Cherry rips Holland

[Jericho613 74]

I don't think having an enforcer/tough guy won Boston a championship, a guy name Tim Thomas won them a championship. Wings have a system that they have gone by for years, sure we've had our bruisers here and there, but wings win on skill why change that. Cherry is a moron, if Lids, Dats, Z, and Howard were all Canadians he'd love us. He hates clubs that use more Euro players than Canadian players, its so obvious how he talks about certain skilled Canadian players compared to Euro players. Holland has us in positions every year to win or challenge for a cup, i'm sticking with him over Cherry any day.

[kipwinger 8,492]

I don't think having an enforcer/tough guy won Boston a championship, a guy name Tim Thomas won them a championship. Wings have a system that they have gone by for years, sure we've had our bruisers here and there, but wings win on skill why change that. Cherry is a moron, if Lids, Dats, Z, and Howard were all Canadians he'd love us. He hates clubs that use more Euro players than Canadian players, its so obvious how he talks about certain skilled Canadian players compared to Euro players. Holland has us in positions every year to win or challenge for a cup, i'm sticking with him over Cherry any day.

Don Cherry is an obnoxious blowhard who never won s***, and certainly never spent 20 years building a modern dynasty. Every so often he parrots his same old bulls*** (this time he just stole it from Brian Burke) and somebody latches on to it because they'd "like" to see a more physical game played by the Wings. End of the day, Holland makes the smart move, the guys that want more bruisers mutter curses to themselves, and the Wings keep winning.

[Barrie 900]

From today's Detroit News:

Make no mistake: Wings have fury to match their finesse

[2probert4 8]

Don Cherry is definitely about 5 years from becoming intensely senile, but for the time being and for several decades now, he's been on point. The dude speaks the truth, no matter how it might come out of his mouth. I hope he's still on HNIC for years to come. Literally until the dude is spewing s*** that makes no sense and clawing at the camera guy, I hope he remains on HNIC. Also, I hope he keeps having different white bull terriers named Blue until the end of his existence.

Basically I do see what he's saying and I think he was making more of an observance than ripping Kenny

Don Cherry is a sideshow that should be taken with a grain of salt. The CBC guys saying the Wings hadn't seen speed like Toronto's was hilarious also, just any way they can rip on the Wings they do it, be it factual or not. I would like to see someone that keeps the Tootoo's away from our guys, who wouldnt ? I get sick and tired of seeing our guys get pushed around by guys who do it because they know we wont fight back.

[Dominator2005 558]

http://archive.feedblitz.com/166943/~3896377

The organization has been torn between letting the skill players do all the damage, or to inject a bruiser occasionally to, as coach Mike Babcock likes to say, “keep the flies off.”

Downey was the Red Wings enforcer three seasons ago, when the team won the Stanley Cup. He managed to appear in 56 games that season, about 70 percent of the schedule. No one gave him any chance of making that squad, either.

Last year, the Red Wings tabbed longtime enforcer Brad May to keep the flies off, but May was gone by the second half of the season, the team’s will to keep a tough guy having waned, as it usually does.[/i]

"Old news"... couple of years ago - Bab's was openly saying that he likes to have "enforcer" and now nothing!!! What changed now?

[kipwinger 8,492]

http://archive.feedb...166943/~3896377

The organization has been torn between letting the skill players do all the damage, or to inject a bruiser occasionally to, as coach Mike Babcock likes to say, "keep the flies off."

Downey was the Red Wings enforcer three seasons ago, when the team won the Stanley Cup. He managed to appear in 56 games that season, about 70 percent of the schedule. No one gave him any chance of making that squad, either.

Last year, the Red Wings tabbed longtime enforcer Brad May to keep the flies off, but May was gone by the second half of the season, the team's will to keep a tough guy having waned, as it usually does.[/i]

"Old news"... couple of years ago - Bab's was openly saying that he likes to have "enforcer" and now nothing!!! What changed now?

At no point in that article does Babcock say he likes having enforcers around. The only thing which Babcock is quoted as saying in the whole article is "keep the flies off", in reference to what an enforcer does. He does not make one single qualitative judgement about whether or not he likes having that around or not. As a matter of fact, the article does say that May played less than half a season before being sent down, and Downey played 70% of the previous season before being sent down, and we know from historical hindsight that neither of them played in the playoffs, so it's safe to assume (as he's the one who chooses the lineup each game) that Babcock does not want guys like that playing when games matter. Nothing has changed, we're the team we've always been with Babcock as coach...so now can we get on to the next part of the debate which questions the validity of that coaching philosophy and argues that you're more likely to win with an enforcer or grittier bottom 6...oh wait, we did that already too, and one of the previous posters already showed why that's a myth. Again, this whole debate revolves around people on this thread trying to use post hoc justifications to validate a more physical game, not because it's better hockey, but because they personally like to see a more physical team on the ice.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

If fighters have zero effect on a team's ability to win a Cup, why do they still exist in the league? Why do players like that try to be extra physical and intimidate if (according to people on this board) it has absolutely no effect on good players (like the Wings roster)? Why are these type of players still signed and iced to this day if they are useless towards winning?

Maybe you guys are on to something and the rest of the hockey world is just too dumb to figure it out.

esteef

Couldn't have said it better.

[newfy 695]

At no point in that article does Babcock say he likes having enforcers around. The only thing which Babcock is quoted as saying in the whole article is "keep the flies off", in reference to what an enforcer does. He does not make one single qualitative judgement about whether or not he likes having that around or not. As a matter of fact, the article does say that May played less than half a season before being sent down, and Downey played 70% of the previous season before being sent down, and we know from historical hindsight that neither of them played in the playoffs, so it's safe to assume (as he's the one who chooses the lineup each game) that Babcock does not want guys like that playing when games matter. Nothing has changed, we're the team we've always been with Babcock as coach...so now can we get on to the next part of the debate which questions the validity of that coaching philosophy and argues that you're more likely to win with an enforcer or grittier bottom 6...oh wait, we did that already too, and one of the previous posters already showed why that's a myth. Again, this whole debate revolves around people on this thread trying to use post hoc justifications to validate a more physical game, not because it's better hockey, but because they personally like to see a more physical team on the ice.

There are a few articles of Babcock saying he likes having a guy to keep the flies off. I dont equate that to an enforcer, but hes playing Commie now isnt he? He likes his tough players for sure. Even while Kindl has seemed solid thhis year, the only aspect Commie adds that Kindl doesnt is his ability to scrap and play mean.

Downey wasn't sent down in 08, he was replaced by Mccarty in the lineup who would still scrap but was a bit better skater, not to mention a real feel good story for the team to eat up. So I guess an enforcer was playing when games mattered.

As for the "myth" about winning with a grittier bottom 6.... its pretty obvious that when the wings played in 08 they had their grittiest bottom 6 that could wear other teams down. Drake Draper Cleary was the third line, Helm Mccarty Hudler the fourth line. 5 of the wings bottom 6 that year were very gritty players. The next year playing with a very skilled Sammy Flip Hudler third line, the wings fell short.

It was well documented that Babcock made a push to get May here and Mayers here when they were both younger. Once some guys got injured Babcock got May here but when he was past his prime. Detroit was really injured tha year so May played a good chunk of games until the team got healthy again.

I might agree with you that Holland doesnt really care for having a tougher team but I would say its pretty obvious Babcock likes them. Hes looking past his history with Commie to play him over a former first round pick who has been pretty solid this season

[Doc Holliday 1,888]

If fighters have zero effect on a team's ability to win a Cup, why do they still exist in the league? Why do players like that try to be extra physical and intimidate if (according to people on this board) it has absolutely no effect on good players (like the Wings roster)? Why are these type of players still signed and iced to this day if they are useless towards winning?

Maybe you guys are on to something and the rest of the hockey world is just too dumb to figure it out.

esteef

You'll be hard pressed to find people who don't think fighters have any value to an organization.

I've always thought the gigantic debates were either about straight up enforcers, or how much value you can attribute success to fighting and physicality.

[Buppy 1,720]

If fighters have zero effect on a team's ability to win a Cup, why do they still exist in the league? Why do players like that try to be extra physical and intimidate if (according to people on this board) it has absolutely no effect on good players (like the Wings roster)? Why are these type of players still signed and iced to this day if they are useless towards winning?

Maybe you guys are on to something and the rest of the hockey world is just too dumb to figure it out.

esteef

No one's saying they have no effect. But there's a wide gap between useless and essential.

...

Downey wasn't sent down in 08, he was replaced by Mccarty in the lineup who would still scrap but was a bit better skater, not to mention a real feel good story for the team to eat up. So I guess an enforcer was playing when games mattered.

As for the "myth" about winning with a grittier bottom 6.... its pretty obvious that when the wings played in 08 they had their grittiest bottom 6 that could wear other teams down. Drake Draper Cleary was the third line, Helm Mccarty Hudler the fourth line. 5 of the wings bottom 6 that year were very gritty players. The next year playing with a very skilled Sammy Flip Hudler third line, the wings fell short.

...

McCarty was playing due to injuries to Kopecky, Maltby, Franzen, and Homer. When we were healthy, McCarty was in the pressbox watching our 4th line of Hudler-Helm-Maltby. Yeah, that line was tough.

I'm not saying fighting=chamionships. I'm not saying the Cup is ours if we get a guy like Moen. There are so many other factors that play into a teams success than just grit. Although I will say we've got to be able to physically combat our opponent in a long playoff series. We played decent against Anaheim in 2007, but they just seemed to out-muscle us to loose pucks a lot of the time. We need to be able to physically keep up with those kind of teams. Regardless of what the role players do, the snipers need to play consistently. The defense needs to be able to play consistently. The penalty kill needs to be able to get a few kills if it comes down to that. There needs to be balance. You can't have a team full of goons alone and expect to win a Cup. You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup. You can't have a team that fails to effectively kill penalties and expect to win a Cup. You need a team that has a balance of finesse, grit (winning puck battles down low, separate man from puck, block shots, just play physically as a team), defensive prowess, and a solid goaltender. Your role players have to show up occasionally on the score sheet. Take a look at a few role players for Boston last year in the playoffs:

Chris Kelly-13 points in 25 games

Dan Paille-6 points in 25 games

Gregory Campbell-4 points in 25 games

In addition to the skilled guys putting up offensive numbers:

David Krejci-23 points in 25 games

Patrice Bergeron-20 points in 23 games

Brad Marchand-19 points in 25 games

Nathan Horton-17 points in 21 games

These guys have to show up to win a Championship. Hell, Drake put up 4 points in the '08 postseason. Not a lot, but contributions from the role players are key.

I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd be ecstatic if we won the Cup this year with the roster we have right now. I just don't see it happening, based on the last few early playoff exits with virtually the same roster. And again, the Cup isn't automatically ours if we find a Moen, there needs to be a healthy balance of what I listed above to be a Cup contender.

You all keep saying it's not about fighting, just "toughness". You keep saying we're too "soft" to win the Cup with this roster, but you can't point to one element outside of fighting that suggests our current roster is any more "soft" than previous Cup winners.

You say "You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup." as if we don't already have a bottom 6 that does exactly what you say you want. Helm, Cleary, Abby, Miller, Eaves... All of them battle hard down low, around the net, in the corners. They finish checks, they're capable of chipping in offensively, block shots, play good defense, win battles...

Name one thing, other than fighting, that our current bottom 6 can't do but our bottom 6 in 08 did? You can't, because there isn't anything.

You admit there's no correlation between fighting and winning, but you all sure seem to wish there was. You all seem to want it so bad that you've invented some mysterious, amorphous concept of "toughness" and call it essential. You can't define or quantify "it" (or at least how "it" is any different from what we already have), but you all seem pretty sure that whatever "it" is, we don't have it. You're sure "it" is absolutely essential, so therefore any previous Cup winners had "it". And if we do win the Cup this year, I'm sure you'll all admit you were wrong, and that this team had "it" all along, and in a few years you'll be pointing out how much more "it" this team had than the current team.

The 08 team was pretty soft. So was the 02 team. Relative to the league, so were the 90s teams. The only thing that makes them any "tougher" than the teams we've had that didn't win the Cup is your obsessive need cling to the notion that only tough teams can win, so obviously those teams must have been tough. Chicago wasn't all that tough. Nor was Carolina. "Soft" teams can, and have, won Cups. No, you can't play like ******* and not work hard and still expect to win. But our current roster doesn't do that, nor did our previous soft teams.

Our current roster can win. They just need to play well enough at the right time. That includes the grinders that we already have grinding hard. Helm, Cleary, and Homer (and Miller technically) have already done it on other Cup teams. Abby and Eaves play the exact way you all seem to want. Emmy, Conner, Mursak, etc...who knows, but they may not even be in the lineup anyway.

Maybe you don't agree with that, but at least be realistic. If we're not a contender now, trading Miller for Moen (or any similar deal) isn't going to make us one. To even suggest that it would is patently absurd.

And for the record, I'm not saying that being more physical (especially in the top 6) wouldn't be beneficial, that it wouldn't help our chances. Just saying that it's not the essential quality you're claiming it is.

If you can't admit that, at least abandon the pretense of logic and just say what it is that you really want to say: That you need to fight to win. It may not be true, but at least you'd look like you have a real opinion. I hate all the vagueness, circular logic, and revisionist history of this stupid debate.

[Bring Back The Bruise Bros 1,029]

You all keep saying it's not about fighting, just "toughness". You keep saying we're too "soft" to win the Cup with this roster, but you can't point to one element outside of fighting that suggests our current roster is any more "soft" than previous Cup winners.

You say "You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup." as if we don't already have a bottom 6 that does exactly what you say you want. Helm, Cleary, Abby, Miller, Eaves... All of them battle hard down low, around the net, in the corners. They finish checks, they're capable of chipping in offensively, block shots, play good defense, win battles...

Name one thing, other than fighting, that our current bottom 6 can't do but our bottom 6 in 08 did? You can't, because there isn't anything.

You admit there's no correlation between fighting and winning, but you all sure seem to wish there was. You all seem to want it so bad that you've invented some mysterious, amorphous concept of "toughness" and call it essential. You can't define or quantify "it" (or at least how "it" is any different from what we already have), but you all seem pretty sure that whatever "it" is, we don't have it. You're sure "it" is absolutely essential, so therefore any previous Cup winners had "it". And if we do win the Cup this year, I'm sure you'll all admit you were wrong, and that this team had "it" all along, and in a few years you'll be pointing out how much more "it" this team had than the current team.

The 08 team was pretty soft. So was the 02 team. Relative to the league, so were the 90s teams. The only thing that makes them any "tougher" than the teams we've had that didn't win the Cup is your obsessive need cling to the notion that only tough teams can win, so obviously those teams must have been tough. Chicago wasn't all that tough. Nor was Carolina. "Soft" teams can, and have, won Cups. No, you can't play like ******* and not work hard and still expect to win. But our current roster doesn't do that, nor did our previous soft teams.

Our current roster can win. They just need to play well enough at the right time. That includes the grinders that we already have grinding hard. Helm, Cleary, and Homer (and Miller technically) have already done it on other Cup teams. Abby and Eaves play the exact way you all seem to want. Emmy, Conner, Mursak, etc...who knows, but they may not even be in the lineup anyway.

Maybe you don't agree with that, but at least be realistic. If we're not a contender now, trading Miller for Moen (or any similar deal) isn't going to make us one. To even suggest that it would is patently absurd.

And for the record, I'm not saying that being more physical (especially in the top 6) wouldn't be beneficial, that it wouldn't help our chances. Just saying that it's not the essential quality you're claiming it is.

If you can't admit that, at least abandon the pretense of logic and just say what it is that you really want to say: That you need to fight to win. It may not be true, but at least you'd look like you have a real opinion. I hate all the vagueness, circular logic, and revisionist history of this stupid debate.

There isn't anything the '08 bottom 6 did that this one can't? I don't think this team can physically compete for 4 best-of-7 rounds of playoff hockey.

Yes, you caught us, every enforcer slappy on this website contacted one another, and we eventually met up at a Little Ceasars location outside of Detroit, the exact location obviously being confidential. Crazy bread stuffed in all of our pro-enforcer mouths, we developed a term so vague it would drive posters insane for centuries. "Toughness". We all wanted to see teams goon it up, but would never admit that, so we hide behind vague terms and explanations such as this "Toughness". Newfy, GMR, Esteef, F. Michael, Detroit #1 Fan, WorkingOvertime, the manager of the restaurant, and a few others will never admit this meeting, so don't even try to get it out of them.

I don't see this team winning it all this year with the roster we have now. I'd love to be proved wrong. You'll probably say something along the lines of "Well look at where we are in the standings". Okay, our high place in the standings during the regular season the last few years didn't correlate to championships.

Chicago had a great blend of finesse and grit. Dustin Byfuglien and Andrew Ladd were capable of stirring things up and putting up points. Grinders like Ben Eager and Adam Burish raised hell. John Madden was a solid bottom 6 guy. Their finesse guys (Hossa, Kane, etc) were great. Niemi stole games.

Carolina wasn't really scrappy. Calling them soft is wrong, though. Young Andrew Ladd and Mike Commodore were physical. Ladd was able to put up a few points. Craig and Kevyn Adams were major on the PK, blocking shots. Chad Larose and Aaron Ward were constantly running around. Their finesse guys (Staal, Cole, etc) got the job done, and Cam Ward was able to steal a few games. That team had everything going for them.

I've already said that getting a guy similar to Moen wouldn't guarantee us a Cup. How many times do I have to state this?

A team doesn't need to fight 70 times a year to win a Cup. They need to be able to physically match up with every team for up to 7 games of 4 playoff series. In addition, their goaltender has to be able to steal games, their finesse guys must play consistent, their special teams play must be consistent.

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

From Toronto Star:

.

..

On the same day Burke was railing about the slow decline of the enforcer, Detroit Red Wings VP Jimmy Devellano was getting far less column inches advocating the other end of the debate.

“My stance is not the popular stance. I would eliminate (fighting) immediately. I could do without it. I don’t need it,” Devellano told a New York Times podcast. “I would also say that if you interviewed the 30 clubs, I would probably be in the minority.”

Asked about the Burke position — that phasing out fighting encourages the “rats” — Devellano mildly responded: “Let’s try it first and see if it works.”

...

[kipwinger 8,492]

There isn't anything the '08 bottom 6 did that this one can't? I don't think this team can physically compete for 4 best-of-7 rounds of playoff hockey.

Yes, you caught us, every enforcer slappy on this website contacted one another, and we eventually met up at a Little Ceasars location outside of Detroit, the exact location obviously being confidential. Crazy bread stuffed in all of our pro-enforcer mouths, we developed a term so vague it would drive posters insane for centuries. "Toughness". We all wanted to see teams goon it up, but would never admit that, so we hide behind vague terms and explanations such as this "Toughness". Newfy, GMR, Esteef, F. Michael, Detroit #1 Fan, WorkingOvertime, the manager of the restaurant, and a few others will never admit this meeting, so don't even try to get it out of them.

I don't see this team winning it all this year with the roster we have now. I'd love to be proved wrong. You'll probably say something along the lines of "Well look at where we are in the standings". Okay, our high place in the standings during the regular season the last few years didn't correlate to championships.

Chicago had a great blend of finesse and grit. Dustin Byfuglien and Andrew Ladd were capable of stirring things up and putting up points. Grinders like Ben Eager and Adam Burish raised hell. John Madden was a solid bottom 6 guy. Their finesse guys (Hossa, Kane, etc) were great. Niemi stole games.

Carolina wasn't really scrappy. Calling them soft is wrong, though. Young Andrew Ladd and Mike Commodore were physical. Ladd was able to put up a few points. Craig and Kevyn Adams were major on the PK, blocking shots. Chad Larose and Aaron Ward were constantly running around. Their finesse guys (Staal, Cole, etc) got the job done, and Cam Ward was able to steal a few games. That team had everything going for them.

I've already said that getting a guy similar to Moen wouldn't guarantee us a Cup. How many times do I have to state this?

A team doesn't need to fight 70 times a year to win a Cup. They need to be able to physically match up with every team for up to 7 games of 4 playoff series. In addition, their goaltender has to be able to steal games, their finesse guys must play consistent, their special teams play must be consistent.

Nope, nothing about the standings. What I will say is that you want people to finish checks, block shots, kill penalties, grind on the defense, and work hard right? Don't Helm, Cleary, Abdelkader, Miller, Conner, and Eaves already do this? The only thing that these guys don't do as well as the teams you talk about, is fight. You single out guys like Ben Eager, Adam Burrish, and Aaron Ward for physical play but think Helm, Cleary, and Abdelkader aren't at least as good as those guys. Helm, Cleary, Abdelkader, and Eaves kill every penalty when they're in the lineup, they block shots constantly, none of them lay off their checks, what else do you want? Do you really think Ben Eager is any (or all that much) better than Abdelkader? You talk about not being able to match up in playoff series and then suggest that it's the bottom six forwards that are the problem. Had you considered the fact that the top six forward depth might be the reason we got bounced from the playoffs the last couple of years? For Christ's sake, I watched Franzen and Hudler each blow coverage on Dan Boyle in two consecutive playoffs games for goals last year. We lost both the games by a goal. We've already got the workers on the bottom end, but maybe it would be better to bone up on the top end...as has been the stated need of the team since the preseason. How many goals did Setoguchi have against the Wings last year in the playoffs? I don't recall him being the responsibility of the third or fourth line guys. You keep saying we lost last year because we're not "gritty" enough and then ignore the fact that in the majority of the cases it wasn't our third and fourth lines getting scored on.

note: Last Year's goals against in the San Jose Series: forwards Setoguchi (5), Pavelski (2), Ferriero (1), Couture (4), Heatley (1), Marleau (1), Defensemen White (1), Wallin (1), Boyle (2).

note 2: In that series, San Jose's top six consisted of some combination of Thornton, Marleau, Heatley, Setoguchi, Couture, Pavelski.

Awful lot of top six scoring there.

Edited January 10, 2012 by kipwinger

[kipwinger 8,492]

There's no doubting you've made some very valid points - hoewever IMO with this current roster we will continue to have trouble in a best of 7 series against teams that we will likely face in the 2nd round of the playoffs (think Sharks, Canucks, or even the Blackhawks).

I guess I'm spoiled, and want to see a carbon copy of our 1997 roster, or for that matter a carbon copy of the 2011 Boston Bruins.

Jesus Christ. There's no way to respond to this. I'm defeated.

[mjlegend 155]

There's no doubting you've made some very valid points - hoewever IMO with this current roster we will continue to have trouble in a best of 7 series against teams that we will likely face in the 2nd round of the playoffs (think Sharks, Canucks, or even the Blackhawks).

I guess I'm spoiled, and want to see a carbon copy of our 1997 roster, or for that matter a carbon copy of the 2011 Boston Bruins.

You are spoiled but who even does carbon copying anymore?

[newfy 695]

Nope, nothing about the standings. What I will say is that you want people to finish checks, block shots, kill penalties, grind on the defense, and work hard right? Don't Helm, Cleary, Abdelkader, Miller, Conner, and Eaves already do this? The only thing that these guys don't do as well as the teams you talk about, is fight. You single out guys like Ben Eager, Adam Burrish, and Aaron Ward for physical play but think Helm, Cleary, and Abdelkader aren't at least as good as those guys. Helm, Cleary, Abdelkader, and Eaves kill every penalty when they're in the lineup, they block shots constantly, none of them lay off their checks, what else do you want?

Helm now is not what he was in 2008 when it came to physicality. that was his only responsibility on that 4th line was to run around hitting everything.

But youre seriously going to sit here and say that Miller, Eaves and especially Conner of all people are the types of guys that can finish their checks and wear another team down in the playoffs then you dont watch hockey. Its not just about rubbing a guy into the boards, its about putting them into the fourth row so next time they dont want the puck. See Dallas Drake on Robidas 2008.

I think Abdelkader can be that guy when he plays the wing (which he isnt), and Helm and Cleary both amp it up in the playoffs and are solid physically, but none of those guys are physical game changers and Miller/Eaves/Conner are hardly physical at all.

Some people who comment on things and say that "Oh we're gritty and tough because Miller, Eaves and now Conner because they dump and chase and will shoulder a guy" have been watching to much hockey in Europe I would have to say

[kipwinger 8,492]

Helm now is not what he was in 2008 when it came to physicality. that was his only responsibility on that 4th line was to run around hitting everything.

But youre seriously going to sit here and say that Miller, Eaves and especially Conner of all people are the types of guys that can finish their checks and wear another team down in the playoffs then you dont watch hockey. Its not just about rubbing a guy into the boards, its about putting them into the fourth row so next time they dont want the puck. See Dallas Drake on Robidas 2008.

I think Abdelkader can be that guy when he plays the wing (which he isnt), and Helm and Cleary both amp it up in the playoffs and are solid physically, but none of those guys are physical game changers and Miller/Eaves/Conner are hardly physical at all.

Some people who comment on things and say that "Oh we're gritty and tough because Miller, Eaves and now Conner because they dump and chase and will shoulder a guy" have been watching to much hockey in Europe I would have to say

Miller and Eaves block shots, kill penalties, finish checks, and play solid defense. I'm sorry that they don't destroy dudes with every check. You know who else didn't? Draper and Maltby, and everyone around here (rightly) worships them like gods for their gritty play.

Additionally, if our entire bottom six consisted of Darren McCarty type guys, we would ******* suck.

Edited January 10, 2012 by kipwinger

[kipwinger 8,492]

Why is it that every time I hear someone going gaga over all this hard hitting, "putting guys into the fourth row" business, I always imagining them slamming a beer, crushing it on their foreheads, and then high-fiving their bros. over how awesome it is? Then I get sucked back into reality and thank god that I'm a fan of a team who is among the least penalized in the league every year and is therefore constantly at an advantage because they don't skate around taking runs at guys, retaliating, getting into fights, or instigating.

One could argue the same could be said if our bottom 6 were Drew Miller types.

touche, but all I've ever said (from the beginning) is that our bottom six is fine, and is plenty physical and/or gritty enough. Making it more so would be pointless, potentially disadvantageous, and costly. We don't get beat because our bottom six is too soft, we get beat because our top six is not as deep as the top six of other elite hockey teams.

Edited January 10, 2012 by kipwinger

[newfy 695]

Miller and Eaves block shots, kill penalties, finish checks, and play solid defense. I'm sorry that they don't destroy dudes with every check. You know who else didn't? Draper and Maltby, and everyone around here (rightly) worships them like gods for their gritty play.

Additionally, if our entire bottom six consisted of Darren McCarty type guys, we would ******* suck.

Well for starters, Maltby and Draper would get a pass from me for not being physical because they were by far the bes tPKers in the league, and Draper probably the best shut down forward. He actually made an Olympic team for that reason.

But Draper and especially Maltby were MUCH more physical than Miller or Eaves and its not close really. Maltby in his prime was a wrecking ball out there. The fact that you even compared Eaves and Miller to these 2 shows how out of touch with hockey you really are.

When has Miller came close to this

Or even this when Maltby was completely washed up

[Din758 371]

Or even this when Maltby was completely washed up

Fairly sure this would be a suspension today

[Guest Heaten]

Video up

Who is that guy? He's an idiot. Is he seriously on TV or does he just do an amateur YOUTUBE channel that talks BS hockey? Awful

Edited January 10, 2012 by Heaten

[blgillett 48]

Don Cherry is the biggest moron in hockey enough said

Anyone see that?

100% agree with Don on this one.

[kipwinger 8,492]

Well for starters, Maltby and Draper would get a pass from me for not being physical because they were by far the bes tPKers in the league, and Draper probably the best shut down forward. He actually made an Olympic team for that reason.

But Draper and especially Maltby were MUCH more physical than Miller or Eaves and its not close really. Maltby in his prime was a wrecking ball out there. The fact that you even compared Eaves and Miller to these 2 shows how out of touch with hockey you really are.

When has Miller came close to this

Or even this when Maltby was completely washed up

So you found two youtube clips and now Maltby is a "wrecking ball"? And I'm out of touch? Pretty sure Maltby was an annoying, in your face, pestering type defensive forward...that...or a "total wrecking ball" dude! Look, I'm as big of a homer as anybody here, but to suggest that Maltby and Drapes were much (or any) more physical than Miller and Eaves is kind of a stretch. I find it humorous that in the quest to justify the myth that finesse teams can't cups, Maltby is turned into a "wrecking ball", Miller and Eaves become soft little ******* who don't finish checks, block shots, or kill penalties worth a damn, and guys like Downey, May, and Drake become contributing He-men. But just for fun's sake...

here's Eaves destroying a guy...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnuPWBiAyqM

here's Eaves destroying a guy and then fighting 15 seconds later...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wW1QRqBLLc

here's Eaves blocking a shot and crawling off the ice to avoid a stoppage in play...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQGT1fVgd_I

here's Eaves destroying another guy...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otKFZjSHCg8

here's Eaves fighting another guy...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um7KGKmFf8Q

here's Eaves destroying another guy...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgQ_CcEfYg8

here's Eaves destroying another guy...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otuHLZHATdM

Holy s*** dude, by your rationale Eaves should be considered, at the very least, a "wrecking ball" and at most the greatest physical presence the league has ever know. Should I spend five seconds on youtube finding Miller lighting people up too, or can you inwardly recognize that a) Miller and Eaves are as physical as Maltby and Draper, b) none of the four of them were "wrecking balls" and didn't really need to be to play an effective game?

I guess the big difference is that after the Maltby hits in your videos there was a scrum (no fights) and then the Wings returned to the bench, while after the Eaves hits in my videos there were scrums (no fights) and the Wings returned to the bench. Man is this year's team soft.

Edited January 10, 2012 by kipwinger

[kipwinger 8,492]

Honsstly I think we could see an improvement on both the top 6 group, and bottom 6 group of forwards.

Our top 6 could use a more consistent goal scorer, and the bottom 6 could use a "few" more ornery types that during the course of a 7 game series they wear down the opposing dmen, and wreak havoc around the net.

Can you give me a couple of names, just so I know what type of "ornery" player you're looking for here? Jordin Tootoo? Dan Carcillo?

[Wings_Toledo 233]

Get rid of the instigator and I bet you'd see more guys on the current roster drop the mitts. The Wings are just coached not to take unnecessary penalties and I think people calling for Holland to get a "tough guy" for the 4th line tend to forget this at times. The only real need I see for this team is a consistent goal-scoring winger for the top six, but I'd rather Holland wait until the offseason than give up too much to get one extra piece.

Oh, and Don Cherry still thinks it's the 70s for some reason. He has no real grip on hockey in the modern era.