View Single Post
Old
10-25-2010, 07:24 PM
  #218
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tantrum4 View Post
Trust me, I've played the game at a high level and if you don't think intimidation (trash talk, cheap shots, fighting etc) has anything to do with winning a hockey game, you are sadly mistaken sir. You should download the recent ESPN documentary about the Broad Street Bullies. Guess what, they won 2 Cups, how many do we have?
... The Flyers of those two seasons had the best goaltender in the NHL, Bernie Parent. In '74, they had 4 30-goal scorers, in '75 they had a 40-goal scorer and two others above 30. They had excellent special teams. In '74, they were 3rd in the NHL on the PP and 1st on the PK. In '75, they were 5th on the PP and 2nd on the PK. They won for a lot of reasons.

Beyond that, all enforcers aren't created equal. Dave Schultz, the Flyers' main enforcer, scored 20 goals in '74. Another one, Don Saleski, had 15. Another one, the "Moose" Andre Dupont, had 11 goals in '75 as a defenseman. Those guys had ice time because, in addition to intimidating the opposition, they could also play. Big difference.

I think it's more appropriate to look at teams who have won Cups recently, than those who won them 35 or more years ago. If you look at the last two Cup winners, their team's penalty minute LEADERS had 120 PIM each. Who was enforcing for them? How could they win, if intimidating the opposition meant so much to success? And besides that, how many times did you see enforcers dealt away all over the league? The Joe Kocurs, the Stu Grimsons, the Tie Domis ... all of them played on multiple teams - why? If they were such an important part of winning, why would teams ever let them go? Hell, Grimson was left unprotected in an expansion draft! How could that even happen?

And, beyond all this, you're misunderstanding me. If two guys square off and fight, there's nothing cheap about that. But the fact of life is that the league views fighting differently now than they did in '74 and '75. I don't like the fight instigator rule and I've found no one who does, personally. But the fact of the matter is that the rule is there. Blame the NHL for that.

What I always have said is that trash talk, cheap shots, scrums - THAT's all cheap. In my experience playing, and granted I didn't play at a high level - but from what I've seen, the cheap stuff doesn't serve to intimidate at all, and in many cases it can be counter-productive and inspire the opposition. And, I've seen that at the NHL level as well. Give me a guy who will make a good hard hit, like Mark Hardy on Mike Keane in the '93 SCF. THAT's inspiring. THAT gets the team going. And there's nothing cheap about it.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote