Comments for David Backes vs. David Clarkson at http://hockey.dobbersports.com , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://hockey.dobbersports.com Thu, 23 May 2013 11:03:59 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/laidlaw/5240-david-backes-vs-david-clarkson#comment-24099 Clarkson is on an absolute tear scoring wise, and while he likely will slow down his emergence has been little shock to me right now. We should already know that Clarkson is a determined player, he made it by playing an intense game while never being drafted, but I think the two biggest reasons for his production have been Parise and DeBoer. With Parise out of the picture there became a big opportunity in the top 6 of the team. I really like the mention you made to Hartnell in addition to Backes in this piece since both of these players can click with the skill guys while bringing an edge, going to the tough areas and finishing plays. Like both Hartnell and Backes, Clarkson has that nice combination of toughness and hockey sense to be a great top 6 fit. But even the best talents never succeed if the coach won't give them the chance and DeBoer really seems to have a fondness for Clarkson. With DeBoer coaching Clarkson in juniors there was already a relationship there and the benefit came in the form of ice time as soon as DeBoer took over the Devils bench. Considering the past and present I expect more of the same since they have both made each other look good through opportunity given and the resulting production. We've had a good sample size with Backes and I fully support the thought that Clarkson belongs in the same tier. Both should be a must own in any multi-cat league and I'm certainly psyched to have both of their production on my main fantasy team! - hockeymanG23 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:01:58 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/laidlaw/5240-david-backes-vs-david-clarkson#comment-24098 I didn't specifically define it in the piece but I was hoping the use of parentheses around the term "power forward" would indicate some looseness in the interpretation, especially as it regards to fantasy hockey, not on ice hockey. So really your argument is just semantics. Everyone has their own interpretation of what a power forward is but I'm sure that within the context of fantasy hockey we all understand the term to mean something along the lines of a player that records a healthy number of PIM and/or hits while also contributing a good amount in the points column. This is why I rarely mess around with labels and perhaps it was a mistake to do so in this piece. I did not mean to misconstrue what sort of player Burrows is. The reality is that there are a good number of players that are power forwards in an NHL sense that wouldn't necessarily show up as power forwards in a fantasy sense and vice versa. I have my own issues with labels, for instance the misnomer of calling every defenseman that plays on a power play a power play quarterback. There are few defensemen that actually fill that role, one filled predominantly by forwards that either play the point or the half boards. Those are the guys who have the puck the most and those are the guys who the plays run through. But whether it's for the sake of tradition or simplicity we writers often ignore reality and stick to conventions like "power forward" and "power play QB". - metaldude26 Wed, 06 Feb 2013 10:35:27 +0100 http://hockey.dobbersports.com/index.php/columnistsarticles-mainmenu-77/laidlaw/5240-david-backes-vs-david-clarkson#comment-24096 Power forwards are those whose physical presence makes them a force to be reckoned with and contributes significantly to their game. Classic power forwards are modeled after Cam Neely, who was arguably the first to be given that title. Burrows is a forward who broke out and who takes a lot of penalties, but not because of his physicality. He doesn't belong in this conversation, as he is more of an Esa Tikanen with skill than a David Backes. And I like Burrows a lot. - repenttokyo Wed, 06 Feb 2013 09:35:26 +0100