With fighting on the decline, "enforcers" are seeing less and less ice time. Which begs the question: Does the game of hockey need enforcers at all?

Need them Kevin Sawyer and Steve McKenna: Will always have a job.

Don't need them Bill Guerin: Takes care of himself.

By Mike Heika First of all, strike all notions in your head that fighting is somehow barbaric or beneath the high standards of the true hockey fan. It's accepted in the league and can be used as a strategy in winning hockey. Now, is it smart under the new system? That's a good question. With the fast faceoff rules shortening games and keeping things moving, enforcers have had a tough time mixing it up. And with many early-season games played primarily on special teams, some of these tough guys have had a difficult time even getting on the ice. But let's give the changes more than a month before we predict extinction for a brand of player that has carved a niche in this league. Simply put, many star players like having an enforcer on the team. In fact, many players period like having an enforcer. Even under the new way of playing, games can get out of hand. In fact, the changes could actually increase the need for a physical presence. First of all, the crackdown on obstruction will eventually lead to a defenseman getting hurt. If flying forecheckers get to work up speed, hits are inevitable. Second, the crackdown also is supposed to work to keep players from setting screens on the cycle in the offensive zone. If calls are being made as they should be, you can no longer take down Scott Stevens or Derian Hatcher while trying to clear a path to the net. That means physical defensemen are going to have more clear shots at ringing up a star forward on the cycle. Once that starts to happen, fights will break out long before there's a chance to even think about a fast faceoff. And when they do, coaches are going to be looking to the end of their benches once again. Mike Heika of the Dallas Morning News is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.

By Chris Stevenson Can we make do without fighters in the NHL? Of course we can. Can we make do without fighting? Probably not. As the NHL game changes, spurred along this year with the hurry-up faceoffs, the role of the player whose role is exclusively sticking his fist in somebody's face is going the way of wooden sticks. The hurry-up faceoff has reduced the idle time that made work for the enforcers' hands. Yapping is down. Sticks and stones may not break bones, but they do lead to fights. Those players whose role has been almost exclusively intimidating and fighting the guy on the other team whose role has been almost exclusively intimidating and fighting are now finding no room on the dance card. That's no real loss. Those contrived scraps between guys whose only purpose is fighting are pretty much a waste of everybody's time. The instigator rule already started them down the slippery slope to extinction. They can't pick on anybody who doesn't want to be picked on, really. There wasn't much place in the game for that tactic. Now there's no time, either. There is still going to be a place for fighting. That scrap between stars Bill Guerin of the Dallas Stars and Jarome Iginla of the Calgary Flames is evidence of that. Hard-nosed, physical hockey is going to lead to a glove drop now and then and those characteristics are still coveted in hockey players and always will be. As long as players play like that, there are likely going to be fights. But as the NHL game quickens in both its pace and pace of play, plodding enforcers should have to find a way to keep up by learning to do more than fight or find themselves not fighting for a job. Chris Stevenson of the Ottawa Sun is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.