Tough guy

[sandysan]

Lol @ 'watch some games pointdexter' (whatever that means?!). You guys might have more success with your arguments if you spent more time trying to actually find some facts and less time misrepresenting counter arguments and characterising anyone who disagrees with you as 'anti-fighting'.

So, sandysan, you felt Brandon Prust was a better player last season than in his first season with the Habs?

seeing as the year before parros Prust was a shell of himself in the playoffs after largely having to carry the entire fighting card, but he played in these playoffs and was pretty good, yeah.

the only fight he really loss last year was Gadzic if I remember right. I think that he's not a goon, he's a good 4th line guy who can play. I didnt see many corey connacher's on his fight card two years ago.

whether he was better or worse is subject to a lot of things other than whether that parros was riding shotgun. but if he gets the discretion to go with someone in his weight class or have to punch up and lose, I'm all for that choice.

if you send out guys to the lions ( like millar moen) then how well do they play on the ir ?

We dont have to dress the enforcer every night, and if we had a guy who could throw and play that would be great, but if you are telling a good middleweight that you have to go with ANYONE because you are the only one who can, we are getting killed.

 

[Monctonscout]

Sure I'd take Engelland. Do you let Weaver walk though, it would be a must in this case.

**** McQuaid...

Engelland played mostly forward last year in Pittsburgh, you can use him on defense in case of injury but full time up front. Would not impact Weaver.

 

[Corncob]

You want the answer?

Dress for an NHL game and listen to the conversations on the ice and the benches.

Your request for quantification is a "straw man".

Didn't realise you were ex-nhl dude, I'll show more respect in future.

 

[Corncob]

if you send out guys to the lions ( like millar moen) then how well do they play on the ir ?

Wait, what? Kevan Millar is a heavyweight now?

 

[sandysan]

Going from Weaver to engelland is a pretty giant leap backwards.

except in size, beef and willingness to go with heavy weights. We've jettisoned murray so right now who is the toughest guy on our back end ? the rookie Tinordi, then who ? Subban ? after that the delta gets worse. did you like to see the bruins going after our forwards at the end of losing games as we stood around ? did you like the dorsett headbutt where all we did was throw up our hands like a bunch of freaking soccer players ?

And engelland can go both ways, perhaps the local gentry will only be happy when we have a team full of Raphy diaz'es and where we get dummied pillar to post. or mabey some more small tissue soft forwards, perhaps we can corner the market on little players.

 

[sandysan]

Wait, what? Kevan Millar is a heavyweight now?

he's apparently out of moen's class.

 

[overlords]

except in size, beef and willingness to go with heavy weights. We've jettisoned murray so right now who is the toughest guy on our back end ? the rookie Tinordi, then who ? Subban ? after that the delta gets worse. did you like to see the bruins going after our forwards at the end of losing games as we stood around ? did you like the dorsett headbutt where all we did was throw up our hands like a bunch of freaking soccer players ?

And engelland can go both ways, perhaps the local gentry will only be happy when we have a team full of Raphy diaz'es and where we get dummied pillar to post. or mabey some more small tissue soft forwards, perhaps we can corner the market on little players.

I enjoyed seeing the habs eliminate the big bad bruins, something only possible because we got murray's useless ass out of the lineup and replaced him with small, frail Nathan Beaulieu

Buying into this pretend notion that you have to have at least one awful hockey player out there is ridiculous. The enforcer role is dying in this sport, and it couldn't happen sooner.

It's ok. Shhh. Shhhhhhhh. It's okay.

 

[JoelWarlord]

I enjoyed seeing the habs eliminate the big bad bruins, something only possible because we got murray's useless ass out of the lineup and replaced him with small, frail Nathan Beaulieu

Be careful, those hits Murray made on Thornton were a big part of the series win

Buying into this pretend notion that you have to have at least one awful hockey player out there is ridiculous. The enforcer role is dying in this sport, and it couldn't happen sooner.

My favourite part was seeing Bournival, Briere, and Weise scoring goals while Boston's "best fourth line in hockey" were taking penalties, conceding goals, and squirting water bottles.

Even the Bruins are leaving their goon behind. Every time we sign a goon and he's horrible just like all the nerds said he would be, there's discussion about the next useless goon to sign. The nerds say he's useless. But this goon will be better, the last one wasn't a real heavyweight!

 

[Habaneros]

I seen this vid the other day,maybe we could sign Puffy Bird?

Look at the intimidation ,chirps too...

 

[Hoople]

Not everything can be 100% factual, but people could make arguments that contain actual examples or evidence rather than completely baseless assertions.

For instance, SouthernHab made the assertion in a previous thread that Parros playing against Boston stopped Milan Lucic throwing any cheapshots because he was 'scared that Parros' would jump him and beat him up. I refuted this by (a) pointing out Lucic's long fightcard against legitimate heavyweights and stating that it's quite unlikely that Parros gives him sleepless nights and (b) pointing out that Parros is not that kind of enforcer and challenging SouthernHab to give just one example of Parros doing something like that in his long nhl career. Following which SouthernHab slunk away, but yet here he is again in this thread repeating the same claim and still without any evidence of any kind at all.

sandysan made the claim just now that having Parros on the roster makes Prust a better player. Clearly this is an opinion, but I think most people's opinions would be that Prust was significantly worse last season than the season before (and that this was completely unrelated to Parros). Sandysan could try to find some evidence that Prust is better when an enforcer is on the roster. But, for instance, if you look at Prust's career season with the Rangers. They signed Derek Boogard to be an enforcer that season, but Boogard tragically only played 22 games for the Rangers and none after the start of December. Of Prust's 29 points that season, only 6 came in games where Boogard was dressed. If anything the actual empirical evidence is more in favour of Prust historically playing better when the responsibility is on him to do the enforcing/protecting/whatever you want to call it.

You made the claim just upthread that having Parros 'calmed down the cheapshots'. This should be an easy thing to back up with at least some kind of evidence (if not 100% fact because, again, we're depending somewhat on subjectives). If teams with enforcers get cheapshotted less than teams without, there should be an observable trend that you can show over a number of seasons showing that to be the case. Any reason why no-one has ever done that?

Nice job.

Take my context, remove it, insert your context, attribute it to me and then make your arguments from there.

You can try to make the assertion that our discussions are "absolutes". Sorry man. No absolutes. No single player can absolutely do anything in a hockey game.

If you falsely accuse someone of stating an absolute to bolster you ignorance filled assertion, does that meet the requirements of a straw man?

 

[Corncob]

did you like to see the bruins going after our forwards at the end of losing games as we stood around ? did you like the dorsett headbutt where all we did was throw up our hands like a bunch of freaking soccer players ?

So now we've gone very quickly from advocating having an enforcer to play regular season games against the 'Bruins, Sens and Leafs' to having an enforcer and putting them on the ice in the third period of an elimination game in the Conference Finals?

 

[Corncob]

Nice job.

Take my context, remove it, insert your context, attribute it to me and then make your arguments from there.

Pretty sure I preserved your context. Feel free to clarify though.

 

[Hoople]

I enjoyed seeing the habs eliminate the big bad bruins, something only possible because we got murray's useless ass out of the lineup and replaced him with small, frail Nathan Beaulieu

Buying into this pretend notion that you have to have at least one awful hockey player out there is ridiculous. The enforcer role is dying in this sport, and it couldn't happen sooner.

It's ok. Shhh. Shhhhhhhh. It's okay.

Murray didn't play against the Rangers and we won, right?

Shhh. Let's keep that secret to ourselves.

It ****ing sucked that we lost our scapegoat and were forced to look elsewhere.

 

[sandysan]

I enjoyed seeing the habs eliminate the big bad bruins, something only possible because we got murray's useless ass out of the lineup and replaced him with small, frail Nathan Beaulieu

Buying into this pretend notion that you have to have at least one awful hockey player out there is ridiculous. The enforcer role is dying in this sport, and it couldn't happen sooner.

It's ok. Shhh. Shhhhhhhh. It's okay.

So much better to sign castaway midgets to play defense for us, and when guys like pageau two years ago ride the blue with impunity we can plead to the refs for help.

and its not "an awful" player, its a player who meets a team need. With a 6 of our top 9 capable of shopping at the children's place and a defense where diaz fit in we need someone to be able to clear the front of the net and win physical puck battles.
What we have are guys who cant win battles which leads to our only way to break the other teams offensive puck possesion stats is by clogging the lanes and hope for fortuitous bounces off blocks.

And enjoy the win against the bs, is the plan to persistently hope for average or less than average goaltending as we persistently get outshot and hope to counterpunch?

 

[sandysan]

So now we've gone very quickly from advocating having an enforcer to play regular season games against the 'Bruins, Sens and Leafs' to having an enforcer and putting them on the ice in the third period of an elimination game in the Conference Finals?

When you are up by a pair late in the game, thats a time not to? no its so much more civilzed to put our little guys out there to see them double teamed by players who individually could dispatch them with ease, and then throw our hands in the air in the direction of the refs.

if you are fine with teams taking liberties against our little players with impunity, just come out and say it. Mabey we can invoke the micheal farber defense of all skating back to the bench like dogs with our tails between our legs.

yeah that honors the CH.

 

[Corncob]

When you are up by a pair late in the game, thats a time not to?

Yes, that's a time not to, because that would involve having them dressed for the game in the first place.

Beggars belief when the fourth line (of various combinations) contributed so much in the playoffs, that you would have quite happily sacrificed one of them to have Parros sitting on the bench.

 

[sandysan]

Yes, that's a time not to, because that would involve having them dressed for the game in the first place.

Beggars belief when the fourth line (of various combinations) contributed so much in the playoffs, that you would have quite happily sacrificed one of them to have Parros sitting on the bench.

Hes not taking time away from players, he plays 5 min a game. Its a good thing that the habs had absolutely no players out there who were not contributing and that swapping an ineffective one dinensional nothing for a one dmensional pugilist is such a detriment.

and if say in round one game 2-3 something goes down and we get dummied ( like ottawa) you are right the best response is to stay the course, keep the same bench and ask "please sir can I have another?".

 

[vokiel]

Engelland played mostly forward last year in Pittsburgh, you can use him on defense in case of injury but full time up front. Would not impact Weaver.

You play him up front instead of who? Wiese? Prust? Bournival? Moen? Does not compute...

Unless there are injuries or you're not really playing him at all safe for a few games of course and I don't think he would sign for that.

 

[izzy75]

Murray didn't play against the Rangers and we won, right?

Shhh. Let's keep that secret to ourselves.

It ****ing sucked that we lost our scapegoat and were forced to look elsewhere.

Thank God someone brought this up because I was going to shoot myself in the &%^&&^$% head listening to another delusional round of: "Murray is the reason why we always suck" talk.

 

[Monctonscout]

You play him up front instead of who? Wiese? Prust? Bournival? Moen? Does not compute...

Unless there are injuries or you're not really playing him at all safe for a few games of course and I don't think he would sign for that.

If you sign him the plan is to play 40-50 games.

I think Moen could be moved in the next few weeks.

 

[izzy75]

Said it before, and I'll say it again... I just want a young, nut job with something to prove to be inserted into the lineup. Kind of like a Ryan White before the coaches (maybe fans) turned him into whatever the hell he currently plays like now.

 

[Corncob]

Its a good thing that the habs had absolutely no players out there who were not contributing and that swapping an ineffective one dinensional nothing for a one dmensional pugilist is such a detriment.

Who would you have left out in favour of Parros in the first game of the playoffs? Briere, Bournival or Weise.

Pretty sure most people at the point would have gone for Weise, the 'ineffective one dimensional nothing' who scored the winning goal and contributed 7 points in 16 games throughout the playoffs.

 

[vokiel]

If you sign him the plan is to play 40-50 games.

I think Moen could be moved in the next few weeks.

I think moving Moen would be a must yes.

I just don't see the habs signing a defense man to play the role of a forward enforcer with a plan to get rid of another respected forward in the locker room in the following weeks. It's seems unlikely.

How about first get something for Moen, then we'll see if Engelland wants in? (Or just sign Engelland instead of Weaver)

 

[sandysan]

Who would you have left out in favour of Parros in the first game of the playoffs? Briere, Bournival or Weise.

Pretty sure most people at the point would have gone for Weise, the 'ineffective one dimensional nothing' who scored the winning goal and contributed 7 points in 16 games throughout the playoffs.

do we have to dress an enforcer for game 1 ? No. We could have had briere bournival or weise out there.

but having one under contract gives us options. We get to chose whether to dress him of pressbox him. If in game one, things go south as they can, what choice do we have ? Send out one of our roster players to be outmatched ?

he takes up almost zero ice time, is cheap and it is way way better to have him and not need him than need him and not have him. We are, and have been and likely will be the smallest team in the league. Thinking that other teams wont exploit this is insanity. As they exploit it, if there is no pushback the "acceptable line" gets further and further away from out favor.

Weise was good, so was rene bourque for most of the playoffs and against a team like the rangers whose toughest players were carcillo and dorsett I'm fine with going with our middleweights. But not all teams, and few from our division, are similarly constructed. if the message you want to send to our diminutive forwards is " you are on your own. good luck" I happen to think that is a terrible message.

 

[Corncob]

do we have to dress an enforcer for game 1 ? No. We could have had briere bournival or weise out there.

Well, of course that's what most normal people think. But if you don't have one dressed for game one, why would you dress him for an elimination game in the conference finals, which is where you started.

but having one under contract gives us options. We get to chose whether to dress him of pressbox him. If in game one, things go south as they can, what choice do we have ? Send out one of our roster players to be outmatched ?

But we did have one under contract when the events that you referenced against the Bruins and Rangers happened. You can't say stuff like "did you like to see the bruins going after our forwards at the end of losing games as we stood around ? did you like the dorsett headbutt where all we did was throw up our hands like a bunch of freaking soccer players ?" as a justification for signing a goon when we already had Parros under contract. He just wasn't anywhere near good enough to be given a place in the team to influence those events.

That's actually a better anti-goon argument than it is a pro-goon one.