• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
DatsyukToZetterberg

Cleary in, Tatar out against Caps

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So Babcock finally sits an old broken down vet who hasn't been good in years...and then he changes his mind and brings him back AND he benches a young, fast, scoring forward...

What the actual f***...

Unfortunately...that's exactly how it's been. I'm surprised both Nyquist and Tatar haven't asked for a trade.

Completely agree. I wouldn't even be mad. I would be sad, but I could not blame them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Babcock finally sits an old broken down vet who hasn't been good in years...and then he changes his mind and brings him back AND he benches a young, fast, scoring forward...

What the actual f***...

Completely agree. I wouldn't even be mad. I would be sad, but I could not blame them.

This entire post exactly. They both have every right to with how horribly Holland has mismanaged them thus far. Samuelsson and Cleary should've been waived, not Tootoo and Eaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fat guy in a maltby jersey

no one wants cleary in the lineup, that much we all know.

but are we supposed to pretend that tatar has been great over the last 5-6 games?

let's not kid ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give up.

EDIT: You might want to look at this:

Tatar: 11 GP, 2 G, 1 A +1, 10% shooting accuracy, generates scoring chances and provides speed.

Cleary: 18 GP, 1 G, 2 A +1, 4% shooting accuracy, slow, falls down, loses the puck, never generates anything, usually breaks up his own offensive play.

Which do you think addresses our needs more? Regardless of whether Tatar hasn't looked great, benching isn't going to help. We need to just ice a consistent team so they can generate chemistry. All players go through rough patches. Tatar's sub-par handful of games is better than Cleary's two years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one wants cleary in the lineup, that much we all know.

but are we supposed to pretend that tatar has been great over the last 5-6 games?

let's not kid ourselves.

He's been better than everyone not named Datsyuk, Zetterberg or Alfredsson on this team. And I'll counter this point with another: we honestly can't name ANYONE who could warrant a scratch besides Tatar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a shame. Babcock will do anything to get his buddy Cleary producing. Scary thing is what if he puts up 2 points tomorrow. He will be on that line for the rest of the year

Every time he gets a point I'm filled with mixed emotions.

"WOOO! YEAH! Wings scored!"

*Daniel Cleary from Weiss at 12:21 in the Period*

"DAMMIT CLEARY! I mean, thanks for the goal...but stop padding your damn stats!"

I was taught if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all.

It's just constructive criticism of the Red Wings' managers. I'm sure Cleary is a cool dude, but he's not playing at a level that is competitive in the National Hockey League.

I think we can all bet our life savings on that not happening.

You say that, but I'm going to be on the edge of my seat hoping for two things:

- Cleary doesn't cause a goal

- Cleary doesn't get a point

Fluke goals count just as much as a snipe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this as Babs giving Cleary "one last shot." Cleary's been scratched, and now he gets to respond, and show that he's more valuable than Tatar (and Nyquist), or, at the very least, that Holland wasn't a fool for re-signing him. If he doesn't impress, maybe he spends the rest of the regular season on the bench (or at least until we get destroyed by injuries).

That's my rationalization.

Edited by Dabura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This saddens me. Tatar had a couple bad plays/turnovers last game, but he also had a ton of energy, skated hard, and created those opportunities for Sammy that have somehow earned him another game.

This is bush, bush league

Maybe Babcock is using some weird long term logic at work here. Like every bad game a young guy has is weighed more than a veteran's bad game.

(Example, numbers made up)

Tatar:

20 games played - 5 sporadic games are bad = He is bad 25% of the time

Cleary:

2000 games played - 400 consecutive aweful games = He is bad 20% of the time

Maybe that's the problem! Instead judging players based on a month by month basis, they're looking at it long term. Someone get Chelios signed up! Even if he f***s up the next 1000 games, he'll still be considered better than anyone else on the team who is less than 30 years old! (In the eyes of Babcock's logic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Babcock is using some weird long term logic at work here. Like every bad game a young guy has is weighed more than a veteran's bad game.

(Example, numbers made up)

Tatar:

20 games played - 5 sporadic games are bad = He is bad 25% of the time

Cleary:

2000 games played - 400 consecutive aweful games = He is bad 20% of the time

Maybe that's the problem! Instead judging players based on a month by month basis, they're looking at it long term. Someone get Chelios signed up! Even if he f***s up the next 1000 games, he'll still be considered better than anyone else on the team who is less than 30 years old! (In the eyes of Babcock's logic)

Or maybe Babcock sees something in Cleary that we don't because we're too focused on his faults. Maybe it's something that you can only see if you work with the guy day in and day out.

You know... kind of like how you can't understand why your friend dates the ugly fat chick, but then you get to know her and you find that she's a lovely, kind, gracious, caring person with a great sense of humour and her dad owns a brewery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe Babcock sees something in Cleary that we don't because we're too focused on his faults. Maybe it's something that you can only see if you work with the guy day in and day out.

You know... kind of like how you can't understand why your friend dates the ugly fat chick, but then you get to know her and you find that she's a lovely, kind, gracious, caring person with a great sense of humour and her dad owns a brewery.

You make a good point, but I think this analogy is probably more apt:

You can't understand why your friend dates the ugly fat chick. You get to know her and you find out that her personality is also polar to your friend', and is even occasionally abusive. She is extremely high maintenance and she is constantly guilting him into staying with her, despite the stress she brings to his life. You confront your friend and he makes some excuses, but you read between the lines and conclude that she is really awesome at sex; the best he has ever had. While she can never give your friend true happiness, he is content with putting up with the abuse so long as his member is getting serviced at professional levels.

MEANWHILE: A young attractive, nice, but naive woman comes along. Your friend and her hit if off. But she was a virgin when they met and he becomes frustrated with teachering her. Despite being a better personality match, he continues to stay with the first girl despite the long term benefits of giving this new girl attention.

----------------

I hope this story comes off as funny not mean, 55fan. I really think you're point is valid. I think Babcock should be more open about his reasonings. There is no way he doesn't hear the outcry from fans; Cleary bashing has been going on for so long. If he can present a argument that does not involve his veteran status or statistics, I would listen.

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

Sign in to follow this