Colborne recalled

[OldTimeHockey]

Relative to other NHL players he's in the lower 3rd of players skill wise, you are correct. He CAN play hockey though. Not the greatest NHLer to put on blades...Not the worst either.

Like I said, as long as fighting is part of the game...He CAN play hockey..at an NHL level.

If he's not fighting, he's not a good NHL hockey player and there are many that can take his place.

It's a little puzzling that you can't separate his skill at punching people in the face from his skill at playing the game.

The problem that I have and I think most are overlooking, is fighting is a skill required in today's NHL.

We'd all like to dress Nazim Kadri's on all 4 lines.

I get why people complain that he gets on the ice before Grabovski. I also understand why Montreal fans complain they are too small and don't have a guy to punch the crap out of someone so their smaller players can get space on the ice.

But I'll take a step back.

Some say fighting doesn't help win hockey games. The coaches getting paid a couple million a year seem to think it does. Every team employs them. The Leafs lead the league in fights this year and seem to be winning quite a few games.

Someone will now pull out some 'corsi' stats that show that I can neither prove or disprove that fighting is a part of 'hockey' and it will all go away.

 

[Bullfrog]

The problem that I have and I think most are overlooking, is fighting is a skill required in today's NHL.

No, it's not. It's an extraneous skill that some employ for intimidation. If it was removed completely, the game of hockey could still be played. Take away someone's ability to skate well, pass, shoot, etc., they won't be able to stay in the NHL.

It would only work if fighting was removed universally.

 

[freer]

The problem that I have and I think most are overlooking, is fighting is a skill required in today's NHL.

No, it's not. It's an extraneous skill that some employ for intimidation. If it was removed completely, the game of hockey could still be played. Take away someone's ability to skate well, pass, shoot, etc., they won't be able to stay in the NHL.

It would only work if fighting was removed universally.

and then it would be european hockey which the majority of north americans hate. Just saying

 

[OldTimeHockey]

The problem that I have and I think most are overlooking, is fighting is a skill required in today's NHL.

No, it's not. It's an extraneous skill that some employ for intimidation. If it was removed completely, the game of hockey could still be played. Take away someone's ability to skate well, pass, shoot, etc., they won't be able to stay in the NHL.

It would only work if fighting was removed universally.

I completely agree that the game would continue but it wouldn't be the same game. At one time, goalies weren't allowed to leave their feet or go down to make a save. It was still hockey..just played differently.

I've said repeatedly that until fighting is removed from being part of the game of hockey..it IS a part of playing the game of hockey.

I have no real opinion of Orr. I don't find him to be as bad as some may say, but I also don't find him as good as Carlyle appears to find him at times. I only took issue with the comment that he couldn't play the game of hockey.

 

[Kin]

Some say fighting doesn't help win hockey games. The coaches getting paid a couple million a year seem to think it does. Every team employs them. The Leafs lead the league in fights this year and seem to be winning quite a few games.

The problem with that, though, is that even if what you're saying, your perspective on fighting, is true then it can still be separated from playing hockey.

Think of it like this: the Oakland Athletics, for a few years, had someone on their team who they used exclusively as a pinch runner(His name was Herb Washington, this is his BR page here. He never had an at-bat, never played the field. All he did was run.

Was he a good baseball player? No. Playing baseball is more than just running. But running is certainly a part of baseball. It's an element of the game that's intrinsic and unavoidable. Usain Bolt, however, isn't good at baseball by virtue of being a fast runner.

 

[Kin]

The problem that I have and I think most are overlooking, is fighting is a skill required in today's NHL.

No, it's not. It's an extraneous skill that some employ for intimidation. If it was removed completely, the game of hockey could still be played. Take away someone's ability to skate well, pass, shoot, etc., they won't be able to stay in the NHL.

It would only work if fighting was removed universally.

and then it would be european hockey which the majority of north americans hate. Just saying

There's no fighting in the Olympics and people seem able to quiet their stomachs long enough to watch.

 

[Bullfrog]

and then it would be european hockey which the majority of north americans hate. Just saying

You can remove fighting and still have distinct North American and Europeans styles of hockey. The nature of the different rink sizes probably has a much larger impact on the game than the inclusion of fighting.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Playing baseball is more than just running. But running is certainly a part of baseball. It's an element of the game that's intrinsic and unavoidable. Usain Bolt, however, isn't good at baseball by virtue of being a fast runner.

Nor is Mike Tyson good at hockey by virtue of being a good face puncher.

We could take out defensemen and play all forwards and technically it would still be hockey. Would be more like Shinny, but still hockey. The scores would be 15 - 13 on most nights, but it would still be hockey.

I don't think fighting is a necessary part of playing in the NHL, but it certainly is a part right now.

But, as I said, the removing of fighting from the game is a completely different can of worms discussion wise.

 

[Kin]

Nor is Mike Tyson good at hockey by virtue of being a good face puncher.

Right and neither is Colton Orr.

 

[Deebo]

Oh good, the fighting debate again.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

heh

 

[bustaheims]

Relative to other NHL players he's in the lower 3rd of players skill wise, you are correct. He CAN play hockey though. Not the greatest NHLer to put on blades...Not the worst either.

Like I said, as long as fighting is part of the game...He CAN play hockey..at an NHL level.

Bottom 3rd is being generous. He's in the bottom 5% or so of players signed to NHL contracts.

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Relative to other NHL players he's in the lower 3rd of players skill wise, you are correct. He CAN play hockey though. Not the greatest NHLer to put on blades...Not the worst either.

Like I said, as long as fighting is part of the game...He CAN play hockey..at an NHL level.

Bottom 3rd is being generous. He's in the bottom 5% or so of players signed to NHL contracts.

Well, if we're going to be all literal and stuff, isn't the bottom 5% included in the bottom 33%.

 

[Champ Kind]

Poor Joe Colborne, his thread has been derailed, dismantled, and blown up real good.

I won't settle the Orr / fighting debate by any means but I will say that I though he played pretty darn well last night and especially in the third period with the one-goal lead.  He was skating really well, got in realy hard on the forecheck, and kept the game simple.  Look, he's no doubt an offensive anchor for someone like Kadri, but I thought he played a good, effective game with the late lead.  It bodes well for the playoffs when hard forechecking, sustained pressure, and emotion are such important components of the game.  Not 10 minutes a night, mind you, but 7 minutes of Colton Orr forchecking like a devil and keeping the opponenets honest has legitimate value.

 

[Kin]

Not 10 minutes a night, mind you, but 7 minutes of Colton Orr forchecking like a devil and keeping the opponenets honest has legitimate value.

Well, that's the debate. There are better forecheckers out there and people question whether Orr "keeping the opponents honest" is a real thing.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Not 10 minutes a night, mind you, but 7 minutes of Colton Orr forchecking like a devil and keeping the opponenets honest has legitimate value.

Well, that's the debate. There are better forecheckers out there and people question whether Orr "keeping the opponents honest" is a real thing.

McLaren is a better forechecker than Orr, and I don't even think he's all that good at it. Frankly their lack of speed makes them pretty ineffective there. As for keeping opponents honest, McLaren and Orr's presence didn't stop Philly's goons from double teaming Lupul and knocking him out of the lineup.

 

[Champ Kind]

Not 10 minutes a night, mind you, but 7 minutes of Colton Orr forchecking like a devil and keeping the opponenets honest has legitimate value.

Well, that's the debate. There are better forecheckers out there and people question whether Orr "keeping the opponents honest" is a real thing.

McLaren is a better forechecker than Orr, and I don't even think he's all that good at it. Frankly their lack of speed makes them pretty ineffective there. As for keeping opponents honest, McLaren and Orr's presence didn't stop Philly's goons from double teaming Lupul and knocking him out of the lineup.

I think you've undersold Orr's skating ability.  While by no means the quickest, he was moving up and down the ice pretty well yesterday.  Yes, he lumbers, and isn't the most agile, but I was impressed with his skating nonetheless.

 

[Champ Kind]

Not 10 minutes a night, mind you, but 7 minutes of Colton Orr forchecking like a devil and keeping the opponenets honest has legitimate value.

Well, that's the debate. There are better forecheckers out there and people question whether Orr "keeping the opponents honest" is a real thing.

Sorry, Nik, I should have double quoted but, alas, it's 6:00pm and weary.

I mean, look, you talk to "real hockey guys" and they say that it most definitely is a real thing.  But of course they would, right?  It's part of the culture, you've got the PA side of it, and you'd hard pressed to find someone actively in the game who would say otherwise.  But I do think there's something there.  I do think that Marchand can play 'bigger' when Chara, Lucic, or Thornton are on the ice with him.  I do think tht someone like Kadri can be a bit bolder, more fearless, knowing that Orr is behind him or, at worst, that he's going to jump over the boards the next shift.  I mean, we can debate the whole school-yard "my dad can beat your dad up" sort of thing, we can scoff that this behavior still passes as machismo in 2013, but I don't think you can say that it doesn't exist.

 

[ensco]

I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to sign a veteran depth centre to provide the right 3rd/4th line depty (Dominic Moore?). I just don't think Colborne can do it if someone gets hurt.

 

[Kin]

I mean, we can debate the whole school-yard "my dad can beat your dad up" sort of thing, we can scoff that this behavior still passes as machismo in 2013, but I don't think you can say that it doesn't exist.

Well, again, without wanting to wade too deep into the ins and outs of fighting I think the immediate problem there is that "it" seems to vary from person to person when the argument is made re: fighting. You seem to be saying that having an enforcer in the line-up lets a player play without a certain degree of fear, I guess, that someone's going to cheap shot him(I think) and that allows him to play with a level of confidence. That's one thing and that could even be true regardless of whether or not having a fighter actually makes a player less likely to be on the end of a dirty hit.

But other people make the argument that fighting, again, actually reduces cheap shots. Some people argue that fighting is the only thing preventing a Wayne Maki vs. Ted Green stickfight from breaking out every other night. Or that fighting is integral to the sport's popularity or...on and on it goes.

Now, the problem with all of these arguments isn't what I think. It's not whether or not I like fighting(I do), it's not whether I think the human cost of fighting outweighs it's benefits to the game(I do) and it's not even whether or not I buy what you're selling regarding the benefits of having a fighter in the line-up.

The problem with all of these arguments is that they are directly contradicted by the actions, not words, of the "real hockey guys" who provide the basis for what you're saying. When the playoffs come, when winning matters the absolute most, they sit fighters. Pat Burns, Randy Carlyle...whoever. When guys come out of the line-up in the playoffs, it's the guys who throw hands.

And while I'm absolutely open to all sorts of perspectives and opinions on the matter there is no explanation I've ever heard that reconciles, or even attempts to really, "Winning provides an advantage" and "When things matter most, nobody fights". At some point you have to come to one of two conclusions either A) the idea that fighting provides an advantage is bogus or B) hockey coaches don't want to win playoff games. Personally, I just can't go with B.