I think hfboards hates wings because of the euro players

[Guest Shoreline]

Bowman wouldn't ice this team and Bowman's team wouldn't act like vaginas night after night. I guess me, among many many many others, have no idea what "real" hockey is supposed to be then. When the 1st place team in the conference can't sell out games, create energy in an arena, and has a lot of their own fans turning against them.... I'd say there's something wrong with that product, no?

It's hard to fathom how useless the "what Bowman would do?" arguing is, but there's no debate about the fact that Bowman was around when the economy was certainly better (judging by how much the organization spent on players), and the Wings success was newer for those not around for the 50s cups. The only thing wrong are malcontents (wahh enforcers, wahh Osgood, wahh Conklin, wahh Flip, wahh Kopecky, wahh boring, or anything mindfly posts) and bandwagoners who whine when the Wings don't beat the f*** out of teams every game they play. Maybe they can help make things right, hop off the bandwagon, and cheer for a "more exciting" team that likely won't win Stanley Cups.

People seem to have forgot what was really boring. Watching bogged down trap/clutch&grab style gameplay and 1/2 goals per game with the Devils winning by putting people to sleep. There's obviously nothing wrong with the product if it's winning, and even scoring a truckload more goals than usual.

Why bandwagoners can't stand how the Wings are now, despite winning, is similar to why so many people can't have long term relationships. After so many years of the same thing (similar success, in this case) the excitement goes way down and you simply get used to seeing/experiencing the same thing. Also similarly, being a 49ers fan, I was used to so much success in my younger years, winning was less exciting. You only need to experience your team having so many s***ty seasons to have an understanding of how great it is to win consistently, even if it isn't in the ZOMG fashion some teams do it today.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Shoreline

[norrisnick 1]

Bowman wouldn't ice this team and Bowman's team wouldn't act like vaginas night after night. I guess me, among many many many others, have no idea what "real" hockey is supposed to be then. When the 1st place team in the conference can't sell out games, create energy in an arena, and has a lot of their own fans turning against them.... I'd say there's something wrong with that product, no?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the product. There is a whole hell of a lot wrong with the marketplace though. When a team has been 1st in the conference for well over a decade, excitement and energy is exceedingly hard to generate. Fans are in regular season mode every bit as much as the guys on the ice are. And sure, if you compare the playoff crowds in Detroit to the ones in cities that are glad just to make it that far, you're going to be left a bit wanting. And if fans turn on the team, they can off themselves as I highly doubt Ilitch or Holland or anyone else associated with the Wings gives two s***s about them. They're in it to win.

And back to Bowman. He diminishes the role of fighting on his teams as much as possible. If you can't play, he doesn't have time for you. Dig through the rosters of his teams. The guys that can fight but can't do anything else worthwile find themselves leaving in short order. And finding fighters that can play is pretty hard to do as you've got to find them when they're 17-18 years old and you have no idea how they'll be like in their 20s. Holland would be tickled pink if he could land a guy like Lapointe or 90s McCarty. For every Lucic and Neal and Backes that makes it there are at least dozen big draftpicks that never got anywhere. But pining for those dozens of scrubs or guys like Downey or Norton or Big Snake or whoever else they bring to training camp is just pointless. You work yourself up in a lather over guys that won't make a meaningful impact.

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

On the subject on skill versus toughness I think episode from the 1972 Summit Series would serve as a good illustration.

In game six of the fiercely fought series, the Canadian Clarke, of the Philadelphia Flyers, slashed Kharlamov on his left ankle, causing a fracture. Although Kharlamov bravely continued in game six, he was unable to play in game seven and was ineffective in the final game. Some observers say that this injury was a crucial incident which turned the tide of the series in Canada's favour as they entered it three games to one in the series. Commentators believed that constant slashing of Kharlamov was in order to neutralize his goal scoring threat. Years later, John Ferguson, Sr., an assistant coach with Team Canada, was quoted as saying "I called Clarke over to the bench, looked over at Kharlamov and said, 'I think he needs a tap on the ankle.' I didn't think twice about it. It was Us versus Them. And Kharlamov was killing us. I mean, somebody had to do it."

One might consider that Bobby Clarke was showing toughness. I would say it was unsportsmanlike act and got nothing to do with finding out, which team is better at playing hockey.

Basically what I am saying is that "toughness" of that sort is just a flavor of cheating.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

On the subject on skill versus toughness I think episode from the 1972 Summit Series would serve as a good illustration.

One might consider that Bobby Clarke was showing toughness. I would say it was unsportsmanlike act and got nothing to do with finding out, which team is better at playing hockey.

Basically what I am saying is that "toughness" of that sort is just a flavor of cheating.

You do what you have to do to win, espicially back in the 70's. I do agree that it wasnt toughness, because it wasnt. That's how Bobby Clarke had to play to win, he had tons of talent, but was also as crazy as Chris Simon. Honestly, I'm sure there were more then a few people on this board hoping a Wing would slash Forsbergs ankles and take him out because he was that good against us in the playoffs. It wasnt "tough", it was nessacary. Hey, we didnt do it and sometimes lost to the Avs in the playoffs (1999 when Forsberg killed us every game a good example)

It is the flavor of cheating sure, but it's 100 percent legal.

[Electrophile 3,554]

Bowman's team wouldn't act like vaginas night after night.

If you have a point to make, can't you make it without being crass?

Edited March 15, 2009 by Electrophile

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

You do what you have to do to win, espicially back in the 70's. I do agree that it wasnt toughness, because it wasnt. That's how Bobby Clarke had to play to win, he had tons of talent, but was also as crazy as Chris Simon. Honestly, I'm sure there were more then a few people on this board hoping a Wing would slash Forsbergs ankles and take him out because he was that good against us in the playoffs. It wasnt "tough", it was nessacary. Hey, we didnt do it and sometimes lost to the Avs in the playoffs (1999 when Forsberg killed us every game a good example)

It is the flavor of cheating sure, but it's 100 percent legal.

Well, one can still hope that game hockey would be somehow better and more honourable than real life. Unfortunately better man (or woman) winning against the cheating opponent is mostly premise of movies.

[norrisnick 1]

On the subject on skill versus toughness I think episode from the 1972 Summit Series would serve as a good illustration.

One might consider that Bobby Clarke was showing toughness. I would say it was unsportsmanlike act and got nothing to do with finding out, which team is better at playing hockey.

Basically what I am saying is that "toughness" of that sort is just a flavor of cheating.

Clarke and the rest of the abomination that Shero put together in the '70s hurt hockey more than anything Bettman has ever done.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Bowman wouldn't ice this team and Bowman's team wouldn't act like vaginas night after night. I guess me, among many many many others, have no idea what "real" hockey is supposed to be then. When the 1st place team in the conference can't sell out games, create energy in an arena, and has a lot of their own fans turning against them.... I'd say there's something wrong with that product, no?

So many things wrong with this post I can't even believe it.

[skacore 2]

So many things wrong with this post I can't even believe it.

explain

[Doc Holiday 0]

explain

A couple posters put it quite nicely. You should see their posts shortly after yours.

[skacore 2]

A couple posters put it quite nicely. You should see their posts shortly after yours.

k

the games are televised so everyone knows what a wings' game is like, i don't need essaylike posts to defend what i'm saying, proof is right there

[Doc Holiday 0]

k

the games are televised so everyone knows what a wings' game is like, i don't need essaylike posts to defend what i'm saying, proof is right there

So you have nothing to refute because the proof is in the pudding.....

Though I guess all the one goal games and goal scoring is a real factor in how boring the team is, and by golly they do a lot of that. What a boring hockey team.

[lomekian 201]

You do what you have to do to win, espicially back in the 70's. I do agree that it wasnt toughness, because it wasnt. That's how Bobby Clarke had to play to win, he had tons of talent, but was also as crazy as Chris Simon. Honestly, I'm sure there were more then a few people on this board hoping a Wing would slash Forsbergs ankles and take him out because he was that good against us in the playoffs. It wasnt "tough", it was nessacary. Hey, we didnt do it and sometimes lost to the Avs in the playoffs (1999 when Forsberg killed us every game a good example)

It is the flavor of cheating sure, but it's 100 percent legal.

Bulls***...whether you may occasionally like to see it happen its cheating no matter how you dress it up. Like all those knee on knee cheapshots on Yzerman. Trying to do somethng that is specifically designed to hirt an opponent whilst knowing its outside the rules of the game, is basically bringing the sport into disrepute. Its a bit like if you had a rivalry at a sales office and your competitor slashed your tyres so you couldn't get around or wiped your PC...surely the purpose of both human existance and sport is to aspire to be something better than animals?

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Bulls***...whether you may occasionally like to see it happen its cheating no matter how you dress it up. Like all those knee on knee cheapshots on Yzerman. Trying to do somethng that is specifically designed to hirt an opponent whilst knowing its outside the rules of the game, is basically bringing the sport into disrepute. Its a bit like if you had a rivalry at a sales office and your competitor slashed your tyres so you couldn't get around or wiped your PC...surely the purpose of both human existance and sport is to aspire to be something better than animals?

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but there's nothing in the rules against it. Morally, it's not right. But players couldnt care less about "morally correct" if it means a Gold Medal, a playoff series, or the Stanley Cup.

[lomekian 201]

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but there's nothing in the rules against it. Morally, it's not right. But players couldnt care less about "morally correct" if it means a Gold Medal, a playoff series, or the Stanley Cup.

Surely there quite clearly is something in the rules against it? Maybe nothing warranting serious censure, but none the less its still against the rules, written and otherwise. A lot of players in amny sports and happily particularly hockey, do consider morally correct and the spirit of the game as important. Its why everyone hates avery, why the lady bying exists, and why the likes of lidstrom and ray bourque are so well respected. Everyone wants the edge, but its in those tight situations where the real class of an individual or team shows through.

[Pskov Wings Fan 71]

I'm not saying it's a good thing, but there's nothing in the rules against it. Morally, it's not right. But players couldnt care less about "morally correct" if it means a Gold Medal, a playoff series, or the Stanley Cup.

I am not so sure that deliberately hurting player on the other team is legal.

As a side note, I guess "win at all cost" notion exists everywhere, but I find it to be more prominent in North America vs Europe (don't have much experience with other parts of the world to compare). I understand it in business world, but in hockey I would like more sport and less business (wishful thinking, I know).

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

I am not so sure that deliberately hurting player on the other team is legal.

As a side note, I guess "win at all cost" notion exists everywhere, but I find it to be more prominent in North America vs Europe (don't have much experience with other parts of the world to compare). I understand it in business world, but in hockey I would like more sport and less business (wishful thinking, I know).

You'd probably get a suspension or a fine or some sort, but nothing super serious.

And dont we all wish it could be more sport, winning is all that matters to most people anymore, the well being of the players is 2nd. Sad but true, at least it isnt as bad in the regular season (Or even THIS season, havent noticed alot of dirt in order to win.)