Thread: Ryane Clowe
View Single Post
Old
05-01-2013, 10:42 PM
  #636
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,393
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Blob View Post
I would take Clarkson 100x over a DECLINING Clowe.

Clowe is so damn overrated for being "tough" its not even funny. The guy can barely keep up in the NHL anymore.

And really? Your talking about "long term" and "new shiny object" But preach a washed up clow? Really??
1. I'm not convinced Clowe is washed up. I don't see him returning to 60-65 pt form. But even if Clowe is a 40-45 pt player, I'm happy with what he brings in his overall game. Clarkson brings very little beyond physicality and his recent breakout season in terms of points. I am not confident that he will replicate a ~45 pt season again.

2. I'm not overrating Clowe because his is physical. Clarkson and him are probably about even in this regard.

3. Even in his worst full season, Clowe was better than Clarkson in virtually every aspect of the game, including points pace. This also happened to be Clarkson's best season, his peak.

4. Clowe creates more offense than Clarkson could ever dream of making. Clarkson's hockey IQ and playmaking skills pale in comparison to Clowe's.

5. Clarkson's recent point totals in his one breakout season were vastly inflated by a big increase in PP time with the Devils and having a significantly higher shooting % than he has ever had in his career. More than one third of his production came from PP pts. Clarkson got more than a minute more avg PP time per game than Clowe and still got less total points (yes, goals are goals - but are we really going to make this mistake again? Gomez's production was inflated by garbage goals on NJ's PP too...). Clowe has only ever in his career hovered around 1/5 of his pts coming on the PP.

6. Clarkson is just 6 months younger than Clowe and plays a very similar game in terms of physicality. And you're really going to make the argument that he is in that much less danger of declining?

7. Clarkson has been a mediocre third liner throughout his entire career. Clowe has been much more in the past and has a much higher ceiling. Whether he can live up to that going forward is certainly up for debate. But at his worst, he will be a solid third liner. Right now, he has been a very solid 2nd liner for the Rangers before getting injured.

Maybe you should learn about the respective players - or you know, watch more than a few games in which they played - before acting like you have a clue. The major bullet point in there is #5. This is not subjective.

Pretty much the same **** said another way in a different thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter Scale View Post
Italics added by me for context. Is this a joke? You can't be serious... Clarkson has been a mediocre third liner his entire career - he had one breakout season just last year which by all indications was an abberration, and everyone has been gushing about him since. That this is even a debate is absurd.

Clarkson's production last year was inflated by getting big PP time compared to past years and having a significantly higher shooting % than he has ever had. More than one third of his production came from PP pts. He was the king of garbage goals last year (yes, goals are goals - but are we really going to make this mistake again? Gomez's production was inflated by garbage goals on NJ's PP too...). In Clarkson's best year, he only barely kept pace with Clowe's worst year. And on top of all of that, he does not have the vision or playmaking skills that Clowe does. In terms of physicality they're probably pretty even. You can't even say that he is significantly younger -- he is just 6 months younger. What a joke.


Last edited by Richter Scale: 05-01-2013 at 10:56 PM.
Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote