Downey cleared waivers

[sagnam 0]

Which resulted in Downey pummeling Ian to the ice later that game. Lidstrom publicly stated afterwords that Downey is refreshing to have on the bench during the game. It makes his teammates feel more open on the ice.

Of course he said that. He's the leader on this team. What do you expect him to say? "Who's Downey? Is that the guy that only plays 5 minutes a game when he dresses and doesn't contribute anything except taking penalties?"

Also, are you going to totally eliminate injuries with an enforcer? Of course not sagnam, that's ignorant to elude to. However, will you minimize some or deter others? Absolutely.

That's a totally unfounded assertion. It's like me saying that if every team got rid of their goons and enforcers then injuries will be eliminated. It's ridiculous.

Downey needs to be on the bench against tough opponents. I'm not looking forward to watching us play the blues this year when Janssen and King are drilling opponents ever 5 minutes.

Yes, Downey needs to get 6 shift to stop all the Wings from getting run.

As a new member here, but longtime reader I am quite intrigued by the intelligent posters (there are some I could list) and very ignorant 'legends' as far as the game of hockey goes. As a person that had two relatives play pro hockey, myself a hockey player (former), and a season ticket holder in years past... I can't understand the failed understanding of the purpose of having an enforcer. No, not a goon, but an enforcer.

It's nice of you to share your "hockey" resume, but I ask, did you play in the NHL? My uncle's cousin's niece's mother's dad played hockey and he said that two goons slugging it out at center ice didn't really make anyone feels safer.

If you need to see 3 fights a game and some sloppy hockey, go to a Whalers game. The NHL has changed, and an enforcers role has been minimized significantly. Downey is being handled perfectly by this team.

[Opie 308]

Which resulted in Downey pummeling Ian to the ice later that game. Lidstrom publicly stated afterwords that Downey is refreshing to have on the bench during the game. It makes his teammates feel more open on the ice.

Also, are you going to totally eliminate injuries with an enforcer? Of course not sagnam, that's ignorant to elude to. However, will you minimize some or deter others? Absolutely.

Downey needs to be on the bench against tough opponents. I'm not looking forward to watching us play the blues this year when Janssen and King are drilling opponents ever 5 minutes.

As a new member here, but longtime reader I am quite intrigued by the intelligent posters (there are some I could list) and very ignorant 'legends' as far as the game of hockey goes. As a person that had two relatives play pro hockey, myself a hockey player (former), and a season ticket holder in years past... I can't understand the failed understanding of the purpose of having an enforcer. No, not a goon, but an enforcer.

Good day.

p.s. If my post count ever becomes higher than 100; please warn me that I have spent too much time away from my office job.

See I agree with you 100% and I am labeled as "anti-enforcer", very rarely is the "pro-enforcer" argument worded the way you have, normally it is the Wings are doomed because they have no enforcer. And when I reply, that it is not necessary to have one (which I believe it is not) their response is usually "we'll see if you feel the same way when Z or Dats get run!"

To be honest with you other than Lids (I believe that was a clean hit) when was the last time a Red Wing was flat out run, Drake on Lebda? My point being this team is very adept at missing checks, when was the last time anyone laid a solid hit on Dats?

The so called "Anti-Enforcers" are not saying (sorry at least from my point of view) that enforcers are horrible people or have no right being in the game. All we are saying is that this Wings team is built in a way that enforcers are not necessary. Not every team, Not even every Wings team, but this current roster plays a game that an enforcer is not necessary.

Would it help, sure, does it make the guys feel safer, I doubt it. They may like the feeling of knowing that some one is there to retaliate, but I don't think it makes Lids feels like he is less vulnerable. Plus what on earth do you expect the Captain of the Red Wings to say, No I hate Downey and wish he was on his parents farm, not going to happen.

I agree an enforcer will deter some things, or some players but not all.

I made this analogy and will make it again:

Enforcers are like police officers, they do not stop a criminal (cheapshot in hockey) from doing what they are going to do, they enforce the penalty. Now a police officer (enforcer) may stop you or I (Cleary or Stu Barnes) but will not stop all criminals (Downie or Boulerice). Some people will do what they want to do, those are the guys that you need to worry about running a Lids or Hank, Lappy's hit was clean IMO, it looked dirty because it was one of the few times in his career Lids has gotten tagged like that. Downey let Lappy know to be careful around Lids, I appreciate what he did and that was what turned my mind to believing he is the perfect fighter for this team.

All and all I think your post was spot on, I was just stating my opinion on the matter!!

[uk_redwing 495]

Downey was on the team last year, he is on the team this year.

He cleared waivers last year, he cleared waivers this year.

He played 53 games last year, he will most likely see 40 or so games again, if not him than Mac another enforcer.

So what exactly is the problem, why is it that we are talking like the team has no enforcer what so ever or that Downey has been cut?

First off, McCarty will never be an enforcer again. He can barely hang with MW's.

The difference this year is that Downey has actually been sent to GR, and people (myself included) think as Stanley Cup champions our star players are more vulnerable to being targetted...and its hard to see Downey playing many games this year. I'll be surprised if he plays more than 10.

I honestly think the wings management has gotten a little cocky that their team is so good at this turn the other cheek crap that thats all they need to do to avoid injuries. Time will tell.

Whilst I think we need an enforcer, maybe about 20 games in we'll be able to tell whats what. Till then, I'll hold my opinion and stay out of these arguments as theyre starting to bore/annoy me.

[Opie 308]

First off, McCarty will never be an enforcer again. He can barely hang with MW's.

The difference this year is that Downey has actually been sent to GR, and people (myself included) think as Stanley Cup champions our star players are more vulnerable to being targetted...and its hard to see Downey playing many games this year. I'll be surprised if he plays more than 10.

I honestly think the wings management has gotten a little cocky that their team is so good at this turn the other cheek crap that thats all they need to do to avoid injuries. Time will tell.

Whilst I think we need an enforcer, maybe about 20 games in we'll be able to tell whats what. Till then, I'll hold my opinion and stay out of these arguments as theyre starting to bore/annoy me.

Quincey is on the roster and will be traded, last year the wings had Downey and played him, this year they have downey and your fear is they won't play him based on what?

They have a roster situation that currently means they can not keep Downey OR they decided he doesn't fit on the roster, either way the only thing we can go on right now is speculation, you can speculate that Downey will not see a shift and I can speculate that he will play 40 games.

Last year Babs found a way to use him and be affective, Downey was able to be nothing more than a positive for every game he played.*

My thoughts, why would that change, well maybe the hit of flip, maybe the three penalties in the last pre season game, maybe he is just down until Mac can clear, other than speculation and guesses none of us know what will happen with Downey.

My guess, I agree with you, Mac is not an enforcer any more and due to that fact as soon as he can be sent down and Q is traded Downey will be the 13th forward, but at this time Holland sees the need to have Meech and Q up.

Have a little faith, Downey will play IMO, for the reasons of what he did in situations like Lids and Lappy!

*EDIT:

That was meant to be a compliment to Downey as he only brought positives (IMO) to the team when he did play. But I don't believe because he was on the team the Wings won, and that if he wasn't they would have lost.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Opie

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Opie, I agree with your post as well. I do realize the state of the game is changing; some for good, and some for the worse. An enforcer isn't entirely necessary I do agree; however, it is a qualified deterrent.

My issue of concern with the Red Wings, whom I am a huge fan of, always have been and always will be is as follows: The Wings have a general belief that puck control and finesse outweighs power and intimidation. This was proven to be successful last year obviously. However, since we don't have the Bertuzzi, Nash, Shanahan type forward on the roster (no, Franzen doesn't count), then we need to carry 1 overcompensation 'enforcer'.

Btw, nice board here, well put together and intelligent Wings posters (for the most part).

Sagnam, no I did not play in the NHL- my Aunt has the claim to fame of scoring the first professional female goal in the old Olympia stadium.

My Grandfather played professional hockey, not NHL, in New Brunswick. Does that make me an expert? Heck no, but on a message board it's a minor qualifying way to try to portray that hockey is in my blood.

[esteef 2,679]

See I agree with you 100% and I am labeled as "anti-enforcer", very rarely is the "pro-enforcer" argument worded the way you have, normally it is the Wings are doomed because they have no enforcer. And when I reply, that it is not necessary to have one (which I believe it is not) their response is usually "we'll see if you feel the same way when Z or Dats get run!" <--That's like every time a "pro-fighter" brings up the value of an enforcer/fighter, all they get is "There's no fighting in the playoffs!" or "Players still get run so fighters don't deter a damned thing!" comments. Both sides go off the deep end to try and prove thier points.

Would it help, sure, does it make the guys feel safer, I doubt it. They may like the feeling of knowing that some one is there to retaliate, but I don't think it makes Lids feels like he is less vulnerable. I think they DO feel safer. Not completely safe, but safer. Just having a guy like Downey on the bench means second tier douchebags will usually lay off, thereby opening up more space for star players on the ice. (and no there are no numbers to support this notion, intimidation is something you can't track with the scoreboard.)

I agree an enforcer will deter some things, or some players but not all. <-- Common ground right there!

I made this analogy and will make it again:

Enforcers are like police officers, they do not stop a criminal (cheapshot in hockey) from doing what they are going to do, they enforce the penalty. Now a police officer (enforcer) may stop you or I (Cleary or Stu Barnes) but will not stop all criminals (Downie or Boulerice). I agree here as well.

Really not trying to pick you out of the crowd but you make some good points here that I don't want to go unnoticed. See bolded above.

Cheers you "Anti-Fighter"!!

esteef

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Opie, I agree with your post as well. I do realize the state of the game is changing; some for good, and some for the worse. An enforcer isn't entirely necessary I do agree; however, it is a qualified deterrent.

My issue of concern with the Red Wings, whom I am a huge fan of, always have been and always will be is as follows: The Wings have a general belief that puck control and finesse outweighs power and intimidation. This was proven to be successful last year obviously. However, since we don't have the Bertuzzi, Nash, Shanahan type forward on the roster (no, Franzen doesn't count), then we need to carry 1 overcompensation 'enforcer'.

Btw, nice board here, well put together and intelligent Wings posters (for the most part).

Sagnam, no I did not play in the NHL- my Aunt has the claim to fame of scoring the first professional female goal in the old Olympia stadium.

My Grandfather played professional hockey, not NHL, in New Brunswick. Does that make me an expert? Heck no, but on a message board it's a minor qualifying way to try to portray that hockey is in my blood.

I disagree, with Bowman and Babcock the philosophy was/is about *hard work* first and foremost. Puck Control is a big part of it and finesse to a lesser extent (this one's tough to prove simply because the Wings have such a talented squad), but if you are the hardest working team out there and you have the lineup the Wings do while playing the puck-possession style they play, chances are you're going to be successful. I would agree that this team is more known for puck-possession and skill rather than power and intimidation, but Babs (like Bowman) has this team quickly becoming known as the hardest working team on the ice.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Attempting to fear the opponent is trumped by talent and determination. Every time. We don't need an enforecer to win hockey games.

I enjoy watching them play for the entertainment however...

[esteef 2,679]

Attempting to fear the opponent is trumped by talent and determination. Every time.

Simple as that huh? If that were true then the Wings would win the Cup every year. Intimidation works, whether you accept that fact or not. If it didn't, people wouldn't try to intimidate others. (See my sig) Just my two cents...

esteef

[Doc Holiday 0]

Simple as that huh? If that were true then the Wings would win the Cup every year. Intimidation works, whether you accept that fact or not. If it didn't, people wouldn't try to intimidate others. (See my sig) Just my two cents...

esteef

I don't think the Oilers beat us because we were intimidated. I don't think the Ducks beat us because we were intimidated. And intimidation isn't just having some 200 pound f***** who can punch you really hard. Top end talent facing you is a form of intimidation.

If you can prove those teams somehow made little Datsyuk (a guy who punched Gary Roberts) and Zetterberg so afraid they couldn't play, be my guest.

Otherwise, stop acting like not having an enforcer in the lineup is the end of this team.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Doc Holiday

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

I like Downey, I'm glad he cleared waivers

[esteef 2,679]

I don't think the Oilers beat us because we were intimidated. I don't think the Ducks beat us because we were intimidated. And intimidation isn't just having some 200 pound f***** who can punch you really hard. Top end talent facing you is a form of intimidation.

If you can prove those teams somehow made little Datsyuk (a guy who punched Gary Roberts) and Zetterberg so afraid they couldn't play, be my guest.

Otherwise, stop acting like not having an enforcer in the lineup is the end of this team.

Once again, off the deep end. Believe what you want.

[Never_Retire_Steve 35]

I definately think some toughness would've helped Detroit a few years ago. Datsyuk was invisible and our top talent looked like they were having trouble penetrating the zone. I for one called for some more grit. I definately think we had that last year, however, I don't think it is directly due to an enforcer.... but having guys like DMac, Drake, Downey, Kronner definately helped us physically. Also, I think guys like Dats & Z toughened up BIG TIME in the last few years and have been better able to handle the physical play.

My $.02