Line Combos: This team won't be weaklings.

[Hurt]

Maybe Kadri for Seth jones?

Would you take Kadri if you had Seth Jones?

 

[theTTC]

Same players dude. Bozak, JVR, Lupul, Kadri, Booth, Holland, Gardiner, Reilly, Robidas, etc.

Why would you think they would step up this year? Because Babcock said so?

I'll need more than that. They are soft until they prove otherwise.

BAM!

And the names of ancient Leaf small-ish hardmen are being tossed out as "proof" we will be tough next season. Love this place, Pookie?

 

[Nithoniniel]

Chicago Tampa. Yes, the most recent cup winner and finalist didn't really have an emphasis on toughness.

Shall we list other cup finalists and winners over the last 6 seasons like LA, Boston, Philly? Teams that show the other side of the coin?

I have acknowledged that non fighting teams have success. Why is it so hard for the anti-fighters to acknowledge that teams that will punch you in the face also have success too? Clearly they have. It's almost like a hockey snobbery.

Well yes, they won but their goon had 7 points. Way more than Orr. Or they are dinosaurs that maybe have a Cup but won't ever again because their goon can't play a possession game. Sheesh.

Fighting works too.

Nobody is denying that teams that fight have success. We are discussing the impact of it. Would Boston have been a good team even if they hadn't fought? Would LA?

The answer should be of course, they are examples of teams filled with good players.

I understand wanting toughness and people that stand up for each other on the roster, but arguing that fights are profoundly important for some teams success seem like crazy talk to me.

 

[bobermay]

My lineup as of today:

Lupul-Kadri-Paranteau
JVR-Bozak-Winnik
Matthias-Holland-Arcobello
Komarov-Spaling-Beck
Panik


Rielly-Phanuef
Gardiner-Polak
Marincin-Harrington/Percy/Loov
Robidas, Hunwick

Bernier
Reimer

 

[LeafingTheWay]

The fact is that fighting teams win. Fighting teams lose. Soft teams win. Soft teams lose.

Can someone from the anti-fighting camp simply acknowledge that fighting as a strategy can work? I doubt it but I hold out hope.

The problem is the anti-fighting camp doesn't support 'soft teams' or 'fighting teams'. They support pure talented teams. If a team is the most talented, then it doesn't matter if they're soft or a team that fights a lot. LA, Philly, Boston, Tampa, Chicago, Vancouver all didn't do successful because of fighting/being a soft team, they were successful because they had very talented groups playing great.

If you're arguing that fighting players have a positive impact on teams. Then you might want to rephrase who these fighting players are. Because if you mean McClaren or Orr or Scott type of fighters, then you're mistakenly wrong. They are liabilities while on the ice. But if you mean Clutterbuck, Boyle, Prust, S.Thornton, etc then they are talented players as well as fighters. Shaw, Gallagher, Komarov are also other examples of talented players that are also tough.

 

[Pookie]

If you're arguing that fighting players have a positive impact on teams. Then you might want to rephrase who these fighting players are. Because if you mean McClaren or Orr or Scott type of fighters, then you're mistakenly wrong. They are liabilities while on the ice. But if you mean Clutterbuck, Boyle, Prust, S.Thornton, etc then they are talented players as well as fighters. Shaw, Gallagher, Komarov are also other examples of talented players that are also tough.

I have said quite frequently that "fighter" does not equal "goon." Teams still employ "goons" and then players like Dorsett or Neil. The Leafs employ neither of those type at the moment. We have Komaorov, whom I love to watch but even I would say that Komarov pre-concussion added more sandpaper than post-concussion. And be honest, I don't think he's ever fought.

Though I don't favour a goon over a fighter, I would challenge your assumption goons are a liability.

Folks will use specific statistics or even what they think are advanced stats to highlight a point. McLaren and Orr routinely had plus-minus stats better than Kessel. And they were asked to bring an intangible to the ice… confidence... that can't be measured.

I am not going to go down the road and argue that goons prevent cheap shots. That's a dumb argument. Cheap shots exist with and without goons… and sometimes the goons themselves are the ones doing the cheap shots.

I will however highlight that in the Leafs vs Habs game in which Orr got a farewell skate, there was a moment where Subban was going after Phaneuf. Orr didn't fight Subban but rather went over and wrapped his arms around him and said, that's enough. And it ended.

Contrast that with Staal vs Phaneuf earlier in the season. I can't call what Orr brought a liability.

 

[Pookie]

Nobody is denying that teams that fight have success. We are discussing the impact of it. Would Boston have been a good team even if they hadn't fought? Would LA?

The answer should be of course, they are examples of teams filled with good players.

I understand wanting toughness and people that stand up for each other on the roster, but arguing that fights are profoundly important for some teams success seem like crazy talk to me.

The problem is that you can't measure the impact. It's just a feeling.

Do your skilled players go into the corners with confidence with a tough teammate behind them? Do they have the same confidence without that support?

The example in Toronto suggests there is a difference. With the removal of Orr, McLaren, Fraser, the performance of our top 6 plummeted. Maybe it's not just muscle. Maybe it's chemistry.

Either or it's an intangible element that some teams to this day still believe in. Not the current Leafs mind you but pendulums swing.

 

[Nithoniniel]

I have said quite frequently that "fighter" does not equal "goon." Teams still employ "goons" and then players like Dorsett or Neil. The Leafs employ neither of those type at the moment. We have Komaorov, whom I love to watch but even I would say that Komarov pre-concussion added more sandpaper than post-concussion. And be honest, I don't think he's ever fought.

Though I don't favour a goon over a fighter, I would challenge your assumption goons are a liability.

Folks will use specific statistics or even what they think are advanced stats to highlight a point. McLaren and Orr routinely had plus-minus stats better than Kessel. And they were asked to bring an intangible to the ice… confidence... that can't be measured (1).

I am not going to go down the road and argue that goons prevent cheap shots. That's a dumb argument. Cheap shots exist with and without goons… and sometimes the goons themselves are the ones doing the cheap shots.

I will however highlight that in the Leafs vs Habs game in which Orr got a farewell skate, there was a moment where Subban was going after Phaneuf. Orr didn't fight Subban but rather went over and wrapped his arms around him and said, that's enough. And it ended. (4)

Contrast that with Staal vs Phaneuf earlier in the season. I can't call what Orr brought a liability.

The problem is that you can't measure the impact. It's just a feeling.

Do your skilled players go into the corners with confidence with a tough teammate behind them? Do they have the same confidence without that support?

The example in Toronto suggests there is a difference. With the removal of Orr, McLaren, Fraser, the performance of our top 6 plummeted. Maybe it's not just muscle. Maybe it's chemistry.

Either or it's an intangible element that some teams to this day still believe in. Not the current Leafs mind you but pendulums swing.

A few things:

1) If it can't be measured, can we really be sure it's there? We are quite good at seeing what we want to see after all.
EDIT: You already answered that it's just a feeling, which is fair.

2) McLaren and Orr had better +/- playing one fourth as much in highly sheltered roles against much worse opposition. Not saying anything, that.

3) Everything else do though. Guys like that are an anchor on a teams chance to have the puck, do something with the puck and keep the puck out of your net.

4) Did that matter? How much is ending things like that worth? Questions worth answering if you consider putting a worse player on the ice for these things.

5) Personally, I wish he didn't do that. Phaneuf plays his best hockey when he's fired up and pro-active, putting some emotion in him is the best thing opponents can do.

6) In the same post where you say that goons don't deter cheap shots, you bring up Staal vs Phaneuf. If they don't deter cheap shots, they won't deter that either.

7) Orr is only not a liability when his big disadvantage in every other area compared to the average NHL replacement player is evened out by his ability to fight. Do you really think it is?

 

[Pookie]

I disagree - I do not think that "fighting" as a strategy works anymore. The game and the league is changing, and guys who are there to fight are very quickly becoming extinct.

Do you believe this because the anti-fighting Toronto media told you this?

Let's look at the Western Conference and look for "goons" and/or players like Dorsett that patrol the 4th line and routinely fight. Based on last season, the following teams employed at least one player who "knew his role" … (and I am sure that someone will nitpick this list)

Calgary - Bollig
Edmonton - Gazdic
Winnipeg - Peluso
LA - Clifford
Anaheim - Jackman
San Jose - Scott
Columbus - Boll
St Louis - Reaves
Colorado - McLeod
Vancouver - Dorsett
Phoenix - Crombeen
Dallas - Roussel

12 of 14 teams with an identifiable "tough player". Some contributed more like Roussel but all dropped the gloves when called upon.

Hardly extinct wouldn't you say?

I do agree that being a "tough team" is an effective strategy - but the new world version of 'tough' is about finishing your checks, fighting for every inch of the ice, and battling in the corners. Guys who fight now do so on the side, but their primary role on the team is contributing through possession, offense, or special teams. It's actually guys like Phaneuf, Hartnell, Prust and Buff who are the 'fighters' - but can also play at minimum an effective 12 - 14 minutes a night.

The game is getting faster and more skilled. There is just no longer room for the Orr's and McClaren's any more.

Thank you for being one of the few that agrees that it is an effective strategy.

When you say there is no room for the Orrs and McLaren's as part of a team strategy. Riddle me this.

Why are quite a few of the enforcers finding work protecting a team's prospects in the AHL? McLaren and Orr played for the Marlies. Rosehill, Carkner, MacIntyr, Gillies etc have all found work within the development system of players. Sill wasn't resigned in Toronto but is now with Washington. He will either join Wilson and Latta on the big team or help develop the confidence of their key draft picks within the AHL.

If this role is extinct and useless to an organization, why are they still earning pay cheques?

 

[Pookie]

I'll pick out a few discussion points here.

2) McLaren and Orr had better +/- playing one fourth as much in highly sheltered roles against much worse opposition. Not saying anything, that.

True but what 4th line actually plays against top lines? Same could be said for any player who gets 5-10 mins a game. With TV time outs, the importance of "rolling 4 lines" is diminished significantly. You get to put your stars out there for 20+ mins a game.

3) Everything else do though. Guys like that are an anchor on a teams chance to have the puck, do something with the puck and keep the puck out of your net.

Maybe. But as plus minus has shown, Kessel was good at scoring and not keeping it out. He actually hurt the team the more he was on the ice.

4) Did that matter? How much is ending things like that worth? Questions worth answering if you consider putting a worse player on the ice for these things.

I really believe in sport psychology and mind set. Whether we are talking golf or hockey, the confidence to believe in yourself really separates those from their competition who usually have the same skill.

I just believe that in hockey, confidence comes from believing you are stronger and can outwork an opponent.

6) In the same post where you say that goons don't deter cheap shots, you bring up Staal vs Phaneuf. If they don't deter cheap shots, they won't deter that either.

He ended it with Subban. I'm suggesting it would have been more likely to end with Staal. Maybe not. But clearly, not having him didn't end it.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

I have said quite frequently that "fighter" does not equal "goon." Teams still employ "goons" and then players like Dorsett or Neil. The Leafs employ neither of those type at the moment. We have Komaorov, whom I love to watch but even I would say that Komarov pre-concussion added more sandpaper than post-concussion. And be honest, I don't think he's ever fought.

Though I don't favour a goon over a fighter, I would challenge your assumption goons are a liability.

Folks will use specific statistics or even what they think are advanced stats to highlight a point. McLaren and Orr routinely had plus-minus stats better than Kessel. And they were asked to bring an intangible to the ice… confidence... that can't be measured.

I am not going to go down the road and argue that goons prevent cheap shots. That's a dumb argument. Cheap shots exist with and without goons… and sometimes the goons themselves are the ones doing the cheap shots.

I will however highlight that in the Leafs vs Habs game in which Orr got a farewell skate, there was a moment where Subban was going after Phaneuf. Orr didn't fight Subban but rather went over and wrapped his arms around him and said, that's enough. And it ended.

Contrast that with Staal vs Phaneuf earlier in the season. I can't call what Orr brought a liability.

Plus/minus is a useless stat, especially considering McLaren and Orr were on for so few minutes, while Kessel was on the ice for so many minutes forming a line that had all defensive liablities on the ice.

You can't pick few instances where they would have benefited a team. Every single other time they're on the ice, it's an easy target for opposing coaches to exploit.

I know you understand this. But this isn't the old NHL where you can get away with cheap shots. More importantly, this isn't the same old NHL that if you are challenged you have to take a fight. If a goon was sent on the ice after the Staal incident, Staal would have most likely not even bothered with Orr or McLaren. Yes it would have been nice to see Orr stand up to Staal, but what's the point? There has never been a direct correlation between fighting and success.

Even more importantly, Carlyle kept on overusing the Kessel line in that playoff run year and totally tired them out. If we had a 4-line system, we could have easily used Kessel and JVR more effeciently. There is no point in keeping a line that plays for 5 mins a night. That means that the top-3 lines each had to play 18 minutes of icetime. They are a liability on the ice, considering the point of the game is to score more goals than the other team. You could run 'tough' 4th lines against 'goon' 4th lines and be totally exploited.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

I'll pick out a few discussion points here.


Maybe. But as plus minus has shown, Kessel was good at scoring and not keeping it out. He actually hurt the team the more he was on the ice.

That's simply not true that he hurt the team more when he was on the ice. He had a worse defensive winger in JVR and an equally terrible defensive player in Bozak. Was there any player on that line that even came close to matching his offense? Not even close. His pts/60 is elite while even JVR's pts/60 is 2nd line material (Bozak's is 3rd line material). So no, he didn't actually hurt the team more when he was on the ice.

Hence, why plus/minus is considered to be one of the worst stats in the game.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

Do you believe this because the anti-fighting Toronto media told you this?

Let's look at the Western Conference and look for "goons" and/or players like Dorsett that patrol the 4th line and routinely fight. Based on last season, the following teams employed at least one player who "knew his role" … (and I am sure that someone will nitpick this list)

Calgary - Bollig
Edmonton - Gazdic
Winnipeg - Peluso
LA - Clifford
Anaheim - Jackman
San Jose - Scott
Columbus - Boll
St Louis - Reaves
Colorado - McLeod
Vancouver - Dorsett
Phoenix - Crombeen
Dallas - Roussel

12 of 14 teams with an identifiable "tough player". Some contributed more like Roussel but all dropped the gloves when called upon.

The awkward moment when everyone on that list is actually considered a good 4th liner except for Boll, Crombeen and Scott.

And for your AHL comment. Orr and McLaren were sent down to the Marlies because they had term left on their contract. Not because the Leafs wanted to keep them around. Plus, it was Nonis and other old management that were there. They would have openly kept them in the AHL, even though I don't like it.

While McLaren and Orr were terrible, McLaren could actually possess skills to be a good 4th liner in the AHL.

Heck, Sill and all the others you mentioned who could end up in the AHL. They all are terrible NHL players. But some of them may have some skills.

They could easily end up being a Boyle in the AHL. As in a goon that has talent level to keep up with the League. The difference between B.Boyle and them is that Boyle can actually keep up with the league and be an effective 3rd liner. Those other guys can only keep up with the AHL league and be effective there.

 

[Pookie]

The awkward moment when everyone on that list is actually considered a good 4th liner except for Boll, Crombeen and Scott.

And for your AHL comment. Orr and McLaren were sent down to the Marlies because they had term left on their contract. Not because the Leafs wanted to keep them around. Plus, it was Nonis and other old management that were there. They would have openly kept them in the AHL, even though I don't like it.

While McLaren and Orr were terrible, McLaren could actually possess skills to be a good 4th liner in the AHL.

Heck, Sill and all the others you mentioned who could end up in the AHL. They all are terrible NHL players. But some of them may have some skills.

They could easily end up being a Boyle in the AHL. As in a goon that has talent level to keep up with the League. The difference between B.Boyle and them is that Boyle can actually keep up with the league and be an effective 3rd liner. Those other guys can only keep up with the AHL league and be effective there.

It's not a matter of whether they can "produce" at the AHL level, it's a matter of what they bring. If a team signs a Sill to play in the AHL, they are not likely thinking that they can develop him into a top 6 winger. Sill. Stortini and McGrattan are examples of fisticuff inclined players earning contracts this free agent season. It's a choice to pay them.

Those that are in the AHL are there to provide support and confidence for their developing players and serve as a call up should a game require their talents.

We have none of those guys. Not a "goon" and not a "Dorsett" type either.

Soft as kittens.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

It's not a matter of whether they can "produce" at the AHL level, it's a matter of what they bring. If a team signs a Sill to play in the AHL, they are not likely thinking that they can develop him into a top 6 winger. Sill. Stortini and McGrattan are examples of fisticuff inclined players earning contracts this free agent season. It's a choice to pay them.

Those that are in the AHL are there to provide support and confidence for their developing players and serve as a call up should a game require their talents.

We have none of those guys. Not a "goon" and not a "Dorsett" type either.

Soft as kittens.

Yes, but you're missing the point there. When you play a Sill or McGrattan on the ice, they are a liability on the ice because they can't keep up with what's going on the ice in the NHL. The difference in talent level is too large. However while in the AHL, they can be on the ice to do their job while also being able to keep up with what's going on the ice.

Their job is to fight but they also have to keep up with what's going on the ice, because they are apart of a line. If they can't play the game, then they'll get schooled on the ice. If they only get played to fight, then they'll be massively exploited by the opposing team by turning down the goons fight and outplaying them.

We have Komarov, Phaneuf, Polak as 'tough guys'.

They didn't have any tough players in Detroit with Babcock, because he used the 4th line a LOT, especially to shut-down other lines. The same will occur in Toronto. We will have guys that stand up for teammates, but we won't have fights to 'spark' confidence.

 

[Wafflewhipper]

Bozak is being shopped no doubt but I would be surprised if JVR was dealt particular for futures. If he is dealt it would be something like JVR or Seth Jones type move. IMO

I have a feeling the kessel trade has pacified posters expectations of a complete rebuild. I would suggest that this rebuild still needs to be completed in a rather big way.

Phaneufs value is to low at present to move and he just might not even need to be moved under Babcock. Bozak getting us a third to give the devils for signing Lou would be sufficient trade value for him.

Jvr only clouds the rebuild and has to be moved for the high value he has immediately. All he will do is make us get a lesser draft pick at a junction where we need more early picks in the next two drafts.

This rebuild doesn't start and stop with the Kessel trade. It is only the beginning i would think.

 

[senor martinez]

Do you believe this because the anti-fighting Toronto media told you this?

Let's look at the Western Conference and look for "goons" and/or players like Dorsett that patrol the 4th line and routinely fight. Based on last season, the following teams employed at least one player who "knew his role" … (and I am sure that someone will nitpick this list)

Calgary - Bollig
Edmonton - Gazdic
Winnipeg - Peluso
LA - Clifford
Anaheim - Jackman
San Jose - Scott
Columbus - Boll
St Louis - Reaves
Colorado - McLeod
Vancouver - Dorsett
Phoenix - Crombeen
Dallas - Roussel

12 of 14 teams with an identifiable "tough player". Some contributed more like Roussel but all dropped the gloves when called upon.

Hardly extinct wouldn't you say?



Thank you for being one of the few that agrees that it is an effective strategy.

When you say there is no room for the Orrs and McLaren's as part of a team strategy. Riddle me this.

Why are quite a few of the enforcers finding work protecting a team's prospects in the AHL? McLaren and Orr played for the Marlies. Rosehill, Carkner, MacIntyr, Gillies etc have all found work within the development system of players. Sill wasn't resigned in Toronto but is now with Washington. He will either join Wilson and Latta on the big team or help develop the confidence of their key draft picks within the AHL.

If this role is extinct and useless to an organization, why are they still earning pay cheques?

You are very intelligent poster and see hockey as it is just like don cherry and so many other great coaches in the world. You recognize real. Very happy to be reading this type of message to some younger posters in these hfboards.

Tough as nail players and their presence just make some teams so much better. Just like Mclaren, orr, Brown, Fraser, Komarov etc made us tougher and bettter during that best season where we got into the playoffs. It was the presence already itself. On the ice we led in HITS and FIGHTS. And what happened, we was in the playoffs instantly. Loved that entertaining season. Our every single season during these 11 years beside that have been soft mellow dirt puke seasons. I don't love that and Babcock don't love that.

I love the memories of that Frazer McLaren, Orr, Brown, Fraser, Komarov season. I don't even have to have anything else. That's where I live. That team was better than anything we've had during these 11 years. That's a long time. Thank you to Burke, Carlyle and that team.

Here's to waiting for some great seasons by Babcock and Lou Lamouriello (Legend). I love life.

 

[Pyrophorus]

If we end getting dummied by teams because of fighting, I'm sure one is available for cheap.

 

[Quares27]

The awkward moment when everyone on that list is actually considered a good 4th liner except for Boll, Crombeen and Scott.

And for your AHL comment. Orr and McLaren were sent down to the Marlies because they had term left on their contract. Not because the Leafs wanted to keep them around. Plus, it was Nonis and other old management that were there. They would have openly kept them in the AHL, even though I don't like it.

While McLaren and Orr were terrible, McLaren could actually possess skills to be a good 4th liner in the AHL.

Heck, Sill and all the others you mentioned who could end up in the AHL. They all are terrible NHL players. But some of them may have some skills.

They could easily end up being a Boyle in the AHL. As in a goon that has talent level to keep up with the League. The difference between B.Boyle and them is that Boyle can actually keep up with the league and be an effective 3rd liner. Those other guys can only keep up with the AHL league and be effective there.

I don't think you've watched many of those fighters play. The likes of Gazdic, Bollig and Reaves are no different than McLaren, Devane or Broll. But players like Reaves and Bollig have actually had decent seasons because they were put on 4th lines with other gritty players in roles that suited their strengths and gave them some success. Not put out to pointlessly fight once and then play 2 minutes the rest of the game. There's no reason why we can't have a similar 4th line with a tough guy, a PK center and a grinder on the other wing.

Here's the kicker though - you mention players like Dorsett, Mcleod and Jackman are all decent 4th liners. So why can't we have a similar player on our team? The problem isn't that the team doesn't have goons. The problem is they have no players with any grit or toughness at all.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

I don't think you've watched many of those fighters play. The likes of Gazdic, Bollig and Reaves are no different than McLaren, Devane or Broll. But players like Reaves and Bollig have actually had decent seasons because they were put on 4th lines with other gritty players in roles that suited their strengths and gave them some success. Not put out to pointlessly fight once and then play 2 minutes the rest of the game. There's no reason why we can't have a similar 4th line with a tough guy, a PK center and a grinder on the other wing.

Here's the kicker though - you mention players like Dorsett, Mcleod and Jackman are all decent 4th liners. So why can't we have a similar player on our team? The problem isn't that the team doesn't have goons. The problem is they have no players with any grit or toughness at all.

I actually like the idea of having a 4th line that has ONE tough guy that can play.
But I don't like the idea of having a tough guy that specializes in fighting. While the guys I mentioned as being decent 4th liners (Gazdiac, Bollig, Dorsett) are good to have, they play at a 4th line level from the past.

Why target a 4th liner now if you can't find a good 4th line tough guy? IMO, Brian Boyle and Prust are the perfect two for the job. I want a 4th line tough guy that can play at a 3rd line level (I.e A tough guy that can move up the lineup if needed). Not a guy that is designated to the 4th line role and specializes in fighting. Even though I mentioned those others were decent 4th liners, I wouldn't want most of them on this team. If you can trust that 4th line to be used against the opposing teams 2nd or 3rd line, then I'm all for it. If you use this, you'll see the difference between players like Boyle, Prust, Clutterbuck versus Boll, Weise, etc. Those 3 I first mentioned all prevent shots and defend like 2nd liners but provide an overall effect of a 4th liner.

Meaning that unlike decent 4th liners, who can ONLY put up decent stats against other 4th liners, they can actually provide help else where and actually outplay other teams 4th lines as well.

 

[Bomber0104]

Nobody is denying that teams that fight have success. We are discussing the impact of it. Would Boston have been a good team even if they hadn't fought? Would LA?

The answer should be of course, they are examples of teams filled with good players.

I understand wanting toughness and people that stand up for each other on the roster, but arguing that fights are profoundly important for some teams success seem like crazy talk to me.

If you don't understand the impact of toughness and intimidation in hockey, then it's abundantly obvious you neither understand or have played the North American game.

 

[Beaviz81]

You would be sort of weaklings as Babcock tend to play really disciplined hockey. But it ain't a bad idea looking at this team. You just don't have much toughness anyway.

 

[Nithoniniel]

If you don't understand the impact of toughness and intimidation in hockey, then it's abundantly obvious you neither understand or have played the North American game.

That huge impact that completely prevented the Detroit Red Wings from getting any success, right? Or the Chicago Blackhawks? Two of the most successful teams in the modern era, neither of which was especially physical and stayed away from most of the fighting.

Teams are not successful because of a style. They are successful because of the quality of the team.

I have not played NA hockey. I am pretty sure I understand the game perfectly fine. I will however not resort to insulting posters to try and "prove" that, I'm perfectly fine with using actual arguments instead.

 

[Drew75]

Do you believe this because the anti-fighting Toronto media told you this?

Let's look at the Western Conference and look for "goons" and/or players like Dorsett that patrol the 4th line and routinely fight. Based on last season, the following teams employed at least one player who "knew his role" … (and I am sure that someone will nitpick this list)

Calgary - Bollig
Edmonton - Gazdic
Winnipeg - Peluso
LA - Clifford
Anaheim - Jackman
San Jose - Scott
Columbus - Boll
St Louis - Reaves
Colorado - McLeod
Vancouver - Dorsett
Phoenix - Crombeen
Dallas - Roussel

12 of 14 teams with an identifiable "tough player". Some contributed more like Roussel but all dropped the gloves when called upon.

Hardly extinct wouldn't you say?



Thank you for being one of the few that agrees that it is an effective strategy.

When you say there is no room for the Orrs and McLaren's as part of a team strategy. Riddle me this.

Why are quite a few of the enforcers finding work protecting a team's prospects in the AHL? McLaren and Orr played for the Marlies. Rosehill, Carkner, MacIntyr, Gillies etc have all found work within the development system of players. Sill wasn't resigned in Toronto but is now with Washington. He will either join Wilson and Latta on the big team or help develop the confidence of their key draft picks within the AHL.

If this role is extinct and useless to an organization, why are they still earning pay cheques?

It's about recognizing the early signs of a trend.

These players are finding it harder and harder to land a gig. The days where Orr could get $1million are gone, and when these guys do find something, it's far closer to the league minimum.

The AHL is always the last to change as it is a developmental league with rosters made up of guys 'trying to make a name for themselves'. Within 3-4 years you will see the 'fighters' purged from the NHL, and the AHL will follow suit shortly afterwards.

Yes, in the Western Conference a number of teams are 'keeping up with the Jones'' by bringing in at least one tough guy, but the current top teams such as Chicago and Tampa are going for four possession lines that can play. Soon, you will see teams like Anaheim cut ties with their 'tough guy', and other teams will shortly follow suit. You'll notice that almost all of the tough guys throughout the league are both a) making less than $1million, and b) signed for only 1 or 2 years max. Teams are holding on to them for now because their competition has one, but seeing the success of the teams without them and providing themselves the flexibility to either demote or cut ties with these players in the near future.

You can cling to the old school like Brian Burke, but the fact remains that the game is changing. You may not see it or believe it, and it will be a few years before the role is completely extinct. Teams don't get together and flip a switch, it happens over time. If you have the time, go through the PIM leaders for the past 5 years and see how many 'tough guys' there used to be vs. how many are still active.

In 2010/11 there were 43 players with 100+ penalty minutes. Last year there were 16. I'm not saying the role is already extinct - NHL execs often cling to tradition and take a long time to change (see: analytics).

I for one, however, am glad that the Leafs are finally AHEAD of trends rather than lagging behind them.

 

[Pookie]

That huge impact that completely prevented the Detroit Red Wings from getting any success, right?

Well, Detroit is an interesting example isn't it. When they won their Cup they had Aaron Downey and Darren McCarty available.

Up until about 2010, they replaced them with Brad May. After they let May go and relied on team toughness, they made the playoffs 5 years in a row.

And won a grand total of just 2 playoff series.

Success? Much better than the Leafs but write home fantastic? I'd say the jury is out.

Or the Chicago Blackhawks? Two of the most successful teams in the modern era, neither of which was especially physical and stayed away from most of the fighting.

Of course, Chicago… well, wait a minute… the 2009-2010 Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks had Ben Eager with 120 PIMS…. the 2012-13 Cup Champions had a roster with Bollig and Carcillo. This year's champion team started with Carcillo and traded him. I'd say that those players would be considered physical, no?

Teams are not successful because of a style. They are successful because of the quality of the team.

I'd agree with that.

I think that having teammates that would stick up for you allows one to play with confidence and that contributes to the quality of the team.