Oh, enforcers are better at some other part of the game than our fourth line? What's that? Fighting?
Well that doesn't sound like circular logic at all does it? We should sign a fighter because they're better at fighting than non-fighters. Smart.
Unless you weren't talking about fighting. Which part of the game are enforcers better at again? Taking penalties?
If the mass waiving of goons like Orr and McLaren this offseason wasn't already an indication that having enforcers no your roster is retarded, wait until the end of the season and see how Calgary did with their enforcer fourth line. We already know it will give Krys Barch a boner, but outside of that I suspect that the team will stink and the line itself will be putrid statistically.
But here's the kicker. That's what Burke wants. He want a s***ty team so he can draft McDavid. And while his team is s***ty, he'd like to sell some tickets, so he goons it up. This isn't a strategy to be a good team. It's a marketing ploy to be a bad team but still excite dummies like Krys Barch. Apparently it worked.
There are plenty of players in the league who can contribute on any teams' 4th line that aren't strictly 'goons', or 'enforcers'...We had one last season in Tootoo.
Babcock has a standard, and if it's apparent that the player doesn't meet it - he won't play, but yet it does not mean he's useless by other teams' standards.
This was my point from the get go - however you wish to turn it into a 'enforcer' debate.
- Hockeymom1960 likes this