers is being overstated by people like you -- and, by this point, only you. When you get right down to it, this Red Wings team doesn't really need enforcers. It could probably take the Presidents' Trophy without dressing Downey once. It might incur wear and tear, but the Wings have a habit of getting injured in areas of the game that have little-to-nothing to do with enforcing (it's not like those late-season injuries in 07-08 were all carryovers from scrums). But that's pretty much a moot point, as Kenny will be sure to sign at least one tough guy. He's not going to let Drake, Mac and Downey walk without replacing at least one of them. Honestly, it's very likely that he'll bring one or both of the latter two back. Should that happen, we have a very good chance of seeing a repeat of this past postseason run in terms of the role of enforcers in our lineup. Specifically, Downey will sit and Mac will play measly minutes as a grinder. Basically, for the second straight season, the Wings will avoid putting much stock in the enforcer position, and despite/because of (more the latter) this, they'll once again be the most dangerous, competitive team in the postseason (aka, the season that means about 100% more than the regular season and is 100% "tougher").

Like NN has said, let them try. This team, as well as its 06-07 incarnation, showed that the rough stuff doesn't rattle it. Remember McLennan? Wings destroyed the Flames in that series. Pronger on Holmstrom? Wings would have won that series were they not limping around on one collective leg. Ian Laperriere in the regular season? Wings obliterated the Avs in the postseason. Roberts on Franzen? Wings spanked the Pens, won the Cup. This is not a soft team. It amazes me that people -- Wings fans, no less! -- believe that crap. Grow up.

Which is why I've never said, "Fighters are completely useless," or "We have no use for fighters whatsoever," or "Holland should let both Mac and Downey go and fill their spots figure skaters." Again, I'm not arguing against fighting's usefulness -- I'm debating the extent of its utility. I have acknowledged the fact that it has a role in hockey, but I disagree with arguments like "The Wings need fighters or they're dead." That's a silly argument, especially considering the fact that we all damn well know that the Wings will have at least one enforcer-type this season.

I want to believe you, but...but...

At what point in this thread did I explicitly argue otherwise? As I've already said, I'm not anti-enforcer; I'm against the kind of s*** you're pulling in this thread, flying off the handle and pulling generalizations, jabs and inane arguments straight out of your ass all in some misguided effort to justify something that you don't even need to justify in the first place -- that is, a fondness for fighting. You like enforcers, you like fighters -- cool! great! awesome! No one's telling you this preference is "wrong." What people are telling you is that the argumentative assertions you're making (e.g., this team is soft) are wack, and if you want people to take them seriously, you're going to need to do a s***load better than "You just don't know hockey history, man." But let me guess: you can't be bothered to try, right?

You want to talk overlooking hockey history? Then I'll remind you again that the Wings are coming off winning the Cup while "carrying" only one enforcer-type player -- who 1) is not much of an enforcer at this stage in his career; 2) played meager minutes in a grinding role, not an enforcing role; 3) fought a grand total of one time (maybe two times, I don't remember) during the run. When talking about the current team, I like to talk about the here and the now, and if I need to reference the past, I like to look to the immediate past (i.e., this past season), not, say, 1997. It's very clear to me now that you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument, as you barely even have an argument in the first place. All you're basically saying is "I LIKE FIGHTS!"

This kid is...victory.

Zetterberg...Datsyuk...Hossa...Franzen...Kronwall.... Yep, we're in for a boring year.