LGW is Pro-Enforcer: The Results are In.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Is this a joke?

If the USA removes our military, nothing will happen?

Could I use this as my signature? It's gold!

[Guest micah]

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.

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.

I don't have any scientific data on the subject of enforcers, so I choose to defer to the oppinion of a well-respected professional hockey coach, Mike Babcock. I am just a casual fan, I don't put as much faith in my own perceptions as I do in the professionals who are payed very well to understand the game better than I. Mike BNabcock says Brad May keeps the Wings from getting run, I'm not going to disagree with him. I am SO modest that I will readily admit that Mike Babcock probably knows more about hockey and the results of playing enforcers than me:) In short, I trust Mike Babcock.

[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?

Yes, we'd be taken out like sardines on a ship. Very naive.

[Guest Shoreline]

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

Probably because you don't know how to argue a point so you find ways to avoid addressing the opposing argument directly. I think you need an enforcer for your debates.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Could I use this as my signature? It's gold!

Stealing my routine? C'mon, this E_S_A_D character wasn't easy to build, now you're using my same lines as two pages ago that I used with you?

[Guest E_S_A_D]

Probably because you don't know how to argue a point so you find ways to avoid addressing the opposing argument directly. I think you need an enforcer for your debates.

I'd edit this. You could've worded it better.

Anyways, back on track, this May signing will end up being a huge lift for the Wings. I even think he'll score a few points.

[ManLuv4Clears 7]

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.

I think it was the whole unwritten rule of running a team's captain, top player or goalie. It's not something that is against the rules, however there's a common respect among players to avoid those situations. Lappy plays hard and performs his role well, perhaps he could have ran Huds instead and it may have caused less of an outrage around here. I'm sure Huds was skating around with his head down at some point.

[Chunkylover 26]

I don't have any scientific data on the subject of enforcers, so I choose to defer to the oppinion of a well-respected professional hockey coach, Mike Babcock. I am just a casual fan, I don't put as much faith in my own perceptions as I do in the professionals who are payed very well to understand the game better than I. Mike BNabcock says Brad May keeps the Wings from getting run, I'm not going to disagree with him. I am SO modest that I will readily admit that Mike Babcock probably knows more about hockey and the results of playing enforcers than me:) In short, I trust Mike Babcock.

Except when that professional's name is Ken Holland, right?

For me, if Babcock says it's true, then I guess I'm wrong in saying it has no effect. With that said, I expect results, and will judge May's usefulness according to his performance, not my preconception.

Edited October 8, 2009 by Chunkylover

[Doc Holiday 0]

I don't have any scientific data on the subject of enforcers, so I choose to defer to the oppinion of a well-respected professional hockey coach, Mike Babcock. I am just a casual fan, I don't put as much faith in my own perceptions as I do in the professionals who are payed very well to understand the game better than I. Mike BNabcock says Brad May keeps the Wings from getting run, I'm not going to disagree with him. I am SO modest that I will readily admit that Mike Babcock probably knows more about hockey and the results of playing enforcers than me:) In short, I trust Mike Babcock.

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/20...ughness_is.html

"People always look for weaknesses in our team. If people want to point to that as being the weak part of our game, I think we're doing all right,'' defenseman Brad Stuart said. "When you get into the playoffs, the further along you go, the less important that stuff gets. The most important thing is to stick up for yourself and each other. I don't think we have any problems there.''

"Since I've been here, our first year (2005-06), I didn't think we were hard enough to play against. Since that time, toughness, in my mind, has not been one bit of an issue,'' Babcock said. "Sometimes stupidity after the whistle has been (an issue), but the way I understand it, the games are going to be won between the whistles in the playoffs.''

Did you honestly trust him then?

[Guest Shoreline]

I'd edit this. You could've worded it better.

Anyways, back on track, this May signing will end up being a huge lift for the Wings. I even think he'll score a few points.

Anyways, back on track, even though you derailed the argument.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

http://www.mlive.com/redwings/index.ssf/20...ughness_is.html

That was from March, now they saw that in two games it didn't work too well and signed an enforcer. So apparently that article is a little outdated, as in 9 months outdated, and irrelevant now according to the Red Wings Coach.

[Doc Holiday 0]

That was from March, now they saw that in two games it didn't work too well and signed an enforcer. So apparently that article is a little outdated, as in 9 months outdated, and irrelevant now according to the Red Wings Coach.

You missed the point. Considering Babcock had a team like that for an entire season and didn't say anything but that "toughness is not one bit of an issue" towards the playoffs, doesn't that mean you wouldn't trust him on that quote?

Or was Babcock just wrong for a year until he agreed with your premise?

Edited October 8, 2009 by Doc Holiday

[Chunkylover 26]

That was from March, now they saw that in two games it didn't work too well and signed an enforcer. So apparently that article is a little outdated, as in 9 months outdated, and irrelevant now according to the Red Wings Coach.

Well, it shows that it's okay for someone to change their mind, right? Or maybe it shows that a team will defend and encourage each other no matter what the makeup of the team is. If the latter is the case, then you'd do well to follow that example.

[Guest Shoreline]

Well, it shows that it's okay for someone to change their mind, right? Or maybe it shows that a team will defend and encourage each other no matter what the makeup of the team is. If the latter is the case, then you'd do well to follow that example.

At the same time -- no enforcer is ever going to stop a cheap shot against a star player.

Or, in the use of enforcer nuts, "weak" players.

[Guest Shoreline]

2008 we didn't have to face the Ducks, and went to the Finals pretty healthy...2009 that series against the Ducks wore us down (even Redmond mentioned this as well a few weeks ago during a pre-season game).

Our inability to cycle the puck down low in the Pens end of the ice (mind you while even strength) I felt hindered our scoring chances quite a bit (then again our injuries didn't help either)...Adding a few players like May/Malhotra/Moen could help get those dirty goals, wear down the opposing Dmen, and potentially rattle the opposing netminder to a point where he may get off of his game.

You act as if the Ducks are the only hard hitting team the Wings have faced in the last two playoff seasons, even though I agree with everything here.

[Guest Shoreline]

Are you calling Shoreline a "San Francisco Treat"?

I hope so, since it would fit his "on topic" argument very nicely.

[esteef 2,679]

At the same time -- no enforcer is ever going to stop a cheap shot against a star player.

They already have.

esteef

[Guest Shoreline]

I honestly believe if we would've lost to the Ducks - chances are they would've gone on to win it all...That series against them was downright tuff, & at many times dirty; it's these series that can take alot outta a team (even though ironically the bulk of the injuries took place during the series against Chicago).

The one thing I noticed that stood the Ducks out more than any other team the Wings faced was their defense. They were blocking way too many shots, and clogging the middle of the lane (preventing cross-ice passes), forcing the Wings to the outside, and it brought back memories of 2003 when their defense stifled the Wings -- and I don't count Jiggypuffmarshmallowman. Although it had little to nothing to do with hitting or enforcing, but a more evenly matched team with a defensive scheme (with everyone down low and bodies/sticks in the way) that frustrated the Wings.

[Chunkylover 26]

The one thing I noticed that stood the Ducks out more than any other team the Wings faced was their defense. They were blocking way too many shots, and clogging the middle of the lane (preventing cross-ice passes), forcing the Wings to the outside, and it brought back memories of 2003 when their defense stifled the Wings -- and I don't count Jiggypuffmarshmallowman. Although it had little to nothing to do with hitting or enforcing, but a more evenly matched team with a defensive scheme (with everyone down low and bodies/sticks in the way) that frustrated the Wings.

I actually thought the Wings focused too much on physical play in the Ducks series. They were running around a lot looking for hits.

[Guest Shoreline]

I actually thought the Wings focused too much on physical play in the Ducks series. They were running around a lot looking for hits.

I can see that happening as well.

[egroen 384]

I actually thought the Wings focused too much on physical play in the Ducks series. They were running around a lot looking for hits.

Agreed. That was retarded -- I appreciated them not getting pushed around by the Ducks and not being intimidated, but they at times tried to play the Ducks' game, which played exactly into their hands. The Wings may have "outhit" the Ducks in that series, but the hits had a far lesser effect. I think they would have won the Series earlier if they concentrated on playing the Wings' game more. Kudos to the Ducks for throwing them off.

[Doggy 130]

2008 we didn't have to face the Ducks, and went to the Finals pretty healthy...2009 that series against the Ducks wore us down (even Redmond mentioned this as well a few weeks ago during a pre-season game).

Our inability to cycle the puck down low in the Pens end of the ice (mind you while even strength) I felt hindered our scoring chances quite a bit (then again our injuries didn't help either)...Adding a few players like May/Malhotra/Moen could help get those dirty goals, wear down the opposing Dmen, and potentially rattle the opposing netminder to a point where he may get off of his game.

I agree with you 100% about the Ducks, I've said the same thing many times myself. But the fact that we were able to take the Pens to 7 games says a lot for the character and durability of the team.

Also, for the sake of the topic of the thread. An enforcer would not have made the Ducks hit us any softer or less often. A team like that plays the man at every opportunity and if someone wants to fight 'em -- they're even happier. That's how they see success and they won't change just because someone like May sits on the opposing bench.

[Jake Ryan 1]

I still don't know how anyone considers Brad May an enforcer. I can think of 20 guys in the NHL that could enFORCE a few black eyes and a broken nose on Brad May's face. If the Wings really want an enforcer, they should trade for Godard.

[Chunkylover 26]

I agree with you 100% about the Ducks, I've said the same thing many times myself. But the fact that we were able to take the Pens to 7 games says a lot for the character and durability of the team.

Also, for the sake of the topic of the thread. An enforcer would not have made the Ducks hit us any softer or less often. A team like that plays the man at every opportunity and if someone wants to fight 'em -- they're even happier. That's how they see success and they won't change just because someone like May sits on the opposing bench.

And even if May is on the ice, in the scrum, willing to fight, it still plays into their game. We beat them with gritty goal-scoring, not grit divorced from goal-scoring or vice versa. We were gritty enough to beat the Ducks, but not healthy enough (because of the Selke-winning shot-blocking of Pasha, and the Sharp spear) to beat the Pens. The grittiest player we lost coming into this season is Samuelsson. Bertuzzi, Abdelkader, and Helm should have been enough to cover for that. Hopefully May can contribute all season.

[Guest E_S_A_D]

I still don't know how anyone considers Brad May an enforcer. I can think of 20 guys in the NHL that could enFORCE a few black eyes and a broken nose on Brad May's face. If the Wings really want an enforcer, they should trade for Godard.

I'm a Godard fan, but he doesn't fit the role of the Wings. May actually has some offensive talent, it's quite remarkable really his abilities in clutch situations. He's more of a role player too... smart.