02-05-2015, 06:30 AM
|
#61
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: sector 7G
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by N-E-B
I love fighting in hockey...
But I'm so glad the days of the enforcers are at they're end. Fights are better when they happen in the heat of the moment by team captains or 4th line energy guys who can actually play.
As much as I loved him as a person, Big Ern was painful to watch as a player... And no one will ever be as bad as Westgarth...
The guys who fight now may not be the big heavyweights, but at least they add more than just fights to their teams.
|
Sandy McCarthy made Westgarth look like Mike Gartner out there. Horrible skater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by undercoverbrother
This is obviously a contentious topic, but I wonder if after reading this:
If Prust would be in the league but for fighting.
I don't agree with fighting in the league, and I don't agree with enforcers.
One of the problems I have with the sport is the need to fight after a clean check is made.
The content of the article isn't really surprising considering that Prust would be looking for work in another industry if there wasn't fighting.
|
This is a relatively new thing. It has always bothered me that a guy has to answer the bell after a clean check.
|
|
|
02-05-2015, 06:51 AM
|
#62
|
Acerbic Cyberbully
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: back in Chilliwack
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna Sniper
No you didn't, you filled your perception of what you think is the widely accepted idea of what a NHL enforcer is and then trying to pass it off as indeed a well know fact..... it's just your perception of what an enforcer is and therefore understandable why you think it's obsolete... Since you are strongly against and biased towards the enforcer role you have created an definition that only reflects a negative outlook of the enforcer
|
God, this is ridiculous.
So, if I am to understand correctly, your most concerned about the continued use of the word "enforcer" in hockey? If you want to continue to call players "enforcers" I have no problem with that, but that really seems to be far afield of the discussion taking place here.
So let's do this: We can make some general distinctions between two types of hockey players. That is NOT to say that all players fit one of the two categories, only that some players best fit one of the following two descriptions as either:
1) Players who regularly fight, and who also skate, carry and distribute the puck, and shoot at an NHL level. In other words, when not fighting, these players are still doing other things on ice which contribute positively to the team's play in general.
2) Players who regularly fight, but who do not skate, carry and distribute the puck, and shoot at an NHL level. In other words, when not fighting, these players tend to be detrimental to the team's play in general.
Player type-2 was once believed to serve a useful and important function for the team. His on ice presence was deemed significant enough to overcompensate for his obvious deficiencies in skill. This type of player is now obsolete. At present, the league is trending towards employing only players who can keep up with the play, make plays, and think the game at a NHL level.
I hope this helps to clarify things. To be perfectly frank, I don't care a whit whether or not you want to continue to use the term "enforcer," and my use of the term has nothing to do with my own biases—I use it because in my estimation it effectively describes Player type-2. For the sake of transparency, let's just say that Player type-2 is obsolete—whether or not you or I choose to call him an "enforcer."
|
|
|
02-05-2015, 06:51 AM
|
#63
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Chicago
|
Of course there's no real place in the game for fighting. And, of course, you need guys willing to step up and do what it takes as a deterrent. It's not mutually exclusive.
Kreider is a perfect example. If I'm an eastern conference contender, I want to make sure Kreider doesn't get to run over and knock out my tender for the playoffs. A broken orbital bone would slow him down a little. This used to happen all the time in the NHL. That is the intimidation. The deterrent. Guys who don't skate well following some code are not.
|
|
|
02-05-2015, 07:02 AM
|
#64
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Sweden
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by habernac
Sandy McCarthy made Westgarth look like Mike Gartner out there. Horrible skater.
|
I'm not so sure about that. He might not have been a blazing skater, but I always thought that Sandy was one of the more useful "enforcers" of his era when it came to playing actual hockey. At least he could score regularly and could also move a bit up and down the lineup at times. That's a lot more than you could ask from the usual goon.
|
|
|
02-05-2015, 07:07 AM
|
#65
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
It's fine that you want fighting still in the game, just please refrain from using any of the self-serving arguments that its about improving team performance or reducing injuries and cheap shots. "Enforcers" have absolutely zero impact on those objectives.
Just be honest, you want to see some guys chuck knuckles in the middle of a hockey game for the hell of it.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
|
|
02-05-2015, 07:16 AM
|
#66
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Well, at least you were finally shamed into bringing some kind of evidence, for once. Still waiting on you to back up your earlier claims though.
|
|
|
02-05-2015, 07:18 AM
|
#67
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
Well, at least you were finally shamed into bringing some kind of evidence, for once. Still waiting on you to back up your earlier claims though.
|
Are you flirting with me?
|
|
|
02-05-2015, 08:06 AM
|
#68
|
Franchise Player
|
It sure it easy to tell who has played hockey before and who hasn't
|
|
|
02-05-2015, 11:55 AM
|
#69
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
God, this is ridiculous.
So, if I am to understand correctly, your most concerned about the continued use of the word "enforcer" in hockey? If you want to continue to call players "enforcers" I have no problem with that, but that really seems to be far afield of the discussion taking place here.
So let's do this: We can make some general distinctions between two types of hockey players. That is NOT to say that all players fit one of the two categories, only that some players best fit one of the following two descriptions as either:
1) Players who regularly fight, and who also skate, carry and distribute the puck, and shoot at an NHL level. In other words, when not fighting, these players are still doing other things on ice which contribute positively to the team's play in general.
2) Players who regularly fight, but who do not skate, carry and distribute the puck, and shoot at an NHL level. In other words, when not fighting, these players tend to be detrimental to the team's play in general.
Player type-2 was once believed to serve a useful and important function for the team. His on ice presence was deemed significant enough to overcompensate for his obvious deficiencies in skill. This type of player is now obsolete. At present, the league is trending towards employing only players who can keep up with the play, make plays, and think the game at a NHL level.
I hope this helps to clarify things. To be perfectly frank, I don't care a whit whether or not you want to continue to use the term "enforcer," and my use of the term has nothing to do with my own biases—I use it because in my estimation it effectively describes Player type-2. For the sake of transparency, let's just say that Player type-2 is obsolete—whether or not you or I choose to call him an "enforcer."
|
I don't care about the term "enforcer" it's the player that is described as an enforcer not the term... Follow my examples I used for the power forward and such as the enforcer will evolve
I doubt a player that is in the NHL can't skate have a NHL level shot and is detrimental to the team's play in general is a NHL player for long regardless of any label someone wishes to tag him with... and that's regardless if they fight or not. What is the bar that a player can skate or not, how hard of a shot is it to be a NHL level... who determains if a player is detrimental to the team's play and by which standard.
I'm not trying to be difficult or elusive. I'm just trying to point out that if a ciach or GM think they can gain a advantage over an opposition they will use it regardless of the disadvantages we may personally put on that player. My point has been and not really focused on is like every other player that is in the NHL.. athletes in general improve, I see this very much so for the enforcer as well
With your examples 1) is positive 2) is negative... the example if set that1 is the correct answer, it is a poor example and only feeds the result you wish to gain
__________________
2018 OHL CHAMPIONS
2022 OHL CHAMPIONS
|
|
|
02-05-2015, 02:01 PM
|
#70
|
First Line Centre
|
Being loose with Reality here but here's a scenario to do with traditional enforcers.
Say Kanzig and Hunter Smith both turn into All Stars but at the same time the two best fighters in the league. Maybe they are both just a little on the dirty side as well but no skill player is able to stand up to them.
At that point would it be worth to bring in a Macgratton when you play the flames?
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 12:00 PM
|
#71
|
Closet Jedi
|
Bumped to stir up the fighting debate in hockey.
I want a change in the culture in the NHL.
It starts with fighting. No sane parent would teach their kid to starting punching another kid because they were angry or upset. Yet that is exactly what happens and is acceptable in the NHL.
Its not just fighting. I want all the ridiculous scrums behind to net to stop. In these scrums, guys grab each other, throw little jabs and facewash each other. It's so tired and childish. It doesn't accomplish anything, and only builds a culture of disrespect and buffoonery.
Sadly, these are often the times when the crowds cheer the most.
In the NFL, you participate in a scrum and shove someone, you get a 15 yd penalty. The coach will call you out as being stupid and selfish. In the NBA, throw a single punch at someone, you will get a one game suspension. There are consequences for being a bully or starting a fight with someone. The NHL, however, wants to promote this make-believe world where their players are tough warrior who battle on the ice. Sadly that metaphor is taken too literally. Bieksa punches an unsuspecting player in the face 4 times with his bare fist. We somehow accept that this is part of the culture of hockey. But we shouldn't. It's not right and doesn't promote anything good thing to this world. In real life, you don't go around punching people because you're angry.
I would want the NHL to look in the mirror and really ask who it wants to appeal to. Do we really need this in hockey?
__________________
Gaudreau > Huberdeau AINEC
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:27 PM.
|
|