• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

WorkingOvertime

Enforcer Poll

Rate this topic

Enforcer Poll   90 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support a Prust, Konopka, Rupp type enforcer on the Wings?

    • Yes, and I have played competative hockey in NA
      23
    • Yes, and I have NOT played competative hockey in NA
      19
    • No, and I have played competative hockey in NA
      24
    • No, and I have NOT played competative hockey in NA
      8

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

87 posts in this topic

The one thing I have noticed is that since all of the injuries have piled up the Wings have been even more reluctant to fight.. Before the injuries there was usually a fight every few games with either Abby or Ericsson.. I dont have the exact numbers but I dont believe anyone has fought since the injuries started to add up. Not sure if it's just a coincidence or maybe Babcock told them to focus on picking up the slack as opposed to fighting..

But to answer the poll, Yes I do think the Wings could benefit from carrying an enforcer.. I mean when the injuries are all healed up its going to result in at least one or two players being scratched each night, if you are gonna have a player who only plays every 2nd or 3rd game anyways, why not make it an enforcer? I love the Wings but I don't think I have been as disappointed in them as when Stuart got wrecked and no one even looked at the player who did it (Kostopolous?)..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I have noticed is that since all of the injuries have piled up the Wings have been even more reluctant to fight.. Before the injuries there was usually a fight every few games with either Abby or Ericsson.. I dont have the exact numbers but I dont believe anyone has fought since the injuries started to add up. Not sure if it's just a coincidence or maybe Babcock told them to focus on picking up the slack as opposed to fighting..

But to answer the poll, Yes I do think the Wings could benefit from carrying an enforcer.. I mean when the injuries are all healed up its going to result in at least one or two players being scratched each night, if you are gonna have a player who only plays every 2nd or 3rd game anyways, why not make it an enforcer? I love the Wings but I don't think I have been as disappointed in them as when Stuart got wrecked and no one even looked at the player who did it (Kostopolous?)..

To be honest I can't remember when either of those 2 dropped the gloves; it's been a while.

As for the Stuart/Kostopolous hit - I agree with ya there...Too many Red Wings doing nothing about it, but then again this team simply isn't built for that sort of hockey.

And I agree with other posters above; the Bruins D does indeed have some snarl (and they're a fun team to watch)...Wouldn't mind seeing any 1 of the Bruin Dmen mentioned donning a Red Wings jersey in the near future.

Edited by F.Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Define competitive hockey.

Are you talking college/minor league level? Or does anyone who played on a hockey team when they were six count?

Since by that poll 2/3's of people here have played competitive hockey, and I find that hard to believe, unless everyone is considering the time they played roller hockey in a parking lot to be "Competitive NA hockey".

I'm surprised how many are voting that they played competitive NA hockey. I would define it as Peewee or older travel hockey (or competitive high-school). Anything lower has much less of a physical presence. Personally, I played A/AA/AAA travel, high-school, and college club. A lot of people I know played juniors, but these days anything less than Jr. A is pretty useless (but certainly an experience) in 'going somewhere' with hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry - I'm not vain, I'm just sarcastic (and incredibly good-looking).

This is something that I dont get either, people are always like, well the wings always win so why change anything?

But the fact of the matter is, the times that Detroit has won the cup, they have had some very physical players in their lineup and have not won when they have not. I'm not saying an enforcer, but they have always had guys with a mean streak. It can be argued whether or not this is true, but I think physicality has a larger impact than most people on here would like to acknowledge.

Drake and Mccarty in 08 on forward, Stuart and Kronwall on defense

02 had a Mccarty, Shanny, a younger Chelios, Fischer (broke his stick across a guys face in the finals, god I miss him :( )

and everyone knows how tough the 97 and 98 teams were.

I think being physical in the playoffs is really underrated on these boards, partially because a lot of people haven't played hockey and partially because a lot of fans became fans when they became more euopeanized

I agree with what you say. But let's not get side-tracked (and I'm not saying you were leading anyone down this path) - I would rather have a heavy-hitting fourth line to wear out opposition than a one-dimensional guy (the irony being that everyone in this thread agrees with that sentiment). Let's get a group of loose forwards who can hit those rucks and make some punishing tackles and go from there. I would rather have Willem 'The Pain' Alberts than Drew 'Peel Off/If My Brother Wasn't Ryan I Wouldn't Be Here' Miller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downey and May took less stupid penalties than Bertuzzi and Salei.

I don't see any basis for your post, unless you consider matching fighting majors as stupid penalties.

Living close to Toronto whenever people say enforcer all I think of is Domi or Colton Orr, guys who play 5 minutes and have no offensive skill at all. No thanks. Give me a McCarty or Lapointe type any day, they play 15-18 minutes a game and can score 15 goals a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played rec-league hockey until I was 10, but never played on travel teams. I voted in favor of a player like the ones mentioned in the poll/OP, someone who is not just wasting a roster spot and brings no other skills or assets to the table. A player who can fight and is a decent 3/4 line/PK guy, or who is good at faceoffs, or can chip in 5-10 goals while playing a regular shift is something this team needs. Abdelkader may develop into that kind of role, but he does not fight enough to intimidate any opposing players, same with Ericsson. I was extremely disappointed when Konopka did not sign with us over the summer, especially considering how little he signed for, in retrospect he would have been a wiser investment than resigning Miller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised how many are voting that they played competitive NA hockey. I would define it as Peewee or older travel hockey (or competitive high-school). Anything lower has much less of a physical presence. Personally, I played A/AA/AAA travel, high-school, and college club. A lot of people I know played juniors, but these days anything less than Jr. A is pretty useless (but certainly an experience) in 'going somewhere' with hockey.

First it was "competitive" hockey. Anything from Travel A to pro counts.

Now, "going somewhere" with hockey is the qualification?

Honestly, lets get some straight guidelines so you can give us all an understanding of this "poll" you are trying to conduct with LGW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First it was "competitive" hockey. Anything from Travel A to pro counts.

Now, "going somewhere" with hockey is the qualification?

Honestly, lets get some straight guidelines so you can give us all an understanding of this "poll" you are trying to conduct with LGW.

I also think coaching competitive hockey trumps playing competitive hockey.

Shaman likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First it was "competitive" hockey. Anything from Travel A to pro counts.

Now, "going somewhere" with hockey is the qualification?

Honestly, lets get some straight guidelines so you can give us all an understanding of this "poll" you are trying to conduct with LGW.

I never said someone had to be 'going somewhere' to play competitive hockey- that was an aside. IMO competitive hockey is travel. I didn't state this initially because I'm not knowledgeable on European youth hockey.

I also think coaching competitive hockey trumps playing competitive hockey.

I don't agree with this. I grew up playing with coaches who had played, and I'm not sure what respect I would have for one that didn't- not in a personal way, but as a teacher of hockey. Until you've been punched in the face, checked from behind, two-handed, slew-footed, etc I don't think you have a real grip on the physical nature of the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised how many are voting that they played competitive NA hockey. I would define it as Peewee or older travel hockey (or competitive high-school). Anything lower has much less of a physical presence. Personally, I played A/AA/AAA travel, high-school, and college club. A lot of people I know played juniors, but these days anything less than Jr. A is pretty useless (but certainly an experience) in 'going somewhere' with hockey.

Well this is a hockey forum. Its been my experience that most people who watch hockey with the passion that we do have had their hand in the game at some point in their lives.

The poll results are dead even right now, too, except between those who admit they don't have a history of playing the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Competitive hockey would be AA/AAA IMO. Then as you get older anything Junoir A or better. Junoir B isn't anything special.

Playing "A" isn't really that competitive. Even tho it's rep, there's not to much talent at that level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said someone had to be 'going somewhere' to play competitive hockey- that was an aside. IMO competitive hockey is travel. I didn't state this initially because I'm not knowledgeable on European youth hockey.

I don't agree with this. I grew up playing with coaches who had played, and I'm not sure what respect I would have for one that didn't- not in a personal way, but as a teacher of hockey. Until you've been punched in the face, checked from behind, two-handed, slew-footed, etc I don't think you have a real grip on the physical nature of the sport.

Right... Well i think coaching college hockey shows you know a few things more than the average competitive hockey player. And until you coach a college team, built a team from various student athletes, won conference and been to national championships, etc i don't think you have a real grip on what it take to make the most successful team possible in the sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now