Jiri Hudler

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

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!"

The Wings had 21 fights during this past regular season. By far the most since the lockout. In 2007 they had 10 (and 4 of those were from Norton, who rarely won a fight). 2006 they had 6.

Fights during the playoff are rare because the stakes are so high. But that doesn't mean they're not important in getting to the postseason and getting there healthy.

Edited July 25, 2008 by haroldsnepsts

[Dabura 12,232]

Fights during the playoff are rare because the stakes are so high. But that doesn't mean they're not important in getting to the postseason and getting there healthy.

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.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

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?

Sorry if I put my rod too far up your ass, but at this point I don't remember which posters believe that fighters have a use and which don't. There's too many of you to keep track of. However, I'm pretty sure there are posters here besides norrisnick who believe that enforcers have no use.

And my argument of "hockey history" has yet to be disproven probably because it's a pretty strong argument for why there is a need for fighters.

[Guest Crymson]

Enough of this Stanley Cup s***. We don't win it every year, and the team that won it before us was full of enforcers. That doesn't change the fact that enforcers have always been useful throughout history and are still being used today.

Where's your argument against that?

The only argument you seem to have against enforcers having any use is that we won the Cup last year without an enforcer, even though we actually had 2. You're the one who has no argument.

You're just a blind homer who doesn't understand that enforcers are important even if Holland doesn't think so.

The team that won it the year before us beat us because we had a ridiculous string of injuries. Weak argument on your part.

I think Dabura's argument is very solid. Isn't everyone always saying "only the playoffs matter," or "we'll see how things go in the playoffs"? The team has done stellar in the regular season in the recent past, whether it had an enforcer or not. Where the team has not won in the recent past is in the playoffs. As such, where enforcers would logically make a difference---i.e. in things being different than they were the year before---would be in the playoffs. In the playoffs, we dressed zero enforcers. McCarty is not an enforcer. He had one fight this season with the Wings---which is several less than Drake had; would you call Drake an enforcer?---and that fight was meaningless. So, no enforcers during the playoffs---and we won the Cup.

So what's YOUR point?

[norrisnick 1]

Sorry if I put my rod too far up your ass, but at this point I don't remember which posters believe that fighters have a use and which don't. There's too many of you to keep track of. However, I'm pretty sure there are posters here besides norrisnick who believe that enforcers have no use.

And my argument of "hockey history" has yet to be disproven probably because it's a pretty strong argument for why there is a need for fighters.

And you've consistently failed to address the recent Wings. Are they not part of hockey history? They've very clearly marginalized the use of enforcers ever since Bowman came on board in the early 90s. Yet we're the most successful NHL franchise BY FAR since then.

The Wings are soft. The whole hockey world knows this. Yet we just won the Cup and are the prohibitive favorites to win against next year. Strange that...

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

The team that won it the year before us beat us because we had a ridiculous string of injuries. Weak argument on your part.

I think Dabura's argument is very solid. Isn't everyone always saying "only the playoffs matter," or "we'll see how things go in the playoffs"? The team has done stellar in the regular season in the recent past, whether it had an enforcer or not. Where the team has not won in the recent past is in the playoffs. As such, where enforcers would logically make a difference---i.e. in things being different than they were the year before---would be in the playoffs. In the playoffs, we dressed zero enforcers. McCarty is not an enforcer. He had one fight this season with the Wings---which is several less than Drake had; would you call Drake an enforcer?---and that fight was meaningless. So, no enforcers during the playoffs---and we won the Cup.

So what's YOUR point?

If I haven't made it clear by now, there's not point to even answer.

Oh and Mac had only 1 fight because he didn't play that many regular season games. In the playoffs we didn't need fighting because we didn't play any physical, dirty teams who dressed many fighters. For instance, if we played Anaheim, I believe there would have been many more fighting majors and a need for them.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

And you've consistently failed to address the recent Wings. Are they not part of hockey history? They've very clearly marginalized the use of enforcers ever since Bowman came on board in the early 90s. Yet we're the most successful NHL franchise BY FAR since then.

The Wings are soft. The whole hockey world knows this. Yet we just won the Cup and are the prohibitive favorites to win against next year. Strange that...

Because they managed to find guys who could fight AND play the game, which is obviously the best case scenario. That's not the case with the current roster.

I'd love to have a team full of guys like the '97 versions of Lapointe, McCarty, Shanahan, Ward. The Wings had size, toughness, and could drop the gloves. But those guys are all gone (Mac is not the same guy as in '97). So I think a guy like Downey in a limited role is necessary.

And in spite of those guys in the roster Bowman added Kocur to the lineup in 97. He wasn't a proponent of gooning it up, but I wouldn't call that exactly marginalizing enforcers.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

And you've consistently failed to address the recent Wings. Are they not part of hockey history? They've very clearly marginalized the use of enforcers ever since Bowman came on board in the early 90s. Yet we're the most successful NHL franchise BY FAR since then.

The Wings are soft. The whole hockey world knows this. Yet we just won the Cup and are the prohibitive favorites to win against next year. Strange that...

Just because the WIngs have had success recently has nothing to do with them not dressing enforcers. If every team followed suit, there would hardly be any more fighting in the league, and it wouldn't mean that every team would all of a sudden become great.

Teams dress enfocers to protect players and because hockey, believe it or not, is a physical sport where fighting is sometimes unavoidable.

An elimination of enfocers would be O.K. with you, but for many die hard fans that would be too much to handle.

For instance, if we played Downey more often last year, then incidents like Franzen being beat up by Walker wouldn't have happened. Yeah nothing came out of it, but imagine if Franzen had gotten seriously hurt which he most certainly could have. It's situations like that which I'd like for the Wings to avoid.

It's only a matter of time before someone starts going after Kronwall to make him back up his big checks. Would you rather see Kronwall fight or an enforcer to take his place?

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Because they managed to find guys who could fight AND play the game, which is obviously the best case scenario. That's not the case with the current roster.

I'd love to have a team full of guys like the '97 versions of Lapointe, McCarty, Shanahan, Ward. The Wings had size, toughness, and could drop the gloves. But those guys are all gone (Mac is not the same guy as in '97). So I think a guy like Downey in a limited role is necessary.

And in spite of those guys in the roster Bowman added Kocur to the lineup in 97. He wasn't a proponent of gooning it up, but I wouldn't call that exactly marginalizing enforcers.

The funny thing is that not only did we have Kocur for both Cups, but we also had McCarty for all of Scotty's tenure here.

Yet somehow, Bowman is associated with marginalzing enforcers.

[norrisnick 1]

Just because the WIngs have had success recently has nothing to do with them not dressing enforcers. If every team followed suit, there would hardly be any more fighting in the league, and it wouldn't mean that every team would all of a sudden become great.

Teams dress enfocers to protect players and because hockey, believe it or not, is a physical sport where fighting is sometimes unavoidable.

An elimination of enfocers would be O.K. with you, but for many die hard fans that would be too much to handle.

For instance, if we played Downey more often last year, then incidents like Franzen being beat up by Walker wouldn't have happened. Yeah nothing came out of it, but imagine if Franzen had gotten seriously hurt which he most certainly could have. It's situations like that which I'd like for the Wings to avoid.

It's only a matter of time before someone starts going after Kronwall to make him back up his big checks. Would you rather see Kronwall fight or an enforcer to take his place?

Downey was playing that game.

Nik doesn't have to fight if he doesn't want to.

[norrisnick 1]

The funny thing is that not only did we have Kocur for both Cups, but we also had McCarty for all of Scotty's tenure here.

Yet somehow, Bowman is associated with marginalzing enforcers.

Joey's hands were wrecked so he wasn't nearly the fighter he was before he was reacquired. And Joey was brought in specifically in a checking line role for the first incarnation of the Grind Line. And Mac was a 15-20G 40pt scoring line winger before he fell off the face off the earth between the 2nd and 3rd Cups.

A guy like Downey never would have sniffed a minute of ice time under Scotty. You have to be able to play. That's my stand.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Downey was playing that game.

Nik doesn't have to fight if he doesn't want to.

Kronwall will have to fight when someone jumps him. It's not like it's going to be his choice. Most other big hitters around the league have to drop them from time to time.

Also, Downey played in the next game when he fought Walker. That night it was Franzen all by himself. If my memory is incorrect, then that's on Babcock, because Downey was not put out there to retaliate in that very game. But as I remember it, he didn't play that night.

[norrisnick 1]

Kronwall will have to fight when someone jumps him. It's not like it's going to be his choice. Most other big hitters around the league have to drop them from time to time.

Also, Downey played in the next game when he fought Walker. That night it was Franzen all by himself. If my memory is incorrect, then that's on Babcock, because Downey was not put out there to retaliate in that very game. But as I remember it, he didn't play that night.

Duck and cover. No one has to fight that doesn't want to.

Downey played nearly 9 minutes that game.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Duck and cover. No one has to fight that doesn't want to.

Downey played nearly 9 minutes that game.

I guess it comes down to that I really don't want to watch a Wings team where someone like Kronwall throws devastating and sometimes questionable hits, then have our players avoid confrontation from those hits. Live by the sword, by the sword. If they're gonna play physical, they have to be prepared for those times it come to blows.

If I wanted to watch players turtle I'd be an Avs fan.

[norrisnick 1]

*shrug*

If you can't play a big boy game without freaking out if you get touched, maybe you shouldn't play a big boy game.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Duck and cover. No one has to fight that doesn't want to.

Downey played nearly 9 minutes that game.

That pretty much sums up what I thought you'd say.

Duck and cover.

Just tell that to Franzen or Sammy or any other Wing who was jumped in recent memory into a fight they didn't have to take.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

*shrug*

If you can't play a big boy game without freaking out if you get touched, maybe you shouldn't play a big boy game.

That's the same thing I could say about players who are afraid to fight. You're defeating your own argument now.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

*shrug*

If you can't play a big boy game without freaking out if you get touched, maybe you shouldn't play a big boy game.

I seriously wonder sometimes if you actually watch hockey games or just read about it and check stats.

It's ingrained in the sport that if you throw a questionable, sometimes even clean, devastating hit, you may have to answer for it. This isn't me wanting enforcers. This about acknowledging what actually goes on in NHL games and has virtually since it's inception. It's a physical game. Guys get hit. They're not gonna like it. Whether it's an elbow was up, or they thought it was from behind, or it was clean and they're just pissed.

If you can't throw a hit without being prepared to answer for it, the you shouldn't be playing hockey, because it is a big boy game.

[norrisnick 1]

I seriously wonder sometimes if you actually watch hockey games or just read about it and check stats.

It's ingrained in the sport that if you throw a questionable, sometimes even clean, devastating hit, you may have to answer for it. This isn't me wanting enforcers. This about acknowledging what actually goes on in NHL games and has virtually since it's inception. It's a physical game. Guys get hit. They're not gonna like it. Whether it's an elbow was up, or they thought it was from behind, or it was clean and they're just pissed.

If you can't throw a hit without being prepared to answer for it, the you shouldn't be playing hockey, because it is a big boy game.

You can watch hockey?

Answering for a clean hit bugs the hell out of me. Sack up and take it like a man. Quit throwing tantrums left and right like a 5 year old. May as well start picking fights with guys that score.

[Doggy 130]

You can watch hockey?

Answering for a clean hit bugs the hell out of me. Sack up and take it like a man. Quit throwing tantrums left and right like a 5 year old. May as well start picking fights with guys that score.

I thought you were better than to make comments like this during a discussion.

[norrisnick 1]

Clearly you weren't thinking hard enough.

How's this one though?

Who gives us a better shot at repeating? Hossa or Downey?

If you even have to think about that....

[Heaton 1]

Kronwall has been laying people for as long as I can remember and there's only been one instance where someone actually went after him and all that resulted in was some pushing. If Kronwall does leave his feet and someone feels slighted I'd expect Stuart to step in before Kronwall as he's a more experienced fighter and that's more in his job description.

I've had the same opinion about clean hits as NN for a while now, seems like every single above average hit is expected to be answered these days, for people that want "old time" hockey a clean hit was respected back then, not overreacted.

The Wings answered the bell almost everytime last year, just as much as would be expected. If Downey were a regular enforcer the fight total would be up but he's smarter than the regular enforcer and picks his spots unlike a guy like Parros or McGrattan who fight just to fight. McCarty just said today that he's going to be back, so there's your 1.

[Doggy 130]

Clearly you weren't thinking hard enough.

How's this one though?

Who gives us a better shot at repeating? Hossa or Downey?

If you even have to think about that....

I think both sides have made valid points and I guess somewhat on the fence here but you lost me just before. I didn't see any tantrums - I just saw someone losing an argument and not being willing to concede any ground. It was a little childish for you. Nevertheless, unless I'm mistaken your question is not what this discussion is about.

[Heaton 1]

I think both sides have made valid points and I guess somewhat on the fence here but you lost me just before. I didn't see any tantrums - I just saw someone losing an argument and not being willing to concede any ground. It was a little childish for you. Nevertheless, unless I'm mistaken your question is not what this discussion is about.

Doggy, he was talking about players in the game who throw tantrums after clean hits, not message board posters.

[Doggy 130]

Kronwall has been laying people for as long as I can remember and there's only been one instance where someone actually went after him and all that resulted in was some pushing. If Kronwall does leave his feet and someone feels slighted I'd expect Stuart to step in before Kronwall as he's a more experienced fighter and that's more in his job description.

I've had the same opinion about clean hits as NN for a while now, seems like every single above average hit is expected to be answered these days, for people that want "old time" hockey a clean hit was respected back then, not overreacted.

The Wings answered the bell almost everytime last year, just as much as would be expected. If Downey were a regular enforcer the fight total would be up but he's smarter than the regular enforcer and picks his spots unlike a guy like Parros or McGrattan who fight just to fight. McCarty just said today that he's going to be back, so there's your 1.

FYI, the fight total is up.