Why the Red Wings Don't Fight

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think anyone here wishes for Holland to alter the team as to re-create the Broad Street Bully's of the 1970's, but add a little bit of character to go along with the skill like we had seen with our '97, & '98 Cups.

Back then Detroit could, & would beat most of it's opponents on both the scoreboard, & with their fists (much of both came thru the draft)...Now that IMO was a fun team to watch!

That's how this issue is always reverts to black and white. Most people on these boards like you, myself, Esteef, GMR, ect, would just want one guy on the 4th line and a bruising defenseman that are able to drop the gloves and stick up for themselves and their teammates. This contributes to overall team toughness and allows the team to not be one dimensional. UK said it best above how it allows for team balance. Somehow us believing this type of lineup would make the team more successful makes us all pro-goon and wanting a team full of bruisers with no skill besides fisticuffs. It boggles my mind.

[Guest micah]

I'd be complaining if the Wings were playing the old New Jersey trap-and-bore style of rope-a-dope hockey

I don't need my type of hockey to be 100% happy with the team. Their job is to win.

Explain. Would you or would you not be "100% happy" if they were playing Devils-style trap hockey but winning just as often. Heck, let's say they were winning even more often and won the President's Trophy. Would you prefer that to wahat you've seen this year?

[Guest Shoreline]

So if Detroit doesn't need to fight to win, and folks always try to claim that "fighters" don't play in the playoffs (even though Drake, McCarty both played last year), then why doesn't Detroit have more Cups in the last 10-15 years? Did other teams "out-skill" or "out-finesse" the Wings in the playoffs? Did Anaheim out-skill the Wings on their way to the Cup? Did Edmonton? Did Calgary?

All I hear every game is how great the Wings org is from owner down to the stacked-with-talent lineups year after year. If that's so true and they've built this model franchise and style of play, why don't they have more Cups to show for it? I mean, if finesse and skill are all you need, where's the hardware? From what I can see, the years they did win it all, they absolutely had the fighter/tough guy element.

Articles like this are interesting reads, but in my opinion, not entirely accurate.

esteef

Not even the most consistently good overall team will win the cup every single year anymore, as they are only human and this league has been increasing in number of teams and parity, albeit slowly. However, to challenge your "more cups" philosophy, how many teams have more cups than this ***** Detroit team in the last 15 years? Nobody.

The Ducks have a single cup, and that's because the Wings could not figure out how to put the puck in the net. Fighting wouldn't have done that. In the losses in those years to the Kings (which you forgot), Oilers, Flames, and the 2003 Ducks (with help of Jiggy's pads), they were simply outhustled and outmatched, i.e. skill and talent without effort won't win anything. Before that, it was the Avs, who were pretty much on par with the Wings talent-wise, so it was a toss-up as to who would win.

There is a reasonable argument to the Wings needing a tough defenseman to box out in front of the net (so the goalie can see shots or pretend rushes to the front of the net from the back boards), or tough forwards like Drake to win battles along the boards and finish checks (both of these excellent defensive strategies), but this team does not need fighters or fighting to win. F. Michael at least admitted it's only exciting to watch, which is the ONLY benefit.

Explain. Would you or would you not be "100% happy" if they were playing Devils-style trap hockey but winning just as often. Heck, let's say they were winning even more often and won the President's Trophy. Would you prefer that to wahat you've seen this year?

The Devils were forced to change their trap philosophy. The two biggest reasons? Enforcing rules that should have been enforced long ago on obstruction, and opening up the game which makes the trap not exactly a winning formula nowadays. The league obviously doesn't want the trap either.

As for my type of hockey, it would actually probably be another team, like the Sharks. But I'm a Red Wings fan, so no matter who may be more exciting, I cheer for my Wings. If I have a problem with the way this team is winning, that's my fault, not the team's. Far more than me wanting my team to play my own type of hockey that I like, I prefer them to win.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Shoreline

[uk_redwing 495]

Trivia time.

Name me the last team to win the Stanley Cup, who dressed an enforcer for less than 10 games combined in the regular season and playoffs?

You could up that number of games to 25 and still noone would have an answer.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Same arguments. Same bulls*** as before.

[Guest micah]

but this team does not need fighters or fighting to win. F. Michael at least admitted it's only exciting to watch, which is the ONLY benefit.

Really - the only benefit of fighting is entertainment? Did you feel that way about the '97brawl game against the Aves? Why or why not? How do you immagine this team would have responded to that hit on Draper?

[Wombat 26]

So if Detroit doesn't need to fight to win, and folks always try to claim that "fighters" don't play in the playoffs (even though Drake, McCarty both played last year), then why doesn't Detroit have more Cups in the last 10-15 years? Did other teams "out-skill" or "out-finesse" the Wings in the playoffs? Did Anaheim out-skill the Wings on their way to the Cup? Did Edmonton? Did Calgary?

All I hear every game is how great the Wings org is from owner down to the stacked-with-talent lineups year after year. If that's so true and they've built this model franchise and style of play, why don't they have more Cups to show for it? I mean, if finesse and skill are all you need, where's the hardware? From what I can see, the years they did win it all, they absolutely had the fighter/tough guy element.

Articles like this are interesting reads, but in my opinion, not entirely accurate.

esteef

Why doesn't the most skilled team win every year? Why doesn't the toughest team win every year? Why doesn't the most experienced win every year? Why doesn't the best coached team win every year?

Because it's impossible to win the championship every year. I'm shocked and feel blessed that the Wings have won as many championships as they have every year. This isn't Playstation... it's real, and in real sports you have to deal with matchups, hunger, injuries, skill, toughness, and many MANY more attributes in every game of every season. The fact is that the Wings are a model franchise because each year they win a lot in the regular season, which puts them in position to legitimately compete for the championship every year. No other team in hockey can claim that every year for the past 15 years, their team has been a legit contender.

Expecting anything more than being a contender is outrageous. Stanley Cup Championships are not some sort of Detroit birthright.

[Guest Shoreline]

LOL - funny that you fail to compare the number of FMs Detroit had those years to now. All most of us want is guys who are willing and able to drop the gloves, nobody has said we need to be among the league-leaders in FMs, have they? '97-'98 had 4 regular roster players with 5 or more fights, even though they were last in the league in FMs. That was okay with me. This year's squad has what, 1/3 as many FMs as that team did? I don't need a goon-squad, I'd be happy if they returned to icing a well rounded squad that was at least capable of taking care of themselves instead of hoping the refs would intervene before big meanies hurt them.

Here's a grand idea. Be happy they're winning. Is that such a difficult thing?

[Doc Holiday 0]

Really - the only benefit of fighting is entertainment? Did you feel that way about the '97brawl game against the Aves? Why or why not? How do you immagine this team would have responded to that hit on Draper?

Who knows? The 2008-2009 roster wasn't on the ice that night.

[Wombat 26]

Trivia time.

Name me the last team to win the Stanley Cup, who dressed an enforcer for less than 10 games combined in the regular season and playoffs?

It might depend on what the definition of an enforcer is.

[mjlegend 155]

I wonder if Aaron Downey would have made this team better? I suppose I'll never know anybody's opinion on the matter...

[Doc Holiday 0]

I wonder if Aaron Downey would have made this team better? I suppose I'll never know anybody's opinion on the matter...

He had the intensity the team needed, that's for sure.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

It might depend on what the definition of an enforcer is.

I don't think this team can challenge that definition much. Kopecky doesn't qualify, if that helps any.

[uk_redwing 495]

I wonder if Aaron Downey would have made this team better? I suppose I'll never know anybody's opinion on the matter...

If only there was a 30 page thread on it...

[Guest Shoreline]

He had the intensity the team needed, that's for sure.

And, as one of the articles mentioned this season, he was a good locker room presence. I dunno if that was just Lids appeasing to Downey, but given how little Downey has played on the team this season, the only surmising I can do is the team is fine without Downey up, who is marginalized by the Wings skill-first philosophy. Obviously Helm and Leino get the logically favorable treatment.

[softshoes 83]

this joint needs a wing added on just for goalie/enforcer threads/arguments.

[Guest Shoreline]

I question if they have the drive as well, but I just don't correlate that with fighting, but shoddy defense/tending.

[xBrave_Heartx 0]

You dont NEED a guy like Downey in the roster everygame, or the 51/52 he played last year. But, It would be great for the team to have a guy like a Carcillo,Eager or Voros who can play the game and drop the mitts when needed be for hte 82 games.. Then maybe have a legit enforcer on the back burners. Kind of like the way Ottawa used Brian McGrattan. sparingly.

That is my 0.02$, Zette has been on record on how he feels bout Downey/Fights. and He's in favor of it.

[Chunkylover 26]

Pretty good article. I agree with Ken's perspective; we really need to ditch the cap. Also, nice to see hockey getting some press out there.

[Guest micah]

Who knows? The 2008-2009 roster wasn't on the ice that night.

Uh-huh. That's why I asked how you thought they would have responded had they been. Are you saying that you haven't seen enough of the players that we're icing now to make an informed guess?

[Guest Shoreline]

Uh-huh. That's why I asked how you thought they would have responded had they been. Are you saying that you haven't seen enough of the players that we're icing now to make an informed guess?

Maybe he's saying it's a waste of time to bother with strange scenarios like that.

[Guest micah]

Here's a grand idea. Be happy they're winning. Is that such a difficult thing?

Sometimes. You said you wouldn't be happy if they were playing the trap (and presumably still winning). Which is the case, would you or would you not be happy?

I'm on record something like a brazilian times saying that I am both happy that the Wings are winning and unhappy that they are playing a brand of hockey that I don't personally enjoy.

[egroen 384]

It might depend on what the definition of an enforcer is.

Absolutely correct. The original 6 teams did not carry what we think of as enforcers because the skill level needed to actually make one of only 6 professional teams back then was so high. Enforcers did not really become a part of the game until the 70s and 80s with expansion and the watering down of the league. The league is deeper and more skilled now than it was in the 70s and 80s, and coupled with the new rules, teams do not need a full-time enforcer in order to win.

Before Downey last year, I can not even think of the last true enforcer the Wings have had. Do we really have to go all the way back to Kocur... and was he even an 'enforcer' his last few years?

[Guest micah]

Maybe he's saying it's a waste of time to bother with strange scenarios like that.

Yeah, because people who frequent internet forums tend to hate wasting time.

It really isn't that strange of a scenerio. The fight-game was (at least according to certain Wings players, who probably don't know anything about hockey) the momment that that particular team pulled together as a group. I'm wondering if our current squad would have reacted the same. Was the reaction of the Wings in that situation appropriate?

It's been said in this thread that fighting is "only for entertainment". I challenged that, but the poster didn't respond.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Absolutely correct. The original 6 teams did not carry what we think of as enforcers because the skill level needed to actually make one of only 6 professional teams back then was so high. Enforcers did not really become a part of the game until the 70s and 80s with expansion and the watering down of the league. The league is deeper and more skilled now than it was in the 70s and 80s, and coupled with the new rules, teams do not need a full-time enforcer in order to win.

Before Downey last year, I can not even think of the last true enforcer the Wings have had. Do we really have to go all the way back to Kocur... and was he even an 'enforcer' his last few years?

McCarty was an enforcer, although he tallied off towards the end of his career. Enforcer doesn't mean he has to be one of the 10 best fighters in the league, it just means he has to be a guy who can go with heavies and that's what McCarty did quite a few times in his career.

To define it differently, would mean there's only a handful of enforcers in the league. That's not how I see it.