Toggle sidebar

Player Discussion Rick Nash

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mithrandir said:
Discounting the guys’s career and calling him nothing but a 20 goal scorer is just silly.
Click to expand...
Once again, I am NOT discussing his career. He is now a 20 goal scorer. That is what he has been essentially for his tenure with the Rangers.
 
Edge said:
I don't think some level of offensive consistency is asking for the moon. I' m not looking for him to score every game, nor do I expect 40 goals.

But periods of 6, 10, 12 and 14 games without a single goal? Those are all very real stretches over last three years, not just this year. Especially in the 6-10 range.
Click to expand...

If you're a ~20 goal and ~60 game player there are going to be big stretches where you don't score. Otherwise you're more than a ~20 goal and ~60 game player. And its pretty clear that is what he has been for a while. And he is likely never going to be more than that again.

Edge said:
I appreciate your arguments about his injuries, but the reality is that it doesn't make frustrations about his play and his production any less valid. The results are what they are.

If we're going to apply injuries to declining play, then we're going to have a very long list of players we can make that defense for and very few conversations about guys who, for whatever reason, are just not getting it done in the manner we need them to.

The fact that this conversation about Nash has now turned into a debate about CTE is exactly my point. We don't do this for ANY other player - not Staal, not Lundqvist, not Girardi, or Zibanejad, or any other player. Frankly, that is exactly why so many people push back like they do.
Click to expand...

This is a truly random list. Staal's brain and eye have been talking points for about for half a decade. He's been a horror show on the ice, especially in the playoffs, and has a contract that we seem desperate to rip up any moment yet people seem to hate him less than Nash. Same with Girardi who was impressively bad long before his concussion. People complain about Nash and 2014 but if Nash fell down in OT and handed LA game one he would have been sniped from the blue seats. I have no idea why Hank is on that list, though people did complain about his play in 2006 and question his "big game" ability despite his international success and the obviousness of him still recovering from a late regular season injury. I'm not sure if that was a concussion or how that helps your argument. Zibs is already looking injury prone. God help him if he gets hurt before a cup run.

Regardless, we do have this conversation about other players. About all the players you mentioned, and others. The reason it doesn't go on and on and on and on is because people usually accept the realities and move on. When Gaborik sucked in his second year and was a no show in the playoffs no one was surprised. He was an injured wreck that year. When he was awesome the next year but less so in the playoffs no one was surprised. He was injury prone and he got injured. It happens. His time in NY was up and down and he was a disappointment in both the regular season and the playoffs, but it was because of the injuries.

So its not a CTE issues. Its a stupidity issue. Or a stubbornness issue. Its not enough for Nash to be a disappointment, he needs to be a disappointment for specific reason fitting notions harbored before he even arrived in NY.


Edge said:
When there are more reasons for Nash's inconsistent play, then there are actual results, that's a pretty telling sign that something clearly isn't working very well.
Click to expand...

There is only one excuse. One. He's brittle. We ended up buying damaged goods and it bit us in the ass. Posters can dress that up to make it look 400 different excuses but its not. Its one. If Nash never gets seriously and repeatedly injured in his first year as a Ranger, affecting the time management expected him to actually live up to his contract, then his tenure here is drastically different.
 
Edge said:
Nash is what he is.

7 of his 11 goals and 1/4 of his season point totals have come in 5 games.

I'd say there's decent odds that he pops in another few goals over the next 3 games or so. Of course it's the 12 games that come after that are usually the problem.
Click to expand...

Like, if this *isn't* stat padding, then I don't know what is. This is the problem I've always had with Nash. I get that goal scorers are streaky, but Nash seems to be one of the streakiest of the bunch. It's where the "Nash doesn't score clutch goals" narrative comes in, and honestly, as much as I HATE that phrase, Nash is guilty of it. Seriously, look at these numbers:

11 Goals
9 Assists
20 points
45 games

Note that he's scoring at the pace of a 3rd liner here so he's off to an awful start

6 out of 11 of his goals, and a total of 9 out of his 20 points came between 10/28 and 11/15, and 8 game stretch.
This leaves 5 goals remaining, 11 points remaining.
Those 5 goals and 11 points have been scored within the other 37 (yes THIRY SEVEN) games this season. That's HORRID...

And then people will say that he is driving play (he is) and that he's just snakebitten (he's not, he just can't score anymore). The numbers speak for themselves--Nash is not a scorer, he's not a dynamic offensive player, he's not a game changer. He is a middle 6 support player, and nothing more, and belongs on a contending team as a 3rd line depth piece

Also, @Amazing Kreiderman , Nash might be a "top 3 forward on this team", but this team is a bottom 10 team with a top 3 goaltender
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuel Culper III, ReggieDunlop68 and LeetchisGod
silverfish said:
Can't help myself.

How many players do you think have more goals than Rick Nash since 2002? Can I ask you to post your guess first, and then go look it up?

Now, obviously we have to take longevity & games played into account, so you let me know if you want to...

EXTRAPOLATE

giphy.gif


those numbers
Click to expand...

I personally HATE when people do this. You're basically expanding the sample size to normalize a bad player's performance and then find an "even playing field" where he looks good.

Nobody cares about 2002, unfortunately. If you go back to the beginning of the 15-16 season, Nash has scored 49 goals in 172 games. Fun fact, Zibanejad has put up the same number of goals in 173 games, on worse-constructed teams (those ottawa teams where he started his career were bad outside of Karlsson), in his first couple years in the NHL where he was still a development project, while playing the center position which is exponentially harder than winger.
Another Fun fact, Adam Henrique is a 3C on the Anaheim ducks, and he's scored 60 goals in that time span. Are we calling a 27 year old Adam Henrique elite now, too?

Using massive extrapolated numbers to validate your point is silly because again, as much as I hate it, hockey today is about the here and now. Here and now, Nash is going 6-12 games without showing up on the stat sheet at all. Now, I agree that some of this is AV's system, but the reality is that Nash's skills have declined. He's a good skater, but his shot is crap, hence the constant logo snipes. The low shooting percentage is not an outlier, but an exemplification of his declining skillset

Hagelin was a 30-40 point 3rd line player. he got a $4M * 4Y contract.

People RIPPED Edmonton when they paid Benoit Pouliot $4M over 4 Years--he was a 35 point player.

The former of these players has been crap outside of the first 1.5 years of that contract. The latter was BOUGHT OUT half way into the deal.

Nash is literally exactly that, except 2-4 years older than these guys mentioned, and Nash has a visibly declining skilklset. Paying him $4M?! f*** no.

Everything points to Nash's twilight years as a hockey player. Unless he comes in at under $2.5M over 2 years, I do not want him back, period--he hasn't earned anything more, and his current play is forecasting that he will continue to decline. There is no reason to keep a guy like this on your roster with a 4 year contract, not when you're where the Rangers are, which is still 1-2 years away from contending, at which point Nash would be nearing 36 years old.

f***...That...
 
Last edited:
TheTakedown said:
I personally HATE when people do this. You're basically expanding the sample size to normalize a bad player's performance and then find an "even playing field" where he looks good.

Nobody cares about 2002, unfortunately. If you go back to the beginning of the 15-16 season, Nash has scored 49 goals in 172 games. Fun fact, Zibanejad has put up the same number of goals in 173 games...
Click to expand...
But Nash has scored the most goals in the NHL on Tuesdays with Mercury in retrograde.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuel Culper III and TheTakedown
True Blue said:
Absolutely. Truly a once in a life time player.
Click to expand...

Better than Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Kane, Tarasenko, Kovalchuk etc in that regard. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can be sarcastic about it but the only players with better ES numbers when it comes to goals are Matthews and Athanasiou who have been in the league less than 2 years so you could argue it's too small a sample size.
 
After his second goal there was one play where he just broke up the ice like he was shot out of a cannon--the Sabres d-man deflected his shot away but Nash has been skating really well the last couple games. These west coast teams we're going to be facing this week are heavy hitting, nasty teams particularly the Ducks and Kings. If Rick can keep it going against the likes of them it will say something to me anyway. That's a big test. I hope he and his teammates pass it.
 
Amazing Kreiderman said:
Better than Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin, Kane, Tarasenko, Kovalchuk etc in that regard. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can be sarcastic about it but the only players with better ES numbers when it comes to goals are Matthews and Athanasiou who have been in the league less than 2 years so you could argue it's too small a sample size.
Click to expand...
Is he a Hall of Famer? Probably. Is he generational? Hardly. Of those players whom you listed, how many are you taking on your team before Nash?
 
he's been flat out excellent. finishing and making plays (still not sold tbh)

time to move him. get good value for this asset at the deadline (hope someone overpays)

better he plays= more we cash.(keep playing well)

do not keep rick nash forget the "window"(henrik has a few more years left)
 
offdacrossbar said:
he's been flat out excellent. finishing and making plays (still not sold tbh)

time to move him. get good value for this asset at the deadline (hope someone overpays)

better he plays= more we cash.(keep playing well)

do not keep rick nash forget the "window"(henrik has a few more years left)
Click to expand...

He has been playing exactly like he has been all season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Inferno
Nash comment on all the line shuffling this season last evening - it must be a nightmare to play for this coach hence 10 games without a point. I wish we had Julien - he knows what he is doing, but he lack a decent roster with Canadians, and Price not playing very well this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom