12Newf 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 Gee, would Laraque have any bias towards the value added by enforcers? He seems to be an unbiased opinion on the matter. he may be biased but he is also informed. hell i might even call him an expert on the subject. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnS 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 This turning from a check to draw a penalty b.s. is sickening. 15 years ago, that was hockey... Many children on this board wouldn't remember those days as they still had training wheels that needed oiling. I dont think I ever remember my training wheels needing to be oiled Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nev 1,085 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 This blog is exactly why I'm a hockey fan, this type of mentality he mentions from 15 years past. We would NOT have the injuries today if the instigator was removed, it's stupid. Also, if players remembered THE CODE... This turning from a check to draw a penalty b.s. is sickening. 15 years ago, that was hockey... Many children on this board wouldn't remember those days as they still had training wheels that needed oiling. As I've said before, totally agree. As long as the instigator rule remains in place, Enforcers are not able to do the job that fight fans say they (currently) perform. Even Zetterberg has called for the instigator rule to be removed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 Laraque seems like one hell of a guy to me and i have enjoyed his blogs a great deal on sportsnet. the guy is just so honest that its refreshing and to hear him talk about being scared out of his mind seems crazy. anyway, this is a truly great article, enjoy http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/blogs/2009/...aque_last_word/ i was going to post it as a quote but its just too long. That was a great blog. Thanks for posting it. I liked some of the things he mentioned; like how 15 years ago everyone was a tough guy and accountable for their actions. But how there's a lot of shenanigans going on now. That's in part to the instigator rule, but I find it's a lot more to do with a younger generation that feels more protected with the better armor and in part because of the European influence. I know guys that have played over there and while North American's were punching each other in the face, Europeans were slashing and hacking. Now it seems that kind of hockey has amalgamated into the NHL. Phil Esposito talks about how when they went over to Sweden before the '72 Summit Series began, they played a few exhibition games. He said the stick work was unbelievable. He had never seen anything like it. One area where I disagree with Laraque though, is how completely necessary a tough guy is to winning. The Wings have been one of the most successful teams since the lockout, winning the President's Trophy twice, going to the Conference finals twice and winning one Cup and yet we never had a full-time or top 15 goon. Anyway, his best point is when he speaks about the entertainment value of a tough guy. I couldn't agree more. The Wings are exciting now, but the Wings of the 80's were exciting for different reasons. Between spectacular offensive brillance by Yzerman you could expect a few great tilts with Kocur and Probert. Not to mention some of their middleweights like Gallant, Barr and Snepts. That was a great tough team to watch. Anway, thanks for posting his blog. Cheers! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 As I've said before, totally agree. As long as the instigator rule remains in place, Enforcers are not able to do the job that fight fans say they (currently) perform. Even Zetterberg has called for the instigator rule to be removed. I don't know about that. I don't think an enforcer who wouldn't fight because of a game misconduct is worth much. I think the issue is two-fold; 1. There's far less respect in the league. Back in the day the players didn't seem as blood thirsty to kill someone. Look at some of the players today. Between guys like Hartnell, Downie and Hollweg, we have a number of players who love to hit from behind, slash, whack or make dangerous plays. Most teams have a number of these types of guys. There's so much competition to make the NHL that most players will do whatever it takes to stay in the big leagues. Back in the day, Probert would have killed anyone who slashed Yzerman. But now, everyone is whacking and hacking out there. A guy like Probert would be in the hospital from torn ligaments in his shoulders from throwing so many punches. 2. 15-20 years ago, most players fought. Even just one or two a season. Because of that, players were weary of being idiots because they knew most guys would hold you accountable. But now, that's not the case. A great majority of players never drop the gloves. And the mentality has changed to the point where it's not expected of them. In 1985, if you were a 30 goal scorer but slashed someone or made a dangerous hit on someone who took exception, you were expected to defend yourself or else you were a chicken or turtle. But today, if someone like Jeff Carter drilled someone from behind, nobody would say anything about him turtling if the other guy dropped the mitts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest micah Report post Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) I don't know about that. I don't think an enforcer who wouldn't fight because of a game misconduct is worth much. I don't think that the game misconduct is the part of the instigator penalty that deturs enforcers from doing their jobs, it's the suspensions and fines to the coach that keep players from wanting to rack up too many instigator penalties. Nobody likes being suspended. The 2 minute minor that comes with instigating is also a more considerable penalty than the game misconduct is, at least for your typical enforcer. Probably not so for a Milan Lucic type though. Edited January 6, 2009 by micah Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nev 1,085 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 I don't think an enforcer who wouldn't fight because of a game misconduct is worth much. Its not the misconduct they're scared of, its the extra 2 minutes. That and being suspended. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank 0 Report post Posted January 6, 2009 Its not the misconduct they're scared of, its the extra 2 minutes. That and being suspended. It didn't stop Downey from pounding on Laparrier after he hit Lidstrom. Basically the only fights the instigator seems to prevent is the ones that break out for little reason other than frustration. Phil Esposito talked about this on XM the other day and he said that this rule is shot down every year by the GM's and BOG's. It's a decision made by hockey men, not Bettman. He gave the reason why but I can't remember it now. Part of it was to prevent guys like Tootoo from picking fights with non-fighters if a game was out of hand. The NHL doesn't want injuries or a black eye for allowing senseless violence I guess. But I think the NHL needs to embrace it's roots. It's a regional sport where the fans that do show up are rabid for it. let them have the hockey they grew up on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cusimano_brothers 1,655 Report post Posted March 11, 2009 This might make a good "pay-per-view", but I doubt that the "discussion" will ever take place: Bettman would welcome fighting discussion with Laraque. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kook_10 1,705 Report post Posted March 13, 2009 2. 15-20 years ago, most players fought. Even just one or two a season. Because of that, players were weary of being idiots because they knew most guys would hold you accountable. But now, that's not the case. A great majority of players never drop the gloves. And the mentality has changed to the point where it's not expected of them. In 1985, if you were a 30 goal scorer but slashed someone or made a dangerous hit on someone who took exception, you were expected to defend yourself or else you were a chicken or turtle. But today, if someone like Jeff Carter drilled someone from behind, nobody would say anything about him turtling if the other guy dropped the mitts. most of the Wings do NOT fight. in fact, some of the wings barely have a physical presence. a good few of the wings are relatively small. having an enforcer sometimes sparks the opponent's general physical game which is generally speaking not the wings' forte. i just dont think the added physical attention brought on the rest of this team by an enforcer would necessarily affect the outcome of the game, much less keep them safe and healthy BEFORE THE ALL STAR BREAK. on the other hand, this time of year most opponents are fired up for the playoffs or fighting for a spot and the physical game will be there like it or not. an enforcer would hopefully keep things from getting too chippy and help the team mentally transition towards the physical play of the second season (whether the enforcer will be there or not). did anyone else notice how chippy the Blues got when Downey and Cam Janssen were in the box after that great fight last week? sure the Wings won 5-0 that time but that was the type of game in which the wings players were more rather than less likely to get hurt because of the actions of an enforcer. i'm not saying that is such a bad thing though. again - like it or not - this is the type of play the team will have to contend with down the stretch, so it seems like the right time to step it up. my $0.02 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sureWhyNot 19 Report post Posted March 13, 2009 Great post -- and great read. I know a lot of people have grown sour with Laraque in regards to his on ice play and style of enforcement but I still like the guy a lot. He makes very good points, and overall I think anyone who likes hockey would enjoy the read. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
