Strangelove wrote:Funniest thing about this thread is that Coco & Pot are both on record stating Canucks need to get tougher.
The difference is we're placing a lower value on physical retribution. All the toughness in the world won't help you if you don't get the players that help you on the scoreboard.
The days of nuclear deterrent's scaring the daylights out of opponents and protecting stars like Gretzky are over. The NHL has changed and enforcers and tough guys simply don't have the same deterrent value.
I've been critical of the instigator rule for a long time and I love fighting and physical hockey, but it doesn't have the same place and value in the game as it used to and it's just a fact. With that in mind, unless your team is built for toughness, i.e. Boston, you have to create a roster of players that can score under any circumstances and play strong defense. Yes toughness is valuable and you need a mix of players to be successful, but if you don't have the players that thrive and score goals, you won't win games.
ClamRussel wrote:Inconsequential, the point was the NHL did nothing. A 2min "boarding" penalty is hardly looking after the (star) players. Might as well have been no penalty. Did the Canucks score on that PP? No. ie they didn't make him pay.
You seem to be saying the only way you can get retribution is by scoring on the subsequent PP, otherwise they didn't make them pay.
The Canucks went 3 of 7 on the PP in game two and proceeded to beat San Jose 7-3, taking a 2-0 lead in the series. The Canucks did score on a goal on Eager's second penalty, a trip in Raymond.
San Jose, namely Eager, flew around the ice and tried to even the score for Bieksa beating up Marleau and they ended up taking 7 penalties and giving up 3 power play goals.
Hey, but Eager sure showed the Canucks that they can't take liberties with their star players...
ClamRussel wrote:My point was not whether Eager is effective, its whether allowing the Sedins to be rammed from behind into the boards in hopes of scoring a PP goal is really a wise game plan long term.
You're making two major assumptions.
One, that the Canucks have a game plan that says "let's let the other team take runs at our star players so we can go on the man advantage."
Secondly, that the Canucks would prevent any future questionable hits to their star players if they had a physical response.
We can argue this until we're blue in the face, but if you scan the NHL since the lock-out, you'll see star players on tough teams still getting smacked with dirty hits. Having someone on your team that goes after physical retribution does not work as a magical deterrent.
Granted, having more physical guys who can respond make your team tougher to face and it may help cut down on some of the after the whistle pushing around, but if you think anyone will be holding up in game speed then you're seriously misjudging the effect of having guys who can answer the bell physically.