Rick Nash
- Thread starter iamthewalrus
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Well he did change teams...so he is at the very least a factor.
Jonathan Toews is not a factor in this situation. Rich Nash is a factor. How much of a factor is certainly debatable.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
You're oversimplifying. The Rangers woes come down to two things: Richards and Gaborik. Everything else is secondary. And on the list of woes, I hardly think Rick Nash rates a spot. As far as the CBJ being better, could they really have been worse.
Your taking a very convenient stance but one that is really reaching. You're taking one variable and using it as the sole basis of a main point. And that doesn't work.
Last edited:
Clown Fiesta
Registered User
Straw man argument. Nash coming to the Rangers made Gaborik and Richards suck all of a sudden? That's pretty much the reason we're in 8th place right now, that and our bottom six is not performing well at all.
Nash has no effect on Richards and Gaborik, they are veterans after all. He also doesn't play in the bottom six so you can't blame him for that. In fact he seems to get dragged down when he plays with those two.
I'll also add that teams like Columbus are bound to overachieve at some point when mired in failure for so long, look at Florida last year. That's the parity that exists in the NHL.
We turned over half of our roster, we're missing our top defensemen, our #1C and 40 goal winger are nowhere near the players they were last year, and we've had very little in the way of depth scoring. Meanwhile, Nash has been far and away our best forward and is leading the team in scoring.
So to say that there's some correlation between the Jackets winning without Nash and us losing with Nash is circumstantial at best. That trade is a microscopic problem when it comes to the reasons this team is performing badly.
I didn't even actually make a stance...just pointing out the standings. I have a distinct feeling many people here are not even aware how well Columbus is playing this year.
That said, as far as the Rangers are concerned there are a number of factors to be sure...on top of what you mentioned Hank is certainly not having the same kind of year he had last year, Girardi's game has deteriorated significantly, our forecheck has virtually disappeared, etc.
But I do think it's at the very least strange that Columbus would improve so much after losing the guy who was by far their best player.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
The standing are skewed and not comparable to last year because of the number of division and conference games and no games outside of division and conference.
They've improved so significantly (if they really have) again because the standings are skewed and they couldn't have gotten worse. They also have gotten better goaltending then they have had in years. That has nothing to do with whether or not Nash was there.
Not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point, but for the sake of accuracy it must be pointed out that their top defenseman also missed the first half of the season last year...if I remember correctly he came back for the Winter Classic in Philly, right?...and without Staal (and Nash) we were still leading the league (or perhaps tied with the Bruins) after the Classic.
Last edited:
I respect your opinion...I just totally disagree with it!!!
The standings are the standings...in a 'normal' year you play most of the games in conference anyway, so it's not like this is a whole new world or anything. I don't buy that the schedule makes much of a difference.
You did leave out that Columbus also added Artem Anisimov and Brandon Dubinsky...and we know what kind of offensive dyanamos they can be!
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
I respect your opinion...I just totally disagree with it!!!
The standings are the standings...in a 'normal' year you play most of the games in conference anyway, so it's not like this is a whole new world or anything. I don't buy that the schedule makes much of a difference.
You did leave out that Columbus also added Artem Anisimov and Brandon Dubinsky...and we know what kind of offensive dyanamos they can be!
I respect yours as well and I believe that historically, you and I have agreed for the most part. That's why I'm surprised by your opinion here. The argument/point you're making is just oversimplified to me and not up to the calibre of your usual posts. But I'm more than happy to agree to disagree.
Thank you!
I think I'm much more amazed that Columbus is playing so well than I am that Nash has to some extent fallen into the morass that is us. I've said a number of times this year (probably in this thread) that I think Nash is a beast...we just need consistent beast mode night in and night out, especially in a 48 game regular season.
This is why every summer I read here that X is going to fix our power play (X being Wade Redden, then Marian Gaborik, then B-rad Richards, then Rick Nash), I cringe a little. I haven't read the Zuccarello threads, but if someone in there says this will help our power play, I think I'll scream!
tjs252
Registered User
- Feb 10, 2007
- 506
- 0
I do think there is something to be said about the sports psychology of the "superstar". Teams - especially in truly team oriented sports like hockey, basketball, soccer - that have a superstar tend to be overly deferential and/or reliant upon that player. Look at LeBron, Ronaldo, Messi, Kobe. They get their numbers not just because they're talented, but because their teammates know that talent and look for them, even when it's sometimes contrary to the best "play" available.
When a team has an overly deferential supporting cast (sometimes by virtue of lack of talent, sometimes by just being overly deferential to the superstar) teams can suffer. It's rare for a guy to be able to enhance the level of play around him, I'd limit it to just LeBron, Chris Paul, and Crosby in North American sports.
I think that's the argument to make for Nash, and the changes with the Rangers and Blue Jackets. Nash is a good player, a very talented player, but teammates are asking him to do too much and looking for him to provide more than he's capable of giving.
When a team has an overly deferential supporting cast (sometimes by virtue of lack of talent, sometimes by just being overly deferential to the superstar) teams can suffer. It's rare for a guy to be able to enhance the level of play around him, I'd limit it to just LeBron, Chris Paul, and Crosby in North American sports.
I think that's the argument to make for Nash, and the changes with the Rangers and Blue Jackets. Nash is a good player, a very talented player, but teammates are asking him to do too much and looking for him to provide more than he's capable of giving.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,582
- 5,097
It's just a coincidence with Nash being traded, but in all honesty, nobody here knows what the hell is going on with gaborik and Richards.
My opinion? Gaborik isnt fully rehabbed from his shoulder, and Richards with his millions was a lazy, disinterested fool during the lockout.
Sometimes guys just dont work well together. There's this cliche notion that "Oh...these guys are both Russian...they'll gel" or ".....they played to gether in Junior. They must be friends"
Its stupid to assume that everybody on a "team" gets along with everybody. Sometimes that means nothing and the sheer talent and professionalism on the team overrides any individual issues.
I just think the team doesnt respond to the coach, but have a little bit of respect for him for the way he "protects" them.
To me, this team needs a mentor and thinker......not a motivator and commander. That's what Captains and A's should be for.
My opinion? Gaborik isnt fully rehabbed from his shoulder, and Richards with his millions was a lazy, disinterested fool during the lockout.
Sometimes guys just dont work well together. There's this cliche notion that "Oh...these guys are both Russian...they'll gel" or ".....they played to gether in Junior. They must be friends"
Its stupid to assume that everybody on a "team" gets along with everybody. Sometimes that means nothing and the sheer talent and professionalism on the team overrides any individual issues.
I just think the team doesnt respond to the coach, but have a little bit of respect for him for the way he "protects" them.
To me, this team needs a mentor and thinker......not a motivator and commander. That's what Captains and A's should be for.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Help the power play? More like ignite the offense. Evidently, we had Adam Oates in Europe and the entire front office was too stupid to realize it.
I think it's more when you have stars or a big name player other players don't play as hard or as desperate or defer to them a lot or the veterans don't feel it anymore.that's also what happened to the ranger teams that missed 7 straight besides the coaching or not being built well. The opposite example would be the 1980 us Olympic team.
The Gloaming
23
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,013
- 17,620
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
It is a good post. But what still is so strange is both of the most glaring underachievers on this team have had success with this coach.
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,013
- 17,620
Yeah, Richards is the one that just mystifies me. Gaborik, to me, looks like he's trying, and he's getting chances. He's had several breakaways over the past few games, he just has been struggling to finish.
Richards has been an abomination, IMO. He has added nothing of value on the ice - I'd say he's been a detriment to the team more so than a benefit. He's slow, timid, weak, and seems to just drift off on any given night. I don't know what has happened to him - whether his skills have simply left him, whether he didn't condition himself correctly in the offseason (hoping it's that one, because it's at least fixable), or whether he just doesn't care now that he's gotten his paycheck.
Either way, I think we're done with him in the summer of '14. Even if he bounces back next year, I don't think Sather will risk Richards continually declining over the 6 years past 2014.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,923
- 2,329
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
Rumor: 2024-2025 Trade Rumors and Free Agency Talk | Part Deux- Latest: RoyIsALegend
-
Roster/Rumors/Speculation/Trade Talk - 2024-25: Re-Tool, Re-Group, Re-Mix, Re-Build- Latest: Mr Misunderstood
