Kanzig can probably skate circles around MacIntyre, but for the sake of argument let's say that they are about the same. Remember this hit?
(I miss THAT Prust)
Did that hit make the Flames afraid of manhandling the Oilers? I think it was the same season that Sarich obliterated Hall, wasn't it? It doesn't do anything. Teams figure out right away that they can get a PP if they just get those retaliatory calls, and they know that a goon-type of guy is just going to be smothered by the refs right away anyways. That is really why the goons are out of the game now - the NHL clamped-down and the refs basically follow the goon around making sure he doesn't do anything. The NHL disciplines these guys more.
The worst example I can think of - the Bertuzzi incident. Did teams play Naslund or the Sedins easier after that? I would bet they didn't.
You need a team that can play the same way, and go after their stars. Then it simply isn't worth it any longer for the opposing team to do that.
Think of it this way. It is an advantage to cheap-shot your star player out of the game if the refs aren't going to put a stop to it, and/or if the opposing team's PP sucks. However, that helps you for THAT game - maybe a 'home and home'. However, if the opposing team is known for fighting fire with fire, you don't want to use that as a tactic because your own star might be gone for a month or two because of the injury. A goon might get away with it once, but then he will likely be on his long-term suspension the next time those teams meet.
You will run out of goons, and be at the bottom of the standings.
The Vancouver altercation worked so well because Torts totally played that so wrong.
Kanzig can probably skate circles around MacIntyre, but for the sake of argument let's say that they are about the same. Remember this hit?
(I miss THAT Prust)
Did that hit make the Flames afraid of manhandling the Oilers? I think it was the same season that Sarich obliterated Hall, wasn't it? It doesn't do anything. Teams figure out right away that they can get a PP if they just get those retaliatory calls, and they know that a goon-type of guy is just going to be smothered by the refs right away anyways. That is really why the goons are out of the game now - the NHL clamped-down and the refs basically follow the goon around making sure he doesn't do anything. The NHL disciplines these guys more.
The worst example I can think of - the Bertuzzi incident. Did teams play Naslund or the Sedins easier after that? I would bet they didn't.
You need a team that can play the same way, and go after their stars. Then it simply isn't worth it any longer for the opposing team to do that.
Think of it this way. It is an advantage to cheap-shot your star player out of the game if the refs aren't going to put a stop to it, and/or if the opposing team's PP sucks. However, that helps you for THAT game - maybe a 'home and home'. However, if the opposing team is known for fighting fire with fire, you don't want to use that as a tactic because your own star might be gone for a month or two because of the injury. A goon might get away with it once, but then he will likely be on his long-term suspension the next time those teams meet.
You will run out of goons, and be at the bottom of the standings.
The Vancouver altercation worked so well because Torts totally played that so wrong.
You got a better solution or do you just want to explain the obvious rhetoric to me again?
I clearly stated it's not ideal, Kanzig isn't a regular NHL'er but our situation is unique. Gaudreau and Kanzig in the lineup, despite Kanzigs massive shortcomings, is better than neither.
I've yet to see any other ideas, just a lot of obtuse rhetoric.
1. Punishment administered in return for a wrong committed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
Bring in Smith or Kanzig and tell Engelland getting suspended is fine.
One slash equals one cross check to the face or cheap shot from behind. We shouldn't be allowing one slash let alone 20.
Seriously bring in Kanzig, if someone slashes Johhny he leans over and tells Kanzig the number. Take whatever penalties it takes to deter the opposition. Until we stick up for Johnny there's no hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
I never said retribution, some of you have really questionable reading comprehension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
So you put Kanzig out and he smashes Staal into the corner ... We have to take the approach as there is no other way, Smith stands up a few players in the neutral zone with bone rattling hits (even if they are a little late) and nobody wants anything to do with Johnny or Smith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
You said you wanted someone big to smash a player because they hurt Gaudreau.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
No I didn't but thanks for demonstrating my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
but hey whatever this is CP just make #### up.
Sorry, I'll see myself out.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
This just isn't true.
You are referring to one of the premiere shutdown defensemen of his era and saying that anyone could do what he did.
Speed is an over-used term. For dmen, it is less about speed and more about agility, footwork, and angling.
So when we talk about Kanzig being able to catch someone, it is about all those factors - the same factors that basically determine if he can play in the NHL or not.
Otherwise skilled forwards will simply dance around him and make him look foolish.
Laying a big hit is way harder than it looks. Basically the only way you could ensure Kanzig could do it is by targeting the player when he doesn't have the puck. Which would be complete goonery.
I still disagree. I did point at Regehr due to it being a fairly easy example of a slower skater catching even the most skilled and agile forwards, but you are absolutely right in that he was a premier (THE premier) defensive defencemen back then. However, he was the premier physical defensive defencemen of his era because he was so solid defensively in his own zone, and because he was so consistent. Would I expect Kanzig to do that? Of course not.
However, is it really uncommon to see today's slower defensive defencemen catching forwards with some big hits? Markov and Orpik are both slow defencemen, but they are known for making the occasional big hit. Grossman this season in his limited time laid a couple of guys out with good checks, and if he wanted to he could have made those checks more 'dirty'. It happens, and I am sure that Kanzig would get an opportunity for at least a borderline retaliatory hit. For sure he would be able to outright 'goon' Staal, that goes without saying. I just think he could catch Staal at some point during play. Heck, even Griffin Reinhart has probably had ample opportunity to lay big hits and the kid can't skate, but he just isn't physical.
I think it becomes easier when you are really looking to make a big hit and aren't concerned about making a play - something that I think Arc is arguing for. I still think Kanzig could accomplish that without totally 'gooning' - one of those borderline hits, or even a late hit that sees supplementary discipline, but not a 'vicious attack' incident.
However, to be clear, it is NOT something I wish to see happen, and I am 100% not interested in something like this. Not like that. You want to see a response, but the last thing I want this Flames team to be is a bunch of cheap-shot artists that intend to injure. I still like Kanzig as a prospect because of what he can perhaps offer this team down the road, and I would hate to see his potential (as limited as it may be) turned into nothing more than a goon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcGold
You got a better solution or do you just want to explain the obvious rhetoric to me again?
I clearly stated it's not ideal, Kanzig isn't a regular NHL'er but our situation is unique. Gaudreau and Kanzig in the lineup, despite Kanzigs massive shortcomings, is better than neither.
I've yet to see any other ideas, just a lot of obtuse rhetoric.
Obtuse rhetoric? Seriously?
You may not agree with what I stated as a solution with the supporting argument, that's fine. Just say so. Simply tagging it condescendingly as obtuse rhetoric is hardly a counter-argument. It is simply being dismissive.
You just want your ounce of flesh, and nothing else will appease you. This is the modern NHL, not the present day EIHL. Zero teams carry a pure enforcer that does what you want.. That should tell you something. I will just leave it at that.
