Jump to content

Buppy's Photo


Member Since 14 Feb 2009
Offline Last Active Today, 01:13 AM

#2254531 Red Wings Alumni lineup

Posted by Buppy on 10 February 2012 - 01:20 AM

I have to disagree. I would say if Stevie has any class, which he clearly does, he will steer clear from it.

Did anyone realistically think he was going to come back and play for the alumni game? Granted it would be absolutely everything we wanted, but it just doesn't make sense. He is literally the #1 guy in the front office for another organization, he is all business, especially in the middle of the season, why would it be legit for him in his position to do something like that? Believe me, if Stevie is throwing on the Winged Wheel again, I would be the first one to be there, but it just doesn't make any sense, and to me it is a class move by the classiest act this sport has ever seen.

Have to disagree here. I think he should play, and while I suppose it's a nice gesture to the TB organization, I think it's a little insulting to Wings fans. It's an alumni game; not like he'd be dressing for the WC itself.

The WC and all the festivities will be an epic event regardless. If he bows out it will dim the luster of the alumni game a little, but it isn't going to hurt the Wings or help the Bolts at all. No decent person in the TB organization or their fanbase would hold it against him if he plays. Whether he plays or not, he's still a former Red Wing. And I can't imagine he'd be so busy that he can't take a day off during the holidays to have some fun and give the multitude of adoring Wing fans a little treat. No good reason not to play, IMO.

#2252783 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by Buppy on 05 February 2012 - 03:59 AM

I fixed it for you since you seemed to be watching some other incident. His entire body snapped back because it was a crushing body shot. I understand why the call was made too, and that is what worries me.

Obviously you're not willing to be reasonable. However, it's not really relevant as I already conceded that I don't think the hit should have been a penalty.

You're right, we can't predict the exact future of how this will play out. We can only go by what we see happenning in the present. That call was horrendous. What slippery slope are you talking about? They threw the guy out for a perfectly clean bodycheck at center ice. You say they may get better, I say the trend is to call anything that appears to impact a player hard in the upper part of the body.

But how many big, clean hits have not resulted in a penalty/ejection? I'd say a far greater number, even in cases where head contact is made. You are vastly over-stating the problem. Bad calls happen. How many times have you seen a blatant high-stick go uncalled? Yet I can't recall any threads about how hockey is doomed or that slashing guys in the face is now legal.

I suspect that your issue is not with the bad call, but rather the rules themselves. You see a new rule restricting hitting, and you're afraid it's going to ruin the game. You see a call like this where there probably shouldn't have been a call, you get all frantic, jumping up and down, pointing and screaming "See! See! See!" as if this is the rule rather than the exception. There's been what, 700-some-odd NHL games this year, and who knows how many college or AHL; God knows how many big hits... and how many really bad calls? 20-ish? Even borderline calls aren't all that frequent. It's an aberation, not a trend. You're argument is based on your fear of what might happen rather than a reasonable analysis of what actually is happening, or logical prediction of what might happen.

Refs, for all the criticism they take, do make the correct call far more often than not. Logic suggests that this rule will be no different. Being a new rule, and one that may yet still be tweaked further, you should expect something of a learning curve. Refs will gain a better understanding of what should and shouldn't be called. Players will adapt to the rule. (Take a look at some of Kronwall's recent hits...turns his back almost completely. I suspect he does it to avoid getting his shoulder into someone's chin.) The bad and borderline calls should go down (though they're already pretty low).

Unfortunatly, with any bodycheck comes the inherent risk of sustaining a concussion. Fostering a culture of hypersensitivity of hard checking because of the off chance that a player will sustain one is dumb. No one is arguing against those obvious elbows up, 10 step stupid ass moves that people like Matt Cooke do. If the league were serious about concussion problems they should look at hard shelled equipment, no touch icing etc... Not start ordering the whistle when someone takes a hit that looks bad because they failed to keep their head up.

What inherent risks haven't been known? That participating in ice hockey can lead to concussions? That's the whole reason you sign a liability waver anytime you play any sport. You are acknowledging and accepting the possibility your participation in it could cause bodily harm, even death.

Believe it or not, we are still learning new things about head injuries and how to diagnose them. "Shaking off the cobwebs" used to be the accepted method of dealing with all but the most severe injuries. Now we know that that isn't adequate.

The acknowledged existence of risk does not negate the responsibility of minimizing those risks. Goalies used to play without masks, now play stops dead if a goalie loses his. Player safety always has to be a concern. The league IS going to look at icing, and equipment, boards/glass, etc. They are also looking at how to minimize head contact.

So what? Because hitting(especially the open-ice variety)is an integral part of the game of hockey. It is a unique skill that I enjoy watching. Most times it occurs because of the very fact a player gets caught with their head down. Inherent risk. Not sure where you are going with the NASCAR reference. I can only assume it was to try to hold yourself up as somehow superior to me in your fandom. Whatever.....I like all aspects of the game of hockey, solid checks being one of them.

Back on your high horse again here I see. What evidence pray-tell is there that any of what I have posted could give you the impression I wanted to see Oliver get injured? Dude made a bad decision and paid the price. I feel bad for the kid, but it's an unfortunate part of hockey that if you skate across the middle with your head down you run the risk of getting rocked.

It's a balance of risk or reward. North-South hits where a player may/maynot have his head down and gets clocked err on the side of the hitter I say. Not blow the whistle and give a penalty if their is a hard check followed by a head jerking and a yard sale on the ice. You're correct in players will try to push the rules. How long until they figure out that turning their back or dropping their head at the last second will result in a penalty for the opposition?

You're the one saying hockey is dying over what has been a very few calls in one part of the game. So either you can admit your own hyperbole, or I have to question whether you are actually a fan of the sport, or just a fan of seeing guys "get rocked".

The rule is against targetting the head, not against hard checks. It doesn't make any sense to infer that the handful of bad calls equates to an implied rule against hard hitting. Here I have to assume you're either an illogical panic-monger, or that what you really want to say is that headshots should be legal. That combined with your vehemence in defending these hits leads me to beleive you really like seeing guys get their bells rung. It's human nature to find that sort of violence exciting.

But it is just a sport, with many, many other entertaining aspects. It does not need headshots to be exciting. Players are people. They may be willing to put their health at risk to compete, but that doesn't mean the risks shouldn't be tempered. Also, the players are investments. Sometimes multi-million-dollar investments. Owners have a right to protect them.

If you can make a reasonable argument for why hockey needs headshots, I might be willing to listen. Otherwise, I'll just say that the incident you're whining about is just an acorn. Relax.


#2252072 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by Buppy on 04 February 2012 - 04:08 PM

Not sure how you see Ramage's shoulder going into the Oliver's face, looks clearly to be hitting him in the shoulder on all the replays. Major point of impact is low causing the guy's stick to snap like a twig. Ramage doesn't leave his feet at all or charge leading up to the hit in any way. The check couldn't have been any cleaner. When I saw Ramage getting a penalty I was shaking my head in disbelief. Then, after a 5 minute discussion by the officials, they tossed him. It was absolutely jaw dropping.

His shoulder very cleary hits the guy in the facemask. Doesn't make it a dirty hit or even a penalty, but there was contact with the head. I don't know the college rule, and going by NHL rules I wouldn't call it a penalty. I wouldn't say the head was targetted or the principle point of contact.

Just saying that with all the attention on head hits and concussions, I can understand why a call was made.

...Like Newfy commented, hockey used to be a contact sport. Anyone that played hockey from Bantam level on needed to learn that if you come through the neutral zone with your head down like Oliver did you had a good chance of getting flattened. These type of calls you feel are "questionable" are on the rise. The more calls made like this, the more players will pull up from making a body check to avoid a possible penalty, and the more players with feel comfortable skating through the middle with their heads down. The sport of hockey, just like anything in life, adapts to the constructs of the environment it is in.

Hockey is always changing. It's never the same as we "knew it". Apparently it is changing for the better in your opinion, which is cool. I like how someone like Kronwall plays and don't want to have to worry if every big check he makes will end up in a suspension along with a 5 on 5 scrum. Personally I enjoy a nice solid body check as part of the game and don't think it should be legislated out of the sport. How many of these "bad calls" would we have seen 10 years ago? Buppy said he would have given the hitter a pass. No s***, because it was clearly a horrible call. One that no ref would have even contemplated anytime before 2 years ago. That is the entire point.......

There's a reason slippery slope arguments are considered fallacious. Refs are probably a little over-zealous when calling headshots. That doesn't mean it won't improve as refs and players adapt to the new rules, and certainly doesn't mean that refs will become over-zealous in calling other types of hits.

I get where you're coming from Harold, but I think you're comparing a bit of apples to oranges here.

(Apples)Clutching, grabbing, and hooking are considered universaly to be undesirable aspects in a hockey game. Dats shouldn't have to fight through hooks, and neither should have Gretzky. To call that tighter opens up the game making it better. You're right that the players did adapt and we see less of that god-awful clutching & grabbing now because of the rules being enforced.

(Oranges)Bodychecks on the other hand are a desirable aspect of the game(IMHO). No one wants to see someone get injured obviously, but the game of hockey comes with inherent risks. Concussions being one of them. When calls like this are even in the refs conciousness because of the current climate, it is going to cause that same adaptation we saw with clutching & grabbing occur with hitting.

I think the game should err on the side of no call in these instances. Kronner's type of hits I see as OK. He is always North-South and isn't taking 10 steps(Pronger) before laying into someone. If they don't want to get hit they need to keep their head up(I'm looking at you Havlat). Making the call of feet being on ice before or after contact being made is way to difficult in game speed for refs to determine so shouldn't be a factor IMO. Again, err on the side of the hitter.

No one is trying to get rid of body checks. They are trying to reduce head injuries. I would think that head injuries are more 'universally undesireable' than tapping a guy on the hip or mitts with a stick.

A good arm tackle used to be considered "defense". Used to be fine (sometimes still is) to rub a guy out along the boards after he chips the puck past you. Used to be fine to try to take a guys head off if he didn't see you coming.

Yes, there are inherent risks to the game. However, exaclty what those risks are hasn't been known for long, and I'd bet are still not widely understood by the players. Head injuries can have permanent debilitating effects on people. Players have been getting bigger and faster. Equipment gives better protection so players feel the need to more agressive. As the game becomes more violent, and the risks better understood, you'll get adaptations like this to minimize those risks.

Yeah, maybe you'll see people pulling up on these hits more often. And really, so what? Hits like that happen maybe once a game. If that's all hockey is to you then I'd have to say you're no more a fan of hockey than the guy who tunes into NASCAR for the crashes is a fan of racing. There are big hits that don't involve head contact, and they very rarely result in injury. If anything, I'd expect players to become more adept at laying a big hit without hitting the head.

People always say they don't want to see someone get injured, but it seems to me that is exactly what they want. Maybe not a lasting injury, but you all sure cheer loud enough when someone gets knocked senseless. Well, guess what. That's a brain injury. Maybe not severe, maybe not one that will cause any lasting harm, but an injury just the same. We still do not really understand how those little injuries can add up.

Much better to err on the side of caution. Worst-case we see fewer big hits and fewer injuries. Players are always going to push the envelope; try to get away with as much as possible without crossing the line (or getting caught doing so at least). If you're too lax with the rules, the worst-case is you see a lot more frequent and more severe head injuries. I'd certainly prefer the former.

#2252005 Ramage hit on Oliver

Posted by Buppy on 04 February 2012 - 11:02 AM

Used to be that questionable calls by the refs didn't incite hordes of doomsayers decrying the state of the sport. Ah, the good ol' days...

Given that the kid was bent over pretty far, and was starting to turn inside when he got hit, I'd be inclined to give the hitter a pass. But he did put his shoulder into the guys face, so I can see how the ref might have thought it was worse than it was.

Maybe plays should be reviewed before a player can be ejected, but I don't see this as being all that bad.

#2250472 Who Could be Dealt at the Deadline?

Posted by Buppy on 28 January 2012 - 03:31 PM

To Detroit:


To Anaheim:


As dreams go, that's a pretty good one.

Regarding the topic, while a lot can change in a month, I'm not expecting much. Seems like too many teams are too close, and there won't be many big names moving. Maybe we send out a pick or two for a minor tweak, but I don't think there will be enough action for us to find a deal that fits.

We don't have anyone we would want to move. Hank is really the only one not performing up to standards. Maybe Cleary a little, but he's been ok for the role he's been in. Helm and Abby aren't doing it on offense, but I'd be shocked if either were moved. Miller/Emmy/Eaves/Mursak might go if we add another 4th liner, but more to give them an opportunity to play that they won't have here. Our good prospects I think we want to keep, unless we're adding a good, young, top-6 forward. Our lesser prospects wouldn't bring much in return, but someone like Andersson could maybe be moved instead of a late pick.

Bert and Homer aren't going anywhere (nor Pavs obvisouly). With Mule's contract, I don't think we could get an equitable return. If we moved Hudler, we'd need a top-6 scorer in return. I think the only teams interested in Hudler would be teams hurting for offense, and so they wouldn't want to part with another scorer. Flip is probably the only forward we could get enough of a return on to be worth it, but it seems no one (fans or management) wants to consider that.

On defense, it's not worth moving Stuie unless we're getting someone similar in return. It would seem only the the Ducks or Kings (if they even want him back) would be options. Beauchemin seemed like a good potential deal before he was re-signed. Greene might be alright, but he's kind of slow. But I don't see Stuie moving. Kindl could certainly be moved, maybe package him with a pick for someone like Gleason, though I think the team would be fine keeping him.

I think our team could use help on faceoffs, depth scoring, shot-blocking defensemen, physicality (especially in the top-6. I worry about the ability of Flip-Hank-Huds to produce in the playoffs) and backup goalie.

A gritty, top-6 caliber forward like Ruutu, Morrow, Erik Cole (not crazy about his contract though), or (unrealistic probably) Dustin Brown would likely be in our price range, and let us move Hudler, Flip, or Bert down to help depth scoring. Backup goalie and a shot-blocking upgrade to Kindl/Commie wouldn't be expensive either. A good faceoff man (Jarrett Stoll?) seems like it would be doable.


E-Mark Stuart?

Probably more movement than we're likely to see, but I like that lineuup.

#2246864 Alfie and Chara named ASG Captains

Posted by Buppy on 18 January 2012 - 03:26 PM

They'll do captains again:


I'd guess Alfie and Chara, assuming they get in.

What do I win?
  • Ram likes this

#2246319 Top teams are looking to deal

Posted by Buppy on 17 January 2012 - 10:53 AM

What people want is for us to give up a s*** player for a exceptional one, and no team is going to make a trade for that. I would hope that Holland would NOT trade our future away. We have cap space, but what we don't have right now are prospects in the system that are exceptional players. I don't see the next Dats and Z in the system. I don't see the next Lids in the system either. I see good players, but no one who is going to light it up. When Z and Dats are gone, what are the Wings going to do if they traded away their future today?

Just something to think about. We have far too many people who believe that trading our future away right now is the way to go. We need to be more careful especially in the salary cap era.

If we were adding a player like Parise or Ryan, they would be our future (Parise would be a risk, but we have the capability of re-signing him). It would be well worth giving up a couple of our top forward prospects for someone like that. We'd likely have to give up Flip or Mule, which may look bad right now, but probably benefits us in the long run.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we trade all our top prospects and all our picks for a rental. Giving up one or two for a player that can help us both now and in the future is not trading away the future.

#2245979 Top teams are looking to deal

Posted by Buppy on 16 January 2012 - 11:17 AM

I'd be surprised and disappointed if we don't at least explore the option of adding something, but not terribly upset if we can't work anything out.

Our good trade assets are pretty much Flip, Nyquist, and picks. Maybe another top forward prospect if we're adding a young star forward. Or Stuart, Kindl, or Smith if we're adding a young star defenseman. Enough to make a good offer, but maybe not enough to match what other buyers are willing to spend.

#2244484 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 12 January 2012 - 03:51 AM

Ill give it a try since youre trying to act like anyone who likes tough hockey cant use rational.

First of all, there are a few (not a tonne) that think that adding a fighter would really hinder the team. I'm here nor there, not really a fan of bringing in a Colton Orr 3 minute a night player personally, I wont speak for the ones that are. There are also a large amount that are ridiculously attached to the current team for whatever reason and think that a team that has went out second round 2 years in a row now doesnt need any changes. In the playoffs both years Miller and Eaves never ramped it up, they simply arent warriors out there like we've had in the past.

There are also a lot of people who may not think that it would really hurt to add a Tim Jackman/Matt Martin/Prust/Clarkson or whoever but they also say it would have no real impact and thats where I think they are wrong. Some people simply dont see it as a real part of the game with a real impact, I would say anyone who has played at an even somewhat high level would disagree (Babcock for example). Whereas guys like me, argue with people who say Drew Miller has as much impact on a game as these guys, which I simply think isnt true, a lot of people will read a stat sheet and see 5 or 6 more points and say that hes the best option out there.

Detroit has never been the toughest team when they were winning, but they were always the most balanced which this team lacks right now. Back in the late 90s, they never had the most fights but always had the personnel that when the going got tough, they could handle that area of the game pretty easily, even if they werent fighting they were playing a much more physical brand of hockey. Despite what Kipwinger will say, back then Maltby was a pretty physical guy and a premiere pest in the league, Mccarty was always tough, Kocur could handle anyone and the top 6 had Shanny. That team could handle brawls like they had with the Avs and still score goals. They could step up for their team and take on those situations and coming out ahead afterwards.

Even in 2008, a third line of Drake Draper Cleary is pretty physical (Drake was a machine in the playoffs) and rookie Helm with no responsibility except to run around full tilt and smash guys. Having balance is what matters, the wings can score goals now but can they wear down a defense? I sure dont think so, do they have a guy willing to spark the team with a big hit or fight consistently every night because he has a mean streak? Nope. All Detroits cup teams had a couple guys like that, this team is lacking. Those cup winning teams would never let their goalie do the fighting for themselves, unless it was against Roy. This team now had Howard donig it every other night it seemed. When a goalie is putting together a Vezina like season, there is no way he should be getting hit, its called team chemistry. If your goalie jumps a guy, you drop your mitts grab the guy and pound him, even if you were the one that pushed him into the goalie and know the goalie was in the wrong? WHy? Because hes your goalie and you stick up for him

This team doesnt do that, guys like Miller skate around show a glimpse of skill every now and then, same with Eaves but do nothing that great. They "PK", meanwhile our PK isnt that great. I'm sick of seeing a dead team have noone that can spark it when the skill isnt working, I'm sick of seeing Howard fight his own battles and I'm sick of having Commodore being the only one who will go to the aid of a teammate.

Hopefully something like Moen for Miller at the deadline can happen and at least itll be a step in the right direction

I notice you didn't actually admit we were soft in 08, nor that we can win now. You got the histrionics covered though.

"Large amount ridiculously attached to the current team"? Name them. I'll bet most just don't see any need to change, but wouldn't object. Most have particular players they like, and others they would like to move. Some might think it would cost too much to trade for someone, and so don't think it would be worth it. Some may not like the same players as you. I'll bet you can't find many at all that would actually be unwilling to change our current roster. "Dead team"? Commodore the "only one who will go to the aid of a teammate"?

Appeal to authority. Several appeals to emotion. Hasty generalization. You got the fallacies covered pretty well too.

Miller and Eaves haven't stepped it up, so they aren't "warriors"? They may not be the grind line of '02, but they're as effective as Draper/Maltby were in 08. Remember, didn't doesn't mean couldn't. Some of us have confidence that Miller and Eaves are capable of filling the same role.

You give a pretty colorful (but exaggerated) description of what we lack, but no evidence that it's actually needed. Just "we've lost two years in a row and we don't want to lose again do we". So when we lost 3 years in a row (twice in the 2nd round to the same team) with our supposedly tough teams, what did we do? We swapped the likes of Lapointe and Verbeek for Hull and Robitaille. Were we too tough? That wouldn't make sense since we also won back to back cups with a similar roster. You think maybe teams can lose in the playoffs for reasons other than toughness? Like when an almost identical 03 team got swept in the 1st round.

Helm had 28 hits in 18 games in 08. Last year he had 28 hits in 11. He scored more last year too.

When Jimmy got hit by Hansen, Lidstrom, Zetterberg, and Hudler all got involved in the ensuing scrum. When Ozzie got bumped by Sykora in 08, it was Datsyuk, Zetterberg, and Franzen. No one really fought either time, though Pittsburgh escalated things a little further than Vancouver did.

I'd like to see some stats on how often Howard gets run or bumped, compared to goalies on our past teams and around the league. I haven't noticed anything unusual. The comments from Howard are not actual evidence that he takes more contact than he should or otherwise would.

It may be fun to reminisce about the glory days of the Grind Line or Shanny or the Brawl, but "remebering fondly" is not sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between toughness and winning Cups.

I was going to go on, but this is pointless. I'm tired and my rambling is probably already incoherent.

#2244480 Study done on fighting in hockey

Posted by Buppy on 12 January 2012 - 01:39 AM

There's a table which distinguishes home-team v away-team statistics, and there's about a 50% chance of shooting more over the next three minutes compared to the rest of the game after a fight (ie "momentum") for both teams.

I think you're missing the point. The study is just on the effects of "a fight" in the game. A fight invloves both teams. There's no distinction made between who wins the fight or who starts the fight.

According to the data, 39% of the time, either both teams increase, stay flat, or decrease. The net effect gives no (or marginal) advantage to either team. The other 61%, one team increases relative to the other, but it doesn't truly specify which team. This means that while being involved in a fight can sometimes help, it can also hurt you at other times.

The 3rd table suggests that if a team with high momentum is involved in a fight, their momentum tends to decrease, while a team with low momentum tends to increase. So you need to limit your fighting to only those instances where your team has low momentum, and your oppenent is high in order to gain the maximum benefit.

However, that "maximum" according to this study is worth about .2 goals, or 1/30th of a win.

Now let's put that in some perspective. I'll assume we are only interested in instances where this hypothetical fight actually changes the outcome of a game from a loss to a win. I doubt anyone really cares about shifting momentum in a game we would win regardless. So at the basic level, you'd need 30 such situations (games where you are well behind in momentum and will lose the game) to equal one win. (That also means you lose the other 29.)

But that isn't really accurate, because it doesn't take into account the situation in the game already. If you're already down by three goals by the time you realize you need to shift momentum, you'll likely need a lot more than 30 fights to get enough impact to overcome the defecit. To what order of magnitude is a guess, but let's just say double. So maybe a fight can turn a loss into a win 1 in 60.

But even that isn't really accurate. What the study fails to address is the fact that momentum changes over the course of a game regardless of fights. It is very often cyclical, in that teams will have a burst of high momentum, then drop while the other team has its burst. To actually calculate the effect of the fight, you need to compare these results to the expected rate of change if the fight had not occurred. Let's say that cuts the efficacy of the fight in half. Now you're turning a loss into a win 1 in 120. Coincidentally, 120 is the number of regular-season losses the Wings have had total since we won the Cup in 08.

So assuming that in every one of those losses there was some point where we had low momentum and the other team was high, and we were very careful in picking our spots for our fights, we could have one more win over the last 3 1/2 seasons. Wow.

Or to make it all more simple, we'll just stick with the conclusion from the study:

Overall these results suggest that fighting by itself does not significantly help a team score more goals or win more games...

#2244348 Study done on fighting in hockey

Posted by Buppy on 11 January 2012 - 03:11 PM

I think it adequately shows what those of us who don't care about fighting have been saying all along:

CONCLUSION: Overall these results suggest that fighting by itself does not significantly help a team score more goals or win more games, but it can often increase short-term momentum (i.e. the RATE at which they are getting shots) for one or both teams. Statistically speaking, if fights happen randomly it will take about 60 fights to equal one win, but if their timing is managed by the coach it could take as few as 30 fights to equal one win. PowerScout has uncovered many other factors that can provide a much greater contribution to winning than fighting, such as having a good penalty killing unit.

In short, fighting doesn't amount to much.

Furthermore, since a fight, by definition, involves both teams, the momentum factors also affect both teams. Which would logically suggest that if 30 fights equals one win, that same 30 fights also equals one loss. I suppose, if your team only fights when they're playing poorly, it might be more of a benefit. So I guess the best strategy is to employ a couple of those spot-picking ******* that all the fight fans seem to hate so much.

#2243718 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 10 January 2012 - 03:50 AM

If fighters have zero effect on a team's ability to win a Cup, why do they still exist in the league? Why do players like that try to be extra physical and intimidate if (according to people on this board) it has absolutely no effect on good players (like the Wings roster)? Why are these type of players still signed and iced to this day if they are useless towards winning?

Maybe you guys are on to something and the rest of the hockey world is just too dumb to figure it out.


No one's saying they have no effect. But there's a wide gap between useless and essential.

Downey wasn't sent down in 08, he was replaced by Mccarty in the lineup who would still scrap but was a bit better skater, not to mention a real feel good story for the team to eat up. So I guess an enforcer was playing when games mattered.

As for the "myth" about winning with a grittier bottom 6.... its pretty obvious that when the wings played in 08 they had their grittiest bottom 6 that could wear other teams down. Drake Draper Cleary was the third line, Helm Mccarty Hudler the fourth line. 5 of the wings bottom 6 that year were very gritty players. The next year playing with a very skilled Sammy Flip Hudler third line, the wings fell short.

McCarty was playing due to injuries to Kopecky, Maltby, Franzen, and Homer. When we were healthy, McCarty was in the pressbox watching our 4th line of Hudler-Helm-Maltby. Yeah, that line was tough.

I'm not saying fighting=chamionships. I'm not saying the Cup is ours if we get a guy like Moen. There are so many other factors that play into a teams success than just grit. Although I will say we've got to be able to physically combat our opponent in a long playoff series. We played decent against Anaheim in 2007, but they just seemed to out-muscle us to loose pucks a lot of the time. We need to be able to physically keep up with those kind of teams. Regardless of what the role players do, the snipers need to play consistently. The defense needs to be able to play consistently. The penalty kill needs to be able to get a few kills if it comes down to that. There needs to be balance. You can't have a team full of goons alone and expect to win a Cup. You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup. You can't have a team that fails to effectively kill penalties and expect to win a Cup. You need a team that has a balance of finesse, grit (winning puck battles down low, separate man from puck, block shots, just play physically as a team), defensive prowess, and a solid goaltender. Your role players have to show up occasionally on the score sheet. Take a look at a few role players for Boston last year in the playoffs:

Chris Kelly-13 points in 25 games
Dan Paille-6 points in 25 games
Gregory Campbell-4 points in 25 games

In addition to the skilled guys putting up offensive numbers:

David Krejci-23 points in 25 games
Patrice Bergeron-20 points in 23 games
Brad Marchand-19 points in 25 games
Nathan Horton-17 points in 21 games

These guys have to show up to win a Championship. Hell, Drake put up 4 points in the '08 postseason. Not a lot, but contributions from the role players are key.

I'd love to be proved wrong. I'd be ecstatic if we won the Cup this year with the roster we have right now. I just don't see it happening, based on the last few early playoff exits with virtually the same roster. And again, the Cup isn't automatically ours if we find a Moen, there needs to be a healthy balance of what I listed above to be a Cup contender.

You all keep saying it's not about fighting, just "toughness". You keep saying we're too "soft" to win the Cup with this roster, but you can't point to one element outside of fighting that suggests our current roster is any more "soft" than previous Cup winners.

You say "You can't have a bunch of finesse guys that won't go to the trenches to win a puck battle and expect to win a Cup." as if we don't already have a bottom 6 that does exactly what you say you want. Helm, Cleary, Abby, Miller, Eaves... All of them battle hard down low, around the net, in the corners. They finish checks, they're capable of chipping in offensively, block shots, play good defense, win battles...

Name one thing, other than fighting, that our current bottom 6 can't do but our bottom 6 in 08 did? You can't, because there isn't anything.

You admit there's no correlation between fighting and winning, but you all sure seem to wish there was. You all seem to want it so bad that you've invented some mysterious, amorphous concept of "toughness" and call it essential. You can't define or quantify "it" (or at least how "it" is any different from what we already have), but you all seem pretty sure that whatever "it" is, we don't have it. You're sure "it" is absolutely essential, so therefore any previous Cup winners had "it". And if we do win the Cup this year, I'm sure you'll all admit you were wrong, and that this team had "it" all along, and in a few years you'll be pointing out how much more "it" this team had than the current team.

The 08 team was pretty soft. So was the 02 team. Relative to the league, so were the 90s teams. The only thing that makes them any "tougher" than the teams we've had that didn't win the Cup is your obsessive need cling to the notion that only tough teams can win, so obviously those teams must have been tough. Chicago wasn't all that tough. Nor was Carolina. "Soft" teams can, and have, won Cups. No, you can't play like ******* and not work hard and still expect to win. But our current roster doesn't do that, nor did our previous soft teams.

Our current roster can win. They just need to play well enough at the right time. That includes the grinders that we already have grinding hard. Helm, Cleary, and Homer (and Miller technically) have already done it on other Cup teams. Abby and Eaves play the exact way you all seem to want. Emmy, Conner, Mursak, etc...who knows, but they may not even be in the lineup anyway.

Maybe you don't agree with that, but at least be realistic. If we're not a contender now, trading Miller for Moen (or any similar deal) isn't going to make us one. To even suggest that it would is patently absurd.

And for the record, I'm not saying that being more physical (especially in the top 6) wouldn't be beneficial, that it wouldn't help our chances. Just saying that it's not the essential quality you're claiming it is.

If you can't admit that, at least abandon the pretense of logic and just say what it is that you really want to say: That you need to fight to win. It may not be true, but at least you'd look like you have a real opinion. I hate all the vagueness, circular logic, and revisionist history of this stupid debate.

#2243715 If you could pick any six players, from any era...

Posted by Buppy on 10 January 2012 - 01:56 AM

I agree that players from the current era are better than those from previous eras. Following that same logic, and since I have a time machine, I'd pick all players from the future. I assume it would be:

C - Gordevio "The Rocket" Bosetzkysitorr (Amalgam of genetic material from all the best players of all time. Plus, he's actually a rocket.)
LW - Hockey-Bot 9007XL (Self-explanatory)
RW - Walrus-Man (Not Ponda Baba. An actual cross between a walrus and a human. Self-explanatory.)
D - Twiki (Yeah, the robot from Buck Rogers. Turns out he's awesome. Go figure.)
D - Lidstrom (In 10 more years, he develops into a really good player)
G - A Black Hole (Scoring took a dramatic down-turn [to zero] in the 31st century when the UHL decided to allow celestial objects to play.)

#2243374 Marchand Suspended 5 games

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2012 - 11:54 PM

Cheap shot in my opinion. Doesn't look like Salo is even looking to throw a big hit, much less a dirty one.

This is why discipline has to come from the league. You can't just assume someone is going to throw a dirty hit, and use that assumption to justify a dirty preemptive strike. Vigilante justice never works, and only causes more injuries and injuries to innocent people.

Marchand absolutely should be suspended. If I remember correctly, he has a history of going for the knees too. 2-5 games I'd say, depending on his repeat status.

#2242997 Cherry rips Holland

Posted by Buppy on 08 January 2012 - 09:04 PM

Sigh....I'll bite.

There isn't anybody saying fights=championships. In 2002, we had guys like McCarty, Maltby, and Draper who were all physical and defensively responsible, while chipping in offensively. Shanahan was gritty and offensively skilled as well. All were physical, as in getting in on the forecheck and wearing down the defense. Finishing all of their checks. These guys won puck battles down low. They all drove the net. At the same time, Yzerman, Fedorov, and the finesse guys played on a consistent basis. There was a healthy balance of finesse and grit.

In 2008, Drake, Maltby, and even Helm and McCarty were the ones winning puck battles down low. Driving to the net. Getting in on the forecheck and wearing down the defense. Blocking shots. These kind of grinders are needed, IMO to get through gruesome playoff series. Again, our finesse guys played consistent. Again, there was a healthy combination of finesse and grit.

I'm not giving credit to Dallas Drake for our championship in 2008, but guys like him help us physically compete with other teams in long playoff series.

Many will say "Oh well we were one game away from the Conference championship series with a really soft team". I didn't realize that was good enough around here. There is room for improvement on this team.

Well, I think this is exactly about some people trying to correlate fighting to winning. Of course, there isn't one, so the enforcer slappies have to duck behind vagueness like "grit". They insinuate that there's some special, intangible "toughness" that can't be measured or specified in any way, but is possesed by all Cup winners, and lacking everywhere else. Anything contradictory is dismissed as "not what I mean by toughness".

In 08 our forward with the most hits in the playoffs was Datsyuk. In the regular season we were 25th in the league in hits. 13th in hits/game in the playoffs. 1st in playoff hits was New Jersey, then Anaheim, who both lost in the 1st round. In 02, we were 26th in the regular season and again 13th in the playoffs. So far this year we are 24th, ahead of Boston, Chicago, and San Jose. Last year we were 19th, ahead of both Boston and Vancouver. Columbus, Dallas, and Carolina were all in the top 5 in hits last year and missed the playoffs.

Abby is a gritty, physical player. Gets in on the forecheck, finishes his checks. Defensively responsible, wins battles down low, drives the net, etc. He is a lot like Drake, except for the near mythical proportions Drake has taken on since the Cup win. Helm and Cleary are still Helm and Cleary. Miller and Eaves also play hard, battle down low and in the corners, play good defense, etc. Emmerton and Conner aren't very physical, but Hudler was also in our bottom 6 in 8. McCarty played mostly in place of Maltby, then in place of Cleary when he moved up to take Mule's place. Not much of a net gain in physicality, especially considering he only played about 6 minutes a night.

In the 08 regular season we had Draper, Drake, Maltby, Kopecky, Sammuelsson, and Downey. This year we have Helm, Abby, Bert, Miller, Eaves, and Emmerton. In 08, those guys combined for 397 games and 538 hits. This year, our 6 have 246 hits in 188 games. Using last years numbers (but this year for Emmerton), it's also 397 games, and 632 hits.

There is no correlation between toughness and winning. We were soft in 08, were soft now. We can still win. Of course, it would be great if we could be just as good while also being tougher. It would be great if we could be just as good, and everyone was also a better goal scorer. Or just as good and 15% faster.

Sure, there are players that are as good as some of our players who can also fight or are more physical. No one is suggesting that we should avoid those players. I for one am not even saying those players are that hard to find. I would even like someone physical for the top 6 (I think our bottom 6 is fine).

What I have a problem with is the veiled (or sometimes open) insinuation that replacing someone like Miller with a similar player who can fight is what will put us over the top. It's silly.