Rick Nash

[Thirty One]

I've pointed out already why the Toews comparison is a bad one.

1) Nash is more of a goal scorer than Toews even when Toews is at his best. Nash has two 40 goal seasons, Toews has 0. Nash has five 30 goal seasons, Toews has 2.

2) Toews is more of a playmaker than Nash. Toews has 3 seasons of 40 assists, Nash has 0. Toews has 30+ assists every year except for the lockout shortened year and the year prior where he logged only 59 games, Nash has had less than 30 assists in 6 years. Nash has 44 more goals than assists on his career, Toews has 50 more assists than goals on his career.

OK. Nash has more points and the same amount of assists as Toews through 16 playoff games last year, though.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

OK. Nash has more points and the same amount of assists as Toews through 16 playoff games last year, though.

So?

I gave reasons why comparing them is stupid, and your response is to compare them?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

So?

I gave reasons why comparing them is stupid, and your response is to compare them?

Ill take the comparison to Toews above your unwavering hate for Nash.

The guy is playing better and the Rangers are up 2-0 in the conference final. Might be time to give him a break.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Ill take the comparison to Toews above your unwavering hate for Nash.

The guy is playing better and the Rangers are up 2-0 in the conference final. Might be time to give him a break.

If you want to use my personal history against me go for it, but get it right.

 

[Thirty One]

So?

I gave reasons why comparing them is stupid, and your response is to compare them?

So because they play different styles, the struggles of one can't be compared to the struggles of the other?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

If you want to use my personal history against me go for it, but get it right.

Sometimes you're right. Sometimes you're wrong.

You have an awfully tough time moving off your original position in the face of mounting evidence against it, however.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Sometimes you're right. Sometimes you're wrong.

You have an awfully tough time moving off your original position in the face of mounting evidence against it, however.

I really don't. Go read my recent posts in this thread.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

The article doesn't compare Toews to Nash.

It simply shows that a player can struggle in the playoffs, and explains why that might be the case.

So if a hitter goes 0-30 in the postseason and then another very good hitter goes 0-30, we can't compare them, because they're different hitters. You can certainly compare a similarity and that similarity is the drought of goal scoring. It doesn't mean you're comparing the players' styles. You make no sense. Stop *****ing about Nash, this team is 6 wins away from a Stanley Cup.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

The article doesn't compare Toews to Nash.

It simply shows that a player can struggle in the playoffs, and explains why that might be the case.

So if a hitter goes 0-30 in the postseason and then another very good hitter goes 0-30, we can't compare them, because they're different hitters. You can certainly compare a similarity and that similarity is the drought of goal scoring. It doesn't mean you're comparing the players' styles. You make no sense. Stop *****ing about Nash, this team is 6 wins away from a Stanley Cup.

It says Toews did X, and then Y and therefore since Nash is doing X he too will do Y. That logic relies upon accepting that Toews and Nash are comparable players. I can find some scrub that did X just the same way as those other two and then went on to do Z (let that be continuing to suck), and the reason you'd favor the Toews COMPARISON is because you think Nash is more similar to Toews than a scrub.

Now, I say that Toews and Nash are not comparable. They should not be compared to each other. What Toews has done does not inform our understanding of what Nash has done, and it certainly doesn't help us predict what Nash will do. That's most certainly what the article was mistakenly trying to do.

I am not saying that Nash is a scrub or should be compared to scrubs either. But he's no Toews. The same way you wouldn't bring up Toews lack of goalscoring for a period of time to suggest that Dorsett is about to start scoring a ton of goals, you shouldn't try to use it to suggest Nash is about to score a ton of goals. Because like Dorsett, Nash is a totally different type of player than Toews.

If you can't understand that, and if you can't distinguish this analysis from OMG NASH SUXXXX, than that's your shortcoming. Not mine.

 

[Tawnos]

That’s not to say Nash is Toews. But what it does highlight is that we’re really not judging him on a whole lot, especially for a guy that generates offence somewhat randomly by firing four-plus pucks on net a game.


How the **** is that not a comparison? It's a ****ing comparison. Read a book.

Read that paragraph again. "That's not to say Nash is Toews." Then he goes on to explain his point. He's comparing circumstances, not players.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Read that paragraph again. "That's not to say Nash is Toews." Then he goes on to explain his point. He's comparing circumstances, not players.

That's like saying that prefacing, "I'm not racist" with then a racist comment makes the comment not racist. "Hey, the guy said he's not racist. Look, right there he says it!" The guy can say he's not comparing the two guys all he wants, he still clearly is doing just that. The fact he feels like he needs to say he's not only more clearly shows that he's aware that that's what he's doing.

Part of the circumstances is the individual himself. Like I said in my last post, I can point to a ton of scrubs who have had trouble scoring in the playoffs, and then continued to not score in the playoffs. Does that mean that since Nash has had trouble scoring in the playoffs, he will continue to not score in the playoffs? That's the same principle at play with the Toews example. The reason you'd cling to the Toews example over the scrub example is because you think Nash is more COMPARABLE to Toews than some scrub.

The Toews example is stupid because he's nothing like Nash, just like the scrub is nothing like Nash.

 

[poeman]

Nash needs to be all up on Tokarski's grill

 

[jerseyjinx94]

It says Toews did X, and then Y and therefore since Nash is doing X he too will do Y. That logic relies upon accepting that Toews and Nash are comparable players. I can find some scrub that did X just the same way as those other two and then went on to do Z (let that be continuing to suck), and the reason you'd favor the Toews COMPARISON is because you think Nash is more similar to Toews than a scrub.

Now, I say that Toews and Nash are not comparable. They should not be compared to each other. What Toews has done does not inform our understanding of what Nash has done, and it certainly doesn't help us predict what Nash will do. That's most certainly what the article was mistakenly trying to do.

I am not saying that Nash is a scrub or should be compared to scrubs either. But he's no Toews. The same way you wouldn't bring up Toews lack of goalscoring for a period of time to suggest that Dorsett is about to start scoring a ton of goals, you shouldn't try to use it to suggest Nash is about to score a ton of goals. Because like Dorsett, Nash is a totally different type of player than Toews.

If you can't understand that, and if you can't distinguish this analysis from OMG NASH SUXXXX, than that's your shortcoming. Not mine.

I never said that's what your analysis is, I just happen to think your analysis on this point is 100% wrong, but whatever. It doesn't really matter. The whole point is that Nash has been better than his 2 goals indicate and there are factors at play here that in the past with other players who have gone through these situations, indicate a possibility that he will eventually snap out of it. If you can't handle that point because you're fixated on Nash v. Toews, that's your shortcoming, not mine.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

I never said that's what your analysis is, I just happen to think your analysis on this point is 100% wrong, but whatever. It doesn't really matter. The whole point is that Nash has been better than his 2 goals indicate and there are factors at play here that in the past with other players who have gone through these situations, indicate a possibility that he will eventually snap out of it. If you can't handle that point because you're fixated on Nash v. Toews, that's your shortcoming, not mine.

Brandon Prust had only 1 goal in 24 playoff games with us, now he's played 16 games with the Habs and scored 0 goals. That 1 in 24 sounds a lot like what Nash did, therefore just like Prust then went 0 for his next 16 that's what Nash will do too! Trade him! Buy him out! Before it's too late!

See how stupid this is? It's not a Nash v. Toews thing, it's not a Nash v. Prust thing, it's a Rick ****ing Nash thing. If you want to limit the Toews thing to only that there is at least within the realm of human possibility that Nash steps up, that's fine. It's also pointless because no one was saying he's physically precluded from playing good hockey. But he's also not physically precluded from playing bad hockey, as we've seen. The idea behind the Toews crap was to say look, this guy didn't score and everyone says he's good and he's scored more recently therefore we should take it easy on Nash, and that's stupid because as I just showed, plenty of guys go the otherway and after they suck they continue to suck.

 

[stan the caddy]

He was pretty good last night. Got a decent shot off in the final minute and didn't he set MSL up that Tokarski robbed? Here we are 2-1 in the ECF and he's been playing well. Are people just going to complain after every game at this point?

 

[slipknottin]

He was pretty good last night. Got a decent shot off in the final minute and didn't he set MSL up that Tokarski robbed? Here we are 2-1 in the ECF and he's been playing well. Are people just going to complain after every game at this point?

I thought Nash could have had 6+ shots last night, but he kept trying to take it to the net and lost the puck.

I know people have been complaining about him not taking it to the net, but I would rather just see him get it on net, especially if there is traffic in front

 

[Inferno]

shoot from far...gets ripped.

takes it to the net...gets ripped.


thought he had a tremendous game last night. probably our 2nd or 3rd more dangerous forward. the little guys were flying though.

 

[slipknottin]

shoot from far...gets ripped.

takes it to the net...gets ripped.


thought he had a tremendous game last night. probably our 2nd or 3rd more dangerous forward. the little guys were flying though.

Taking it to the front and losing the puck doesnt accomplish anything... Either way he needs to get the puck on net.

 

[Inferno]

Taking it to the front and losing the puck doesnt accomplish anything... Either way he needs to get the puck on net.

taking it to the net accomplishes getting the puck into a danger zone...dig for rebounds, get the puck back. we had TONS of grade a chances last night.

gotta finish....even if its not Nash.

 

[slipknottin]

taking it to the net accomplishes getting the puck into a danger zone...dig for rebounds, get the puck back. we had TONS of grade a chances last night.

gotta finish....even if its not Nash.

He did it in the slot/high slot like 3-4 times.

Bringing the puck in there and having it chipped off your stick into the boards doesnt accomplish anything.

Much rather see him get it on net from a little bit outside.

 

[ltrangerfan]

taking it to the net accomplishes getting the puck into a danger zone...dig for rebounds, get the puck back. we had TONS of grade a chances last night.

gotta finish....even if its not Nash.

You are correct. IMO: The problem is that Nash has too little offensive talent around him. Who can deliver a pass to him when he''s open? Teams are constantly double teaming him when he gets near the puck.

 

[slipknottin]

You are correct. IMO: The problem is that Nash has too little offensive talent around him.

Wait, what?

What are his linemates supposed to do? Follow him around in case he loses the puck?

Kreider and Stepan did what they were supposed to do and went to the net. Not there problem Nash goes stickhandling around and loses posession

 

[ltrangerfan]

Wait, what?

What are his linemates supposed to do? Follow him around in case he loses the puck?

Kreider and Stepan did what they were supposed to do and went to the net. Not there problem Nash goes stickhandling around and loses posession

Yes. Drive top the net. How many goals does Stepan get off the PP on a rebound of someone shot?

 

[slipknottin]

Yes. Drive top the net. How many goals does Stepan get off the PP on a rebound of someone shot?

They did that last night, Stepan and Kreider both went to the net.

Nash stickhandled into the high slot and lost the puck.

This happened 3-4 times, including in the final moments of the game

 

[ltrangerfan]

They did that last night, Stepan and Kreider both went to the net.

Nash stickhandled into the high slot and lost the puck.

This happened 3-4 times, including in the final moments of the game

Nash's production hasn't been great. If we need a scapegoat he will be one of the culprits.

In the larger picture this is not a great Ranger team. They beat a PHilly team equal to themselves. They beat a Pitts team that struggled against Columbus. They could even beat a MOntreal team without Price. This is a defensive oriented team. The entire offense is a struggle. My bottom line is that the only possibility of winning a SC is with Nash leading the scoring whether he is set up or drives to the net himself.