LGW is Pro-Enforcer: The Results are In.

[Guest Shoreline]

Your posts are now making sense to me.... Rice-A-Roni is tasty.

Probably because the only part of the post you read was "wanking". Familiar theme here.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Shoreline

[Doggy 130]

You said it.

I love euro-***** too. What's wrong with loving euro-*****?

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Here are my predictions:

1. The NHL has found its way around the obstruction rules. They are working to eliminate the needless hooks, etc. However, old school pre-lockout hockey is returning. Hence, you will see the Philadelphia Flyers and Toronto Maple Leaves return to the playoffs this year, with the intimidating factor in mind.

2. The Red Wings WILL once again carry an enforcer this year (Brad May). It won't be every game, but on a 1/3rd game basis. The symptoms are evident that the Red Wings illness is a lack of tenacity/ tougness. Big Rig cannot be asked to fight (period), Franzen has to quit with his 2 minute roughings or he will end up hurt, and our skilled forwards will benefit from the added security.

3. I will predict now that in games that we carry an enforcer/ May; we will have a winning percentage of 15% higher than those games that one is not dressed.

Now, doing my part to support LGW and drawing hits to the site, I will sit back with my Martini (Vodka/ Dirty of course) and watch this thread turn into a 10+ page thread.

The anti-enforcers, whom did I mention were outvoted, will try to ignore this thread. Yet, they will be our best customers.

What genius came up with these predictions in post 1?

Oh... pardon me... I'm rather embarrassed and not being very humble.

The last one is a case study on the human mind. We have been taught through pedagogy of socialization not to respond to things that bother us. However, there are a few here that just can't stand not being right. I once again, have been proven overwhelmingly correct in my near-genius predictions. Now, ladies and gentlemen, please watch as our usual anti-enforcers make the case that they were never against the Wings having an enforcer. The excuses, twisting of words, editing of posts, etc., will run rampant.

Ahhh, yes, another day at the office.

[Guest micah]

Some people don't think that enforcers keep weak players from getting run. Mike Babcock disagrees with them. I agree with Mike Babcock.

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

Yeah, that Lidstrom injury in 08 must have been all my imagination.

So no one labels me an "anti-enforcer euro-***** lover", I enjoy having an enforcer in the lineup. I just don't consider them someone who will make or break the team in terms of success.

Are you referring to the un-penalized hit that took place right in front of the referee? If so, some people thought it was clean, others not. I for one thought the initial hit was clean but the elbow follow thru was unnecessary.

Either way, your posts indicate that enforcers deter nothing, Babcock seems to think otherwise. I find myself in the middle. I think having an enforcer in the line-up will stop some of the after the whistle nonsense, however there will still be the questionable hits, slashes, and cross-checks. Hockey has always been that way, probably always will be. That's when an Aaron Downey type player comes in an whoops your ass once and gives you a double fist to the face later in the game when you try to retaliate.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Are you referring to the un-penalized hit that took place right in front of the referee? If so, some people thought it was clean, others not. I for one thought the initial hit was clean but the elbow follow thru was unnecessary.

Either way, your posts indicate that enforcers deter nothing, Babcock seems to think otherwise. I find myself in the middle. I think having an enforcer in the line-up will stop some of the after the whistle nonsense, however there will still be the questionable hits, slashes, and cross-checks. Hockey has always been that way, probably always will be. That's when an Aaron Downey type player comes in an whoops your ass once and gives you a double fist to the face later in the game when you try to retaliate.

Well said, I think you provided a clear explanation for young Doc Holiday.

[Guest micah]

Either way, your posts indicate that enforcers deter nothing, Babcock seems to think otherwise. I find myself in the middle. I think having an enforcer in the line-up will stop some of the after the whistle nonsense, however there will still be the questionable hits, slashes, and cross-checks. Hockey has always been that way, probably always will be. That's when an Aaron Downey type player comes in an whoops your ass once and gives you a double fist to the face later in the game when you try to retaliate.

I don't think you're "in the middle", I think you're right next to Babcock,arm-in-arm. Sure, some simpletons would say "but there was this time when an enforcer didn't prevent a guy from getting run!" and then conclude that enfforcers don't keep star players from getting run. Neither you nor Mike Babcock are simpletons. You see that enforcers work for the purpose of detering cheap stuff against weak or skilled players. the fact that they do not work 100% of the time does not make them useless. Seatbelts are like that. They prevent many deaths, they save lives, they are a good thing. There are some who say "there's no point to wearing a seatbelt, I know a guy who was wearing his seatbelt and died anyway". You and Mike Babcock have better minds than they do. Congrats!

[Guest Shoreline]

Some people don't think that enforcers keep weak players from getting run. Mike Babcock disagrees with them. I agree with Mike Babcock.

Nick Lidstrom disagrees, especially since he was run with Downey right there. Downey sure stopped that from happening didn't he? Woohoo enforcers! *fapfapfap*

[Doggy 130]

What genius came up with these predictions in post 1?

Oh... pardon me... I'm rather embarrassed and not being very humble.

The last one is a case study on the human mind. We have been taught through pedagogy of socialization not to respond to things that bother us. However, there are a few here that just can't stand not being right. I once again, have been proven overwhelmingly correct in my near-genius predictions. Now, ladies and gentlemen, please watch as our usual anti-enforcers make the case that they were never against the Wings having an enforcer. The excuses, twisting of words, editing of posts, etc., will run rampant.

Ahhh, yes, another day at the office.

Every_Sentence_Absolute_Dogs***

[Guest Shoreline]

Are you referring to the un-penalized hit that took place right in front of the referee? If so, some people thought it was clean, others not. I for one thought the initial hit was clean but the elbow follow thru was unnecessary.

Either way, your posts indicate that enforcers deter nothing, Babcock seems to think otherwise. I find myself in the middle. I think having an enforcer in the line-up will stop some of the after the whistle nonsense, however there will still be the questionable hits, slashes, and cross-checks. Hockey has always been that way, probably always will be. That's when an Aaron Downey type player comes in an whoops your ass once and gives you a double fist to the face later in the game when you try to retaliate.

And this after-the-whistle nonsense has what to do with winning or losing games? And who was injured from those?

The notion that an enforcer prevents something should have the qualifying proof of what is actually prevented -- that is, if the person making that assertion doesn't want to sound full of s***.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Shoreline

[Guest micah]

Nick Lidstrom disagrees, especially since he was run with Downey right there. Downey sure stopped that from happening didn't he? Woohoo enforcers! *fapfapfap*

Thank you for the timely example of just the sort of simple-minded thought I referenced in the post above yours. Great timing, ol' chum.

[Guest Shoreline]

Thank you for the timely example of just the sort of simple-minded thought I referenced in the post above yours. Great timing, ol' chum.

And likewise, look above your post. Thanks again.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Shoreline

[Guest E_S_A_D]

And this after-the-whistle nonsense has what to do with winning or losing games? And who was injured from those?

The notion that an enforcer prevents something should have the qualifying proof of what is actually prevented -- that is, if the person making that assertion doesn't want to sound full of s***.

Aha! You walked right into it, and have proven to me your naive rapport amongst the hockey world. You actually think for a player the game is 100% physiological? Absolutely not, it's just as mental as the physical talent aspect. If Datsyuk gets a facewash after approaching the net, it's unpleasant (for those that have played you know it's the worst smell on earth too).

Anyways, how do you know what is prevented with an enforcer in the line-up? Obviously if it was prevented, then it never happened to be seen.

[esteef 2,679]

The notion that an enforcer prevents something should have the qualifying proof of what is actually prevented -- that is, if the person making that assertion doesn't want to sound full of s***.

Yes please prove to Shorie things that DIDN'T happen.

esteef

[Doc Holiday 0]

Are you referring to the un-penalized hit that took place right in front of the referee? If so, some people thought it was clean, others not. I for one thought the initial hit was clean but the elbow follow thru was unnecessary.

Which people cried for retribution for. Clean hit or not, Lappy went straight for Lidstrom and an enforcer didn't stop him from playing a "tough" game.

Either way, your posts indicate that enforcers deter nothing, Babcock seems to think otherwise. I find myself in the middle. I think having an enforcer in the line-up will stop some of the after the whistle nonsense, however there will still be the questionable hits, slashes, and cross-checks. Hockey has always been that way, probably always will be. That's when an Aaron Downey type player comes in an whoops your ass once and gives you a double fist to the face later in the game when you try to retaliate.

We all have our opinions, including Mike Babcock.

I don't know about you but I didn't see a timid Detroit team during those two games in Sweden. I saw a team that was walking all over the competition, then flat play and bad goaltending.

ESAD, if you could kindly point out where I said the Wings should not have an enforcer, that would be great.

Until then, nothing about what you've said is genius.

And Micah, the comparison of an enforcer to a seatbelt is laughable. Seatbelts are scientifically proven to save lives. In fact it is proven that roughly 63% of those who die in car accidents were NOT WEARING SEATBELTS.

An enforcer gives some a sense of security, and whether that is false or not is up to you to decide, because there isn't anything quantifiable in proof to say that an enforcer is going to protect star players from cheap shots.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

The whole 'enforcers don't prevent anything' argument is tiresome and rather idiotic. That's like saying, our military is of no use in America, since we were attacked anyways on 9/11.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

An enforcer gives some a sense of security, and whether that is false or not is up to you to decide, because there isn't anything quantifiable in proof to say that an enforcer is going to protect star players from cheap shots.

You will not find one pro-enforcer person here that says it prevents ALL cheapshots. It minimizes them and reduces the risks of future cheapshots.

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

And this after-the-whistle nonsense has what to do with winning or losing games? And who was injured from those?

The notion that an enforcer prevents something should have the qualifying proof of what is actually prevented -- that is, if the person making that assertion doesn't want to sound full of s***.

I guess Bab's is full of s*** too:

"It was pretty interesting," said Detroit coach Mike Babcock. "We had May in exhibition for a couple of games and no one gets hacked or whacked. When we don't have him, we get run. We don't have a team that twists off helmets at stoppages. You get tired of seeing it all the time. It's just nice when you get someone to look after that stuff."

[Guest Shoreline]

Aha! You walked right into it, and have proven to me your naive rapport amongst the hockey world. You actually think for a player the game is 100% physiological? Absolutely not, it's just as mental as the physical talent aspect. If Datsyuk gets a facewash after approaching the net, it's unpleasant (for those that have played you know it's the worst smell on earth too).

Anyways, how do you know what is prevented with an enforcer in the line-up? Obviously if it was prevented, then it never happened to be seen.

Then show how Datsyuk getting facewashed injured him or prevented him from coming back to the net, and how an enforcer would give him the confidence to (presuming he even had none after a friggen facewash), instead of all the other horses*** gobbledygook you just spewed.

Remember, we're talking about how enforcers prevent things, not "a-ha! you walked right into it and I'll just randomly say a bunch of s*** that means nothing at all".

Edited October 8, 2009 by Shoreline

[Doc Holiday 0]

Anyways, how do you know what is prevented with an enforcer in the line-up? Obviously if it was prevented, then it never happened to be seen.

Take last year as an example of that.

If enforcers prevented something, wouldn't that have been obvious during the one season that the Wings didn't carry one at all?

And your "military" argument. If you remove the military for a year, do you think it is logical that the United States would be seriously effected because of it?

[Guest E_S_A_D]

The whole 'enforcers don't prevent anything' argument is tiresome and rather idiotic. That's like saying, our military is of no use in America, since we were attacked anyways on 9/11.

E_S_A_D, you wrote this so WELL! May I use this as my new signature?

Sure E_S_A_D, go right ahead!

Thanks, ole' pal E_S_A_D, I'll change my signature right now....

[Chunkylover 26]

What genius came up with these predictions in post 1?

Oh... pardon me... I'm rather embarrassed and not being very humble.

The last one is a case study on the human mind. We have been taught through pedagogy of socialization not to respond to things that bother us. However, there are a few here that just can't stand not being right. I once again, have been proven overwhelmingly correct in my near-genius predictions. Now, ladies and gentlemen, please watch as our usual anti-enforcers make the case that they were never against the Wings having an enforcer. The excuses, twisting of words, editing of posts, etc., will run rampant.

Ahhh, yes, another day at the office.

No one is anti-enforcer. Could you please stop making up opposition arguments?

We have no reason to believe that Holland wasn't going to sign May once the try-out was granted. Unless Holland offers May the try-out, you'd never have made the prediction that he'd be signed. So you can keep trying to punk him or you can accept the possibility that prior to you starting this thread, the Wings GM already had a mind to signing a tough guy. On the one hand you'll lose the satisfaction of declaring yourself the prime-mover behind the May signing, on the other hand you'll probably be in agreement with the rest of us in the real world.

I'd like to add as a caveat, that I don't mean anything in this (or any previous posts) to be excessively inflammatory toward you or anyone. I enjoy debate like any other guy, but it's annoying when one side continues to misrepresent my position.

[Doc Holiday 0]

You will not find one pro-enforcer person here that says it prevents ALL cheapshots. It minimizes them and reduces the risks of future cheapshots.

Then would you consider the 09 Red Wings the luckiest team alive considering the circumstances?

[Guest E_S_A_D]

post edit

That's all I see when I read your posts, that you edit 9/10 posts.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

And your "military" argument. If you remove the military for a year, do you think it is logical that the United States would be seriously effected because of it?

Is this a joke?

If the USA removes our military, nothing will happen?