View Single Post
11-23-2012, 02:15 PM
HFB Partner
truck's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7,802
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
In today's day and age, and game, I think it boils down to if you're going to have a tough guy, he has to be able to play. Which then leads me to what Holden said, team toughness. Team toughness is quite difficult to defend against in comparison to worrying about one guy. Not to mention when you have a guy like Stortini who you can only play 5-7 minutes a night, that just completely defeats the purpose of rolling 4 lines because you've got a guy who is hurting that 4th lines contributions.

One tough guy can keep players honest to a certain extent, but knowing you have a team littered with guys willing to go toe to toe with you, but also play the game tough as Holden mentioned, is much more effective, I think.

I'll take 5 scrappy, physical, can hold their own guys throughout my teams line-up who can play over the toughest guy in the league if he's only good for 5-7 minutes of icetime a game. And you know what? when the going gets tough and the games mean something, the "tough guy" who is good for 5-7 minutes a game is generally stapled to the bench because he can't contribute when needed most. Just a waste in my opinion.

Give me the trust of a full out, 4 line attack who a coach can trust to do the job needed when it counts most. LA demonstrated that blueprint to a tee. They had guys who could play but they would also go through a wall for the guy beside them.
I agree.

Teams like Detroit and Nashville have done pretty well without much in the way of fighting. I want hockey players that can play hockey better than opponents. A team can be plenty tough without spending a bunch of time in the penalty box.

truck is offline