Brad Richards

[Callagraves]

I can't help and laugh at people who think the Richards signing was a mistake.

It wasn't just the best option, it was the only option. And we got him for less than other teams offered. Even more, if you think he's done, I think you've got another thing coming.

 

[JohnC]

Even more, if you think he's done, I think you've got another thing coming.

I concur. His contract may be not good but I'm beyond skeptical of him playing like this next year

 

[NYR Sting]

Yet, in his first two seasons he outscored Richards as a Rangers.

How on earth do you selectively leave that out?

First of all, that isn't even true. Gomez outscored Richards only in his first season, and he did it just barely. Second of all, I left it out because it isn't relevant. 4 points more for Gomez is hardly enough to make up for everything else that Richards did or better last year.

Richards has been awful this year, and I'm very disappointed by that. And he wasn't even great last year. But if you think Gomez, at any point during his time with the Rangers, was better than Richards was last year, we have nothing more to discuss. That is ludicrous.

You must have really enjoyed the 2008-09 season, when Scott Gomez, a one time 20 goal scorer with a blistering shooting percentage of 6, took 271 shots, just about as much as routine 30-40 goal scorers like Malkin, Iginla, Kovalchuk, Sedin, and Semin. The Rangers were 28th in goals that season. Coincidence?

Another thing that is mentioned around here far too often.

Most people, unless they're an idiot, are not blaming Sather for this. It's all on Richards.

Who gives a rats ass if it was appropriate at the time? I'm not sitting here criticizing Sather. I'm criticizing the piece of crap that I have to watch on the ice at every Rangers game wearing #19.

The same piece of crap who was the only major roster difference between not making the playoffs and achieving the most successful season in 15 years for this club?

I guess I must be an idiot, because I'm pretty sure Glen Sather wouldn't have needed to sign Brad Richards if he had managed to get a younger, cheaper, better first line center. And he might have been able to do that through the draft, but instead, he decided to sign Scott Gomez.

Why not criticize the piece of crap responsible for creating the circumstances under which the only chance that the Rangers had to get anything even remotely resembling a first line center was signing Richards?

I'm not sure which of the three is the biggest piece of crap, but I have a hard time seeing how Richards isn't the smallest.

 

[5 4 Fighting]

Sting, why do you think Richards is playing horribly? Think it may be a lingering undisclosed injury? Or did he just forget about staying in shape and wrote the season off? Further, if its the latter, wouldn't he be in shape already and Improving? I just don't get it.

 

[ColonialsHockey10]

First of all, that isn't even true. Gomez outscored Richards only in his first season, and he did it just barely. Second of all, I left it out because it isn't relevant. 4 points more for Gomez is hardly enough to make up for everything else that Richards did or better last year.

Richards has been awful this year, and I'm very disappointed by that. And he wasn't even great last year. But if you think Gomez, at any point during his time with the Rangers, was better than Richards was last year, we have nothing more to discuss. That is ludicrous.

Are you kidding me? Your argument against Gomez was that he produced "two of the most inefficient seasons for a top line center". Yet, the guy you're defending did even worse. That's why I brought it up. You're just coming off as biased. And yes, let's nitpick, it's not true. Allow me to bump this is two weeks when it's a reality then. You dug yourself a hole with that comment. Go into attitude, go into intelligence, go into who's from a cooler place in north america, but for gods sake, what's the point of bringing up Scott Gomez's production as a Ranger in a Brad ****ing Richards thread.

Negligible or not, he outscored Brad.

Yes, I think Gomez was a hell of a lot better as a Ranger then Richards is/was. He outscored him during the regular season, and his PPG in the playoffs was better. On a team that was significantly more poorly constructed then the one we have now.

Were either of them good signings? No, I would never argue that. But for people to dismiss them as comparable is sad quite frankly.

You must have really enjoyed the 2008-09 season, when Scott Gomez, a one time 20 goal scorer with a blistering shooting percentage of 6, took 271 shots, just about as much as routine 30-40 goal scorers like Malkin, Iginla, Kovalchuk, Sedin, and Semin. The Rangers were 28th in goals that season. Coincidence?

Yet we're currently 25th in goals this season, 3 ahead of 30th. You said yourself 4 points is "hardly enough to make up for everything else". What about 3 goals? Our offense is just as pathetic. The difference? Gomez still ****ing produced.

Yeah, let's criticize the guy for shooting on a team supported by the likes of a washed up Markus Naslund, Nikolai Zherdev and Chris Drury. What is even the point of this argument? My enjoyment of the team has nothing to do with individual performances.

The same piece of crap who was the only major roster difference between not making the playoffs and achieving the most successful season in 15 years for this club?

Probably the worst argument of the bunch. Lundqvist winning the Vezina, McDonagh, Girardi and MDZ playing like Norris caliber defensemen, and guys like Kreider, Hagelin and Mitchell stepping in and playing the system to a T is what made the difference. Richards was crap last season as well, but we were winning so it was hardly a problem to some. That's what makes this place a psychologists wet dream from time to time. Selective memory.

I guess I must be an idiot, because I'm pretty sure Glen Sather wouldn't have needed to sign Brad Richards if he had managed to get a younger, cheaper, better first line center. And he might have been able to do that through the draft, but instead, he decided to sign Scott Gomez.

Why not criticize the piece of crap responsible for creating the circumstances under which the only chance that the Rangers had to get anything even remotely resembling a first line center was signing Richards?

Is this a diversion tactic or something? We can vent about Glen Sather in another thread. He has his fair share of problems. But this thread is a player discussion on Brad Richards, and he's been a steaming pile of **** for his entire tenure as a Ranger. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that, and you even said it yourself. First you say Sather didn't have a choice, then you come back saying I should be blaming our GM. Tip-toeing around the topic of subject, because there's no defending Richards in an argument.

Quotes like the above make it seem like you're not even sure what you're arguing about, no offense.

I respect your opinion, but I think anyone who can even remotely support Richards is out to lunch. It's disgraceful what he's done as a Ranger.

 

[NYR Sting]

Are you kidding me? Your argument against Gomez was that he produced "two of the most inefficient seasons for a top line center". Yet, the guy you're defending did even worse. That's why I brought it up.

Efficiency isn't about points. It's about how those points are achieved, and everything that happens when points aren't being scored.

You're just coming off as biased. And yes, let's nitpick, it's not true. Allow me to bump this is two weeks when it's a reality then. You dug yourself a hole with that comment. Go into attitude, go into intelligence, go into who's from a cooler place in north america, but for gods sake, what's the point of bringing up Scott Gomez's production as a Ranger in a Brad ****ing Richards thread.

Negligible or not, he outscored Brad.

Yes, I think Gomez was a hell of a lot better as a Ranger then Richards is/was. He outscored him during the regular season, and his PPG in the playoffs was better. On a team that was significantly more poorly constructed then the one we have now.

Were either of them good signings? No, I would never argue that. But for people to dismiss them as comparable is sad quite frankly.

Sad is attempting to use points alone for two players with nearly the same production as a basis of evaluation.

Yet we're currently 25th in goals this season, 3 ahead of 30th. You said yourself 4 points is "hardly enough to make up for everything else". What about 3 goals? Our offense is just as pathetic. The difference? Gomez still ****ing produced.

No, actually the difference is last year, the team was 11th in goals, by far the highest it has been since the lockout, and higher than it was the year before. Again, Richards was the only major roster change. Gomez's Rangers were the worst offensive squads since the lockout.

No one is denying that Richards has played terribly this season. But this is a weird season, and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll bounce back next year. He always has in the past.

Yeah, let's criticize the guy for shooting on a team supported by the likes of a washed up Markus Naslund, Nikolai Zherdev and Chris Drury. What is even the point of this argument? My enjoyment of the team has nothing to do with individual performances.

The point of the argument is that this is exactly what makes Scott Gomez a detrimental player to have on your team. Yes, on any day I would rather have Markus Naslund, Zherdev, or Drury shooting the puck over Gomez, because Gomez is a terrible shooter. His entire game is passing! Why would you ever want him to shoot the puck, much less be one of the most frequent shooters in the league? He had one of the lowest shooting percentages in the league, and this was just a pattern that had been going on for 4 years, even before he was on the Rangers. This is what makes Gomez an inefficient player. He's selfish and he's stupid. He is a turnover machine and he wastes offensive zone opportunities in record amounts. I would rather not have his 60 or 70 points and instead have all of the chances for puck possession and offensive zone time.

Richards turned it on the last couple of months of the season, and played pretty well during the playoffs, especially when you consider that Gaborik was playing hurt and almost entirely ineffective during the postseason.

Probably the worst argument of the bunch. Lundqvist winning the Vezina, McDonagh, Girardi and MDZ playing like Norris caliber defensemen, and guys like Kreider, Hagelin and Mitchell stepping in and playing the system to a T is what made the difference. Richards was crap last season as well, but we were winning so it was hardly a problem to some. That's what makes this place a psychologists wet dream from time to time. Selective memory.

LOL. Lundqvist is a Vezina candidate almost every year, and the notion that any of McD Girardi or MDZ were Norris caliber is laughable. The highest scorer among them, MDZ, was 24th in the league in points among defenseman. Just because McDonagh and Girardi played a lot of minutes doesn't mean they were Norris caliber. They were very good, and I would say that in addition to Richards, McDonagh was probably the biggest difference from the year before, but Norris? No, sorry. MDZ's point totals, by the way, had a lot to do with Richards. But what is even more laughable is suggesting that Mitchell or Kreider had more to do with the team's success than Richards. That is pure gold.

Is this a diversion tactic or something? We can vent about Glen Sather in another thread. He has his fair share of problems. But this thread is a player discussion on Brad Richards, and he's been a steaming pile of **** for his entire tenure as a Ranger. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that, and you even said it yourself. First you say Sather didn't have a choice, then you come back saying I should be blaming our GM. Tip-toeing around the topic of subject, because there's no defending Richards in an argument.

How am I tip-toeing around anything? Sather DIDN'T have a choice . . . because as usual, he backed himself into a corner, in large part thanks to senseless moves like Gomez.

Quotes like the above make it seem like you're not even sure what you're arguing about, no offense.

I respect your opinion, but I think anyone who can even remotely support Richards is out to lunch. It's disgraceful what he's done as a Ranger.

Then we're even, because I think Gomez is the biggest piece of **** to ever put on a Ranger jersey in my lifetime, and the single dumbest non-goon player I've ever watched in the NHL. Anyone that is going to compare his two years favorably to Richards' 11-12 season is insane in my book.

 

[TrueBlueNorwegian]

Tonight is the kind of game where Richards needs to show the hockeyworld what he is made of. Biggest game of the year!

 

[Pizza]

Tonight is the kind of game where Richards needs to show the hockeyworld what he is made of. Biggest game of the year!

Agreed.

If the Rangers lose and Richards is a non factor or worse, it's not gonna be good.

Carp said yesterday, that the Rangers are likely to give Richards the summer and see what happens when he shows up in camp. Carps take was that if he still looks lousy, they can just send him home.

If the Rangers lose tonight and don't make the playoffs, a lot of focus will settle on Richards. It will be interesting to see if Richards can man up here. Just amazing what's happened to him.

 

[CHS]

I'm assuming Richards has zero 'player of the game' wins on the forum this year. I'd be interested to know how many times he's even come top 3. Still rooting for the guy, but he is making it kinda difficult to stick up for him due to his play and contract.

 

[Crazed Beaver]

Tonight is the kind of game where Richards needs to show the hockeyworld what he is made of. Biggest game of the year!

I hope he does but when he is on the ice play is slanted towards Hank. He absolutely sucks and has no legs. Ive watched every game and many a few times and can say IMO he has had about 5 good games all yr.

Our #1 center is a fkn liability to our team. It's crazy but true.

 

[5 4 Fighting]

That's what happens when you pay someone $12 million for a calendar year.

 

[cd211]

Send out an SOS for b-rad again...havent seen him all night

 

[The Gloaming]

Another horrible game from Beaver Brad.

 

[BB58]

Barkley: Just turrible.

 

[Riverdale]

These are the types of games we need Brad to show up in.

 

[Crease]

It's like he hates having the puck on his stick. Dumping it in with open ice in front of him. Blind passes to nobody in particular. What's going on with him.

 

[richardsequalscup*]

I would say there is 0.0005% chance they don't buy Richards out. Basically, this is another Drury situation. A guy who has played a ton of hockey got old quick. The Rangers are fortunate the new CBA allows them to dump 2 bad contracts.

 

[bmw2004]

He will get to a new start with the new team under a new coach and will play again like the old BR.

 

[nyranger61494]

He will get to a new start with the new team under a new coach and will play again like the old BR.

If there is one player who can't blame Torts for his poor play, it's Richards. The coach who he thrived under for 7 seasons.

Richards' lone positive contribution was breaking up a 2-on-1 about halfway through OT after Clowe made an ambitious pass that trapped him and Girardi. Other than that...yikes.

 

[NY Lito]

He was at his best in his own zone tonight, that's one positive.

Actually that's the only positive tonight. It's depressing to see him constantly dump it into the zone. A guy with his skills and pedigree shouldn't be doing that. He's really out of it mentally.

If we want to go anywhere this season or next, he needs to be performing at a high level. Right now we're a solid team that could make a little noise in the playoffs. If Richards is playing like Richards, we're a contender; he's that important.

I still have faith. But it's been waning and waning all season.

 

[Overcast]

If there is one player who can't blame Torts for his poor play, it's Richards. The coach who he thrived under for 7 seasons.

Richards' lone positive contribution was breaking up a 2-on-1 about halfway through OT after Clowe made an ambitious pass that trapped him and Girardi. Other than that...yikes.

Richards and Torts have both said the coaching style is completely different in NY than it was in TB. /shrug

I don't think Torts's coaching style works with the mindset of 95% of this team, including Richards at this point in his life/career. He won a Cup in TB, enjoyed his time in Dallas while producing pretty big numbers, and got his enormous contract in NY to coast to retirement like most other players. The only guys that seem to play the way Torts wants his team to, just by default, are guys like Callahan/Girardi.

 

[Kershaw]

Doesn't help when you have deadweights Clowe and Boyle on the same line. But yeah, if he looks awful with Rick ****ing Nash on his line, there is no hope. I've given up on him being a competent 2nd line center.

 

[Pizza]

Better tonight. Good hustle. Made some decent plays on the D side of the puck oddly enough. He has to get some creativity going but thats a broken record I know.

 

[cd211]

^ its not enough tho!! he's here to be an impact player.. that means not just being good defensively and making "some" good plays.. he needs to be more engaged.. score PP goals and make his teammates around him better.. raise everyones game.. thats a leader and offensive 1c..

to me its not even about stats tho.. hes not even snake bitten right now.. hes not even getting or rather creating quality chances..

 

[OverTheCap]

I agree with the others that said he was good in his own zone last night. He was backchecking and breaking up plays, by far Richards' best effort of the season. Needs to be better offensively but at least he finally showed a pulse out there.