Exactly. It is a much rehashed topic, but if people don't like it, then they shouldn't post in it and they can watch it disappear down the list of threads on the page.
I too am sick of this thread (among the others you mentioned) popping up constantly. BUT worse than "wading" through topics one can easily just ignore to begin with, letting it slide down the discussion board out of sight, is a thread on the board being bogged down (and bumped) with complaints about complaining, in this case over a dozen replies arguing the thread not the topic. Talk about wading through the noise...
I don't think the Wings lose because they are soft, unless you count players like Franzen being soft in the heart or players like White being soft in the head (when not with Lidstrom). However, the Wings do lack that "steadying hand" when the rough stuff does start, something you don't really notice 90% of the games because it doesn't come to it. Because its rare, I understand the argument of Holland and Babcock, not wanting to give up a roster spot to someone useless on the ice. Unfortunately, "useless on the ice" pretty much sums up Emmerton and the 4th line. If we aren't going to play them more than 5 minutes a night, how much worse could a guy that keeps the flies off be?
Grinding, contributing 4th liner > Fighter who can't contribute >> Emmerton who can't contribute or grind
And honestly if the Wings were a team that played a chippy game like Boston or fought as much as the Rangers, I highly doubt there would be threads about the Wings shouldn't goon it up as much. People love the Wings, so they love the current incarnation, which is one that isn't very physical and doesn't fight much. But if they were a team that beat the snot out of other players, I don't think people here would be clucking their tongues in disapproval.
Overall I wouldn't say they're a soft team, but there's definitely guys who play soft for their size, and the Wings could definitely use their physical play. (I'm looking at you Franzen, Kindl, and Bertuzzi)