[News] Flames recall Anthony Peluso from Stockton

[shogged]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

It seems like many people are perfectly comfortable expressing a different opinion than me
It isn’t like the anti fighting sentiment is taking over the board

You could almost call it... a vocal minority

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by redforever

We don't need players like Peluso or Prout.

If we need to insert toughness, we need players like Big Ern or Probert, big tough guys who can play the game but also add toughness and intimidation just by being on the ice.

Big Ern wasn't much of a player...Probert played in a far different era. Guy retired 16 years ago, odd example.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Big Ern wasn't much of a player...Probert played in a far different era. Guy retired 16 years ago, odd example.

If you want fighters today you need ones that are players first, fighters second. Iginla, Chara, Buf, etc.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If you want fighters today you need ones that are players first, fighters second. Iginla, Chara, Buf, etc.

And then your opponent sends out a player who is a fighter first and a player never, and his goon and your superstar both end up in the penalty box.

This has always been why NHL teams employed enforcers. Not because the good players couldn't fight, but because nobody would miss the enforcer when he was gone for five minutes.

[Mightyfire89]

It’s somewhat unfortunate for some people I suppose, but toughness still matters in the NHL. For example, Ryan Reaves is probably among the most popular players in the Knights dressing room because his teammates feel protected when he’s in the lineup. He can actually play a shift without hurting the team though. Not so sure about Peluso.

[howard_the_duck]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

And then your opponent sends out a player who is a fighter first and a player never, and his goon and your superstar both end up in the penalty box.

This has always been why NHL teams employed enforcers. Not because the good players couldn't fight, but because nobody would miss the enforcer when he was gone for five minutes.

Historically, sure. But how many teams are doing that today?

[Patek23]

I’ve never fully understood the “we need to get rid of fighting because of head trauma”. A quick google search claims roughly 5800 people have ever played in the NHL with an unknown percentage ever experiencing severe head trauma and an even smaller amount having to go through the severe after effects that it can cause I just don’t get why some people treat fighting or hard hitting in hockey like an opioid epidemic that needs removing. Look at jobs like king crab fishing where on average someone dies a season. Do you see people championing for the stoppage of that? The fact is that like crab fishing this is a sport where there are risks. And like anything in life you weigh the pros and the cons and if you decide it’s a roll of the dice your willing to take you go for it.

Athletes are highly compensated for the potential injuries they could sustain. And when it happens it’s unfortunate but so is any other workplace injury where the hazards are known. Percentage wise being a hockey enforcer is a hell of a lot safer then hundreds if not thousands of jobs in our own continent that pay fractions of even what a low paid enforcer does so it seems like the oddest group of people to champion for. I’m sure 90 percent or more of this board would sign up for the pay cheques they get full knowing the risks and potential consequences that come with it as well.

[Jiri Hrdina]

If there were specific things the fishing industry could do in order to prevent deaths they would be obligated to do them.
The NHL and hockey can survive without fighting or hard hits. So the explanation that "they get paid a lot so its ok a small number of them die" doesn't hold water. And frankly is just an ugly POV all around.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

If there were specific things the fishing industry could do in order to prevent deaths they would be obligated to do them.
The NHL and hockey can survive without fighting or hard hits. So the explanation that "they get paid a lot so its ok a small number of them die" doesn't hold water. And frankly is just an ugly POV all around.

Well to be fair concussions are going to happen one way or another it’s a high speed sport played by men on blades on a cold surface as hard as concrete. Remove fighting and it’s still going to happen. Rather then remove entertainment from the game why not ramp up the way they treat and recognize concussions.

There is a reason why the overwhelming majority of NHL players want fighting in the game. What you ask for is essentially to remove the competitive essence of the game. In order to make the game at low risk ( and honestly still not at zero) you would have to make it a no contact sport. I think you’d have a dead sport at that point. We have to understand that there’s risks and do our best to work around them but you can’t just change the DNA of the game.


Edit- also to my knowledge no player has died during an NHL game so I believe your referring to the handful of suicides that have occurred over the last decade as a way to make it sound like a big boogeyman. But again very very small amount of people and to me the bigger problem is the lack of follow up with players after leaving the league. You also fail to mention that many of the players who did commit suicide had substance abuse problems during their career as well so it’s tough to say that their struggles were solely to do with hockey related concussions and not just overall substance abuse. I’m sure for a lot of guys regardless if they were a fighter or not, going from a high paying and high spotlight job to now no money and no one cares about you anymore can be tough as well.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Well to be fair concussions are going to happen one way or another it’s a high speed sport played by men on blades on a cold surface as hard as concrete. Remove fighting and it’s still going to happen. Rather then remove entertainment from the game why not ramp up the way they treat and recognize concussions.

There is a reason why the overwhelming majority of NHL players want fighting in the game. What you ask for is essentially to remove the competitive essence of the game. In order to make the game at low risk ( and honestly still not at zero) you would have to make it a no contact sport. I think you’d have a dead sport at that point. We have to understand that there’s risks and do our best to work around them but you can’t just change the DNA of the game.

I believe you can and I believe it will happen
Fighting will go away
Checking will evolve to be primarily stick checking and removing player from puck and anything more than that won't be allowed.

The game will become about speed and skill. There was still be injuries of course due to that speed. But you can't say that you are taking concussions seriously when you allow players to literally bash either others faces in with their fists.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

Well to be fair concussions are going to happen one way or another it’s a high speed sport played by men on blades on a cold surface as hard as concrete. Remove fighting and it’s still going to happen. Rather then remove entertainment from the game why not ramp up the way they treat and recognize concussions.

There is a reason why the overwhelming majority of NHL players want fighting in the game. What you ask for is essentially to remove the competitive essence of the game. In order to make the game at low risk ( and honestly still not at zero) you would have to make it a no contact sport. I think you’d have a dead sport at that point. We have to understand that there’s risks and do our best to work around them but you can’t just change the DNA of the game.

Or the DNA of the people playing the game. These guys grew up playing a contact sport at a level where there wasn't money involved. They rose to the highest level of the game because they loved it. Fighting, hitting and all. Before you start changing the game fundamentally by removing all contact, you should make sure that the guys playing the game want it gone first.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I believe you can and I believe it will happen
Fighting will go away
Checking will evolve to be primarily stick checking and removing player from puck and anything more than that won't be allowed.

The game will become about speed and skill. There was still be injuries of course due to that speed. But you can't say that you are taking concussions seriously when you allow players to literally bash either others faces in with their fists.

I think that’s a sport I wouldn’t be interested in watching to be quite honest.I respect your right to your opinion though , however I feel that what you suggested likely never happens. Regardless I just really resent some of the (not from you albeit) knuckledragger judgement on the fairly new wave of anti-fighting crowd towards the rest of us. Just cause I like to watch a couple guys chuck some knucks doesn’t make me a bad guy or a Neanderthal or something. People like to watch fire and emotion. If I wanted to watch only skill and speed I’d watch badminton or table tennis.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

Or the DNA of the people playing the game. These guys grew up playing a contact sport at a level where there wasn't money involved. They rose to the highest level of the game because they loved it. Fighting, hitting and all. Before you start changing the game fundamentally by removing all contact, you should make sure that the guys playing the game want it gone first.

My view is that the people playing the game are perhaps the worst to establish what is right for their own long-term health
This is a sport where for a very long time, guys skated around with no helmets on and then were made when someone told them they had to wear a lid.
Professional athletes are part of the discussion, but can be relied on to form a conclusion that considers the long-term factors.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by Flaming Homer

I think that’s a sport I wouldn’t be interested in watching to be quite honest.I respect your right to your opinion though , however I feel that what you suggested likely never happens. Regardless I just really resent some of the (not from you albeit) knuckledragger judgement on the fairly new wave of anti-fighting crowd towards the rest of us. Just cause I like to watch a couple guys chuck some knucks doesn’t make me a bad guy or a Neanderthal or something. People like to watch fire and emotion. If I wanted to watch only skill and speed I’d watch badminton or table tennis.

I find those examples are often used in this discussion. But are there no sports that you enjoy that aren't physical? E.g. baseball or basketball? Or soccer?
Perhaps the case, but just trying to pull away from the extreme examples like Badminton that don't share any commonality with a team based sport like hockey.
My view is that hockey can thrive if re-positioned around speed and skill.
Football is the one I'm worried about because I don't see how it evolves.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

My view is that the people playing the game are perhaps the worst to establish what is right for their own long-term health
This is a sport where for a very long time, guys skated around with no helmets on and then were made when someone told them they had to wear a lid.
Professional athletes are part of the discussion, but can be relied on to form a conclusion that considers the long-term factors.

I get what your saying. I can’t say I agree with all of it, but I do see your point. My question to you is though. If your an adult and you want to participate in a sport with fighting and hitting should you not be allowed? If a player is concerned about concussions it’s not like these guys are being forced onto the ice. With your rational we should cancel the entire X games as well as there’s no way to eliminate concussions past the helmets they already wear skateboarding and bmxing . If people don’t want to see the violence in hockey they don’t have to watch and if the players don’t want to participate in it they don’t have to play. And that’s why I think it will never be removed. The fans want to see it and the players want it in the game.

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I find those examples are often used in this discussion. But are there no sports that you enjoy that aren't physical? E.g. baseball or basketball? Or soccer?
Perhaps the case, but just trying to pull away from the extreme examples like Badminton that don't share any commonality with a team based sport like hockey.
My view is that hockey can thrive if re-positioned around speed and skill.
Football is the one I'm worried about because I don't see how it evolves.

I don’t watch soccer or basketball. And I vaguely follow baseball as I played competitively into my late teens and was a big blue jays fan growing up. But id rather watch a Flames prospects game then a Blue Jays playoff games. So yeah physicality in a sport is a big factor of my enjoyment factor. And I totally understand how some people are the opposite but I think your going to be hard pressed to change the game of hockey the way you want. I think what we see now is them trying to find a happy medium to what keeps the players the safest and also keeps the masses watching. Once we find that I think that’s where we stay and I don’t think that happy medium involves banned fighting or hitting but I guess we will see. I would stop watching as to me that’s the passion in the game from watching the players get heated and seeing how bad they want it.

[1qqaaz]

Does Anthony Peluso even fight much though?
He seems to have Brian McGrattan's stats (never more than 5 points in a year), but not the PIMs.

It's a different time period, but Peluso has had 20 fights in 144 games. McGrattan had 73 fights in 317 games. So on a game-per-game basis, McGrattan fought a lot more.

I don't think the team needs an enforcer in the first place. But if they do use one, maybe don't use someone who is worse than McGrattan or John Scott in all aspects.

Maybe Peluso is a much faster skater than anyone gives him credit for. I don't know. I'll have to wait and see.

[FlamesFanTrev]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

My view is that the people playing the game are perhaps the worst to establish what is right for their own long-term health
This is a sport where for a very long time, guys skated around with no helmets on and then were made when someone told them they had to wear a lid.
Professional athletes are part of the discussion, but can be relied on to form a conclusion that considers the long-term factors.

With all due respect who asked you to protect them? Did they? I mean, it is technically anyone's right to get on the back of a bull at, say, the stampede, for money. Should switch to mechanical bulls? Should we raise less powerful bulls? Turn the field into giant inflatable mats? Dress the bulls in padded armor to prevent injury? Or is it better to simply realize that there are some people that are wired to take risks, love doing that, and that this is their game, we are mearly spectators that pay for the privilege to watch them play at it?

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

With all due respect who asked you to protect them? Did they? I mean, it is technically anyone's right to get on the back of a bull at, say, the stampede, for money. Should switch to mechanical bulls? Should we raise less powerful bulls? Turn the field into giant inflatable mats? Dress the bulls in padded armor to prevent injury? Or is it better to simply realize that there are some people that are wired to take risks, love doing that, and that this is their game, we are mearly spectators that pay for the privilege to watch them play at it?

Put together much better then I could. But exactly the point I was trying to make.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by FlamesFanTrev

With all due respect who asked you to protect them? Did they? I mean, it is technically anyone's right to get on the back of a bull at, say, the stampede, for money. Should switch to mechanical bulls? Should we raise less powerful bulls? Turn the field into giant inflatable mats? Dress the bulls in padded armor to prevent injury? Or is it better to simply realize that there are some people that are wired to take risks, love doing that, and that this is their game, we are mearly spectators that pay for the privilege to watch them play at it?

Nobody asked me to protect them but as a society, collectively, we put things in place to protect ourselves from ourselves.
In the case of pro sports there are long-term considerations as well. The pro leagues art the models for future generations.
If you believe the above, then why not simply allow players to play the sport without helmets?