HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Proposal: I propose that a Shootout Specialist is worth more to a team than a Goon (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=898815)

Inferno 04-03-2011 05:05 PM

I propose that a Shootout Specialist is worth more to a team than a Goon
 
My theory. In the past teams kept goons on their roster as specialty players. Players who could impact a game with a fight. I think as the game evolves, teams are going to be keeping roster spots just for guys who are awesome in the shootout.

So, my question. Which is worth more right now. The best heavyweight in the league, or the best shootout specialist in the league?

MetalGodAOD 04-03-2011 05:17 PM

Ideally your best players are your best SO guys. But in the case they are not, there's nothing wrong with having skilled 4th line guys instead of goons.

I'm all for our current system tbh. Torts isn't going to play his 4th line in the playoffs no matter what. Might as well have them be skilled guys who occasionally get a lucky goal and win us points single handedly in SOs.

Stugots 04-03-2011 05:21 PM

Shootout specialist- because they can actually win you games whereas goons cannot.

Mugless 04-03-2011 05:22 PM

If we don't have a goon, I hope Barb Underhill can teach Boyle how to fight. :sarcasm:

chip chipperson* 04-03-2011 05:29 PM

im in between. we dont need a goon but im against keeping a guy in the lineup for the possibility of a shootout.

the real shootout specialist is hank anyway.

azrok22 04-03-2011 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stugots (Post 32093355)
Shootout specialist- because they can actually win you games whereas goons cannot.

Shootout specialist, because in addition to winning games, they're also far more likely to contribute outside of the shootout/fighting.

OverTheCap 04-03-2011 05:34 PM

A shootout specialist is definitely more important than a one-dimensional goon who can't do anything but fight.

But come playoff time, they are both useless. And if the league continues to diminish the weight of the shootout, like they are doing with the tiebreaker currently, then it's possible there will be less pure shootout specialists in the team. You don't want players to always be in the lineup if they can't play a 60-minute game effectively and only excel in the shootout.

Orr Nightmare 04-03-2011 05:36 PM

Hank is going to get seriously hurt if the Rangers allow the other team to continue to run him over...I love the makeup of the team but there is not enough grit.

Love the strides Boyle has made but I think I can beat him up and he has a almost a foot and 60 pounds on me...by him taking on Colburn and losing the fight it gave the building and their players more juice.

Sather has to find a way to obtain a Clowe, Lucic, Stewart type of player and still incorporate Boogard for the teams carrying a legit heavy.

Now everyone can cry...

Orr Nightmare 04-03-2011 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azrok22 (Post 32093653)
Shootout specialist, because in addition to winning games, they're also far more likely to contribute outside of the shootout/fighting.

Christensen contributes nothing...he is noticable once every 10 or so games...if a goon can protect Hank then I would think he would be far more valuable.

I work with a Penguin fan and he said...why would the Rangers bothering have EC on the team...he will only tease u with his skill but in between his ears it is a hollow space.

Kane One 04-03-2011 05:40 PM

I voted none. I rather use that spot for someone who could actually play well in regulation/OT.

eco's bones 04-03-2011 05:40 PM

Definition is missing here a bit. For example if we're talking about Bob Probert in the past or Milan Lucic today--well then?

This hopefully is how Dylan McIlrath will fit onto our team in a few years. You do need physical players--and it doesn't hurt if you have some who can fight well.

ReverbAndDelay 04-03-2011 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mugless (Post 32093375)
If we don't have a goon, I hope Barb Underhill can teach Boyle how to fight. :sarcasm:

I loled! :handclap:

Fitzy 04-03-2011 05:47 PM

I feel the same way about both roles, which is that a good team doesn't need either an enforcer or shootout guy to be a specialist.

That role is filled by solid hockey players that can skate a regular shift.

New York RKY 04-03-2011 05:50 PM

I think a shootout specialist is more important.

As mentioned above, a shootout specialist can technically win you some games while a goon usually doesn't.

Generally a shootout specialist has more offensive skills to begin with so they can automatically do more than a goon.

we want cup 04-03-2011 06:15 PM

Voted neither.

You should build a team that has enough talent that you can get a goal or two or three out of your best players, and not have to rely on some nobody.

And you should build a team that has enough toughness throughout the lineup that you won't get pushed around. I'd rather have 3-4 guys like Sauer, Prust, etc. than one Boogaard.

azrok22 04-03-2011 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare (Post 32093758)
Christensen contributes nothing...he is noticable once every 10 or so games...if a goon can protect Hank then I would think he would be far more valuable.

I work with a Penguin fan and he said...why would the Rangers bothering have EC on the team...he will only tease u with his skill but in between his ears it is a hollow space.

I don't believe for a second that a goon can protect Hank.

Canjo 04-03-2011 06:30 PM

goons are pointless, they dont help you win one way or the other, at least anyone who is good in a shootout has some hockey skill and can perform in regular play, but if you have a guy like hank (and even if you dont), you shouldnt go out and give a guy a contract just so he can score a shootout goal 60% of the time, every 10th game

E Nixson 04-03-2011 06:46 PM

Goons are useless.

I voted neither.

Orr Nightmare 04-03-2011 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azrok22 (Post 32094603)
I don't believe for a second that a goon can protect Hank.



I guess u don't mind seeing guys flying into Hank.

Guys like Sauer who give it there all do not strike fear in opposing players...he might be willing to fight but he is not very good at it...same for Boyle, Dubi, Cally and the like...to be successful you have to be able to protect your assests.

Prust is the only guy on the team who can fight, but we have him fighting guys 4-6 taller than him and 30-50 heavier....that can't last.

figthing doesn't win hockey games...but protecting your star players does...the Rangers have to incorporate more size and grit into their lineup if they truly want to make a run at the cup.

Boogard is on this team for the next 3 years...most of you don't like it but we might as well try to make it work...limit him to the games were it is a must to have him in the lineup and bring in Ryan Clowe...maybe both of our 2nd round picks would entice San Jose, that man is a absolute beast and he would go a very long way into protecting the people on our team that need to be protected.

Orr Nightmare 04-03-2011 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by New England Hockey (Post 32095674)
Goons are useless.

I voted neither.

Goons are pointless but when the other team has one...you have to have a answer.

The Rangers looked like they pissed themselves vs. the Islanders the other night.

If that doesn't upset than you truly can't be a Ranger fan.

DubiDubiDoo 04-03-2011 06:59 PM

I wanted to vote shootout specialist, but when we end up tied in points with Carolina, and we're the ones playing golf becuae of shootout wins, I'll have to figure anything that can help win in regulation is more important than anything that helps the shootout...

DubiDubiDoo 04-03-2011 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azrok22 (Post 32094603)
I don't believe for a second that a goon can protect Hank.

I think he can if he's used properly, the problem is pointless goon on goon fights.
Todays coach and goon needs to accept the penalty when a player like Hank gets run, and the retribution isn't boogaard fighting Carcillo, its boogaard grabbing Giroux and pummelling him.

Yes, we get penalized, but eventually teams will not risk their best players getting pummeled in order to 1)run hank, or 2)get a powerplay.

Neither is worth a broken facial bone in your star players

UAGoalieGuy 04-03-2011 07:05 PM

I think in the coming years, you are going to see less "goon-like" players in the NHL, and more players that can contribute on the ice and fight as well. Gone will be the Brashear's, Boogards, etc. You will see more Prust-esk players.

Just my opinion, but I think that's the direction the league is going. Prust's, Clarkson's, Ott's, Downie's, Lucic's etc.

Conz 04-03-2011 07:08 PM

goons are outdated. Prust is the perfect player to have. he's a talented pest, but he can actually throw down unlike Avery who really doesn't have much of a chance in a fight. It would be nice to have a D-man who could fight a little on the team, but no huge deal.

Fitzy 04-03-2011 07:10 PM

I've always felt that the best way to deal with a goaltender being run is to run the other team's goaltender.

I cast sincere doubt on the logic behind fear of a goon being linked to a decrease in dangerous play. Now, if we were to eliminate the instigator penalty, things might be a little different. But as of right now, Boogaard is unable to run around policing the ice surface without putting our team dangerously shorthanded.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.