Great Fight Debate - II

[LSCII]

Lucic is an animal.

Lucic can't play hockey any more.

 

[LSCII]

Why in the world would Lucic fear Anthony Peluso?

He wouldn't, which was the point the poster was making. It was sarcasm in response to the claim enforcers "prevent" things from happening merely by their presence.

 

[Sheppy]

Lucic can't play hockey any more.

I know.

 

[LSCII]

Ok, "Bra", I guess I'll try again for like the 17th time.

Explain to me how those guys are goons, because those are legitimately like the only guys I have brought up. Go ahead, lets see how wild your deflection will be.

I'll explain this to you one last time since you either aren't getting it or are willfully ignoring the point.

Regardless of the examples of players you threw out, when all your posts go back to whether or not a guy can "win a fight", it invalidates the examples. Especially since none of those guys are remotely even available.

I mean crap, I could say the team needs snipers and that they should get Matthews, McDavid, or Ove types, but since those guys aren't available, why bother?

Finally, if someone here was constantly saying they need another offensive player, be it a set up man or a scorer, yet every time someone mentioned a set up man, they dismissed it, what are they really asking for? This is the argument we've been having in a nutshell. You keep saying you want X, yet whenever someone does that or suggests a player is doing that, you dismiss it. So what are you really saying?

And with that, I'm good. Enjoy the rest of the debate.

 

[Sheppy]

I'll explain this to you one last time since you either aren't getting it or are willfully ignoring the point.

Regardless of the examples of players you threw out, when all your posts go back to whether or not a guy can "win a fight", it invalidates the examples. Especially since none of those guys are remotely even available.

I mean crap, I could say the team needs snipers and that they should get Matthews, McDavid, or Ove types, but since those guys aren't available, why bother?

Finally, if someone here was constantly saying they need another offensive player, be it a set up man or a scorer, yet every time someone mentioned a set up man, they dismissed it, what are they really asking for? This is the argument we've been having in a nutshell. You keep saying you want X, yet whenever someone does that or suggests a player is doing that, you dismiss it. So what are you really saying?

And with that, I'm good. Enjoy the rest of the debate.

So yeah, you still can't explain to me how I have been asking for a goon. Good job, Bra.

What I'm saying, again, for the 30th time... Is some size in the top 9, a guy who is physical, and isn't lost with his gloves off. Someone who can take some pressure off the small Bruins player that ends up having to step up and get slapped around. I don't get how it's hard to understand. I understand that those guys aren't easy to just go and get, but it's far from me clamoring for a "Goon" - That's just absolutely stupid, and it's stupid that you're trying your hardest to "prove" thats what I want. It isn't. If you actually read my posts in this thread, and previous threads, I have not once asked for a one dimensional goon. Not once.

Also, a few of those guys were rumored to be available, and one of them was even moved this past summer.

But yeah, you're going pretty extreme in your examples, but that doesn't surprise me. Do you think it's harder to acquire Wayne Simmonds or Auston Matthews?

It's simple, really and pretty straight forward, honestly and it's not even a debate between you and I, it's you putting words in my mouth and treading water.

 

[HooperDrivesTheBoat]

Did you not see the Bruins bench reaction after the Kuraly fight? They were very much inspired by him sticking up for himself.

But really, and this isn't directed at you, the pro physical crowd keeps moving the goal posts in this discussion. It started off about the team being soft and other teams taking liberties. Then when the B's started hitting more, it became they won't fight to stick up for themselves. So when they started doing that, and they've been very aggressive across the roster with this kind of thing lately, it becomes they're doing it, but they're losing the fights.

Well seriously. Which is it? Do they need to be more physical and not let teams take liberties, or do they need to win fights? Because those things are not mutually exclusive. You can hold an opposing team's player accountable for doing something ****ty, even if you lose the fight, but that's simply not good enough for some folks. They want to win fights, but in reality. it's all subjective anyways. It's not like they go to the scorecards and say who won after the linesmen break it up or anything.

I think that's part of the issue with this entire thread...there are different discussions/points being argued at the same time, some quantitative, some not, some subjective, many salient points, but no clear direction.

I’ll add to the madness. (***Warning...AlbertaO'ReillyFan length post ahead ***).

Full disclosure, I enjoy fighting and wish it wasn’t being phased out. I tend to side with Lou, Colt, Sheppy and Fenian (though I even think he goes over the top at times) as it pertains to the role of fighting in the game. I understand why and have been completely fine with the demise of the staged fight, but I hate that refs/linesman jump right in at the onset of fights and the rivalries continue to be neutered by expansion and the confounding scheduling. I began watching hockey in the late 80's (ok, so not the OLD days compared to some of the people here ) which was incredible for fans of fighting. I got to see Twist, Probert, Domi, Kocur, Bomber, Kordic, etc. when the prospect of a fight was often as exciting as the gameplay. There were fights pretty much every game. It wasn’t if, but when. I grew up in and around NYC my whole life so I attended Islanders/Rangers games as a neutral observer. There would inevitably be fights, sometimes 3-4 per game. That's why I watched those games. I had no dog in the fight. I watch the Islanders/Rags rivalry now and am bored. I follow those games because I have Kreider and Pulock on my fantasy team.

I actually stayed up to watch the Calgary/Edmonton game a couple of weeks ago because I read on these boards that it was getting out of hand.

I wish the Bruins did have a Reaves, Wilson, Anderson, Bennett, Virtanen type player who could play and fight. Why? I like the fights. I don’t think having Sam Bennett will deter cheap shots or scare anyone, but he’s a scrappy guy who has shown to defend teammates and play an honest game. These players add to the beautiful chaos of the game. But they are a dying breed.

After perusing this thread for months, I picked up some common themes. I believe every single person on these boards wants to see the Bruins win. That's #1. They also want the team to stick up for themselves and their teammates. That wolfpack mentality, the you bring one friend, I'm bringing five that we saw so often in 2011. We're seeing that with more regularity with the Bruins this year. It's great to see. But there is one problem...and I believe it’s the crux of why this thread goes down many different paths…

Bruins fans also want to see them WIN the fights.

They want to see Hyman crushed for what he did to McAvoy. What did we get? Grizz getting thrown around a bit. It is great to see him stand up for his friend and teammate. No doubt. But Hyman barely broke a sweat.
They want to see Wagner crush Hainsey for daring to drop his gloves after a clean hit. What did we get? A quick takedown, barely a punch thrown
We've seen Krejci get nailed twice, Bergeron once this year. Our skilled players are being targeted and its pissed us off.

Winning in 2011 with that wonderful, amazing amalgam of skill and toughness will be difficult if not impossible to replicate. There are no teams in 2018-2019 that can compare. Not even close. Shawn Thornton, while renowned for his fists, could also kill penalties and score. There was no one like Lucic in 2011. People would compare him to players long retired. Then you had McQuaid who ostensibly was the toughest on the team. And then we have Chara. Horton, Campbell, Boychuk. Again, I doubt this happens ever again.

I think what we’re seeing in this thread the past couple of years is yearning for some good old-fashioned bloodlust. You mess with my player, we’re putting yours in the hospital. I don’t see anything wrong with this, btw. But I think the disagreements cease when that is acknowledged.

Also my feelings re: the other topics bandied about on this thread:

Does having tough guys/fighters on the team prevent cheap shots: No, that's been proven. Ulf Samuelsson, Claude Lemeiux and Scott Stevens nearly killed people in the 80’s/90’s, Torres/Cooke/Downie in the early/mid oughts and now Tom Wilson. Up until the last few years, fighting was a major part of the game and there have always been cheap shots.
Does fighting prevent cheap shots from occurring: No, that's been proven.
Does fighting prevent cheap shots from occurring at a greater rate: Maybe...but there is no way to quantify that. I tend to believe it does. I think many NHL players believe so as well. I will side with those that have played the game.
Does having tough guys/fighters on the team keep some players on other teams in check: Yes, it seems, as NHL players themselves have said it does.
Do fights sometimes galvanize a team and help them win the game: Yes. I attached an article from the Islander/Red Wings game in a previous post
Do fights sometimes not galvanize a team and they lose the game: Yes
Does having tough guys/fighters on the team allow skilled player to focus on their strengths (i.e, scoring goals to win games): I’m sure some of the smaller, more skilled players feel more comfortable knowing they can play their game and not worry they may have to fight because there are other players on the team who will take care of them. I think that’s just human nature, right?
What constitutes a tough player? I believe we all have different definitions of “tough”. I don’t think it’s possible to agree to a universal definition of “tough”. I think anyone who laces up skates in the NHL is tough. It’s a brutal sport. Does anyone (other than Sarge who hates everything related to NY) not think Ryan McDonagh is tough? Anyone who stands in front of a 100mph slap shot not knowing where it will make contact is tough in my estimation. Because he doesn’t fight, does that mean he’s not tough? I think some people on here believe that. Nordstrom fought Witkowski the other night. He is not a fighter by any means. But by lacing up the skates AND fighting a guy who he knew could kill him, he’s tough. What I think is the semantics issue is people equate tough to being physical/hitting and fighting.

 

[Gee Wally]

Great post HDTB................

 

[LSCII]

Well said, Hooper! While I've argued the counter point to most of the pro fighting crowd here, it's not because I dislike that side of the game. In fact, I love it. Always have, always will. I do absolutely hate tying up a roster spot on what was traditionally called an enforcer because that role is dying out and there's no need. But a physical player that can play hockey, hit, create disruption, and if needed, drop the gloves? Yes please. Sign me up. But if a guy like that does ever end up here, I simply won't care if he "wins" every fight or not because that's silly.

Set the tone, stick up for your teammates, and don't take shit from nobody. If they can find a dude like that, I'm all in.

 

[sarge88]

I think that's part of the issue with this entire thread...there are different discussions/points being argued at the same time, some quantitative, some not, some subjective, many salient points, but no clear direction.

I’ll add to the madness. (***Warning...AlbertaO'ReillyFan length post ahead ***).

Full disclosure, I enjoy fighting and wish it wasn’t being phased out. I tend to side with Lou, Colt, Sheppy and Fenian (though I even think he goes over the top at times) as it pertains to the role of fighting in the game. I understand why and have been completely fine with the demise of the staged fight, but I hate that refs/linesman jump right in at the onset of fights and the rivalries continue to be neutered by expansion and the confounding scheduling. I began watching hockey in the late 80's (ok, so not the OLD days compared to some of the people here ) which was incredible for fans of fighting. I got to see Twist, Probert, Domi, Kocur, Bomber, Kordic, etc. when the prospect of a fight was often as exciting as the gameplay. There were fights pretty much every game. It wasn’t if, but when. I grew up in and around NYC my whole life so I attended Islanders/Rangers games as a neutral observer. There would inevitably be fights, sometimes 3-4 per game. That's why I watched those games. I had no dog in the fight. I watch the Islanders/Rags rivalry now and am bored. I follow those games because I have Kreider and Pulock on my fantasy team.

I actually stayed up to watch the Calgary/Edmonton game a couple of weeks ago because I read on these boards that it was getting out of hand.

I wish the Bruins did have a Reaves, Wilson, Anderson, Bennett, Virtanen type player who could play and fight. Why? I like the fights. I don’t think having Sam Bennett will deter cheap shots or scare anyone, but he’s a scrappy guy who has shown to defend teammates and play an honest game. These players add to the beautiful chaos of the game. But they are a dying breed.

After perusing this thread for months, I picked up some common themes. I believe every single person on these boards wants to see the Bruins win. That's #1. They also want the team to stick up for themselves and their teammates. That wolfpack mentality, the you bring one friend, I'm bringing five that we saw so often in 2011. We're seeing that with more regularity with the Bruins this year. It's great to see. But there is one problem...and I believe it’s the crux of why this thread goes down many different paths…

Bruins fans also want to see them WIN the fights.

They want to see Hyman crushed for what he did to McAvoy. What did we get? Grizz getting thrown around a bit. It is great to see him stand up for his friend and teammate. No doubt. But Hyman barely broke a sweat.
They want to see Wagner crush Hainsey for daring to drop his gloves after a clean hit. What did we get? A quick takedown, barely a punch thrown
We've seen Krejci get nailed twice, Bergeron once this year. Our skilled players are being targeted and its pissed us off.

Winning in 2011 with that wonderful, amazing amalgam of skill and toughness will be difficult if not impossible to replicate. There are no teams in 2018-2019 that can compare. Not even close. Shawn Thornton, while renowned for his fists, could also kill penalties and score. There was no one like Lucic in 2011. People would compare him to players long retired. Then you had McQuaid who ostensibly was the toughest on the team. And then we have Chara. Horton, Campbell, Boychuk. Again, I doubt this happens ever again.

I think what we’re seeing in this thread the past couple of years is yearning for some good old-fashioned bloodlust. You mess with my player, we’re putting yours in the hospital. I don’t see anything wrong with this, btw. But I think the disagreements cease when that is acknowledged.

Also my feelings re: the other topics bandied about on this thread:

Does having tough guys/fighters on the team prevent cheap shots: No, that's been proven. Ulf Samuelsson, Claude Lemeiux and Scott Stevens nearly killed people in the 80’s/90’s, Torres/Cooke/Downie in the early/mid oughts and now Tom Wilson. Up until the last few years, fighting was a major part of the game and there have always been cheap shots.
Does fighting prevent cheap shots from occurring: No, that's been proven.
Does fighting prevent cheap shots from occurring at a greater rate: Maybe...but there is no way to quantify that. I tend to believe it does. I think many NHL players believe so as well. I will side with those that have played the game.
Does having tough guys/fighters on the team keep some players on other teams in check: Yes, it seems, as NHL players themselves have said it does.
Do fights sometimes galvanize a team and help them win the game: Yes. I attached an article from the Islander/Red Wings game in a previous post
Do fights sometimes not galvanize a team and they lose the game: Yes
Does having tough guys/fighters on the team allow skilled player to focus on their strengths (i.e, scoring goals to win games): I’m sure some of the smaller, more skilled players feel more comfortable knowing they can play their game and not worry they may have to fight because there are other players on the team who will take care of them. I think that’s just human nature, right?
What constitutes a tough player? I believe we all have different definitions of “tough”. I don’t think it’s possible to agree to a universal definition of “tough”. I think anyone who laces up skates in the NHL is tough. It’s a brutal sport. Does anyone (other than Sarge who hates everything related to NY) not think Ryan McDonagh is tough? Anyone who stands in front of a 100mph slap shot not knowing where it will make contact is tough in my estimation. Because he doesn’t fight, does that mean he’s not tough? I think some people on here believe that. Nordstrom fought Witkowski the other night. He is not a fighter by any means. But by lacing up the skates AND fighting a guy who he knew could kill him, he’s tough. What I think is the semantics issue is people equate tough to being physical/hitting and fighting.

Great post!

And I'm truly touched that anyone takes anything I post on here seriously enough to remember.

 

[KrejciMVP]

Caps look like the 2011 Bruins to me and thus are my cup pick. Bruins have a few good players but aren't really in the conversation as they look too brittle. Facing the caps in a 7 game series would be tough

 

[LSCII]

Caps look like the 2011 Bruins to me and thus are my cup pick. Bruins have a few good players but aren't really in the conversation as they look too brittle. Facing the caps in a 7 game series would be tough

That it would be, but not because of a lack of physical player. It's because they don't match up skill wise across the board. The top line is fine, but after that it drops off a cliff here in terms of skills and ability to score on a regular basis. That doesn't match up well with the Caps, Leafs, or Bolts, TBH. They simply don't have enough talent and depth of talent.

 

[BruinDust]

That it would be, but not because of a lack of physical player. It's because they don't match up skill wise across the board. The top line is fine, but after that it drops off a cliff here in terms of skills and ability to score on a regular basis. That doesn't match up well with the Caps, Leafs, or Bolts, TBH. They simply don't have enough talent and depth of talent.

Yup, I don't think the match-up against TB, or Toronto, or Washington being unfavorable for the Bruins has anything to do with fighting.

Let's just look at this season.

Tampa is 1st overall (by a decent margin). Toronto is 2nd overall. The Caps lead their division.

Toronto has just 4 fights thus far, 3 of them were Saturday night vs. the Bruins

Tampa Bay has the lowest fight total in the league with 2 fights, to go along with the best record.

Washington has just 4 fights, and 2 of those were vs. Boston on opening night.

So these three teams have just 10 fights between them, and HALF of them are vs. Boston. And of those 5 fights, they occured in just two games.

Combined the Leafs/Caps/Bolts have played 90 games this year. Fights have only occured in 7 of the 90 games (7.8%).

So is the answer for the Bruins to beat any of these 3 teams to fight more?

 

[Sheppy]

Yup, I don't think the match-up against TB, or Toronto, or Washington being unfavorable for the Bruins has anything to do with fighting.

Let's just look at this season.

Tampa is 1st overall (by a decent margin). Toronto is 2nd overall. The Caps lead their division.

Toronto has just 4 fights thus far, 3 of them were Saturday night vs. the Bruins

Tampa Bay has the lowest fight total in the league with 2 fights, to go along with the best record.

Washington has just 4 fights, and 2 of those were vs. Boston on opening night.

So these three teams have just 10 fights between them, and HALF of them are vs. Boston. And of those 5 fights, they occured in just two games.

Combined the Leafs/Caps/Bolts have played 90 games this year. Fights have only occured in 7 of the 90 games (7.8%).

So is the answer for the Bruins to beat any of these 3 teams to fight more?

I don’t think anyone says they need to “fight more” - It’s more less people saying having a guy in the forward group who can take the pressure off the non fighters would be nice.

 

[KrejciMVP]

I don’t think anyone says they need to “fight more” - It’s more less people saying having a guy in the forward group who can take the pressure off the non fighters would be nice.

I watched the Bruins highlights against Toronto and it didnt look good on the fight side. Seemed like they lost every bout, similar to what the Bruins used to do to the smurfs. Toronto isnt even known for being a hard hitting team either. Tom Wilson toughness combined with Ovi who is a hard hitter and the skill of Kuznetsov and Backstom could be a quick series

I agree the 2011 2013 Bruins will be hard to replicate..the only team in my life that was as good as them was the Neely led Bruins. These teams come around once a generation

 

[BruinDust]

I don’t think anyone says they need to “fight more” - It’s more less people saying having a guy in the forward group who can take the pressure off the non fighters would be nice.

It would be, but I don't think it needs to be a priority. If they can find that guy, great.

 

[Sheppy]

It would be, but I don't think it needs to be a priority. If they can find that guy, great.

Finding a 2nd line wing should be the top priority, but we all know they'll probably ink Stempniak.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Frankly some of you are downright embarrassing.

Someone disagrees with me, therefor they are embarrassing.... and I'M accused of thinking I have all the answers.

 

[Glove Malfunction]

Finding a 2nd line wing should be the top priority, but we all know they'll probably ink Stempniak.

Oh come on now. I just ate.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Ok so you watched him one game. Thought so. Maybe Doc would like to chime in since he has him on his SIM team

I think the guy has a bit of talent. Seriously, given the limited games he plays, and the limited minutes he "kinda" produces and did so in JR (albeit as an overager). That's why I drafted him in the PRO draft. I saw a 6'5 guy who could fight.. so therefor SOMEONE would give him a job just for that, but with a chance to be more than that.

 

[Oates2Neely]

I think Andrew Ference was “tough”. Not because he won fights, but because he was always the first to defend a teammate. He had a swagger to him. That’s what I feel this team is missing, not a goon but a ballsy player

 

[Dr Quincy]

What does that have to do with not acknowledging that so many players and coaches believe in toughness as a deterrent?

Kind of egotistical to think that any of us knows better than so many who have played the game. This isn’t 12-15 people saying it....you can do a search and find hundreds of quotes/articles supporting it.

I mean this isn’t arguing over what kind of power play a team should employ, as many different ones are effective.

This is like arguing that using 2 defensemen and 3 forwards is the wrong lineup choice, as it is almost universally accepted that 95% of the time you play that way.

Conversely, if as many players came out and said toughness wasn’t a deterrent, I’d certainly change my opinion.

Who hasn't acknowledged that players and coaches believe it?

And why do you still think an appeal to authority fallacy, which has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, should convince somebody when other evidence suggests they are wrong?

 

[Dr Quincy]

It's like a team of less tough Jeff Odgers or Nevin Markwarts (and I really liked Nevin)

Loved Nevin.

 

[sarge88]

Who hasn't acknowledged that players and coaches believe it?

And why do you still think an appeal to authority fallacy, which has been pointed out to you ad nauseam, should convince somebody when other evidence suggests they are wrong?

Because the evidence you’re referring to is anecdotal, at best.

I still haven’t heard a good answer as to why the players and coaches are wrong about this.

 

[LSCII]

I think Andrew Ference was “tough”. Not because he won fights, but because he was always the first to defend a teammate. He had a swagger to him. That’s what I feel this team is missing, not a goon but a ballsy player

This is exactly what I'm talking about, but that brand of toughness isn't welcome by some, apparently.

 

[Dr Quincy]

Because the evidence you’re referring to is anecdotal, at best.
I still haven’t heard a good answer as to why the players and coaches are wrong about this.

They aren't wrong necessarily. But they aren't right unless they have evidence other than an opinion. If one believes something has a causative effect then the onus is on them to provide evidence of it.