219 replies to this topic

[OsGOD]

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

[NeverForgetMac25]

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.

[Salviaman]

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....

[NeverForgetMac25]

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.

[GordieSid&Ted]

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.

[OsGOD]

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

[Sandman]

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.

[OsGOD]

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

Edited by OsGOD, 18 April 2007 - 12:07 PM.

[Bryguy]

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.

[GordieSid&Ted]

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

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.

[GordieSid&Ted]

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.

[OsGOD]

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.

[NeverForgetMac25]

Vs.

Did I directly quote you?

Stop reading into things. You're only making yourself look foolish.

[Bryguy]

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.

[NeverForgetMac25]

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.

[RedRum #1]

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.

I'm not disputing what the numbers you've presented say...Calgary picked up it's game considerably. Was that a function of Detroit playing worse of calgary playing better....Thursday will tell a lot. Numbers aside, I thoight the Wings were very strong in the 2nd and 3rd periods. I'll repeat that outside of the PP's we gave them, the Wings were the better team IMO at even strength. My beef is with you talking about Lang back-checking well and playing strong in front of the net. I dont see that at all, and if i did I'd readily give him his due the same as I do Sammy (who is mostly awful but plays well defensively).

[NeverForgetMac25]

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.

If the Wings are fortunate enough to move on to the second round, and Z doesn't find his stride in the following series, I would have no problem "riding" him. That being said, there are always stipulations that come into play (I.E. Dats coming into the playoffs hurt last season).

That being said, just because a player as a bad game or two there are way too many posters here that feel something drastic has to take place. Z isn't going to be perfect every game......Lids isn't going to be perfect every game.....Dats isn't going to be perfect every game. The point is that people need to slow down a bit, rather than rushing to these new "brilliant" ideas on what this Red Wings team needs.

[haroldsnepsts]

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.

If Z doesn't produce for 25+ games, I think people will be complaining.

[Wings_Rule_1010]

I just think that Lang is the easy scape goat here, because of his apparent passion for the game. While Zetterberg, Samuelsson, ect, while not getting points, at least show some fire. It is always obvious that they try and work hard. Lang just seems to be in cruise control when he skates. Never accelerating to get to the puck or play defense. I think that is why he has become such a target. And a deserving one at that.

[NeverForgetMac25]

LOL-- you're the one who said "people". ...and I am a person, no

Please god tell that Smiley Face is there because you don't mean what you just said.