Rick Nash.....1 goal in 20 NYR playoff games

[Ail]

Do you guys watch the games or just look at the box scores?

There's more to the game than scoring goals. Nash is engaged, he's hitting, he's skating, he's backchecking, he's getting 2-3 great chances a game while being double-teamed. Saying he needs to score is one thing, saying he isn't playing well is just blind hatred. If he keeps playing like this, the points will come. I don't get how you can watch him play and not be pleasantly surprised with his compete level thus far.

NBC was praising his defensive play often last night, and apparently CBC was just crapping all over him.

I think it goes both ways, he's been a factor overall, if he had scored 1 or 2 goals in round one the conversation would be the total opposite right now.

 

[Ail]

Stop wasting your time, you see what you want to see and in this case a lot of people only see what happens in the offensive zone and I guess on the perimeter, because I agree with you, but really it's a losing battle.

It is bcuz: goals, 7.8mil.

 

[Inferno]

Agreed, this thread should be closed.

Nash was amazing again. Pitts Ds couldn't handle him down low, MSL scores 9/10 times on that point blank chance he got of Nash's feed. Nash setup Step in the crease after a great play along the boards. Our two best chances that didn't result in goals.

He was also great defensively and that line, Nash-Step-MSL, had the toughest possible matchup all game and did really well, they might have had a little more zone time than against Philly when they PWNED Giroux and co, but they played real well as a whole.

try not to tell that to the 400 or so haters in this thread. i agree with everything you just said.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Do you guys watch the games or just look at the box scores?

There's more to the game than scoring goals. Nash is engaged, he's hitting, he's skating, he's backchecking, he's getting 2-3 great chances a game while being double-teamed. Saying he needs to score is one thing, saying he isn't playing well is just blind hatred. If he keeps playing like this, the points will come. I don't get how you can watch him play and not be pleasantly surprised with his compete level thus far.

I thought Nash played well in the Philly series, with his best game being game 7. I was hoping he'd build on that. He didnt.

Are you insinuating he played well last night? Or are you just making a generic blanket statement with diminished expectations?

 

[Inferno]

I thought Nash played well in the Philly series, with his best game being game 7. I was hoping he'd build on that. He didnt.

Are you insinuating he played well last night? Or are you just making a generic blanket statement with diminished expectations?

I think he played really well last night, and set up our 2 best scoring chances that didnt go in the net. Stepan and MSL should have each had a goal.

If Nash had those 2 assists off of those feeds, would ppl still be complaining? Probably.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Do you guys watch the games or just look at the box scores?

There's more to the game than scoring goals. Nash is engaged, he's hitting, he's skating, he's backchecking, he's getting 2-3 great chances a game while being double-teamed. Saying he needs to score is one thing, saying he isn't playing well is just blind hatred. If he keeps playing like this, the points will come. I don't get how you can watch him play and not be pleasantly surprised with his compete level thus far.

I know you are one of many who have defended Nash in this manner. I bolded the point in your argument because they serve as a good summary of all the points of the opponents in this thread.

I think your problem is that although the points you made are correct, your are wrong none the less.

Your argument is NOT non-sequitur. In a vacuum, your conclusion follows its premise.

Your Premise: Nash is engaged, he's hitting, and he's skating

Your Conclusion: Rick Nash is not the worst player on the team

Although this may not be the strongest argument, I agree with your conclusion, Rick Nash is not the worst player on the team.

Here is where you are wrong. I repeat. This is not just against you, but as I said your post was a good summary of every defender of Nash's play in terms of this thread.

Your fallacy falls into the classification of ignoratio elenchi. To a logician your conclusion would be called an irrelevant conclusion. In everyday terms, an irrelevant conclusion is a more sophisticated phrase for...

missing the point

As many of those who are dissapointed with Rick Nash have said, he is first and for most here to score goals. He is not. We are worried that if he doesn't, we will not be able to advance. We are also frustrated, that yet another "missing piece" is not contributing where we need him. We are concerned that the key players on this team are in a narrow prime window, and if we don't hit the mark, we will need another rebuild.

This is where Rick Nash is needed to score goals.

Let's say someone was crapping on Carcillo. (Yes! Some people actually said in other threads that they are still concerned with Carcillio playing, and we should consider Miller of Fast for the second round)

Let's also forget the fact that he has two key goals.

I would agree with a defender of Carcillio's play who said Carcillo is engaged, hitting, and skating, but we are talking about Rick Nash. This team's supposed go to goal scorer, in a thread about his lack of goal scoring, and there are still people saying that this isn't a problem?

I feel like Clark Griswald in Christmas Vacation during his famous holiday rant.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I know you are one of many who have defended Nash in this manner. I bolded the point in your argument because they serve as a good summary of all the points of the opponents in this thread.

I think your problem is that although the points you made are correct, your are wrong none the less.

Your argument is NOT non-sequitur. In a vacuum, your conclusion follows its premise.

Your Premise: Nash is engaged, he's hitting, and he's skating

Your Conclusion: Rick Nash is not the worst player on the team

Although this may not be the strongest argument, I agree with your conclusion, Rick Nash is not the worst player on the team.

Here is where you are wrong. I repeat. This is not just against you, but as I said your post was a good summary of every defender of Nash's play in terms of this thread.

Your fallacy falls into the classification of ignoratio elenchi. To a logician your conclusion would be called an irrelevant conclusion. In everyday terms, an irrelevant conclusion is a more sophisticated phrase for...

missing the point

As many of those who are dissapointed with Rick Nash have said, he is first and for most here to score goals. He is not. We are worried that if he doesn't, we will not be able to advance. We are also frustrated, that yet another "missing piece" is not contributing where we need him. We are concerned that the key players on this team are in a narrow prime window, and if we don't hit the mark, we will need another rebuild.

This is where Rick Nash is needed to score goals.

Let's say someone was crapping on Carcillo. (Yes! Some people actually said in other threads that they are still concerned with Carcillio playing, and we should consider Miller of Fast for the second round)

Let's also forget the fact that he has two key goals.

I would agree with a defender of Carcillio's play who said Carcillo is engaged, hitting, and skating, but we are talking about Rick Nash. This team's supposed go to goal scorer, in a thread about his lack of goal scoring, and there are still people saying that this isn't a problem?

I feel like Clark Griswald in Christmas Vacation during his famous holiday rant.

Wow. You said a whole lot of nothing there. My conclusion is not wrong. It's the unreasonable expectations of fans that is wrong. Honestly, the biggest problem I have had with Nash is that I don't think he is engaged. He plays too often on the perimeter. He's not doing that. Folks saying that's what he is doing are just simply not watching the games. He will put up points if he keeps playing like this. If he had one or two ****ing goals right now people would be lauding his play.

And no - that wasn't my "conclusion." My conclusion wasn't "Rick Nash is not the worst player on the team." My conclusion was "Rick Nash is playing well." How is that irrelevant? What's relevant is we need to win games, and Nash has been a big contributor so far with his effort. I expected Nash to not even show up at all, but instead he has been one of the more engaged players on the team.

Everything you said about my post was irrelevant, so thanks.

And I understand the point - Nash needs to score goals for us to advance. I tend to agree with that point. But what does any of that have to do with his production in the previous 8 games? We made it this far, up 1-0 in Round 2 without him scoring. The POINT I AM MAKING is not that he isn't the worst player - it's that he is engaged, hitting, and playing hard. He's getting chances. And thus, the odds are that he will bury some of these chances if he keeps playing this hard. And then, y'all can shut up.

I swear some people just wanna hate. It's like "Oh he's soft he's a goal scorer he's never engaged," when he's scoring and appears to be floating. When he's not scoring and he's engaged, all we hear is "he's paid to score $8 million bum he sucks." Well, there are very few players in the entire NHL who are constantly engaged in the play physically and scoring goals consistently. You all have the most unrealistic expectations of players. I'm done with your ignoratio elenchi because your point was void ab initio.

Nice try, though.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I thought Nash played well in the Philly series, with his best game being game 7. I was hoping he'd build on that. He didnt.

Are you insinuating he played well last night? Or are you just making a generic blanket statement with diminished expectations?

No, I think he played well last night. I don't think he played poorly, at least.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Stop wasting your time, you see what you want to see and in this case a lot of people only see what happens in the offensive zone and I guess on the perimeter, because I agree with you, but really it's a losing battle.

We have "logicians" in here, so I think I'll back off because my flawed logic is irrelevant. The fact that Nash is playing well means absolutely nothing. All that matters is that he score 700,000 goals.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Do you guys watch the games or just look at the box scores?

I. There's more to the game than scoring goals. II. Nash is engaged, he's hitting, he's skating, he's backchecking, he's getting 2-3 great chances a game while being double-teamed. III. Saying he needs to score is one thing, IV. saying he isn't playing well is just blind hatred. If he keeps playing like this, the points will come. V. I don't get how you can watch him play and not be pleasantly surprised with his compete level thus far.

I had to quote the same quote I analyzed to make sure everything I said wasn't irrelevant.

I highlighted the points that concerned me.

I. There is indeed more to the game than scoring goals + Nash is doing more than scoring goals + Nash was brought here to be the go-to-scorer = Nash is not helping where he is most needed

II. Premise: [For a game] Nash has been hitting, skating, and back checking. Conclusion: Wow!

III. He needs to score goals for this team to have a real shot

IV. Agree in terms of hitting, skating, and back checking for one game.

V. The thought that I should be happy with the "surprise" that Rick Nash, our $7.8 million go-to goal scorer, is hitting, skating, and checking is by definition missing the point.

After this clarification, do you mean my first post to your quote was irrelevant or do you mean it was misunderstood?

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

we could get a player who hits, skates, and backchecks for a lot less than $7.8 million. Its gotten to the point where if Nash has just a mediocre game he's been "good".

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Wow. You said a whole lot of nothing there. My conclusion is not wrong. It's the unreasonable expectations of fans that is wrong. Honestly, the biggest problem I have had with Nash is that I don't think he is engaged. He plays too often on the perimeter. He's not doing that. Folks saying that's what he is doing are just simply not watching the games. He will put up points if he keeps playing like this. If he had one or two ****ing goals right now people would be lauding his play.

And no - that wasn't my "conclusion." My conclusion wasn't "Rick Nash is not the worst player on the team." My conclusion was "Rick Nash is playing well." How is that irrelevant? What's relevant is we need to win games, and Nash has been a big contributor so far with his effort. I expected Nash to not even show up at all, but instead he has been one of the more engaged players on the team.

Everything you said about my post was irrelevant, so thanks.

And I understand the point - Nash needs to score goals for us to advance. I tend to agree with that point. But what does any of that have to do with his production in the previous 8 games? We made it this far, up 1-0 in Round 2 without him scoring. The POINT I AM MAKING is not that he isn't the worst player - it's that he is engaged, hitting, and playing hard. He's getting chances. And thus, the odds are that he will bury some of these chances if he keeps playing this hard. And then, y'all can shut up.

I swear some people just wanna hate. It's like "Oh he's soft he's a goal scorer he's never engaged," when he's scoring and appears to be floating. When he's not scoring and he's engaged, all we hear is "he's paid to score $8 million bum he sucks." Well, there are very few players in the entire NHL who are constantly engaged in the play physically and scoring goals consistently. You all have the most unrealistic expectations of players. I'm done with your ignoratio elenchi because your point was void ab initio.

Nice try, though.

The bold point strengthen what I'm saying and the underlined points are the crux of my argument.

He is not the worst player, and very few players in the league can dominate more than they don't, but he is paid like one of the few, the team is constructed around his presumed goal scoring prowess, and the fact that he is "engaged" is not enough for me to be happy with his play.

If he starts to score, and the Rangers do better, I will not have to make a retraction because he will be doing what he is supposed to do.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

We have "logicians" in here, so I think I'll back off because my flawed logic is irrelevant. The fact that Nash is playing well means absolutely nothing. All that matters is that he score 700,000 goals.

It won't take a cool-headed logician to determine that asking Nash to score 700,000 goals in today's NHL is asking way to much!

 

[richardsequalscup*]

Yeah, let's jump for joy to have a 7 million dollar player with 1 goal in 20 playoff games because he gets a few chances or makes 1 or 2 nice passes a game. Gimme a break. He's paid a ton to produce and score goals. Not have the production of a 3rd or 4th line player.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

We have "logicians" in here, so I think I'll back off because my flawed logic is irrelevant. The fact that Nash is playing well means absolutely nothing. All that matters is that he score 700,000 goals.

He could start with 1

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

He could start with 1

Lol he's been decent defensively yo, don't you think asking for 1 goal is pushing it?

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

On a serious note, I saw someone mention in another thread (actually might have been this one, idk) that Nash's puck management last night was terrible, and I completely agree. He made some bad passes and was just plain lackadaisical with the puck at times. If he's not going to score, the least he could do is not make bad plays in the neutral/D zone.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

After looking at how the Penguins' fans are treating Crosby, after a Hart-worthy, injury-free season, after he has already proven to be a big-game player and won a Cup - I've concluded that most fans of all teams are insane.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

The bold point strengthen what I'm saying and the underlined points are the crux of my argument.

He is not the worst player, and very few players in the league can dominate more than they don't, but he is paid like one of the few, the team is constructed around his presumed goal scoring prowess, and the fact that he is "engaged" is not enough for me to be happy with his play.

If he starts to score, and the Rangers do better, I will not have to make a retraction because he will be doing what he is supposed to do.

Okay. So your point is that if Nash isn't scoring, he's useless. Got it. Good point.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Yeah, let's jump for joy to have a 7 million dollar player with 1 goal in 20 playoff games because he gets a few chances or makes 1 or 2 nice passes a game. Gimme a break. He's paid a ton to produce and score goals. Not have the production of a 3rd or 4th line player.

So you're admitting that all you consider is the box score and the actual game play is irrelevant to you?

 

[jerseyjinx94]

we could get a player who hits, skates, and backchecks for a lot less than $7.8 million. Its gotten to the point where if Nash has just a mediocre game he's been "good".

Nash has been better than "mediocre," but yeah, your point is valid nonetheless. I can see how that may be true

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Okay. So your point is that if Nash isn't scoring, he's useless. Got it. Good point.

I read your response quickly, and I thought it read, "so your point is Nash isn't scoring...Got it. Good point."

I was so happy! It's only taken days, countless analogies, data, etc., but the point of this thread was finally heard!

I read it again just to be sure. I was dismayed when I saw the underlined phrase "he's useless."

I had two conflicting feelings when I saw this phrase.

1) Maybe he really agrees with me now, but he went a little to far just trying to empathize the point that Rick Nash is useless when he's not being the teams scorer?

or...

2) Maybe he's still missing the point of the main gripe with Rick Nash?


It's hard to gauge a respondents tone considering Rick Nash while not scoring is skating, moving, and being genuinely engaged in the task at hand.

 

[Fataldogg]

Do you guys watch the games or just look at the box scores?

There's more to the game than scoring goals. Nash is engaged, he's hitting, he's skating, he's backchecking, he's getting 2-3 great chances a game while being double-teamed. Saying he needs to score is one thing, saying he isn't playing well is just blind hatred. If he keeps playing like this, the points will come. I don't get how you can watch him play and not be pleasantly surprised with his compete level thus far.

There is a lot more than scoring goals, but at the end of the day, what is the direct result of winning a game? Scoring goals.

All of the little plays add up, and players score goals off of good shifts, momentum swings, etc, but at the end of the day that puck has to cross the red line.

Nash was acquired by the New York Rangers to do that. To get that puck over the red line. The fact that he has done that just once in his 20 post season games with the Rangers, and fans are still defending him (yet criticizing Richards a multitude of times in every GDT) is absolute non-sense.

He needs to do more than have a great shift once or twice a game. Secondly, I didn't even think he was noticeable in that game outside of two plays he set up.

All the matters at the end of the day is what's on the scoreboard, and Nash better start contributing to what's on the scoreboard if they want to beat a better team in the Penguins.

I'd much rather have Nash put up a 2-3 goal game where he doesn't look particularly sharp, than him get a multitude of chances and not finish on a single one of them.

Results, results, results. I don't get how people don't understand this. Sports, like most industries, is results driven.

We win that first round in less than seven if Nash can score a couple of goals. We win that last game before OT if Nash can score a goal. He can be making his life, and the life of everyone on the team a lot easier by doing this.

His effort is wildly inconsistent too. He's either going HAM a couple minutes at a time, or just coasting throughout the game.

Nash hasn't been bad in the post season. But he can be A LOT better. A LOT BETTER.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Okay. So your point is that if Nash isn't scoring, he's useless. Got it. Good point.

Dude, no it isn't. What post are you even reading?

 

[Fataldogg]

So you're admitting that all you consider is the box score and the actual game play is irrelevant to you?

The score board is what matters at the end of the 60 minutes. You would be kidding yourself if you think it's not important. Not the box score in particular, but at the end of the day, the team with more goals in the net wins.

So, yes, what the scoreboard shows is very important. And Nash needs to start contributing to the score on that scoreboard, DIRECTLY. HE NEEDS to score, not get a secondary assist.