man do i miss stuff like this,....

[Opie 308]

micah,

I still have my PJ stock fan club t-shirt. I used to wear it to volleyball because we had to have a black T with a number on it. That was black and had 42 on the back of it, I WOULD LOVE PJ on the wings.

However I realize that under Holland and Co. the wings will never have a guy like PJ Stock. And with the way the league is moving away from fighting, enforcers who can not score and play regular minutes will not make it in the league. It is important now more than ever in Hockey to be able to roll 4 lines. Teams with 1 scoring line and 2 decent lines are not going to make it very far any more.

That is my main point in debating these posts/threads.

People want a PJ, Worrell, Hartnell, who are you going to give up for that, Draper, Cleary, Samuelson, Hudler, ?????

All of those guys added to the cup run, now granted the cup run came up short but can you honestly tell me in your heart of hearts (not saying you micah this part is back to the forum) that if an enforcer, straight fighter that most people want would have won the wings the cup. Remember you have to subtract a player to add said enforcer.

So lets pick everyone's whipping boy, Lang, now you have to replace his numbers. It is not that easy to just throw a fighter into the mix. Even if you replace Huds minutes which were limited he scored in the regular season and those points need to be made up for, an enforcer can not do that.

And I think my point still stands, these guys will stand up for each other, they do not exact revenge.

Like I said in another post, if the line on the ice is Lids, Schnieds, Dats, Z, and Homer (arguably the wings softest pairing and forward combo except homer), and some one starts white washing Homer do you really believe that the other 4 will skate off of the ice, and do nothing.

If you want to have the wings add an enforcer, say that, but I don't like the wording of "they do not stand up for each other."

Coming to a teammates aid is different than exacting revenge.

[bringback91 2]

This is WAY tangent to the discussion that's going on here, but someone mentioned a white collar environment. I work in a rather prestigious engineering firm - you better believe that I would have the back of a coworker who was getting roughed up. I would have the back of my friends and family if they were getting roughed up, and I expect the same of them - that's what coworkers, friends family - and especially teamates - are supposed to do. If you allow a friend, family member or teamate to eat some unwarranted punches, you are a coward. A shove, crosscheck or facewash is not sticking up fpr someone, risking your own self to jump in and do what's right is. Even in profesional sports, doing the right thing is more important than winning. I will vote for the honest warrier with heart over the cowardly superstar every time.

And Opie - PJ stock ruled. Not much skill, but more heart than any wing I've seen - and that includes Steve Yzerman. Skating on a sore near takes heart - but continuously fighting people who outweight you by 40 pounds takes the heart of a giant.

Heart of a giant, or a brain of a flee. Just saying. Some people can and will fight when needed, that's great. But some realize there's just no place for them in that course of action. That makes them no less of a man or a friend. I'd feel like crap if someone I knew jumped in a fight I was in and got there jaw broke, adult leauge hockey or in a bar. I say if your in a fight 1 on 1 and both were willing everyone should stay out of it. If someone gets "jumped" on or off the ice, sure get invoulved. But that doesn't mean my friend who's 5-7 150 lbs. should square off with someone 6-3 210. Nor should Stevie, Dats, or Z. Grab a guy and hold him back if it's a brawl on the ice. Who wants Z out for 4 months cause he ate a punch he couldn't handle?

[Opie 308]

Where did Philly finish the season and where did the wings finish the season.

That is my point, I have said it over and over again, I would love to have a fighter if it fit into the organizations mold or the mold that the league is heading towards. There is a time when you have to look at this realistically.

In order to be successful in this league a fighter better be able to score you 15-25 goals or be a shut down guy like Draper (not saying he is a fighter just a shut down guy).

Gone are the days of Shanny, Thornton, Howe, whomever else you want to throw in there.

The game has become so offensive minded that teams can no longer afford to give spots to guys who are going to go out there and beat the crap out of a guy and score 1 or 2 goals a year.

I am not arguing the fact that the wings could benefit from a fighter (that is an opinion) but this delusion that some how the wings would have won a cup with an enforcer is beyond me.

If you are not saying that a fighter would have won the wings a cup than you are one of the few here who have said they want a fighter because they like seeing fights. At least they are being honest.

One thing kept the wings from the SCF last year and that was PP production.

So what would a fighter/enforcer have gotten this team last year.

The whole "Zetterberg would have been healthy" argument is BS, he played very well in the playoffs and an enforcer does nothing to stop Schnieds from being injured, which imo is what killed the pp.

F. Michael, we will have to agree that are opinions are different. What you call not going the distance, I call standing up for a guy. What you call standing up for a guy, I call getting revenge. Not trying to argue definitions here just saying we look at it differently.

[Opie 308]

Yeah it can be hard to have a debate, but once in a while a good one goes on.

I felt bad Hijacking this thread but at least it wasn't all name calling and hissy fits!!

I am not so sure that Laraque is a guy I am too excited about, I haven't seen him do a lot. Granted I haven't seen him a lot, but he is slow and lumbering, and I fear would not fit the wings offensive scheme.

Asham, I have stayed out of that topic all together because I don't think I have seen him skate one game. So I have no opinion of him really.

[sticknmove 0]

"at the beginning of the year, many of the pro-fighting crowd people on here preferred the idea of Norton to the idea of Hudler or Kopecky."

i would still take Norton over Kopecky. I dont get the arguments like "how did philly finish", bad, thats how they finished, they were horrible. What point does that make? I have allready put up the numbers proven that to win a stanley cup you have to have guys willing to drop the mitts. NO A FACEWASH AFTER THE WHISTLE IS NOT STICKING UP FOR YOUR TEAMATES, so stop saying Dats and Z get into scrums sticking up for ppl, they dont.

[Son of a Wing 1,644]

"at the beginning of the year, many of the pro-fighting crowd people on here preferred the idea of Norton to the idea of Hudler or Kopecky."

i would still take Norton over Kopecky. I dont get the arguments like "how did philly finish", bad, thats how they finished, they were horrible. What point does that make? I have allready put up the numbers proven that to win a stanley cup you have to have guys willing to drop the mitts. NO A FACEWASH AFTER THE WHISTLE IS NOT STICKING UP FOR YOUR TEAMATES, so stop saying Dats and Z get into scrums sticking up for ppl, they dont.

I ask you what Norton did that impressed you so much to get a roster spot?

[Opie 308]

Sticknmove,

Please notice the difference between the way you disagree with me and the way F.michael disagrees.

The point about philly was and is this, they were horrible, did they beat up on the wings yes. But in order to be that physical presence they sacrificed scoring. The wings in this administration like to sacrafice physical play for scoring. That is where the "how did philly finish" comes into play. Because some one already referenced the philly game.

You may have proven to yourself that it is impossible to win a cup without a fighter and maybe even others, however not me, not yet.

Because there are not enough numbers in the salary cap era to answer that yet.

For example who was the badass bruising fighter on the Canes in 05-06, that's right you guessed it Jesse Boulerice! With a whopping 5 fights and a team total of 17. Not too sure how many guys in the league skated around looking for him over their shoulders.

And in case you were wondering who the other guys to stick up for their teammates were here is the list:

Mike Commodore 4 fights

Craig Adams 3 fights

The following all had 1 fight all season:

Chad Larose

Danny Richmond

Eric Staal

Oleg Tverdosky

Doug Weight

I believe I made my point early in disagreeing with your need a fighter to win, but here it is again:

The wings did not lose to the Ducks because of a lack of a fighter or because of team toughness, they lost because the pp sucked donkey DICK!

The injury to Schneider which hampered the wings pp greatly would not have been prevented by any kind of enforcer.

Now had the power play scored on one of those 5-3 pp we could be talking about another team winning the cup without an enforcer in the salary cap era.

Now I am not saying I don't like fighting, what I am saying is it can be won without a fighter, and the wings will try to do it again next year. If you have been a fan of the wings for a long time (I have to assume you have been) then you will have noticed that trend. I am not saying you have to like that trend.

As I said to F.micheal to say guys will not stick up for players, in my mind means they do not help each other. In your mind and F.Michaels that means exacting revenge. I have already agreed that if that is what you mean than fine. I have a different opinion of standing up for each other, and this is why. If the media talks bad about a player and a teammate stands up for him does it have to mean he kicked the crap out of the reporter, No. I found the use of the term "Stick up for a teammate" a little vague, after discussing it with F.Michael I see his point.

[norrisnick 1]

"at the beginning of the year, many of the pro-fighting crowd people on here preferred the idea of Norton to the idea of Hudler or Kopecky."

i would still take Norton over Kopecky. I dont get the arguments like "how did philly finish", bad, thats how they finished, they were horrible. What point does that make? I have allready put up the numbers proven that to win a stanley cup you have to have guys willing to drop the mitts. NO A FACEWASH AFTER THE WHISTLE IS NOT STICKING UP FOR YOUR TEAMATES, so stop saying Dats and Z get into scrums sticking up for ppl, they dont.

The Wings were literally a bounce or two away from advancing to the Finals and at that point anything is possible. Are you going to tell me that not having a fighter on the team is what dictated those bounces to go the other way? The Wings didn't have a fighter on their team, yet they were perfectly capable of winning it all.

Your level of "proof" is about as solid as the claims that since it hasn't yet happened a European led team can never win the Cup.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

This whole waste of a roster spot B.S. is getting on my nerves. You guys make it sound like every forward on the team is a 20 goal scorer that absolutely can't be replaced. Look, I realize that our roster is full of smaller, skilled players, but I believe that we can keep our team identity the same, and at the same time add some balance by adding more grit. As it stands now, this team has absolutely no balance at all. It's all finesse and no grit. Everybody talked about how physical the ducks were last year, but that team had smaller, skilled players also. Thus they were able to have a big gritty team, and at the same time have a bit of variety.

[norrisnick 1]

This whole waste of a roster spot B.S. is getting on my nerves. You guys make it sound like every forward on the team is a 20 goal scorer that absolutely can't be replaced. Look, I realize that our roster is full of smaller, skilled players, but I believe that we can keep our team identity the same, and at the same time add some balance by adding more grit. As it stands now, this team has absolutely no balance at all. It's all finesse and no grit. Everybody talked about how physical the ducks were last year, but that team had smaller, skilled players also. Thus they were able to have a big gritty team, and at the same time have a bit of variety.

What? Your calendar is a bit out of date. Just because we don't have a fighter, doesn't mean we don't have a gritty team.

In fact we have a far bigger need for skill, up front anyway, than for grit. We no longer have 500-600 goal scorers on 3 of 4 forward lines. In fact we don't even have a 200 goal scorer up front. Lidstrom is the only guy on the team with over 200 career goals. Chelios is the Wings #2 goal scorer. Want to guess which Wings forward has the most career goals? Dallas flippin Drake. Then Homer. Then Draper. Then Maltby. Finally Z and Pavel.

The guy I've got pegged to be our 3rd highest goal scorer this coming season has a whopping 16 goals to his name. The Wings are filled with grinders and potential up front with only Z and Pavel as true bonafide etched in stone top 6 scorers.

A lot of people need to revise their image of the Red Wings. Puck possession still rules the day, but this "all skill no grit" business is completely out of touch with reality.

EDIT - I realize career goals is an odd way to look at our scoring situation, but I wanted to paint a picture that would get noticed. The people we are looking to for offense really don't have a history of scoring NHL goals. The projected top 6 forwards (that aren't Z and Pavel) have 155, 56, 22, and 16 career goals. I'll add in 0 for the wildcard in Grigorenko.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

What? Your calendar is a bit out of date. Just because we don't have a fighter, doesn't mean we don't have a gritty team.

In fact we have a far bigger need for skill, up front anyway, than for grit. We no longer have 500-600 goal scorers on 3 of 4 forward lines. In fact we don't even have a 200 goal scorer up front. Lidstrom is the only guy on the team with over 200 career goals. Chelios is the Wings #2 goal scorer. Want to guess which Wings forward has the most career goals? Dallas flippin Drake. Then Homer. Then Draper. Then Maltby. Finally Z and Pavel.

The guy I've got pegged to be our 3rd highest goal scorer this coming season has a whopping 16 goals to his name. The Wings are filled with grinders and potential up front with only Z and Pavel as true bonafide etched in stone top 6 scorers.

A lot of people need to revise their image of the Red Wings. Puck possession still rules the day, but this "all skill no grit" business is completely out of touch with reality.

EDIT - I realize career goals is an odd way to look at our scoring situation, but I wanted to paint a picture that would get noticed. The people we are looking to for offense really don't have a history of scoring NHL goals. The projected top 6 forwards (that aren't Z and Pavel) have 155, 56, 22, and 16 career goals. I'll add in 0 for the wildcard in Grigorenko.

First off, the career goal numbers don't matter because that has to do with a player's age. As for grit, the most physical players on our team are not exactly the biggest players in the NHL. I want to see some more size on this team for balance and variety, and that's what I was implying by grit and toughness. As for lack of scoring, blame that on the management and coaching who have put too much faith into unproven players.

[norrisnick 1]

First off, the career goal numbers don't matter because that has to do with a player's age. As for grit, the most physical players on our team are not exactly the biggest players in the NHL. I want to see some more size on this team for balance and variety, and that's what I was implying by grit and toughness. As for lack of scoring, blame that on the management and coaching who have put too much faith into unproven players.

I realize career goal numbers are largely a reflection of age. I'm merely stating that age or not, we don't have a team stocked with small/skill/finesse players. Not anymore. I'd argue only three forwards fit that standard. Pavel, Z, and Hudler. Pavel and Z make up for it with elite level skill as well as elite two-way play. Hudler could be argued to have the most skill on the team (he's small, slow, weak, and lazy so he's got to have something, right?). He's also fearless so it's not like he plays a soft game avoiding contact.

Then say size. Not grit/toughness as we've got plenty of that.

As for lack of scoring, I'm not blaming anyone. Just pointing it out. We do not have a roster stacked with small/skill/finesse players. Not anymore. That is my main point.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Nobody here (I can speak for myself) is trying to change/influence you about your opinion of the game, or our beloved Red Wings; just that some here such as myself feel it is a neccessary evil to have a few individuals whom are capable of both protecting and playing alongside our smaller talented players.

We have nothing else to talk about so us armchair GMs have gotta do something

It defintely doesn't hurt, I won't deny that, it's just not that important to me. In my earlier posts I don't want to give the perception of going out as the "Lone Ranger", one against the world kinda guy where I don't need anybody at anytime. Everybody needs a hand in any job, but in the end they know how to handle themselves if it comes to junk getting out of hand in a hockey game. It's a normal part of the game. I'm all for the whole "sticking up for each other mantra", but the main gist again is that these guys are professionals and adults capable of handling themselves in the normal course of a hockey game, it's not like they need a babysitter to constantly watch his shadow.

"at the beginning of the year, many of the pro-fighting crowd people on here preferred the idea of Norton to the idea of Hudler or Kopecky."

i would still take Norton over Kopecky. I dont get the arguments like "how did philly finish", bad, thats how they finished, they were horrible. What point does that make? I have allready put up the numbers proven that to win a stanley cup you have to have guys willing to drop the mitts. NO A FACEWASH AFTER THE WHISTLE IS NOT STICKING UP FOR YOUR TEAMATES, so stop saying Dats and Z get into scrums sticking up for ppl, they dont.

2002 the Wings won a Cup and barely dropped the mitts..........

Edited August 21, 2007 by SouthernWingsFan

[sticknmove 0]

"I ask you what Norton did that impressed you so much to get a roster spot?"

The same thing that Kopecky did or Meech at that, did, oh and there was the whole fact that he was willing and able to handle himself against HW's, something this team has sorely missed since McCartys hayday. And I do not know if you realize something, YOU DONT HAVE TO DRESS HIM EVERY NIGHT. haha carolina, cute.

**Totals are Regular season and Playoffs ONLY**

07-Ducks (75 FM's) v. Senators (28 FM's)

06-Carolina (19 FM's) v. Edmonton (31 FM's)

04-Tampa Bay (51 FM's) v. Calgary (85 FM's)

03-New Jersey (44 FM's) v. Ducks (33 FM's)

*02-Red Wings (21 FM's) v. Carolina (33 FM's)

01-Colorado (50 FM's) v. New Jersey (56 FM's)

00-New Jersey (47 FM's) v. Dallas (37 FM's)

99-Dallas (35 FM) v. Buffalo (52 FM's)

*98-Red Wings (33 FM's) v. Washington (32 FM's)

*97-Red Wings (62 FM's) v. Philly (82 FM's)

*****Above are the regular season and playoff fighting majors for the teams in stanley cup finals. The total Detroit Red Wing FM count FOR 2005-2006 (6 FM) AND 2006-2007 (12 FM) IS 18 TOTAL FIGHTING MAJORS. that is less then the smallest number above (06 Carolia).****

Yes Carolina was not a team with a particularly large ammount of FM however they are the one exception, and even they had more fm's then we did the last 2 seasons combined. BUT I WILL give you that 1 team, now here are the numbers, would you like me to continue on to the mid/early 90's totals? i think not

"2002 the Wings won a Cup and barely dropped the mitts"

True, they barely did, now YOU ARE STARTING TO SEE MY FRIEND, you said it not me 21 times is 'barely'. Thank you

Edited August 22, 2007 by sticknmove

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

This whole waste of a roster spot B.S. is getting on my nerves. You guys make it sound like every forward on the team is a 20 goal scorer that absolutely can't be replaced. Look, I realize that our roster is full of smaller, skilled players, but I believe that we can keep our team identity the same, and at the same time add some balance by adding more grit. As it stands now, this team has absolutely no balance at all. It's all finesse and no grit. Everybody talked about how physical the ducks were last year, but that team had smaller, skilled players also. Thus they were able to have a big gritty team, and at the same time have a bit of variety.

No grit? What about these playoffs where they were supposed to get destroyed physically by Calgary and San Jose, but pretty much matched them in the hit department roughly? I'll even go on a stretch to say that Anaheim, another fairly physical team, didn't just absolutely push the Wings around 100% either.

First off, the career goal numbers don't matter because that has to do with a player's age. As for grit, the most physical players on our team are not exactly the biggest players in the NHL. I want to see some more size on this team for balance and variety, and that's what I was implying by grit and toughness. As for lack of scoring, blame that on the management and coaching who have put too much faith into unproven players.

Definitely not denying the Wings could use some more size.

You can be under 6'0" and be gritty though.

Keep those two independent from each other though and I'm pretty much in agreement with you.

True, they barely did, now YOU ARE STARTING TO SEE MY FRIEND, you said it not me 21 times is 'barely'. Thank you

Yet they still won the Cup with very little fighting! Stop the presses! I guess you can win a Cup wtihout people "dropping the mitts" often then!

FYI when you want to comment on a previous post, click the quote button and type under the quote, makes it a bit easier to read the flow.

Edited August 22, 2007 by SouthernWingsFan

[sticknmove 0]

"No grit? What about these playoffs where they were supposed to get destroyed physically by Calgary and San Jose"

You are wrong again, Calgary was supposed to beat us because our recent track record in the playoffs, that being a elite reg season team who somehow falls apart in the playoffs. And san jose some thought were favored to beat us because some thought they were just better. I watched every second of airtime the wings got throughout the playoffs and yes a few times it was mentioned the wings may be soft but this whole argument some of you make that "we are gritty, look at how we were supposed to get deystroyed in the playoffs" is humorous at best, we were picked to lose by so many b/c the past years playoff performances.

"Yet they still won the Cup with very little fighting! Stop the presses! I guess you can win a Cup wtihout people "dropping the mitts" often then!

FYI when you want to comment on a previous post, click the quote button and type under the quote, makes it a bit easier to read the flow"

Thanks for the grammar lesson I need them, and I will go ahead and repay you through a few lessons in hockey, which i am sorry to say, you obviously need. You sit here and argue that I am wrong saying you need guys willing to fight in order to win a cup. You back that up with an example of the Wings in 02 who had 21 FM's which you claim is "barely" any fights. Do you realize 21 FM's is MORE fm's then detroit had over the past 2 seasons combined right? So what are you saying really? That 21 FM's a year is not much? I agree with you if that is what you are saying, but for someone like yourself who thinks the team has the all the toughness it needs (18 FM in 2 FULL seasons) and then claiming 21 FM in a year is "barely any" kind of makes you look silly, dont ya think. Oh and quote this way, sorry.

Edited August 22, 2007 by sticknmove

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

"No grit? What about these playoffs where they were supposed to get destroyed physically by Calgary and San Jose"

You are wrong again, Calgary was supposed to beat us because our recent track record in the playoffs, that being a elite reg season team who somehow falls apart in the playoffs. And san jose some thought were favored to beat us because some thought they were just better. I watched every second of airtime the wings got throughout the playoffs and yes a few times it was mentioned the wings may be soft but this whole argument some of you make that "we are gritty, look at how we were supposed to get deystroyed in the playoffs" is humorous at best, we were picked to lose by so many b/c the past years playoff performances.

Past playoff performances of course, but only a few times it's been mentioned that the Wings were soft? Hell, it was mentioned probably every 15 minutes in here during hockey season. Where the heck have you been? I don't keep up with other sports forums or visit sports sites every day, but if you think that the overall perception of Detroit was that they weren't soft (whether it was a right/wrong perception), again where the heck have you been? Everybody and their cousin thought Detroit was "soft" going into the playoffs. You know Calgary and San Jose were perceived as the more physical teams out of the three teams, they were both supposed to outhit the Wings and be more physical and intimidate them, and look what happened. Detroit matched their "physicality" and beat them.

[sticknmove 0]

I know they were to be percieved as "soft", and a lot of that had to due with the fact they showed no heart throughout the last few playoffs and more or less got grinded into the ice for it. And when the wings were mentioned as "soft" and would lose to Calgary I think that was because no one had any other reason to think otherwise, they did it a couple years prior to us and Edmonton did it to use the year before.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I believe regardless of how important an enforcer is to a team (which I believe every team should have at least one), they are essential for us as fans. Pro hockey is entertainment first, and winning second. If nobody was entertained by hockey, the league would fold. Thats the entire point of pro sports in general, and when fights break out, its safe to say the audience is entertained.

Not to say that winning isn't entertaining, but if you look at the Boston game provided in the link, you'll notice we lost, and here we are in one of the hottest threads of the offseason discussing it.

As for whether the Wings need an enforcer to help them to the cup, I personally think it couldn't hurt if we looked for someone who wasn't Norton. An enforcer isn't necessarily someone who gets penalties every single shift or goes out strictly looking for fights. For the most part they're playing hockey like everyone else. But when games get physical, or when the other team starts playing cheap, the enforcer becomes like an alternate captain, because at this point hes the one thats leading the team into battle. Hes the rallying point; the inspiration to keep on keeping on.

If we replace Maltby or Kopeski or someone who doesn't log alot of minutes, or really does much when on the ice with an enforcer, point wise there will be no difference. Yes hes liable to get more penalties, but we have the best defense in the league, and no question as to if we'll make it to the playoffs or not. Post season there isn't going to be alot of stupid fights because everyone knows this is where it matters the most. If an enforcer gets into a fight in the playoffs then its safe to assume that he believes theres alot more riding on him fighting than not and in many cases it is.

All in all, I don't see an enforcer single-handedly destroying the wings. I don't see how by getting one we're short-handing ourselves in any significant way. I, however, can see the potential benefits of having one, and what it could do for an entire team if the moment is right.

[norrisnick 1]

I know they were to be percieved as "soft", and a lot of that had to due with the fact they showed no heart throughout the last few playoffs and more or less got grinded into the ice for it. And when the wings were mentioned as "soft" and would lose to Calgary I think that was because no one had any other reason to think otherwise, they did it a couple years prior to us and Edmonton did it to use the year before.

I don't think you are getting it yet. Being perceived as soft from past playoffs has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Wings were NOT soft in these most recent playoffs. Not in the least. They gave as good as they got in every single series against what many consider to be three of the biggest/most physical teams in the West. The three teams most picked as the worst possible matchups for the Wings. We got by two of them and came within inches of getting past the Ducks.

People can call the Wings soft until they are blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true.

[sticknmove 0]

"I don't think you are getting it yet. Being perceived as soft from past playoffs has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Wings were NOT soft in these most recent playoffs"

I am not arguing it does you twit. And another thing we did not come within inches of beating the ducks, hell we didnt even come within inches of a game 7.

[norrisnick 1]

"I don't think you are getting it yet. Being perceived as soft from past playoffs has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the Wings were NOT soft in these most recent playoffs"

I am not arguing it does you twit. And another thing we did not come within inches of beating the ducks, hell we didnt even come within inches of a game 7.

Franzen clears the puck with seconds left in regulation of game 5 and Lilly goes from goat to hero (he had the only goal in a 1-0 game and couldn't have giftwrapped that scoring chance for Selanne in OT) and the Wings go from down 2-3 in the series to up 3-2 in the series. That means the Wings either win in 6 or go to a game 7.

Inches.

[sticknmove 0]

Hahaha sounds more like a lot of if's and woulda coulda shoulda's to me. Bro we didnt even take the series to game 7. We were not close to winning, if a couple things went differently we may have won but you are kinda stretching on this one

[norrisnick 1]

Hahaha sounds more like a lot of if's and woulda coulda shoulda's to me. Bro we didnt even take the series to game 7. We were not close to winning, if a couple things went differently we may have won but you are kinda stretching on this one

Did you watch that game? Franzen tried to clear the puck on the backhand and didn't get enough of it to lift it over whatever Duck it was that knocked it down. It was sent to Niedermayer and he fluttered a puck off of Lidstrom's stick and over Dom's shoulder to tie the game in the waning seconds of game 5. If Franzen goes to the forehand to power the puck out or gets better lift on the clear, the game is over and there is a stranglehold on the series.

You're out of your mind if you don't think we were close to winning that series.

On the flipside, if the Sharks clear the puck in game 4 of that series, Filppula can't steal it. Can't feed it to Lang. And Bob doesn't tie the game. And we don't win in OT to tie the series.

Hockey, moreso than any other sport, is one that can turn on a dime and the tiniest little play or margin of error can swing the balance from winning to losing. It doesn't have to be seven OT games for a series to be close. If Robitaille doesn't clang that shot off the crossbar in OT of game 1, IMO the Ducks don't win in '03. Let alone sweep us.

[Lou_Siffer 1]

The Wings do not need an enforcer. The Wings do not need a goon. That is the opinion you are lumping in with 'the Wings do not need any tough players.'

That is a result of your error in implying fighting and toughness are synonymous.

In my opinion, they ARE synonymous. When somebody asks you who the toughest team in the league is...you immediately think fighting dont you? Back in school days, when somebody talked about the toughest kid in the class...we're they talking about who could take the most beatings? Hell no, you're talking who could kick everyone's ass. The terms fighting and toughness have always been linked with me, and I assume many others. Unfortunately what gets confusing is people who use the word "toughness" when "grit" would probably be the more appropriate word for what theyre trying to say.