View Single Post
Old
02-11-2013, 11:24 AM
  #53
delchief
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Those winnpeg Jets and Carolina Hurricanes really bounced around and took liberties on our soft ****** Euros, if we have a Konopka in those game he would have really made a difference.

I am really getting tired of this team taking **** from the Jets and Hurricanes.
Why so cynical and sarcastic? I never understand the violent back-lash we get from the "enlightened ones" on this board whenever the concept of team toughness is brought up.

I love the up-tempo, puck-possession game that Maclean employs. And it definitely requires skill and speed. But am I the devil if I say I also like a little toughness along the boards and a team that's hard to play against? Last year's team had a great mix, I thought. They had the nuclear option for fighting in Carkner. He helped keep things from getting crazy for our guys - and illustrated in Saturday's Leafs-Habs game. Konopka didn't do much other than win faceoffs and lose most fights so his contributions are certainly debatable. Foligno for Methot was definitely an upgrade.

So I'm on-board with us not being some goon team. But sweet Jebus is it ok that I don't want the pendulum swinging too far the other way? Because I've seen what that's like. You end up getting pushed around AND losing the game. Not good.

The right mix. I think that's what this post was about originally. And as much as I despise the over-simplistic notion of having a bunch of useless fighters on the roster I almost equally despise the blindness that happens when you ignore team chemistry.

We need to make sure our key guys - Karlsson, Spezza, Gonchar, Michalek, Silfverberg, Alfie - can play their game and have room out there. That's all. No need to jump down our freaking throats for daring to suggest that hockey is a rough sport and that it helps having some tough customers on your roster to help you win.

delchief is offline   Reply With Quote