Under the salary cap era, the most successful teams are the ones that are rewarded for providing roster oppurtunities for their young players. I see more and more that one of those roster spots seems to be taken up by the stereotypical "goon" in most NHL teams - the tough guy that plays less than 10 minutes a night, and whose main job is to fight and all that.
Question is: does a successful NHL team need to have a tough guy on it? Can a team be successful without having a "heavyweight fighter" on their side?
Further - do teams need those "role playing" guys? Or can teams not just role 4 "skilled" lines and win as well?
Under the salary cap era, the most successful teams are the ones that are rewarded for providing roster oppurtunities for their young players. I see more and more that one of those roster spots seems to be taken up by the stereotypical "goon" in most NHL teams - the tough guy that plays less than 10 minutes a night, and whose main job is to fight and all that.
Question is: does a successful NHL team need to have a tough guy on it? Can a team be successful without having a "heavyweight fighter" on their side?
Further - do teams need those "role playing" guys? Or can teams not just role 4 "skilled" lines and win as well?
Let me know your thoughts.
Don't need a tough guy but they come in handy every so often. Don't see much of the 4 skill lines really, theres generally a checking line or energy line or two. Not that they don't have skill but they have other stronger attributes.
Yeah, you need tough guys, but they can't just be one dimensional pylons like they used to be. They need to be able to take a regular shift, be responsible defensively, and even chip in on offense. Guys like Clarkson, Ott, and Neil come to mind.
Yeah, you need tough guys, but they can't just be one dimensional pylons like they used to be. They need to be able to take a regular shift, be responsible defensively, and even chip in on offense. Guys like Clarkson, Ott, and Neil come to mind.
You don't need them but some other team always will and then what are you to do?.
In political words, a tough guy is basically a nuke. You get one in case the other guy gets one. Apart from countering each other, they are totally and utterly useless to the game of hockey.
Four "skill lines" is a figment of fantasy league imaginations.
The Sabres had four skill lines back in 2006 & 07. Won them nothing when it mattered. Twenty nine other teams are assembled to both dance and bang. If all you can do is figure skate, you lose come the second season.
As for having an enforcer, ask yourself next time your shiny star gets plastered through the board. Nuuu NHL pacifists will suggest otherwise, but these are the same people who believe that when a teammate gets abused you should just turn away and nevermind.
Won't even address the statement that the most successful teams provide opportunities for young players, except to suggest that the best teams have the best players, period...and make their young players EARN opportunities.
Last edited by Trottier: 11-13-2009 at 03:31 AM.
Reason: spelling
You need players who can play a regular shift and have some toughness. Dressing enforcers who can barely make a pass or keep up with the play is unnecessary.
You need players who can play a regular shift and have some toughness. Dressing enforcers who can barely make a pass or keep up with the play is unnecessary.
Yep. The somewhat clicheish term team toughness is starting to become more important. It's not about having a big goon who barely plays. It's about having someone one the ice that can react to a certain play when it happens.
As for role players. Yes, you need them. Because they're usually cheap and leave you with cap space for your skilled guys. Basically, in the cap era your pay for talent/skill, hard work sometimes seems optional... Basically, a "role player" is a player who doesn't eat a lot of cap space, but can play significant minutes without being a decrement to the team, and perhaps helps out killing penalties.
If it wasn't for the cap, and your team could afford 12 skill guys, then I think it would be possible to do really well.
There is more ways then one to build a successful team.
And teams need several tough guys. They do not necessarily need heavy weights in the line up. But a heavy who can skate and use his stick and know what is north and south on the ice can be useful but the poster above was right that the Neilīs, and Ottīs of this league is probably more useful seeing as they can handle 3rd line shifts and add a little bit offensive production to their game.
We don't have a heavyweight that plays regularly because he's a punching bag. However we do probably have the biggest collection of fighters out of any team in the league
I agree with pretty much everyone else. Guys that can play a regular shift and not hurt the team by being out there (too much ) -Rypien, Carcillo, Thornton, Clarkson. Then you have the other end of the scale: Cote, Boogard, MacIntyre, Laraque.
Detroit had Aaron Downey but they never really gave him much of a purpose.
For teams that have smaller guys with skill, an enforcer is necessary.
Its just not that way. Look at the Rangers w/Brashear. Drury is run. The King is run nightly. When Mike Richards or Scott Hartnell run over Lundqvist, they are not about to throw down on a challenge from Huggy. Maybe Carcillo or Asham does, but how does that slow down Hartnell?
When there are guys like Tootoo, Ott, Avery and a few others in the NHL, yes there needs to be tough guys. But some guys like to hide when the tough gets on the ice.
Teams definitely need tough guys all across their rosters, but today's tough guys making their way into the NHL tend not to be stereotypical enforcers. Physical players who can play are replacing the enforcer role player. That doesn't mean that teams no longer have fighters. It means that it's not enough to be able to fight anymore. They need to be able to play as well if they want to stick.
There is more to being a tough player than a simple willingness to take a fighting major, I'd aver. Teams can be physically intimidating without dressing enforcers. Physical intimidation certainly still has a role in this game, however.
Yeah, you need tough guys, but they can't just be one dimensional pylons like they used to be. They need to be able to take a regular shift, be responsible defensively, and even chip in on offense. Guys like Clarkson, Ott, and Neil come to mind.
However, guys like Belak are slowly fading out...
This
Quote:
Originally Posted by brtriad
No. Look at Detroit.
Yeah, maybe in the playoffs when fighting goes down. But over an 82 game schedule teams need someone willing to fight anyone when the time comes. You don't have to have the biggest and baddest tough guy, but you need someone that can handle the toughest guys. Does anyone remember Babcock's quotes as to why he brought Brad May back this year.
Quote:
"He provides a physical presence. We don't feel we have much of it," Babcock said. "We've had the ability of having Aaron Downey in the past for a couple years. We didn't have any this year. Sometimes, it's a priority."
It's sort of a farce that Detroit has thrived without toughness since even when they didn't have Downey, they always had McCarty who was at least willing to fight anyone.
/thread
) -Rypien, Carcillo, Thornton, Clarkson. Then you have the other end of the scale: Cote, Boogard, MacIntyre, Laraque.
