Jiri Hudler

[uk_redwing 495]

Or an anti-enforcer forum where you guys can talk about how great Kopecky is and what a brilliant future he has, as well as wishing that every enforcer could score 20 goals and kill penalties.

Not to mention a forum where they can talk about how detroit has no need to follow hockey traditions and that its every other team thats wrong whilst ignoring the fact the year we get tough is the year we finally win a cup, and pray that more Hudlers, Samuelssons and Kopeckys are up and coming to take 3rd and 4th line spots with their zero physical presence creating an unbalanced and therefore unsuccessful hockey team.

[uk_redwing 495]

It still would've failed I'd imagine.

It was gonna be about tall physical strikers and route one football, but noone would have understood it and would have just made some remark about it being a sport for diving and soft players (quite ironic actually considering the wings)

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Again, balance.

Better learn balance. Balance is key. Balance good, karate good. Everything good. Balance bad, better pack up, go home. Understand?

Sorry, with how nuts this thread has been, I wanted to lighten the mood up.

Edited July 25, 2008 by SouthernWingsFan

[Heaton 1]

It was gonna be about tall physical strikers and route one football, but noone would have understood it and would have just made some remark about it being a sport for diving and soft players (quite ironic actually considering the wings)

That's actually the opposite of irony.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Do you ever stop complaining?

Get off my back, wise guy.

I was responding to the previous smart ass post.

[uk_redwing 495]

That's actually the opposite of irony.

in what sense?

[Heaton 1]

in what sense?

In the sense that the Wings aren't soft?

[Guest Crymson]

Not to mention a forum where they can talk about how detroit has no need to follow hockey traditions and that its every other team thats wrong whilst ignoring the fact the year we get tough is the year we finally win a cup, and pray that more Hudlers, Samuelssons and Kopeckys are up and coming to take 3rd and 4th line spots with their zero physical presence creating an unbalanced and therefore unsuccessful hockey team.

The year we get tough. Right.

Because you're talking about success, I'm assuming you mean 'success in the playoffs.' After all, enforcer or no enforcer has never had much effect on the team's regular season play.

So, onto the playoffs: We had one (1) tough guy over our team from last season, and that was Drake. Do not mention McCarty; he played only due to injuries, and he did not play a tough style of hockey. Also, Schneider, for whatever faults he may have had, did have an edge to him, and we lost him in favor of a smaller puck-mover.

Anyway, the bottom line is that you're attributing the Wings "getting tougher" solely to the acquisition of Dallas Drake. While Dallas certainly played a large part in our Stanley Cup run---albeit not only because of his gritty style of play---I find rather unrealistic your suggestion that the addition of Drake to the team was what made it into a Stanley Cup-winning group.

I'm sure that having more physicality on the team helped, but the physicality added in the form of Drake was not revolutionary (he's only one person), and you're discounting some far more important factors in the team's success---i.e. Brian Rafalski, a physical downgrade from Schneider, a small, non-physical puck-mover of the type you seem to be downing, and a player who was absolutely integral to the team's success.

By the way: Datsyuk led the Wings in playoff hits.

Edited July 25, 2008 by Crymson

[uk_redwing 495]

Anyway, the bottom line is that you're attributing the Wings "getting tougher" solely to the acquisition of Dallas Drake.

I dont think ive typed the words "Dallas Drake" in months...

[Guest Crymson]

I dont think ive typed the words "Dallas Drake" in months...

In that event, your comment about "adding toughness" has no merit whatsoever. The regular season is irrelevant in this discussion, given that the playoffs have always been the area in which the Wings have had trouble.

You say that the team "added toughness," and insinuated that this was responsible for putting the team over the proverbial edge. What changed from last year to this year, if not Drake? McCarty doesn't count. Stuart is a high-paid player, so he doesn't count for the purposes of your argument either; Iginla scores and fights, but we can't afford him, nor is there anyone else of that ilk on the market.

[uk_redwing 495]

In that event, your comment about "adding toughness" has no merit whatsoever. The regular season is irrelevant in this discussion, given that the playoffs have always been the area in which the Wings have had trouble.

The regular season is irrelevant in every sense. I dont know why the wings even bother to turn up for it.

[norrisnick 1]

That's because people here have bought into a soft team to the point where they don't undestand what every other team is doing and that there is a need for enforcers and always has been throughout NHL history.

Some posters here on LGW are living on their own little planet.

Also, everyone is forgetting that injuries will inevitably happen like they always do, and in those situations that's where guys like Downey and Mac would be counted on to come in and fill roster spots. Thus, signing those guys is paramount. IN fact, all of Downey's action last year came when he was filling in for an injured player.

Or you know, let guys like Helm and Abdelkader come up and play.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Or you know, let guys like Helm and Abdelkader come up and play.

The last few seasons we've had enough injuries to let worse players than that play. The point is that there will always be room for guys like Downey and Mac. I prefer them to be regulars, but if not, they'd still be great reserve players to have come in for injured guys.

It sounds like you'd rather have Matt Hussey dressed if he were still around, then have an enforcer take any spots.

[overHandright1 2]

Just when there seems to be common ground as far as the amount of toughness the Wings need, someone says something inflamatory one way or the other and the whole arguement starts up again.

[norrisnick 1]

The last few seasons we've had enough injuries to let worse players than that play. The point is that there will always be room for guys like Downey and Mac. I prefer them to be regulars, but if not, they'd still be great reserve players to have come in for injured guys.

It sounds like you'd rather have Matt Hussey dressed if he were still around, then have an enforcer take any spots.

Yes, because Brazen has the greatest nickname ever.

[norrisnick 1]

The regular season is irrelevant in every sense. I dont know why the wings even bother to turn up for it.

This is rich. For years it was nothing but, "the regular season doesn't matter, we have to get tougher for the playoffs, the regular season is euro hockey, we have to get gritty so we can win when it matters, etc... etc... etc..." Now that we've won with the tough guy scratched we need one for the regular season or we're doomed!

[Dabura 12,232]

Or an anti-enforcer forum where you guys can talk about how great Kopecky is and what a brilliant future he has.

Thank you for the ammunition.

The "anti-enforcing" crowd is not, in fact, anti-enforcing and is only referred to as such because some obnoxious loudmouths can't be bothered to have intelligent conversations about the matter, and instead prefer to spew garbage like "This team is going to be so soft!" in lame attempts to validate positions that they themselves have not thought through especially thoroughly. Honestly, what is it that you "pro-enforcers" are asserting? If it's that you enjoy seeing fights and therefore wish the Wings would do it more often, then congratulations -- it's a preference, and you're entitled to it. Have a cookie. If, on the other hand, you're trying to make legitimate argumentative assertions and want them to be taken seriously, then you're going to need to shape up -- e.g., not put words in people's mouths about Kopecky.

Let's run with this Kopecky issue. I understand you're being hyperbolic, but it's not working for you in this case. No one has said anything close to "Kopecky is great" or "Kopecky has a brilliant future." Instead, people have hammered home a pretty solidly factual statement: overall, Kopecky is more valuable than Downey. I realize this notion drives you "pro-enforcers" up the wall, but here's a thought: if you think it's wrong and want people to agree with you, then assemble an intelligent, cohesive, and overall compelling argument for your point. As sick and twisted as it may seem to you, the argument for Kopecky's superior value is, at the moment, looking stronger than the opposing case for Downey's superiority. In saying this, I'm asserting neither of the following: Kopecky is amazing, Downey is useless. Rather, I'm saying that as much as Downey's assets may help the team, Kopecky brings more to the fold. Babs would probably agree, as he would dress Kopecky for a playoff game long before doing the same for Downey. And for good reason: Kopecky simply brings more to the table and is not a big liability like Downey can be. To put it another way, Kopecky has a rounder, better skill set -- and he still has room for improvement. So Babs gives Kopecky the nod. Scotty "The best coach ever, period" Bowman would make the same call, guaranteed. Should we start railing against Mike Babcock and Scotty Bowman, calling them out for being "anti-enforcing" *******?

[Dabura 12,232]

I should add that the Wings will be carrying at least one tough guy next season. If anyone actually thinks Holland is going to cut ties with both Mac and Downey and then, on top of that, not add anyone as a replacement -- not a chance.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

Not to mention a forum where they can talk about how detroit has no need to follow hockey traditions and that its every other team thats wrong whilst ignoring the fact the year we get tough is the year we finally win a cup, and pray that more Hudlers, Samuelssons and Kopeckys are up and coming to take 3rd and 4th line spots with their zero physical presence creating an unbalanced and therefore unsuccessful hockey team.

What? How can the Red Wings be "wrong" when every other team doesn't have what the Red Wings do (the Stanley Cup)? How exactly is this the year the Red Wings got "tough"? The only reason you used a completely false statement like that is to support your absurd theory that the Red Wings "enforcers" put the team over the top, when in fact they didn't by any stretch. The Red Wings are damn tough and have been since the day Mike Babcock became the head coach. Fighting less than other teams doesn't automatically make the Red Wings "soft" or "pansies". In fact, the Red Wings are indeed the toughest team to play against. I love how you act like throwing an enforcer in the lineup would actually be more beneficial to the team than players like Hudler and Samuelsson. If Downey and Mac really were that valuable, how come one guy didn't dress at all in the playoffs, and the other played about two minutes per game?

It seems that about three people on this forum insist on making the same argument over-and-over and then labeling the majority that disagree as "anti-enforcer." The Red Wings are the class of the NHL, with or without an enforcer. If you can't accept the makeup of most Red Wing teams, quit bitching constantly and go watch the Flyers. They fight a lot, but never play in June. I've never seen so much whining from a team that just won a championship, and never at any point was too soft to compete. Who cares what the media/other fans think of the Red Wings? Maybe when their franchises win four cups in eleven years they can give the Red Wings some advice. I watch hockey to see my team win. Whether there are five fights or none doesn't bother me as long as the Red Wings win. I'm quite "entertained" watching the old, slow, sissy, too-European Red Wings dominate the rest of the league.

Edited July 25, 2008 by GoWings1905

[uk_redwing 495]

Eugh...why are people replying to what I write with such long posts?

Dont you people realise its 3:30am here and I need sleep...

[overHandright1 2]

Kopecky is more valuable than Downey. I realize this notion drives you "pro-enforcers" up the wall, but here's a thought: if you think it's wrong and want people to agree with you, then assemble an intelligent, cohesive, and overall compelling argument for your point. As sick and twisted as it may seem to you, the argument for Kopecky's superior value is, at the moment, looking stronger than the opposing case for Downey's superiority. In saying this, I'm asserting neither of the following: Kopecky is amazing, Downey is useless. Rather, I'm saying that as much as Downey's assets may help the team, Kopecky brings more to the fold. Babs would probably agree, as he would dress Kopecky for a playoff game long before doing the same for Downey. And for good reason: Kopecky simply brings more to the table and is not a big liability like Downey can be. To put it another way, Kopecky has a rounder, better skill set -- and he still has room for improvement.

The main issue with us "pro-enforcers" is not that Downey has more skill than Kopecky, it's that the Wings need a player like Downey and his role as an enforcer more than another skilled player who has been known to fight occasonally. Downey is a better fighter than Kopecky so the nod should go to him. As far as Downey being a liability, it has already been pointed out that Aaron was a +/- 0 in 56 games in the regular season. Drake, who got to play during the entire post-season, was a -12 in 65 games in the regular season. I like Drake, but I'm just pointing out that Babcock chose to play a player such as Drake eventhough his overall performance during the regular season was less than stellar.

Scotty "The best coach ever, period" Bowman would make the same call, guaranteed. Should we start railing against Mike Babcock and Scotty Bowman, calling them out for being "anti-enforcing" *******?

Certainly not. Scotty aquired one of the best enforcers of all time in Joey Kocur shortly before the start of the '97 playoffs. Scotty knew that his presence might make the difference and it paid off. Joey even threw in a goal and a few assists for good measure.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Certainly not. Scotty aquired one of the best enforcers of all time in Joey Kocur shortly before the start of the '97 playoffs. Scotty knew that his presence might make the difference and it paid off. Joey even threw in a goal and a few assists for good measure.

While this is true he acquired him and that he was a physical prescence in the playoffs, he didn't "enforce" much. Again, enforcement happens very little or not at all in the playoffs. But his prescence definitely was felt, just not in the e-word way that I am sick of reading/typing about.

I pretty much echo the balance sentiments as well as what Dabura said in his last long post. Enforcers are useful to a team and you need some good balance of skill guys, physical players/hitting, good goaltending, and enforcer type people. The Wings had a very solid balance of those this past season. In terms of importance/percentage of that type of balance though, enforcement to me isn't very high on that percentage, maybe 10% (remember 25% 4 ways = 100%). DISCLAIMER: That does not mean that I am against enforcers 100% alltogether.

However the people who are on the extreme pro side of the issue are greatly blowing things out of proportion as Dabura said. Not so much that they want to see more "entertainment" or fights. That's fine, I got no problem with that and respect people's opinions who want more of that in a game. What is overblown is automatically thinking that just because you don't always fight or stand up for your teammates .00000001 seconds after an incident, you are automatically soft. Far from it and Detroit is not even close to a soft team. Also for the reason explained about like Kopecky or a marginal 4th liner that still has the POTENTIAL nonetheless to improve in all aspects of the game, not just throwing fists.

[DatsyukownzU13 1]

I don't really know exactly what is going on with discussion right now because I'm too lazy to read through all this, but back to Hudler.

Someone on the HFboards pointed out that Hudler led the wings in Points per minute (with 14 on 4th line time), as well as placing 4th during the regular season in points per minute. I never really thought of it in this perspective, but Hudler must have something going for him to put up solid number on low minutes and the least skillful forwards on the team.

I'm not trying to overhype him, but people are saying that they would give up 1st-rounders for him and one Sabres fan said Hudler for Afinogenov straight up. Do we underappreciate Hudler? I agree he has some talent, but I'm wondering what he would do given 2nd line minutes. Could he actually be a high-end point producer?

This would be kind of cool to test out (won't happen):

Zetterberg - Datsyuk - Hossa

Filppula - Hudler - Franzen

With that said, we are just flat out stocked. That would leave players like Sameulson, Cleary, Holmstrom on 3rd or 4th line minutes. Our 4th line could be comprised of all players that have played for their national team, 2 of which for team canada (Draper, Maltby, Holmstrom)

[Slave 31]

before we signed hossa i was hoping Huds would get 2nd line minutes, now i am not so sure. The only person i can see coming off the first 2 to make room honestly...is homer, keep him as a pp specialist

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

I should add that the Wings will be carrying at least one tough guy next season. If anyone actually thinks Holland is going to cut ties with both Mac and Downey and then, on top of that, not add anyone as a replacement -- not a chance.

Right, because it's not like Holland has ever refused to carry an enforcer before.

While this is true he acquired him and that he was a physical prescence in the playoffs, he didn't "enforce" much. Again, enforcement happens very little or not at all in the playoffs. But his prescence definitely was felt, just not in the e-word way that I am sick of reading/typing about.

I pretty much echo the balance sentiments as well as what Dabura said in his last long post. Enforcers are useful to a team and you need some good balance of skill guys, physical players/hitting, good goaltending, and enforcer type people. The Wings had a very solid balance of those this past season. In terms of importance/percentage of that type of balance though, enforcement to me isn't very high on that percentage, maybe 10% (remember 25% 4 ways = 100%). DISCLAIMER: That does not mean that I am against enforcers 100% alltogether.

However the people who are on the extreme pro side of the issue are greatly blowing things out of proportion as Dabura said. Not so much that they want to see more "entertainment" or fights. That's fine, I got no problem with that and respect people's opinions who want more of that in a game. What is overblown is automatically thinking that just because you don't always fight or stand up for your teammates .00000001 seconds after an incident, you are automatically soft. Far from it and Detroit is not even close to a soft team. Also for the reason explained about like Kopecky or a marginal 4th liner that still has the POTENTIAL nonetheless to improve in all aspects of the game, not just throwing fists.

If that's true, then it's overblown all around the NHL and its fanbase, because that's how most hockey fans view a soft team. The people on this forum who stress that definition of softness may be in the LGW minority, but around the rest of the league, that's par for the course.