Convinced yet?

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/20..._against_p.html

Red Wings show fight against physical Sharks

by Ansar Khan

Monday January 19, 2009, 12:15 AM

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Despite coming out of Saturday night's showdown at San Jose without any points, the Detroit Red Wings still were pleased to show, once again, they will not be deterred by physical play.

[Zetterbeard40 0]

Im sick of hearing we need an enforcer. We outhit every team we play. Does anyone ver notice that when someone hits or takes a shot at one of a teams "stars", the enforcer fights the other teams enforcer. Well that doesnt make much sense to me. It just puts two guys in the box that otherwise wouldnt have gotten any ice time anyways. McCarty and/or Downey are great right where they are, in the NHL. They act as more of a liability than a commodity, when playing for the wings. I would love to not hear anything more about an inforcer, its not and shouldnt happen.

[Opie 308]

The Broken Record is back, Wings must have lost last night.

Thread killer, unfortunately this should have been but wasn't the end of the thread.

E.S.A.D

Honest question and if you don't like it you can tell me to go to hell I don't care, but seriously...

Are you ever on here posting and starting new threads after a win???

This is almost as predictable a thread as when some one brings up best defensive forward on the team and Eva saying Z because of all of the PK time makes him more valuable.

I can almost set my watch by both of these phenomenon.

The wings need a Drake, not a Downey or Boogaard. Would I like to see Boogaard punch some one in the face sure, but do I think it will help the team win no!

But lets also not forget that the wings couldn't call up you or I for free right now. So all of this clambering for a new fourth line is moot.

Meech in or out is about all of the change you are going to see.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Opie

[dat's sick 1,002]

We should put Meech and Lebda on the 4th line and Let Draper play defense and scratch Maltby/Kopecky.

[esteef 2,679]

I don't believe that threads like these or about our goaltending show up only after losses. It's just that losses tend to reinforce whatever opinion people have about the subject. Even though we won the Stanley Cup last year I am sure there are people looking at certain aspects of our and not liking it. For example, I thought we would need to play more of a North American style to win the Cup (I was wrong), however, I still hold that belief as we had some really bad playoffs not too long ago where one could argue that part of the early exits were due to lack of toughness/grit

Exactly, but hey, don't post in a thread about it or you'll be labled a doomsdayer overreactor to one loss OMFG!!!!

The fourth line is sucking right now, as has been noted out loud by the coach. Yes they had a good game after he called them out but overall they've been sucking. Why not tinker with the fourth line to see what happens? If the line is not producing and being scored on frequently, it's not "wasting a roster spot". That is all.

esteef

[esteef 2,679]

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/20..._against_p.html

Oh OK, Ansar Khan said we're tough so I guess we're all good.

But we still lost right? I mean if we just boil everything down to wins and losses. San Jose was physical and we lost. Period.

esteef

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

But we still lost right? I mean if we just boil everything down to wins and losses. San Jose was physical and we lost. Period.

San Jose wears teal and we lost. Period.

See? I can do that too.

[dat's sick 1,002]

Oh OK, Ansar Khan said we're tough so I guess we're all good.

But we still lost right? I mean if we just boil everything down to wins and losses. San Jose was physical and we lost. Period.

esteef

Are you like the guy in Memento, but instead of only remembering the last 15 minutes you only remember the last game?

[esteef 2,679]

San Jose wears teal and we lost. Period.

See? I can do that too.

Cute. My point still stands.

esteef

[betterREDthandead 58]

So the definition of an enforcer to you is a guy who drops the gloves every other game? Drake was always known for his gritty play, first one to jump into a scrum and the last one out. You will always see him finish his checks, never skate away from an opposing player willing to drop the gloves and most importantly he would protect his teammates. Thats an enforcer in my books.

Downey is an enforcer. Enforcers fight and then also try to play hockey. Drake is a hockey player who's willing to drop the gloves, but doesn't have to fight to be useful. Give me the latter any day.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Are you like the guy in Memento, but instead of only remembering the last 15 minutes you only remember the last game?

My love of fighting is no secret to anyone here. That being said I have very little love for the Andrew Peters, DJ King type of player. IMO, they don't play enough minutes to provide anything that i'm looking for. Specifically, I like my fighting-type players to take regular shifts, I like them to be on the ice regularly enough to get involved and shove back in scrums when they occur. I like them to be able to skate well enough that they become a factor in the hitting game. I don't much care for the guy who takes a few short shifts per game and can only find a dance partner if the other team has dressed their heavy. That stuff is too scripted and not IMO that beneficial.

The thing I miss from this year's team is definitely the dynamic that Downey brought. Kirk Maltby said it last year, Shanny has said it publicly in the past, and it's that a guy who can back it up on the ice has a tendency to make the entire team feel bigger, to feel tougher and be more inclined to mix things up knowing there's somebody in the lineup who has their back.

As far as heavyweights go Chris Neil is still the top guy IMO when you are looking for a guy who can fight the big boys, who can absolutely drill people with his hits, skates well enough for regular shift duty and can play more than just the fighter's role.

They are few and far between, but there are many, many middle weight, great character guys out there that if the Wings had just 1 up front, and 1 on the blueline, the entire dynamic of this team would change slightly yet be even more impressive IMO. Having just 2 of these types of players IMO would have that desired "make the whole team feel tougher and bigger" aspect.

Jamal Mayers

Aaron Asham

BJ Crombeen

David Clarkson

Aaron Voros

Adam Mair

Ethan Moreau

Eric Nystrom

Mike Brown

Shane O'Brien

Mike Commodore

Garnet Exelby

I'm not saying I would take all these guys or that they would all be able to function well enough in our system but they "type" of player mold they fit I think would be a welcome addition, even if the guy only fought 3 or 4 times in an entire season, the day in and day out effect of having some toughness in the squad can do wonders for team morale.

Personally, just off this list, cap notwithstanding, in a heartbeat I would exchange Meech or Lilja for Shane O'Brien and Kopecky for Mayers.

[Frozen-Man 144]

Cute. My point still stands.

esteef

I am not sure that you point does stand. San Jose played physical in the previous meeting as well and we beat them 6-0. Why is it that they played physical and they won and that proves something but the game before they played physical and lost and that does not disprove the same thing?

[Opie 308]

Exactly, but hey, don't post in a thread about it or you'll be labled a doomsdayer overreactor to one loss OMFG!!!!

The fourth line is sucking right now, as has been noted out loud by the coach. Yes they had a good game after he called them out but overall they've been sucking. Why not tinker with the fourth line to see what happens? If the line is not producing and being scored on frequently, it's not "wasting a roster spot". That is all.

esteef

Esteef,

How do you propose to make a 4th line change within this cap peril the wings are in.

I have said it many times on this board and in this thread, even if you and I showed up tomorrow and told Holland we would play for free and make whatever sacrifice the team needed, they still couldn't do it without losing pieces they deem valuable to the franchise. The only thing the wings can hope for is this line to pick it up, why you ask! Simply the only way the wings can make a change would be to trade some one. They can not call up Downey, they can not call up Abdelkader, they can not call up Helm, they can not call up Leino.

What exactly do you expect to happen, as far as change?

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Cute. My point still stands.

As does mine, which is one that you completely missed: Correlation does not mean causation.

[esteef 2,679]

I am not sure that you point does stand. San Jose played physical in the previous meeting as well and we beat them 6-0. Why is it that they played physical and they won and that proves something but the game before they played physical and lost and that does not disprove the same thing?

That's just it, the Sharks DIDN'T play as physical last time. They played 3 games in 4 nights capping it against the rested Wings, had less hits and less shots on goal. This latest game showed a more rested and ready Sharks team with more hitting, more roughing, more SOGs, etc. to which they won. Coincidence?

Hell, they didn't even have Lukowich and Blake either.

esteef

Edited January 19, 2009 by esteef

[esteef 2,679]

As does mine, which is one that you completely missed: Correlation does not mean causation.

Says your opinion. Your response was just a silly trick to try and misdirect attention from my main point. The Sharks did, can, and will physically manhandle the Wings. This time it resulted in a win for them.

esteef

[Opie 308]

That's just it, the Sharks DIDN'T play as physical last time. They played 3 games in 4 nights capping it against the rested Wings, had less hits and less shots on goal. This latest game showed a more rested and ready Sharks team with more hitting, more roughing, more SOGs, etc. to which they won. Coincidence?

Hell, the didn't even have Lukowich and Blake either.

esteef

You are right they added all those pieces the physical play and the players only to beat the wings by one on a bonehead turnover and a great play by Marleau, it is not like they beat the Wings 6-0. Plus the Sharks had the added motivation of being absolutely owned by the Wings in every facet of the game the last time they played. They were at home, they were trying to prove that they are still the top dog. SJ had everything to prove in this game and yet they still only won by one goal.

So why all the worry.

Sure your point would be valid if the Sharks won 6-0, but they didn't they won 6-5 on a goal scored with what 2:30 left in the game.

You act as thought they were manhandling the Wings the whole game.

It was a great back and forth game that had a playoff feel, had physical play great goals, great passing, the only downside to that game was that the Wings lost. It happens they will lose. Better to lose to the best team in your conference than say I don't know Columbus, like SJ on Dec 17th, or the Flames on Jan 6, 15.

Both of these teams will win games they shouldn't and lose games they shouldn't it is part of the NHL.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Opie

[thedisappearer 291]

Cute. My point still stands.

Not really. You tried to establish a relationship between SJ's physical play and them winning. But, their physical play didn't generate 6 goals. The last two were generated by speed (and poor Detroit D).

So, the Wings played poor defense and they lost.

See? That one is right.

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

Says your opinion. Your response was just a silly trick to try and misdirect attention from my main point.

That the Sharks won because they like to hit? As opposed to them using their speed to exploit the Wings poor positioning at the end and shaky goaltending. No, I think I was quite on the mark.

The Sharks did, can, and will physically manhandle the Wings. This time it resulted in a win for them.

Manhandled? Come off it. The Wings went toe to toe with them physically and on the scoreboard.

[Frozen-Man 144]

Says your opinion. Your response was just a silly trick to try and misdirect attention from my main point. The Sharks did, can, and will physically manhandle the Wings. This time it resulted in a win for them.

esteef

But the time before it did not and resulted in a much more lopsided loss for the Sharks. What I don't understand is how it proves or shows that it is a better way or that it will result in the Sharks beating the Wings. The Sharks won this time, we won the time before that. The Sharks have won at home against us, we have won at home against the Sharks. The Sharks have beat us after we have had long road trips with tight schedules, we have beat the Sharks after they have had long road trips with tight schedules. I don't see how your statement can be used to extrapolate any "key" to winning just because they happened to win the last game - the same team, playing the same way, didn't do it the game before.

[PROBIE4PREZ 58]

... no im not ...

players have the option of throwing their wieght and Detroit just wasnt doing it. big deal its a regular season game and we lost in a entertaining high scoring game. A fight wouldnt of won us the game .. stopping 2 breakaways would have.

and for people saying put in downey? for what 5 mins of laughter? the guy cant skate worth dick and by the time he finishes a check hes outta the play entirely..

The one change im hoping for when playoffs come is 2/3rds of the foruth line gets changed.

Helm-Draper-Abdelkador

end it

[Frozen-Man 144]

That's just it, the Sharks DIDN'T play as physical last time. They played 3 games in 4 nights capping it against the rested Wings, had less hits and less shots on goal. This latest game showed a more rested and ready Sharks team with more hitting, more roughing, more SOGs, etc. to which they won. Coincidence?

Hell, they didn't even have Lukowich and Blake either.

esteef

Again there are just so many variables to be able to affirmatively state that the Wings lost because the Sharks were more physical. I have seem so many posters here downplay our 6-0 win against the Sharks because they had a long road trip and played 3 games in 4 nights capping it against the rested Wings. That was the exact same situation we have here, the Wings had a long road trip and played 3 games in 4 nights capping it against the rested Sharks. They had just been beaten by the Flames and were probably really wanting revenge for the 6-0 whipping they got. They had much more motivation, were much more rested, were playing at home, and Detroit's D especially on the last two goals were horrible, and yet they only won my one goal. They have 10 goals against us for the year and we have 13 against them (I know they have 2 wins to our one and that is what ultimately matters but each team that was rested and playing at home won and the only butt whipping was by the Wings. I do agree with the last part of your statement were you say a more rested team won and that has been the case in each game so far. To ask if it is a coincidence doesn't cover it all, the home team won - coincidence, the team that was not on a long road trip won - coincidence, the team with the better D won - coincidence, the team whose goalie made timely saves won - coincidence, the team that played 3 games in 4 nights lost - coincidence. The point is all, some, or none of these may be the reason for the wins/losses and all, some, or none of them may be coincidences but randomly picking one doesn't make it the reason for the loss.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Oh OK, Ansar Khan said we're tough so I guess we're all good.

But we still lost right? I mean if we just boil everything down to wins and losses. San Jose was physical and we lost. Period.

esteef

Yes the Sharks were "physical". The Sharks are almost always "physical".

Khan, and myself, are just pointing out multiple times that the Wings are not intimidated by that stuff.

You (I am assumning, please correct me if I am wrong) and others are advocates of enforcers. That's fine, I have no problem with that. When this gets absolutely ridiculous about this is when the advocates' stances go overboard that simply because the Wings may not have a true enofrcer, their physical play is just 100% out of the window and they are just a bunch of soft pansies. Or, just because not everybody subscribes to your stances 100% all the way, we automatically do not appreciate what an enforcer brings to the table at all. It isn't just an all or nothing proposition.

They aren't soft or wussy like. 2006-07 playoffs beating more "physical" teams in Calgary and San Jose and nearly doing the same to Anaheim shows that, and it continued this past season in winning the Stanley Cup.

If it is just a matter of wanting an enforcer, again that's fine but what else does this team need to prove to the ones advocating for one? What do you all want? What are you looking for?

Enforcers...do they help? Without question. Are they of the 100% utmost importance 24-7-365 like some make them out to be? No.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

I've re-read this thread completely. I'd say we're pretty mixed on having a more physical team.

One glaring thing I keep noticing is, nobody has a good reason as why we shouldn't bring up Downey.

Also, please, for the love of the Red Wings, give me one reason why Kirk Maltby or Tomas Kopecky deserve a rostor spot right now. It's abundantly clear- Maltby just doesn't belong in the NHL right now and Kopecky, dare I say it, has been a flop (granted the injuries I think took a huge toll here).

[Heroes of Hockeytown 694]

One glaring thing I keep noticing is, nobody has a good reason as why we shouldn't bring up Downey.

The salary cap. The same cap which will have its importance expire just in time for the playoffs, much like enforcers.

Downey would certainly make more impact than Kopecky at this point, but the cap makes it a non-issue. The Wings have managed to stay on top of the league without an enforcer, and something tells me they will continue to survive and carry on into the playoffs.