Most of Nash's goals are meaningless...

[Clown Fiesta]

He's not a power forward. He's a dangler.

As far as the stupid semantics game of he's a "star" not a "superstar", that doesn't matter. He's a former 1st overall pick, and was widely considered a top player in the league who would be even more productive if on a better team. The expectations are what they are and were what they were. Your specific expectation doesn't change squat about his play on the ice. And his play on the ice has been a disappointment for what he was supposed to be going back to his draft day.

Here's the thing, he's our best forward and that says a lot about where we're at. As a hockey player he's one dimensional. Worst of all, he's a loser. He's go no killer instinct and he seems to be out there for himself, not for the team. How many times did we watch him throw little temper tantrums out there on the ice when things didn't go his way? Classic Nash this past year was dangle for 5 minutes, not even bothering to look to his teammates, have the puck stolen from him and then slash the guy who stole it in a hissy fit and get penalized or just mope on back to the bench.

It's not EA Sports NHL, I don't accept dangler as a classification for a player. He's a big body who uses his size to protect the puck and drive the net, its prototypical power forward play. Granted the definition is starting to get watered down as there really aren't many actual power forwards left. But you mention semantics and then want to discuss this? I won't disagree with you that, that label may not fit 100% but it's the closest we've got as he isn't a sniper or playmaker.

How many times did he throw temper tantrums? I can recall twice that players got under his skin when he actually showed emotion in regards to it, which if you take the time to read my previous posts you'll find me mention him getting agitated at inopportune times.

Yes he needs to learn to use his teammates a bit more, part of being the player he's been throughout his career is having to do too much.

It's not semantics, people generally accept that there is a difference between a star player and a superstar player. I've also stuck by that the entire time, so people trying to goad me into admitting he's a superstar and that we gave up too much for him are wasting their time and the ones actually trying to argue semantics.

 

[Jersey Girl]

It's not semantics, people generally accept that there is a difference between a star player and a superstar player. I've also stuck by that the entire time, so people trying to goad me into admitting he's a superstar and that we gave up too much for him are wasting their time and the ones actually trying to argue semantics.

Personally, I'm not trying to goad you into anything. I'm just telling you what I think.

Nash came over billed as a superstar (or star, or great player, or whatever you want to call him), and his play in the playoffs was appalling. I'll give Nash one mulligan, but if he does that again this year, all fingers point directly at him.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Personally, I'm not trying to goad you into anything. I'm just telling you what I think.

Nash came over billed as a superstar (or star, or great player, or whatever you want to call him), and his play in the playoffs was appalling. I'll give Nash one mulligan, but if he does that again this year, all fingers point directly at him.

Like I said people love spewing dramatic verbiage around here. That word is easily used to describe 95% of this teams playoffs though if you really want.

Also if it doesn't matter as far as how we're going to classify him, why was it used as a basis to an argument? What I think is people who didn't really know and bought the hype and high expectations were disappointed because the player didn't turn into the next Messiah.

Coming into this his playoff experience was next to none, this year attributed to 75% of his career playoff games. It's something he hopefully learned from, as we can all agree he needs to have a better post season.

Not to mention the three people in this thread trying to educate me on Nash are clearly not Nash fans, as seen in other threads or some of the personal descriptions they give of him. Which is totally fine, and I accept the skepticism, however it's not as if I've been trying to convince you he's the best player in the league either. I think he is a good player and despite being 28 has room to grow, he could mature into a really nice player, I also haven't given him any free passes either. I admit his playoffs weren't good, I just choose not to get too worried about it.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Like I said people love spewing dramatic verbiage around here. That word is easily used to describe 95% of this teams playoffs though if you really want.

Also if it doesn't matter as far as how we're going to classify him, why was it used as a basis to an argument? What I think is people who didn't really know and bought the hype and high expectations were disappointed because the player didn't turn into the next Messiah.

Coming into this his playoff experience was next to none, this year attributed to 75% of his career playoff games. It's something he hopefully learned from, as we can all agree he needs to have a better post season.

Not to mention the three people in this thread trying to educate me on Nash are clearly not Nash fans, as seen in other threads or some of the personal descriptions they give of him. Which is totally fine, and I accept the skepticism, however it's not as if I've been trying to convince you he's the best player in the league either. I think he is a good player and despite being 28 has room to grow, he could mature into a really nice player, I also haven't given him any free passes either. I admit his playoffs weren't good, I just choose not to get too worried about it.

For me the appalling part of Nash's playoffs were that the drive and determination were not there. Just when everyone else was picking their intensity level up, Nash seemed to back away. Not good, and not sure if that's something that can be learned over time.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

For me the appalling part of Nash's playoffs were that the drive and determination were not there. Just when everyone else was picking their intensity level up, Nash seemed to back away. Not good, and not sure if that's something that can be learned over time.

I'm not sure who was picking it up, I think the team as a whole really let down in the 2nd round. They showed a lack of intensity that is usually common among them, part of it IMO has to do with finishing what they started early in the season, quitting on Torts.

Nash was up and down through both series, looked more like a consistency issue to me than anything, and maybe not knowing how to handle the tighter checking and limited room that stymies a lot of players.

 

[Jersey Girl]

I'm not sure who was picking it up, I think the team as a whole really let down in the 2nd round. They showed a lack of intensity that is usually common among them, part of it IMO has to do with finishing what they started early in the season, quitting on Torts.

Nash was up and down through both series, looked more like a consistency issue to me than anything, and maybe not knowing how to handle the tighter checking and limited room that stymies a lot of players.

You are entitled to your opinion. Here is my opinion.

I didn't have a problem with the effort of most of the team in the playoffs (save for an occasional sleepy opening of games for the entire team), more the execution. A power play goal here or there would have gone a long way toward changing momentum when they needed a momentum change.

But Nash? I didn't see Nash's effort as up and down...just pretty much down. Nash's effort was consistent...consistently poor.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

It's not EA Sports NHL, I don't accept dangler as a classification for a player. He's a big body who uses his size to protect the puck and drive the net, its prototypical power forward play. Granted the definition is starting to get watered down as there really aren't many actual power forwards left. But you mention semantics and then want to discuss this? I won't disagree with you that, that label may not fit 100% but it's the closest we've got as he isn't a sniper or playmaker.

How many times did he throw temper tantrums? I can recall twice that players got under his skin when he actually showed emotion in regards to it, which if you take the time to read my previous posts you'll find me mention him getting agitated at inopportune times.

Yes he needs to learn to use his teammates a bit more, part of being the player he's been throughout his career is having to do too much.

It's not semantics, people generally accept that there is a difference between a star player and a superstar player. I've also stuck by that the entire time, so people trying to goad me into admitting he's a superstar and that we gave up too much for him are wasting their time and the ones actually trying to argue semantics.

Well excuse me, I didn't realize HF board poster Barbara Underhill refuses to recognize the fairly common hockey label "dangler". I should have known better. But it's clearly the best designation for Nash. Power Forwards use POWER. Nash really doesn't. He dangles and dekes, he doesn't run people over and out muscle them anywhere on the ice. He's got a big body, but that doesn't automatically make him a physical player or a power forward. The closest label for him we got, the one that fits him 100%, is dangler.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Well excuse me, I didn't realize HF board poster Barbara Underhill refuses to recognize the fairly common hockey label "dangler". I should have known better. But it's clearly the best designation for Nash. Power Forwards use POWER. Nash really doesn't. He dangles and dekes, he doesn't run people over and out muscle them anywhere on the ice. He's got a big body, but that doesn't automatically make him a physical player or a power forward. The closest label for him we got, the one that fits him 100%, is dangler.

Yes because skating through/past defenders while they lean on you doesn't require power.

Finesse? Is that what you're looking for? I rarely hear or read anyone using the term dangler. But you can if you want, it's just not a very good description of a player IMO because 98% of them do something other than dangle at a high level. Guys that can only dangle rarely make it in the pros.

You are entitled to your opinion. Here is my opinion.

I didn't have a problem with the effort of most of the team in the playoffs (save for an occasional sleepy opening of games for the entire team), more the execution. A power play goal here or there would have gone a long way toward changing momentum when they needed a momentum change.

But Nash? I didn't see Nash's effort as up and down...just pretty much down. Nash's effort was consistent...consistently poor.

That's fine, it's your opinon. Not very objective though, and it isn't like I haven't read your snide remarks in other threads about Nash which clearly shows your willingness to put your bias aside. The team played pretty darn bad Nash had some key plays, so did some other guys but as a whole they just didn't play consistently good hockey.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Yes because skating through/past defenders while they lean on you doesn't require power.

Finesse? Is that what you're looking for? I rarely hear or read anyone using the term dangler. But you can if you want, it's just not a very good description of a player IMO because 98% of them do something other than dangle at a high level. Guys that can only dangle rarely make it in the pros.

Well then Nash, a finesse forward (not power) if you like this term better, is in that 2%. And that's why he's been a loser and will most likely remain one, dragging us down with him.

 

[db2011]

Except it's not, and my description of a player has absolutely zero bearing on the actual value of said player. So...

What strawman? You came in here and started asking questions, I answered them. If anyone made the thread about something other than what I wrote in the OP it was those people who came in looking to derail it.

If the opening line offends you I apologize, but it is what it is and should be taken lightly.

Have I been singing praise of anyone? I feel I've simply been disagreeing with people who use some pretty dramatic language in trying to prove their points.

The strawman is to make a post that claims Columbus fans would have you believe X (that Nash's goals are meaningless", in this case) so that you can proceed to prove X wrong when really X doesn't exist- Columbus fans don't think that in any significant number. That's the strawman. It's not that the opening line offends me, it's that you're invoking something regarding an entire other fanbase that simply isn't true, and you're only doing it to prove a point that doesn't need proved.

Although I would like to hear who you think Nash compares to, since you evidently have an ability to "delve deeper" that others don't, my questions have generally been rhetorical. Also, I'm not trying to educate you about anything, I'm only offering my perspective as someone with a history of watching this player closely.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

The strawman is to make a post that claims Columbus fans would have you believe X (that Nash's goals are meaningless", in this case) so that you can proceed to prove X wrong when really X doesn't exist- Columbus fans don't think that in any significant number. That's the strawman. It's not that the opening line offends me, it's that you're invoking something regarding an entire other fanbase that simply isn't true, and you're only doing it to prove a point that doesn't need proved.

Although I would like to hear who you think Nash compares to, since you evidently have an ability to "delve deeper" that others don't, my questions have generally been rhetorical. Also, I'm not trying to educate you about anything, I'm only offering my perspective as someone with a history of watching this player closely.

Hmm ok, well like I said multiple other times it was hyperbolic as in an exaggeration, and to be taken lightly. There are CBJ fans out there that have said it, and it got brought into a discussion on our board, and has been tossed around semi regularly not to mention I saw it a multitude of times last year. So sorry, not sorry.

When there is a false perception of a player then it's something that I feel is a suitable topic for a hockey forum, I'm sorry you disagree. It was nothing more than to see if that claim held any water or not. So I'll decide what I want to spend my time looking into, if that's alright.

You're obviously a little sour, and I'm sorry if I had a part to play in that, but you really shouldn't take everything you read on the internet so serious.

Oh and I gave you an example several posts ago, not going to do it again. I've asked you a multitude of questions, and made claims that you haven't addressed or refuted so it's really turned into a waste of time to respond. Especially considering you've ignored what I said multiple times about the first line of the OP, which in the end is your problem. I offered you an explanation and in the end agree to disagree on everything else.

Well then Nash, a finesse forward (not power) if you like this term better, is in that 2%. And that's why he's been a loser and will most likely remain one, dragging us down with him.

According to you. That's fine.

 

[Doctyl]

Well then Nash, a finesse forward (not power) if you like this term better, is in that 2%. And that's why he's been a loser and will most likely remain one, dragging us down with him.

wow. do you really think this team is better without nash? he led the team in ppg. better with arty dubi and erixon? he outscored all 3 combined. seriously get over your irrational hatred for him, he was the best skater for us last year.

 

[Kakko]

Well excuse me, I didn't realize HF board poster Barbara Underhill refuses to recognize the fairly common hockey label "dangler". I should have known better. But it's clearly the best designation for Nash. Power Forwards use POWER. Nash really doesn't. He dangles and dekes, he doesn't run people over and out muscle them anywhere on the ice. He's got a big body, but that doesn't automatically make him a physical player or a power forward. The closest label for him we got, the one that fits him 100%, is dangler.

So you want milan lucic?

Because he's the only player who does what you're asking for.

 

[Synergy27]

Dangler

Let's go with definition #3.

 

[aufheben]

Why does it matter what he's called? This board is insane with labels sometimes.

Is he Eric Lindros? No. Does he use his size and power to literally plow through defenders? Si.

He's only got one Gold medal, what a ****ing loser.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Why does it matter what he's called? This board is insane with labels sometimes.

Is he Eric Lindros? No. Does he use his size and power to literally plow through defenders? Si.

He's only got one Gold medal, what a ****ing loser.

Basically all I was trying to say, you're just much more eloquent.

 

[aufheben]

Basically all I was trying to say, you're just much more eloquent.

How to get a point across on HF: Limit paragraphs to two sentences; Ask rhetorical questions; Profanity.

Let's just use Power Dangler and call it a day.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

How to get a point across on HF: Limit paragraphs to two sentences; Ask rhetorical questions; Profanity.

Let's just use Power Dangler and call it a day.

Power dangling illusionist.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Why does it matter what he's called? This board is insane with labels sometimes.

Is he Eric Lindros? No. Does he use his size and power to literally plow through defenders? Si.

He's only got one Gold medal, what a ****ing loser.

How to get a point across on HF: Limit paragraphs to two sentences; Ask rhetorical questions; Profanity.

Let's just use Power Dangler and call it a day.

No he does not. He tries to avoid contact. That's why I called him a dangler and that's why calling him a power forward is absurd. So again no, lets not call him a power anything because the guy doesn't play a power game whatsoever

And the gold medal argument is a joke, the guy played on team Canada. I could have taken his spot on that team and won a gold medal with them. All the man has done in the NHL is lose. And when he came here he played like a loser. He plays hockey like it's an individual, not a team, sport

 

[Kel Varnsen]

So you want milan lucic?

Because he's the only player who does what you're asking for.

Who wouldn't? But I didn't ask for anything. The post of mine you quoted points out why calling Nash a power forward is a joke and shows zero understanding of the term or Nash's game or both.

 

[Boruto]

Rick Nash hasn't dangled much aside from that one goal he scored against BOS.

 

[Kakko]

Avoiding contact like a pro

 

[Kel Varnsen]

wow. do you really think this team is better without nash? he led the team in ppg. better with arty dubi and erixon? he outscored all 3 combined. seriously get over your irrational hatred for him, he was the best skater for us last year.

To answer your first question, it depends a bit on what we're talking about. If you mean do you think we should buy him out, then no. If you mean should we trade him for a 7th round draft pick, then no. If you mean we should trade him for equal value, then it depends but I would be very open to it.

I do think the Nash trade made us a weaker team. I would undo it. Give me the top six, top nine depth and positional versatility that Dubi and Anisimov gave us. Give me the defense and the heart those guys have. And don't you think we could have used some defensive depth this past year?

The 2011-2012 team was better than the sum of its parts. That stuff gets lost on some people. Offensive points isn't the only part of a hockey game, or a hockey player. I wouldn't say Nash was the best skater for us last year, but I would say he was our best forward. And that's a problem. Your best forward, or your best anything really, shouldn't be a heartless, soft, immature, selfish player. If that describes your best anything, you're going to be in trouble as a team. And that's exactly what happened and will continue to happen. He killed a reigning Jack Adams finalist in half a season, and he killed a style of play that led the team to a first place in the East finish in half a season.

We had a good thing going and we sold our soul for a quick offensive fix (and I use that word as a drug reference). We all ooohed and ahhhed at his breakaway dekes all year as the rest of our body (get it?) of work wasted away.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Avoiding contact like a pro

Seriously? Youtube highlight clips to try to make a point? They call them highlights for a reason kid.

 

[Boruto]