12/1 GDT: Red Wings 2, Ducks 1

[Opie 308]

both

Then why ask if I was entertained with last nights game, it was a hockey game with all kinds of action it was just missing a fight, that shouldn't ruin the game or make it not entertaining.

BTW Tr!PoD#19

Great add to the conversation, I am not sure I could have ever reached this level of understanding with out that very pertinent, poignant point!

Edited December 2, 2008 by Opie

[skacore 2]

Then why ask if I was entertained with last nights game, it was a hockey game with all kinds of action it was just missing a fight, that shouldn't ruin the game or make it not entertaining.

BTW Tr!PoD#19

Great add to the conversation, I am not sure I could have ever reached this level of understanding with out that very pertinent, poignant point!

I asked if you were entertained because I literally asked myself while watching the game, "do people like this?"... There is 0 emotion in the majority of Wings games, we are just so loaded up on skill that we tend to come out with a win

[Z and D for the C 712]

could have

Anahiem games were entertaining last year because there was a very intense atmosphere, fast paced action and a dislike for the other team from each team all which resulted in a playoff feel. Last night's game lacked that. The cleary/pronger fight of course was awesome last year, but that was because the rest of the game was entertaining. A 30 second long loss from mccarty (and he would have lost.) wouldn't have made the entire game entertaining all of a sudden.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Z and D for the C

[skacore 2]

Anahiem games were entertaining last year because there was a very intense atmosphere, fast paced action and a dislike for the other team from each team all which resulted in a playoff feel. Last night's game lacked that. The cleary/pronger fight of course was awesome last year, but that was because the rest of the game was entertaining. A 30 second long loss from mccarty (and he would have lost.) wouldn't have made the entire game entertaining all of a sudden.

a real quick example here before i head out

very early in the 1st period corey perry slashed kopecky during a battle infront of the benches about 3-4 times then gave him a hard gloved shot to the face, both guys being about 6'3 205, kopecky immediately throws his arms up and turns to the ref with his mouth wide open "omg u see that!!!"

now if kopecky shoves back and they drop em, kopecky ends up busting perry's nose like he did sharp's last year... does that not set the tempo for the entire game? or better yet, rivalry for the entire year..?

was everyone not in shock a couple years ago when lilja dropped em with moen and sammy and niedermeyer were roughing it up? one of the best games in recent years

cleary standing up to pronger will be remembered for as long as cleary plays hockey

downey beating down parros at the joe last year... maybe the loudest i've heard the joe in years

the games have just become so robotic and emotionless.....

[esteef 2,679]

As I tried to type in my first post and screwed up, the rant was not aimed at you, however the throngs of people who claimed the Wings can not win without an enforcer, the people who flipped a lid when Downey then Mac were waived.

I don't post here a lot any more because the board has become full of posters who just want to point out the negative, for whatever reason.

But if you recall, teams like the Ducks, Flyers, Flames, etc. were supposed to steam roll and run the Wings every game and by the time the post season got around the Wings record would not matter because they would be so unbelievably physically beat that they wouldn't hold a candle to any team.

BTW what proof do you have that the Ducks would have started to run the Wings when or if the Wings got up big. Have they been doing that all year? Did they cheapshot the Sharks in the 4-1 loss, how about the Hurricanes in a 3-1 loss, 5-2 loss to Dallas, or how about a 4-0 win over the sharks, 5-2 over the blues, 4-1 over the lanche, 4-1 over the hurricanes?

I don't know I didn't watch those games.

You have a whole bunch of ifs supporting your points, where as all I know is the Wings beat the Ducks last night, I read a bunch of excuses on here (mainly from one poster) as to why the Ducks weren't up to the task.

The Wings just beat most of the fight fans flagship team, and I wanted to make sure I got my point in.

Because I guarantee you the day a Wings player misses as much as one shift from a check there will be a thread, not a post in the GDT, a thread complaining that an enforcer would have stopped it, and nobody would accept a "Well if it was a one point game that wouldn't have happened" answer.

First I know it wasn't aimed at me necessarily, I don't take things personally here anyway and I hope no one else does either.

The fighter thing is not a definitive formula like team + fighter = win. Fighting is an aspect of the game, a part of the equation if you will. Sort of like face-offs, you can lose every face off and still win the game (or lose it). My point is, if we know we're playing a team like Anaheim, or St Louis, or Boston, etc we should prepare ourselves for a rough game by having guys in the lineup that can handle things if it gets out-of-hand. Again, I think intimidation plays a bigger role in hockey (or all sports for that matter) than you, be it physical, verbal, mental, whatever, but that's beside the point. I do use a lot of "if"s because each game/situation is different (score, reg season/playoffs, opponents typical style of play, unfinished business from prior "cheapness", etc) I just don't like playing tough teams without a fighter, especially when we keep one for that exact reason. Granted MAC would've been in if he wasn't hurt, but he WAS hurt. So cover for him by bringing Downey up to help Lilja out "if" things get nasty.

So it's not news that "fighting" teams lose games too. Winning a game without a fighter proves about as much and winning a game with one doesn't it? I mean, can the fight or lack of one actually be traced back to the reason the team won? It's debateable of course cause now you're talking about intimidation, momentum, you know things that don't have stats or "proof". I don't know about the games above because I didn't watch them either (too busy with my head up the Wings ass I guess! ) but there were some fights in them yes? So it wasn't all hunky dory accepting loses. BTW, how do you know the Ducks playing tough isn't the main reason they are winning? Isn't it possible that their rough style of play not only intimidates opposing players but wears them down as well?

esteef

PS edited my dumb spelling.

Edited December 2, 2008 by esteef

[Opie 308]

First I know it wasn't aimed at me necessarily, I don't take things personally here anyway and I hope no one else does either.

The fighter thing is not a definitive formula like team + fighter = win. Fighting is an aspect of the game, a part of the equation if you will. Sort of like face-offs, you can lose every face off and still win the game (or lose it). My point is, if we know we're playing a team like Anaheim, or St Louis, or Boston, etc we should prepare ourselves for a rough game by having guys in the lineup that can handle things if it gets out-of-hand. Again, I think intimidation plays a bigger role in hockey (or all sports for that matter) than you, be it physical, verbal, mental, whatever, but that's beside the point. I do use a lot of "if"s because each game/situation is different (score, reg season/playoffs, opponents typical style of play, unfinished business from prior "cheapness", etc) I just don't like playing tough teams without a fighter, especially when we keep one for that exact reason. Granted MAC would've been in if he wasn't hurt, but he WAS hurt. So cover for him by bringing Downey up to help Lilja out "if" things get nasty.

So it's not news that "fighting" teams lose games too. Winning a game without a fighter proves about as much and winning a game with one doesn't it? I mean, can the fight or lack of one actually be traced back to the reason the team won? It's debateable of course cause now you're talking about intimidation, momentum, you know things that don't have stats or "proof". I don't know about the games above because I didn't watch them either (too busy with my head up the Wings ass I guess! ) but there were some fights in them yes? So it wasn't all hunky dory accepting loses. BTW, how do you know the Ducks playing tough isn't the main reason they are winning? Isn't it possible that their rough style of play not only intimidates opposing players but wears them down as well?

esteef

PS edited my dumb spelling.

I 100% agree, but the fight slappies don't agree with that, those of us that defend the Wings for the most part have been saying that exactly, that a fighter does not win nor lose you a game.

EDIT:

I am not saying a fight can't change the tone or the direction of a game, but so can't a shorty or a sick deke that leads to a beautiful goal.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Opie

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

The last few Wings/Ducks games all involved fights, so I'm a little surprised that something didn't happen last night. I didn't watch the game, so I don't know if it was boring or not, but for games like that, it's definitely helpful to have an enforcer in the lineup, because you know Anaheim is going to try stuff. I think that fans at the Joe, like in any arena, will show more emotion if their team stands up for itself rather than screaming and cheering for a PP opportunity as our only retribution.

And whoever was talking about Kopecky not retaliating, believe me when I say that you're preaching to the choir. Ever since he beat up Sharp, he's become a scared turkey for some reason who refuses to fight. There's no reason a guy his size should be unwilling to drop the gloves, especially since he doesn't bring much else to the table and he's taking an enforcer's roster spot unfairly.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

a real quick example here before i head out

very early in the 1st period corey perry slashed kopecky during a battle infront of the benches about 3-4 times then gave him a hard gloved shot to the face, both guys being about 6'3 205, kopecky immediately throws his arms up and turns to the ref with his mouth wide open "omg u see that!!!"

now if kopecky shoves back and they drop em, kopecky ends up busting perry's nose like he did sharp's last year... does that not set the tempo for the entire game? or better yet, rivalry for the entire year..?

was everyone not in shock a couple years ago when lilja dropped em with moen and sammy and niedermeyer were roughing it up? one of the best games in recent years

cleary standing up to pronger will be remembered for as long as cleary plays hockey

downey beating down parros at the joe last year... maybe the loudest i've heard the joe in years

the games have just become so robotic and emotionless.....

Last night the Ducks were the ones backing down, Datsyuk nailed Moen, Sammy boarded pronger, the only guy the ducks were going after was draper. Why shoudl the wings have been involved in any of it they were dominating.

[skacore 2]

Last night the Ducks were the ones backing down, Datsyuk nailed Moen, Sammy boarded pronger, the only guy the ducks were going after was draper. Why shoudl the wings have been involved in any of it they were dominating.

just reading "Sammy boarded pronger" makes me laugh and it's a good indication of where this argument will lead to

Sammy pushed Pronger off balance behind the net and he fell over..... let's be serious here

[CrossoverThrash 0]

just reading "Sammy boarded pronger" makes me laugh and it's a good indication of where this argument will lead to

Sammy pushed Pronger off balance behind the net and he fell over..... let's be serious here

what is this then?

[skacore 2]

what is this then?

that is exactly what I just described and thank you for the video evidence

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

This video has proven to me that we don't ever need to dress an enforcer again. Thank you for changing my mind.

Oh wait ..........

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

what is this then?

Hmm, a hit from behind? If it was Pronger on Sammy, he would've been damn well crucified on here for being a dirtbag. Sammy is lucky the Ducks didnt get him for that. I dont know if he would've fought back, but he is lucky.

I agree with ska though, anyone who thinks the Wings are playing with emotion havent been watching. Maltby, Draper, and Cleary have played with good hustle. Mac and Lilja have had a couple fights, and the stars have shone through like every year. But emotion? No, I can understand it though, battling the NHL's poster boy for the Cup, and then meaningless games a couple months later. It couldnt hurt to have Downey in the lineup for games like these, no one is advacating "OMG ENFORCERS = TOUGHNESS = WIN CUP". None of us say that, we get frustrated with what people say just like you, but guys that play on emotion liven up teams. Dallas Drake in the playoffs, emotion every shift, and we won the Cup, and he got it handed to him first. If that doesnt say alot, well I dont know what to say to you.

But as long as we're winning, I wont be mad about physical play or emotion, as long as they have some in the playoffs is all that matters.

[j.hoop 64]

They took one run at Draper haha, Sammy actually boarded pronger then Dats went after moen

that was ill !! i love dats "bad" attitude!! i was telling my brother in law, it must be embarassing to be laid out by dats.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

So, let me get this straight, the Red Wings played the Ducks, with no enforcer dressed and still won, but huh, ahhh huh what how did that happen, surely 4 or 5 of the Red Wings must be headed to IR due to being run the whole game with no one there to stop it!

This is a beautiful post Opie. I love how all the doom-and-gloom people who posted on the first couple pages of this thread aren't making much noise now. It was a joke to read some of the posts stating "the Ducks will beat the Red Wings with no enforcer" or "someone on the team will get hurt in the game." It's typical though - the negative people only come around when something (which is rare) goes wrong with the Red Wings and then they say "I told you so." The fact is the Red Wings dominated the Ducks with no enforcer dressed and nobody got hurt or run at either. The "soft" Red Wings didn't back down as usual.

It seems as if some people on here want bad things to happen to the Red Wings so they can justify their personal opinions on certain players or the team in general. It's weak and hardly what a fan should be about.

Oh well, the Red Wings played a great hockey game and deserved to win.

[Tr!PoD#19 524]

Then why ask if I was entertained with last nights game, it was a hockey game with all kinds of action it was just missing a fight, that shouldn't ruin the game or make it not entertaining.

BTW Tr!PoD#19

Great add to the conversation, I am not sure I could have ever reached this level of understanding with out that very pertinent, poignant point!

I was laughing at his comment.. Is there something wrong with that?

I agree with you both.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Tr!PoD#19

[GoWings1905 2,694]

I asked if you were entertained because I literally asked myself while watching the game, "do people like this?"... There is 0 emotion in the majority of Wings games, we are just so loaded up on skill that we tend to come out with a win

I like it and most people probably do too. Winning never gets boring.

[skacore 2]

I like it and most people probably do too. Winning never gets boring.

I tend to disagree, as do a lot of posters around here, and seems like the fans at the Joe tend to disagree with that statement as well

the NHL has gotten to where it's at because of it's entertainment value

[GoWings1905 2,694]

I tend to disagree, as do a lot of posters around here, and seems like the fans at the Joe tend to disagree with that statement as well

the NHL has gotten to where it's at because of it's entertainment value

We're spoiled as a fan base. Winning can be perceived as boring because the Red Wings do it all the time. Do you think fans in Columbus or Florida would be bored with this team?

Edited December 3, 2008 by GoWings1905

[skacore 2]

We're spoiled as a fan base. Winning can be perceived as boring because the Red Wings do it all the time. Do you think fans in Columbus or Florida would be bored with this team?

My honest opinion, you probably won't agree with, but no, not really. Initially they would be thrilled to be winning but I don't think they'd be able to fall in love with the European style game that they'd be witnessing. I mean maybe though, just because you said Columbus or Florida. A major hockey city though, no chance in hell.

[GoWings1905 2,694]

My honest opinion, you probably won't agree with, but no, not really. Initially they would be thrilled to be winning but I don't think they'd be able to fall in love with the European style game that they'd be witnessing. I mean maybe though, just because you said Columbus or Florida. A major hockey city though, no chance in hell.

Fair enough. I respect that viewpoint and understand some people wouldn't enjoy watching the Red Wings style of play every night. To me personally, I think it is a thrill to watch all that skill on the ice, let alone on one team. We are very blessed as a fan base in general.

[Guest Crymson]

My honest opinion, you probably won't agree with, but no, not really. Initially they would be thrilled to be winning but I don't think they'd be able to fall in love with the European style game that they'd be witnessing. I mean maybe though, just because you said Columbus or Florida. A major hockey city though, no chance in hell.

It'd take a few seasons before they got over the gratitude toward the team for just winning and became spoiled fans like us.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

I tend to disagree, as do a lot of posters around here, and seems like the fans at the Joe tend to disagree with that statement as well

the NHL has gotten to where it's at because of it's entertainment value

I love watchign ANY hockey game, id rather watch paint dry than watch baseball, and football just flat out sold out and was only really good in the early 1900s, basketball sucks, everything about hockey is perfect, the hits, the goals, the fighting, the dekes, i watch hockey every night no matter what the matchup, i think if your a true hockey fan/player you don't need a fight every damn game, half of the time they suck now anyways cause the guys are getting really timid id even say guys like Zetterberg are alot tougher than the enforcers. Just look at Laraque vs Chara, they just have sex with each other and fall down. The only guy that would be worth watching fighting every night would be Carcillo. Theres not gonna be a fight every wings game, if thats all you care about watch a different team such as Phoenix or a different sport for that matter such as the lowly MMA.

[CrossoverThrash 0]

This video has proven to me that we don't ever need to dress an enforcer again. Thank you for changing my mind.

Oh wait ..........

This is why we wont need an enfocer for most of the season:

because hitting is faaaaaaaaar more effective than fighting

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

This is why we wont need an enfocer for most of the season:

because hitting is faaaaaaaaar more effective than fighting

As much as I love a good coo coo bird cage rattler, hitting doesnt protect teamates. Ideally, you get a guy like Neil or Torres that do both very well. Or you use your enforcer sparingly, when another team takes exception to things. In the playoffs of course everything chnages, hitting is huge in the playoffs. It changes games, in the same kinda way a fight changes a game in the regular season, gets the boys on the bench going.