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

[Section 409]

Zuccarelo has 2 assist thus far, and he's only 5-7. Lundqvist has 6" on the guy not to mention his albatross of a contract next season, and he has a goose-egg in that department.

This guy couldn't set up The Great One! /smh

And no goals for Lundqvist, hes not finishing his chances.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Your sarcasm is so insane that I don't even know what you're saying anymore.

Here's my take, in clear, plain words:

Nash needs to score goals.
Overall, he is playing extremely well.
Some of his high quality chances will go in, eventually.
His lack of goals thus far in the playoffs is unacceptable, but at least he is hustling.

What I am seeing from others is:

Nash needs to score goals.
He's invisible.
He's on the perimeter.
His lack of goals thus far in the playoffs is unacceptable and he has no heart and we should trade him straight up for Dubinsky and he's a 3rd line winger or a 4th line winger at best a 2nd line grinder.

I think that sums it up, albeit I combined several different posters' thoughts. If I'm wrong, then please in a non-sarcastic form explain to me what the hell your point is? I think we all agree that one goal in 21 playoff games is inexcusable. I think the miscommunication is that you think I am saying that his lack of goal scoring is fine because he is hustling. I am not saying that, he needs to score. I agree with that. But my biggest gripe with Nash has always been his lack of hustle. In fact, my biggest gripe as a fan with ANY player is lack of hustle. I want to watch a team that wants to win as much as I want them to win. And Nash has been playing in the 8 games thus far like he wants to win, outside of Game 6 where every single player on the team decided they wanted to win the series at the Garden and didn't show up. My point in this thread has just been, can you really have watched these games and not at least seen that Nash has been hustling and creating chances? Can you not see him hustling on the back check (criticized for floating and being a cherry picker all the time) and hitting (criticized for his absurdly low amount of hits)? Do you not think that logic dictates that if he keeps getting high quality chances, some of them will go in? If you can't admit that, you're just being biased or not watching close enough.

You say we can't go far in the playoffs without Nash scoring. Odds are, if he keeps playing like he has this postseason, he will score goals. Let's hope they come in bunches.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

And no goals for Lundqvist, hes not finishing his chances.

if HE just scored one, I would lay off!

 

[jerseyjinx94]

You mean all the stuff that Dubinsky did for 3.4M less of a cap hit?

Yes, Dubinsky is a better player than Nash. You're right, well said!

 

[jniklast]

Now Nash is already playing extremely well? Are you guys serious? I don't think he has been crap, but for his standards he hasn't even played well. He has done the basics alright, but he hasn't done his job at all nor has he really played to his potential for more than a few shifts. If Pouliot, Brassard or Kreider were playing like Nash is these playoffs, then I'd say they are playing well (but not great). From our superstar forward I expect a lot more before I consider it playing well. Defensive responsibility and a couple of decent offensive plays doesn't cut it.

And no goals for Lundqvist, hes not finishing his chances.

I think he set up a 2-on-1 in the Philly series with a save. If Zuccarello could finish, he'd have an assist and we wouldn't have this conversation.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

I wish Nash had Kopitar feeding him.

Who was his center when he had two 40 goals seasons here? Who were his centers in Minnesota?

The idea that Gaborik needs a great passing center to score is beyond ignorant. Both goals last night were the results of sick, elite level vision and hand eye coordination.

Nash is playing with last season's Ross winner. Did Kopitar win the Ross last season?

 

[Section 409]

Yes, Dubinsky is a better player than Nash. You're right, well said!

He didn't say that.

Either way the fact of the matter is everything that Nash has done in the playoffs Dubinsky can bring to the table.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

He didn't say that.

Either way the fact of the matter is everything that Nash has done in the playoffs Dubinsky can bring to the table.

Brandon Dubinsky is no longer a New York Ranger. I don't really see the point in making the comparison between Nash and Dubinsky unless you're trying to say that you'd rather have Dubinsky?

 

[Section 409]

Brandon Dubinsky is no longer a New York Ranger. I don't really see the point in making the comparison between Nash and Dubinsky unless you're trying to say that you'd rather have Dubinsky?

I am saying that Dubinsky brought more to the table this year in the playoffs.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I am saying that Dubinsky brought more to the table this year in the playoffs.

Okay...and? Even if that were true, how is that relevant?

 

[Matt Rentfree]

Brandon Dubinsky is no longer a New York Ranger. I don't really see the point in making the comparison between Nash and Dubinsky unless you're trying to say that you'd rather have Dubinsky?

I'd rather have the cap space to put towards a first line left wing, first line center or a defenseman who can pass well and shoot hard from the point. I don't have a problem with Nash. I have a problem with Nash at his cap hit.

 

[Section 409]

Okay...and? Even if that were true, how is that relevant?

This really needs an explanation?

The Nash apologists are pounding their feet about how he's doing everything but scoring, which I disagree with, completely. However, we will just say he is.

The point is, his job is to score and he isn't doing that. If he is not going to do that, what's the point to his roster spot? We can save money and not pay a ridiculous cap hit.

I can't believe this guy is being defended for not finishing, yet we have people saying that other guys, who have actually scored, need to finish. It's morbidly ridiculous at this point.

I feel like I should just hit 0% of my quota this quarter and tell my boss I provided excellent customer service and that other people are falling short too. Maybe he wouldn't can my ass then... Wishful thinking.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

You didn't say anything except request citations, which is ridiculous. I was summarizing general points being made all year.

I bolded so many points.

I also said citation needed because I was alluding to one of my other posts where I said that you may have been referring to posters who were wrong while you were directly responding to posters who had legitimate causes for concern.

I underlined the point where you said this was our misunderstanding.

I bolded your statements that agreed with the fact that he needs to score goals as well as let's hope they come in bunches.

Saying that the entire content of the response was [citation needed] is a severely myopic view.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

This really needs an explanation?

The Nash apologists are pounding their feet about how he's doing everything but scoring, which I disagree with, completely. However, we will just say he is.

The point is, his job is to score and he isn't doing that. If he is not going to do that, what's the point to his roster spot? We can save money and not pay a ridiculous cap hit.

I can't believe this guy is being defended for not finishing, yet we have people saying that other guys, who have actually scored, need to finish. It's morbidly ridiculous at this point.

I feel lik I should just hit 0% of my quota this quarter and tell my boss I provided excellent customer service and that other people are falling short too. Maybe he wouldn't can my ass then... Wishful thinking.

See this post ReggieDunlop

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I bolded so many points.

I also said citation needed because I was alluding to one of my other posts where I said that you may have been referring to posters who were wrong while you were directly responding to posters who had legitimate causes for concern.

I underlined the point where you said this was our misunderstanding.

I bolded your statements that agreed with the fact that he needs to score goals as well as let's hope they come in bunches.

Saying that the entire content of the response was [citation needed] is a severely myopic view.

That's true - fair enough. I think we all want the same thing, and the main gripe is that some think his lack of production means he is not playing well, while others don't see that correlation.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Some posters buried in this thread did go to extremes with Nash, but instead of arguing with those few responses, you argue with posts that have legitimate concerns.

If you post those specific posts, and those posts are anywhere remotely close to what you say they said, I will gladly agree with your response to them.

The post you sent prior to this an example of an extreme post, and as I said, that is wrong to say.

Are you going to make me go through every single one of your responses to clarify my point?

There are always extremes on these boards, but you not only responded to the extreme posts with what those posts deserved, you also answered a lot of legitimate posts, with the same answer as you did for the extreme posts. That is my gripe.

Rick Nash is playing better, but he still not scoring. He also had a lot of shots the last playoffs with one goal. I want him to breakout, but I don't see it happening just because he looks like he has a pulse now. It is a legitimate concern if he doesn't break out due to the moves that were required to obtain him as well as the fact that the team is structured with him as the main scorer.

Even if he plays well, he's not serving his key function, and the team will suffer for it.

I've said these exact words as well as tried to add a spice of humor with my insane [sic.] sarcasm.

This is my point. It is impossible for me to have a reasonable conversation if the points I just mentioned are lumped with every outlier notion on HF boards.

You said it yourself. We were having a miscommunication because we were attacking two different points.

Me: All the points I summarized in this post [valid]

You: It is an extreme to say that Rick Nash is not trying and is completely worthless [valid]

I emphasized in the earlier post that I do hope the goals come from him. We need him to do it!

 

[smoneil]

I think the quotes there, without an context at all, are really unfair. but feel free to nitpick them all you want.

Literally, the ONLY thing I did was change "Dubinsky" to "Nash." If you think that's unfair, then that's on you, because they were your words. I'd say you could let everyone else decide whether they were fair or not, but I suspect that you were the reason that post (a post that was completely on point and did not violate the terms of service) was deleted.

Nash has generated countless scoring chances. Nobody wants to admit it. He's also hit what...2 posts? he could EASILY be a PPG player right now.

and yes, he was brought in to score goals. Its not going in for him. when has anyone here not admitted that?

but theres a big difference between playing like crap, and not producing.

i certainly agree that he's not producing goals/points. he's most certainly not playing like crap.

Yes, he is playing like crap. If he weren't, I would say so. I'm one of the only people in this thread from EITHER side who has stated the opposite opinion when Nash's play warranted it (see my post after round 1, game 7--that is, if you haven't already arranged to have it deleted).

When a player with a different name was in the EXACT situation, you claimed that he was at risk of losing his place on the team. You called him out for not doing the same exact things that Nash is refusing to do. You dismissed points about that player contributing in other ways solely because of the goals scored stat line.

There are three differences between that situation and this one:

1- That player was, is and has ALWAYS been a playmaker rather than a goalscorer. You stated that that didn't matter. Nash, who has been a goalscorer and nothing else, somehow gets a pass.

2- You posted, frequently, loudly, and often caustically, during the run up to the Nash acquisition. You made claims about how he was going to explode and put up 80+ points easily as soon as he got out of Columbus. Even back then, you were making excuses for him. To see reality now would be to admit that you were dead wrong, and I frankly don't think you have that in you.

3- Nash is a "Name." Former #1 overall pick. Canadian boy. He is the epitome of what this team and the idiot fringe of its fanbase fell in love with during the dark years. Even now, after dozens of examples that should have taught this team and its fans their lesson, too many people just love to cling to the hope that Canadian + Big Name will equal untapped potential that has never before been seen.

Nash's lack of production is tied to his lack of desire. He isn't willing to do what it takes. He isn't willing to go to the net. He isn't willing to do all of those things that you ripped another player apart for. But since Nash isn't a no-name, American, 2nd round draft pick, he gets a pass by you.

[mod]

Just for fun, I'll throw it out there again-- Dorsett is the only other regular on this team without a single goal. Every other forward has at least one, and most of them have two or more. Commence with the idiotic excuses.

 

[Section 409]

Literally, the ONLY thing I did was change "Dubinsky" to "Nash." If you think that's unfair, then that's on you, because they were your words. I'd say you could let everyone else decide whether they were fair or not, but I suspect that you were the reason that post (a post that was completely on point and did not violate the terms of service) was deleted.



Yes, he is playing like crap. If he weren't, I would say so. I'm one of the only people in this thread from EITHER side who has stated the opposite opinion when Nash's play warranted it (see my post after round 1, game 7--that is, if you haven't already arranged to have it deleted).

When a player with a different name was in the EXACT situation, you claimed that he was at risk of losing his place on the team. You called him out for not doing the same exact things that Nash is refusing to do. You dismissed points about that player contributing in other ways solely because of the goals scored stat line.

There are three differences between that situation and this one:

1- That player was, is and has ALWAYS been a playmaker rather than a goalscorer. You stated that that didn't matter. Nash, who has been a goalscorer and nothing else, somehow gets a pass.

2- You posted, frequently, loudly, and often caustically, during the run up to the Nash acquisition. You made claims about how he was going to explode and put up 80+ points easily as soon as he got out of Columbus. Even back then, you were making excuses for him. To see reality now would be to admit that you were dead wrong, and I frankly don't think you have that in you.

3- Nash is a "Name." Former #1 overall pick. Canadian boy. He is the epitome of what this team and the idiot fringe of its fanbase fell in love with during the dark years. Even now, after dozens of examples that should have taught this team and its fans their lesson, too many people just love to cling to the hope that Canadian + Big Name will equal untapped potential that has never before been seen.

Nash's lack of production is tied to his lack of desire. He isn't willing to do what it takes. He isn't willing to go to the net. He isn't willing to do all of those things that you ripped another player apart for. But since Nash isn't a no-name, American, 2nd round draft pick, he gets a pass by you.

[mod]

Just for fun, I'll throw it out there again-- Dorsett is the only other regular on this team without a single goal. Every other forward has at least one, and most of them have two or more. Commence with the idiotic excuses.

Yeah, but Stepan doesn't finish enough. If everyone else finished Nash would have like 12 assists

 

[Tawnos]

You really think those are the only 3 differences? You really think that a quality poster like Inferno isn't able to distinguish between a good performance that yields zero points and a bad one that yields zero points?

Nash's goal output is unacceptable, but it doesn't tell the whole story of him in these playoffs. Last year, he looked like a completely different, and worse, player and he scored one goal.

Hell, Richards put up the same point per game pace last season as he did this one. Yet, last year people were all over him and this year, people have been pretty happy. What's the difference? It's a quality of play test, not a quantity of numbers test. And it has to do with watching what's happening on the ice.

Nash HAS to score goals if the Rangers want this to be a deep playoff run, but calling out individual posters for acknowledging the things he's doing well is off the deep end.

 

[Section 409]

You really think those are the only 3 differences? You really think that a quality poster like Inferno isn't able to distinguish between a good performance that yields zero points and a bad one that yields zero points?

Nash's goal output is unacceptable, but it doesn't tell the whole story of him in these playoffs. Last year, he looked like a completely different, and worse, player and he scored one goal.

Hell, Richards put up the same point per game pace last season as he did this one. Yet, last year people were all over him and this year, people have been pretty happy. What's the difference? It's a quality of play test, not a quantity of numbers test. And it has to do with watching what's happening on the ice.

Nash HAS to score goals if the Rangers want this to be a deep playoff run, but calling out individual posters for acknowledging the things he's doing well is off the deep end.

Yeah, last year was worse. Going from an F to a higher F doesn't do much for me.

Called out? He pointed out blatant hypocrisy.

 

[smoneil]

You really think those are the only 3 differences? You really think that a quality poster like Inferno isn't able to distinguish between a good performance that yields zero points and a bad one that yields zero points?

Yes, I do think those are the only three differences. And that "quality poster" was also positive that Nash would be an 80+ point monster once he escaped from Columbus. He was dead wrong. He's dead wrong a LOT. He also changes his method of analysis when a player fails to back up his boasts/"analysis." I was one of a handful of people who pretty much called the Nash situation EXACTLY before the trade even happened. Yet Inferno is a "quality poster" and I apparently don't watch games? You're too close to this, Mr. Mod. Post count and post quality are two entirely different things.

Nash's goal output is unacceptable, but it doesn't tell the whole story of him in these playoffs. Last year, he looked like a completely different, and worse, player and he scored one goal.

Yeah, and? Nash is refusing to do what he needs to do to be a difference maker. Last year, he was a liability on the ice. This year, he isn't, but he's not being a difference maker either. When you bring in a guy at 8 mil per, the measuring stick needs to be far more than "not being a liability."

Hell, Richards put up the same point per game pace last season as he did this one. Yet, last year people were all over him and this year, people have been pretty happy. What's the difference? It's a quality of play test, not a quantity of numbers test. And it has to do with watching what's happening on the ice.

Incidentally, Mr. Mod, this is another thing that's pissing me off about this thread--the apologists CONTINUOUSLY assume that if we don't agree with them, we don't watch the games. You know nothing about me. I'm watching the games. I just see what's going on differently from you. If you can't engage in the conversation based on what's going on in the game (rather than accusing people of not watching them), then perhaps you should be deleting your own posts.

Nash HAS to score goals if the Rangers want this to be a deep playoff run, but calling out individual posters for acknowledging the things he's doing well is off the deep end.

I'm calling Inferno out for changing his method of evaluation when it's a player he's in love with as opposed to one he didn't like. I'm calling him out because he likes to take a VERY caustic tone, and act superior when he disagrees with someone. He's done it numerous times in this thread, in posts that you didn't delete.

Frankly, your post just confirmed something I had assumed anyway--you are modding this thread based on your own personal views of the topic and the people involved. If you want to shut out all voices except those of your buddies who all agree with you, I recommend building a tree fort and restricting access. This website has, I assume, a terms of service agreement. If you're going to mod here, I suggest you use that as your mod-measuring stick.

Regardless, I'm beyond done with this thread. Enjoy pretending that Nash is having himself a dominant post-season. Maybe he can pot his first before Dorsett gets his.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I don't think excuses are being made. He's getting chances, he's not finishing. Period.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

You really think those are the only 3 differences? You really think that a quality poster like Inferno isn't able to distinguish between a good performance that yields zero points and a bad one that yields zero points?

Nash's goal output is unacceptable, but it doesn't tell the whole story of him in these playoffs. Last year, he looked like a completely different, and worse, player and he scored one goal.

Hell, Richards put up the same point per game pace last season as he did this one. Yet, last year people were all over him and this year, people have been pretty happy. What's the difference? It's a quality of play test, not a quantity of numbers test. And it has to do with watching what's happening on the ice.

Nash HAS to score goals if the Rangers want this to be a deep playoff run, but calling out individual posters for acknowledging the things he's doing well is off the deep end.

What was the post?

 

[jerseyjinx94]

Incidentally, Mr. Mod, this is another thing that's pissing me off about this thread--the apologists CONTINUOUSLY assume that if we don't agree with them, we don't watch the games. You know nothing about me. I'm watching the games. I just see what's going on differently from you. If you can't engage in the conversation based on what's going on in the game (rather than accusing people of not watching them), then perhaps you should be deleting your own posts.

Yes, you're seeing a lack of goals and concluding that Nash has played poorly.

 

[Section 409]

Incidentally, Mr. Mod, this is another thing that's pissing me off about this thread--the apologists CONTINUOUSLY assume that if we don't agree with them, we don't watch the games. You know nothing about me. I'm watching the games. I just see what's going on differently from you. If you can't engage in the conversation based on what's going on in the game (rather than accusing people of not watching them), then perhaps you should be deleting your own posts.

I have to say this is spot on. I'm a season ticket holder now for seven years, I spent my life on the ice. This whole "box score watching" crap is just the last line of defense cornered animal insult.