• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

KronwallCRUNCH

Robert Lang

Rate this topic

220 posts in this topic

That right there pretty much invalidates the rest of your post (which was completey inaccurate by the way...Detroit IMO and many others was the better team most of the game last night, especially at even strength.) You know how I can tell Lang's play is indefensible? Because the only way you and Osgod can defend Lang is by bringing up how others players arent performing. That says it all right there. Let's be honest...can anyone confuse what we've seen from Zetterberg and Lang as similar in any way? Hank needs to get on the board and produce, but Lang isnt even competing.

Well Lang has been backchecking much better than he used to. That's my observation. I guess you don't agree with it.

As for the rest of my post, I didn't call out Zetterberg did I? Did I ever say anything about his production? Z's been playing real hard which is why i've never brought his name up so why don't you back the F off.

Oh yeah, and Lidstrom has his own thread about how he had an uncharacteristically bad game so i'm not the only one brining up the FACT that Lids play led directly to the tying and eventual game winning goals. So Mr. Wizard, bringing up another players' faults for our loss last night actually makes alot of sense. It makes more sense than nitpicking Lang IMO. Lang didn't cause either of those goals against.

Furthermore, go look it up, I believe Calgary improved their shots on goal totals and their time of possession.

But I guess in you mind you can invalidate my post just by replying that it's invalid.

Get your homer shades off. Calgary picked it up a couple notches and we let off the gas a bit and they won.

What's your f-ing problem with that assessment? Sorry i'm not pinning the loss on Lang because I saw 10 other things that were more important than his play last night.

And by the way I led off my post by stating that he hasn't played lights out hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That right there pretty much invalidates the rest of your post (which was completey inaccurate by the way...Detroit IMO and many others was the better team most of the game last night, especially at even strength.) You know how I can tell Lang's play is indefensible? Because the only way you and Osgod can defend Lang is by bringing up how others players arent performing. That says it all right there. Let's be honest...can anyone confuse what we've seen from Zetterberg and Lang as similar in any way? Hank needs to get on the board and produce, but Lang isnt even competing.

Well then I urge you... do tell how Lang having a point so far in the playoffs is a reason to single him out as being lazy and sucks? Thats what I don't get... He has more points this playoffs than eight other players on the team. How is that being any more lazy than those other eight?

For me, you saying... Detroit controlled the play most of the night... pretty much invalidates your post ;) We were on our heals almost the entire game.

Gams 1 and 2 (apart from 2nd period of game 2) Wings were acting instead of reacting.... Game 3 they were reacting and thus lost the game.

Edited by OsGOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly :clap:

Lang made his salary in Washington by putting up points. To my recollection his salary was not negotiated by the Wings, we inherited that salary.

The amount of money you make doesn't equate to what your style of play is. Cleary is playing his butt off but that's his game.

Lang has never been the type of player some people expect of him just because of his salary. His salary isn't very palatable to me either but anybody with half a brain can figure out that the amount of money you make doesn't necessarily mean you a a monster forechecker or shot blocker or that you run into guy's like Phaneuf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lang made his salary in Washington by putting up points. To my recollection his salary was not negotiated by the Wings, we inherited that salary.

The amount of money you make doesn't equate to what your style of play is. Cleary is playing his butt off but that's his game.

Lang has never been the type of player some people expect of him just because of his salary. His salary isn't very palatable to me either but anybody with half a brain can figure out that the amount of money you make doesn't necessarily mean you a a monster forechecker or shot blocker or that you run into guy's like Phaneuf.

Not to mention it was pre-salary cap... or am I wrong about that? And the current play definitely doesn't equate to your current salary... but the play you had previous to that current contract. Next contracted price will reflect their current play. :) I am sure Lang's will go down (as will many other players post-cap compared to pre-cap) and I am sure if we keep Cleary and he keeps it up... his will increase a bit.

Edited by OsGOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and another thing.

I can't blame this all on Lang. Babs should be able to recognize a player who doesn't want to play the game.

I think babs job should be able to tell if a player lacks enthusiasm for the game of hockey, take him out of the game. If a player doesn't want to be here... file grievance on his contract and deduct his pay.

It's obvious that Lang's only putting on that jersey and skates because his contract says he has to. Not because he wants to. He's only after one thing, a HUGE paycheck and easy money.

For that, I blame Babs.

You're not even drinking Wing's kool-aid. You're drinking some next level shyte. Can you send me some. That stuff obviously makes you hallucinate and man, I gotta get me some of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's your f-ing problem with that assessment? Sorry i'm not pinning the loss on Lang because I saw 10 other things that were more important than his play last night.
My problem is not necessarily your assessment of the team last night (I disagree but it's only an opinion)...my problem is you and Osgod saying their are more pressing concerns than how piss poor Lang, and by extension his line is playing.

Well then I urge you... do tell how Lang having a point so far in the playoffs is a reason to single him out as being lazy and sucks? Thats what I don't get... He has more points this playoffs than eight other players on the team. How is that being any more lazy than those other eight?
It's the same reason I thought Lang was awful against Edmonton last season while many thought he "stepped it up". Points arent everything and they damn sure dont tell the whole story all the time. Effort, energy moving your feet....I'm basically asking Lang to just compete out there, not be a superstar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's funny to me is how quickly people jump over some select players when the Wings lose one game, and yet never said a word when the Wings won games 1 & 2.

Strange...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's funny to me is how quickly people jump over some select players when the Wings lose one game, and yet never said a word when the Wings won games 1 & 2.

Strange...........

Really? I remember several posts that went something like this after games 1 and 2...."Wings were awesome tonite, but Lang and Sammy sucked". Lang was still getting killed on the radio by fans after those games, trust me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is not necessarily your assessment of the team last night (I disagree but it's only an opinion)...my problem is you and Osgod saying their are more pressing concerns than how piss poor Lang, and by extension his line is playing.

And by avoiding those other concerns we once again will falter in the 1st round. But do, go right ahead, you found your scapegoat so far this year... stick with it, you will have many on board with you. I applaud you stick to your guns by singling out Lang like so many have done to the goalies in years past... It works wonders to solve the problem we have each and every year doesn't it? I am more concerned about our other lines not consistantly producing more than 1 or 2 players. But by all means focus all your anger on Lang.

Edited by OsGOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is blaming last night's loss on Lang, but the fact remains that he is the 2nd line center AND on the second pp unit. Show me one other team competing for the cup in the western conference where the 2nd line center is as unproductive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's funny to me is how quickly people jump over some select players when the Wings lose one game, and yet never said a word when the Wings won games 1 & 2.

Strange...........

Not really its called a SAFE scapegoat... Pick a player hated by most. I am used to it wilth ozzie already ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? I remember several posts that went something like this after games 1 and 2...."Wings were awesome tonite, but Lang and Sammy sucked". Lang was still getting killed on the radio by fans after those games, trust me.

But not by the majority that are doing it in this thread.

Again, Strange.............

Sidenote: I'm not defending Lang's play as of late, BTW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really its called a SAFE scapegoat... Pick a player hated by most. I am used to it wilth ozzie already ;)

lol yeah i will pick Lilja....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can look up all my previous threads... you'll see that I pretty much hate Lang the same every game. (i'm a poet and didnt know it)

I can pull it up for you if you want, but I made a thread about Lang after game 1.

So you can exclude me for your generalization. :)

When did I ever include you in it?

The point is, there are plenty of people here that don't like Sammy.....Hell, I'm one of them. However, atleast I can take the blinders off and admit when he's played a strong game.

With that, I've never heard you admit once when Lang has been strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem is not necessarily your assessment of the team last night (I disagree but it's only an opinion)...my problem is you and Osgod saying their are more pressing concerns than how piss poor Lang, and by extension his line is playing.

It's the same reason I thought Lang was awful against Edmonton last season while many thought he "stepped it up". Points arent everything and they damn sure dont tell the whole story all the time. Effort, energy moving your feet....I'm basically asking Lang to just compete out there, not be a superstar.

Well, let me spell it out for you in a language all fans can understand. It's called statistics. YEAH!!!

SHOTS

Game 1: Wings 46, Flames 20

Game 2: Wings 51, Flames 15

Game 3: Wings 30, Flames 28

Hence the notion in my wee little brain that Calgary had more possession time and translated that into more shots on goal for them, less possession time for us and less shots for us. And we lost this time. I know, how on Earth can I possilby connect those dots. I'm crazy, what can I say.

PIMS

Game 1: Wings 28, Flames 34

Game 2: Wings 16, Flames 12

Game 3: Wings 12, Flames 8

Not alot to tell here other than the Flames have been better than us the past 2 games as far as not taking penalties and our PP is not working as well as their's is.

FACE OFFS

Game 1: Wings 29, Flames 27

Game 2: Wings 25, Flames 33

Game 3: Wings 33, Flames 37

Contrary to what some people think, the Flames are getting the better of the faceoffs and they did really well last game, hence that helped them get more possession of the puck and yadda, yadda you know the rest.

HITS

Game 1: Wings 37, Flames 36

Game 2: Wings 35, Flames 33

Game 3: Wings 20, Flames 23

This ties into my entire observation that we let off the gas somewhat and Calgary stepped it up just a notch above us and HOLY COW, they won.

BLOCKED SHOTS

Game 1: Wings 10, Flames 7

Game 2: Wings 14, Flames 9

Game 3: Wings 9, Flames 11

Are you starting to see a trend here?

Aside from faceoffs and brain fart penalties the Wings were getting the better of all the little battles and things that help you to win games. The Flames got the better of it in game 3 as I brought up originally. So maybe now you understand why my observation of the loss has more to do with the team play and little things than it does with Lang. You can imagine all you want that we were the better team last night but there are no facts to back up your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol yeah i will pick Lilja....

yeah I would pick Lilja, but well damn offsides graced me with the great sig. I can't hate on the guy after this masterpiece ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really happy with Lang's performance in all three games. He should not be resigned after this yr. He just seems real slow or lazy or maybe both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really happy with Lang's performance in all three games. He should not be resigned after this yr. He just seems real slow or lazy or maybe both.

Wow... you and MrSandMan have almost the same user name... and the same views... how cool is that :lol::thumbup:

Edited by OsGOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Filppula should be, without a doubt, our 2nd line center.

Dats-Hank-Homer

Franzen-Filppula-Bertuzzi

Cleary-Lang-Hudler

Maltby-Draper-Calder

DONE and DONE

I love those lines, our 2nd line isnt doing anything because of Lang and Samuelsson. Just awful to watch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... you and MrSandMan have almost the same user name... and the same views... how cool is that :lol::thumbup:

OsGOD, I don't know about you but i've pretty much always defended Lang because of 2 things: 1. I knew what kind of player he was prior to him coming her so I knew what to expect. Therefore I don't get dismayed when he doesn't delivery crunching checks or streaks down the wing like Mike Gartner. And 2. I don't use a salary given to him like 18 years ago to whine about his production now.

Nevertheless, I think Lang is a very smart player. He's a playmaker, not a scorer and he has really good vision. You can see it on the ice, he's always looking up trying to make some kind of play. That's his game. Is it affordable at his current salary of course not. And it drives me crazy that people who defend Lang get banged on like we're saying he's god's gift or that he's worth every penny and so on.

Every team has players that fit certain roles. Lang is a setup guy. IMO, he's been in a slump in that regard but he has been responsible for picking up his man in the defensive zone and he's backchecked numerous times to be the only friggin guy in front of our net tying up a potential scorer waiting for a pass. I can't even count how many times the past 2 months the replays showed Lang tying up the attacker in front of the net. So I think its BS that people say he's doing nothing but putting on his jersey and being lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let me spell it out for you in a language all fans can understand. It's called statistics. YEAH!!!

SHOTS

Game 1: Wings 46, Flames 20

Game 2: Wings 51, Flames 15

Game 3: Wings 30, Flames 28

Hence the notion in my wee little brain that Calgary had more possession time and translated that into more shots on goal for them, less possession time for us and less shots for us. And we lost this time. I know, how on Earth can I possilby connect those dots. I'm crazy, what can I say.

PIMS

Game 1: Wings 28, Flames 34

Game 2: Wings 16, Flames 12

Game 3: Wings 12, Flames 8

Not alot to tell here other than the Flames have been better than us the past 2 games as far as not taking penalties and our PP is not working as well as their's is.

FACE OFFS

Game 1: Wings 29, Flames 27

Game 2: Wings 25, Flames 33

Game 3: Wings 33, Flames 37

Contrary to what some people think, the Flames are getting the better of the faceoffs and they did really well last game, hence that helped them get more possession of the puck and yadda, yadda you know the rest.

HITS

Game 1: Wings 37, Flames 36

Game 2: Wings 35, Flames 33

Game 3: Wings 20, Flames 23

This ties into my entire observation that we let off the gas somewhat and Calgary stepped it up just a notch above us and HOLY COW, they won.

BLOCKED SHOTS

Game 1: Wings 10, Flames 7

Game 2: Wings 14, Flames 9

Game 3: Wings 9, Flames 11

Are you starting to see a trend here?

Aside from faceoffs and brain fart penalties the Wings were getting the better of all the little battles and things that help you to win games. The Flames got the better of it in game 3 as I brought up originally. So maybe now you understand why my observation of the loss has more to do with the team play and little things than it does with Lang. You can imagine all you want that we were the better team last night but there are no facts to back up your thoughts.

hey RedRum, don't you have anything to say about this? I'm patiently waiting for you to tell me how i'm a loon who posts invalid opinions because we simply owned the Flames last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OsGOD, I don't know about you but i've pretty much always defended Lang because of 2 things: 1. I knew what kind of player he was prior to him coming her so I knew what to expect. Therefore I don't get dismayed when he doesn't delivery crunching checks or streaks down the wing like Mike Gartner. And 2. I don't use a salary given to him like 18 years ago to whine about his production now.

Nevertheless, I think Lang is a very smart player. He's a playmaker, not a scorer and he has really good vision. You can see it on the ice, he's always looking up trying to make some kind of play. That's his game. Is it affordable at his current salary of course not. And it drives me crazy that people who defend Lang get banged on like we're saying he's god's gift or that he's worth every penny and so on.

Every team has players that fit certain roles. Lang is a setup guy. IMO, he's been in a slump in that regard but he has been responsible for picking up his man in the defensive zone and he's backchecked numerous times to be the only friggin guy in front of our net tying up a potential scorer waiting for a pass. I can't even count how many times the past 2 months the replays showed Lang tying up the attacker in front of the net. So I think its BS that people say he's doing nothing but putting on his jersey and being lazy.

Yep that is how i feel... When every body went orgasmic when we signed him originally I had to look him up to see who the hell he was and what he does to make him so coveted by fans of this team. Looked through his history and found nothing in his past that would justify such hatred of his play right now. He is on par with EVERY other season, pre and post wings career. Problem is also that many people on here (as evidenced by their attendance at the Joe bitching) only see the game through the camera lense.... So much is done outside of the Live TV spot that many don't see in the actual game when being there.

Like I said earlier... Lang is nothing more than a poor mans safe bet scapegoat for when a loss happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you complain about Lang being lackluster and really hurting us and yet you continue to put Zetterberg (most amount of shots on the team WITHOUT a point) out there on the first line with NO PRODUCTION whatsoever in these past three games? But alas its Lang so its okay to pin EVERYTHING going wrong on him. Hell, it's actually sort of refreashing to see that one player getting blamed for the bad play is not the GOALTENDER so far this year! It's nice to see fans actually scapegoating another player besides the Goalie... it really is.

Good post, im curious to see if people will ride Zetterberg if he doesnt produce. Like they did Datsyuk, i highly doubt it since zetts has a cult following around here lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because I'm still waiting for this 'strong' game.

....what would really please me is consistancy. How about play the game with passion and energy. How about play like you're hungry to win. How about avoding mistakes.

Everyone has a bad game. but in Langs case, we're suppose to recognize and place him on a pedestal when he has one good game?

The funny part is I haven't defended Lang really at all, and you're coming at me like I am.

To me, your problem is that you just can't take the blinders off. No, Lang probably shouldn't be 2nd Line Center, and Yes he has struggled lately, but he is far from the Sh*t player you seem to think he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now