Chelios, Downey, McCarty, and Quincey

[Dabura 12,232]

It's just a bunch of hypocrisy from a guy who has the nerve to call me a flip-flopper.

While you're away working on your maturity issues, be sure to also brush up on your reading comprehension skills -- I never called you a flip-flopper; I was making the (truthful) point that your "argument" currently rests on the inane notion that everyone who's arguing with you is a "hypocrite" (i.e. "flip-flopper"). There's absolutely no merit to that and, not surprisingly, you've provided no compelling evidence to the contrary. What, NN would take a skilled player over a fighter? Big whoop -- it doesn't make him a hypocrite. What, Heaton disagrees with you and has the smarts to back himself up? Doesn't make him a hypocrite.

You consistently raise the same argument in these kinds of threads: Wings are soft, need to get tougher, need to fight more, blah blah blah blah blah. So, I'm asking you straight-up: where is the damn evidence? I can cite a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, including the Wings' organization-wide philosophy and the unequivocal success of said philosophy (i.e. tearing through the playoffs and winning the Cup without looking "too soft" or "physically vulnerable" or what have you). Again, I'll stress the point that this does not make me "anti-enforcer," as you like to claim. To be "anti-enforcer," I would need to categorically disapprove of enforcers in the NHL, which I don't -- which I like to think I've made very clear on numerous occasions.

So, basically, your argument has nothing. It's basically just you running around calling people names like a little brat.

But hey, if it fills you with pride....

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

While you're away working on your maturity issues, be sure to also brush up on your reading comprehension skills -- I never called you a flip-flopper; I was making the (truthful) point that your "argument" currently rests on the inane notion that everyone who's arguing with you is a "hypocrite" (i.e. "flip-flopper"). There's absolutely no merit to that and, not surprisingly, you've provided no compelling evidence to the contrary. What, NN would take a skilled player over a fighter? Big whoop -- it doesn't make him a hypocrite. What, Heaton disagrees with you and has the smarts to back himself up? Doesn't make him a hypocrite.

You consistently raise the same argument in these kinds of threads: Wings are soft, need to get tougher, need to fight more, blah blah blah blah blah. So, I'm asking you straight-up: where is the damn evidence? I can cite a whole lot of evidence to the contrary, including the Wings' organization-wide philosophy and the unequivocal success of said philosophy (i.e. tearing through the playoffs and winning the Cup without looking "too soft" or "physically vulnerable" or what have you). Again, I'll stress the point that this does not make me "anti-enforcer," as you like to claim. To be "anti-enforcer," I would need to categorically disapprove of enforcers in the NHL, which I don't -- which I like to think I've made very clear on numerous occasions.

So, basically, your argument has nothing. It's basically just you running around calling people names like a little brat.

But hey, if it fills you with pride....

Pro-enforcer people believe the Wings should have an enforcer. Anti-enforcer people believe the Wings don't need or shouldn't have an enforcer.

What's so hard to figure out about that? You're basically so concerned about the intricacies of your posts, that you're too far in the forest to see the trees of your own position.

Are you saying that you're not against enforcers in the NHL but that you're against the Wings needing one? That doesn't make any sense if you're a Wings fan.

I guess we have a different definition of anti-enforcer, which is why I suggested we don't argue about this anymore. It's your call really on where this continues.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

The players i like, are the players you HATE

Lilja,Kopecky and Maltby my fave 3.

I hate Lilja?

[Doggy 130]

You're just a little thick aren't ya GMR?

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

You're just a little thick aren't ya GMR?

No, just jaded from arguing with hypocrites.

Everyone is saying that they're not anti-enforcer, and then they make half page posts about how the Wings don't need one, or that we shouldn't have one because we just won the Cup, even though both Downey and McCarty are enforcers who are both part of this team.

If you don't think the Wings need an enforcer, then you're anti-enforcer. How f***ing hard is that to comprehend?

[dobbles 252]

it shouldn't be that hard to understand. you don't have to be anti-enforcer to think that we can (and have) won without them. remember, goals win games, not fights...

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

it shouldn't be that hard to understand. you don't have to be anti-enforcer to think that we can (and have) won without them. remember, goals win games, not fights...

Pro-enforcer posters are those who want an enforcer on the team, and believe that there is a place for one on the team as well as some need for it. I have explained this several times now.

Anti-enforcer posters think otherwise in at least one of those areas.

To me, if you're pro-enforcer, then you'd be pushing for the Wings to have an enforcer like I've been doing. Sorry if I've offended all the esteemed geniuses here who don't like to be called out for their hypocrisy.

BTW, you just made the mistake of saying that we won without an enforcer. We've had one on the roster for all 4 Cups. Maybe they didn't win the Conn Smythe, but they were still part of the team. Thanks for playing.

[Doggy 130]

Pro-enforcer posters are those who want an enforcer on the team, and believe that there is a place for one on the team as well as some need for it. I have explained this several times now.

Anti-enforcer posters think otherwise in at least one of those areas.

To me, if you're pro-enforcer, then you'd be pushing for the Wings to have an enforcer like I've been doing. Sorry if I've offended all the esteemed geniuses here who don't like to be called out for their hypocrisy.

BTW, you just made the mistake of saying that we won without an enforcer. We've had one on the roster for all 4 Cups. Maybe they didn't win the Conn Smythe, but they were still part of the team. Thanks for playing.

Well I guess I am pro-enforcer because I said we should sign one as a 14th or 15th forward. That is 'on the roster'. You have no idea what you're on about anymore. You're just arguing for the sake of it, and very poorly too. It's like you learnt a new word and now can't stop saying hypocrisy. In context, out of context. Doesn't matter.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed but keep tryin'.

[dobbles 252]

Pro-enforcer posters are those who want an enforcer on the team, and believe that there is a place for one on the team as well as some need for it. I have explained this several times now.

Anti-enforcer posters think otherwise in at least one of those areas.

To me, if you're pro-enforcer, then you'd be pushing for the Wings to have an enforcer like I've been doing. Sorry if I've offended all the esteemed geniuses here who don't like to be called out for their hypocrisy.

BTW, you just made the mistake of saying that we won without an enforcer. We've had one on the roster for all 4 Cups. Maybe they didn't win the Conn Smythe, but they were still part of the team. Thanks for playing.

yeah, like in 02 when mccarty had a whole 7 fights... real tough enforcer there... mccarty was a good grinder and physical player, but not exactly someone feared around the league.

and your definition of pro enforcer is just stupid.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Well I guess I am pro-enforcer because I said we should sign one as a 14th or 15th forward. That is 'on the roster'. You have no idea what you're on about anymore. You're just arguing for the sake of it, and very poorly too. It's like you learnt a new word and now can't stop saying hypocrisy. In context, out of context. Doesn't matter.

You're not the sharpest tool in the shed but keep tryin'.

Go get your shinebox.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

yeah, like in 02 when mccarty had a whole 7 fights... real tough enforcer there... mccarty was a good grinder and physical player, but not exactly someone feared around the league.

and your definition of pro enforcer is just stupid.

He was still an enforcer no matter how many fights he had in 2002.

Sorry if you don't like my definition, but it is my definition and not anyone else's. I'm not trying to cater to every idiot who happens to dislike my view on enforcers. I'm just tired of people who contradict themselves and then call me out for it.

[Doggy 130]

Go get your shinebox.

That's it??

I kinda feel bad now. Arguing with you is like kicking a chicken.

[dobbles 252]

He was still an enforcer no matter how many fights he had in 2002.

Sorry if you don't like my definition, but it is my definition and not anyone else's. I'm not trying to cater to every idiot who happens to dislike my view on enforcers. I'm just tired of people who contradict themselves and then call me out for it.

yeah it just so happens that everyone else in these threads disagrees with you, and no one seems to share your opinions...

the only reason you think these people contradict themselves is your f-ed up definitions.

and mccarty was NOT an enforcer.

Edited August 13, 2008 by dobbles

[GoWings1905 2,694]

No, just jaded from arguing with hypocrites.

Everyone is saying that they're not anti-enforcer, and then they make half page posts about how the Wings don't need one, or that we shouldn't have one because we just won the Cup, even though both Downey and McCarty are enforcers who are both part of this team.

If you don't think the Wings need an enforcer, then you're anti-enforcer. How f***ing hard is that to comprehend?

Just a thought: maybe us "anti-enforcers" are labeled that by yourself because you perceive us to underestimate the role of enforcers, when in fact you probably overvalue enforcers. There can be a middle ground on the subject, which thankfully the Red Wings organization has taken. It doesn't have to get blown out of proportion by unfairly labeling people broad generalizations that aren't in most instances even true.

Edited August 13, 2008 by GoWings1905

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

That's it??

I kinda feel bad now. Arguing with you is like kicking a chicken.

I'm too tired to argue with anyone else. Too much has gone around already. You should have jumped in earlier with your insult.

yeah it just so happens that everyone else in these threads disagrees with you, and no one seems to share your opinions...

the only reason you think these people contradict themselves is your f-ed up definitions.

and mccarty was NOT an enforcer.

Many pro-fighting posters just aren't here anymore on LGW.

Also, Mac was an enforcer in 2002. He wasn't a top heavy, but he wasn't a middleweight either. But then again, since you seem to know so much about who is and isn't an enforcer, educate me as to why Mac wasn't an enforcer in 02.

BTW, who in the hell are you? Have I argued with you before?

Just a thought: maybe us "anti-enforcers" are labeled that by yourself because you perceive us to underestimate the role of enforcers, when in fact you probably overvalue enforcers. There can be a middle ground on the subject, which thankfully the Red Wings organization has taken. It doesn't have to get blown out of proportion by unfairly labeling people broad generalizations that aren't in most instances even true.

Perhaps, like I said it's my definition of pro and anti-enforcers. I'm not here to make everyone love GMR and agree with him all of a sudden. I'm just stating my opinion on your positions much like you're stating your opinions of mine.

Edited August 13, 2008 by GMRwings1983

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

No, just jaded from arguing with hypocrites.

Everyone is saying that they're not anti-enforcer, and then they make half page posts about how the Wings don't need one, or that we shouldn't have one because we just won the Cup, even though both Downey and McCarty are enforcers who are both part of this team.

If you don't think the Wings need an enforcer, then you're anti-enforcer. How f***ing hard is that to comprehend?

As others have already pointed out to you, just because they might prefer other parts of the game more over enforcing, doesn't make them completely against enforcing, or hypocrites. It isn't an all or nothing proposition or either "You are completely with me" or "You are my enemy" comparison. It's not as narrow-minded as black and white as you are making it out to be, there is a grey area.

Either you are failing to see this, or you do see this and are just pushing people's buttons.

For instance, I can say that I think having a very good goaltending is very important compared to having talented offensive snipers, or big stay-at-home defensemen, or puck-moving defensemen, or an enforcer or two, or a myriad of other things important to a hockey team.

So, say you have 10 criteria to the importance of a hockey team. Enforcing is one of those things, along with any other 9 things you choose. I say that enforcers are the 7th most important thing on that list. I'll say implementing the umberall style on the power play is the 10th most important thing.

Does that mean I am 100% completely against enforcers or enforcement then? That I value an enforcer less than the umbrella style?

[Dabura 12,232]

Pro-enforcer people believe the Wings should have an enforcer. Anti-enforcer people believe the Wings don't need or shouldn't have an enforcer.

What's so hard to figure out about that? You're basically so concerned about the intricacies of your posts, that you're too far in the forest to see the trees of your own position.

Are you saying that you're not against enforcers in the NHL but that you're against the Wings needing one?

What. are. you. smoking?

At what point have I ever said, "I don't think the Wings should carry any enforcers in their system ever again"?

Answer: At no point have I said anything resembling that. What I've done is acknowledge the general value of enforcers while at the same pointing out the fact that the Wings, relative to most other clubs, don't put much stock in fighters and have the success to prove that fighting need not be an essential part of their system. Then you spout off your typical bulls*** about how fighting is not only an essential part of the Wings' system, but also something the Wings "need" to do more of. Every time you're asked to cite strong evidence to support this claim that the Wings "need" to fight more and get tougher, you can't do it, and you end up in the hole you're in now, twisting people's words and pulling ideas straight out of your ass in some attempt to save face.

Give it up already.

[dobbles 252]

Many pro-fighting posters just aren't here anymore on LGW.

Also, Mac was an enforcer in 2002. He wasn't a top heavy, but he wasn't a middleweight either. But then again, since you seem to know so much about who is and isn't an enforcer, educate me as to why Mac wasn't an enforcer in 02.

BTW, who in the hell are you? Have I argued with you before?

i am just a red wings fan that mostly lurks on this board. i have no idea who you are and can't say i have ever seen your user name before. but when reading this thread it became pretty obvious that you really just wanted to be a troll.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

As others have already pointed out to you, just because they might prefer other parts of the game more over enforcing, doesn't make them completely against enforcing, or hypocrites. It isn't an all or nothing proposition or either "You are completely with me" or "You are my enemy" comparison. It's not as narrow-minded as black and white as you are making it out to be, there is a grey area.

Either you are failing to see this, or you do see this and are just pushing people's buttons.

For instance, I can say that I think having a very good goaltending is very important compared to having talented offensive snipers, or big stay-at-home defensemen, or puck-moving defensemen, or an enforcer or two, or a myriad of other things important to a hockey team.

So, say you have 10 criteria to the importance of a hockey team. Enforcing is one of those things, along with any other 9 things you choose. I say that enforcers are the 7th most important thing on that list. I'll say implementing the umberall style on the power play is the 10th most important thing.

Does that mean I am 100% completely against enforcers or enforcement then? That I value an enforcer less than the umbrella style?

Decent post.

As I sort of stated in my last post, it all comes down to a disagreement over what we define as being anti-enforcer. Your definition is more flexible, while my opinion is more cut and dry. I'm generally an extremist on either one side or another. Never down the middle. Maybe it's because I've spent time on other forums where the word enforcer means something different than it does on LGW.

Anyway, I think it's time for this post to get closed, because there's no more use in arguing over what a certain phrase means to someone as opposed to others.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

Perhaps, like I said it's my definition of pro and anti-enforcers. I'm not here to make everyone love GMR and agree with him all of a sudden. I'm just stating my opinion on your positions much like you're stating your opinions of mine.

That's fair enough. I respect your opinion - I just don't think it's fair that you label everyone that disagrees as "anti-enforcer." Maybe there are people in this debate where the term applies, but it certainly doesn't hold true in most cases.

I'm not anti-enforcer. I appreciate and love what Downey and Mac bring to the Red Wings. I'll leave it at that for the sake of the thread.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

What. are. you. smoking?

At what point have I ever said, "I don't think the Wings should carry any enforcers in their system ever again"?

Answer: At no point have I said anything resembling that. What I've done is acknowledge the general value of enforcers while at the same pointing out the fact that the Wings, relative to most other clubs, don't put much stock in fighters and have the success to prove that fighting need not be an essential part of their system. Then you spout off your typical bulls*** about how fighting is not only an essential part of the Wings' system, but also something the Wings "need" to do more of. Every time you're asked to cite strong evidence to support this claim that the Wings "need" to fight more and get tougher, you can't do it, and you end up in the hole you're in now, twisting people's words and pulling ideas straight out of your ass in some attempt to save face.

Give it up already.

Give what up?

You're the one twisting posts. I never said we need to fight to win. Also, I never said that fighting is an essential part of the Wings system. Of course it's not, or else we wouldn't be having this debate. Why would I have to back that up with proof, if I never said it?

You're contradicting everything I say, and yet accusing me of it. Now who's a hypocrite?

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

That's fair enough. I respect your opinion - I just don't think it's fair that you label everyone that disagrees as "anti-enforcer." Maybe there are people in this debate where the term applies, but it certainly doesn't hold true in most cases.

I'm not anti-enforcer. I appreciate and love what Downey and Mac bring to the Red Wings. I'll leave it at that for the sake of the thread.

Fair enough. I don't remember ever labeling your personally as anti-enforcer, but if I did, I apologize.

[Dabura 12,232]

it all comes down to a disagreement over what we define as being anti-enforcer.

No, it all comes down to you being close-minded. The definition of "anti-enforcer" is ostensibly obvious: it's being against enforcers. Your shortcomings in arguments like these do not owe to a misunderstanding of that term, as anyone with half a brain knows there can only be one real definition, or two if you distinguish between a league-wide context and an organizational one (i.e. The Detroit Red Wings Vs. The Philadelphia Flyers). None of the people you're arguing with are anti-enforcer (i.e. against enforcers) in either of the aforementioned contexts. So, again, the term is not the problem -- not for the people you're arguing with, at least.

[Dabura 12,232]

You're the one twisting posts. I never said we need to fight to win. Also, I never said that fighting is an essential part of the Wings system.

You have, on numerous occasions, called this team "soft," and said that "everyone around the league knows it," and argued that this team "needs" to "fight more" and "get tougher" and "send messages."

You're trying for a copout concession. Ideally, I'd rather not see that, so that the next time we have a thread like this, you won't pop back in with the same tired, inane arguments.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

You have, on numerous occasions, called this team "soft," and said that "everyone around the league knows it," and argued that this team "needs" to "fight more" and "get tougher" and "send messages."

You're trying for a copout concession. Ideally, I'd rather not see that, so that the next time we have a thread like this, you won't pop back in with the same tired, inane arguments.

Ah, there you go again.

I never stated that we needed to fight to win. You just brought up the idea of my talking about sending messages and getting tougher, which I have indeed talked about. However, I never said that any of that was necessary in order to win. As I've said before, there's more to pride than winning.

I think you just can't find any instance of me saying that we needed to fight to win games, so now you're making petty excuses and trying to put words into my mouth as you say I'm doing to others. Show me some proof, Dabura, or else you're a hypocrite in more than one way.

It sounds like you want to continue misquoting me to continue the thread, even though I've stated that I think it should already be closed. What are you trying to accomplish at this point?

Edited August 14, 2008 by GMRwings1983