None of those guys are here yet, thus why we are in the spot we are. The chances that all of them turn out is very small. maybe 1 or 2 will turn out into a star, but that is about it. Most will never be anything more than role players and career AHL types.
I agree. It seems we have been doing a far better job of drafting and developing defensemen than forwards.
It really looked worse than it was, and Kronwall did put himself in a vulnerable position. However, mckleod has a duty to anticipate Kronwall's change in direction. Furthermore, he didn't let up or attempt to change direction, himself. Two games would be the right call. Then again, I'm not familiar with mckleod's history. If he has been in this situation before, then he deserves more. It is important that you anticipate a pkayer's change in direction. At this level, a guy is not going to stay in a position that opens himself up for a hit. A player may make a mistake, but he will typically compensate by turning or moving. The onus is on the player making the hit to anticipate such a move.
I don't believe in banning fighting, nor do I have a ton of sympathy for people with injuries sustained from years of being a pro athlete. Most of these sports have been around for almost 100 years, if you do not realize the dangers before receiving a pay check you're already brain damaged. When a solider has long term knee problems from years of running, or a fire fighter is burned while putting out a fire, nobody is shocked. These guys are paid an insane amount of money to play a sport. I'm not going to cry for them because they are putting there bodies out there as a result.
Again, the injuries you refer to result from activities that are necessary parts of being a soldier or a firefighter. Fighting is by no means essential to the game of hockey.
Furthermore, junior elligibabity starts at age 16. There are a lot of naive, young players who are pigeonholed into a fighter role because of their size or other factors. If they don't go with the role they're given, their career is pretty much over. A naive person, with little formal education will almost always make the choice that allows them to keep playing. I'm usually all for allowing people to make their own mistakes. But the situation here is coercive, plain and simple. The junior hockey clubs rake in the cash, while players are usually paid nothing except for the chance to be drafted.
Just to play devils advocate... One could argue that the only reason injuries like this occur is because players are forced to play on slippery ice and balance on a single blade.
Ban ice and skates and lets play on a rubber surface and wear sneakers.
Or you could keep those necessary elements while just banning the unnecessary element; fighting. Skating on ice is an integral part of gameplay in ice hockey. Fighting is not.
I get that you're just playing devil's advocate.
But it's only a matter of time before someone says, "people will still get hurt from hits, so you want to ban hitting too?" I hate those arguments because all they do is obscure the point, which should be the minimization of UNNECESSARY risk. Hockey will always be dangerous. I just don't see the benefit of making it more dangerous than it needs to be.
Sorry for wanting the young guys and star players to be safe and comfortable outthere. I'd rather be a knuckle dragger, past romanizer than someone who is okay, with watering down the game even more so it becomes soccer or dancing on ice someday.
Do you really not see the inconsistency in your logic? You flip flop back and forth between saying that reducing fights would make hockey more dangerous and that it dilute hockey to the point that it is dancing on ice. Your position is so untenable you need to do these mental backflips in order to justify it in your mind. When someone says that removing or reducing fighting would make the game safer you respond that it waters the game down. When it's argued that the integrity of the game will be preserved even without fighting you just come back and say it would be dangerous. The problem is, your scenarios are incompatible. What the "anti-fighting crowd" (soccer moms as you also call them) wants is to reduce unnecessary injuries while preserving the other, necessary physical aspects that are actually part of the game.
Maybe just maybe if these guys would also be appreciated by the stupid media and some of the anti-fighting crowd their lifes would be easier? These guys are having the toughest job in the NHL and other than some fans, teammates and coaches they are only reading/hearing how useless they are and that they don't belong to the NHL how about that crap/bs? What happened to Rypien and Belak is horrible but at the end It's not about me or anyone else being entertained, it's about players feeling safe with these guys on the ice, it's about on ice policy and clean up your game or someone is .
Is this a joke? Your pro-fighting stance is due to your concern for the players' safety? I'm sorry, but that does not make any sense. Look at the amount brain damage these guys sustain. For enforcers, drug abuse and alcoholism are common ways to cope with the the crippling depression that often accompanies such brain damage. Read that Boogard article. It features several players who talk about the long term effects, such as the onset of dementia. You cannot say that your position is in the interest of player safety. Despite your denial, your position is based on you being entertained. You even say so in your other posts where you say how you love hockey much more than sports that are less tolerant of fighting. If you really are motivated by player safety, then I encourage you to do some research on the effects of sustaining repeated punches to the head, or you just read some of the stories of former enforcers who have to deal with a severely dimished quality of life due to their lifestyle choice. You will see that hockey does nothing to make the make the game any safer.
I had no idea that six goals and twelve assists in fifty four career games earned you a solid roster spot on the Detroit f*cking Red Wings these days. It's especially interesting considering Cleary's four goals and six assists in fourteen games during LAST YEAR'S PLAYOFFS doesn't even merit a 1.75 million dollar one year contract around here.
Hell, Ville Leino had nine goals and seven assists in his fifty five career Red Wings games before being sent packing.
Nyquist hasn't earned anything...yet.
I would say he's earned a shot at playing on the wings. From there, he would have to prove that he deserves to stay. If you think he has had ample chance to do so, and has failed, then I can't disagree with you. That would be your opinion. I'm not saying that's what you really think. I'm just sayin that's the only way you can legitimately say he hasn't earned a spot on the team. Otherwise, he's not being afforded the chance he's earned.