Optimus Reimer
New member
Wendel's Fist said:
I cannot recall the team, but the other team dressed its skilled players while the Leafs dressed both Orr and McLaren who were both ineffective and useless, and yes the Leafs lost that game.
Leafs name Peter Horachek and Steve Spott assistant coaches.
- Thread starter GhostofPotvin29
- Start date
I cannot recall the team, but the other team dressed its skilled players while the Leafs dressed both Orr and McLaren who were both ineffective and useless, and yes the Leafs lost that game.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Bullfrog said:
When was the last time a star player/team got nailed/smashed around the ice and an enforcer did something about it? I can't remember a single occasion.
Redleaf
Active member
Potvin29 said:
When I think about enforcers and their role in the game, I think about that Kaberle hit more than a few years back, and how no one on the team did anything about it.
If I recall correctly the Leafs got pushed around a lot that season, and an enforcer could have settled them down a bit and taken their minds off getting abused by the cheap shot artists.
Other than keeping guys honest, I agree that their role is limited.
moon111
New member
There are 16 players in 11-12 that are no longer with the team. Some of them might not get much credit, but many were established NHLers who had to figure out how play responsibly, even if they weren't the most talented.freer said:
The graph doesn't start at zero. It's done to visually exaggerate the problem.
If you look at the worst Corsi teams, most were young. The Leafs were the 5th youngest.
bustaheims
Active member
RedLeaf said:
What a completely meaningless statement. Enforcers do nothing to keep anyone honest. If someone's going to deliver a cheap shot, they're going to deliver a cheap shot. The presence of an enforcer doesn't even enter into their minds, because there isn't time for that to happen. Cheap shots aren't pre-planned things, they happen in the moment.
2badknees
New member
I don't think the concept of fighting and intimidation in the game has changed that much. Its simply evolved to where (most) teams can't justify a cap hit and a roster spot for a one dimensional player to accomplish that role. Enter the middleweight, who can kill penalties, skate, and soften up the other team with an energy shift.
Kin
New member
2badknees said:
I don't know that I buy that. An enforcer could have the cheapest cap hit possible and it's not like a roster spot is any more valuable today than it was 10 or 15 years ago. If teams thought that there was real value in those one-dimensional players, and let's keep in mind that their one-dimension should in theory that they're not only willing to fight but big and good enough at it to intimidate people, then they wouldn't be falling out of fashion.
I think that the Bertuzzi thing changed the game more than some people like to admit. The nature of the instigator rule being what it is(not to mention just the physical reality of a fight needing two willing participants) means that the sort of retribution people talk about after a cheap shot is either something like what happened to Janssen after the hit on Kaberle, where he had no problem with fighting and it's not any kind of deterrent, or you're basically telling your goon to go attack someone who isn't willing to fight and for a whole host of reasons teams aren't interested in that anymore.
2badknees
New member
Nik the Trik said:
I would argue (and quite rightly, as I'm a genius) that the fourth line role has a larger purpose today than it did back in the game 10-15 years ago, due to the increase in the speed and tactics of the game. Competitive minutes weren't important, because you put on your goon line, they put on their goon line, and they gooned it up for 5-10 minutes of goonery while the common folk drank labatt 50.
I think the red wings changed it up when they stopped dressing a "traditional" fourth line. The opposing teams started to realize that they were playing a 4 line team with only 3 lines every night, and as mentioned, the speed and structure of the game put them at a disadvantage. - which wouldn't have been the case a decade or two ago.
ps - goonery.
bustaheims
Active member
2badknees said:
I think the problem with that logic is that what the Wings put out there was really more of a traditional 4th line than a line with knuckle dragging goons. The whole concept of a pure enforcer type only really started taking hold in the 70s and 80s. Before that, teams didn't really have dedicated fighters. It was really the Flyers of the 70s the spurred the "goon" era. Traditionally, the 4th line was a line that contributed with their hockey skills, not their fists.
Kin
New member
2badknees said:
But that's my point. You said that the concept of fighting/intimidation hadn't changed but the concept used to be that if the other team put out a speedy 4th line or neglected fighters in their line-up that you could put out your goonish line and "intimidate" them and gain an advantage. What's changed is the perception of intimidation and the value of fighting. Teams did begin to realize that they could gain something by benching their goons and that's what's changed.
And for the record I like 50.
RedLeaf said:
This is something I don't get. It's basically Janssen and Belak's job to fight each other. Janssen fights guys like Belak all the time, whether it's after Cam lays a big hit or directly after a faceoff in the middle of the 1st period. So why would Belak's presence in the line-up act as a possible deterrent to Janssen throwing a big hit on a Leaf? He's obviously not afraid of the repercussions.
Kin
New member
RedLeaf said:
He didn't but I really don't see what difference that makes to your point. If the Leafs got pushed around "a lot" that season they did so with Belak in the line-up most nights. If you mean that they got pushed around that night because Belak was out of the line-up...they won that game.
And the whole "nobody did anything" narrative is ridiculous to begin with. Nobody on the Leafs did anything because nobody saw anything, the hit was completely behind the play and Janssen only played 3 shifts the whole game.Even if Belak had been in the line-up there wasn't an opportunity to do anything.
Redleaf
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Chill out. I'm not taking a stance for the usefulness of enforcers. My statement was that any discussion about enforcers draws me back to that hit on Kaberle. I just remember the general reaction to that hit, and the subsequent, endless discussion about the usefulness of enforcers that followed.
I had completely forgotten Belak was on the team that year, but I do recall that there wasn't a goon playing for the Leafs that particular night, because I thought there would have been some retaliation against Jansen and there wasn't.
bustaheims
Active member
RedLeaf said:
But, really, for the most part, they're going to have that in the back of their mind regardless of whether or not there's an enforcer in the lineup, because that enforcer isn't going to on the ice at the same time as most of the players in the line up. He's not protecting them in any way. At best, he's providing some form of meaningless retroactive face punching - and, often, not with the guy who delivered the questionable hit.