Chelios, Downey, McCarty, and Quincey

[Heaton 1]

They outperformed us in the clutch.

Sure did. Their defense and offense was more consistent during that series and in the end it was the difference.

There's no such thing as sending a message during the playoffs, especially in a situation like Game 5 during the Calgary series. The series was basically over and the Flames knew it so they decided to act like idiots and in the end it wasn't anything more than hair pulling.

The Holmstrom hit by Pronger and Niedermayer is another thing but in the end while it could've been worse it really wasn't. When it gets down to the late rounds in the late games especially when you don't have any reserves left the idea of either playing someone who can only play 2-3 minutes isn't smart and having someone who can actually play sit in the box is detrimental.

Same thing for the regular season, while the Wings will have one or both of Downey and McCarty for the most part the teams who may want to goonn it up are larely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The Wings will have guys who can answer but the bubble has burst on the myth that if you try and intimidate the Wings physically it'll work, because it hasn't.

Anyway, another fun thread. I'll say it lasts one and a half more pages.

[Doc Holiday 0]

They don't just punish them after the fact, people are aware of the consequences and it changes the way they act... you say you go 10 over the speed limit, so does everyone else, if cops were non-existent you'd see people going 50 over the limit constantly, a drag race at every street light.

Lappy hit Lidstrom with Downey in the line up, yes... but that's probably the only significant incident that happened all year that's worth mentioning, a big change from last year and the year before... The world isn't perfect with cops and the game of hockey isn't perfect with enforcers, but they both help the cause dramatically.

I would think because of the referrees that people don't run players consistently. Downey himself got run at during that game, so I don't see what deterred the Avalanche then, and I don't see how having an enforcer will deter players now.

Enforcers aren't vital to a team's success, but I would prefer to have one regardless, because of the entertainment and enforcers know how to avenge their players. That doesn't mean that I think if we don't have one our team is going to be jumped and cheapshotted and run at like there's no tomorrow.

[Opie 308]

They don't just punish them after the fact, people are aware of the consequences and it changes the way they act... you say you go 10 over the speed limit, so does everyone else, if cops were non-existent you'd see people going 50 over the limit constantly, a drag race at every street light.

Lappy hit Lidstrom with Downey in the line up, yes... but that's probably the only significant incident that happened all year that's worth mentioning, a big change from last year and the year before... The world isn't perfect with cops and the game of hockey isn't perfect with enforcers, but they both help the cause dramatically.

I never said they didn't help, you are taking my statement/analogy way out of context. Would you please read the thread or my whole post, all I said was that like law enforcement officers, hockey enforcers are not going to stop certain people's actions! That was spelled out in the first thread when I said that certain players will think a punch in the face is enough to deter them, however they are not the people that we are talking about right now. What we are talking about is the fact that having any enforcer is not going to stop Chris Simon, Steve Downie, or Jessie Boulerice. I didn't say that having an enforcer doesn't stop Joe Sakic from being a cheapshot artist. You are trying to apply my analogy across a broad spectrum when in the first post I said IT WON'T STOP A CRIMINAL, Which is proven by the fact that we have law enforcement and still have career criminals and people who end up needing a 3 strikes law. What is so difficult to understand about that, did any of you take the SATs and know what an anology is?

I never said get rid of enforcers or cops because they do no good, I said there are certain people that they will not deter from doing what they want!

Ok enough of that crap, give me a specific example, like I did with Lappy, that says not having an enforcer in the line up allowed some one to get cheapshotted in a way that impacted the game or prevented the Wings from winning the cup?

Lets look at the last 3 playoff years

Last season, well what is there to say!

06-07, Calgary resorted to spearing players with their back up netminder, who was lost for the playoffs due to that?

If I remember correctly even in the ANA series, Homer came back from the dirty hit the next period, so how did the rough tough stuff stop the wings, because homer scored a point in that game after coming back.

05-06, What team beat the wings out of the playoffs other than the Wings themselves? Did the Oil beat the wings up?

You are putting me in this "anti-enforcer" mold instead of reading what I am writing, I am all for the Wings carrying a fighter to get retribution, I just was clarifying that an enforcer will not stop certain players from doing what they want!

Does it stop a guy like Ott in Dallas yes because he does not play the malicious game, he like Drake before him played on the edge of clean and dirty, it may prevent them from taking a run in a game where a big time enforcer is in the line up and it may allow Drake to take a run a Lebda (there I came up with one incident in the last 3 years ) because the Wings dress no one, but what did the loss of Lebda hurt.

Much like a cop prevents you or I from robbing a bank, but it doesn't stop some people, hence why there are still bank robberies!

And to your rebuttal of what if that is Lids? Well honestly, that hit doesn't happen against Lids, Ralf, Stuart, Dats, Z, Hossa and others because Lebda was behind the net checking his skate laces and not looking for Drake.

[55fan 5,133]

In terms of prevention, enforcers are like condoms. You can use a condom 82 times in a year (not the same one with the condoms, of course), and you have no idea what it prevented. You just know that the fact that you are wearing one means that your chances are much more in your favour. You feel safer with one. Maybe nothing would have happened, but you don't know how many times something bad was prevented, so you keep using one.

Like condoms, enforcers don't prevent everything, and they can't undo the bad things that happen, but when is the last time a condom went out and beat up the guy who gave you gonorrhea?

ETA: I just realized that I have been mixing gender perspective. Please edit to fit your gender and preferrence. Thank you.

Edited August 7, 2008 by 55fan

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

In terms of prevention, enforcers are like condoms. You can use a condom 82 times in a year (not the same one with the condoms, of course), and you have no idea what it prevented. You just know that the fact that you are wearing one means that your chances are much more in your favour. You feel safer with one. Maybe nothing would have happened, but you don't know how many times something bad was prevented, so you keep using one.

Like condoms, enforcers don't prevent everything, and they can't undo the bad things that happen, but when is the last time a condom went out and beat up the guy who gave you gonorrhea?

ETA: I just realized that I have been mixing gender perspective. Please edit to fit your gender and preferrence. Thank you.

I guess Lilja is the equivalent of an extra-large condom.

[Yzerfan1999 81]

I guess Lilja is the equivalent of an extra-large condom.

You mean a condom with a hole in it?

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

In terms of prevention, enforcers are like condoms. You can use a condom 82 times in a year (not the same one with the condoms, of course), and you have no idea what it prevented. You just know that the fact that you are wearing one means that your chances are much more in your favour. You feel safer with one. Maybe nothing would have happened, but you don't know how many times something bad was prevented, so you keep using one.

Like condoms, enforcers don't prevent everything, and they can't undo the bad things that happen, but when is the last time a condom went out and beat up the guy who gave you gonorrhea?

ETA: I just realized that I have been mixing gender perspective. Please edit to fit your gender and preferrence. Thank you.

By some miracle, I did not spit the wine I am drinking all over my laptop, cause that was damned funny.

In terms of getting revenge from the guy giving you gonorrhea, a condom can be a pretty good weapon if you can get a good punch or kick on him first. If you are fortunate enough to take him down, grab one of his arms, open up the condom as wide as you can, and just snap it on his arm! Remember the movie 40-Year Old Virgin? All right I'm gonna stop before I lose all my dignity.

Seriously in terms of enforcers, it's the same thing over and over again in here. Many understand and appreciate their value to a team and pretty much open to having such a player around, but a lot vary on their degree of importance compared to other parts of the game, and realize they do not prevent cheap things and the like from happening. Unfortuantely that means the few ultra-enforcer slappies in here misinterpret a lot of that and think just because some might not think it is as important to a team winning compared to other things or whatever else, that means we want a "soft" team or think ZOMG WE'RE GOING TO GET OUR BUTTS KICKED EVERY NIGHT. It is very narrow-minded in terms of judging how a team is tough or soft.

Enforcers do not prevent the 1st cheap shot or two from happening.

Enforcers may (but may not as well) prevent a 3rd/4th/5th cheap shot from happening in a game.

Enforcers do not magically prevent injuries.

Enforcers answer cheap shots with a big hit or a fight.

Enforcers do have a place on a team and are not worthless pieces of scrubs.

In terms of Detroit winning the Stanley Cup, enforcing was probably the 74th reason out of 100 why they won the Cup.

Detroit address the pushing around issue by getting Aaron Downey last season, an "enforcer" to some degree.

Downey and/or McCarty will be back next season in all likelihood, so the Wings will have somebody to possibly answer cheap shots.

Detroit is not a soft team.

Detroit is not a soft team just because they don't fight as much.

Detroit is not a soft team because they might not just want to beat the s**t out of people constantly after a dead whistle or scrum.

Detroit was not a soft team the year before getting Aaron Downey.

I like the prescence of an enforcer type but am not going to freak out or lose sleep if Detroit doesn't have a true enforcer b/c they will be making the playoffs regardless.

End of story on the enforcement issue for me, as well as the enforcer-condom comparison.

[Opie 308]

In terms of prevention, enforcers are like condoms. You can use a condom 82 times in a year (not the same one with the condoms, of course), and you have no idea what it prevented. You just know that the fact that you are wearing one means that your chances are much more in your favour. You feel safer with one. Maybe nothing would have happened, but you don't know how many times something bad was prevented, so you keep using one.

Like condoms, enforcers don't prevent everything, and they can't undo the bad things that happen, but when is the last time a condom went out and beat up the guy who gave you gonorrhea?

ETA: I just realized that I have been mixing gender perspective. Please edit to fit your gender and preferrence. Thank you.

Best post on this board EVER!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Dump-N-Thump]

Enforcers and Condoms doo go hand and hand after all!!

[Aeothe Kaear 0]

In terms of prevention, enforcers are like condoms.

Except enforcers don't make hockey less enjoyable

[55fan 5,133]

Except enforcers don't make hockey less enjoyable

And they generally don't come in multiples of 3, although that would be cool in the Cap Era.

[Dominator2005 558]

I guess Lilja is the equivalent of an extra-large condom.

Lilja is condom and Sammy is a dick...

[stud_defenseman 1]

One question:

By Signing a player to a 2-way contract does he take up a roster spot. If this is true then how does it make sense to sign both McCarty and Downey (and possibly even Cheli) to 2-way contracts if they are all going to take up a valuable roster spot. We would have to move guys, not only to stay under the cap, but to remain at 23 guys. At the moment we have 20

Datsyuk

Hossa

Zetterberg

Holmstrom

Franzen

Cleary

Filppula

Samuelsson

Hudler

Draper

Maltby

Kopecky (Helm can play in GR)

Lidstrom

Rafalski

Kronwall

Stuart

Lilja

Lebda (Ericsson and Meech can play in GR)

Osgood

Conklin

So if they really want to sign Quincey, Cheli, McCarty, Downey something has gotta give.

I would simply wait to see whether D-Mac or Downey accepts the 2-way offer and then tell the other one too bad you missed your chance.

I don't know what the hell they are going to do about Quincey and Cheli. You can sign Cheli to a league minimum and he can sit in the press box for half the games. With Quincey it makes no sense to sign a decent young player like that and then make him sit for half the games, and since GR is not an option with waivers that would be what he would have to do. One of Lilja or Lebda would have to be traded. Lebda makes like nothing so it wouldn't make sense to move him when we are right up against the cap. Lilja was JUST signed to a contract so that wouldn't exactly be good sense to move him.

Solution to this whole mess: Sign D-Mac OR Downey to a 2-way contract. Sign Cheli for league minimum. Let Quincey go, we have tons of defensemen.

What could we even get for Lilja anyways, a 3rd or 4th round draft pick? So basically we would be trading Lilja for Quincey and a 4th round pick. Doesn't seem to be that great of a benefit for possibly making your team less welcome towards FA's.

We now have a 22 man roster with guys like Helm, Meech, Ericsson to back us up if we hit some injuries.

[Dabura 12,232]

That's not a message. Other teams already know the Wings are skilled. In fact, that's the worst thing we can do, because it's basically like saying, "we won't fight back". That's what I think teams assume about the Wings already. That mindset has to be changed around in my mind.

Also, if it happens in the regular season, which is where fighting usually occurs, the whole "tee time" reference isn't going to work.

Nothing has to be changed around in the fighting department -- you're just trigger-happy is all. The Wings have a winning system that entails not giving in every time some jackass tries to goad them into a brawl, and fighting only when it's truly necessary. It works because, contrary to what you seem to believe, the late brawls we're talking about aren't clear-cut cases of "Respond = Good, Walk away = Bad." In those kinds of blowout games, the opposition wants the Wings to fight so they can steal some momentum/bragging rights and possibly do a number on someone. In the interest of not risking giving the opposition any momentum/bragging rights and not risking someone getting, say, a concussion, the Wings do the right thing in just skating away.

I don't know, maybe this is just a maturity issue with you. In any case, what you have to understand is that "DUDE THEY WON'T RESPECT US IF WE DON'T FIGHT. FIGHTING PROVES WE'RE TOUGH YO" doesn't really fly in the Wings' system. They fight when they need to fight, and don't when they don't need to, and they're all the better for it.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

Nothing has to be changed around in the fighting department -- you're just trigger-happy is all. The Wings have a winning system that entails not giving in every time some jackass tries to goad them into a brawl, and fighting only when it's truly necessary. It works because, contrary to what you seem to believe, the late brawls we're talking about aren't clear-cut cases of "Respond = Good, Walk away = Bad." In those kinds of blowout games, the opposition wants the Wings to fight so they can steal some momentum/bragging rights and possibly do a number on someone. In the interest of not risking giving the opposition any momentum/bragging rights and not risking someone getting, say, a concussion, the Wings do the right thing in just skating away.

I don't know, maybe this is just a maturity issue with you. In any case, what you have to understand is that "DUDE THEY WON'T RESPECT US IF WE DON'T FIGHT. FIGHTING PROVES WE'RE TOUGH YO" doesn't really fly in the Wings' system. They fight when they need to fight, and don't when they don't need to, and they're all the better for it.

What does maturity have anything to do with it? Fighting back has nothing to do with maturity or lack thereof, it's just a natural reaction.

And I understand perfectly what the Wings mindset is. There's no reason for you to have to explain it to me. I just don't see how having more fights will have any effect on our system one way or another.

[chrisdetroit 189]

Lilja is condom and Sammy is a dick...

This is what we've come to. Jesus Christ, when are they going to drop the puck? This is like dying a slow death.

[Doggy 130]

One question:

By Signing a player to a 2-way contract does he take up a roster spot. If this is true then how does it make sense to sign both McCarty and Downey (and possibly even Cheli) to 2-way contracts if they are all going to take up a valuable roster spot. We would have to move guys, not only to stay under the cap, but to remain at 23 guys. At the moment we have 20

By take up a roster spot - are you asking if his salary counts against the cap? His salary only counts against the cap if he is on the active roster. If we sign Downey or McCarty they'll still have to clear waivers to be sent to GR and not be on the active roster.

You solution makes sense to me. It'd be nice if we could get something for Quincey though.

[Dabura 12,232]

What does maturity have anything to do with it?

In your case, it has everything to do with it. You like to argue that the Wings "need to fight more" because "everyone sees them as soft" and "it's important to send a message," and so on and so forth. Those are garbage points, ones you're more likely to hear from an 8-year-old than you are from Mike Babcock or Nick Lidstrom. You say you "understand perfectly what the Wings' mindset is," but then you go on to say, "I just don't see how having more fights will have any effect on our system one way or another," so you obviously don't "perfectly understand."

Fighting is a borderline nonexistent part of the Wings' game. Every time someone tries to goad them into fighting, what they're really doing is trying to get the Wings off their game (which is, bottom line, about scoring more goals than the opposition and promptly getting off the ice). Teams have learned that they can't outright physically dominate this Wings team, and they sure as hell know beating them on the scoreboard is a monumental task. So, what they do is try for the cheap victories, e.g. getting in the Wings' heads, getting under their skin, maybe doing a number on one of them in a brawl while no one's looking. Instead of feeding into that crap, the Wings (usually) ignore it, because if it means throwing themselves off their game and possibly giving the other team a boost, it's absolutely not worth it, especially in the playoffs. You say that's a sign of weakness -- quite the opposite; it's a confirmation of dominance.

When Iginla was losing it late in those games back in the 06-07 series, it wasn't just because of the scoreboard -- he knew his team was also being beaten physically (and they were), and that that was downright unacceptable for those Big, Bad Flames. So he tried to stir s*** up. But instead of giving him and his team something to rally behind ("YEAH WE LOST, BUT AT LAST I BROKE ZETTERBERG'S NOSE"), the Wings closed the door on the one kind of victory the Flames could have taken away in those late-game situations, leaving them sitting in their lock room stalls contemplating the impossibly dark reality that they can't beat this team on the scoreboard, in the physical contests, or even through sheer goonery. That's all kinds of demoralizing, and it did nothing but work in the Wings' favor. If Iginla wants to tell his golfing buddies, "Man, those Wings, they don't respond to thugs. They're so soft," let him.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

In your case, it has everything to do with it. You like to argue that the Wings "need to fight more" because "everyone sees them as soft" and "it's important to send a message," and so on and so forth. Those are garbage points, ones you're more likely to hear from an 8-year-old than you are from Mike Babcock or Nick Lidstrom. You say you "understand perfectly what the Wings' mindset is," but then you go on to say, "I just don't see how having more fights will have any effect on our system one way or another," so you obviously don't "perfectly understand."

Fighting is a borderline nonexistent part of the Wings' game. Every time someone tries to goad them into fighting, what they're really doing is trying to get the Wings off their game (which is, bottom line, about scoring more goals than the opposition and promptly getting off the ice). Teams have learned that they can't outright physically dominate this Wings team, and they sure as hell know beating them on the scoreboard is a monumental task. So, what they do is try for the cheap victories, e.g. getting in the Wings' heads, getting under their skin, maybe doing a number on one of them in a brawl while no one's looking. Instead of feeding into that crap, the Wings (usually) ignore it, because if it means throwing themselves off their game and possibly giving the other team a boost, it's absolutely not worth it, especially in the playoffs. You say that's a sign of weakness -- quite the opposite; it's a confirmation of dominance.

When Iginla was losing it late in those games back in the 06-07 series, it wasn't just because of the scoreboard -- he knew his team was also being beaten physically (and they were), and that that was downright unacceptable for those Big, Bad Flames. So he tried to stir s*** up. But instead of giving him and his team something to rally behind ("YEAH WE LOST, BUT AT LAST I BROKE ZETTERBERG'S NOSE"), the Wings closed the door on the one kind of victory the Flames could have taken away in those late-game situations, leaving them sitting in their lock room stalls contemplating the impossibly dark reality that they can't beat this team on the scoreboard, in the physical contests, or even through sheer goonery. That's all kinds of demoralizing, and it did nothing but work in the Wings' favor. If Iginla wants to tell his golfing buddies, "Man, those Wings, they don't respond to thugs. They're so soft," let him.

Oh, brother. I guess there's a lot of 8 year olds around the league then, because hockey has always had retribution as a part of the game. You make it sound like I'm the only one who thinks this way. I might be one of the few on LGW, but that's only because many people here have bought into the "no fighting" system the Wings have had for years. Fans around the league don't look at hockey as needing to be as soft as you do.

In fact, your post looks like something written by a guy who's been a fan of a team that finishes last in the league every year in fighting majors. You're just justifying that part of the Wings system. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't have to be so self-righteous about it and start talking about maturity and stupid s*** like that.

[Heaton 1]

but that's only because many people here have bought into the "no fighting" system the Wings have had for years. Fans around the league don't look at hockey as needing to be as soft as you do.

Nope, wrong again. People buy into the Wings system, singular. If the Wings had zero fights all year and win the cup that's exactly what I'd want. I want the Wings to win the cup every year, I don't care how it happens. 50 fights, 100 fights or 0 fights, I want my team to be as successful every single season and be the epitome of what every other team strives to be every year. That's how it's gone for 15+ years now, the Wings are ahead of the game. Sure there's the cliches of there's more than one way to skin a cat, but the Wings system is what every fan wants their team to be but rarely can any team achieve it. Anaheim is having a nice little run but their "glory days" will be over quickly because of the way their team is set up in the long run.

Fighting has it's place in the game, fighting has it's place on every team including the Wings. But the Wings job is to win games, it isn't to entertain. It's not Ken Holland or Mike Babcock's job to entertain the fans. On that same note, yes the majority of fans love fights, I'm right there with you. But on the totem poll of importance in the big picture in terms of what matters most and whether or not it leaves a void if there weren't more fights during the year after my team wins the cup, I couldn't care less.

[uk_redwing 495]

But the Wings job is to win games, it isn't to entertain.

If the wings dont entertain, people dont watch, wings go bust.

Saying they dont need to entertain is saying the league can survive without fans.

[Heaton 1]

If the wings dont entertain, people dont watch, wings go bust.

Saying they dont need to entertain is saying the league can survive without fans.

It goes hand in hand. Winning is entertainment.

[norrisnick 1]

Oh, brother. I guess there's a lot of 8 year olds around the league then, because hockey has always had retribution as a part of the game. You make it sound like I'm the only one who thinks this way. I might be one of the few on LGW, but that's only because many people here have bought into the "no fighting" system the Wings have had for years. Fans around the league don't look at hockey as needing to be as soft as you do.

In fact, your post looks like something written by a guy who's been a fan of a team that finishes last in the league every year in fighting majors. You're just justifying that part of the Wings system. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't have to be so self-righteous about it and start talking about maturity and stupid s*** like that.

What is there to justify? It's not like people are trying to justify being dead last in the PK. Fighting is irrelevant. You may as well be complaining that Kenny isn't signing enough guys that grow great big bushy beards, because playoff beards are cool.

[eva unit zero 271]

If the wings dont entertain, people dont watch, wings go bust.

Saying they dont need to entertain is saying the league can survive without fans.

The Wings could fight ten times a night, and lose, and I would be less entertained than I would be if they won without fighting.

Guess what? The majority agrees with me. The Wings have been hockey's most popular team for quite some time using the formula of Win>Fight rather than the previous formula of Fight>Win which resulted in having some great fighters and some terrible teams.

[GMRwings1983 8,803]

I guess some of you guys are actually convinced that if the Wings got into more fights, we wouldn't have as much success. Several of you have argued that point or danced around it in some way.

I can't agree that there's any correlation there. If Downey had 35 fights last year, we would have finished middle of the pack in fights, and would still have won the Cup.

I don't see the Wings system taking any hits if there's more fights.