Chelios, Downey, McCarty, and Quincey

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Three. Last year had nothing to do with toughness and grit. Not even in the slightest. Unless if by a lack of toughness and grit you mean Nick Lidstroms stick being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Make whatever excuses you want, but the Ducks wore the Wings down by the end of the series. The previous poster was right about us not needing toughness for this year's playoffs.

[eva unit zero 271]

You guys seem to think that just because we won the Cup this year without an enforcer, it means we don't need one at all. Did you forget that we lost for 4 years because of a lack of toughness and grit?

We didn't have to play against the big, tough teams in this year's playoffs. We didn't face Anaheim or San Jose. If we did, I bet things would be different. I know I'd want Downey in there to take out Pronger after he elbows Datsyuk in the face. I'd want him in there to fight and give us some energy when we're down by 1 or 2 goals.

Other than Nashville, our playoff opponents this year tried to play a skilled game against us, so we didn't need that tough guy in the line-up. But that doesn't mean we don't need one at all. So we should definitely sign Downey, or someone like him, and he may not play every game, but he'll be ready when we need him.

Yeah. In 2007 we lost due to a lack of toughness and grit, if by toughness and grit you mean "Two of our top three defensemen were out for the WCF due to fluke injuries that had nothing to do with physical play, and we went to OT in game five due to a fluke goal that bounced off the shaft of Lidstrom's stick on a power play that should never have occurred."

In 2006, the Wings lost primarily because their goaltender had a mental meltdown. Unless an enforcer is going to threaten him in the locker room with what will happen if he DOESN'T win, "toughness" is not the reason the Wings lost that series.

In 2004, the Wings could be argued as having lost due to toughness. But I prefer to view it as the Wings lost because the Flames were allowed to play a style much dirtier without penalty than what had been allowed through the regular season and first round. Game 3 of that series is a case study on this; the Flames had been physically far more punishing than the Red Wings that game, yet were not penalized until midway through the second period; shortly after they scored a power play goal. The Wings had already seen multiple roughing penalties against them at this point. More grit might have helped in that series, but it was possibly the most unfairly officiated series I have seen in my life; before or since inclusive, live or on video. And that is not even a close call, either.

In 2003, this series loss was a combination of factors. Cup hangover could have been one; they returned the majority of the winning roster from the previous year. A new goaltender in Curtis Joseph, however Joseph made a number of major errors during a low-scoring series that proved to be costly. Allowing bad goals during a series without many goals is significantly worse as each mistake hurts your team far more.

The Ducks were able to keep the Wings' offense generally to the outside, allowing oversized goaltender JS Giguere to see relatively few good chances and mostly long, unscreened shots.

If you define 'grit' as "the ability to impose your playing style on the game and not be controlled by your opponent" then the 2003 Wings team are really the only ones that lacked grit; I am willing to give a pass to the 2004 team because they pretty handily dispatched Nashville in the first round other than Legace's questionable play. Once Joseph took over, that series was pretty one-sided.

Grit and toughness have not been the issue for a while. Furthermore, grit and toughness are something you have to install through coaching and playing style, not by adding a fourth liner whose purpose is to sit in the penalty box more often than he plays.

Toughness and fighting are part of hockey; that doesn't mean enforcers are.

[norrisnick 1]

If you pro-hockey player, you wouldn't talk about enforcers as if they're not even part of the team. I guarantee you the guys in the locker room didn't think of Downey or Mac in that kind of fashion.

Character guys are important to every team, or else skilled players would have to fill in those roles. You either don't know much about hockey, or you've been watching some European league for too damn long.

In brief, enforcers are hockey players. That's what their profession is whether you like it or not.

Fine. Downey is a hockey player.

I hearby declare Hudler an enforcer. His enforcing skills are about on par with Aaron's hockey playing skills.

[Dabura 12,232]

There is no need for more fighting. In fact, according to norrisnick, Downey and McCarty held the team back last year from going to where it wanted to go. You can figure out for yourself where that might be.

Oh but I forgot, you're not anti-enforcer so there's no need to argue with you.

In other words, you can't reasonably justify your position.

Thanks for playing.

Did you forget that we lost for 4 years because of a lack of toughness and grit?

Like eva said, highly debatable. It's also mostly moot; the most relevant season is the one that just happened. All the Wings did was steamroll through the postseason en route to winning the Cup, handily taking down the team that handily took down Anaheim and SJ. If we must go back to an earlier season, then we can go back to 06-07, in which the Wings physically dominated the Flames and Sharks in the postseason, went toe to toe with the Ducks (does no one remember the 5-0 rout?), and only lost because they were short two top d-men and were the victims of a bulls*** late call.

Like eva said, a lack of "toughness" and "grit" has not been a problem for awhile now. That's because this is a Mike Babcock system, which both the players and management have bought into 100%. In a Mike Babcock system, the team has to be tough to a man; there's no, "Well, if we dress an enforcer, then suddenly we're tough." Because that's just idiotic.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

In other words, you can't reasonably justify your position.

Thanks for playing.

Like eva said, highly debatable. It's also mostly moot; the most relevant season is the one that just happened. All the Wings did was steamroll through the postseason en route to winning the Cup, handily taking down the team that handily took down Anaheim and SJ. If we must go back to an earlier season, then we can go back to 06-07, in which the Wings physically dominated the Flames and Sharks in the postseason, went toe to toe with the Ducks (does no one remember the 5-0 rout?), and only lost because they were short two top d-men and were the victims of a bulls*** late call.

Like eva said, a lack of "toughness" and "grit" has not been a problem for awhile now. That's because this is a Mike Babcock system, which both the players and management have bought into 100%. In a Mike Babcock system, the team has to be tough to a man; there's no, "Well, if we dress an enforcer, then suddenly we're tough." Because that's just idiotic.

I'm tired of trying to justify my position to a hypocrite who says he's not anti-enforcer, and then makes half page posts justifying the exact opposite.

Make up your mind.

[uk_redwing 495]

I'm tired of trying to justify my position to a hypocrite who says he's not anti-enforcer, and then makes half page posts justifying the exact opposite.

Make up your mind.

They suffer from LGWitas. Main symptom being the refusal to acknowledge the importance of enforcing, then cry whenever one of our star players gets hurt (Lidstrom) and demand retribution.

[Lidstrom for Norris 0]

With only $975,000 left, who gets the deal?

Chelios and McCarty get resigned. Downey gets traded/ dropped because McCarty has senority over being our enforcer/fighter. We can let quincy go because we have a ton of depth on defense as it is.

[Dominator2005 558]

For all anti-Downeys fans refer to this:

[Dabura 12,232]

I'm not anti-enforcer; I'm anti-making completely unnecessary, borderline detrimental changes to a winning formula. If this team's success owed a great deal to enforcing, I wouldn't be taking this stance. But the fact of the matter is that fighting means jack in this Wings system and all-around "toughness" hasn't been a problem for some time now.

So then you go and say the Wings need more fights, more toughness. To that I say, again, Where is the proof?

[Dominator2005 558]

Chelios and McCarty get resigned. Downey gets traded/ dropped because McCarty has senority over being our enforcer/fighter. We can let quincy go because we have a ton of depth on defense as it is.

McCarty isn't going to enforce nobody in today's NHL. C'mon guys you really expect McCarty to be our tough guy???

[Dominator2005 558]

I'm not anti-enforcer; I'm anti-making completely unnecessary, borderline detrimental changes to a winning formula. If this team's success owed a great deal to enforcing, I wouldn't be taking this stance. But the fact of the matter is that fighting means jack in this Wings system and all-around "toughness" hasn't been a problem for some time now.

So then you go and say the Wings need more fights, more toughness. To that I say, again, Where is the proof?

Every single team in NHL has at least one fighter/enforcer on their active roster - why do you think that we don't need it??? If Lidstrom, Zetterberg and cie. says that they feel better with a player who can drop the gloves and protect star players then what'S the problem??? More people are going to game to see fight than staying away from it...

[Dabura 12,232]

Here's an idea: instead of asking me why the Wings don't need to carry an enforcer to succeed, how about asking Mike Babcock? After all, it was him, not me, that sat Downey for the entire postseason run and only played him in the regular season when injuries essentially forced his hand. That's not to say I think enforcers are completely worthless -- I've never made that argument. Rather, it's to illustrate that the coach of the Detroit Red Wings doesn't even put much stock in fighting -- at least, not within the Wings' system.

"Hey Mike, good to see you. Listen, judging by your championship season, I think it's pretty clear this team needs to fight more and get tougher. Thoughts?"

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Here's an idea: instead of asking me why the Wings don't need to carry an enforcer to succeed, how about asking Mike Babcock? After all, it was him, not me, that sat Downey for the entire postseason run and only played him in the regular season when injuries essentially forced his hand. That's not to say I think enforcers are completely worthless -- I've never made that argument. Rather, it's to illustrate that the coach of the Detroit Red Wings doesn't even put much stock in fighting -- at least, not within the Wings' system.

"Hey Mike, good to see you. Listen, judging by your championship season, I think it's pretty clear this team needs to fight more and get tougher. Thoughts?"

If Babcock didn't believe in the WIngs fighting, he wouldn't have allowed Downey to make the team, and would have replaced him with anyone in GR.

In the playoffs, fighting wasn't necessary because of the opposition that we played.

In all, dressing one enforcer isn't going to make the detrimental changes that you suggest to the team's strategy. It didn't make those changes during the games that Downey played in the regular season. It didnt' have detriments when McCarty played in the playoffs either. Your argument just doesn't hold up.

Edited August 10, 2008 by GMRwings1983

[Heaton 1]

In the playoffs, fighting wasn't necessary because of the opposition that we played.

When has fighting ever been on the forefront in the playoffs? Fighting is detrimental in the playoffs, which is why enforcers do not play unless they can actually play.

I'll say it for the last time, the most heated rivalry in the past 20? years is the Wings/Avs and the fights really were a corner stone of that. Even though those teams hated each other and had the muscle to fight in brawls, fighting was never, ever, important to those games in the playoffs.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

When has fighting ever been on the forefront in the playoffs? Fighting is detrimental in the playoffs, which is why enforcers do not play unless they can actually play.

I'll say it for the last time, the most heated rivalry in the past 20? years is the Wings/Avs and the fights really were a corner stone of that. Even though those teams hated each other and had the muscle to fight in brawls, fighting was never, ever, important to those games in the playoffs.

Enforcers aren't just there for fighting, there is a lot of rough stuff that often goes on in the playoffs. The only ones we had last year were a few scrums against the Pens.

The year before that we pussied out against the Flames and Ducks. Make whatever excuses you want, but the fact is we pussied out and skated away and it was rather embarassing for me to watch as a Wings fan.

You guys are once again detracting from the point. I want an enforcer for the regular season where it's most important. If we also have one in the playoffs, then it's a bonus. But for the regular season it's something worth having on your team especially if everyone else has one.

It's a copycat league, after all. Sure we just won the Cup, but the year before that a team full of enforcers won the Cup. Basically, one enforcer won't hurt in my opinion. Some of you disagree with that for whatever paranoid reasons, suggesting that we'll have to change our whole strategy when we just went through most of last season with an enforcer, and a pretty successful outcome.

[Heaton 1]

The year before that we pussied out against the Flames and Ducks. Make whatever excuses you want, but the fact is we pussied out and skated away and it was rather embarassing for me to watch as a Wings fan.

Statements like this are why no one can take these arguments seriously and why these threads get locked. This is pure flamebait and it doesn't matter if it's intentional or not.

How do you expect people to respond to this? Just for arguments sake, let's say the Wings won the cup during that post season run, would you classify it as an embarassing win because they didn't get into pointless melees with the teams they beat on the way to the Championship?

It's all personal preference and I don't want to get personal but if winning the fightcard is equally as important as winning the actual game to you, you're never going to be proud of this team and it's sad. Last year and the year before the Phoenix Coyotees won more fights than games, I'm confident that Wayne Gretzky isn't resting on his laurels there.

I know your response will be that you feel that it should or could go hand in hand, win both, but that isn't the philosophy here. Mike Babcock has gotten these guys to worry about playing between the whistles and it's been what makes us the most successful team in the game and that's really all that matters.

Having an attitude and a swagger that we can beat you in any way that you want to play is the most dominant thing you can have and the Wings have had it for two seasons now. The act of the fight isn't as important as the mindset.

[brutus 0]

Here's an idea: instead of asking me why the Wings don't need to carry an enforcer to succeed, how about asking Mike Babcock? After all, it was him, not me, that sat Downey for the entire postseason run and only played him in the regular season when injuries essentially forced his hand. That's not to say I think enforcers are completely worthless -- I've never made that argument. Rather, it's to illustrate that the coach of the Detroit Red Wings doesn't even put much stock in fighting -- at least, not within the Wings' system.

"Hey Mike, good to see you. Listen, judging by your championship season, I think it's pretty clear this team needs to fight more and get tougher. Thoughts?"

HOW DARE YOU!! you SOB.... HOW DARE YOU bring rational and logical ideas and thought process into the "grit" discussion! I mean for real...what sort of asshat fails to see Mike's fundamental flaw and how it cost us our championship...oh wait nevermind about that but I mean look at how often fighting changed the tempo and complexion of our games last year...oh um yeah nevermind about that..look at how many of our top guys were injured because we didnt have an enforcer...er..um well...nevermind

basically from what I have seen the grit slappies are insatiable with their desire for as they describe it "toughness"; clearly a word, term phrase they mistake for being able to fight...

fighting is entertaining to watch but I dont feel we need to sacrifice skill for fighting and until we have the opportunity for a player with both I would prefer the former well over the latter...and clearly Babs, holland and Co. feel the same way. so if you disagree...suck IT!

brutus

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

HOW DARE YOU!! you SOB.... HOW DARE YOU bring rational and logical ideas and thought process into the "grit" discussion! I mean for real...what sort of asshat fails to see Mike's fundamental flaw and how it cost us our championship...oh wait nevermind about that but I mean look at how often fighting changed the tempo and complexion of our games last year...oh um yeah nevermind about that..look at how many of our top guys were injured because we didnt have an enforcer...er..um well...nevermind

basically from what I have seen the grit slappies are insatiable with their desire for as they describe it "toughness"; clearly a word, term phrase they mistake for being able to fight...

fighting is entertaining to watch but I dont feel we need to sacrifice skill for fighting and until we have the opportunity for a player with both I would prefer the former well over the latter...and clearly Babs, holland and Co. feel the same way. so if you disagree...suck IT!

brutus

Et tu, Brute?

Edited August 11, 2008 by GMRwings1983

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

They suffer from LGWitas. Main symptom being the refusal to acknowledge the importance of enforcing, then cry whenever one of our star players gets hurt (Lidstrom) and demand retribution.

No, it is more like the majority of people understand the value of enforcers and/or fighting and that they have their place in the game, but realize there are plenty of other parts of hockey that are important than solely seeking out revenge.

Then posters such as you and GMR and others who might want more enforcement or fighting for whatever reason (which is your personal preference and I have no problem with) act like extreme nutjobs and twist and overblow the thoughts of most of these people (which I have a problem with), and suddenly we are completely 100% against enforcers. We aren't.

[Guest micah]

HOW DARE YOU!! you SOB.... HOW DARE YOU bring rational and logical ideas and thought process into the "grit" discussion! I mean for real...what sort of asshat fails to see Mike's fundamental flaw and how it cost us our championship...oh wait nevermind about that but I mean look at how often fighting changed the tempo and complexion of our games last year...oh um yeah nevermind about that..look at how many of our top guys were injured because we didnt have an enforcer...er..um well...nevermind

basically from what I have seen the grit slappies are insatiable with their desire for as they describe it "toughness"; clearly a word, term phrase they mistake for being able to fight...

fighting is entertaining to watch but I dont feel we need to sacrifice skill for fighting and until we have the opportunity for a player with both I would prefer the former well over the latter...and clearly Babs, holland and Co. feel the same way. so if you disagree...suck IT!

brutus

Thi is the internet and we're talking about sports. Why do yuo seen so angry, Brut?

Also, why would you want a skilled player fighting? I'd rather have a goon who can hurt the other team's skilled fighter. Cam Neelys and Brenden Shanahans can't score from the penalty box.

[Dabura 12,232]

Also, why would you want a skilled player fighting?

Not to speak for brutus, but I assume it's because he, wisely, would prefer to have someone who can fight and take regular shifts over someone who can only do the former.

[Shutemdown 23]

Just to let you know having an enforcer stops nothing, if a guy is going to take a run at or cheapshot Hank, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the player will take the run/cheapshot and then fight.

An enforcer may get retribution for you, but what is going to stop Kyle Maclaren from running at Z if he wants to? Downey, Mac, Downie, Neil, who? I know the answer, no one will. If a guy is willing to cheapshot or take a run at another player, odds are he has done it before and knows that the consequence is getting into a fight or getting hit hard. That won't stop these guys.

BTW: When was the last time a Red Wing player was run, or the last time you remember some one taking a cheap shot at a Red Wing player?

Sarcasm aside, I hate to ask you this, but when someone on our team DOES get run, who, then, will stand up to fight the guy who just took the cheapshot? Exactly. And then our players continue to get run...

We need en enforcer... I've said it once, I'll say it again. I am fully aware that our players will get run no matter what we say about it. I understand that if a player wants to take a cheapshot, he's going to, regardless of who's on the ice.

However, I can't understand what happens once the cheapshot occurs. There wouldn't be a fight to begin with unless both teams had someone willing to stand up. So who's gonna be our stand-up man? Datsyuk? Hossa? Hell, let's throw Huds at 'em. I dunno about you, Opie, but I'd rather have an expendable brawler to throw out there in reply instead of a bunch of stars that don't need to fight, let alone would accept the challenge.

[Dabura 12,232]

Hey guys, remember that time Gary Roberts blindsided Mule and no one did anything about it? Wings just rolled over and died!

Softies, the whole lot of 'em!

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Hey guys, remember that time Gary Roberts blindsided Mule and no one did anything about it? Wings just rolled over and died!

Softies, the whole lot of 'em!

If it was the regular season, he would've got his, but the Wings dont take dumb penalties in the playoffs, and even being pro grit and enforcer etc., I have no problem with that.

[Chunkylover 26]

If the league would raise the cap and increase the amount of players a team could dress for a game then we could have Mac and Downey for enforcement and dress our depth defensemen in each game and not have to sacrifice in the skill department.