He is just unlucky. And has been throughout his Rangers career. Especially in the playoffs. I mean look at how he drives the offense. And all of the other things he does.
Player Discussion Rick Nash
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
- Status
torirose1998
Registered User
He has not generated offense in some what years. He drives to the net and rarely finishes anymore. we need that player who has that ability to drive and most likely always finish.
torirose1998
Registered User
torirose1998
Registered User
He has been one of the best players on the team right now to generate chances, but I agree. He does have bad luck and never gets a break and rarely finishes.
That's the thing, Can't measure a player solely on points. I hate that. But the issue is, the amount of his cap hit. He is expected to score goals based on his contract hit. As I said above if Nash was making much less. People would be more than fine with his current play and would be playing close to that contract. It's not like he is done, or useless or not effective, he is just not playing to that contract anymore.
offdacrossbar
misfit fanboy
Yes, if he was getting paid like a 2nd/third line tweener, chances are his contract would be more linear with what he was producing.
And when you are supposed to be a team's top or one of the top offensive players, then points becomes a pretty valuable tool as to when to evaluate.
eco's bones
Registered User
So in the pregame Trautwig says some shit like this: 'it's hard to imagine Rick Nash giving more'.
....and then in the second period here's Micheletti with: 'Nash is the best Rangers forward this year game in game out'.
So do these clowns actually believe this shit or are they just spinning a bunch of bull?--because if they actually believe it they are completely clueless but if they're spinning they're lying out of their asses. I've been kind of sick of Micheletti for a while and Duguay and Valiquette can go away too.
....and then in the second period here's Micheletti with: 'Nash is the best Rangers forward this year game in game out'.
So do these clowns actually believe this shit or are they just spinning a bunch of bull?--because if they actually believe it they are completely clueless but if they're spinning they're lying out of their asses. I've been kind of sick of Micheletti for a while and Duguay and Valiquette can go away too.
offdacrossbar
misfit fanboy
bingo.
a post of clarity and truth
it is real. its the nash narrative and its deliberate.
DanielBrassard
It's all so tiresome
Inferno
Registered User
i would wholeheartedly disagree with this. but I guess we'll see.
eco's bones
Registered User
I can appreciate a forward who pays attention to detail defensively and who can penalty kill well. But $7.8 mil for that is a lot. Really Rick Nash is here to put pucks in the net something he's more than less failed to do in his tenure here and especially at critical times. 'Look at all the shots he gets--how snakebit he is'. We've been listening to that for a long time....and I have to say I don't think he's snakebit...what I think is he takes a lot of low % shots and so he has a low shooting %....and every time he does drive the net it's the same moves and the same shot along the ice...the only thing different are the respective goalies...but they're all doing the same exact thing too...taking away everything coming in low. Rick Nash is like the plot of a book you've read before...you already know what's going to happen.
- Jul 20, 2005
- 4,927
- 2,347
You want to know why that is? Read this or any other Nash thread.
There are just enough people that are constantly going bananas over everything Nash related that it causes people who are otherwise irritated with Nash's very existence (like myself) into defending him.
If I have to read one more time that Nash failed in the 2014 playoffs because he's too soft and lacks some sort of Messier-eque intangible I might lose my mind. The truth that we bought a damaged product whose brain and body is made of marshmallow isn't damning enough?
The effort is there, but maybe he needs to approach differently. Try new things.
eco's bones
Registered User
Here's another thing. Again watching his 1000th game interview when he says 'he likes everything low key and he likes to be in the background'. I'm sorry but if you're the goal scorer on any kind of successful team anywhere you can't be in the background. You're up front and center and your teammates are continually feeding your ego because they're really depending on you when the chips are down--that's why those kinds of players are usually the most arrogant assholes on the team. It's because they are because everybody wants it that way. Somewhere he's lost all that and now he's just happy to be a member of the club in good standing. A $7.8 mil per year member. So IMO he's a good part of what's wrong with this team.
haveandare
Registered User
Imo not elevating the puck is his biggest issue by far. If he were shooting high on half the shots he gets, his play overall would be regarded a lot more highly. He gets chances in space, he just uses those chances to take incredibly low percentage shots, low at butterfly goalies.
I realize it'd be insanely difficult to make something like this, but I'd love to see a heat map of his shots over some period of time in terms of where on the net they either hit the goalie or cross the line. I suspect it'd be very, very hot at the low corners, which just aren't great places to shoot in today's NHL.
And the crazy thing to me is, it's clearly not that he can't elevate the puck. It's honestly not all that hard. I'll very quickly admit that I am not a very good player, mostly because I didn't start playing with even low seriousness until I was almost 30, but I could elevate a puck decently after a few days of shooting. Obviously I'm not talking about doing it at NHL speeds, with NHL players breathing down my neck, but I'm also not an NHL player drafted 1OA 400+ goals ago. He can elevate the puck, any NHL player can, it's not an incredibly difficult skill.
Hope you are right, but fear you are not. And if they are in the 8-10 position, there will be no effort made to deal him.
LORDE
I am Lorde, YA YA YA
All the other teams know this draft is supposed to be strong also... we aren’t getting a 1st for Nash
Irishguy42
Mr. Preachy
Some team always gets desperate enough to send a first the other way.
We know this, because we have the experience.
We know this, because we have the experience.
eco's bones
Registered User
What we might get for Nash is going to depend on a few variables: 1) how well he's playing 2) cap retention 3) what other players are available--for instance. So far this season he hasn't been playing great. Just saying....but then again Al Trautwig and Joe Micheletti (just for two) wouldn't agree with me so take that FWIW.....they get paid for their input--I don't. I also don't know if with his contract he still can list teams he won't play for. Getting a 1st for him might be problematic though--that's just an opinion.
Inferno
Registered User
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
Just enough people ?
3-4 max. I’m one of them , and you responded to another one of them.
Lundqvist has gotten ripped more in Vezina seasons than Rick Nash has in the playoffs.
I’ve seen the fickle Ranger fan base devour and spit out players who had better resumés and let the team down less when they were really needed than Rick Nash has.
I mean this whole heartedly when I say I’ve never seen a player defended and reimagined then Rick Nash in all my years of fandom.
My theory is that his “fancy stats” are significantly inflated due to his high muffin shot total since most of those amateur analytics models are in their infancy.
He’s not the only player whose either defended or thrown under the bus based on non observed results stats floating around the web
Otherwise , I’m not sure what the deal with he and the fan base is.
- Status
