Team toughness

[Doctyl]

if only we had brashear

 

[Doctyl]

i dont get why people who ***** about more toughness also ***** about dom moore dorsett falk powe and asham being rangers. you cant have a team of lucics, dubis, callys, browns, backess and ovis. it doesnt happen. that type of player with toughness skill and leadership is incredibly rare, yet you people act like they grow on trees and demand sather get them.

 

[surf]

I would love to see a pole on our forum of the ages of people who want more toughness and those who want to turn the other cheek and have a PP..I think it would be fascinating..


I'm guessing majority of those who want a rough tough team that set the tone would be older and the younger kids want the PP

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I would love to see a pole on our forum of the ages of people who want more toughness and those who want to turn the other cheek and have a PP..I think it would be fascinating..


I'm guessing majority of those who want a rough tough team that set the tone would be older and the younger kids want the PP

I found a pole.

Also, I think the majority of fans wants a player or three that play tough, stand up for guys, but don't take idiotic penalties that hinder the team. Because that's just idiocy.

 

[Doctyl]

I would love to see a pole on our forum of the ages of people who want more toughness and those who want to turn the other cheek and have a PP..I think it would be fascinating..


I'm guessing majority of those who want a rough tough team that set the tone would be older and the younger kids want the PP

i dont think there is anyone who does not want a tough team of HOCKEY PLAYERS. however finding players like lucic or brown or cally of backes or ovi is nearly impossible. these players dont typically get traded and dont walk (at least when theyre in their primes). no one would rather turn the other cheek, but in the caps game you have to take the ref yelling at the rangers and being completely on brouwers side into account. its not like we would be forfeiting a pp, its more like do you really want to put the most dangerous pp in the nhl on the ice for 5+ minutes in the 3rd with a 2 goal lead? no one wants a soft team but some people dont seem to realize that tough players who can actually play are hard to find. this isnt an era where you can waste roster spaces on goons.

 

[savebyrichter94]

1) The person I'm responding to implied that having a goon would act as a deterrent. I'm disagreeing.

2) The text in bold makes zero sense. I'm calling the deterrent effect of an enforcer a myth. You respond that my assertion is a myth. Wouldn't you simply say that what I'm calling a myth is actually true?

3) Where did I suggest a team sticking up for each other is a bad thing? Standing up and taking a penalty on retaliation in that situation is a TERRIBLE idea. By all accounts, the majority of our players wanted at Brouwer, but AV held them back.

In other cases, a teammate stepping up and challenging an offender DEFINITELY has it's point. Early in a game, when a game is out of reach, really, most situations that isn't protecting a 2 goal lead against the team with the best powerplay in the league when the team hasn't won a point in THREE GAMES STRAIGHT. That win was mandatory. We needed out of a tail spin.

Don't think that this team "tucks tail". They're grown men, professional atheletes, hockey players no next. Do you really want to suggest that men who happily throw themselves in front of frozen, vulcanized rubber launched at 100 miles per hour on a regular basis are afraid of getting into a fight in a situation where NEITHER participant has any foot traction whatsoever?

4) And I really hate to be so petty, but it's damn near impossible to take a poster seriously when their username ends in "420".

1) I didn't realize you were responding to someone who actually felt that way. I didn't see him say that. I thought you were implying that anyone who thinks we need to be a tougher team or dress someone capable of doing the heavy lifting fight wise also thought players would never get hit or hurt if we did so. Hence me calling it a myth. Sorry for the confusion.

2) I clearly stated that sometimes you need to pick your spots but allowing things to go unanswered altogether is the wrong way to go in my opinion. Yea, we needed a win but there are ways of responding without taking penalties too. Nobody even attempted to lay a big hit on Brouwer or one of his teammates. If you don't believe the hit was intentional that's fine but what about the instances in other games where it clearly is and we do nothing?

3) If they are not afraid then why don't they do it? What about all the times when we are losing or the game is out of reach and they fail to respond? What's their excuse then? Have you also forgotten Girardi standing there watching Gabby get owned by Carcillo? Turning the other cheek seems to be part of the Ranger culture and I would argue that other teams are aware of it and look to exploit it.

4) You are petty and if having "420" in my name means you don't take me seriously I really don't care. That says a lot more about you then it does me and makes you sound incredibly ignorant. You do realize that some of the most successful and intelligent people on the planet also smoke don't you? If not then that's your problem, not mine.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Please just stop while you're able to. you don't understand that throwing huge hits isn't just cut and dry. Easily the refs could have called it because of the prior incident. Plus, the team played smart instead of like meatheads. You aren't showing your hockey knowledge. Players failing to "respond" relies on many other circumstances. As for your fourth point, it has no relevance, especially the end

 

[aufheben]

IIRC the players were fuming and AV (smartly) kept them on a leash. Annnnd, shutout.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

IIRC the players were fuming and AV (smartly) kept them on a leash. Annnnd, shutout.

Yes. And that was the smart hockey move that helped secure a win sans idiocy.

 

[Doctyl]

IIRC the players were fuming and AV (smartly) kept them on a leash. Annnnd, shutout.

people would rather see them lose and fight than win and play smart

 

[savebyrichter94]

i dont think there is anyone who does not want a tough team of HOCKEY PLAYERS. however finding players like lucic or brown or cally of backes or ovi is nearly impossible. these players dont typically get traded and dont walk (at least when theyre in their primes). no one would rather turn the other cheek, but in the caps game you have to take the ref yelling at the rangers and being completely on brouwers side into account. its not like we would be forfeiting a pp, its more like do you really want to put the most dangerous pp in the nhl on the ice for 5+ minutes in the 3rd with a 2 goal lead? no one wants a soft team but some people dont seem to realize that tough players who can actually play are hard to find. this isnt an era where you can waste roster spaces on goons.

Its impossible to have a whole team of those guys because they are superstars! Are you really suggesting that there aren't guys out there a notch or two below them that can help match what they bring? If they are so hard to find how come some teams dress more than one of these types of players. That would seem to suggest they are out there and that we are incapable of finding them. All it would take is making a conscious effort to identify these types of players either through the draft or through trades/free agency like all the other teams who have guys like that did. The Rangers for whatever reason never seem to do so. We can't find a guy like Hartnell, Simmonds, Nolan, Reaves, King, Clifford etc.? Is that really such an unrealistic expectation?

Guys like Asham and Brashear aren't what we need. We need more guys who are proactive and who play with an edge, guys who take the body and have the size to make it count. If they are willing to drop the gloves that's a bonus. The age of the goon is gone but the age of tough, physical play and sticking up for teammates when someone takes a run at them will never end!

 

[Lion Hound]

Tie Domi, Bob Probert, Tiger Williams with a dash of the Son of Sam couldn't have prevented those hits on Nash.

That's funny, I don't remember guys taking hits to the head like that in the mid 90's when Joey Kocur was around. Guess there were no head hunters back then?


And maybe those hits were unpreventable, however an answer to those hits was prevented because I guess it's for the better if the team turns cheek to get the W. It's not like they need those extra goals that a guy like Nash would provide anyway. Let the powerplay get r done!

 

[Doctyl]

Its impossible to have a whole team of those guys because they are superstars! Are you really suggesting that there aren't guys out there a notch or two below them that can help match what they bring? If they are so hard to find how come some teams dress more than one of these types of players. That would seem to suggest they are out there and that we are incapable of finding them. All it would take is making a conscious effort to identify these types of players either through the draft or through trades/free agency like all the other teams who have guys like that did. The Rangers for whatever reason never seem to do so. We can't find a guy like Hartnell, Simmonds, Nolan, Reaves, King, Clifford etc.? Is that really such an unrealistic expectation?

Guys like Asham and Brashear aren't what we need. We need more guys who are proactive and who play with an edge, guys who take the body and have the size to make it count. If they are willing to drop the gloves that's a bonus. The age of the goon is gone but the age of tough, physical play and sticking up for teammates when someone takes a run at them will never end!

they arent easy to find and draft at all

 

[Doctyl]

That's funny, I don't remember guys taking hits to the head like that in the mid 90's when Joey Kocur was around. Guess there were no head hunters back then?


And maybe those hits were unpreventable, however an answer to those hits was prevented because I guess it's for the better if the team turns cheek to get the W. It's not like they need those extra goals that a guy like Nash would provide anyway. Let the powerplay get r done!

attacking stuart (i think thats who it was) after he injured nash wouldnt make him come back any faster.

 

[Lion Hound]

Yes, because teams with enforcers never have their players hit.

It's a myth. It's an old myth. Dirty players don't care who's on the other team because, guess what: They don't have to fight them.

That's right. They can simply not drop the gloves.

Look at Lucic and Landeskog. Lando just doesn't fight him. Says "nah." Lucic tries to goad him, takes an extra minor and a game misconduct. Game is suddenly out of reach for Boston.

The age of enforcers is dead and gone. Fighting is part of the game, but it's not the massive factor it may have once been.

Shows how out of touch your whole thought pattern is there. Bringing up one incident between one of the worst and softest teams in the league over the past 5 years against arguably THE toughest team in the league in the B's. Mind you a team that has 3 1st place finishes and a cup in the past 5 years, while the Avs made the playoffs once in the last 5 years. How's that Landeskog PP doing?

Since the age of the enforcer is gone the B's must be the NHL anomaly.

 

[Lion Hound]

attacking stuart (i think thats who it was) after he injured nash wouldnt make him come back any faster.

Attacking Lucic last year maybe would have made Stuart think twice before hitting him high.

 

[savebyrichter94]

Please just stop while you're able to. you don't understand that throwing huge hits isn't just cut and dry. Easily the refs could have called it because of the prior incident. Plus, the team played smart instead of like meatheads. You aren't showing your hockey knowledge. Players failing to "respond" relies on many other circumstances. As for your fourth point, it has no relevance, especially the end

You don't understand that this is hockey and hitting is within the rules? So because Brouwer "accidentally" hits one of our players in the head we aren't allowed to take the body for the remainder of the game on not only him but any other player on his team? Are players incapable of hitting hard and clean? How come no other team seems to have a problem doing so? And you are questioning my hockey knowledge?

I didn't say they should act like meatheads. I clearly stated that you have to pick your spots sometimes and that there are more ways to respond than just fighting. Allowing things to go completely unanswered sends the wrong message! Especially when you're a team known throughout history for being soft and having a penchant for turning the other cheek!

Finally, how does my 4th point have no relevance when he directly stated that my opinion holds no merit because I have 420 in my name? I countered with the fact that if that were true then how come so many successful people with opinions of merit also smoke? If you're gonna chime in and try to flame me at least possess basic reading comprehension skills!

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Because it isn't about hockey at all. You retaliating to it shows that you can't stay on objective. The team and Alain did the smart and right thing by keeping themselves in check and played their game. Again, your clamor for a big hit is not for that incident. Upon the officials pretty much ready to jump on New York, they did the right thin by not playing that way because you know they would've been compromised because the officials would have seen it as intent for revenge. Especially with Rooney in there. Also, I don't understand why you piss and moan when the team won. That's the ultimate payback. New York wins the game because despite the bull crap by Brouwer and Washington, they still got beaten. At no point did I point out an failure to have the capacity to make that sort of play, just that it may not have been smart for the team and game'a status.

 

[savebyrichter94]

they arent easy to find and draft at all

It might not be easy so to speak but is it really that hard or too much to ask? Here's a question for you Mr. Hockey Knowledge, name me one player of that type that we drafted that contributed at the NHL level for this team? Mcilrath might be that guy but he hasn't even played a game yet. I would think that a franchise that's been around since the inception of the league and possesses the wealth of resources that we do would be capable of finding at least a few over the years.

Why is this franchise incapable of doing so when other teams can find them not only in the early rounds but the later rounds as well? How come a team like LA has guys like Clifford, King, Nolan, Greene and Brown if its so difficult to find and unrealistic to expect? I guess they just got lucky? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with having a competent front office and scouts? Both of which are things this team is known for having trouble with? You make it sound like its nearly impossible when in fact there are teams who have multiple players that play that style which would suggest it really is not.

 

[DudMan28]

This whole notion that Nash wouldn't have been hit in the head if we had "enforcers" on our team is ridiculous.

You think Brad Stuart is afraid of someone tugging on his jersey and slapping him in the back of the head a few times? Fights in the NHL today, are for the most part, laughable.

 

[savebyrichter94]

Because it isn't about hockey at all. You retaliating to it shows that you can't stay on objective. The team and Alain did the smart and right thing by keeping themselves in check and played their game. Again, your clamor for a big hit is not for that incident. Upon the officials pretty much ready to jump on New York, they did the right thin by not playing that way because you know they would've been compromised because the officials would have seen it as intent for revenge. Especially with Rooney in there. Also, I don't understand why you piss and moan when the team won. That's the ultimate payback. New York wins the game because despite the bull crap by Brouwer and Washington, they still got beaten. At no point did I point out an failure to have the capacity to make that sort of play, just that it may not have been smart for the team and game'a status.

First of all, it had nothing to do with you yet you tried to piggyback on it and flame me. He's the one who brought it up to discredit me so how am I the one incapable of staying on topic? Secondly, where did I piss and moan? This is a thread about toughness not the post game thread which I was very positive in. It appears you're the one incapable of staying on topic. Not to mention that you tried to bash me and laugh at me when you aren't even capable of forming coherent thoughts, constructing complete sentences or proper spelling! Don't agree with me, that's fine. You can either move on or ignore me but don't inject yourself into a discussion just to try and be a smart ass when you fail at basic things like having a grasp on the English language

 

[savebyrichter94]

people would rather see them lose and fight than win and play smart

Another completely ridiculous and childish statement. Not to mention its completely untrue! How about wanting to see them win while also not allowing teams to continually take liberties with our star players? Is that allowed? Give me a break with this fabricated hyperbole.

 

[savebyrichter94]

attacking stuart (i think thats who it was) after he injured nash wouldnt make him come back any faster.

Which is something that nobody said so what's your point? Oh wait, there wasn't one.

 

[Callagraves]

1) I didn't realize you were responding to someone who actually felt that way. I didn't see him say that. I thought you were implying that anyone who thinks we need to be a tougher team or dress someone capable of doing the heavy lifting fight wise also thought players would never get hit or hurt if we did so. Hence me calling it a myth. Sorry for the confusion.

2) I clearly stated that sometimes you need to pick your spots but allowing things to go unanswered altogether is the wrong way to go in my opinion. Yea, we needed a win but there are ways of responding without taking penalties too. Nobody even attempted to lay a big hit on Brouwer or one of his teammates. If you don't believe the hit was intentional that's fine but what about the instances in other games where it clearly is and we do nothing?

3) If they are not afraid then why don't they do it? What about all the times when we are losing or the game is out of reach and they fail to respond? What's their excuse then? Have you also forgotten Girardi standing there watching Gabby get owned by Carcillo? Turning the other cheek seems to be part of the Ranger culture and I would argue that other teams are aware of it and look to exploit it.

4) You are petty and if having "420" in my name means you don't take me seriously I really don't care. That says a lot more about you then it does me and makes you sound incredibly ignorant. You do realize that some of the most successful and intelligent people on the planet also smoke don't you? If not then that's your problem, not mine.

I won't pretend to know the Rangers personally, so I can't tell you the exact reason that players don't risk taking an instigator, or worse, a 3rd man in. I'd have to guess that a fear of penalties, combined with a recent history of a coach who would happily bench the hell out of you if you made a decision he didn't like kept the players from playing cowboy. But to suggest these guys are more afraid of a fist fight than an NHL slapshot is like telling me a stuntman is afraid to drive on the freeway. Even more when you remember Girardi force-feeding fists to Scott Hartnell, I doubt he's afraid of Dan Carcillo.


As for your username, I couldn't possible care less who smokes/if you do. It's not really any of my business, but when you include drug references in a username, you're setting up a certain image for yourself. That image happens to be of a perpetual 17 year old who probably has a scarface poster thumbtacked to the wall over a big stack of Maxim magazines.

Also just a heads up, that may be against the board rules. I haven't reported you or anything, but I thought you might wanna look that up.

 

[savebyrichter94]

I won't pretend to know the Rangers personally, so I can't tell you the exact reason that players don't risk taking an instigator, or worse, a 3rd man in. I'd have to guess that a fear of penalties, combined with a recent history of a coach who would happily bench the hell out of you if you made a decision he didn't like kept the players from playing cowboy. But to suggest these guys are more afraid of a fist fight than an NHL slapshot is like telling me a stuntman is afraid to drive on the freeway. Even more when you remember Girardi force-feeding fists to Scott Hartnell, I doubt he's afraid of Dan Carcillo.


As for your username, I couldn't possible care less who smokes/if you do. It's not really any of my business, but when you include drug references in a username, you're setting up a certain image for yourself. That image happens to be of a perpetual 17 year old who probably has a scarface poster thumbtacked to the wall over a big stack of Maxim magazines.

Also just a heads up, that may be against the board rules. I haven't reported you or anything, but I thought you might wanna look that up.

Tortorella was the coach of this team 2 seasons ago when we lead the league in fighting majors so I don't buy any of that as an excuse. Girardi fighting Hartnell has nothing to do with Carcillo going after Gabby. He failed to step up when the star player of our team was getting pummeled. He didn't pound on Hartnell until he realized the error he made the previous season. I also don't think it was a coincidence that he didn't do so until we had a team that dressed multiple players willing to stand up for teammates and drop the gloves. This would seem to support my point that having players like we've been discussing raises the battle level, makes the team a more tight knit group and sends a message not only to other teams but to every player on our own team that we don't allow opposing players to take runs at our guys.

Now when it comes to my username, if you couldn't possibly care less and feel its none of your business then why did you bring up? What's even more hilarious is that you go on to describe, in great detail, some ridiculous, contrived and woefully unimaginative description of what 420 implies. Seems like a waste of time and energy for someone who claims to not care and who, by their own admission, has no business commenting on it. The real issue hear seems to be you can't look past something so trivial as having 420 in a username which says all I need to know about you and your opinion.

Bill Maher is a pretty well known smoker paid millions to share his opinion and he is nothing like the childish stereotype you described. That's just one example out of many. If the first thing that enters your mind when reading 420 is 17 year old boys then that says a lot about you.

As for it being against the rules, nobody has ever said anything to me about it before and I imagine if it was that somebody would have. If it is then it is but your lame attempt to bring it to light would again seem like a waste of time and energy for someone who so adamantly insists he couldn't care less!