As much as I hate his Penguiny Penguin ways, Rick Tocchet also has to be on the "toughness" list.

He had a 30 goal/300 PIM season, which is unheard of in today's game.

Yes, he had other skills as well. His main one was intimidation, which was large part of what allowed him to score 20 goals. Keep in mind that Max Talbot and Trent Klatt are also players who once scored 20 goals in a season (not that they were awful players). Primarily, Dave Schultz was a player whose main job was to punch people in the face while players attempted to punch his face. While that takes balls and you have to be tough both mentally and physically, he's not as tough as a player like Kimmo Timonen or Jason Smith. In fact, although he was definitely a great teammate, his antics always made me feel like he also fought for some self-serving interests as well as the team's.
- jmatchett383

Fair enough. I never even saw Schultz play live as a Flyer. His last season with the team was the year I was born. From what I've read and watched about him he seemed like a good teammate and a really tough guy. From what I understand he was a pretty essential player in both Stanley Cups.

Fair enough. I never even saw Schultz play live as a Flyer. His last season with the team was the year I was born. From what I've read and watched about him he seemed like a good teammate and a really tough guy. From what I understand he was a pretty essential player in both Stanley Cups.
- PLindbergh31

He was definitely tough, but depending on your definition, every player on that team was tough. Not that they were all enforcers/goons, but every player on that team was willing to do whatever it took to win. Schultz and Clarke were definitely the 2 faces of the team, and Schultz seemed to relish his role. But aside from just being able to fight, I don't think I'd put him on the all-time list.

The Hammer has to be on this list!
- PLindbergh31

Agreed. It shall be done.

Sorry to go off-topic so early, but I was thinking about this in the shower and wanted to get some opinions.

There are a lot of people, both on this board and on other boards (as well as in league offices) who are crying about the need to increase scoring. While I agree that scoring could be increased, my question is simply: Why? Why do people feel the need to increase scoring for the game to be entertaining?

To an extreme, imagine a very dull game with putrid goaltending where there is a ton of neutral zone play, with each team getting only 15-20 shots but the score being 6-5. Now, that’s a fairly high-scoring game, but it was be a very boring game for the most part. To the other extreme, imagine a game with tons of speed, hard hitting, great goaltending with scoring chance after scoring chance, each team having 45-50 shots on goal, and the final being a 2-1 game. In terms of excitement, that would be a much more exciting game.

Now, all things equal (which, of course, they are not), more shots would equal more goals, meaning that more goals would be the result of a more exciting game. But again, the speed and skill is what drives the game. So I have heard people complain that the league’s unwillingness to “call things by the book” would lead to a more goals. I disagree.

In the late 80s/early 90s, even as the butterfly was being adopted and goalies were wearing bigger pads, you had guys like Hull, Gretzky, and Lemieux putting up huge offensive numbers. In order to draw a penalty in those days, you had to be completely obvious. Guys were continually hooked, grabbed, held, and slashed without a call at all, and no one had an issue with league-wide offensive output.

Today, as much as people are “taking away from skill players” or what have you, there are more power plays generally than there were in the 80s/early 90s. Generally speaking, a team is more likely to score on a power play and at even strength. And you know what? Unless you have a personal interest in the game, a power play is the most boring part of hockey. Upon gaining the zone, the offensive team generally stands in place, passing around the perimeter. The defensive team stays in a box formation, and if they gain possession, they just haphazardly throw the puck down the ice. So, while a power play is more likely to result in a goal than a “skilled” 2 minutes of even strength, the result would be much more boring.

So, again, why do we feel the need to increase scoring? If the issue is to call more penalties in order to force teams to adapt to not hooking/holding/etc. then that’s fine, as long as you’re willing to watch several months of games with 20 penalties per team. Even after the fact, there will still be a host (6-7) of penalties per game, again, if the rule book is enforced to the letter (it is 100% impossible to play 60 minutes of high-level competitive hockey without taking a few penalties). It simply cannot be done. No, I have never played professional hockey, but I have played semi-pro against NHL-drafted players, and I can attest to this happening at that level.

I have also heard people complaining that the league is attempting to level the playing field between 1st line players and 4th line players. I would argue that 3rd/4th line players in today’s game are generally just closer in skill to 1st/2nd line players than they were in the 80s/90s. The “goon” role is all but gone, and players today are generally required to be able to skate an effective shift without being a liability to the team. Again, in the 80s/90s, a less skilled player would grope his way through a shift without being a liability. That is less the case today, and with all of the training and clinics of today’s players versus the alcoholism and chain smoking of yesteryear’s players, the discrepancy in skill is more based on the players than the officials.

Admittedly, I have done no research on the subject or numbers, and these are simply the observations from my eyes and ears. I have watched hockey avidly from the early 90s, watched full games from the 1980s, and have seen the game evolve during that time. So I am sure that there are some stat people out there who will try to refute every piece that I have said, and if that’s what gets you off, go for it. Regardless, my point still stands: Why do people feel a need to increase scoring in order to improve the game?

/end novel
- jmatchett383

You must take long showers.

You must take long showers.
- BiggE

YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

I have nowhere near the hockey play knowledge as Bill and became a fan right around the time when Lindros was acquired, so a lot of the mentioned players are before my time. But I will say that the 2 toughest moments I recall are back in the PHI-TOR playoff series (around 200 or 2001) when Kapanen got absolutely crushed by a Maple Leaf and still somehow made it to the bench so that the OT winner could be scored (by either Roenick or Primeau if I recall).

I also remember a PHI-BUF playoff series from 1998 when a brawl broke out, which is uncommon for playoff hockey. I remember Brindamour fighting a guy, both went down, then got back up and continued to fight. Refs were attending to all the other fights. It just always stuck out in my mind because usually the fight would end once they went down.

And though not a fan, I remember Dave Babych playing a playoff series with a broken foot. Unreal.

Sorry to go off-topic so early, but I was thinking about this in the shower and wanted to get some opinions.

There are a lot of people, both on this board and on other boards (as well as in league offices) who are crying about the need to increase scoring. While I agree that scoring could be increased, my question is simply: Why? Why do people feel the need to increase scoring for the game to be entertaining?

To me the problem isn't simply lack of scoring, it's the lack of scoring chances. Refs not calling the rulebook makes it too easy to defend, which makes throwing the puck at the net and hoping for lucky bounces the most consistent way to score. That's just not as entertaining as the early 90s hockey that made me a fan of the sport.

Sorry to go off-topic so early, but I was thinking about this in the shower and wanted to get some opinions.

There are a lot of people, both on this board and on other boards (as well as in league offices) who are crying about the need to increase scoring. While I agree that scoring could be increased, my question is simply: Why? Why do people feel the need to increase scoring for the game to be entertaining?

To an extreme, imagine a very dull game with putrid goaltending where there is a ton of neutral zone play, with each team getting only 15-20 shots but the score being 6-5. Now, that’s a fairly high-scoring game, but it was be a very boring game for the most part. To the other extreme, imagine a game with tons of speed, hard hitting, great goaltending with scoring chance after scoring chance, each team having 45-50 shots on goal, and the final being a 2-1 game. In terms of excitement, that would be a much more exciting game.

Now, all things equal (which, of course, they are not), more shots would equal more goals, meaning that more goals would be the result of a more exciting game. But again, the speed and skill is what drives the game. So I have heard people complain that the league’s unwillingness to “call things by the book” would lead to a more goals. I disagree.

In the late 80s/early 90s, even as the butterfly was being adopted and goalies were wearing bigger pads, you had guys like Hull, Gretzky, and Lemieux putting up huge offensive numbers. In order to draw a penalty in those days, you had to be completely obvious. Guys were continually hooked, grabbed, held, and slashed without a call at all, and no one had an issue with league-wide offensive output.

Today, as much as people are “taking away from skill players” or what have you, there are more power plays generally than there were in the 80s/early 90s. Generally speaking, a team is more likely to score on a power play and at even strength. And you know what? Unless you have a personal interest in the game, a power play is the most boring part of hockey. Upon gaining the zone, the offensive team generally stands in place, passing around the perimeter. The defensive team stays in a box formation, and if they gain possession, they just haphazardly throw the puck down the ice. So, while a power play is more likely to result in a goal than a “skilled” 2 minutes of even strength, the result would be much more boring.

So, again, why do we feel the need to increase scoring? If the issue is to call more penalties in order to force teams to adapt to not hooking/holding/etc. then that’s fine, as long as you’re willing to watch several months of games with 20 penalties per team. Even after the fact, there will still be a host (6-7) of penalties per game, again, if the rule book is enforced to the letter (it is 100% impossible to play 60 minutes of high-level competitive hockey without taking a few penalties). It simply cannot be done. No, I have never played professional hockey, but I have played semi-pro against NHL-drafted players, and I can attest to this happening at that level.

I have also heard people complaining that the league is attempting to level the playing field between 1st line players and 4th line players. I would argue that 3rd/4th line players in today’s game are generally just closer in skill to 1st/2nd line players than they were in the 80s/90s. The “goon” role is all but gone, and players today are generally required to be able to skate an effective shift without being a liability to the team. Again, in the 80s/90s, a less skilled player would grope his way through a shift without being a liability. That is less the case today, and with all of the training and clinics of today’s players versus the alcoholism and chain smoking of yesteryear’s players, the discrepancy in skill is more based on the players than the officials.

Admittedly, I have done no research on the subject or numbers, and these are simply the observations from my eyes and ears. I have watched hockey avidly from the early 90s, watched full games from the 1980s, and have seen the game evolve during that time. So I am sure that there are some stat people out there who will try to refute every piece that I have said, and if that’s what gets you off, go for it. Regardless, my point still stands: Why do people feel a need to increase scoring in order to improve the game?

/end novel
- jmatchett383

Low scoring hockey games are a lot like low scoring soccer games. When the game was more physical the low scoring games weren't so bad, since players had to make contact with other players.

Now, low scoring games are often like watching the NJD's play a trap and never throw a hit.

It's boring as dog poop.

To me the problem isn't simply lack of scoring, it's the lack of scoring chances. Refs not calling the rulebook makes it too easy to defend, which makes throwing the puck at the net and hoping for lucky bounces the most consistent way to score. That's just not as entertaining as the early 90s hockey that made me a fan of the sport.
- Feanor

I agree with the first sentence 100%, which is why I'm against things like making the net bigger. It creates more goals, but doesn't change the dynamic of the game. On the other end, it seems to my eyes that there are more obstruction-type penalties called nowadays than there were in the early 90s where you basically had to tackle a guy to get a penalty, so I'm not sure it's the rulebook so much as the advancement of defensive strategies.

Low scoring hockey games are a lot like low scoring soccer games. When the game was more physical the low scoring games weren't so bad, since players had to make contact with other players.

Now, low scoring games are often like watching the NJD's play a trap and never throw a hit.

It's boring as dog poop.
- MikesPillBottle

So if 2 goalies make 50 saves in a 2-1 overtime win, you would find that less exciting than a neutral-zone clog game where the goalies are pathetic and let up 4+ goals on 20 shots per team?

Again, how does goals = exciting play?

Edit: Again, all things equal, more shots = more scoring chances = more goals, and yes, some low-scoring games are based on boring neutral zone trapping. But some low scoring games are based on spectacular goaltending and great defensive play, which I think is more exciting than games where goaltending is optional.

In regards to the toughness does it seem that Hextall and Hackstoll seem to be building a tough team to play against? I could be 100% wrong but a lot of the guys drafted and some guys signed seem to have an identity. Hard nosed, two way players. Maybe they don't score 7 goals a game but they might not give up many either. And they all seem to have strong work ethics.

In regards to the toughness does it seem that Hextall and Hackstoll seem to be building a tough team to play against? I could be 100% wrong but a lot of the guys drafted and some guys signed seem to have an identity. Hard nosed, two way players. Maybe they don't score 7 goals a game but they might not give up many either. And they all seem to have strong work ethics.
- J35Bacher

It kind of feels like the 2009 offseason where every move was a "tough" one in some way (Emery, Lappy, OKT, Pronger).

So if 2 goalies make 50 saves in a 2-1 overtime win, you would find that less exciting than a neutral-zone clog game where the goalies are pathetic and let up 4+ goals on 20 shots per team?

Again, how does goals = exciting play?

Edit: Again, all things equal, more shots = more scoring chances = more goals, and yes, some low-scoring games are based on boring neutral zone trapping. But some low scoring games are based on spectacular goaltending and great defensive play, which I think is more exciting than games where goaltending is optional.
- jmatchett383

I think your edit is exactly his point. That Jersey trap or Detroit left wing lock style hockey led to the 2-1 with 20 shots for each team hockey that was just horrid.

Give me 2-1 hard hitting hockey game with 30ish or more shots any day over that lame clog the ice hockey.

It kind of feels like the 2009 offseason where every move was a "tough" one in some way (Emery, Lappy, OKT, Pronger).
- jmatchett383

OKT wow I forgot about him.

You must take long showers.
- BiggE

You didn't stop at "I was in the shower" ?

I have nowhere near the hockey play knowledge as Bill and became a fan right around the time when Lindros was acquired, so a lot of the mentioned players are before my time. But I will say that the 2 toughest moments I recall are back in the PHI-TOR playoff series (around 200 or 2001) when Kapanen got absolutely crushed by a Maple Leaf and still somehow made it to the bench so that the OT winner could be scored (by either Roenick or Primeau if I recall).

I also remember a PHI-BUF playoff series from 1998 when a brawl broke out, which is uncommon for playoff hockey. I remember Brindamour fighting a guy, both went down, then got back up and continued to fight. Refs were attending to all the other fights. It just always stuck out in my mind because usually the fight would end once they went down.

And though not a fan, I remember Dave Babych playing a playoff series with a broken foot. Unreal.
- wolphnuts12

Babych actually ended up suing the Flyers and Art Barolozzi over how that injury was treated: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/...s-injury-lawsuit-1.304723

I think your edit is exactly his point. That Jersey trap or Detroit left wing lock style hockey led to the 2-1 with 20 shots for each team hockey that was just horrid.

Give me 2-1 hard hitting hockey game with 30ish or more shots any day over that lame clog the ice hockey.
- dragonoffrost

But that's the thing. You can have a "trapping" game that is still 4-3 if the goalies are poop. On the other hand, you could have a fast-paced, hard hitting game that is 2-1 where each team takes 40 shots due to spectacular goaltending. Which is more entertaining?

It kind of feels like the 2009 offseason where every move was a "tough" one in some way (Emery, Lappy, OKT, Pronger).
- jmatchett383

Kind of.

This past draft is littered with two way guys. Even Konecny while skilled is a little ball of hate too.

Provorov plays a solid two way defensive game but also plays a tough game.

They just seem to be building more an identity now. Just from what I see

To me the problem isn't simply lack of scoring, it's the lack of scoring chances. Refs not calling the rulebook makes it too easy to defend, which makes throwing the puck at the net and hoping for lucky bounces the most consistent way to score. That's just not as entertaining as the early 90s hockey that made me a fan of the sport.
- Feanor

Keep in mind also how much better goalies have become in my lifetime. The equipment, economy of movement, natural athleticism and pure size. Couple that with evolved coaching systems at the NHL level that have nearly every skater on the ice willing to go down and block shots - especially in the playoffs and it becomes tremendously difficult to take the puck from the perimeter and get it through for a high quality chance. The neutral zone speed of the game has exploded and a lot of subtle holdup or interference maneuvers done on the defensive side of the puck are the difference between entering the zone with speed and puck possession, possibly an odd man rush or being offsides or held up just enough for the defensive players to collapse and negate a high quality chance.

OKT wow I forgot about him.
- dragonoffrost

That signing, plus a 5th round pick used on a player who never played an AHL or NHL game, helped to get us to within 2 wins of a Cup.

Babych actually ended up suing the Flyers and Art Barolozzi over how that injury was treated: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/...s-injury-lawsuit-1.304723
- johndewar

Good knowledge!!! And a 9 person jury? That's weird.

Good knowledge!!! And a 9 person jury? That's weird.
- wolphnuts12

At least it was only his foot, not his mustache.

Bill Meltzer: Meltzer's Musings: Defining Toughness
- bmeltzer

The Flyers will always be connected to the Broad Street Bullies of the 70's and in my opinion more recently the Flyers are trying to move away from this. I see this as a mistake but it is what it is. Weise in my mind could be more skilled than a Ryan White but to me White had more bite. He was more in your face and more chatty. I like these guys. I'm disappointed with fans who don't give Brayden Schenn more credit. He's a physical kid who plays bigger than he is. Simmonds and Gudas in my mind are the only true tough guys this team has to offer. In terms of playing through pain, most players do. You won't find very many healthy guys by game 40.

The Flyers will always be connected to the Broad Street Bullies of the 70's and in my opinion more recently the Flyers are trying to move away from this. I see this as a mistake but it is what it is. Weise in my mind could be more skilled than a Ryan White but to me White had more bite. He was more in your face and more chatty. I like these guys. I'm disappointed with fans who don't give Brayden Schenn more credit. He's a physical kid who plays bigger than he is. Simmonds and Gudas in my mind are the only true tough guys this team has to offer. In terms of playing through pain, most players do. You won't find very many healthy guys by game 40.
- roenick97

Ryan White isn't needed when Nick Cousins can stir the pot as good as he does. People seem to lose their minds around him. It's all about roster makeup. You need some sand paper but too much of it can make it tough to take the next step as a team.