Hank 0 Report post Posted August 22, 2007 The thing is, Cleary's hot streak was a result of Lang's hot streak. I know Cleary is a much more popular player on this board than Lang, but for anyone to argue that Lang was the reason Cleary didn't score more goals is ludicrous, given that Lang's hot streak is the reason Cleary scored more than ten. Very true. I think people hate Lang so much because he had a lot of talent but failed to show it consistantly. If Cleary didn't have Lang he wouldn't have scored 20 goals. But at the same time, Cleary has proven he can be a reliable scorer if given prime minutes with a good playmaker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted August 22, 2007 Very true. I think people hate Lang so much because he had a lot of talent but failed to show it consistantly. If Cleary didn't have Lang he wouldn't have scored 20 goals. But at the same time, Cleary has proven he can be a reliable scorer if given prime minutes with a good playmaker. No he hasn't. Cleary has never been a reliable scorer at any point in his career. Here's a breakdown of Cleary v Lang v Williams last season, and what they did from Nov 4th to Dec 28th, and how it compares to what they did the rest of the year with the Wings. November 4th-December 28th Lang 24 GP, 7g-15a-22p; +2g, +8a, +10p vs 'Other' prorated to 24 GP. Cleary 24 GP, 17g-10a-27p; +15g, +5a, +20p vs 'Other' prorated to 24 GP Williams 20 GP, 2g-7a-9p; -3g, +3a, +0p vs 'Other' prorated to 20 GP Other games Lang 57 GP, 12g-18a-30p Cleary 47 GP, 3g-10a-13p Williams 38 GP, 9g-8a-17p Total Lang 81 GP, 19g-33a-52p Cleary 71 GP, 20g-20a-40p Williams 58 GP, 11g-15a-26p It's also important to note that Cleary's hot streak started at the same time he was moved onto the second line with Lang from the fourth line with Maltby and Kopecky. Lang's scoring was certainly higher during the noted period, and to note that while Clearly consistently played with Lang during that stretch, the opposite winger was an assortment of players, including primarily Hudler and Samuelsson as well as Williams. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hank 0 Report post Posted August 22, 2007 No he hasn't. Cleary has never been a reliable scorer at any point in his career. Here's a breakdown of Cleary v Lang v Williams last season, and what they did from Nov 4th to Dec 28th, and how it compares to what they did the rest of the year with the Wings. November 4th-December 28th Lang 24 GP, 7g-15a-22p; +2g, +8a, +10p vs 'Other' prorated to 24 GP. Cleary 24 GP, 17g-10a-27p; +15g, +5a, +20p vs 'Other' prorated to 24 GP Williams 20 GP, 2g-7a-9p; -3g, +3a, +0p vs 'Other' prorated to 20 GP Other games Lang 57 GP, 12g-18a-30p Cleary 47 GP, 3g-10a-13p Williams 38 GP, 9g-8a-17p Total Lang 81 GP, 19g-33a-52p Cleary 71 GP, 20g-20a-40p Williams 58 GP, 11g-15a-26p It's also important to note that Cleary's hot streak started at the same time he was moved onto the second line with Lang from the fourth line with Maltby and Kopecky. Lang's scoring was certainly higher during the noted period, and to note that while Clearly consistently played with Lang during that stretch, the opposite winger was an assortment of players, including primarily Hudler and Samuelsson as well as Williams. In that regard he's no different than any other winger the Wings have. They're all pretty streaky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted August 22, 2007 My argument? I was merely pointing out that YOUR argument works both ways. IE if Sammy was leeching off of Z, what was Cleary doing with Lang? Bah. We could have that arguement all day. The point is that 99.9% of the players out there need their centre to be competent, and yeah, of course they put up better numbers with a hot centre. But the relationship is hardly parasitic. The thing is, Cleary's hot streak was a result of Lang's hot streak. I know Cleary is a much more popular player on this board than Lang, but for anyone to argue that Lang was the reason Cleary didn't score more goals is ludicrous, given that Lang's hot streak is the reason Cleary scored more than ten. By the way you phrase it you make it sound like Cleary's streak was purely a product of Lang. What then of Z's streak while paired with Dats? Is Dats, therefore responsible for Z's streak and thus diminishing Z's accomplishment? In my mind there are two types of wingers. First their are wingers that feed off their centremen and co-wingers, contributing little to the overall sucess of their linemates other then being conduits for goals. In my mind Sammy is that type of player. His lack of physical game means he doesn't create space for the centre and opposite wing to work from. His poorly placed, seemingly random, shots showed us that he needed somone to feed him, rather then being simply able to use a feed. The other type of winger is just the opposite. He enhances his linemates, creates room or at somehow occupies his opponents, he makes plays of his own- jumps on loose pucks, agressively forechecks, etc. Cleary is that type of player. No, he's not Ovetchkin- he can't throw up retarded numbers when anchored by a 5 year old lama. But Cleary CAN dominate a game of hockey with his endless energy, relentless forechecking and even a flair of offensive greatness (ask Kipper). Before this year's playoffs you could argue I'm exaggerating. But the fact remains that Cleary was a solid candidate for the team MVP this playoffs- especially against Calgary. Will he continue what we saw in the playoffs during the regular season? I hope so. But ultimately the only thing Babcock can do to insure Cleary continues playing at that level is to put him on a line with other players that play at a high level. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted August 22, 2007 Bah. We could have that arguement all day. The point is that 99.9% of the players out there need their centre to be competent, and yeah, of course they put up better numbers with a hot centre. But the relationship is hardly parasitic. By the way you phrase it you make it sound like Cleary's streak was purely a product of Lang. What then of Z's streak while paired with Dats? Is Dats, therefore responsible for Z's streak and thus diminishing Z's accomplishment? In my mind there are two types of wingers. First their are wingers that feed off their centremen and co-wingers, contributing little to the overall sucess of their linemates other then being conduits for goals. In my mind Sammy is that type of player. His lack of physical game means he doesn't create space for the centre and opposite wing to work from. His poorly placed, seemingly random, shots showed us that he needed somone to feed him, rather then being simply able to use a feed. The other type of winger is just the opposite. He enhances his linemates, creates room or at somehow occupies his opponents, he makes plays of his own- jumps on loose pucks, agressively forechecks, etc. Cleary is that type of player. No, he's not Ovetchkin- he can't throw up retarded numbers when anchored by a 5 year old lama. But Cleary CAN dominate a game of hockey with his endless energy, relentless forechecking and even a flair of offensive greatness (ask Kipper). Before this year's playoffs you could argue I'm exaggerating. But the fact remains that Cleary was a solid candidate for the team MVP this playoffs- especially against Calgary. Will he continue what we saw in the playoffs during the regular season? I hope so. But ultimately the only thing Babcock can do to insure Cleary continues playing at that level is to put him on a line with other players that play at a high level. My argument is not that Cleary is a terrible player. It's that people are acting like he is this offensive dynamo, while a cold Lang was dragging him down, but that Lang's hot streak had no effect on Cleary or even worse, was a product of Cleary's amazing skill. People need to admit that Cleary benefitted from playing with Lang a whole lot more than Lang benefitted from playing with Cleary. And the same argument can be used with Z and Dats, although I would put Z in the role of Lang as he benefitted far less from the combination than Datsyuk did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Drake_Marcus 890 Report post Posted August 24, 2007 My argument is not that Cleary is a terrible player. It's that people are acting like he is this offensive dynamo, while a cold Lang was dragging him down, but that Lang's hot streak had no effect on Cleary or even worse, was a product of Cleary's amazing skill. People need to admit that Cleary benefitted from playing with Lang a whole lot more than Lang benefitted from playing with Cleary. And the same argument can be used with Z and Dats, although I would put Z in the role of Lang as he benefitted far less from the combination than Datsyuk did. I'm not sure that Cleary benefited alot more from Lang then vice-versa. I'd say they both benefited equally. Lang relied on Cleary's hustle since Cleary was literally the only one on that line that appeared to care about being on the ice. I think you're giving Lang a bit too much credit. Sure he deserves credit, but I don't think he was draging Cleary along. Cleary really did show some great offensive flair (he was considered the next hockey prodigy at one point). Of course people overstated Cleary's contribuition, but don't be tempted to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. As to Z benefitting less then Dats from their pair up- I wouldn't be so sure. Datsyuk maintained a high ppg after Z was injured. One might expect that when an All-star calibre pivot is injured his linemates' ppg would drop accordingly, depending on who replaced him. But we saw Dats maintain a similar ppg when Z was hurt, no? That's on top of the fact that he had different linemates shuffled past him as they tried to figure things out. Z needed Dats as much as Dats needed him, or at least the gap wasn't very big. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aussie_Wing 354 Report post Posted August 29, 2007 He hasn't underachieved. Every time he starts getting into a groove and playing great, he gets injured. It's just horrible luck. That's bound to change, and now is the time. It'll be his breakout year and he'll show why he's thought of as being a future star. Sorry for somewhat bumping the thread, but how can you simply call Kronwall unlucky? The bottom line is that he’s injury prone, not unlucky. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
