Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Is it time to bring back a pure enforcer to the Canucks line up

Rate this topic


Should the NHL bring back the pure enforcer   

71 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

how could I possibly have "miss read" that OP?

thanks for the 'clarification'.

 

but I still think your 'proposal' is really poorly conceived / outdated / a 'waste' of a roster spot when you need players that are effective between the whistles far more in the present NHL.

NHL is a entertainment business fighting in NHL is entertaining it is not a wasted spot. Plus 4 of you bottom 6 are pk players. That leaves 2 guys that play no special teams  often get less then 10 mins. First it would probably be hard to find a pure enforcer so that player will still be able to skate and at least produce like a 11 or 12th forward. Of course it has to be a winger. Centers are to important I actually think the 11th forward should be a centerman not a winger. Therefore atleast having 5 centers and 7 wingers.

 

The best set up for any team IMHO is

6 top 6 forwards. 

Money wise. Your #1 center should be highest payed forward as long as he can both play make and score at least 30 + goals. Then your pure goalscorer and 2 line center should be next highest paid. Next your 3 other top wingers. With the only exception your 3rd line center could make more then your 4th winger. Your 4th and 5th winger could make close to the same amount. I have high respect for a number 5 winger as your top 4 wingers there is often an injury. In the Canucks circumstances that should be Hoglander. So that gets to your top 8. Then more important then your 6th forward is your 4th line center should be #2 unit PK center.  That's why I am not to grumpy with Beagle I have tons of respect for him plus he takes a ton of defensive zone face-offs. If Sutter was better in his position then yes Beagle would be over payed by .500-.750 mill. Your #7 winger has to be on the PK. But if not the 8th forward who should be a center can take that spot. But then the number 7 winger must bring more offense to the third line this is where Virtanen failed. He's not a pker and Hasn't been able to produce on the 3rd line. But Sutter his center has also under performed here this makes secondary score almost impossible for any team.

So that leaves your 9 winger and 12th forward. Really what is there responsibility. They often can't produce much. They often hit more but an enforcer could do that. They don't play PP or PK. They are often interchanged with a 13th forward. If you don't like a 12th forward as an enforcer then you could make the 13th an enforcer for specific games. All this said I really believe most teams can bring back the enforcer. I don't disagree with anyone there should be team toughness though out the line up but I don't expect to see everyone of them drop the gloves. The enforcer is there if a game gets out of hand a team can literally move the enforcer to a 1st or second line to ensure no one takes liberty on a team's star player's. This is best suited for teams that don't have the toughest in their top 6. Ferland might have given what Rooster is supposed to do, but a lot of these guys choice for some reason or other to under perform. I believe this is a team culture issue and the only reason a coach should get fired.

 

Between, Erickson, Sutter, Rooster and Virtanen it is starting to show there is a culture issue in the locker room and it is with primary the veteran group. This team more then anything else need a NHL veteran coach not one promoted from the AHL. One that will keep everyone one accountable.

 

Note clearly what people make will differ at different points of their Career Pettersson clearly is our 1st line center but makes less then a mill(more if you include the Bonuses). However I expect him and Hughes in the future to be our highest payed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

NHL is a entertainment business fighting in NHL is entertaining it is not a wasted spot.

 

Whatever.   "Enforcers" are human beings - many of whom had their quality of life ruined (if you actually take the time to listen to the many former 'enforcers' / players who have stated their experiences publicly).

 

And the whole "entertainment business" angle - save it for the WWF/WWE.

 

You're speaking for what you assume to be a prevailing interest - that might reflect existing fans of the game, and probably previous demographics - but that's now where you expand your market - you expand markets into untapped fanbases - which can't be precooked, or spoken for with sweeping one-liner reductions/assumption.

 

You're making an assumption that the majority of people want to see fist fighting in the NHL - but if you were to survey cross-sections of the populations of the countries in the world where you're hoping to extend the scope of the 'entertainment product' - the results aren't obvious/easy to speak for beforehand - for all you know the NHL could be losing potential new fans because of the perception that it's an outdated, distasteful aspect of the game.   You don't market/expand the game _or any product - based on presumptive whims - any real corporate interest would require/conduct an actual, real-world widespread survey of 'consumer' interest that you aren't qualified to speak for.   And beyond that, there's the ethical question of whether the impact on the players is worth the 'entertainment' value.  The game is about putting pucks behind the opponent's goaltender - like football, basketball, etc - that doesn't depend on punching players in the face - that is a side aspect / sideshow that is not essential to the game no matter how old school our perspective. 

 

Don't mistake/misrepresent any of that for not wanting more toughness that can play in the lineup.  I think there's room - and has been for some time - for more 'pushback' from this team - but a traditional "enforcer" is not the answer.

Edited by oldnews
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, oldnews said:

Whatever.   "Enforcers" are human beings - many of whom had their quality of life ruined (if you actually take the time to listen to the many former 'enforcers' / players who have stated their experiences publicly).

 

And the whole "entertainment business" angle - save it for the WWF/WWE.

 

You're speaking for what you assume to be a prevailing interest - that might reflect existing fans of the game, and probably previous demographics - but that's now where you expand your market - you expand markets into untapped fanbases - which can't be precooked, or spoken for with sweeping one-liner reductions/assumption.

 

You're making an assumption that the majority of people want to see fist fighting in the NHL - but if you were to survey cross-sections of the populations of the countries in the world where you're hoping to extend the scope of the 'entertainment product' - the results aren't obvious/easy to speak for beforehand - for all you know the NHL could be losing potential new fans because of the perception that it's an outdated, distasteful aspect of the game.   You don't market/expand the game _or any product - based on presumptive whims - any real corporate interest would require/conduct an actual, real-world widespread survey of 'consumer' interest that you aren't qualified to speak for.   And beyond that, there's the ethical question of whether the impact on the players is worth the 'entertainment' value.  The game is about putting pucks behind the opponent's goaltender - like football, basketball, etc - that doesn't depend on punching players in the face - that is a side aspect / sideshow that is not essential to the game no matter how old school our perspective. 

 

Don't mistake/misrepresent any of that for not wanting more toughness that can play in the lineup.  I think there's room - and has been for some time - for more 'pushback' from this team - but a traditional "enforcer" is not the answer.

I respect your point so we must agree to disagree.

Plus fighting in the NHL is different then in the WWE or MMA. I don't technically like that fighting for the sake of fighting for entertainment. I like the fighting in NHL it was more to do with the game and un- written code you don't cheap shot someone unless you are ready to drop the gloves even Edler understood that which made me more impressed with him as often non North American players don't get it often. I feel fewer injuries where caused back in  the day from those cheap shots, knee to knee, elbows to the head. Odjick literally played on the same line as Bure and I feel it made Bure feel more confident out there as well he was that guy that could show emotion he often defended himself but if it escalated which it wouldn't because Odjick was there. Look at Odjick stats it might surprise most that he wasn't just a waste of unproductive space. The year they went to the Stanley Cup final he had 16 goals and 29 pts in that season

 

Edited by Arrow 1983
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I respect your point so we must agree to disagree.

Plus fighting in the NHL is different then in the WWE or MMA. I don't technically like that fighting for the sake of fighting for entertainment. I like the fighting in NHL it was more to do with the game and un- written code you don't cheap shot someone unless you are ready to drop the gloves even Edler understood that which made me more impressed with him as often non North American players don't get it often. I feel fewer injuries where caused back in  the day from those cheap shots, knee to knee, elbows to the head. Odjick literally played on the same line as Bure and I feel it may Bure feel more confident out there as well he'll that guy could show emotion he often defended himself but if it escalated which it wouldn't because Odjick was there. Look at Odjick stats it might surprise most that he wasn't just a waste of unproductive space. The year they went to the Stanley Cup final he had 16 goals and 29 pts in that season

 

I think your nostalgia for the past misrepresents the realities of the past.  Enforcers NEVER effectively prevented cheap shots - the whole 'deterrence' narrative is one that never lined up with what actually happened.    Cheap shot takes place - enforcer never made the culprit 'pay' - unless that culprit was an enforcer themself - enforcers never beat on people outside their weight class - what happened - what was called ";justice" was one team rolling out their enforcer, the other doing the same - and 'justice' was served.  It was an absurd narrative really.  No enforcer ever fought an Alex Edler - period.  That would be an embarrassement to an enforcer - no self-respecting enforcer would ever beat on a non-pugilist type like Edler - that wasn't part of any mythical "code" of the past - it's a new-age revision that bears no resemblance to the 70s, 80s and before.  This recent incident is a departure from 'enforcement' of the past - it was an embarrassment the way it was propped up and apologized for - it had nothing to do with 'old school' code.

 

The 'enforcer' - is an issue that has been discussed a whole lot on these boards - I'm going to short answer this because I can't be bothered to elaborate at length.

It's a thing of the past - whether folks like yourself like it or not - as it should be.

Edited by oldnews
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I think your nostalgia for the past misrepresents the realities of the past.  Enforcers NEVER effectively prevented cheap shots - the whole 'deterrence' narrative is one that never lined up with what actually happened.    Cheap shot takes place - enforcer never made the culprit 'pay' - unless that culprit was an enforcer themself - enforcers never beat on people outside their weight class - what happened - what was called ";justice" was one team rolling out their enforcer, the other doing the same - and 'justice' was served.  It was an absurd narrative really.  No enforcer ever fought an Alex Edler - period.  That would be an embarrassement to an enforcer - no self-respecting enforcer would ever beat on a non-pugilist type like Edler - that wasn't part of any mythical "code" of the past - it's a new-age revision that bears no resemblance to the 70s, 80s and before.  This recent incident is a departure from 'enforcement' of the past - it was an embarrassment the way it was propped up and apologized for - it had nothing to do with 'old school' code.

 

The 'enforcer' - is an issue that has been discussed a whole lot on these boards - I'm going to short answer this because I can't be bothered to elaborate at length.

It's a thing of the past - whether folks like yourself like it or not - as it should be.

Disagree, fighting solves everything 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2021 at 4:27 PM, Arrow 1983 said:

Disagree, fighting solves everything 

$&!#. Disagree with your logic. Marchment and claude lemieux still ran wild around the league when enforcers were in it. You are just romanticizing the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little off topic. With the NHL striking a deal with ESPN does anyone think the NHL will go back to a more physical and more violent hockey ? 

 

I was listening to a podcast from Sportsnet and they brought up for casual fans especially in non hockey markets they associate hockey more on fighting than actual skill.

 

Which to me has some validity as someone who lived in Asia most people there associate hockey with The Might Ducks movies, Wayne Gretzky, and Fighting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2021 at 7:05 PM, Jimmy McGill said:

I like the idea, just don't know where we can find one. Its like finding a virgin in Kelowna. 

That's why Jesus wasn't born there. They couldn't find three wise men either . 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2021 at 5:05 PM, oldnews said:

I think your nostalgia for the past misrepresents the realities of the past.  Enforcers NEVER effectively prevented cheap shots - the whole 'deterrence' narrative is one that never lined up with what actually happened.    Cheap shot takes place - enforcer never made the culprit 'pay' - unless that culprit was an enforcer themself - enforcers never beat on people outside their weight class - what happened - what was called ";justice" was one team rolling out their enforcer, the other doing the same - and 'justice' was served.  It was an absurd narrative really.  No enforcer ever fought an Alex Edler - period.  That would be an embarrassement to an enforcer - no self-respecting enforcer would ever beat on a non-pugilist type like Edler - that wasn't part of any mythical "code" of the past - it's a new-age revision that bears no resemblance to the 70s, 80s and before.  This recent incident is a departure from 'enforcement' of the past - it was an embarrassment the way it was propped up and apologized for - it had nothing to do with 'old school' code.

 

The 'enforcer' - is an issue that has been discussed a whole lot on these boards - I'm going to short answer this because I can't be bothered to elaborate at length.

It's a thing of the past - whether folks like yourself like it or not - as it should be.

So semenko wasn't  deterant for cheap shooting Gretzky.? 

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, erkayloomeh said:

So semenko wasn't  deterant for cheap shooting Gretzky.? 

 

meh.  how many minutes did Semenko play?  with Gretzky?

I don't think Gretzky was an easy guy to cheap shot - or hit - he had eyes in the back of his head and rarely, if ever, put himself in compromised positions.

 

would that have been an exception to my point though?  perhaps - I doubt any answer to cheapshotting Gretzky would have been particularly concerned with code - but I have a hard time recalling anyone managing to get many licks in on Gretzky - clean or cheap.  Would Edmonton have ever considered rolling without an enforcer?  I doubt it - it wasn't really an option in the 80s.

 

As an aside - for all the prattle around the NHL regarding what a hard ass, mean ass guy Babcock was - he was also pretty much the first coach in the NHL to roll lineups without enforcers - his Redwings pretty much set the standard for modern, skilled, possession, between the whistles hockey...'progress' can be judged by radically different standards from one decade to the next...

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, oldnews said:

meh.  how many minutes did Semenko play?  with Gretzky?

I don't think Gretzky was an easy guy to cheap shot - or hit - he had eyes in the back of his head and rarely, if ever, put himself in compromised positions.

 

would that have been an exception to my point though?  perhaps - I doubt any answer to cheapshotting Gretzky would have been particularly concerned with code - but I have a hard time recalling anyone managing to get many licks in on Gretzky - clean or cheap.  Would Edmonton have ever considered rolling without an enforcer?  I doubt it - it wasn't really an option in the 80s.

 

As an aside - for all the prattle around the NHL regarding what a hard ass, mean ass guy Babcock was - he was also pretty much the first coach in the NHL to roll lineups without enforcers - his Redwings pretty much set the standard for modern, skilled, possession, between the whistles hockey...'progress' can be judged by radically different standards from one decade to the next...

Semenko was indeed the man who rode shotgun for Gretzky and he did it well, not just for Gretzky but the entire team. Later along came McSorely, who I might add was so important that when Gtetzky was moved to LA he insisted that McSorely get traded with him

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the way reffing is these days enforcers would be sitting for 30 minutes a game for being too mean. Also, the idea of a pure enforcer is not good. Today's NHL every player on the roster needs to be able to play the game of hockey. The tough guys these days, the Tom Wilson's for instance, do more than just hit and fight. Between Mac and Gadjovich I think we'll be okay in the toughness department. And Woo if he pans out is said to be one tough customer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. While I do think it is important to be a big team still and that you have to keep the opponents honest, there is simply no room for a guy who cannot contribute anything but muscle. Instead, I think it needs to be done by committee these days and we do (and *will*) have guys who can step up to the plate in that regard if required.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

Semenko was indeed the man who rode shotgun for Gretzky

that wasn't the question though. 

 

by "ride shotgun" do you mean the 6 minutes a game that he played?

 

that's the thing - enforcers were rarely on the ice with top 6 forwards.

 

when I think of Wayne Gretzky - his line - I think of  Anderson Gretzky Kurri.

Gretzky had a lot of linemates in his years - Tikkanen also in the mix, Lumley...

 

It's hard to get an accurate take on the amount of minutes Semenko played with him - can't simply pull up dobber and get the outcomes - but you can get data on 5on5 scoring....

Semenko was typically/averaged 11th among team-mates in 5on5 scoring playing with Gretzk - typically/averaged 6th among forwards...Kurri always at the top of that list, Anderson or Tikkanen always second by a huge margin (Semenko never produced more than 8 pts in a season playing with Gretzky - bu had 27, 24 pt seasons in Edmonton).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, oldnews said:

that wasn't the question though. 

 

by "ride shotgun" do you mean the 6 minutes a game that he played?

 

that's the thing - enforcers were rarely on the ice with top 6 forwards.

 

when I think of Wayne Gretzky - his line - I think of  Anderson Gretzky Kurri.

Gretzky had a lot of linemates in his years - Tikkanen also in the mix, Lumley...

 

It's hard to get an accurate take on the amount of minutes Semenko played with him - can't simply pull up dobber and get the outcomes - but you can get data on 5on5 scoring....

Semenko was typically/averaged 11th among team-mates in 5on5 scoring playing with Gretzk - typically/averaged 6th among forwards...Kurri always at the top of that list, Anderson or Tikkanen always second by a huge margin (Semenko never produced more than 8 pts in a season playing with Gretzky - bu had 27, 24 pt seasons in Edmonton).

 

I think Semenko rather than being measure in term of TOI or goals and assists. What Semenko did was set a tone for the Oiler. Every oppoenent in the league new he was on the bench. I remember Naslund talking about Brookbank and stated Brookbank makes ever player on our bench 6" taller

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fred65 said:

I think Semenko rather than being measure in term of TOI or goals and assists. What Semenko did was set a tone for the Oiler. Every oppoenent in the league new he was on the bench. I remember Naslund talking about Brookbank and stated Brookbank makes ever player on our bench 6" taller

I think regardless of our perspectives on players like Semenko - from an era where players like him were regular fixtures on NHL 4th lines - how much can his presence be correlated to 'protection' of players whether he played with them or not - might be an interesting discussion - but the idea that bringing back an enforcer in today's NHL is a 'good' idea - for me - is a non-starter.

First - you have 4th lines throughout the NHL - that can play - are relatively talented players - who typically perform a (difficult) shutdown role.  Having a 5 minute enforcer - not only makes your team less effective between whistles / taxes the rest of the lineup - but also there are very few dance partners for them in the NHL - and enforcers never ran around picking bouts with lightweights, rats, etc - they fought counter-enforcers the vast majority of the time, with limited exceptions.

For me the whole discussion borders on non-starter - regardless of our perceptions of the 1980s.  It's a thing of the past - and it will remain that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...