Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
- - - - -

Time To Get A Real Enforcer


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
133 replies to this topic

Poll: Time To Get A Real Enforcer (187 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think the canucks need to get players like Odjick,Tiger,Brashear,Snepts,Fraser ,Rypien again?

  1. yes, the NHL still has room for goons (98 votes [52.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.41%

  2. no, the NHL is a skilled league now (89 votes [47.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.59%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#121 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 25 August 2012 - 10:38 AM

Torres was and is a fu*king beauty.

Haters hate on.


Torres was and is out of control................I never saw him stick up for anyone.............show us the evidence of him being any more than a guy unbalanced.
Kevin.jpg

#122 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 25 August 2012 - 11:16 AM

With all the ice-time Raymond gets, I'd much rather replace that with a tough guy who has a little bit of skill. Thinking guys similar to Asham.

Just overall sick of seeing this team hang their heads in shame every time someone plays dirty.

Fight fire with fire.
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

http://forum.canucks...in-this-change/

#123 Drop Em

Drop Em

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 25 August 2012 - 09:53 PM

Yeah, but fighting isn't a postive. It does nothing but give you a five minute penalty. Should we also go out and find someone that takes a lot of 2 minute penalties?


What? You do realize in a fight that both guys get 5 minute penalties right, so it's not like your putting your team shorthanded? ..................and even though your last statement makes even less sense, we already have enough guys who take 2 minute penalties. What we need is a couple of guys who protect our skilled players and aren't afraid to try and intimidate and make a statement to the the other team. I'd rather be proactive than reactive.

#124 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,262 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 25 August 2012 - 11:27 PM

What? You do realize in a fight that both guys get 5 minute penalties right, so it's not like your putting your team shorthanded? ..................and even though your last statement makes even less sense, we already have enough guys who take 2 minute penalties. What we need is a couple of guys who protect our skilled players and aren't afraid to try and intimidate and make a statement to the the other team. I'd rather be proactive than reactive.



Isn't the roll of an enforcer to react to the actions of the other team?

If the enforcer is being proactive, then he'd be out there starting something, and would there not be the chance that he winds up putting his team down a man because of something like a roughing penalty?

If he's being a deterrent, merely because of his presence on the end of the bench, that's fine, assuming the other side gives a hoot. This being said, if the other team is going to be intimidated merely by this guy potentially being on the ice, then there's a pretty good chance that they aren't that tough of a team in the first place.

How much ice time should these one or two guys get? In your view, are they 4th liners, or do they play top-9 minutes? If they are playing top-6 minutes (to better protect the team's skilled players), what does that do to the team's production? True, what does it do to the team's production to have the Canucks' skilled players shut down by the physical play of the other team? In response I'd say, what good does it do if the Canucks' enforcer takes an instigator penalty to go along with his fighting major? As the Sedins don't normally kill penalties, they're off the ice for two minutes (or less). For the time the enforcer in the box serving the major penalty, who is then looking after the Sedins?

I'm all in favour of more team toughness. however, I do not see the need for a guy who is solely an enforcer. If the Canucks had an enforcer (or two) last season, are you so certain that Sedin wouldn't have gotten a concussion? The cheap-shot he took from Keith was a reaction in the heat of the moment. Even if the Canucks had an enforcer on the ice at that time, there is likely nothing that he could have done to prevent it. Sure, he would then have pounded on Keith after the fact, and we'd all feel tougher because of it, but that wouldn't have made Sedin any less concussed, would it?

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#125 canucklehead44

canucklehead44

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,640 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 03

Posted 26 August 2012 - 12:37 AM

Guillaume Desbiens seemed unwilling to fight during his first tour of duty with the Canucks. He was much more willing during his call-up last year with the Calgary Flames.

If he's willing and holds his own like his time with the Flames, he will be in the NHL with the Canucks in the upcoming season.


Good point. He did have a couple of tussles though but with the flames he had 5 fights in 10 games which is pretty crazy. His only loss last year was to Matt Kassian who could very well become the league's heavy weight champ. He hasn't lost a fight in the NHL and has beat guys like Godard and Ivanans in the minors.
Sig too big.

#126 Drop Em

Drop Em

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 26 August 2012 - 12:44 AM

Isn't the roll of an enforcer to react to the actions of the other team?

If the enforcer is being proactive, then he'd be out there starting something, and would there not be the chance that he winds up putting his team down a man because of something like a roughing penalty?

If he's being a deterrent, merely because of his presence on the end of the bench, that's fine, assuming the other side gives a hoot. This being said, if the other team is going to be intimidated merely by this guy potentially being on the ice, then there's a pretty good chance that they aren't that tough of a team in the first place.

How much ice time should these one or two guys get? In your view, are they 4th liners, or do they play top-9 minutes? If they are playing top-6 minutes (to better protect the team's skilled players), what does that do to the team's production? True, what does it do to the team's production to have the Canucks' skilled players shut down by the physical play of the other team? In response I'd say, what good does it do if the Canucks' enforcer takes an instigator penalty to go along with his fighting major? As the Sedins don't normally kill penalties, they're off the ice for two minutes (or less). For the time the enforcer in the box serving the major penalty, who is then looking after the Sedins?

I'm all in favour of more team toughness. however, I do not see the need for a guy who is solely an enforcer. If the Canucks had an enforcer (or two) last season, are you so certain that Sedin wouldn't have gotten a concussion? The cheap-shot he took from Keith was a reaction in the heat of the moment. Even if the Canucks had an enforcer on the ice at that time, there is likely nothing that he could have done to prevent it. Sure, he would then have pounded on Keith after the fact, and we'd all feel tougher because of it, but that wouldn't have made Sedin any less concussed, would it?

regards,
G.


No, the role of the enforcer is not strictly to react to the actions of the other team. His role is to make sure that no liberties are taken, to handle any situations when liberties are taken and to provide a physical element and energy to the team when it's needed. We've
seen how being reactionary only has turned out so far......because usually there's no reaction at all. Sad!

You're right, there is a chance that an enforcer could put the Canucks down a man, but so what? Sometimes you have to send a message that you're not going to be f'd with and if it costs you being shorthanded a couple of times during the season, who in the hell cares? I would take potentially giving up a power play goal in the middle of December to prove that you're not going to be intimidated or pushed around and that you're going to dish it more than you're going to take it. Plus, more often than not, the physical penalties get killed off more than the hooking and holding penalties.

An enforcer isn't just to fight the other teams tough guy. He's also out there to make the other team understand that he'll be going after their best players if his best players are targeted. The Canucks skill players need to know that they can play their own game without having to worry about getting physically manhandled while also knowing that they have somebody who will have their back no matter what. Plus, you don't need him to play with Sedins permanently but can take a shift with them when necessary.

So, you don't think that the possibility of Keith getting his ass kicked wouldn't have made him think twice of cheap shotting Sedin? I happen to think that he'd think twice about getting his faced punched in. Also, there was no response from anyone. That's disgusting. A good enforcer would have made sure that someone on the Hawks would have paid a price. Again, if the Canucks had some protection, maybe somebody goes after Toews or Kane or another star player on the Hawks. An eye for an eye isn't a bad thing. Do you really think that Odjick wouldn't have gone after or gotten somebody back in response to what happened to Sedin?

Finally, this poll is BS anyways. None of the guys listed were goons. This team needs an Odjick, Brashear, Fraser type of player. All guys who were feared pugilists but that could also take a regular shift.

#127 Phil_314

Phil_314

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,715 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 09

Posted 26 August 2012 - 12:57 AM

No to the pure enforcer (though I liked seeing guys like Rosehill firing punches like a machine, his days in the NHL should be done)

Wouldn't mind Bringing Back Bitz though! Guys like him can really make an impact if utilized correctly, as strong fore checkers with the ability bear down on defenders with speed, laying down big hits, causing turnovers and just providing energy.

With the bulking up of recent championship teams and contenders (Boston, LA both have big, mean guys; Philly's also pretty physical bunch, Sharks also bulked up physically with Burish and Stuart joining that group, and while they may have been discounted Detroit's got Tootoo, Kronwall, Brendan Smith, etc. who can also lay down the body) it's necessary to have the physical broadness in more players to counteract the sheer physical toll taken by the body from so many hits.

More importantly, players should be able to either lay down the hits yourself (with the bigger role players) or factor significantly in other areas (by scoring lots, killing penalties, blocking shots, stopping pucks for goalies... etc.) for these role players to be valuable to their respective teams.

However, fighting alone is not one of the ways for players (goons) to prove their worth, and definitely not in the playoffs. Guys who have tough knuckles but not soft hands or other hockey skills belong at home in the playoffs or at best in the press box, not dressed for important games.

Edited by MessiNacity10, 26 August 2012 - 01:00 AM.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.


Jesus LOVES YOU!
2012, meet Matthew 24:36-47!

14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.


#128 Bodee

Bodee

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,257 posts
  • Joined: 26-May 11

Posted 26 August 2012 - 05:31 AM

No, the role of the enforcer is not strictly to react to the actions of the other team. His role is to make sure that no liberties are taken, to handle any situations when liberties are taken and to provide a physical element and energy to the team when it's needed. We've
seen how being reactionary only has turned out so far......because usually there's no reaction at all. Sad!

You're right, there is a chance that an enforcer could put the Canucks down a man, but so what? Sometimes you have to send a message that you're not going to be f'd with and if it costs you being shorthanded a couple of times during the season, who in the hell cares? I would take potentially giving up a power play goal in the middle of December to prove that you're not going to be intimidated or pushed around and that you're going to dish it more than you're going to take it. Plus, more often than not, the physical penalties get killed off more than the hooking and holding penalties.

An enforcer isn't just to fight the other teams tough guy. He's also out there to make the other team understand that he'll be going after their best players if his best players are targeted. The Canucks skill players need to know that they can play their own game without having to worry about getting physically manhandled while also knowing that they have somebody who will have their back no matter what. Plus, you don't need him to play with Sedins permanently but can take a shift with them when necessary.

So, you don't think that the possibility of Keith getting his ass kicked wouldn't have made him think twice of cheap shotting Sedin? I happen to think that he'd think twice about getting his faced punched in. Also, there was no response from anyone. That's disgusting. A good enforcer would have made sure that someone on the Hawks would have paid a price. Again, if the Canucks had some protection, maybe somebody goes after Toews or Kane or another star player on the Hawks. An eye for an eye isn't a bad thing. Do you really think that Odjick wouldn't have gone after or gotten somebody back in response to what happened to Sedin?

Finally, this poll is BS anyways. None of the guys listed were goons. This team needs an Odjick, Brashear, Fraser type of player. All guys who were feared pugilists but that could also take a regular shift.


I agree with all of the above. The sad thing is we never learn our lessons, and EACH YEAR WE SEEM TO THINK IT WILL BE DIFFERENT.

A price has to be paid. Otherwise it is open season. If we want to keep players like the Sedins, we owe it to them to protect them properly. We should have made the Sedins untouchable, years ago.

Similarly with Lu. It is unbelievable the amount of crap we let happen to our star goalie. If some of the molesting that has occurred to Lu had been perpetrated on Thomas, they would have been opening new hospital wards throughout the NHL.

Edited by Bodee, 26 August 2012 - 05:39 AM.

Kevin.jpg

#129 canucklehead44

canucklehead44

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,640 posts
  • Joined: 24-May 03

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:59 AM

No to the pure enforcer (though I liked seeing guys like Rosehill firing punches like a machine, his days in the NHL should be done)

Wouldn't mind Bringing Back Bitz though! Guys like him can really make an impact if utilized correctly, as strong fore checkers with the ability bear down on defenders with speed, laying down big hits, causing turnovers and just providing energy.

With the bulking up of recent championship teams and contenders (Boston, LA both have big, mean guys; Philly's also pretty physical bunch, Sharks also bulked up physically with Burish and Stuart joining that group, and while they may have been discounted Detroit's got Tootoo, Kronwall, Brendan Smith, etc. who can also lay down the body) it's necessary to have the physical broadness in more players to counteract the sheer physical toll taken by the body from so many hits.

More importantly, players should be able to either lay down the hits yourself (with the bigger role players) or factor significantly in other areas (by scoring lots, killing penalties, blocking shots, stopping pucks for goalies... etc.) for these role players to be valuable to their respective teams.

However, fighting alone is not one of the ways for players (goons) to prove their worth, and definitely not in the playoffs. Guys who have tough knuckles but not soft hands or other hockey skills belong at home in the playoffs or at best in the press box, not dressed for important games.


Desbiens had 39 hits in 23 games so he has that component to his game. Also while with the Moose he was in a top 6 power forward role.

Here are some of his offensive highlights:
27 goals his last year of junior
(08-09) 21 goals 47 points in 78 games with the Moose and 12 points in 22 playoff games as a 23 year old
(09-10) 9 points in 6 playoff games for the team lead

Here are the best offensive seasons of other tough guys

Matt Kassian
8 goals as a 19 year old in the WHL

George Parros
14 goals in the AHL

John Scott
3 goals in the AHL

Steve McIntyre
2 goals in the AHL

Trevor Gillies
6 goals in the OHL as a 19 year old

Darcy Hordichuk
7 goals in the NHL tied with 7 goals in the IHL (best season in the WHL - 6 goals)

I think if Desbiens were to be given a shot and he finds a groove in the NHL he would be similar to guys like Shawn Thornton, Jarred Boll, and Tim Jackman. Play 8 minutes instead of 5, score 5-10 goals per year and be relied on to hit. Maybe not the toughest mofo but can handle himself well against 99% of guys in the league.
Sig too big.

#130 Standing_Tall#37

Standing_Tall#37

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,274 posts
  • Joined: 07-October 09

Posted 26 August 2012 - 10:11 AM

We've already got one in Edler. And the Sedins are fully capable of protecting themselves, but if they couldn't they would be respected enough by the rest of the league to not get cheapshot'd or bullied. We definitely have no need for an enforcer. Also I would like to point out that no line should play more than 15-16mins/game so having an enforcer would take away minutes from the fourth line and give more than 15 to the likes of the sedins, burrows, kesler, booth, etc... Is that what we really want, is that fair that certain players should play more a game. :picard:

#131 Mighty Walrus

Mighty Walrus

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 12

Posted 26 August 2012 - 01:05 PM

I agree with all of the above. The sad thing is we never learn our lessons, and EACH YEAR WE SEEM TO THINK IT WILL BE DIFFERENT.

A price has to be paid. Otherwise it is open season. If we want to keep players like the Sedins, we owe it to them to protect them properly. We should have made the Sedins untouchable, years ago.

Similarly with Lu. It is unbelievable the amount of crap we let happen to our star goalie. If some of the molesting that has occurred to Lu had been perpetrated on Thomas, they would have been opening new hospital wards throughout the NHL.


This. I can not believe some people are saying the Canucks don't need an enforcer. If there is one team in the league that needs an enforcer it is the Canucks. It's a failure on the Canucks management. For years people question the canucks toughness, and every year they get beat up by every team including our star players like the sedins and luongo. Toughness should be addressed the same way as you would go and get a top 4 defenseman if your team is lacking one.

#132 Drop Em

Drop Em

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:18 PM

We've already got one in Edler. And the Sedins are fully capable of protecting themselves, but if they couldn't they would be respected enough by the rest of the league to not get cheapshot'd or bullied. We definitely have no need for an enforcer. Also I would like to point out that no line should play more than 15-16mins/game so having an enforcer would take away minutes from the fourth line and give more than 15 to the likes of the sedins, burrows, kesler, booth, etc... Is that what we really want, is that fair that certain players should play more a game. :picard:


I don't think that I'm the only one in saying WHAT???

Pretty much this whole post is wrong or a contradiction. First off, Edler is no enforcer and never will be. I'm not sure what could be further from the truth, well except for the Sedins being able to protect themselves because that is obviously not the case either. And if the Sedins are so well respected to not get cheap shotted, then why did Marchand, Keith and others do it? They get
continually run and punched and two hand and they do absolutley nothing about it and what's almost as bad, is none of their so-called teamates do it either.

As for the ice time, I have no idea what in the hell you're talking about there. Since when does a fourth line need to play exactly 1/4 of the game? Have you ever watched hockey before? Since when does the fourth line play as much as the first line anyways. This isn't peewee. The best players play more and that's the way it is. Do you really want Malhotra, Volpatti and Weise playing as much as the Sedins and Burrows because if you do, then you really don't like seeing the Canucks win very much do you? Fair play as far as ice time has never been a part of the NHL and never will be because at this level it's all about results and who's better.

You can disagree about the enforcer thing but your comments about Edler, the Sedins and the ice time thing has me baffled and I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to be the only one.

#133 oldnews

oldnews

    Declining Grinder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,141 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 11

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:49 PM

I don't think the Canucks need an "enforcer", but I would love to see them go out and do what it takes to acquire Chris Neil - I know, Ottawa certainly won't be looking to move him, but if the offer was sweet enough... I'd be willing to offer them a future/s that they couldn't say no to. His 13 goals, 271 hits, "pushback", and 2/1.9 cap hit would fit extremely well in a Canucks jersey.
If Doan were to sign here, and Neil were acquired, the Canucks lineup would command a whole new level of respect. A guy like Sean Thornton would not be running around the way he does with Neil in the lineup - and Neil doesn't just bring toughness - he brings a whole lot of energy, confidence, sheer determination and takes some heat off the blueline while taking a toll on the opposition's blueline - guys like Lapierre, Kassian, etc play bigger as well with a player like him in the lineup. He's number one on my wishlist.

Edited by oldnews, 26 August 2012 - 08:04 PM.


#134 NucksBruins

NucksBruins

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 12

Posted 26 August 2012 - 08:57 PM

I don't think the Canucks need an "enforcer", but I would love to see them go out and do what it takes to acquire Chris Neil - I know, Ottawa certainly won't be looking to move him, but if the offer was sweet enough... I'd be willing to offer them a future/s that they couldn't say no to. His 13 goals, 271 hits, "pushback", and 2/1.9 cap hit would fit extremely well in a Canucks jersey.
If Doan were to sign here, and Neil were acquired, the Canucks lineup would command a whole new level of respect. A guy like Sean Thornton would not be running around the way he does with Neil in the lineup - and Neil doesn't just bring toughness - he brings a whole lot of energy, confidence, sheer determination and takes some heat off the blueline while taking a toll on the opposition's blueline - guys like Lapierre, Kassian, etc play bigger as well with a player like him in the lineup. He's number one on my wishlist.


^ Agreed. Pure enforcers are a dying breed. We just need a tough top 6 forward, a guy who can play as well as handle the rough stuff. Teams are not giving these guys away. Kassian has the potential to be that guy anyway. He just has to balance the skill part of the game with the rough stuff (avoiding suspension worthy hits, riding that line).

The Kings won the cup and had Kyle Clifford on their team. http://kings.nhl.com....htm?id=8475160 But look at his playoff appearances. He was only in three playoff games. The Kings were just a tough team overall and they wanted it more than the teams they played against.
Posted Image




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.