Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Are teams going to "bait" us into fighting?


  • Please log in to reply
86 replies to this topic

#41 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,249 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:26 PM

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.  


I would like to pose you a counter offer. since you believe the game has not changed find me the average fights per team per year, from the 80's, 90's, 2000's, and 2010's please, and tell me that from those stats fighting hasn't drastically decreased

#42 Hairy Lime

Hairy Lime

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:26 PM

 

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 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.

Blackhawks had Bollig, and to a lesser extent, Carcillo, though I think he only fought once. I mentioned the '06 Hurricanes in my previous post as one of the exceptions, but added that they were also a fairly tough team without one. The 2011 Bruins had Shawn Thornton, and while not an enforcer or "pure fighter" per se, Lucic. The '99 Stars had Severyrn, but he only played 30 games. And they were also a pretty tough team themselves. And I hope you were kidding about the 2007 Ducks, because who didn't fight on that team? They had Parros, Brad May, Shawn Thronton, Todd Fedoruk, Travis Moen, etc, etc. Some of them were used in a limited role, but you get my point. 

 

And you don't have to do the research, because I can assure that the teams that have won a Cup without a regular season enforcer are few and far between. Even if it appears to you not to matter, it must. 



#43 Hairy Lime

Hairy Lime

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:46 PM

I would like to pose you a counter offer. since you believe the game has not changed find me the average fights per team per year, from the 80's, 90's, 2000's, and 2010's please, and tell me that from those stats fighting hasn't drastically decreased

This is not the 80's NHL anymore, no one is saying that it is. But to imply that fighting is a thing of the past is delusional. Fighting is trending downward, no doubt about it; but it's not going anywhere. And the most fights in a season in the 90's was the '96-97 season with 907, with Detroit and Colorado contributing a few. Didn't hurt Detroit that season, did it. 

 

My point is, dressing an enforcer does nothing to diminish your chances of winning. Only the opposite, actually, as only a few teams have won the Cup in the last 30 or so years that did not dress an enforcer during the regular season, extrapolate from that what you will. If you have a team full of enforcers, then yeah, it would probably hurt your chances, excluding the '07 Ducks. 

 

Nothing wrong with protecting your stars, enough of this "our powerplay is our enforcer" BS! 



#44 Echolalia

Echolalia

    Legend

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,915 posts
  • Location:fab ferndale

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:23 PM

I think this article is relevant to this thread, and gives an insight to what the Wings' players, coaching staff, and Kenny Holland think:

 

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

 

edit:  I just saw that Dabura already linked this article in the previous page, and included an excerpt from Randy Carlyle in his post  (sorry if I steal your thunder D).  Still worth the read if you haven't already.


Edited by Echolalia, 29 September 2013 - 06:25 PM.


#45 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

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

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:30 PM

Blackhawks had Bollig, and to a lesser extent, Carcillo, though I think he only fought once. I mentioned the '06 Hurricanes in my previous post as one of the exceptions, but added that they were also a fairly tough team without one. The 2011 Bruins had Shawn Thornton, and while not an enforcer or "pure fighter" per se, Lucic. The '99 Stars had Severyrn, but he only played 30 games. And they were also a pretty tough team themselves. And I hope you were kidding about the 2007 Ducks, because who didn't fight on that team? They had Parros, Brad May, Shawn Thronton, Todd Fedoruk, Travis Moen, etc, etc. Some of them were used in a limited role, but you get my point. 

 

You were talking pure enforcers. I told you which teams did not have a pure enforcer. As I have mentioned, players who can fight AND play are an entirely different story from guys who can only do the former. Those who can fight but not play are less valuable than those who can play but don't fight.



#46 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

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

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:36 PM



This is not the 80's NHL anymore, no one is saying that it is. But to imply that fighting is a thing of the past is delusional. Fighting is trending downward, no doubt about it; but it's not going anywhere

 

I don't see the correlation between "fighting is trending downward" and "fighting is not going anywhere." Fights per game are at just over half of what they were 15 years ago, and a bit shy of a third what they were 25 years ago. Fighting is not a thing of the past---it will continue---but its old role is absolutely a thing of the past.

 

And the most fights in a season in the 90's was the '96-97 season with 907, with Detroit and Colorado contributing a few. Didn't hurt Detroit that season, did it.

 

The difference between 1997 and 1998 was .03 fights per game. Not exactly huge. And as is habitually mentioned, this was the past. It's the distant past, by this stage: we're more than 15 years down the line from that '97 Stanley Cup.

 

My point is, dressing an enforcer does nothing to diminish your chances of winning.

 

Are we once again straying into discussion of guys who can play and also fight? We were talking pure fighters, so let's stick with that. There's no proof that having such a fighter increases a team's chances of winning, nor that not having such a player decreases a team's chances of winning.

 

Only the opposite, actually, as only a few teams have won the Cup in the last 30 or so years that did not dress an enforcer during the regular season, extrapolate from that what you will. If you have a team full of enforcers, then yeah, it would probably hurt your chances, excluding the '07 Ducks.

 

Again, you're making a correlation that has no factual basis. Your logic is backwards. The simple fact is that teams have dressed tough guys for a very long time. The fact that so many Stanley Cup-winning teams had one is the direct result of that trend---one that teams have only begun to buck in the post-2006 lockout years---rather than from any belief in the vital importance of having a tough guy on the roster. The idea that the presence of a tough guy was a vital component in those championships is absolutely circumstantial and likely untrue.


Edited by Crymson, 29 September 2013 - 09:39 PM.


#47 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,742 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 09:56 PM

 

You were talking pure enforcers. I told you which teams did not have a pure enforcer. As I have mentioned, players who can fight AND play are an entirely different story from guys who can only do the former. Those who can fight but not play are less valuable than those who can play but don't fight.

 

Boston and Ottawa have pure enforcers (maybe your definition is different than mine).  But I'm also counting guys who are fighters that do other things (Clarkson, Erskine, Clowe).

 

No matter which definition of fighter/enforcer/pure/unpure, etc., I can't think of any teams that have less fighters than our team.  No other GM is as against dressing fighters (whether they're pure goons or guys that can contribute as well as fight) than Holland does.    


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

#48 Euro_Twins

Euro_Twins

    Healthy Scratch

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,249 posts
  • Location:Windsor, Ontario

Posted 29 September 2013 - 10:07 PM

 

Boston and Ottawa have pure enforcers (maybe your definition is different than mine).  But I'm also counting guys who are fighters that do other things (Clarkson, Erskine, Clowe).

 

No matter which definition of fighter/enforcer/pure/unpure, etc., I can't think of any teams that have less fighters than our team.  No other GM is as against dressing fighters (whether they're pure goons or guys that can contribute as well as fight) than Holland does.    

 

I think you are a bit off base on this one. Tootoo, Downey, DMac, Lapointe, Kocur, and a few others. Yes we don't have a huge list, but Holland certainly does not have a history of not wanting to dress fighters.



#49 GMRwings1983

GMRwings1983

    The Killer is Me

  • Silver Booster
  • 20,742 posts
  • Location:Jerkwater, USA

Posted 29 September 2013 - 10:15 PM

 

I think you are a bit off base on this one. Tootoo, Downey, DMac, Lapointe, Kocur, and a few others. Yes we don't have a huge list, but Holland certainly does not have a history of not wanting to dress fighters.

 

Many of those players were in Detroit before Holland arrived.  

 

I'm not saying he never dressed tougher players.  I'm saying he's done it less than any other GM I can think of.  True, we've had lots of success in the past, but the last few years, this team hasn't been anything special, and no longer has a great 3rd/4th line, where you can't afford to take players off for tougher guys.  GM's around the league are drafting guys who can fight and contribute on the scoreboard, but Holland hasn't exactly been developing guys like Lucic, Kassian, Clowe or Clarkson in the system.

 

So no one can argue that we have less tough guys than any team over the years.  One also can't ignore that most GM's in the league still believe in having tough guys of some sort on the roster.  The league has changed, but that part of the game still exists.        


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

#50 Nev

Nev

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,057 posts
  • Location:Lincolnshire, England

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:38 AM

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).

 

 

Honestly, talk about reaching to make a point.  I'm sure Aaron Downey's 56 regular season games were the key to our 08 cup :glare:

 

Anyway, as usual, a fighting thread has devolved into those who believe fighters should also be able to play vs Downey/May/Norton.


Edited by Nev, 30 September 2013 - 12:39 AM.

"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

#51 kipwinger

kipwinger

    Hall-of-Famer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,695 posts
  • Location:Mt. Pleasant, MI

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:44 AM

I honestly can't believe this whole discussion began because I said that having a good powerplay would make other teams hurt for trying to fight.  Isn't that something of a truism?  If I were to say the equal but opposite, e.g. having a bad powerplay doesn't make other teams hurt for trying to fight, everyone would agree.  But here we are.


GMRwings:  "Well, in other civilized countries, 16 years old isn't considered underage.  For instance, I believe the age of consent is 16 in Canada.  There's some US states where it's 16 as well.  

 

Get off the high horse.  Not like she was 10."

 

"Some girls are 17 even though they look 25."

 

 


#52 Hairy Lime

Hairy Lime

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 08:40 AM

 

I don't see the correlation between "fighting is trending downward" and "fighting is not going anywhere." Fights per game are at just over half of what they were 15 years ago, and a bit shy of a third what they were 25 years ago. Fighting is not a thing of the past---it will continue---but its old role is absolutely a thing of the past.

 

 

The difference between 1997 and 1998 was .03 fights per game. Not exactly huge. And as is habitually mentioned, this was the past. It's the distant past, by this stage: we're more than 15 years down the line from that '97 Stanley Cup.

 

 

Are we once again straying into discussion of guys who can play and also fight? We were talking pure fighters, so let's stick with that. There's no proof that having such a fighter increases a team's chances of winning, nor that not having such a player decreases a team's chances of winning.

 

 

Again, you're making a correlation that has no factual basis. Your logic is backwards. The simple fact is that teams have dressed tough guys for a very long time. The fact that so many Stanley Cup-winning teams had one is the direct result of that trend---one that teams have only begun to buck in the post-2006 lockout years---rather than from any belief in the vital importance of having a tough guy on the roster. The idea that the presence of a tough guy was a vital component in those championships is absolutely circumstantial and likely untrue.

All that I am saying is this, and It is my personal opinion: I believe that having a guy in the line-up, even if all he can really do is fight, is worth more to a team than one more extra scrub like a Kopecky in '09, when EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER'S were taking liberties with Detroit, or an Emmerton/Samuelsson on this team. Simple as that. 

 

Teams have not targeted Detroit like they did in '09 for one simple reason: they are not all that relevant anymore. They are not the defending Stanley Cup champions, and they are not the barometer; Chicago and Boston are, and I guarantee you that their coach or GM would never let their top stars take the extra abuse game after game like Holland and Babcock did in '09 without some intervention.   

 

 

Honestly, talk about reaching to make a point.  I'm sure Aaron Downey's 56 regular season games were the key to our 08 cup :glare:

 

Anyway, as usual, a fighting thread has devolved into those who believe fighters should also be able to play vs Downey/May/Norton

Players said that they loved having Downey out there. Ask yourself why. No, he was not a major factor, at east not in a tangible way, in Detroit eventually winning the Cup, but don't knock what he did provide the team during the regular season. I'm not here to present indisputable evidence as to why or how having an enforcer in your line-up during the regular season correlates with winning a Cup, because there really isn't any -at least none that can be pointed to on a stat sheet, and most NHL teams routinely dress one anyways. All that I'm saying is that there is also no evidence that NOT dressing an enforcer during the regular season does anything more for your team than earn your star players a little extra abuse. That's it; that's my argument. Take it or leave it. 



#53 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

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

Posted 30 September 2013 - 10:55 AM


All that I am saying is this, and It is my personal opinion: I believe that having a guy in the line-up, even if all he can really do is fight, is worth more to a team than one more extra scrub like a Kopecky in '09, when EVERYONE AND THEIR GRANDMOTHER'S were taking liberties with Detroit, or an Emmerton/Samuelsson on this team. Simple as that. 

 

You'll need to remind me of this. Exactly when in the 2008-2009 season was everyone roughing up the Red Wings? Was it in the playoffs? Are you speaking of Commodore dumping himself into the bench after Stuart destroyed Umberger? Perhaps you're referring to the fights with the Ducks at the end of game six, but you're forgetting that Ericsson whooped Perry earlier in the series; I guess you could be referring to Brown's hit on Hudler, but it's rather hard to exact retribution on a guy who gets kicked out of the game and doesn't play in the rest of the series. Or maybe you're talking about the minor scrum after Kronwall obliterated Havlat? I mean, I really just don't get it. I don't remember any circumstances in the regular season either.

 

 

 

Teams have not targeted Detroit like they did in '09 for one simple reason: they are not all that relevant anymore. They are not the defending Stanley Cup champions, and they are not the barometer

 

Again, I nearly stopped reading here. This seems like an awfully easy way to give no examples in 2008-2009 and then say that there simply aren't any from the next season onward. Perhaps you're forgetting that in the 2009-2010 season, the Wings were coming off a three-season stretch in which they lost in the conference finals, made it to the finals twice, and won the Cup once. There were most certainly still one of the most hailed teams in the league, if not the most hailed. Nevertheless, your claim makes little sense: teams do what works. Whether they play more physically or less physically is a function of strategy and construction. They will not be stupidly aggressive simply because a team is prestigious.

 

Also, you're contravening your own argument. You're saying that the Wings regularly got roughed up in 2008-2009... but that everyone stopped because the Wings supposedly weren't irrelevant anymore. Um, OK. If that were actually the case, then why would the team need an enforcer now?

 

 

 

Chicago and Boston are, and I guarantee you that their coach or GM would never let their top stars take the extra abuse game after game like Holland and Babcock did in '09 without some intervention.

 

Again, what happened in that season? Whatever the case, Chicago doesn't play an enforcer. A couple of Blackhawks will fight, just as a few Wings will do.

 

 

 

Players said that they loved having Downey out there. Ask yourself why. No, he was not a major factor, at east not in a tangible way, in Detroit eventually winning the Cup, but don't knock what he did provide the team during the regular season. I'm not here to present indisputable evidence as to why or how having an enforcer in your line-up during the regular season correlates with winning a Cup, because there really isn't any -at least none that can be pointed to on a stat sheet, and most NHL teams routinely dress one anyways. All that I'm saying is that there is also no evidence that NOT dressing an enforcer during the regular season does anything more for your team than earn your star players a little extra abuse. That's it; that's my argument. Take it or leave it.

 

Saying that there's no evidence a measure will NOT help in its area of intent is not a very effective strategy in discussion. There's also no evidence that to say that, for example, standing on your head for four hours daily won't extend your lifespan by 20 years. I'll go with "leave it."


Edited by Crymson, 30 September 2013 - 03:27 PM.


#54 Hairy Lime

Hairy Lime

    4th Line Grinder

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 281 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 11:53 AM

 

You'll need to remind me of this. Exactly when in the 2008-2009 season was everyone roughing up the Red Wings? Was it in the playoffs? Are you speaking of Commodore dumping himself into the bench after Stuart destroyed Kronwall? Perhaps you're referring to the fights with the Ducks at the end of game six, but you're forgetting that Ericsson whooped Perry earlier in the series; I guess you could be referring to Brown's hit on Hudler, but it's rather hard to exact retribution on a guy who gets kicked out of the game and doesn't play in the rest of the series. Or maybe you're talking about the minor scrum after Kronwall obliterated Havlat? I mean, I really just don't get it. I don't remember any circumstances in the regular season either.

 

 

 

 

Again, I nearly stopped reading here. This seems like an awfully easy way to give no examples in 2008-2009 and then say that there simply aren't any from the next season onward. Perhaps you're forgetting that in the 2009-2010 season, the Wings were coming off a three-season stretch in which they lost in the conference finals, made it to the finals twice, and won the Cup once. There were most certainly still one of the most hailed teams in the league, if not the most hailed. Nevertheless, your claim makes little sense: teams do what works. Whether they play more physically or less physically is a function of strategy and construction. They will not be stupidly aggressive simply because a team is prestigious.

 

Also, you're contravening your own argument. You're saying that the Wings regularly got roughed up in 2008-2009... but that everyone stopped because the Wings supposedly weren't irrelevant anymore. Um, OK. If that were actually the case, then why would the team need an enforcer now?

 

 

 

 

Again, what happened in that season? Whatever the case, Chicago doesn't play an enforcer. A couple of Blackhawks will fight, just as a few Wings will do.

 

 

 

 

Saying that there's no evidence a measure will NOT help in its area of intent is not a very effective strategy in discussion. There's also no evidence that to say that, for example, standing on your head for four hours daily won't extend your lifespan by 20 years. I'll go with "leave it."

Ok, now I have to assume you just don't watch the games, or perhaps you have the ability to overlook what you don't want to acknowledge. And I'm mostly talking about the '09 regular season. Examples? How about every game. Detroit was roughed up enough in that season that we got the lovely phrase: "our powerplay will be/is our enforcer" in response to much criticism of Detroit NOT having an enforcer. Just because there weren't a lot of significant injuries inflicted does not mean it did not take its toll. When the strategy of  "ignore rather than address" actually yield's results, you'll have an argument. Like I said, I don't care if there is any direct, statistical correlation between team toughness and Championships, that fact is this, Detroit has yet to win a Stanley Cup with any of the soft teams they have iced over the last several seasons, and won with the one that was not soft. You can argue until you turn blue, but it's a fact. Last post-season, Tootoo absolutely should have played. Would it have made a difference? Who the hell knows. But it at least would have been a counter-punch to what Shaw and Bickell were doing for Chicago. You need those types of players in the playoffs, like Drake for us in '08. Hitting can be as big a part of hockey as scoring. 


Edited by haroldsnepsts, 30 September 2013 - 01:42 PM.


#55 haroldsnepsts

haroldsnepsts

    "Classy"

  • HoF Booster Mod
  • 16,931 posts

Posted 30 September 2013 - 12:10 PM

You guys can beat this topic to death if you like, but do it without the baiting and insults please. 

 

Otherwise your lengthy posts will vanish into the ether and could result in suspension.



#56 Jersey Wing

Jersey Wing

    Watching Eastern Conference hockey before it was cool...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Location:Jersey City, NJ

Posted 30 September 2013 - 01:20 PM

The Wings are not going to be intimidated or goaded. Sure there will be the odd fight, even the odd fight of Pavel Datsyuk teaching Cory Perry what's what. But all in all, with all the rough and tough teams of the last 20 years in the west, nothing much is going to change. The Wings are cool customers. 

 

Like Coach Babcock says, "If you think the best way to help the hockey club is to get up and punch somebody in the head and take a penalty you do that."


14767451334_8f0d14d8cb_o.jpg


#57 Crymson

Crymson

    Ninjelephant

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

Posted 30 September 2013 - 03:32 PM

Ok, now I have to assume you just don't watch the games, or perhaps you have the ability to overlook what you don't want to acknowledge. And I'm mostly talking about the '09 regular season. Examples? How about every game. Detroit was roughed up enough in that season that we got the lovely phrase: "our powerplay will be/is our enforcer" in response to much criticism of Detroit NOT having an enforcer.

 

I hardly missed a game in that season. Sorry, but "every game" doesn't work. I'll need some actual examples if we're going to discuss this.

 

"Our power play is our enforcer" was coined by Mathieu Schneider during the 2005-2006 season.

 

Just because there weren't a lot of significant injuries inflicted does not mean it did not take its toll.

 

This can be neither quantified nor verified.

 

When the strategy of  "ignore rather than address" actually yield's results, you'll have an argument. Like I said, I don't care if there is any direct, statistical correlation between team toughness and Championships, that fact is this, Detroit has yet to win a Stanley Cup with any of the soft teams they have iced over the last several seasons, and won with the one that was not soft.

 

Aaron Downey didn't play a single game in the playoffs; the team's only physical players were Kronwall, Drake, and Stuart. The 2007-2008 squad won the Cup on the power of its skill rather than its grit. The 2001-2002 team likewise won the Cup on skill; the only physical players on that roster were McCarty, Fischer, and Holmstrom.

 

Skill can win. It won this last season, and it won in 2002, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

 

Last post-season, Tootoo absolutely should have played. Would it have made a difference? Who the hell knows. But it at least would have been a counter-punch to what Shaw and Bickell were doing for Chicago. You need those types of players in the playoffs, like Drake for us in '08. Hitting can be as big a part of hockey as scoring.

 

Tootoo played in one game against the Ducks, a team substantially more physical than the Blackhawks. He played poorly. Tootoo is not good at playing defense, and he is undisciplined as well. He played himself off the roster.

 

As for the second round: the Red Wings outhit the Blackhawks, and generally played a more physical series. The Blackhawks were the softest team in last year's playoffs, as their fans will attest. They won the Cup anyway.

 

You can argue until you turn blue, but it's a fact.

 

If you're going to arbitrarily declare your viewpoint as fact, then we have little reason to continue this discussion.


Edited by Crymson, 01 October 2013 - 12:23 AM.


#58 Hockeytown0001

Hockeytown0001

    Legend

  • HoF Booster
  • 22,625 posts
  • Location:A2, Michigan

Posted 30 September 2013 - 11:56 PM

746847.jpg


"All done? Five bucks." - Pavel Datsyuk after an interview
"Very few cities in the NHL have the history or the following of the Detroit Red Wings." - Steve Yzerman

 

 


#59 Dabura

Dabura

    Everydayer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,087 posts
  • Location:In an octopus's garden

Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:03 AM

Food for thought


Don't Toews me, bro!


#60 F.Michael

F.Michael

    Old School Dynamic Duo

  • HoF Booster
  • 7,567 posts
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 02 October 2013 - 07:25 AM

Considering the fight Ericsson had last night with Clarkson and Kindl's fight against Boston last week, I'm concerned that teams will bait us into fighting with them. In other words, our guys won't be willing to fight, but the ref won't whistle the instigator and our guys will more or less be forced to fight.

 

Is this a valid concern?

I don't think they bait us as much as they'll want to push the envelope with physical play, or play with the intent to intimidate.

 

It'll be interesting.



'Evolution' created by Offsides





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users