Thoughts on Downey

[Opie 308]

EXCELLENT POINT. I love when Opie writes dissertations on a subject, he ends up disproving his point about 3-4x per paragraph.

Weren't you suspended for a month?

Now leave me alone, you have posted nothing but things trying to incite me like you did two weeks ago, post something besides I love it when Opie.. blah blah and add something to the conversation.

You haven't proven me wrong once in the Hossa fight thread or this one, you make up s***, try to apply it to the conversation and say you won.

Good job skippy, now I think I heard a bell, go check I think the fries are down.

[ENFORCER 0]

Weren't you suspended for a month?

Now leave me alone, you have posted nothing but things trying to incite me like you did two weeks ago, post something besides I love it when Opie.. blah blah and add something to the conversation.

You haven't proven me wrong once in the Hossa fight thread or this one, you make up s***, try to apply it to the conversation and say you won.

Good job skippy, now I think I heard a bell, go check I think the fries are down.

What are you talking about?

[Shaman 713]

What are you talking about?

I had to....

But honestly, No one is saying a guy who can fight and play arent what the wings need, we are saying Downey, while hes great at what he does, is a very one dimensional player and as compared to other players who could be playing he just isnt what some of us believe the wings need to be the best team in the last lag of the season.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Shaman464

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

1. Yes I do think that enforcers are a part of hockey that doesn't prevent anything and never have, they gained retaliation, they gave the other team a sense that you better not do that again.

- A couple of points of interest from that sentence I want to emphasize:

--I used past tense, due to rule changes in the game enforcers have been rendered about 1/8th as effective as they used to be.

-- the last word is again, an enforcer goes out and fights someone after something has happened, well, if nothing has happened yet what exactly is the enforcer stopping. Nothing, even in the old days, guys didn't just drop the gloves because they wanted to prove to the other team don't mess with us we have player x, it was you did something, don't do it again.

2. Did Retaliation stop Claude Lemieux? Steve Downie?

Would you rather see a league with more and more Simon, Downie (note the spelling please, not you GMR but others), and Boulerice type players? Until the instigator rule is taken away guys like Simon, Downie and Boulerice will continue to exist.

You keep comparing Hockey from decades ago, things have changed, not sure that you noticed or not, there is this thing called the instigator rule that took the ability to police the game out of the players hands, as long as that rule is in place, guys like Downey (note spelling) will not prevent anything, because even if Steve Downie got punched in the face by Aaron Downey, he is still going to run around two handing people.

McCarty got retribution from Lemieux, right? Lemieux didn't think he did anything wrong and thinks Mac is in the wrong for jumping him. What good did that do? Was it entertaining as hell, you bet you ass it was, did having Mac on the team stop anything?

But I have conceded to you since last post season, that if you want to admit fighting is entertaining and that is why you like it, I can't have a problem with that, it is what entertains you and many others, but when you say an enforcer prevents cheap shots that I don't believe true.

The instigator rule hasn't changed as much as people say it has. Enforcers are still present on just about every team.

From your post it appears that you don't have an answer for why teams have dressed enforcers? Or are you saying they do it purely for entertainment purposes? If that's your position, I find it's truth very hard to believe. A team's first priority would be to build a good team skill wise. If the enforcer was as meaningless to deterrence as you say it is, there would maybe be 5 fighters in the whole league.

[ENFORCER 0]

I had to....

But honestly, No one is saying a guy who can fight and play arent what the wings need, we are saying Downey, while hes great at what he does, is a very one dimensional player and as compared to other players who could be playing he just isnt what some of us believe the wings need to be the best team in the last lag of the season.

lol...

I like that we're all Wings fans and most of us with a good sense of humor. I'm glad 99% of us don't let this board get to us.

[Opie 308]

Wouldn't that be a form of prevention? I realize an enforcer generally only fights as an act of retribution, but the threat of a fight can be preventative, and a fight that is retributive at the moment can also be preventative in future meetings. Again, we can never prove what is or isn't prevented, but that does not prove nothing is prevented.

True, but lets play this game for a minute.

Downey punches Lappy in the face, breaks his orbital bone, shatters his jaw. YEAH WINGS!!!!!! WHOO HOO, oh but wait it was retaliation so what happened to cause this, oh Lappy cross checking Zetterberg in the grill, oh wait so Downey didn't prevent s***, he got retribution, which by the way only works if Downey whoops his ass.

Lets say, after last year, when Downey goes after Lappy, Lappy destroys him in two punches, what good has it done? Downey has taught Lappy the invaluable lesson that as long as Downey is on the ice/roster he can do whatever the hell he wants, because his punishment for hitting Z was getting to punch some one out cold.

The answer to cheap shots is not a fighter it is the league cracking down on it, but instead they suspend Simon almost 10 times as long as Pronger for the same act and the same amount of offenses.

The instigator rule has made it so the only way a fight is going to happen is when two guys at the dot decide to go at it. Otherwise it is 17 minutes worth of crap dealt out to the guy trying to defend his teammate.

And then lets look at the results:

The Wings lose a top 10 player in the NHL due to a cheapshot, the player who did it gets 2 minutes for slashing, Downey goes out and gets the retribution we all want (make no mistake I want retribution too, I just don't think an enforcer stops anything), he gets 17 minutes, the Wings have lost 2 players one of which is a top shelf talent, one is their enforcer. The other team has lost most likely a fourth liner.

2 points for you for recognizing sarcasm. My point, as you articulated in your example, is as ridiculous as Opie saying enforcers are useless since SOME cheap shots still happen.

esteef

Way to cover up, oh that is what I meant the whole time, ha ha ha I am smart S>M>R>T Smart!

Seriously dude, between this and the Fedorov threads you would think we would reach the outcome that we have a difference of opinion.

But way to dodge my point, here lets try this again:

WHAT WAS LAPPY DOING SO EFFECTIVELY THAT DOWNEY YAPPING AT HIM RENDERED HIM USELESS?

Because in order to be rendered useless you must have been doing something good to begin with right?

So was he all over the ice crosschecking, butt ending, charging people, boarding, slashing, spearing? Surely if Downey's mere presence/words were enough to render him useless he must have been doing something before that. And again the only reason Lappy even tried s*** was because it was the first time him and Downey saw each other since last year.

[esteef 2,679]

Way to cover up, oh that is what I meant the whole time, ha ha ha I am smart S>M>R>T Smart!

Seriously dude, between this and the Fedorov threads you would think we would reach the outcome that we have a difference of opinion.

But way to dodge my point, here lets try this again:

WHAT WAS LAPPY DOING SO EFFECTIVELY THAT DOWNEY YAPPING AT HIM RENDERED HIM USELESS?

Because in order to be rendered useless you must have been doing something good to begin with right?

So was he all over the ice crosschecking, butt ending, charging people, boarding, slashing, spearing? Surely if Downey's mere presence/words were enough to render him useless he must have been doing something before that. And again the only reason Lappy even tried s*** was because it was the first time him and Downey saw each other since last year.

First of all, settle down man. Nobody's covering anything up. I made the comment in jest knowing deterrence doesn't have a stat, which is exactly why it's always demanded to be proven by posters such as yourself. You think the lack of evidence means you're right. This isn't a court case.

Second, Lappy got off a good blind-sided hit on Downey, probably due to their last meeting where Downey got the better of him. Downey immediately got up in his face to which Lappy declined (due in part to his face already being smashed up) and was ineffective the rest of the game. So, was Downey doing his job? Let's see, did Lappy concentrate his attention on star players or Downey? You tell me Op.

esteef

[Opie 308]

The instigator rule hasn't changed as much as people say it has. Enforcers are still present on just about every team.

From your post it appears that you don't have an answer for why teams have dressed enforcers? Or are you saying they do it purely for entertainment purposes? If that's your position, I find it's truth very hard to believe. A team's first priority would be to build a good team skill wise. If the enforcer was as meaningless to deterrence as you say it is, there would maybe be 5 fighters in the whole league.

Jesus dude we have been over this 75,000 times, how is it I know your stance and you still don't know mine.

Follow along carefully.

How many teams have enforcers that can play more than 4 minutes a game and add more than 3 points a season?

Answer, almost all!

It is not that I don't see the value in a fighter getting retribution, it is that I think it is only retribution. (My enforcers stance)

I think Downey is only capable of fighting that is my problem with him. (My Downey stance)

You are trying to take my two stances and make them one.

I think that there are enforcers on other teams that get retaliation as well as being able to put the biscuit in the basket, in the Hossa fight thread (that I already linked forever ago) I stated I am fine with the Wings' bringing in an enforcer if he the Wings keep winning. My preference is that said player can do something besides 4m/g and 3 pts/season. If Downey is on the roster the entire post season and the Wings win the cup, super duper. If they don't win the cup it will suck just as much as if he weren't on the team. But I won't blame him, the difference is if they do you will give credit to the fact that an enforcer is in the lineup, much like some on here blame Cujo for an early Playoff exit when the rest of the team sucked too!

But I am not deluded with the thought that Downey is the missing piece, even if you put him in for Kopecky, it hurts the team, now you have first and second liners doing more and logging more minutes and as Babcock put it best last year after a loss to the Pens in the SCF,(Paraphrase) when Dats and Z are out there trying to do too much we lose, he wanted shorter shifts and more 4 line rolling. Having Downey would appear to go against that theory.

The instigator rule hasn't changed much really, really? So when Probie and Kocur were in fights they got a 2 min instigator AND a 10 minute misconduct really??

I seem to see a lot of knew for 2005-06, just me!

Source

Here is one example of how it is different now:

It is the intent and purpose of this Rule that the Referee shall impose the "major and game misconduct" penalty in all cases where the instigator or retaliator of the fight is the aggressor and is plainly doing so for the purpose of intimidation or punishment.

[ENFORCER 0]

Opie? Isn't it okay for us to enjoy having an enforcer on the team? I know your profile states that you don't live in Detroit, but for those that do- let them buy tickets and enjoy a nice hockey game with Downey in the line up. Don't worry, the Wings will become Euronized in about a 2 months once the playoffs are underway.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Jesus dude we have been over this 75,000 times, how is it I know your stance and you still don't know mine.

Follow along carefully.

How many teams have enforcers that can play more than 4 minutes a game and add more than 3 points a season?

Answer, almost all!

It is not that I don't see the value in a fighter getting retribution, it is that I think it is only retribution. (My enforcers stance)

I think Downey is only capable of fighting that is my problem with him. (My Downey stance)

You are trying to take my two stances and make them one.

I think that there are enforcers on other teams that get retaliation as well as being able to put the biscuit in the basket, in the Hossa fight thread (that I already linked forever ago) I stated I am fine with the Wings' bringing in an enforcer if he the Wings keep winning. My preference is that said player can do something besides 4m/g and 3 pts/season. If Downey is on the roster the entire post season and the Wings win the cup, super duper. If they don't win the cup it will suck just as much as if he weren't on the team. But I won't blame him, the difference is if they do you will give credit to the fact that an enforcer is in the lineup, much like some on here blame Cujo for an early Playoff exit when the rest of the team sucked too!

But I am not deluded with the thought that Downey is the missing piece, even if you put him in for Kopecky, it hurts the team, now you have first and second liners doing more and logging more minutes and as Babcock put it best last year after a loss to the Pens in the SCF,(Paraphrase) when Dats and Z are out there trying to do too much we lose, he wanted shorter shifts and more 4 line rolling. Having Downey would appear to go against that theory.

The instigator rule hasn't changed much really, really? So when Probie and Kocur were in fights they got a 2 min instigator AND a 10 minute misconduct really??

I seem to see a lot of knew for 2005-06, just me!

Source

Here is one example of how it is different now:

Once again I can't agree with you. I don't think Downey is that much worse as a player than most of the enforcers in the league. There are plenty of goons who suit up nightly with limited skills. You just have unrealistic expectations of what an enforcer should be. Most teams are content with their tough guys not scoring, and every team has a few healthy scratches per night that are way more talented than the enforcer who's taking those player roster spots.

If Downey is only capable of fighting (which is true), he's no different than most of the enforcers in the NHL.

[lets go pavel 2]

True, but lets play this game for a minute.

Downey punches Lappy in the face, breaks his orbital bone, shatters his jaw. YEAH WINGS!!!!!! WHOO HOO, oh but wait it was retaliation so what happened to cause this, oh Lappy cross checking Zetterberg in the grill, oh wait so Downey didn't prevent s***, he got retribution, which by the way only works if Downey whoops his ass.

Lets say, after last year, when Downey goes after Lappy, Lappy destroys him in two punches, what good has it done? Downey has taught Lappy the invaluable lesson that as long as Downey is on the ice/roster he can do whatever the hell he wants, because his punishment for hitting Z was getting to punch some one out cold.

The answer to cheap shots is not a fighter it is the league cracking down on it, but instead they suspend Simon almost 10 times as long as Pronger for the same act and the same amount of offenses.

The instigator rule has made it so the only way a fight is going to happen is when two guys at the dot decide to go at it. Otherwise it is 17 minutes worth of crap dealt out to the guy trying to defend his teammate.

And then lets look at the results:

The Wings lose a top 10 player in the NHL due to a cheapshot, the player who did it gets 2 minutes for slashing, Downey goes out and gets the retribution we all want (make no mistake I want retribution too, I just don't think an enforcer stops anything), he gets 17 minutes, the Wings have lost 2 players one of which is a top shelf talent, one is their enforcer. The other team has lost most likely a fourth liner.

Opie, I suppose you can write the story that way. Of course, I could just as easily write the ending so Downey kicks his ass, Lappy cowers in fear, and the Red Wings never get cheap-shotted again en route to 6 straight Stanley Cups. What does that prove? I can't prove to you that fighting prevents anything, but you can't prove it doesn't. It's kinda like arguing whether aliens exist; there's no conclusive proof one way or the other, so in the end it boils down to belief.

As for whether enforcers are the best way to prevent cheapshots, that's a whole different argument. I agree that stiffer and more consistent penalties would certainly be a good deterrent, and I also agree that the instigator rule has hurt the effectiveness of enforcers.

[ENFORCER 0]

Once again I can't agree with you. I don't think Downey is that much worse as a player than most of the enforcers in the league. There are plenty of goons who suit up nightly with limited skills. You just have unrealistic expectations of what an enforcer should be. Most teams are content with their tough guys not scoring, and every team has a few healthy scratches per night that are way more talented than the enforcer who's taking those player roster spots.

If Downey is only capable of fighting (which is true), he's no different than most of the enforcers in the NHL.

Give me that over washed up Maltby anyday.

[Opie 308]

First of all, settle down man. Nobody's covering anything up. I made the comment in jest knowing deterrence doesn't have a stat, which is exactly why it's always demanded to be proven by posters such as yourself. You think the lack of evidence means you're right. This isn't a court case.

Second, Lappy got off a good blind-sided hit on Downey, probably due to their last meeting where Downey got the better of him. Downey immediately got up in his face to which Lappy declined (due in part to his face already being smashed up) and was ineffective the rest of the game. So, was Downey doing his job? Let's see, did Lappy concentrate his attention on star players or Downey? You tell me Op.

esteef

I didn't say the lack of evidence proved any of us right, but it has been proven that even with an enforcer in the game on the ice players will take cheap shots, how is that not proof.

I am not the one asserting it stops anything, I said it didn't and I can back it up, with two examples both involving Lappy and Downey?

There are plenty others, I have two hard examples of how an enforcer stopped nothing, how many examples do you have of it stopping anything, you don't because first you would have to prove that some one intended to run at a player, good luck proving intent.

How many Wings players have been hit cheap this year?

Two Lebda and Downey, Lebda delivered a hard hit before it and should have been looking out for it. Downey it was carry over from last year, so what exactly should Downey have been in the line up to prevent this year?

What could he have prevented, Homer's injury, Hossa sliding into the boards?????

I am curious because with a team as stacked offensively as this years wings, that can only seem to win when the O is firing on all cylinders, and this board admits that there is no enforcer in the lineup, shouldn't this team be riddled with injuries, because surely these vicious cheap shots and runs at players would have injured one or two wings by now, thus making them much easier to beat.

I have heard them all guys, from it is entertaining, to it is embarrassing, to it is necessary, but none of you can back up your statements with anything other than I don't get it, or they are necessary look other teams have them, yeah but no other team has 4 cups in recent past.

Listen if this team looked exactly like the Champion Ducks, I would have no problem with it, because it has proven to win, I would still support the Wings. But they don't, and I can see why.

[LeftWinger 4,951]

I like Downey and agree with the other that state he brings something tangible to the team with his physical play and attitude. Not sure if Mac will be up to this role or not, but when Calgary comes to town I sure would like to have either one of them on the ice...

Oh for God's sake would you folks please get off the McCarty train! He is washed up, useless, can't fight anymore, can't score (could he ever) and is USELESS! Don't forget USELESS! Him being hurt all year PREVENTED Downey from being here in his place! IF he were healthy he would've been sent down to GRR and Downey would have been the 13th forward! McCarty = Done! Now lets drop the McCarty ideas ok?

[Opie 308]

Once again I can't agree with you. I don't think Downey is that much worse as a player than most of the enforcers in the league. There are plenty of goons who suit up nightly with limited skills. You just have unrealistic expectations of what an enforcer should be. Most teams are content with their tough guys not scoring, and every team has a few healthy scratches per night that are way more talented than the enforcer who's taking those player roster spots.

If Downey is only capable of fighting (which is true), he's no different than most of the enforcers in the NHL.

Downey plays 4 minutes a game and scores 3 points if lucky a year, what other enforcers do that, I didn't say goon.

Chris Neil, hold on wait I have an easier way to do this,

Hey GS&T no enforcer in the league can score, they all suck.

Now watch the list he comes up with to prove me wrong.

Opie, I suppose you can write the story that way. Of course, I could just as easily write the ending so Downey kicks his ass, Lappy cowers in fear, and the Red Wings never get cheap-shotted again en route to 6 straight Stanley Cups. What does that prove? I can't prove to you that fighting prevents anything, but you can't prove it doesn't. It's kinda like arguing whether aliens exist; there's no conclusive proof one way or the other, so in the end it boils down to belief.

As for whether enforcers are the best way to prevent cheapshots, that's a whole different argument. I agree that stiffer and more consistent penalties would certainly be a good deterrent, and I also agree that the instigator rule has hurt the effectiveness of enforcers.

Agreed but here is where you see it differently than I do.

Downey was in the lineup in the last game against Colorado, he received a cheap shot, what did he stop?

The Avs game before that he wasn't in the lineup how many cheap shots occurred. See you have to prove intent, you have to prove that a player intended to hurt some one but didn't because Downey was in the game. All I have to do is point to a game in which an enforcer was dressed and some one took a cheap shot. I have done that, there fore it proves that having an enforcer in the game does not prevent anything. I don't have to prove intent because, the intent to injure is there in the malicious action.

That is the belief that I have, that if an enforcer is in the game and another player two hands some one across the face they stopped nothing, much like not having an enforcer stopped nothing nor created nothing.

[ENFORCER 0]

Downey plays 4 minutes a game and scores 3 points if lucky a year, what other enforcers do that, I didn't say goon.

Chris Neil, hold on wait I have an easier way to do this,

Hey GS&T no enforcer in the league can score, they all suck.

Why such big letters? Well, I have a rebuttal to that...

Neither do goalies! Know why? Not their job! See how silly of an argument that sounds.

[esteef 2,679]

I didn't say the lack of evidence proved any of us right, but it has been proven that even with an enforcer in the game on the ice players will take cheap shots, how is that not proof.

I am not the one asserting it stops anything, I said it didn't and I can back it up, with two examples both involving Lappy and Downey?

There are plenty others, I have two hard examples of how an enforcer stopped nothing, how many examples do you have of it stopping anything, you don't because first you would have to prove that some one intended to run at a player, good luck proving intent.

How many Wings players have been hit cheap this year?

Two Lebda and Downey, Lebda delivered a hard hit before it and should have been looking out for it. Downey it was carry over from last year, so what exactly should Downey have been in the line up to prevent this year?

What could he have prevented, Homer's injury, Hossa sliding into the boards?????

I am curious because with a team as stacked offensively as this years wings, that can only seem to win when the O is firing on all cylinders, and this board admits that there is no enforcer in the lineup, shouldn't this team be riddled with injuries, because surely these vicious cheap shots and runs at players would have injured one or two wings by now, thus making them much easier to beat.

I have heard them all guys, from it is entertaining, to it is embarrassing, to it is necessary, but none of you can back up your statements with anything other than I don't get it, or they are necessary look other teams have them, yeah but no other team has 4 cups in recent past.

Listen if this team looked exactly like the Champion Ducks, I would have no problem with it, because it has proven to win, I would still support the Wings. But they don't, and I can see why.

Dude, the bolded part is hilarious. Still with the "proof" bulls***. Your problem is your all-or-nothing stance on enforcers preventing cheap shots. It's not an absolute man, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, it's that simple. Better to have one than not IMO, because I do believe they help prevent extra bulls***.

Also, I'd like to ask Homer, or any of the other front-of-the-net guys if they think they've been given any "cheap shots" around the net after the whistle this year. A player doesn't need to leave the game on a stretcher for it to be considered a "cheap shot".

Enforcers deter a lot, you either believe it or you don't. I'm just ensuring the pro-enforcer/fighter argument is being fairly represented here with regard to that notion.

esteef

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Downey plays 4 minutes a game and scores 3 points if lucky a year, what other enforcers do that, I didn't say goon.

Chris Neil, hold on wait I have an easier way to do this,

Hey GS&T no enforcer in the league can score, they all suck.

Now watch the list he comes up with to prove me wrong.

It's too damn long a list to make. And playing 4 minutes a night isn't going to help his chances of scoring either.

BTW, Chris Neil isn't an enforcer. He's more of a light heavy who throws with heavies, but usually loses to them.

You obviously either have something against Downey, or you don't know s*** about enforcers around the league in general, which is evidenced by calling Chris Neil an enforcer. I suppose you think Lucic is an enforcer too?

Fact is, Downey isn't that less talented than most of the tough guys in the league, and I think most posters here would agree with me on that one fact. You're in the minority on this Opie.

[ENFORCER 0]

Give me one reason why Downey shouldn't be in over Maltby anyday?

Downey has 1 point, but the key is his 0 +/-.

Maltby has played 58 games more than Downey, has 11 points, and a -6 +/-!

Now c'mon...

[Guest Shoreline]

It's silly to think Downey prevents people from being bullies. Maybe in some infinitesimal degree, but not worthy of suggesting it's the case. The goons without respect are gonna do it regardless. While respect has gone out of the game to some degree, it actually still remains in large part. If it weren't, for the longest time, guys like Yzerman, Lidstrom, Hull, Gretzky, and so forth, guys known for scoring without dishing out abuse or sitting there in front of the net persistently whacking at the puck within reach of the goalie, tend to be given a normal check and it stops there.

There's always a few instances where some douchebag wants to hammer away exceedingly at skill guys and indeed having an enforcer is good for retribution, but retribution (i.e. enforcing) isn't just what guys like Downey, Parros, Boogaard, Ott, and so on bring. In some cases they can score. In some cases they can defend. But in most cases they bring either energy, or attention from the other team in some way. If players are focused on not getting smacked around, or getting frustrated at an antagonist, that leaves open other players on the enforcer's line to be an option to score, either by passing the puck to or by catching players watching the aforementioned type of enforcer/antagonist.

[ENFORCER 0]

Before I leave work for the day, I just want to ask permission of Opie: May I watch the game tomorrow and enjoy checking and fighting or should I change the channel? I want to make sure what is allowed is respected by you.

[Opie 308]

Dude, the bolded part is hilarious. Still with the "proof" bulls***. Your problem is your all-or-nothing stance on enforcers preventing cheap shots. It's not an absolute man, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, it's that simple. Better to have one than not IMO, because I do believe they help prevent extra bulls***.

Also, I'd like to ask Homer, or any of the other front-of-the-net guys if they think they've been given any "cheap shots" around the net after the whistle this year. A player doesn't need to leave the game on a stretcher for it to be considered a "cheap shot".

Enforcers deter a lot, you either believe it or you don't. I'm just ensuring the pro-enforcer/fighter argument is being fairly represented here with regard to that notion.

esteef

I know this will sadden you but I have to go so this is my last post until Monday. Not banned this time, going to Maine to visit the fam!

So if you had multiple examples where players said they intended to shove a stick straight up someone's ass but didn't because Downey was on the ice you wouldn't think that proof? Because you don't have an example from every possible situation, you wouldn't think that proved your point, even if just one person said it?

Some one made the posts that Enforcers stopped cheapshots, you yourself are saying they don't. Why are you harping on me, I didn't see you calling anyone else out who think empirically that fighting stops things. Why? No clue?

How many times in last years 50+ games Downey played in did Homer get cheap shots(that would be every game based on your def of cheap shots)? How many times did Downey do anything about it?

But seriously though good example!

Your opinion is better to have one than not, my opinion is it is better not to have one than one that plugs up the bench sees 4 minutes of ice time and then someone from a far more important line and role has to cover some 6 minutes he can't.

I am not saying enforcers are useless which is something you can't get over.

Follow closely, here are my stances.

1. Enforcers do not stop cheap shots, they are useful to a team, but they do not stop cheap shots.

2. Downey is a 4 minute a game player with an upside of 3-5 points. The Wings would be better served with Kopecky in his spot even if they score the same amount of points. I feel this way because Kopecky plays nearly 10 minutes a game, 6 minutes that would allow another top line forward to rest.

Please don't confuse the idea that I think Downey is not a good option with me thinking enforcers are useless. I never said they were useless, just that they don't prevent cheap shots.

My favorite non wing is Lucic because he brings the fists and the stick.

BTW My point in bolding the sentence to GS&T was so that he could see it, not trying to prove a point.

In the Hossa fight thread that I have now referenced 3 times I said I would be fine with Neil and many other enforcers, I don't care as long as the Wings are winning. It could be Downey for all I care but My opinion is that I would rather Dats, Z, Hossa or others get the rest they need between shifts than have Downey out there just in case.

In fact in this very thread I actually stated that I wish Kopecky brought the skills Downey does because he could at least skate a regular shift.

[ENFORCER 0]

This is a moot point anyhow...

In typical Kenny Holland fashion, tomorrow night will be Downey's last game up with the Wings.

When Homstrom comes back Tuesday, him and Erricson will be sent back down to AAA. I would venture to guest tomorrow night could be Downey's last NHL game prior to retirement at season's end.

So, enjoy it and the anti-tough crowd can cheer in glee.

[Opie 308]

Before I leave work for the day, I just want to ask permission of Opie: May I watch the game tomorrow and enjoy checking and fighting or should I change the channel? I want to make sure what is allowed is respected by you.

Sorry for lying to you Esteef this is my last post until Monday.

Please go back and read the entire thread, when did I say you could or couldn't enjoy anything, when did I say fighting shouldn't be tolerated or enjoyed. I didn't my take the whole time is that enforcers don't stop anything.

You after cleverly creating a new login, which no one would ever expect mmuahahhahahahaah, are here yet again trying to incite a reaction out of me, you got it the last time, not any more.

You need to be banned via your ip address because you sir are the very defintion of a troll.

[Guest Shoreline]

This is a moot point anyhow...

In typical Kenny Holland fashion, tomorrow night will be Downey's last game up with the Wings.

When Homstrom comes back Tuesday, him and Erricson will be sent back down to AAA. I would venture to guest tomorrow night could be Downey's last NHL game prior to retirement at season's end.

So, enjoy it and the anti-tough crowd can cheer in glee.

I'm sure we could all get an unbiased view point about the usefulness of an enforcer from a guy named "Enforcer".