Why the Red Wings Don't Fight

[Wombat 26]

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

I'm not talking about this year's team, because they have not won the Stanley Cup, which was the basis of your question. So, what is the definition of an enforcer?

[esteef 2,679]

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.

So the pilosophy is great and shows results except when people actually want to see the results? Then it's "well you can't win every year, there's parity blah blah blah"? The only Cups Detroit won had fighters on the team during the reg season AND playoffs. Where is the example of this awesome finesse style winning a Cup without one?

Who cares if no one has had as much success, the way people here talk, this style of play should have brought us more than 4 Cups in the last 15 years.

And yes the Ducks only have one Cup because they aren't balanced like they were with the Cup winning team, like what a lot of people have been saying here. They had finesse AND fighting, like the Cup winning Wings teams, that's the point. (I didn't forget LA, I didn't think I needed to list EVERY example). So what exactly does "out-hustled and out-matched" mean? Physically pushed around perhaps?

esteef

[Guest Shoreline]

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.

I don't quite get what you mean by personally enjoy. Like, you don't bother watching the games? Or you watch them but think sometimes it can be more exciting? If it's the latter we can agree, but I don't really focus so heavily on the if's and but's, since my team is winning, and scoring a lot, and really there's so much to be happy about there's no point in harping on stuff like that around other people, since pretty much no one wants to be around a negative nancy.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

I'm not talking about this year's team, because they have not won the Stanley Cup, which was the basis of your question. So, what is the definition of an enforcer?

Just a guy who's job is to be physical and to stand up for teammates when need be. He also has to be a heavy or a guy that fights regularly with heavies.

For instance, McCarty wasn't a top heavy, but still a heavy nonetheless.

[Wombat 26]

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.

Sorry, I didn't see your other response before I posted a reply. But based on this, what is the definition of a heavyweight?

I'm not trying to annoy you with semantics, it's just good to have a basis for a search.

[Guest micah]

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?

The Wings last true heaveyweight enforcer was Cory Cross. What other possible role could they have thought he might fill?

No, it was McCarty, of course. While he was also a reasonably skilled player, he called himself the Wings' enforcer. I'm gonna assume he knew what role he was supposed to play.

[Guest Shoreline]

So the pilosophy is great and shows results except when people actually want to see the results? Then it's "well you can't win every year, there's parity blah blah blah"? The only Cups Detroit won had fighters on the team during the reg season AND playoffs. Where is the example of this awesome finesse style winning a Cup without one?

Who cares if no one has had as much success, the way people here talk, this style of play should have brought us more than 4 Cups in the last 15 years.

And yes the Ducks only have one Cup because they aren't balanced like they were with the Cup winning team, like what a lot of people have been saying here. They had finesse AND fighting, like the Cup winning Wings teams, that's the point. (I didn't forget LA, I didn't think I needed to list EVERY example). So what exactly does "out-hustled and out-matched" mean? Physically pushed around perhaps?

esteef

You obviously have disagreement throughout of your definition of a "fighter", because a fighter is rather useless if he isn't fighting. And he isn't a fighter if he's busy scoring. The Wings have obviously been drastically near last in fighting, which means they aren't spending time doing it like other teams, and yet are still winning, meaning they don't NEED fighting to win.

I'm not sure if you just don't have the ability to consider how useless fighting is on the Wings based upon the lack of fighting, and consider it objectively and realistically, or if you just like to conjure up weird s*** like "had fighters on the team" (as if that means anything) and connect that to winning a cup because you might not like the fact that the Wings can win with a boring and *****-like team, as a few have put it. Having fighters on the team and not fighting doesn't really make sense if you want to connect fighting to winning.

[esteef 2,679]

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.

No, saying fighting/toughness is not important in the playoffs and that finesse and skill are all you need to win Cups even though there are 0 examples of this in the Wings franchise is what's outrageous.

Balance is what's key here, balance between all those things you listed, but some people here have a very hard time giving any kind of credence to "tough" players, whether they are suited up for the playoffs or not.

esteef

[esteef 2,679]

You obviously have disagreement throughout of your definition of a "fighter", because a fighter is rather useless if he isn't fighting. And he isn't a fighter if he's busy scoring. The Wings have obviously been drastically near last in fighting, which means they aren't spending time doing it like other teams, and yet are still winning, meaning they don't NEED fighting to win.

Did Downey play last year? How about Drake? Did we "win"?

esteef

[Guest micah]

Or you watch them but think sometimes it can be more exciting?

That's the one.

If it's the latter we can agree, but I don't really focus so heavily on the if's and but's, since my team is winning, and scoring a lot, and really there's so much to be happy about there's no point in harping on stuff like that around other people, since pretty much no one wants to be around a negative nancy.

I'll try not to be so negative.

Here goes...

...ahem..

I am positive this team would be more exciting to watch if we had somebody on the ice who had fists the size of catcher's mits who was willing to risk a bloody nose once in a while to stick up for his teammates or spark the team.

That does feel a little better, actually.

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Sorry, I didn't see your other response before I posted a reply. But based on this, what is the definition of a heavyweight?

I'm not trying to annoy you with semantics, it's just good to have a basis for a search.

There is no unanimous definition, but I call a guy like Downey a heavyweight. I also think McCarty was a heavy up until he went to Calgary, where he started to lose to lesser fighters.

A heavyweight is a guy that regularly fights with heavies and can hold his own. For instance, Stortini fights a lot with heavies, but the guy is a punching bag. Cote is probably the same way, although he's better than Stortini. A guy like Boll or Clarkson in New Jersey are guys who are not heavies. Also, a heavy doesn't necessarily have to be a big guy. For instance, Tie Domi and Rob Ray were heavyweights. They could beat anybody on a given night.

So it's not some traditional boxing definition of a heavyweight, but that's what I think it is.

BTW, the answer to my trivia question is no team I can think of. But go ahead and search.

[Wombat 26]

No, saying fighting/toughness is not important in the playoffs and that finesse and skill are all you need to win Cups even though there are 0 examples of this in the Wings franchise is what's outrageous.

Balance is what's key here, balance between all those things you listed, but some people here have a very hard time giving any kind of credence to "tough" players, whether they are suited up for the playoffs or not.

esteef

Don't worry, I completely agree with balance. I was worried that the trade-off from Drake to Hossa would affect the balance of the team. I prefer a team with some toughness to it... not in the form of one knuckle dragger on the 4th line, but in overall team toughness. I thought last year's team had overall team toughness, and I haven't seen the same level this year.

I'm not going to say though that not having a "fighter" will prevent a team from winning a cup. There are far too many variables, and really we have not had enough samples since the "European" style is still relatively new to the NHL. I have a feeling that a team can win and will win the Stanley Cup without an active fighter on the roster at some point, and this discussion will go down the same path as "can't win with an Euro-centric roster" and "can't win with a European captain".

There are many ways to win in the NHL, and right now, the Wings have a system that has been guaranteeing a chance to win year in and year out. I would prefer the Wings to be more balanced, but I can't complain that they aren't giving me, the fan, a team that every year is a contender.

[Guest Shoreline]

Did Downey play last year? How about Drake? Did we "win"?

esteef

Maybe you're not following how little sense the post you made makes..

The Wings could have superstar goal scorers on the team, yet not be scoring hardly at all. Does it make sense that I suggest that elite goal scorers are the reason this team wins if they had like 10 goals, while every other team's superstars have like 30-60 goals? I'd have as much leverage of suggesting this as you would suggesting that just because we have a fighter on our team, who really hardly ever fights, that this helped the team win the cup. I could suggest that equally, this team having Matt Ellis on the team last year is the reason this team won the cup, and have just as much validity in this statement as your connection between fighters and cups.

[Guest micah]

Sorry, I didn't see your other response before I posted a reply. But based on this, what is the definition of a heavyweight?

I'm not trying to annoy you with semantics, it's just good to have a basis for a search.

I think that anyone who fights 10+ times in a year is either an enforcer or just a guy who plain likes to fight. Ian Lapperierre is an enforcer, but not a heaveyweight. Heveyweights are big guys, usually 6'2+ and 225+ who fight well and without much hesitation. Most heavies are their team's enforcer, guys like Laraque and Brashear and Boogaard. Some heavies, like Chara (and I suppose Laraque too), have a bigger role on their team than "just" fighting. Some guys who are remarkably big and heavy, aren't what one might call a heaveyweight. Uwe Krupp, for example, was not a heveyweight. Some guys are smallish, but such good fighters that they are grouped in with and referred to as heavies, guys like Tie Domi for example. There are no real definitions, you just hafta make up your own as you go along just like the rest of us:)

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

No surprise, I didnt really like the article. Dont agree with alot of what he said. Saying the 97 team didnt fight, or werent that much more physical then this years Wings. That's a joke. Shanny, McCarty, Vladdy, Lapointe, Kocur, Pushor(as brutal as he was), Rouse, etc.

Doesnt matter, fighting isnt big in the playoffs and as long as the Wings play physical and hard that's all that counts now.

[Guest Shoreline]

No surprise, I didnt really like the article. Dont agree with alot of what he said. Saying the 97 team didnt fight, or werent that much more physical then this years Wings. That's a joke. Shanny, McCarty, Vladdy, Lapointe, Kocur, Pushor(as brutal as he was), Rouse, etc.

Doesnt matter, fighting isnt big in the playoffs and as long as the Wings play physical and hard that's all that counts now.

You mean, "score"? I thought that's all that counts.

[egroen 384]

The Wings last true heaveyweight enforcer was Cory Cross. What other possible role could they have thought he might fill?

No, it was McCarty, of course. While he was also a reasonably skilled player, he called himself the Wings' enforcer. I'm gonna assume he knew what role he was supposed to play.

As always with these arguments, I think everyone is on completey seperate pages. Is there really anyone who would not love to see another McCarty circa 1997 on this team? I have to think those fans are few and far between. I still think there is a big difference between McCarty and someone I view as a more pure "enforcer" like George Parros (Godard, Downey, Cote, Boogard, Orr, Shelly, etc), for instance.

I'm not even against having more of a pure enforcer like Downey again for next year, but I would still prefer someone like McCarty. I'm hoping Abdelkader and Ericsson give us a taste as they start to really break into the league.

BTW, the answer to my trivia question is no team I can think of. But go ahead and search.

How about the Detroit team of the 50s

A lot of Original 6 teams did not have enforcers.

Edited April 15, 2009 by egroen

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Maybe you're not following how little sense the post you made makes..

The Wings could have superstar goal scorers on the team, yet not be scoring hardly at all. Does it make sense that I suggest that elite goal scorers are the reason this team wins if they had like 10 goals, while every other team's superstars have like 30-60 goals? I'd have as much leverage of suggesting this as you would suggesting that just because we have a fighter on our team, who really hardly ever fights, that this helped the team win the cup. I could suggest that equally, this team having Matt Ellis on the team last year is the reason this team won the cup, and have just as much validity in this statement as your connection between fighters and cups.

Nice try, but Matt Ellis was not a Red Wing when we won the Cup last season. He was on the Kings. Besides, it has no validity. Here's what you were trying to say, Mark Hartigan was the reason we won the Cup, well no. Sure he played some games, but didnt have the impact Downey did during the regular season, or the affect Drake had on the team during the post season. The Wings have only won Cups when they had a legit tough guy, and surronding tough players on the roster. If they win this season it'll be the 1st without one, and then we'll all shut up. But that's 16 wins away..

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

You mean, "score"? I thought that's all that counts.

That's what it takes to win, but I'd hope the Wings score, and play hard. Like last years team did.

[Guest Shoreline]

As always with these arguments, I think everyone is on completey seperate pages. Is there really anyone who would not love to see another McCarty circa 1997 on this team? I have to think those fans are few and far between. I still think there is a big difference between McCarty and someone I view as a more pure "enforcer" like George Parros (Godard, Downey, Cote, Boogard, Orr, Shelly, etc), for instance.

I'm not even against having more of a pure enforcer like Downey again for next year, but I would still prefer someone like McCarty. I'm hoping Abdelkader and Ericsson give us a taste as they start to really break into the league.

I really wouldn't want Ericsson as an enforcer, but it would be good for him to use that big body to put some bruises on guys who want to either go to the net or screen the goalie/look for garbage goals/rebounds. I'm also hoping the Wings pick up on the little things they did well during last season's playoffs, which is finish checks, and don't let opposing offenses behind the defense (i.e. clear break or clean shot on Ozzie). I'm quite interested as to how the Wings will adapt to these playoffs.

[Wombat 26]

There is no unanimous definition, but I call a guy like Downey a heavyweight. I also think McCarty was a heavy up until he went to Calgary, where he started to lose to lesser fighters.

A heavyweight is a guy that regularly fights with heavies and can hold his own. For instance, Stortini fights a lot with heavies, but the guy is a punching bag. Cote is probably the same way, although he's better than Stortini. A guy like Boll or Clarkson in New Jersey are guys who are not heavies. Also, a heavy doesn't necessarily have to be a big guy. For instance, Tie Domi and Rob Ray were heavyweights. They could beat anybody on a given night.

So it's not some traditional boxing definition of a heavyweight, but that's what I think it is.

BTW, the answer to my trivia question is no team I can think of. But go ahead and search.

I understand what you are trying to have as the answer (zero teams), but I'm still just trying to find out what exactly an enforcer is. Earlier you said a guy that goes against heavies is an enforcer, but here you are refining that he must also hold his own with other heavies.

In general I agree with your definition, but there are some on this message board that try to put certain guys in as enforcers when they clearly are not. Drake was not an enforcer.

After this run around in definitions, may I ask your opinions of the 05/06 Stanley Cup winning Carolina Hurricanes? This is a team that had only 17 fighting majors all season long. Jesse Boulerice led the team with 5 fighting majors, but was traded on January 30th to the St. Louis Blues after playing in only 26 games with the team.

Does this count as a team that won a Cup without a legit enforcer?

[Guest Shoreline]

Firstly, Ellis played as many games (and moreover had around the same production) during the season as say, Drake, and while you're right about the team he was on, he played on as many games as Downey did in the playoffs for the Wings. Hence why the analogy is perfectly on target.

And to this bit..

If they win this season it'll be the 1st without one, and then we'll all shut up. But that's 16 wins away..

Good luck with that. No matter what happens the whining about a fighter thing won't change, because there hasn't been a correlation between fighting and winning for the Wings. The only one there is, is entertainment and fighting, which I've already acknowledged as a legitimate reason, just not the way the Wings are headed.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

I understand what you are trying to have as the answer (zero teams), but I'm still just trying to find out what exactly an enforcer is. Earlier you said a guy that goes against heavies is an enforcer, but here you are refining that he must also hold his own with other heavies.

In general I agree with your definition, but there are some on this message board that try to put certain guys in as enforcers when they clearly are not. Drake was not an enforcer.

After this run around in definitions, may I ask your opinions of the 05/06 Stanley Cup winning Carolina Hurricanes? This is a team that had only 17 fighting majors all season long. Jesse Boulerice led the team with 5 fighting majors, but was traded on January 30th to the St. Louis Blues after playing in only 26 games with the team.

Does this count as a team that won a Cup without a legit enforcer?

I suppose, Boulerice is a pretty big joke. The thing the Canes had, was a tough enviroment to start with. Ward, Commodore, Cole, Brind'Amour, etc. That's what teams need, a tough enviroment. Whether they need an enforcer to be a catalyst, or build the team in that direction, that's what wins. Not the enforcer, but the culture he brings to the team.

[C-TownWing 0]

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

I must've been asleep when Edmonton and Calgary won their Cups this decade.

Damn, if only we had Chris Neil for the last 7-8 years, we would've won like 3-4 more Cups!

Whoever made that 49ers comparison is dead on. Waaaah...we only have four Cups in 11 years. Waaaah...we don't have 12 Milan Lucics up front.

There's going to be a day--maybe next year, maybe 10 years from now, who knows--when we suck, and you're going to regret not enjoying this more.

[Detroit # 1 Fan 2,204]

Firstly, Ellis played as many games (and moreover had around the same production) during the season as say, Drake, and while you're right about the team he was on, he played on as many games as Downey did in the playoffs for the Wings. Hence why the analogy is perfectly on target.

And to this bit..

Good luck with that. No matter what happens the whining about a fighter thing won't change, because there hasn't been a correlation between fighting and winning for the Wings. The only one there is, is entertainment and fighting, which I've already acknowledged as a legitimate reason, just not the way the Wings are headed.

Like I just posted, it isnt what he did in the playoffs, but what he instilled during the regular season, that carried on in the playoffs, is why people believe Downey had a large impact, and it wasnt all him. Drake and others had lots to do with it too.

Your right about the fighting part, but who knows, the roster will be different next season, that's a given.