Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Are teams going to "bait" us into fighting?


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#21 Nev

Nev

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,054 posts
  • Location:Lincolnshire, England

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:17 AM

Every team know the way to win against the Red Wings is by playing physical and high forechecking.

 

That's less a function of being "intimidated", more a function of our post-Lidstrom/Rafalski defence being unable to handle the puck under pressure.  Quincey, Lashoff and especially Smith were forechecked relentlessly in the playoffs because they kept making mistakes when pressured.


"If I can be totally honest, it's not a lot of guys you get impressed by. Actually, it's no one else but him. From the bench, to see what move he makes -- you're like, 'I wish I could do that.' Sometimes you sit on the bench and just think, 'wow,' and you look over to the other bench and they sit there and shake their heads, too. He has great, great skills. I'm probably not going to play with another player who has the kind of skills he has." Mikael Samuelsson on Pavel Datsyuk

#22 RyanBarnes!

RyanBarnes!

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,937 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:35 AM

If there were a correlation between size, fighting, hitting, and winning then the biggest team with the most hits and fights would win the Cup almost every year.  That doesn't happen.  Wanna know what does have a high correlation to winning?  Special teams, and goal differential.  So when I say I'd rather have a good powerplay than George Parros or Colton Orr or some other garbage enforcer, it's actually supported by something other than whimsy.

Well naturally there will be a correlation between scoring and winning... But if we look at powerplay as arguably being the best enforcer you will find that the stanley cup winner from the last three years are all in the bottom half of the pp% stats by a fair margin, while at the same time being in the top half of PIM/GP. Not for being goons, but rather being teams with a strong physical presence. I guess the world is a pretty whimsy place...
"Joey (Kocur) has no fear" -Lyndon Byers
"Empty-net goals are for homos" -Al Iafrate

#23 RyanBarnes!

RyanBarnes!

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 5,937 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:51 AM

That's less a function of being "intimidated", more a function of our post-Lidstrom/Rafalski defence being unable to handle the puck under pressure.  Quincey, Lashoff and especially Smith were forechecked relentlessly in the playoffs because they kept making mistakes when pressured.

Red Wings have always been vulnerable to physically strong teams like The Ducks in 2003 and the Flames in 2004. They wouldnt allow the Red Wings to enter the slot but limited our forwards to perimeter shots. So did the Preds in 2012. I think that even during the Lidstrom era teams tried to forecheck high, only it was obviously more difficult then.
"Joey (Kocur) has no fear" -Lyndon Byers
"Empty-net goals are for homos" -Al Iafrate

#24 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,738 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 10:49 AM

I have a question...Who in all of the players in the NHL is the best at baiting the wings....The "Master" of "Baiting" if you will.  ;)

 

Perry?


 

Not a clue.

 

 

You seem to see bullying where none exists. It sometimes seems that you want the Wings to get bullied so that your advocacy of enforcers will carry more water. As things stand, the Wings don't get bullied. The fact that they don't have a fighter seems to have no effect whatsoever.

 

It makes zero difference whether or not players answer the proverbial bell when they're challenged, so I fail to see what is the big deal about the likes Franzen and Kronwall refusing to fight. Perhaps it's an issue you for you simply because you want to see more fighting, but it has no effect upon the outcome of a game.

 

As I've said before, I think you're longing for a lapsed age of hockey.

 

Huh?  Most teams in the league have enforcers or some kind of fighters on their roster.  More than us in any case.  

 

You're ignoring that fact and saying that I'm yearning for some era that's gone.  It's not gone.  There's still fighting and tough guys in the game.  Open your eyes.  


According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#25 GoWings1905

GoWings1905

    Legend

  • Gold Booster
  • 5,269 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:04 AM

I have a question...Who in all of the players in the NHL is the best at baiting the wings....The "Master" of "Baiting" if you will.  ;)


Backes and Ott came to mind for me.
 
 
"To whom much is given, much is expected."
 
 

 

 

 

 


#26 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:06 AM

They might leave their enforcer in the pressbox, but only because they know they have other players that can bully the Red Wings. Someone like Backes or Weber for example. It is not because they are thinking "oh they are the Red Wings, they cant be intimidated or physical play will not work against them". Every team know the way to win against the Red Wings is by playing physical and high forechecking. I often see the argument that enforcer's are a thing of the past and that they are not a deterrent etc, but most teams still carry one and they are quite appreciated by their teammates. Yzerman for example used to be quite vocal about having someone willing to drop the gloves. The same goes for Lidstrom. I guess it is nice to know that if s*** happens there is this guy that will always come to your aid no matter what. Teams will definitely try and take advantage of this team, because it is their best chance to beat us. Might not be a huge deal for a game or two, but it will be very tough deep into the season when players are usually banged up after 50-60 games alone not to mention being at a physical disadvantage. It will be even tougher playing a 7 games series against a team like Boston. I'm not so sure I buy the hype that Detroit will revolutionize the Eastern game, I think that Holland will eventually need to add some big bodies to this lineup to compete in the long run. As suggested by Holland himself. Meanwhile, the Red Wings must play tougher than they are and adding a good enforcer to the lineup will be like adding ten pounds and 2 inches to every player on this squad.

 

Again comes this notion that the Wings get regularly bullied. Again, it's untrue. The single instance I can think of is 2007's game six against Calgary, and this was a whopping two penalties; and the team has more of a physical presence now than it had back then. More, the game has moved further away from such behavior in the past six years. Finally, the idea that the East is more physical than the West is a myth. This is clearly indicated by both facts and common sense.

 

The Wings regularly play against teams that forecheck hard and play physically, and win most of those contests. If it were so simple as you say, then the Wings would not have such a long streak of success in the regular season and the playoffs. More, I don't understand how this pertains to having an enforcer on the roster.

 

It's a bit odd that you're bringing up the old "the Wings can't beat ___ in a seven-game series" refrain. As I suspect you recall, people on here used to say the same thing about the Flames, the Sharks, and the Ducks. In a three-year span, the Wings ended up beating all three of them in the playoffs. It's a tired line that simply isn't true.

 

Red Wings have always been vulnerable to physically strong teams like The Ducks in 2003 and the Flames in 2004. They wouldnt allow the Red Wings to enter the slot but limited our forwards to perimeter shots. So did the Preds in 2012. I think that even during the Lidstrom era teams tried to forecheck high, only it was obviously more difficult then.

 

The primary reason the Red Wings lost to the Ducks in 2003 was Giguere, and the primary reason for the 2004 loss to the Flames was Kiprusoff. Dave Lewis's ineptitude was likewise damaging.

 

Anyway, I don't see how this pertains to having an enforcer on the team.

 

Well naturally there will be a correlation between scoring and winning... But if we look at powerplay as arguably being the best enforcer you will find that the stanley cup winner from the last three years are all in the bottom half of the pp% stats by a fair margin, while at the same time being in the top half of PIM/GP. Not for being goons, but rather being teams with a strong physical presence. I guess the world is a pretty whimsy place...

 

 

Again, wrong. First off, penalty minutes per game is not a good measure of physical play. The majority of penalties are for such transgressions as hooking, tripping, interference, high-sticking, and the like, with only a minority being due to boarding or charging. Second, boarding and charging calls rarely occur on the forecheck. Third, hits per game is a much better measure of physical play; and of the past four Stanley Cup champions, only one---the Kings---ranked high (#2) in hits per game in its winning season. The 2010 Blackhawks were #25; the 2011 Bruins were #21; and the 2013 Blackhawks were dead last. All three of these teams ranked below the Wings in hits per game.



#27 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,230 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:10 AM

 

Again comes this notion that the Wings get regularly bullied. Again, it's untrue. The single instance I can think of is 2007's game six against Calgary, and this was a whopping two penalties; and the team has more of a physical presence now than it had back then. More, the game has moved further away from such behavior in the past six years. Finally, the idea that the East is more physical than the West is a myth. This is clearly indicated by both facts and common sense.

 

The Wings regularly play against teams that forecheck hard and play physically, and win most of those contests. If it were so simple as you say, then the Wings would not have such a long streak of success in the regular season and the playoffs. More, I don't understand how this pertains to having an enforcer on the roster.

 

It's a bit odd that you're bringing up the old "the Wings can't beat ___ in a seven-game series" refrain. As I suspect you recall, people on here used to say the same thing about the Flames, the Sharks, and the Ducks. In a three-year span, the Wings ended up beating all three of them in the playoffs. It's a tired line that simply isn't true.

 

 

The primary reason the Red Wings lost to the Ducks in 2003 was Giguere, and the primary reason for the 2004 loss to the Flames was Kiprusoff. Dave Lewis's ineptitude was likewise damaging.

 

Anyway, I don't see how this pertains to having an enforcer on the team.

 

 

 

Again, wrong. First off, penalty minutes per game is not a good measure of physical play. The majority of penalties are for such transgressions as hooking, tripping, interference, high-sticking, and the like, with only a minority being due to boarding or charging. Second, boarding and charging calls rarely occur on the forecheck. Third, hits per game is a much better measure of physical play; and of the past four Stanley Cup champions, only one---the Kings---ranked high (#2) in hits per game in its winning season. The 2010 Blackhawks were #25; the 2011 Bruins were #21; and the 2013 Blackhawks were dead last. All three of these teams ranked below the Wings in hits per game.

 

WAIT!!!!! HOLD THE PHONE!!! 

 

The Bruins are the most physical team ever, blah blah blah, we should be scared of them...



#28 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:18 AM

Huh?  Most teams in the league have enforcers or some kind of fighters on their roster.  More than us in any case.  

 

You're ignoring that fact and saying that I'm yearning for some era that's gone.  It's not gone.  There's still fighting and tough guys in the game.  Open your eyes.  

 

 

 

Yes, there is still fighting, and there are still tough guys. But fighting does not play the same role as it did in the past; more, it is not nearly as common. In 1987-1988 season, fights per game peaked at 1.30. Ten years later, that number had dropped to .89. Ten years after that, the number .60. Last season, it was .52. This is not the era in which there was a fight nearly every game, It is becoming less and less common. And today's fights are, in their vast majority, between tough guys, and very often not because of any incident concerning another player.

 

 

The stats don't support your argument.



#29 Dabura

Dabura

    Everydayer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,086 posts
  • Location:In an octopus's garden

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:20 AM

Maple Leafs coach Randy Carlyle coached against the Red Wings for many years in Anaheim. He believes their toughness is underestimated.

 

“I don’t think you can say they don’t play a tough brand of hockey,'' Carlyle said. “I’ve coached a lot of games against the Red Wings in the Western Conference and they match up well any way you want to play it.

 

“Toughness isn’t always about fighting. I think there seems to be a misrepresentation about what team toughness is. Team toughness means to take a check to make a play, block a shot, get in the way of people in the tough areas of the ice and earn your space. And they do a good job of that.''

 

http://www.mlive.com...g_they_won.html


Don't Toews me, bro!


#30 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,738 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:24 AM

 

 

 

Yes, there is still fighting, and there are still tough guys. But fighting does not play the same role as it did in the past; more, it is not nearly as common. In 1987-1988 season, fights per game peaked at 1.30. Ten years later, that number had dropped to .89. Ten years after that, the number .60. Last season, it was .52. This is not the era in which there was a fight nearly every game, It is becoming less and less common. And today's fights are, in their vast majority, between tough guys, and very often not because of any incident concerning another player.

 

 

The stats don't support your argument.

 

The roster decisions teams make support my argument.  Most teams still have at least one enforcer or some type of tough guy (say a Prust type).  Sure fighting has gone down since the 80's and 90's, and yes I like those eras better, but that isn't stopping teams from still having these players around.    

 

When fights go down to .10 per game, then I might rethink my argument and agree that I'm clamoring for an era that's gone by.  As it stands, fighting and toughness is still part of the North American game, and Holland is in the minority with his philosophy on this issue.  


According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#31 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:44 AM

 

The roster decisions teams make support my argument.  Most teams still have at least one enforcer or some type of tough guy (say a Prust type).  Sure fighting has gone down since the 80's and 90's, and yes I like those eras better, but that isn't stopping teams from still having these players around.    

 

You're taking a piece of ambiguous data---the continued presence of tough guys---and using it to support a very questionable interpretation. Sure, teams keep tough guys around, but fighting's role in the game has been steadily reducing over the past 20 years. Fighting is both much less important and much less frequent than it once was. Teams easily can and do get by and do well without a fighter now. You play off the presence of an enforcer on the roster as an important factor in success, but the facts disagree.



#32 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,738 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 01:42 PM

 

You're taking a piece of ambiguous data---the continued presence of tough guys---and using it to support a very questionable interpretation. Sure, teams keep tough guys around, but fighting's role in the game has been steadily reducing over the past 20 years. Fighting is both much less important and much less frequent than it once was. Teams easily can and do get by and do well without a fighter now. You play off the presence of an enforcer on the roster as an important factor in success, but the facts disagree.

 

I never said it's important in success.  It just adds better balance to a lineup.  So it does help a team be more successful in the physical department, but it's not as important as say, having a top winger who can score or a defenseman that can play well.     

 

How about you tell me why teams are dressing tough guys?  Are all the GM's stupid or something?  Or do they do it because it will add better balance to a lineup.  I think it's the latter reason.  


Edited by GMRwings1983, 29 September 2013 - 01:43 PM.

According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#33 Superman54

Superman54

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,760 posts
  • Location:Calgary, Alberta

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:00 PM

I have a question...Who in all of the players in the NHL is the best at baiting the wings....The "Master" of "Baiting" if you will.  ;)

Dats fought Perry

Cleary fought Pronger

Things you wouldn't expect from these players, and they did it against the Ducks. Id go with the team itself.


Edited by Superman54, 29 September 2013 - 02:01 PM.


#34 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:19 PM

 

I never said it's important in success.  It just adds better balance to a lineup.  So it does help a team be more successful in the physical department, but it's not as important as say, having a top winger who can score or a defenseman that can play well.     

 

How about you tell me why teams are dressing tough guys?  Are all the GM's stupid or something?  Or do they do it because it will add better balance to a lineup.  I think it's the latter reason.  

 

Are you suggesting that the GMs who don't ice tough guys are stupid? Give the attempts at deflection a break, please.

 

Some GMs choose to spend a roster spot on a tough guy, feeling that such a player is useful. An increasing number of others choose to instead use that roster spot for a player who is more capable on the ice. Both options have their respective merits. Those who go with the latter option do just fine, as it is no longer very important to have a dedicated fighter on the roster.

 

We are no longer in the 80s, or the 90s, or the early 2000s. The game has changed.


Edited by Crymson, 29 September 2013 - 02:26 PM.


#35 Hairy Lime

Hairy Lime

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:58 PM

 

Are you suggesting that the GMs who don't ice tough guys are stupid? Give the attempts at deflection a break, please.

 

Some GMs choose to spend a roster spot on a tough guy, feeling that such a player is useful. An increasing number of others choose to instead use that roster spot for a player who is more capable on the ice. Both options have their respective merits. Those who go with the latter option do just fine, as it is no longer very important to have a dedicated fighter on the roster.

 

We are no longer in the 80s, or the 90s, or the early 2000s. The game has changed.

The game has only changed in yours and Holland's mind. I posed this question earlier, maybe you can answer it: name me how many teams, including Detroit, that have won a Stanley Cup in the last 30-40 years who have not dressed an enforcer for a minimum of 41 games (half a season, not counting shortened seasons).

Who knows what it means, because it does not exactly show up on the stat sheet; maybe it means a few less unprovoked hits or a more unified locker room, all I know is what I know, and I know that dressing an enforcer seems to pay some dividends. If you and Holland think you have a winning formula by using that roster spot for a Kopesky or an Emmerton, it has yet to bear fruit.  



#36 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:26 PM

The game has only changed in yours and Holland's mind.

 

I was tempted to stop reading here, as I am certain that the pool of people with this opinion is not limited to Ken Holland and myself.

 

I posed this question earlier, maybe you can answer it: name me how many teams, including Detroit, that have won a Stanley Cup in the last 30-40 years who have not dressed an enforcer for a minimum of 41 games (half a season, not counting shortened seasons). Who knows what it means, because it does not exactly show up on the stat sheet; maybe it means a few less unprovoked hits or a more unified locker room, all I know is what I know, and I know that dressing an enforcer seems to pay some dividends. If you and Holland think you have a winning formula by using that roster spot for a Kopesky or an Emmerton, it has yet to bear fruit.

 

I have no intention of doing that amount of research, but the 2013 Blackhawks, the 2006 Hurricanes, and the 1999 Stars fit that mold. More, there have been numerous Stanley Cup teams that did not ice a pure enforcer, but rather a player who could fight and also occupy a viable role in normal play; recent examples are the 2007 Ducks and the 2011 Bruins. This discussion deals not with such players, but rather only pure fighters.


Edited by Crymson, 29 September 2013 - 03:30 PM.


#37 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,738 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 03:37 PM

 

Are you suggesting that the GMs who don't ice tough guys are stupid? Give the attempts at deflection a break, please.

 

Some GMs choose to spend a roster spot on a tough guy, feeling that such a player is useful. An increasing number of others choose to instead use that roster spot for a player who is more capable on the ice. Both options have their respective merits. Those who go with the latter option do just fine, as it is no longer very important to have a dedicated fighter on the roster.

 

We are no longer in the 80s, or the 90s, or the early 2000s. The game has changed.

 

The Wings are in the minority.  Most GM's have a pure enforcer on the roster or in the system.  Some will only dress guys like Prust or Clarkson.  Very few teams will dress the roster the Wings have, with really no toughness outside of Tootoo.  So we're in the minority here.  You phrased it like it was 50/50.  


According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#38 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 04:29 PM

The Wings are in the minority.  Most GM's have a pure enforcer on the roster or in the system. 

 

Oh, so now it's that they have an enforcer on the roster or in the system, not that they actually play this enforcer on a regular basis.

 

The following teams do not regularly ice a pure fighter: the Sharks, Capitals, Wings, Blackhawks, Devils, Ducks, Senators, Bruins, and Islanders. You'll notice something that all of these teams but the Devils have in common: they made the playoffs last season. One of them won the Cup, another lost in the finals, and two others lost in game seven of the 2nd round.

 

Some will only dress guys like Prust or Clarkson.  Very few teams will dress the roster the Wings have, with really no toughness outside of Tootoo.  So we're in the minority here.

 

Ah, so the likes of Smith, Abdelkader, and Ericsson are no toughness. Let's not take into consideration, either, the coaches, GMs and players who say that the Wings play plenty tough and do very well without a fighter.

 

You phrased it like it was 50/50.

 

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Had I meant 50/50, I would have said 50/50. Instead, I said "an increasing number," which is indeed the case.


Edited by Crymson, 29 September 2013 - 04:30 PM.


#39 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,738 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:01 PM

 

 

 

The following teams do not regularly ice a pure fighter: the Sharks, Capitals, Wings, Blackhawks, Devils, Ducks, Senators, Bruins, and Islanders. You'll notice something that all of these teams but the Devils have in common: they made the playoffs last season. One of them won the Cup, another lost in the finals, and two others lost in game seven of the 2nd round.

 

 

 

All those teams you listed have more fighters than us.  Sens and Bruins?  Seriously?  Like I said, most teams will dress a pure fighter/enforcer, or a Clarkson type.  Those teams you listed have one or the other.  We don't have either, unless you count a 5'9 guy that shouldn't be fighting as much as he did last year.  


According to my profile, my reputation is excellent. LOL.

#40 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

  • Gold Booster
  • 11,032 posts
  • Location:Denver, CO, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:21 PM

 

All those teams you listed have more fighters than us.  Sens and Bruins?  Seriously?  Like I said, most teams will dress a pure fighter/enforcer, or a Clarkson type.  Those teams you listed have one or the other.  We don't have either, unless you count a 5'9 guy that shouldn't be fighting as much as he did last year.  

 

 

We were previously talking about pure enforcers. You are now talking about capable players who will also fight. That is a different story. Tootoo is the former rather than the latter, so exactly what are discussing here?







Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users