Of course he isn't. But if we happen to win the Cup just watch the revisionist history. This will somehow become a tough team.
Abby wiLl never be anything more than a grinder. He'll never be an enforcer. That's just silly.
The 97 and 98 Cup teams were soft compared to the rest of the league. There were debates exactly like this back then. Kocur was too old. McCarty wasn't a real heavyweight. We never should have gotten rid of Probert or Grimson. Lapointe and Primeau didn't fight enough, etc. But from the talk about them now you'd think it was one of the toughest teams in NHL history. People talk like McCarty was a fearsome enforcer in 02. The 08 team had the mighty Drake who apparently won us the Cup all by himself.
The Wings are a soft team. We've been a soft team for years and years, and we've won despite that.
You are saying we need an enforcer to win the Cup. And that is your only argument. You say we need one, I say we don't. I think it's hilarious that you all are so terrified to admit even the possibility that a team can win without an enforcer. I bet you were all relieved when we lost in 09.
I'm not gonna argue that you need an enforcer to win a Cup, but your reasoning doesn't prove anything. Because in your opinion the Wings had a team capable of winning the Cup and they didn't have an enforcer, that somehow proves that you don't need an enforcer to win the Cup??
They didn't win the cup, so it proves nothing. It's all just speculation on your part.
Last season the Wings had 19 fights. 10 of which were from Brad May. If Holland knows what he's doing and apparently doesn't believe in enforcers, it's odd how he keeps trying to add guys like May and Downey to the lineup.
And as I said before, it's ridiculous to measure adding an enforcer against whether that one element will win us the Cup. Hockey is obviously a more complex game than that. And this is pretty much the only debate that the standard for adding that kind of player is there has to be definitive proof it will lead the Wings to the Cup. It's absurd.
And that's the difference. I have no problem admitting that having an enforcer can have its usefulness. I'm just not going say it's an absolute necessity. It isn't. Games are won on the scoreboard. Fighting may help, but it is far from the only way to score or prevent goals. Simple kindergarten logic tells you then that it is absolutely possible to win without fighting. But you all act like making that simple concession would be like admitting that fighting has no value.
As for Holland, let's see what he's really done. He had McCarty when he became GM. McCarty happened to also be a pretty good hockey player. Always a regular in the lineup. Maybe if Holland didn't have that luxury he would have signed someone else. Or maybe not.
McCarty left after the lockout. We didn't carry an enforcer in 05-06. Didn't carry one in 06-07 either. 07-08 we added Downey. 08-09 we had nothing. Downey and McCarty spent the majority of the year in GR. 09-10 we added May, but he was originally signed to play in GR, but got a spot due to injuries. Once the team got healthy, he was waived and sent back to GR. That year we were also jammed against the cap and could only afford a minimum wage player. Thus far this season we have no one.
So, 4 of 6 years with no enforcer, 1 with an enforcer for half the year only because of injuries, and 1 year with an enforcer as the 13th forward, who wasn't taking a spot from anyone better. Yeah, Holland really gives that role a high priority.
We already have a full roster. Too many players in fact. We don't have any room for an enforcer. We don't need an enforcer. An enforcer won't put us over any edge. We have one of the best teams in the league, and we are capable of winning the Cup. With no enforcer. Come back next season when we have a couple spots open.
- dobbles likes this