Heaton 1 Report post Posted July 22, 2007 (edited) One playoff year doesn't prove they're tough enough yet, but it can be a start in a better direction. If they return to playing soft during the season then this past playoffs "tough" showing was a fluke or overachieving toughness. Uh, if you're expecting the Red Wings to carry over the intensity shown over the playoff games throughout an 82 game schedule you're insane. No team is as physical or intense in the regular season as they are in the playoffs and it sure as hell doesn't prove anything was a "fluke" if they're not breaking recent team hit records like the did in the playoffs last year. This is Mike Babcock's team now, of course it's going to be more grinding and physical he's never stopped preaching that from the time he got here up until now. If you're expecting Anaheim style phsyical play and toughness you're going to be dissapointed because that's not how we play. They're successful they're way and we'll be successful our way. We're a hybrid of a dump and chase / puck possession gameplan, we can beat you more than one way and it was shown last year. It wasn't a fluke. Edited July 22, 2007 by Heaton Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2probert4 8 Report post Posted July 22, 2007 How many enforcers does SJ have? Did that stop Nashville? San Jose had a few guys who would drop the mitts.....ask Tootoo HAHA I don't believe there are any reports out there with any sort of empirical evidence that shows carrying an enforcer on the team reduces injuries during the regular season. I agree that it also makes little if any difference in the playoffs. That said, plenty of successful teams buy into the notion that an enforcer is indispensable, and while I'm not one to go for the lemming approach, I know I feel more comfortable in any type of situation if I am with somebody who I know has my back 100% no matter what. If that situation happens to be an NHL game and my the guy that has my back is Derek Boogaard that can only be a good thing right? -P Boogaard was actually effective against Anaheim, he was in Prongers face continually, was nice to see Pronger get knocked around for once. Because it's not the 1990 Red Wings, it's not how they play hockey and not how babcock wants them to. They will bank on their powerplays from idiots giving cheapshots, thats how and why they're such a great disciplined hockey team, thats all there is to it. Though I love hockey fights and physical play, there is no reason to set yourself up for disappointment when Detroit "will not" sign an enforcer, it's not necessary, they sit talented players as it is. Why add a BENDER to the mix to fill cap space and more importantly bench space? When Babcock was with Anaheim, he DID carry an enforcer (Garrett Burnett) I think Bowman is the one who doesn't want the enforcer, because they want to roll 4 effective lines. Yzerman has stated that they don't need a player like that , so I doubt the Wings have a tough guy anytime soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zion 93 Report post Posted July 22, 2007 Too bad, because they need at least one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heaton 1 Report post Posted July 22, 2007 When Babcock was with Anaheim, he DID carry an enforcer (Garrett Burnett) How many games did he play during their run to the cup? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2probert4 8 Report post Posted July 22, 2007 How many games did he play during their run to the cup? That guy was lucky to skate and think at the same time, the only thing I was adding was Babcock DID keep one of those guys. That was the first season that Fedorov was wearing the Ducks jersey. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,804 Report post Posted July 22, 2007 And don't anybody come at me with...."Well if we had an enforcer," Pronger wouldn't have injured Holmstrom in game 3 of the Anheim series. That game was all but settled when it happened, you knew the game was going to get chippy, and Pronger isn't going to change his game for you, me, Bob Probert, Georges Laraque, or anybody else (and let's save the overdramatic Chris Pronger is the anti-Christ posts). Maybe not, but it'd be nice to see Pronger have to back it up after a Probert or Laraque chases his scrawny ass across the ice and beats the s*** out of him. The truth is that enforcers have never been great players, but the need for them is higher now than it has ever been with all the cheapshot aritsts that this league has that aren't willing to back up their play. We need someone who can retaliate and take out one of the other team's players in a 7 game series to even the odds. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
uk_redwing 495 Report post Posted July 22, 2007 Im sure all of us, and all of the players would have been happy to see an enforcer pound Pronger into the ice. For that reason alone we should have one, firstly because fights are good to watch, and secondly theres nothing better than seeing hockey player I dispise getting a good beating? Claude Lemiuex anyone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisdetroit 189 Report post Posted July 22, 2007 Preach on brotha! With or without an enforcer Dickhead - opps I men Pronger, would still run at guys. I don't want an enforcer taking up ice time for a guy like Fillpula. The world has changed. Forget the enforcer and for God's sake don't start the "we need more grit" thread again. We have enough. Look a SJ. Biggest, fastest, youngest team in the league but can't get it done. That must mean that there is more to winning than bigger, stronger, younger. The same applies to enforcers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted July 22, 2007 Look a SJ. Biggest, fastest, youngest team in the league but can't get it done. That must mean that there is more to winning than bigger, stronger, younger. The same applies to enforcers. I wouldn't say they'll ever not get it done, they've just hit some bad luck with recent 2nd round exits. They were close to the SCF in 2004. The Red Wings and San Jose field two different rosters. San Jose has a great package of size and strength with some decent level of "talent". Detroit has more on the "talent" level and definitely doesn't match up to San Jose in terms of size on paper, but the two rosters can get the job done in different ways. Detroit almost got it done going to the SCF this past season, San Jose the same in 2004. While I am always for physical play and standing up for teammates, the way Detroit plays is not going to change. They might not be the biggest team, but they won't cower away from everybody and they will always (I hope) be working hard. A Babcock mantra I think. I'm perfectly content with how the Wings played this past postseason even though they didn't quite make it, and hopefully we'll see more of the same this season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMRwings1983 8,804 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 San Jose didn't carry an enforcer for most of the year and in the Nashville series they paid for it with cheapshots on several of their players. They lost to us because guys like Marleau, Guerin, and their entire defense didn't contribute anything offensively. We don't have to mold our entire roster into a big physical one like the Sharks have, but some balance is needed, and we have none right now. As hard as it is to believe, once again we have a softer, smaller team than we did the year before. At this trend, we'll have midgets playing on our roster in five years, because every year we get smaller and smaller. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) Good post, but I must add that I really don't wish to have a repeat on what took place in Philly Thank you. Finally, someone else understands that example. Everyone thinks I'm talking out of my ass here with this enforcer business, but it's an all to real reality. Just take a look at that Philly game. The Wings were totally outplayed in every physical sense of that game, which is the main reason why we lost 6-1 to the NHL's worst team. Not because they had more talent then we did (which is obvious they don't), but because their players clocked the hell out everyone on the Wings, and the lack of an enforcer made it all the more easier. But, no. Everybody seems to think the Wings are perfect just because of one playoff year. Any questioning of the team or Ken Holland us all spoiled fans apparently. Edited July 23, 2007 by Kp-Wings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 Thank you. Finally, someone else understands that example. Everyone thinks I'm talking out of my ass here with this enforcer business, but it's an all to real reality. Just take a look at that Philly game. The Wings were totally outplayed in every physical sense of that game, which is the main reason why we lost 6-1 to the NHL's worst team. Not because they had more talent then we did (which is obvious they don't), but because their players clocked the hell out everyone on the Wings, and the lack of an enforcer made it all the more easier. You are just using 1 game out of many as an example. What about the playoff games against Calgary that are full of "physical players" and "enforcers"? Same thing with San Jose? We didn't get pushed around badly those games. But, no. Everybody seems to think the Wings are perfect just because of one playoff year. Any questioning of the team or Ken Holland us all spoiled fans apparently. We are all spoiled regardless of whether we question the team or not due to the continued success of the Red Wings over 10+ years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) You are just using 1 game out of many as an example. What about the playoff games against Calgary that are full of "physical players" and "enforcers"? Same thing with San Jose? We didn't get pushed around badly those games. Philadelphia's coach teaches them to play that way. They have probably more fighters and enforcers than any team in the league next to Anaheim. Hell, even their better players like Mike Richards always fight on a regular basis. That's just the way the team is built and how they play. Don't confuse it with me actually wanting the Wings to play like Philly, because that would be a disaster. The Flyers are an awful team, are under horrible management, and are a losing organization in general. Still though, that comes to my point that they do have plenty of toughness, and badly outmatched the Wings in all apsects of that. On paper, there is no way the 2006-2007 Flyers should have even been in the same building as the 2006-2007 Red Wings, but as it happens, the Flyers kicked our ass. Not that it matters now, but I'm just saying... Edited July 23, 2007 by Kp-Wings Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vangvace 12 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 Uh, if you're expecting the Red Wings to carry over the intensity shown over the playoff games throughout an 82 game schedule you're insane. No team is as physical or intense in the regular season as they are in the playoffs and it sure as hell doesn't prove anything was a "fluke" if they're not breaking recent team hit records like the did in the playoffs last year. This is Mike Babcock's team now, of course it's going to be more grinding and physical he's never stopped preaching that from the time he got here up until now. If you're expecting Anaheim style physical play and toughness you're going to be disappointed because that's not how we play. They're successful they're way and we'll be successful our way. We're a hybrid of a dump and chase / puck possession gameplan, we can beat you more than one way and it was shown last year. It wasn't a fluke. I never said that they had to have playoff intensity throughout an entire season. However, I did say that if they return to the ice-capades toughness that they showed for almost all of last season, then yes I consider their toughness shown this past playoffs to have been a fluke and not the norm. Once again, last playoffs was a start to what could be a gradual increase in toughness because of the youth and potential this team holds or it could go back to the status quo and tempt fate with liberties taken on them. It's a long grueling season and, to be clear, until they loose a player due to the issues we have discussed here I highly doubt that it'll be addressed by the Wings organization by something other than a half-hearted effort. And why is it every time the subject of toughness or enforcers comes up people automatically go to extremes and assume that people want the Ducks, Broad Street Bullies, and the like instead of the Detroit Red Wings most of us have grown up watching. You know, when scrums and not shrugs were common on plays where folks here are cursing about for multiple thread pages. The puck possession / dump and chase style of play has been in use for a long time now so that cannot be used as an excuse for the continually shrinking team currently being iced. Correct me if I'm wrong but puck-possession came in with Bowman (just used for date nothing else). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vangvace 12 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 Why can't we just give them fair credit where it's due? Last season when it matter most they showed "toughness" and "desire" more often than not. When it mattered most... does that mean that they just mailed it in during the regular season and then turned on when it came to the playoffs? The more I think about it, the more last season reminds me of the '95 team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernWingsFan 854 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 When it mattered most... does that mean that they just mailed it in during the regular season and then turned on when it came to the playoffs? The more I think about it, the more last season reminds me of the '95 team. The '94 -'95 team was expected to win it all. The '06 - '07 wasn't, hence giving them credit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heaton 1 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) I did say that if they return to the ice-capades toughness that they showed for almost all of last season, then yes I consider their toughness shown this past playoffs to have been a fluke and not the norm. Do you have any examples other than a vague generalization? Return to ice-capade toughness, are you kidding me? If you're just going to use examples of when Torres hit Williams or when Drake hit Lebda don't waste my time, I'm not looking for cheap shots I'm looking at when the Red Wings actually purposely did not play a tough grinding game. Hell, I've read people all last season talk about how boring the games turned into be because of the gameplan that Babcock puts forth. The Red Wings during the regular season almost ALWAYS adjust their game to what team they're playing, as you know, they're not a big physical team who will beat you that way and they don't have to be. If they can win games by just playing the puck possession game during the regular season, who cares? Are you actually worred about regular season success or are you talking about just for your own personal enjoyment? If it's the latter, don't make it out to be something that has to be done in order for them to prove something to you when nothing is actually proven during the regular season. Hell, if they never get more than 10 hits per game during the regular season, win the West, then turn it on during the playoffs, will it be a fluke every year? Edited July 23, 2007 by Heaton Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
glasgowcelticwing 18 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 In an ideal world the Wings would be carrying an Enforcer on the team . But one things for sure the Wings will stay competitive as long as they play with as much toughness, aggression and passion that they did during this season's Playoff's . Homer , Franzen and Lijla didn't do to bad at all at adding this to the team. Now with Drake in and hopefully another one or two addition's I'm feeling good about the Wings chance's for next season ... with or without an Enforcer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chrisdetroit 189 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 I agree wholeheartedly with the original post, but I've given up on the Wings management to ever address this issue. You know when we lost the Anaheim series? When Pronger took his shot on Holmstrom and nobody did a single thing about it or even looked like they wanted to. Holmstrom was practically useless for the rest of the series (I wonder how much was mental), and the Ducks clearly understood that they had broken us. We played better, but they had confidence on their side and their heads were clear. What? They had broken us? We dominated game 5 start to finish. They won on a lucky bounce off Lids' stick due to a ridiculous penalty call then a bad turnover in overtime. We almost came back and won game 6. At the end of the game Selanne said that that was the most scared (of losing) that he had ever been. Doesn't sound like they had alot of confidence. If we had got our asses kicked the next 3 games, I would agree with you but we lost 3 games by a total of 4 goals and one of those were in OT. That doesn't sound like a "broken" team. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kp-Wings 3 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 If you're just going to use examples of when Torres hit Williams or when Drake hit Lebda don't waste my time, I'm not looking for cheap shots I'm looking at when the Red Wings actually purposely did not play a tough grinding game. So... you actually don't care that not a single player on the Wings stuck up for Williams or Lebda, and just sat on their hands and did nothing? That's the kinda thing that's been going on with the Wings recently that I can't stand. If someone goes after your teammates, you stick up for them. Not find the nearest payphone, call Bettman, and say "Did you see that?". That just makes the Wings looks like major wimps. But, you have no problem with that, so... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heaton 1 Report post Posted July 23, 2007 So... you actually don't care that not a single player on the Wings stuck up for Williams or Lebda, and just sat on their hands and did nothing? That's the kinda thing that's been going on with the Wings recently that I can't stand. If someone goes after your teammates, you stick up for them. Not find the nearest payphone, call Bettman, and say "Did you see that?". That just makes the Wings looks like major wimps. But, you have no problem with that, so... Why dodge the question? I never said I didn't care that no one 'stood up' for either player, I just don't think it's as big of a deal as you make it out to be. If the Red Wings team unity is so fraile that they need constant reminders that their teammate has their back, I don't know what to say. My personal belief? No, I don't think it's a big deal that no one 'stood up' for Brett Lebda or Jason Williams. Would I have more of a problem if it happened to Datsyuk or Zetterberg and nothing happened? Maybe, I guess, but I've never been of the belief that reactionary stuff does anything. You seem to think it matters more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Heaton 1 Report post Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) Standing up for a teammate sends a message not only to that player whom committed the cheap-shot, but to his teammates, & to every other guy in the league whom doesn't mind taking runs @ our boys...Today it's Lebda getting his bell rung(maybe resulting in a concussion) - tomorrow it's a knee-on-knee collision (think Bryan Marchment style) to Hank, or Dats which results in an ACL tear - taking them outta the line-up for the whole season, & into the playoffs. Having someone on our team whom is capable of dropping the mitts in many occasions has it's pros more so than it's cons. Nothing will prevent it from happening, there's too many examples to the contrary. Did Bertuzzi or whoever was on Vancouver stop Moore from giving Naslund a concussion? Did Derek Boogaard stop Brad May from knocking Kim Johnsson out of the playoffs? Did Andrew Peters stop Chris Niel from knocking Chris Drury out? Did Wade Belak or whoever was in the lineup for Toronto stop Colton Orr from knocking out Tomas Kaberle? I can keep going if you'd like. Look, I know what you're saying, people may think about the little stuff and ease up a bit if there's someone in the lineup, but if Datsyuk has his head down in the neutral zone and Raffe Torres is on the ice, having 2 Bob Probert clones on his line and 15 Joey Kocurs on the bench isn't going to prevent Torres from destroying Datsyuk because it's a hit you can't pass up. Fighting has it's place, don't get me wrong, I just don't believe it's something that will make that big of a difference. Anyway, this thread has run it's course, I'm gonna bookmark it and just copy/paste my retorts next time a thread like this pops up, they're pretty much all the same anyway and all this deja vu is making me dizzy. Edited July 25, 2007 by Heaton Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sticknmove 0 Report post Posted July 25, 2007 "My personal belief? No, I don't think it's a big deal that no one 'stood up' for Brett Lebda or Jason Williams. Would I have more of a problem if it happened to Datsyuk or Zetterberg and nothing happened? Maybe, I guess, but I've never been of the belief that reactionary stuff does anything. You seem to think it matters more. " Wow, this explains a lot. Quick question, did you ever play organized hockey? And if so what leagues and teams? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bringback91 2 Report post Posted July 25, 2007 Look, I know what you're saying, people may think about the little stuff and ease up a bit if there's someone in the lineup, but if Datsyuk has his head down in the neutral zone and Raffe Torres is on the ice, having 2 Bob Probert clones on his line and 15 Joey Kocurs on the bench isn't going to prevent Torres from destroying Datsyuk because it's a hit you can't pass up. Gotta have Hextall in net too. I seriously laughed out loud, just pictureing that is hilarious. All taking drinks of water at the same time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest jaytan Report post Posted July 25, 2007 Anybody think Pronger (or anyone else for that matter) might think twice about putting a dirty hit on our boys if Boogie was on the bench? Well, maybe he might, since he'd be afraid to fight anybody. Did Bertuzzi or whoever was on Vancouver stop Moore from giving Naslund a concussion? No.... But he sure stopped him from ever doing that to anyone again! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
