• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
kickazz

Why the Red Wings get injured

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Part of my OP:

"But when teams like Ottawa and Boston are out there out hitting your players 2:1 or 3:1 ratio night after night, (and I don't mean small checks, I mean big massive hits), you cant expect them to last long."

I explicitly mentioned being outhit by massive hits aka quality hits.

Darren McCarty was an enforcer and played games and almost all playoff games for the red wings when he won the cup 4 times. Bob Probert was one of the biggest enforcers in NHL history and was a regular season and playoff player for the Red Wings. Hell so was Gordie Howe to a certain extent.

Must have missed all those "massive hits" we've been a victim of. Any evidence to back that up? No, listing injuries doesn't count.

People seem to somehow forget we're a puck possession team. If we're out there chasing guys, making big hits, then that means we don't have the puck.

It's no coincidence many of the teams who lead in hits, are the worst in puck possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have missed all those "massive hits" we've been a victim of. Any evidence to back that up? No, listing injuries doesn't count.

People seem to somehow forget we're a puck possession team. If we're out there chasing guys, making big hits, then that means we don't have the puck.

It's no coincidence many of the teams who lead in hits, are the worst in puck possession.

What Red Wings have you been watching? We are no longer the puck possession team we once were. There's a reason why we lost to Ottawa, a team where really on paper we're more skilled than. You want evidence? Go watch the Ottawa games this season. Zetterberg and Datsyuk both shutdown by big bodies. I don't need to find the evidence for you, Mickey Redmond does most of the talking at the games were the euro twins get shutdown by big guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should use some of that high school logic you seem to be so full of and reevaluate my post, as well as your own OP. I don't care if Lapierre took liberties before, during, or after Downey's response, and based on your premise that an enforcer's presence prevents injuries, you shouldn't either. You asked us all a question in the title of this thread, "Why the Red Wings get injured." You immediately follow that up in the first sentence of your OP with "Because they have no legitimate enforcer." Your argument can then be summed up as 'enforcers prevent injury'. High school reasoning. You also said in your OP that "If there were enforcers, teams would think twice before laying the hits on star players." Again, that reinforces your assertion that the presence of an enforcer would prevent injuries to Red Wings. Downey was dressed and actively used during the game when Lapierre hit and injured Lidstrom; ie Downey the enforcer was present. Based on that example (one which you actually brought forth to the discussion), it is clear that your argument that an enforcer's presence prevents injury is effectively refuted. Downey was present. Lidstrom still got injured.

As for the fight providing momentum and sending a message to the Avs, again I invite you to reread your original post as well as mine. We aren't discussing momentum-shifts or message sending. I never mentioned it. Your OP never mentioned it. That is not the topic of this thread, and if you were interested in discussing that as the premise of your argument, you should have made that clear in your OP. I expect better from someone who is so competent in high-school level logic to bring up irrelevant points to the subject as a response to my retort. It's as Kip mentioned in the first page: you keep changing your tune. Now, if you want to discuss whether the utilization of an enforcer shifts momentum or sends messages to the opposition, you're more than welcome to make a separate thread on those topics, assuming LGW can stomach yet another enforcer thread. But whatever you do, don't bog this already shallow thread down with multiple topics of discussion. Lets stick with injury prevention.

Why are you getting so upset and insulting over an online forum? Relax sean avery.

You're refutation has been illogical. My OP said enforcers can put big massive hits. Further i gave example of how Zetterberg's herniated disk is a result of beating he's taken over the course of the season. Star players on average shouldnt be getting hit as much as our team's players do. If we had enforcers they can reduce the amount of bullying the Red Wings players take. Go read the posts made throughout the thread. Take your head out of one dimension and keep an open mind to a debate.

Just because I made an OP with an introduction to a topic doesn't mean i wont add further thoughts on the topic. And is ESPECIALLY doesnt mean i can't point out other strengths of having an enforcer.

Additionally, since you decided to make it personal (as anyone with clear psychological insecurities does in an online forum debate). I will continue to add further points:

Enforcers not only provide protection and prevention from star players getting injured over the course of the season, they can also bring momentum to the team. The Detroit Red Wings are a soft team that still thinks they can manage with puck possession. However, due to the losses of great players over the years, they are no longer the dominant team of the NHL as they once were. Being in a new conference, with new players and lower skillset, they must adjust. Having an enforcer can add to this, it can protect the veteran players from being abused on the ice which leads to long term injuries, i.e injuries such as Herniated Disks that are caused from wear and tear of the spine.

Now please, unless you have something relevant to say about hockey instead of mentioning "high school logic" we can continue. I'm sure there are forums online for that kind of nonsense. But this is a hockey forum.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Why are you getting so upset and insulting over an online forum? Relax sean avery.

You're refutation has been illogical. My OP said enforcers can put big massive hits. 2. Further i gave example of how Zetterberg's herniated disk is a result of beating he's taken over the course of the season. Star players on average shouldnt be getting hit as much as our team's players do. 3. If we had enforcers they can reduce the amount of bullying the Red Wings players take. Go read the posts made throughout the thread. Take your head out of one dimension and keep an open mind to a debate.

Just because I made an OP with an introduction to a topic doesn't mean i wont add further thoughts on the topic. And is ESPECIALLY doesnt mean i can't point out other strengths of having an enforcer.

Additionally, since you decided to make it personal 4. (as anyone with clear psychological insecurities does in an online forum debate). I will continue to add further points:

Enforcers not only provide protection and prevention from star players getting injured over the course of the season, they can also bring momentum to the team. The Detroit Red Wings are a soft team that still thinks they can manage with puck possession. However, due to the losses of great players over the years, they are no longer the dominant team of the NHL as they once were. Being in a new conference, with new players and lower skillset, they must adjust. Having an enforcer can add to this, it can protect the veteran players from being abused on the ice which leads to long term injuries, i.e injuries such as Herniated Disks that are caused from wear and tear of the spine.

Now please, unless you have something relevant to say about hockey instead of mentioning "high school logic" we can continue. I'm sure there are forums online for that kind of nonsense. But this is a hockey forum.

Fallacies you committed:

1. Ad hominem/Abusive fallacy

2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (and you can't even prove the post hoc)

3. Texas sharp-shooter

4. Fallacy of composition

And those are just a few.

On top of your flip-flopping, you consistently argue with poor logic and reasoning. Hate to be the **** that picks apart your arguments like this, but you were begging for it after calling Echolalia "illogical", and I think you only reaffirmed his "highschool" assertion.

The saddest part is I'm a pro-enforcer guy like yourself.

You bring shame to my people.

EDIT: My advice to you is don't make a controversial assertion around here unless you can back it up. Most LGW members know their sh**

Edited by number9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fallacies you committed:

1. Ad hominem/Abusive fallacy

2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (and you can't even prove the post hoc)

3. Texas sharp-shooter

4. Fallacy of composition

And those are just a few.

On top of your flip-flopping, you consistently argue with poor logic and reasoning. Hate to be the **** that picks apart your arguments like this, but you were begging for it after calling Echolalia "illogical", and I think you only reaffirmed his "highschool" assertion.

The saddest part is I'm a pro-enforcer guy like yourself.

You bring shame to my people.

EDIT: My advice to you is don't make a controversial assertion around here unless you can back it up. Most LGW members know their sh**

None of the "fallacies" pointed are relevant to the discussion as I mentioned in OP to discuss the topic. So congratulations you wasted a post. Since you consider yourself a pro-enforcer, perhaps give an input to the discussion? I can easily accuse you of "Red herring" in the thread. Worthless post,, it's supposed to be discussion not granny gran butting in. And you shouldnt commit the fallacy of appealing to authority by stating that "most people on LGW" know their **** because I would disagree seeing as though most people still havent given a reason as to WHY enforcers cant prevent injuries or bring positive aspect to game.

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious - the big bad ducks - who we just lost to - are just coming out the other side of a horrendous injury list. Are they too soft now?

The Pens are without their top-4 D. Are they too soft now?

Also notice how after the Quincey hit on Getzlaf, the big bad Ducks all stood around and did nothing. Their bigness and badness did nothing to stop Quincey, and they didn't make him "pay" afterwards in order to deter future hits and injuries to their players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What concerns me are the groin injuries, especially this late in the season. I think part of it is age, especially with Alfie. Nyquist is young and that is a problem. Is this a conditioning problem?

The concussions are of grave concern, no doubt. An enforcer won't stop the initial hit, whereby the damage is already done. The shoulder pads are a factor, in Abby's case. The elbow pads in Dat's case put him down and for him it looked like a grazing shot. Franzen, who knows? I think he just wanted some downtime.

The materials used in these pads are rock hard and have no give. By golly, maybe nerf pads for the shoulders and elbows are the answer. Maybe change the whole environment. No glass but netting or screens. Cushioned boards like outfielders have in baseball, maybe just halfway up. That takes care of bounce passes. A whole new game would be created with new strategies. I think I'll send this to Bettman right away! :bye:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the "fallacies" pointed are relevant to the discussion as I mentioned in OP to discuss the topic. So congratulations you wasted a post. Since you consider yourself a pro-enforcer, perhaps give an input to the discussion? I can easily accuse you of "Red herring" in the thread. Worthless post,, it's supposed to be discussion not granny gran butting in. And you shouldnt commit the fallacy of appealing to authority by stating that "most people on LGW" know their **** because I would disagree seeing as though most people still havent given a reason as to WHY enforcers cant prevent injuries or bring positive aspect to game.

None are relevant to the discussion eh?

"Further i gave example of how Zetterberg's herniated disk is a result of beating he's taken over the course of the season"

"If we had enforcers they can reduce the amount of bullying the Red Wings players take."

Have fun proving both those claims

IMO, with all the rule changes that have happened, enforcers that effectively prevent dirty plays and injury don't exist anymore. Nowadays cheap shots happen league wide, whether you have an enforcer or not. We aren't special. I believe we need an enforcer to spark the team after the dirty play or when the other team is outhitting and outskating us

Types of enforcers have changed as well as the rules. No longer do you have guys like Probert who could play top line scoring minutes and police the ice the whole night. Now you have 4th line plugs with fists who who spend half the season scratched. They simply started teaching big guys who could score to fight less after the rule changes in the 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument about enforcers teeters on the verge of off-topic, but since it is being advanced as an argument to deter injuries I guess it's okay. Be careful not to wander too far away from the topic of injuries, people.

With that said, let me chime in with this: Why would enforcers deter anything? I mean, enforcers usually fight enforcers, right? So why would someone whose career is to fight be afraid of someone fighting him later on as retribution for an injury? I think enforcers don't have anything to do with health, but they do have something to do with the energy of a team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fallacies you committed:

1. Ad hominem/Abusive fallacy

2. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (and you can't even prove the post hoc)

3. Texas sharp-shooter

4. Fallacy of composition

And those are just a few.

On top of your flip-flopping, you consistently argue with poor logic and reasoning. Hate to be the **** that picks apart your arguments like this, but you were begging for it after calling Echolalia "illogical", and I think you only reaffirmed his "highschool" assertion.

The saddest part is I'm a pro-enforcer guy like yourself.

You bring shame to my people.

EDIT: My advice to you is don't make a controversial assertion around here unless you can back it up. Most LGW members know their sh**

thanks for making me google texas sharpshooter! :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must have missed all those "massive hits" we've been a victim of. Any evidence to back that up? No, listing injuries doesn't count.

People seem to somehow forget we're a puck possession team. If we're out there chasing guys, making big hits, then that means we don't have the puck.

It's no coincidence many of the teams who lead in hits, are the worst in puck possession.

What Red Wings have you been watching? We are no longer the puck possession team we once were. There's a reason why we lost to Ottawa, a team where really on paper we're more skilled than. You want evidence? Go watch the Ottawa games this season. Zetterberg and Datsyuk both shutdown by big bodies. I don't need to find the evidence for you, Mickey Redmond does most of the talking at the games were the euro twins get shutdown by big guys.

Now massive hits are equivalent to being shut down by a big body? Lol you don't WANT TO go find evidence because you don't have any to find.

Abby and Dats took cheap shots. Is that what your advocating for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Crymson

You mean like when Philly played theirs against us recently and won by being overly physical?

esteef

Sure, those ten minutes and three hits that Rinaldo and Rosehill combined for really won the game for them!

Were you actually being serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious - the big bad ducks - who we just lost to - are just coming out the other side of a horrendous injury list. Are they too soft now?

The Pens are without their top-4 D. Are they too soft now?

Also notice how after the Quincey hit on Getzlaf, the big bad Ducks all stood around and did nothing. Their bigness and badness did nothing to stop Quincey, and they didn't make him "pay" afterwards in order to deter future hits and injuries to their players.

Big bad Ducks?

What year is this? Their team isn't that tough anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2013

Getzlaf, Perry, Penner, Beauchemin, Allen, Maroon, Jackman, Fistric, Yonkman, Steckel

Tougher than most that's for sure.

Half of those guys hardly ever fight. Their rosters many years ago were way tougher.

As far as being big and physical, they are bigger than most. But I don't think of them as a goon team anymore. Far from it. Not enough real enforcers on that roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of those guys hardly ever fight. Their rosters many years ago were way tougher.

As far as being big and physical, they are bigger than most. But I don't think of them as a goon team anymore. Far from it. Not enough real enforcers on that roster.

I was more referring to the fact that they're an aggressive team who's tough to play against. Team toughness.

You don't have to be a goon to be "big and bad".

edit - I thought this discussion was centered around "big and bad" players and how they're aggressive style can have an impact on games. Not goons or fighting.

Edited by Son of a Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more referring to the fact that they're an aggressive team who's tough to play against. Team toughness.

You don't have to be a goon to be "big and bad".

edit - I thought this discussion was centered around "big and bad" players and how they're aggressive style can have an impact on games. Not goons or fighting.

Go read the first sentence in the entire thread. :nhl_crach:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah....again it has nothing to do with fighting. It's how hitting and aggressive play has an effect on the opposition.

OR it's about having an enforcer to curtail some of those hits and aggressive plays and whether people think it works or not.

esteef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah....again it has nothing to do with fighting. It's how hitting and aggressive play has an effect on the opposition.

That's not what the words "legitimate enforcer" mean to me.

If the OP meant otherwise, he should have chosen a different topic sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2013

Getzlaf, Perry, Penner, Beauchemin, Allen, Maroon, Jackman, Fistric, Yonkman, Steckel

Tougher than most that's for sure.

That's not big bad Getzlaf, Maroon, Yonkman, Jackman are physical yeah but let them square off against some real tough teams, I'll doubt either one of them wants to dance with Thornton, Orr, Mclaren, Lucic, McGrattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not big bad Getzlaf, Maroon, Yonkman, Jackman are physical yeah but let them square off against some real tough teams, I'll doubt either one of them wants to dance with Thornton, Orr, Mclaren, Lucic, McGrattan.

FIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTT! FIGHT GOOD, NO FIGHT...BAD!!!! FIGHT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this