No Fighting Policy? [Archive]

Stormbringer

11-10-2006, 02:03 PM

Hmmmmmm...veeeeery interesting.

http://www.thehockeynews.com/en/news/news.asp?idNews=22147

Carolina coach Peter Laviolette makes no bones about the way he expects his players to act in games.

“I have a very strict no-fighting policy for our team,” Laviolette says. “Last year in the playoffs (defenseman) Mike Commodore got into a fight and I said, ‘OK, that’s it. No more fighting.’ I simply cannot afford to lose a player like Mike Commodore to an injury he may sustain in a fight.

“Take a guy like Erik Cole. If we allowed him to fight, I know he would do it. Now if he gets hurt in a fight, our team has lost a very valuable asset. How do I justify that? I can’t. It just doesn’t make sense to me to allow our guys to fight.”

Instead, Laviolette elected to dress skilled players on his fourth line, guys who, in a pinch, could fill in on one of his top two lines. A player such as Chad LaRose, for instance. LaRose, a 5-foot-10, 175-pound speedy winger, couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag, but he scored 61 goals and 117 points in 67 games for Plymouth in his final year of junior and helped the Hurricanes by skating an occasional regular shift and killing penalties. Laviolette also worked skill players Andrew Ladd and Josef Vasicek into the lineup.

And it still doesn't make sense after a goon like Exelby tries to take Eric Staal AND Cam Ward out of commission? Okaaaaaaay... :crazy:

StormShaman

11-10-2006, 02:18 PM

Oh boy, I bet the Trashers are salivating at this.

KaniacFever

11-10-2006, 02:26 PM

So why they got to call LaRose out saying he couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag.

talkingcanes

11-10-2006, 02:26 PM

maybe this is why.

The NHL’s new form of intimidation is speed and scoring.

“If it came down to fighting, I don’t think we’d scare anybody,” says Laviolette with a laugh. “Our game is speed and offense. I’m big on monitoring minutes played.

There were games last year when I’d look at the ice time for the line of Rod Brind’Amour, Cory Stillman and Matt Cullen. Brind’Amour would be at 23 minutes, Stillman at 18 and Cullen at 14. My thing was, how can I get Stillman and Cullen three or four more minutes each? I certainly couldn’t do it if we were putting a fighter on the ice.”

as the article states, the game is changing. the Canes have taken advantage. they have never been a big fighting team and now the rest of the league is playing their game. I get the concern for the stars, but he has a great point, what do you gain if someone hurts Staal or Ward and Commodore gets hurt during a fight? you have 2 injured players instead of 1. unless your fighter has additional on ice skills, it's a waste of a position now. I remember last year when Weight got into a fight thinking what a frickin' stupid thing to do. what if he'd gotten hurt at that point instead of later on in the playoffs?

I have no problem with fighting in hockey. Don't particularly like it, but can live with the scrums that pass as fights most games. Hard core, no skills, thick necked fighters, I can't say I'm sorry to see that aspect of the game waning. I know there are people who go to games hoping to see fights and are disappointed when it doesn't happen. I happen to really like the direction the game is taking now.

Stormbringer

11-10-2006, 02:26 PM

Oh boy, I bet the Trashers are salivating at this.

Or really, any team with a goon or two or three... :crazy:

This makes me further ponder why the heck we got Jesse Boulerice back, even if he wasn't the best fighter in the world AND is currently in Albany.

Stormbringer

11-10-2006, 02:40 PM

I have no problem with fighting in hockey. Don't particularly like it, but can live with the scrums that pass as fights most games. Hard core, no skills, thick necked fighters, I can't say I'm sorry to see that aspect of the game waning. I know there are people who go to games hoping to see fights and are disappointed when it doesn't happen. I happen to really like the direction the game is taking now.

I wouldn't have a problem with fighting in hockey disappearing if it weren't for guys like Exelby who get their jollies doing crap like what he did to Staalsy and Wardo AND get away with it 'cause of the new NHL philosophy.

Even though I agree that we don't want the game to become like a WWE event (or more realisticly, the ECHL), I also am of the opinion that a little bit of fighting here and there *is* a necessary evil. Gotta somehow let guys like Exelby know they can't try to hurt guys like Staal AND especially get away with it. Not to mention that it would've been nice to see one or two Canes standing up for Eric INSTEAD of giving Garnet an "Oh, it's ok!!" sort of hug... :rolleyes:

svandijk1

11-10-2006, 03:36 PM

Honestly though, do you think Exelby doesn't take a shot at Staal or Ward given the chance because Boulerice is sitting on the bench? Do you honestly think he says to himself, "nah, better lay off their star because Boulerice might ask me to drop the gloves?" Just look at the Doig's of the world, who take the cheap shot and then turn their back when someone tries to make them drop the gloves. All you end up with is an instigator and/or fighting penalty and they not only got in the shot, but then even get a powerplay. The league screwed this up when they came up with the instigator rule.

The only thing a putz like Hartley will understand is, if after running Staal or Ward, a Cane, any Cane, doesn't have to be a fighter/enforcer, goes and takes a run at Kovalchuk, Hossa or Lehtonen. THAT will get his attention. Tussling with Exelby or Boulton just puts that damn smirk on his face and rightfully so.

goalie33

11-10-2006, 05:12 PM

I miss Probert.

:(

puck_it

11-10-2006, 05:25 PM

its league politicking. The league has a very anti-retaliatory policy since bertuzzi. The team is coming out and making it known they dont condone fighting. this covers the teams ass on saturday regardless of what Erik or anyother guy tries to do with Orpik.

svandijk1

11-10-2006, 06:56 PM

The league has a very anti-retaliatory policy since bertuzzi.

But in effect, the league actually brought that on themselves by coming up with the instigator rule.

Here's a nice summary/example of how the league's own rule just makes matters worse.

http://www.sptimes.com/2002/05/04/Sports/NHL_s_non_fight_rule_.shtml

G-Vegas Caniac

11-10-2006, 08:12 PM

I hate to say it but fighting has always been in the sport and always will. It might be disappearing a bit but if you don't want your star players killed you better have that "someone" who can stick up for there teammates...I personally like fighting but that's not the reason I like the sport. And I hate the freaking instigator rule also..I always see people get out of there seats for a fight. I guess I'm kind of biased when it come to fighting because I like it when other teams on Center Ice fight but really hate when it's one of our players doing it...The truth of it is no one really gets hurt when players fight but if you take on the wrong player they WILL hurt you...

svandijk1

11-10-2006, 09:30 PM

And that's exactly the point. If the league had left things alone and let the players fight, there wouldn't be the sort of cheapshots described in the article. But the league decided it needed to "clean it's image" to become more mainstream and thus they created the instigator rule. And the result is guys feel free to take liberties because the league handcuffed the players from dishing out their traditional brand of justice. And now Lavi makes his statements because he essentially doesn't want to see his better, skilled players sitting in the box for 17 minutes because a useless clod like Exelby or Doig cheapshots a guy. I mean given the state of the defense, would you want Commodore off the ice for virtually an entire period?

Stormbringer

11-11-2006, 09:32 AM

http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/509235.html

Laviolette further explains the "No Fight Policy"...

Laviolette instituted the policy after the first game of the second-round series against the New Jersey Devils. In the third period of that game, with the Canes on their way to a blowout 6-0 win, Devils tough guy Cam Janssen picked a fight with Mike Commodore in front of the Carolina bench.

Commodore answered the call -- Janssen was hit with extra penalties for instigating the fight -- but Laviolette decided at that point there was little gain worth the risk of losing a player like Commodore to a broken hand.

"If the other team is down 4-0 in the third period and looking to fight, players sometimes feel pressure," Laviolette said. "I'm not looking for it. Don't do it."

SoCalcaniac

11-11-2006, 11:22 AM

Frankly, none of this is 'news' to me, so I'm surprised there's even a thread dedicated to it, considering it's been plain and obvious that Laviolette wasn't going to go the route of tough guy on the team when Jesse was made expendable, and he's now in Albany. I like Jesse like most of our fans, but for him to be an every day guy, he's gonna have to become well rounded and I think he will.

I'm like TC- I can live with the tussles and the scrums, but it's not why I watch hockey. I personally think Laviolette gets it, and our team proved we don't need a fighter dude in the line up to win the Cup. If it's good enough for Coach, it's good enough for me.

MeanGene

11-12-2006, 10:37 AM

double post, see below

MeanGene

11-12-2006, 10:38 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPuUQ-v9dSI

goalie33

11-12-2006, 03:18 PM

Hey, Irbe's in that one! WOO!!

svandijk1

11-12-2006, 06:55 PM

So a couple of things. Either Commodore blatently ignored standing orders from his coach or, as I suspect, the news article was an out of context over-simplification of what Laviolette wants - which is not to take stupid penalties out of frustration or get suckered into being put at a disadvantage.

However, I think we saw a perfect example of what Laviolette is concerned with though I don't think he has a problem with Commodore standing up for his teammate. But look at the result: Commodore was placed in the box for 5 minutes. One minute into that penalty, Hedican gets 4 minutes for high-sticking. The Canes on now on a penalty kill for the next 4 minutes with their two best defensemen in the box and two other key defensemen in the press box (Gleason and Wallin) leaving us with Hutchinson and Tanabe having to play significant minutes short-handed. That's what you have to be aware of because Pittsburgh will trade Thorburn in the box for Commodore every day of the week and twice on Sunday (or Saturday as the case may be).

puck_it

11-12-2006, 10:15 PM

i think what coach said has been misinterpreted. first off im sticking by the whole politicking for the league arguement.

Lavi clarified later that Commie fought in jersey when we were blowing them out. There was no purpose to that fight. It wasnt protecting a teammate. Anything that isnt a fight for honor or for enforcing "the rules" is out. Thats the way i'm seeing it. No blowout frustrated fights a la kevyn adams earlier this season.

StormShaman

11-13-2006, 12:12 AM

car3hur

11-13-2006, 03:28 PM

Hmmmmmm...veeeeery interesting.

And it still doesn't make sense after a goon like Exelby tries to take Eric Staal AND Cam Ward out of commission? Okaaaaaaay... :crazy:

The hit on Staal [iwas[/i] clean though...

puck_it

11-13-2006, 03:29 PM

clean or not, ya gotta stick up for a 100 pt scorer... you cant let them walk all over him.

WHAM! oh, that was a clean hit on Eric, ok guys, no problem!

goalie33

11-13-2006, 03:58 PM

Exactly. Cleanliness (lol) doesn't enter into the equation.

Back in the Gretzky/Semenko and Gretzky/McSorley days, you didn't hit Gretzky. Period.

2CrazyCaniacs

11-14-2006, 04:08 AM

One more comment about Commie's fight on Saturday night. One of my coworkers had front row seats close to where the fight happened. According to him the Pens started it by going after Ladd, although he wasn't sure why they did. He said Mike was trying to break up the fight, but Pens 22 kept slugging him, and he finally threw down the gloves to defend himself. I hope the Lavi wouldn't have an issue with Mike's fighting if this is the case.

puck_it

11-14-2006, 10:35 AM

because Ladd rode him hard during an icing call... got under their skin...

nccanes

11-14-2006, 10:57 AM

he bumped him - didn't even qualify as a hit

puck_it

11-14-2006, 11:14 AM

he could have easily not bumped him, which is why the whole thing started... you can ride someone hard without hitting them

nccanes

11-14-2006, 11:24 AM

He didn't hit him, he bumped him :D

but the guy slashed him in return, so the other stuff was just for fun anyway

puck_it

11-14-2006, 11:30 AM

I'LL SHOW YOU "BUMPED HIM"

*shakes fist*

Canesluver

11-14-2006, 11:38 AM

http://www.hosthideout.com/images/smilies/argue.gif

You two need a time out!
:D

puck_it

11-14-2006, 11:42 AM

im gonna bumper her in the face if she doesnt watch it :spin:

goalie33

11-14-2006, 12:13 PM

You'd have to reach it first.

puck_it

11-14-2006, 12:24 PM

nccanes

11-29-2006, 08:01 AM

Interesting read.

'Canes boys can't be boys
Carolina coach has his team on a short leash -- no fights allowed

Allen Panzeri
CanWest News Service

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

CREDIT: Associated Press, Files
Scenes like this will be a thing of the past if Carolina Hurricanes coach Peter Laviolette has his way.

RALEIGH, N.C. -- In Peter Laviolette's world, when push comes to shove, he wants his team to turn the other cheek.

The Carolina Hurricanes coach hasn't officially banned fighting. His players are still allowed to defend themselves, but they'd better have a good reason to fight.

"I have a common-sense rule that says, 'Don't get into useless fights,'" said Laviolette, whose team doesn't even carry a heavyweight (though it does have thug Jesse Boulerice in the minors). "Are we allowed to stick up for our teammates? Yeah. Am I against fighting in the NHL? No.

"But ... there are times and points in the game when somebody will come off the bench and try to change the makeup of the game, and our team is not built like that. We don't have that type of personnel on our team. That doesn't play to our strengths, so why would we even look for that?

"We need to play to our strengths, use our speed, use our skill, use our forechecking."

Not all of the coach's players are in complete agreement with him, however. 'Canes forward Erik Cole, for example, was upset when Laviolette tightened his restrictions for a Nov. 11 game against the Pittsburgh Penguins.

That game was the first time the teams met since Pittsburgh's Brooks Orpik checked Cole from behind and into the boards at Mellon Arena on March 4. Cole broke his neck, and didn't return until the sixth game of the Stanley Cup final. Orpik was suspended for three games.

Despite predictions of a blood bath, nothing happened -- and the Hurricanes won 6-2.

Even though he got two assists, Cole wasn't happy.

"[Laviolette] put some pretty strict restrictions on what he wanted to have done with the game and how he wanted it played," said Cole. "I can't say I agree with how he handled the whole situation, but what are you going to do? He is the coach."

Laviolette is unrepentant, though.

"We're not going to win that game -- a sideshow game," he said. "I'm trying to make that point. We can win a game on the scoreboard.

"If we want to go out and fight the Ottawa Senators, I don't know if we'll win that game. I know what game we will win: it's speed and forechecking and second effort."

Meanwhile, Laviolette said NHL teams should not underestimate former 'Canes goalie Martin Gerber, who has struggled this season with the Senators.

"He's a guy who can steal the show, no question," said Laviolette. "We have to make sure that if that happens, we make him steal it.

"Maybe he's just going through one of those stretches. But I know I speak from experience ... he was a big reason that we had a lot of the success we had last year."

SoCalcaniac

11-29-2006, 08:25 AM

Good ol' snarly Erik Cole. :lol:

I had my questions on the Lavi Rule about fighting/fights etc., and I thought it interesting that all this discussion and articles started coming out about Laviolette's policy, the no fighting thing and so on, just around the time we were to play the Pens didn't seem 'coincidental' lol; and at the expense of disagreeing with EC, I see where Laviolette is coming from, and respect it.

And on the flip side, I enjoy Erik when he is snarly and surly.

puck_it

11-29-2006, 08:50 AM

If we want to go out and fight the Ottawa Senators, I don't know if we'll win that game. I know what game we will win: it's speed and forechecking and second effort."

...ummmmm... then why didnt we play "forechecking and second effort"?

caneshockeychick

11-29-2006, 09:01 AM

^Maybe its just me but I didn't see a whole lot of speed out there either ;)

SouthernHockeyChick

11-29-2006, 09:11 AM

As we were leaving last night, the guy parked next to us was talking to another man and said "There wasn't even a good fight on the ice tonight." I agreed completely but I don't think we were talking about the same thing at all, lol.

apolinar

11-29-2006, 12:16 PM

talkingcanes

11-29-2006, 12:32 PM

There was no forechecking and effort because there was no boulerice fight to spark the boys like the days of old. The crowd is silent because there was no fight to spark us despite the losing effort on the ice.

But that's just my opinion. you all know where I stand on the Fight no fight line. I'm glad Cole is speaking out. This team's flatness can flatten further without a "team guy" representing on the ice. If the team wants to fight, and coach leashes them, he can lose them pretty quickly.

maybe a tough guy would be a good idea as long as he's not totally unskilled in the rest of the aspects of the game, but Boulerice was never the answer as far as I'm concerned. and I don't think he is new NHL material. probably not really an issue on the table based on PLav's mindset.

regarding Cole speaking out, is it the first sign of chaffing under PLav as asked on another board? maybe it's nothing but Cole being his cranky old man self, but it seems unfortunate in light of recent play. I think they should suck it up and listen to PLav, but everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. not sure the N&O is the best place to air it out and not sure public dissent is helpful to team chemistry.

SouthernHockeyChick

11-29-2006, 12:34 PM

Have those quotes been in the N&O? I haven't had time to read yesterday's or today's yet. That's an AP article above.....with no indication whatsoever of when those comments were made in regards to recent play. Maybe they weren't stinking when he said that.

nccanes

11-29-2006, 12:42 PM

Sorry, my fault on the confusion. It was in the Ottawa Citizen. The AP reference (I believe) was just a photo credit.

It was published today.

I think Cole could have phrased his comment a bit differently. But perhaps they were and the soundbite is worse than in in context. Cole is notorious for soundbites that make you go 'hmmmmm'.

I certainly wondered why he chose to mention it now - a full 2+ weeks after the game, but I know I'll never understand Cole (via the media anyway). But to me, it shows *something* that he is expressing this year that we haven't seen since before the lockout.

But I would suggest that saying "I can't say I agree with how he handled the whole situation" to the media about your coach is probably never a good idea. But who knows.

Garrioch's article included another sentence.

"(Laviolette) put some pretty strict restrictions on what he wanted to have done with the game and how he wanted it played," said Cole. "I can't say I agree with how he handled the whole situation ... but what are you going to do, he's the coach. It was a frustrating night in that sense, but it was good to get out of the way."

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/Sports/Columnists/Garrioch_Bruce/2006/11/29/2544871.html

It has more quotes from Laviolette too.

Stormbringer

11-29-2006, 12:49 PM

There was no forechecking and effort because there was no boulerice fight to spark the boys like the days of old. The crowd is silent because there was no fight to spark us despite the losing effort on the ice.

But that's just my opinion. you all know where I stand on the Fight no fight line. I'm glad Cole is speaking out. This team's flatness can flatten further without a "team guy" representing on the ice. If the team wants to fight, and coach leashes them, he can lose them pretty quickly.

AMEN and PREACH ON!!!

I have said it before in this thread and will say it again, fighting is a necessary evil. And without it, you not only have your bullies getting their jollies from doing potential-injury-causing-crap, but also almost, ALMOST no reason for the crowd to get behind the home team when they are down two or more goals.

Hockey is not just about winning...it's also about showing teams that you are not intimidated and don't take any s***. And while big hits can get that across...sometimes you need something more than those in the form of a good fight or two.

Yes, I'm bitter, no thanks to three out of the four last games.

nccanes

11-29-2006, 12:54 PM

I see both sides of this discussion, but I will also say that this team didn't need a fight to motivate them last season. Perhaps it would light a flame for a bit, but they still have to solve the "you're not out of it if you fall behind" with real work/confidence/intensity that we had last year (or at least more of it than we have now).

I do give credence to AP's concern about how the players feel about it. I would say that's misplaced frustration given how the rest of their game is going, but it doesn't matter what I think - it's what they think.

talkingcanes

11-29-2006, 12:55 PM

AMEN and PREACH ON!!!

I have said it before in this thread and will say it again, fighting is a necessary evil. And without it, you not only have your bullies getting their jollies from doing potential-injury-causing-crap, but also almost, ALMOST no reason for the crowd to get behind the home team when they are down two or more goals.

Hockey is not just about winning...it's also about showing teams that you are not intimidated and don't take any s***. And while big hits can get that across...sometimes you need something more than those in the form of a good fight or two.

Yes, I'm bitter, no thanks to three out of the four last games.

my opinion about fighting is in several threads and on several boards over the seasons. not rehashing it now, but I do not ever need a fight to get me behind the home team even when they are behind. all I need to to see them putting forth effort and not giving up. I don't need bloodshed and lost teeth. maybe others do and if that's what works for you then that's what works. sorry guys, not convinced that a fight or 2 would have made a difference in either NY game or last night. this team is missing something, and it's not named Stillman, Kaberle, or Boulerice. those are symptoms.

nccanes

11-29-2006, 12:57 PM

I think it's named Aaron Ward. :D ;)

Nah - obviously I'm not serious, but I do miss him (and think the team does as well).

talkingcanes

11-29-2006, 01:01 PM

I think it's named Aaron Ward. :D ;)

Nah - obviously I'm not serious, but I do miss him (and think the team does as well).

we do miss him! after last night, it's named Martin Gerber!

I wish I knew what it was. I just get so irritated with lack of effort. Glad to have the teflon from 02-03 and 03-04 and after the joy that was last season, I have to admit that I'm trying to let it all go and just keep moving on with it.

then again, I am older than Glen Wesley and crankier than Erik Cole so you can imagine what fun I am:lol:

apolinar

11-29-2006, 01:04 PM

What was good to see last night: Gleason punching alfredsson in the face after he fell with full weight onto grahame. And the refs understanding the code and letting it be enforced.

What would have been better would have been taking off the gloves and showing he really meant it. But instead alfredsson kept playing with crosschecks high to williams' shoulder, little subtle hits that were unnecessary but painful altogether. The team seemed to want to send him a message but were held back. And with all that frustration came added frustration with the fact the score kept going their way.

I support the team fully and try to go to every game I can. But if this flatness continues it seems all the support in the world won't get them out of it. PLAV supports fighting for a reason. I hope this is a good enough reason. There is a false sense of chemistry right now that I'm worried about. They're not all pulling on the same rope as the new guys are.

2CrazyCaniacs

11-30-2006, 05:52 AM

What would have been better would have been taking off the gloves and showing he really meant it. But instead alfredsson kept playing with crosschecks high to williams' shoulder, little subtle hits that were unnecessary but painful altogether. The team seemed to want to send him a message but were held back. And with all that frustration came added frustration with the fact the score kept going their way.

I'm with you on this one. After Williams took that awful jolt to the ribs I kept waiting for someone on the Canes team to step up and show OTT they weren't going to take that crap. Not necessarily a fight, but at least facing up to them and showing they weren't going to just stand there and take it. Instead the Sens kept bashing on JW all night. That's not right.

SoCalcaniac

11-30-2006, 07:32 AM

Cole is notorious for soundbites that make you go 'hmmmmm'.

:laugh: :lol: Yep. It's like a switch comes on, maybe it's the red light of the cameras or the mic pressed up to his face, dunno, and he just starts talking and saying things that make you want to make the face that he makes when he's irked. I love him, but he drives me crazy.

I do not ever need a fight to get me behind the home team even when they are behind. all I need to to see them putting forth effort and not giving up. I don't need bloodshed and lost teeth. maybe others do and if that's what works for you then that's what works. sorry guys, not convinced that a fight or 2 would have made a difference in either NY game or last night. this team is missing something, and it's not named Stillman, Kaberle, or Boulerice. those are symptoms.

TC- for a cranky gal, you sure are insightful! ;) I couldn't agree more.

While I'm dying for Stillman to come back and Frankie for sure, there is something, and I spent most of the day yesterday having these lengthy conversations- too lengthy for my taste as to "Why" - why this, why that, where's this; where's that. And that just irritates the mess out of me so I imagine Lavi is about to lose his mind too. And as much as I love JB, he's so not the answer.

We all do have the teflon from the Eric Staal Sweepstakes season (02-03) and the 03-04 season so we can have those years be our barometer and our guide, we're not even in that conversation right now, this is a far better team, and frankly I just don't believe we're out of it by any stretch, crap, it's the quartermark of the season, but every daggone point means something right now, so we can all be reveling in the parking lots in the spring.

But all of that said, these guys have to find a way to get back to what they were. Hard working, fast skating, tenacious team playing in a building that could overwhelm the opposition. That identity they had is fading and they need to establish a new one, and I wouldn't be opposed to having glimpses of that old team show up in games. ;)

Cool Hand Luke

11-30-2006, 09:18 AM

I can see both sides of this debate. I'm not a lover of fighting, but I must admit I do enjoy it at times and I think it has it's place. I hate it when it is contrived, like when two players agree to it during a faceoff and immediately throw down for no apparent reason. That's about as lame as the WWF in my opinion. But when emotions flare or one team mate is sticking up for another one, I can see it then. I have to admit I loved it when Brashear pummeled the Thrashers Vishnevski in retaliation for Sutton's cheap hit previously in the fight infested game last week. Even though Brashear was fined along with Hanlon and others, it just made me feel better that players were standing up for each other and that the Caps were trying to send the message that cheap shots against their better players would not go un-noticed. Maybe the fight didn't accomplish anything, but maybe it did. If you know there is a 250 pound guy sitting on the other bench who could punch the lights out of your best player if there is any funny business and isn't afraid to take a suspension to do it, maybe that makes them think twice. Then again maybe not, I don't know. We'll see next time the teams meet.

While some here say they don't need a fight to get them fired up, most crowds seem to love it. If it does juice up a crowd, then maybe it juices up a team too. We didn't necessarily need that as a team last year because we had lots going on, right on the ice to get excited about. But when everything is flat, the team looks dead, the fans are dead, sometimes something else is needed and I have seen a fight wake up a crowd and a team before on more than one occasion. But I will also admit, if your team needs a fight to get motivated, you've got big problems and aren't going to win many games anyway.