View Single Post
03-11-2013, 02:11 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 36
vCash: 500
What's the point of having an enforcer who doesn't enforce?

Last night's game in Philly was, for me, the worst yet in a season filled with demoralizing stinkers. Not only did we not show up for the first period, but we showed zero character.

Ennis took a bad hit and wound up with a new forehead vagina. He did turn a bit, but still, enough for Simmonds to have to answer. And not just by beating Mike Weber's face in.

Why is John Scott in the lineup if not to make the other team pay for hurting our stars?

If I'm Rolston, I tell Big John to go out there and beat the ever living $hit out of Simmonds. I don't CARE if he doesn't drop his gloves. Punch him in the face 10 times anyway! And if you can't get your paws on Simmonds, then beat the crap out of Giroux or Briere. Guys don't want to fight you? Sucks for them. Attack them anyway! Damn the suspension, we can survive without you for a few games. And if you get fined, I'll cover it. But the league needs to know you can't run our guys and get away with it. Which Simmonds did.

Scott was on the ice for a shift with Simmonds later in the game and never challenged him. I don't get it. Kaleta, Ott, Weber, those guys get in your face if you do something they don't like. Scott ONLY has staged fights against other enforcers. To me, that's pointless. Target the guy who made the dirty hit, or take out someone equal to the player we lost. THAT would be enforcing.

And sidenote, why doesn't Foligno fight anymore? He's awesome at it. Foligno v Simmonds would've been a good battle. Foligno's not playing with any passion right now.

SabresFanInLA is offline   Reply With Quote