GeorgeKaplan
Registered User
He was that guy in Columbus, which is why he got that contract, he was brought here to be part of a depth-oriented offense after having an offense of just Gaborik didn't work
Player Discussion Rick Nash
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
- Status
He was that guy in Columbus, which is why he got that contract, he was brought here to be part of a depth-oriented offense after having an offense of just Gaborik didn't work
Chaels Arms
Formerly Lias Andersson
I am not a big fan of Slick Rick at all but he was a monster the first round. He's playing unafraid, crashing the net almost every single possession, just looks like an all around tough man to deal with.
That's a product of what he was, not what he was needed to be.
Highest paid forward who was brought here for his goal scoring. I'd say there was a reliance.
Who said it was all on Nash? He shares blame. And bears a good amount of it.
Sure, but goal scoring is what this team brought him here for and what they rely on him for. He does a lot of other things, but scoring goals is the most important one. BTW, word that he himself uttered.
In his post season career, there have been FAR more games where he did absolutely nothing, then otherwise.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
You mean games where he didn't score a goal. Again, there is more to his game than scoring goals. The Rangers did not trade for him to JUST score goals.
No, but that is primarily what they traded for him. By far the biggest reason.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
No, it isn't. They traded for Nash to be a better team and the plan was to create a top-heavy 1st line with Richards and Gaborik.
You are just looking for reasons to criticize Nash. There is more to hockey than scoring goals. Nash got his current contract and AAV to be the face of the franchise. To be more than just the best player on the team. The Rangers saw more in him than just scoring goals. We had Gaborik to score the goals. Nash was expected to be the guy to bring both offense and defense.
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
Or Nash even admitted a few months ago he needs to score goals, and when he did score big goals this series, the Ranger handled the Canadiens pretty well.
You guys can really spin the yarn.
Anyway, I hope he keeps it up because we still need him to be the scorer.
Yes, they did. He was one of the top goal scorers in the league. They were coming off of playoff appearances where they had a lot of issues scoring. The plan was to have him come in and fill the need for someone to put the puck in the net.
No I am calling a spade a spade.
Of course there is. But that is what Nash did best, and that is what the Rangers needed. And that is why they paid such a high price for him.
Nice spin on it. But nothing changes the fact that they brought him here to score goals. Which he has said exactly as much.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,927
- 2,347
The Rangers dont give a **** if Nash scores goals. If anything they care about Nash CREATING goals. But really they just care about winning.
Nash's best moment last series was when he drove to the net and Skjei banged home his rebound. It was a monster move and that tying goal was huge.
If that doesn't put this "HE HAS HAVE A 1 IN THE G COLUMN AND NOT A 1 IN THE A COLUMN" idiocy to bed, then nothing will.
Also, and its RIDICULOUS that this has to be mentioned, but why the Rangers traded for Nash 5 years ago and his role and expectations today have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Like, at all.
Nash's best moment last series was when he drove to the net and Skjei banged home his rebound. It was a monster move and that tying goal was huge.
If that doesn't put this "HE HAS HAVE A 1 IN THE G COLUMN AND NOT A 1 IN THE A COLUMN" idiocy to bed, then nothing will.
Also, and its RIDICULOUS that this has to be mentioned, but why the Rangers traded for Nash 5 years ago and his role and expectations today have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Like, at all.
Hunter Gathers
The Crown
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
The drive to the net or just in general play like a power forward is all I really want to see.
The goals or assists will come from that type of play. I am glad he not usually that bad defensively, and that he takes a lot of shots, but this team needs the mentality of, screw it, I'm taking the puck and jamming to the crease. If Nash does it the hope is some of the others do it too.
Maybe it's biased or whatever but when I watch some other teams I can tell they are all like, we are not going to be denied, or at least we are going down putting it all out there on the ice, I think this team needs more of that and Nash could be more of a catalyst towards it. He's certainly not alone in that regard.
The goals or assists will come from that type of play. I am glad he not usually that bad defensively, and that he takes a lot of shots, but this team needs the mentality of, screw it, I'm taking the puck and jamming to the crease. If Nash does it the hope is some of the others do it too.
Maybe it's biased or whatever but when I watch some other teams I can tell they are all like, we are not going to be denied, or at least we are going down putting it all out there on the ice, I think this team needs more of that and Nash could be more of a catalyst towards it. He's certainly not alone in that regard.
I could not disagree more. Again, the assertion that if Nash is not scoring a goal, then someone else is is wrong. Once gain, on the Cavs if Curry no longer shoots but does nothing but pass, do they still score just as many baskets as if they would if Curry was shooting? Of course not. Same goes for your team's top goal scorer. If Ovechkin stopped shooting the puck and only passed it, doe the Caps still score the same amount of goals? Of course not.
I did not argue that. But the key fact is that HE drove to the net and HE SHOT the puck. That is what he is paid to do. Shoot the puck on goal. That is his most important ability and something he does better than anyone else on the team.
I do not think that is the quite debate. That said, he remains the team's most important forward. If he does not score, the Rangers have little chance at the ultimate success.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,927
- 2,347
These two responses are what make this debate so infuriating. They are borderline contradictory and the argument has shifted again. So he needs to score goals but its also ok if he doesn't score as long as he shoots the puck? Screening the goalie or making a play with his size or setting up a goal with a great pass are examples of what is NOT acceptable forms of offensive contribution. But shooting is. Right.
Why not just accept that as long as he is contributing to the offense that it doesn't matter how the puck went in? Its ridiculous.
Anyway, if Ovechkin scored less goals but turned into a phenomenal defensive forward the Capitals would probably be very happy. Especially as he approaches his mid-30's, as his scoring is destined to drop anyway. If Ovie is a 38 year old 20 goal scoring Selke winner I doubt anyone will be screaming "Hey Ovie, we didnt draft you 1st overall 20 years ago to be good defensively! Score some goals why dont ya!". Unless you plan on switching teams.
What is the debate? Who is it about? The Rick Nash CBJ signed to this contract 7 years ago? The Rick Nash we traded for 5 years ago? The Rick Nash of the SCF 3 years ago? Rick Nash today? They're different players, at different points in their career with different roles and different expectations.
How about this.
Instead of being pedantic and insisting Nash needs to GET G's AND S's IN THE COLUMN we just agree he was brought here to be THE offensive force. Well maybe the 2nd offensive force behind Gaborik. Or the 3rd behind Gaborik and Richards. Let's just say he was brought in to be AN offensive force. When we traded for him. 5 years ago.
Today Nash is a different player, and thus (with the reasons we traded for him now being extremely irrelevant) has a completely different role with the team and completely different expectations. He's still an important player on offense, but his game has evolved where he contributes beyond simply goal scoring, so basing his usefulness solely on whether he scored a goal is idiotic.
Right. The truly infuriating part is the belief that everyone's goal scoring abilities are equal. They are not. If team's best goal scorer stops shooting the puck and becomes a passer, that does not mean that the next guy is going to have the same abilities to put the puck in the net. Not sure of where the confusion is.
Because not all players are created or judged equally. This is not friggin' Tanner Glass. The standards for success and the levels of import to the team are not and will never be equal.
Though I cannot speak for them, I would venture to guess that most of Cap-land would disagree with you. There is no one who is as good at what he does as he is. Therefore, without their best player doing what he is best at, you are looking at an inferior product.
I believe it started with the discussion of his lack of success in the playoffs. It seems to be delving into the standards that one should use to judge him.
Sorry, I do not view discussions of the team's most important forward as trivial. Yes, he was brought here to be an offensive force. However, no amount of white washing will change that the view that the way that this largely force manifests itself is through scoring goals.
Yes, he is a different player today. NO ONE said that he is not important. Where is that even being discussed? All of the debated have been due to quite the opposite. Everyone believes he is important.
Your view of what is idiotic is one that is borne by one school of thought. What is truly idiotic is the belief that your view is the only acceptable one and that other are all foolishness. THAT is sheer idiocy. As is the constant chest beating about how much "stuff and things" that he does. Again, I would challenge you to locate where anyone says that what he does away from the puck is not important.
LeetchisGod
This is a bad hockey team.
I'm glad that Nash is having a better playoff than in the past. Hopefully we will receive better trade offers for him in the summer. Hank and Zucc are the only older players on this roster that I have any interest in keeping.
He's one of the few forwards actually producing on the roster right now. Glad he's putting in a good showing this year and upping his value.
I think that we can all agree with that. How tradable he is, remains to be seen. The contract is a bear. The Rangers would have to eat at least half.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,927
- 2,347
Goals are equal. All of them. They all count for one goal.
Whether Nash snipes a goal, or slams home a rebound, or drives to the net and the puck bounces to a teammate and they put it in, or if Nash passes it to a wide open teammate and he shoots it in, or if Nash is standing in from of the net screening the goalie and a point shot goes in... they are all one goal.
Nash doesn't have the speed to do what he used to. That went with age and the injuries. His game now is size down low. Sometimes it leads to him scoring. Sometimes it leads to an assist. Sometimes he just makes things happen creating chaos with his size and he's not even on the scoreboard. The Rangers don't care how the puck goes in, just that it does.
It. Doesn't. Matter.
At some point his scoring will decrease. It happens to everyone. Literally every hockey player ever in the history of the game has had his scoring drop at a certain age. If Ovie is able to gradually develop his all around game as his scoring decreases, people will love it.
His lack of success in the playoffs is because he was hurt in the playoffs. See: the fact that he's successful in the playoffs when he is not hurt.
The fact that he was dealing with concussions for what was probably the end of his prime years, which at the same time was during one of the most serious playoff runs in Rangers history, is a giant D in the A of the franchise and all the fans.
But what can you do? I would have preferred we won the cup and I am sure Nash would have preferred to both win the cup and not have a couple of concussions. Its **** luck. But thats the Rangers for you.
It's not the topic that is the problem.
Thinking my view is the only acceptable one is not the same as thinking a different view is idiotic.
Look TB I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers here. Bill Clinton was still president when we first started arguing, after almost 2 decades you know I respect you. But your narrow view on Nash is nuts.
I know you do. As I do you. I think that it is best that we just agree to disagree here.
I do however believe that we both think that the Nash of the Montreal series is vital to this year's playoff run. If the Rangers get that Nash, then their chances of success are greatly multiplied.
LORDE
I am Lorde, YA YA YA
- Status
