Rick Nash, anyone?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    Nash is in a terrible situation.  We saw what he could do when he was playing his game at the last olympics.   Torts wants nash to be a shot blocking trapper.  nash is an extremely talented player.  I blame that system more then the player.  ie.  Gabby, richards, nash etc etc etc.  torts kills offensively gifted players by making them soccer players.  

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    When was the last time Nash had high quality linemates?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    The "linemates" arugment only really goes so far, doesn't it?  At what point does someone say yeah, but, Rick, I mean...come on....  Brad Richards is exactly the kind of player you would expect Nash to thrive with.  He distributes the puck very well - good proxy for JT Superstar, who is the best fit for Nash I've ever seen.  They had his with Gaborik on the other side.  That line worked out so badly that Gaborik was shipped out, Richards demoted to the fourth line...and St. Rick?  Derick Brassard is able to score almost a point/game in that system, with those teammates, in the playoffs.  Nash is 6th on the team in playoff scoring.   Again, I agree with a lot of the things people are saying in Nash's defense, but it isn't a "not-guilty" defense.  It's a "guilty under extenuating circumstances."

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bgrif008. Show bgrif008's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

    Lets not get off the rails here. He's still a terrific player. He's a bonafide sniper. As far as I know he's never called himself a power forward so if others are doing it I'm not going to hold it against him. He just doesnt seem to be a fit on the Rangers and in Torterellas system. Don-Bruino nailed that one.

    You put him on the Penguins, Sharks or Vancouver and I truly beleive he nets 60 in a full season.




    Shoot, everyone said he'd net 60 with the Rangers. If Crosby and Malkin arent netting 60, then no way in HE LL he will net 60 with the Pens. Maybe 30-35.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    Another reality of the cap era.  It used to be, teams merely "added" pieces like Nash.  Now there's always subtraction when an extra huge contract comes into play, and these "franchise"players get crtiqued much more than they used too.  Not a bad thing, in my mind.

    I never gave any consideration to Nash being a Bruin, because PC would've had to make-over the team to get him, and I never thought he'd consider that option.

    The success story today, is as much about "upstart nobodys", as the big guns.

    Almost 8 per, for a term, that in hockey circles equals eternity, is undoubtedly going to be a  lightning rod whenever the team is losing. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    It's changing the old "your best players have to be your best players" axiom to "your highest paid players have to be your best players".  If Nash is putting up points in every playoff game, I don't know that the Bruins are up 3-0.  2-1, maybe, and maybe down 1-2.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

     

    The "linemates" arugment only really goes so far, doesn't it?  At what point does someone say yeah, but, Rick, I mean...come on....  Brad Richards is exactly the kind of player you would expect Nash to thrive with.  He distributes the puck very well - good proxy for JT Superstar, who is the best fit for Nash I've ever seen.  They had his with Gaborik on the other side.  That line worked out so badly that Gaborik was shipped out, Richards demoted to the fourth line...and St. Rick?  Derick Brassard is able to score almost a point/game in that system, with those teammates, in the playoffs.  Nash is 6th on the team in playoff scoring.   Again, I agree with a lot of the things people are saying in Nash's defense, but it isn't a "not-guilty" defense.  It's a "guilty under extenuating circumstances."

     




    I think there's a lot more invovled.  Let's also not forget that he was almost a point-per-game (44 games, 42 points), so it's not like he was Gomez in New York.  He was 10th in the league in goals.

     

    Looking over his season, as he got more comfortable with his team, he started scoring a lot more.

    Jan:  1

    Feb:  3

    Mar:  8

    Apr:  9

    (more games were played in Mar and Apr)

    Another factor for not being #1 in the league is that the opposing shutdown guys probably face Nash at all times.  It's not like the Rangers have much of an attack outside of the top line, right?

    There are plenty of reasons to be down on Nash, but a lack of talent isn't one of them.  The guy is amazing.

    I am no big Nash fan, a Nash apologist, or a closet Nash lover.  The guy is having a terrible playoffs in which Brad Richards play has been so bad he's on the fourth line.  His regular season stats didn't put him at the very top of the the league in all point categories, but the same team at the same time saw Gaborik fail to flourish as well.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to BsLegion's comment:

     



    Theo Fleury ?

     

     



    He was missed up long before New York.

    I've read the stories of Derek Sanderson, Sheldon Kennedy, Mike Danton, John Kordic, Bob Probert among others who have slipped my mind................IMO his story was the worst ( as in out of control ).


     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bogie6. Show bogie6's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    Let's not forget how dangerous Nash can be, and how well his goalie can support a one or two goal game. Equally dangerous is Seguin, who has played very well with kelly and Peverly, so, let's hope Seggy has a break out game, even against Lundquist

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from stan17. Show stan17's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to kelvana33's comment:

     

    In response to Don-Bruino's comment:

     

    Now into his second playoff series with NYR and he looks very ordinary. When the going gets tough, the soft become mushy.

    The big addition led to unexpected and forced subtraction.

    Many of you sang his praises and guaranteed playoff success if PC got him. What do you think of Rick Nash now?

    Do you see an infectious talent? Or a solitary and alienating talent?

     




    You called this from Day 1. I went against you. Dez also pointed out that Columbus would be better off with the players thay got instead of Nash.

     

    On this I eat my plate of crow.

     



    Not sure how much better Columbus got, they didn't make the playoffs and the playoff push they got was because of Bob not the 3 players obtained in the Nash deal. Brandon Dubinsky had 2 G in 29 gms thats terrible. Maybe Columbus wins that trade in the long run maybe not.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    It's changing the old "your best players have to be your best players" axiom to "your highest paid players have to be your best players".  If Nash is putting up points in every playoff game, I don't know that the Bruins are up 3-0.  2-1, maybe, and maybe down 1-2.



    Exactly.  If Im a GM, I dont want the best players.  I want the most underpaid players.

    Talent with respect to contract is more important than Talent in today's NHL.

    Sad but true.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    The "linemates" arugment only really goes so far, doesn't it?  At what point does someone say yeah, but, Rick, I mean...come on....  Brad Richards is exactly the kind of player you would expect Nash to thrive with.  He distributes the puck very well - good proxy for JT Superstar, who is the best fit for Nash I've ever seen.  They had his with Gaborik on the other side.  That line worked out so badly that Gaborik was shipped out, Richards demoted to the fourth line...and St. Rick?  Derick Brassard is able to score almost a point/game in that system, with those teammates, in the playoffs.  Nash is 6th on the team in playoff scoring.   Again, I agree with a lot of the things people are saying in Nash's defense, but it isn't a "not-guilty" defense.  It's a "guilty under extenuating circumstances."



    Im blaming system.  The same system that ruined gabby richards now nash.  When you pay high end players to score and create you have to let them play that way.  Or do a better job of bringing in talent that matches the coaches style.  Torts has elite mobile dmen, fast fwds with skill yet hes playing like an expansion team.  Its very similar to the ovie argument.  Oates finally found new ways of making ovie better.  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    Elite mobile d-men? They have 1 above average from what I have seen so far this series.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

    When was the last time Nash had high quality linemates?




    No doubt, starting the season with Richards at Center and Gaborik on his other wing must have been hell on earth.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to jmwalters' comment:



    No doubt, starting the season with Richards at Center and Gaborik on his other wing must have been hell on earth.

     



    44 games, 42 points, all new linemates, new team, new system.

    Is that awful?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jmwalters. Show jmwalters's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:

     

    44 games, 42 points, all new linemates, new team, new system.

     

    Is that awful?



    Nope, and I disagree with everyone who says he has been bad this year. He has had a typical regular season as far as he goes. There is no post-season body of work to compare, unfortunately.

    However, I do agree with Dez in that Nash is an excellent individual player that does not necessarily make his linemates or his team better.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Olsonic. Show Olsonic's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    Brad Richards..... healthy scratch

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

     




    No doubt, starting the season with Richards at Center and Gaborik on his other wing must have been hell on earth.

     

     



    And Nash is the last man standing. What does that tell you about how those other two performed this season as Rangers ? 

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    In response to jmwalters' comment:

     




    No doubt, starting the season with Richards at Center and Gaborik on his other wing must have been hell on earth.

     

     



    And Nash is the last man standing. What does that tell you about how those other two performed this season as Rangers ? 

     



    Yeah Chowdah, but is it really a stretch that they'd stick with their most recently acquired huge acquisition? 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chowdahkid-. Show Chowdahkid-'s posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:



    Yeah Chowdah, but is it really a stretch that they'd stick with their most recently acquired huge acquisition? 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No I guess not.........but there's also no denying his play this year was the best of the three. The other two faded after decent starts.

    With that thought in mind ( besides being the newest huge acquisition ) who would be the least likeliest to get moved ?

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    In response to Chowdahkid-'s comment:

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:



    Yeah Chowdah, but is it really a stretch that they'd stick with their most recently acquired huge acquisition? 

     



    No I guess not.........but there's also no denying his play this year was the best of the three. The other two faded after decent starts.

    With that thought in mind ( besides being the newest huge acquisition ) who would be the least likeliest to get moved ?

    [/QUOTE]

    There's no denying Nash performed the best of the three but I can't help feeling like his success is sometimes at the expense of his teammates. It's not easy to articulate but imagine having Jagr and Nash as your wingers. It sounds like it might be great on paper but you'd be dealing with two guys who want the puck the whole time they're out there and you have no idea what they're going to do with it once they get it. Players like that sometimes tend to consume the entire offense of whatever line they're on. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Rick Nash, anyone?

    Pending what happens tonight, it will be interesting to see the Torts bandwagon lose all four wheels.  In past years it seemed like everyone raved about how the Rangers play and how Torts gets them to outwork everyone else in the league.  It seemed unsustainable then, and it is suddenly falling apart fasting than I could've imagined.  Not that much unlike his exit from Tampa.

    Everyone gushed about the Rangers shot-blocking, but the reality is they have consistently paid a hefty price for that in injuries.  The toll of trying to block every shot catches up with them (and I'm not counting Staal's injury as a 'shot block')  

    Everyone gushed about how they 'outhit' every team, but it is now known that the MSG scorer credits Ranger players for a hit every time two jerseys brush each other.  They certainly don't look able to outhit the Bruins, and I saw Toronto do that several times last week.

    And everyone gushed about what a "team" the Rangers are.  There are no stars, everyone does the dirty work, and so forth.  Well, how's that working out?  That might fly when you're leading players include Ryan Callahan, Brandon Dubinsky, and a young hungry defensive core.  But when you bring in a bunch of pure, elite scorers and then demand that they check, shot-block and defend like a checking line, you end up with pure, elite scorers who stop scoring.  And worse, you end up with an uninspired locker room.

    Torts system works for a few years.  Then stars get tired of being plumbers and the whole thing unravels.  House of cards.

     

Share