Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
I love how we can cherry-pick stats by excluding certain games to criticize Nash, but then use the same method to praise Lundqvist (excluding games 2 and 3 in the ECF)
What is Rick Nash's legacy as a Blueshirt?
- Thread starter Filthy Dangles
- Start date
I love how we can cherry-pick stats by excluding certain games to criticize Nash, but then use the same method to praise Lundqvist (excluding games 2 and 3 in the ECF)
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
I love how we can cherry-pick stats by excluding certain games to criticize Nash, but then use the same method to praise Lundqvist (excluding games 2 and 3 in the ECF)
I assume he didn't want to sound like an asshat by comparing the playoff contributions of Henrik Lundqvist and Rick Nash.
You got any comparisons to knock Brian Leetch down a peg vs. Keith Yandle ?
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
eco's bones
Registered User
I love how we can cherry-pick stats by excluding certain games to criticize Nash, but then use the same method to praise Lundqvist (excluding games 2 and 3 in the ECF)
Not sure why we need to bring Henrik into a discussion about Rick Nash's Rangers legacy.
Henrik has a long career of playing well in the playoffs. His goaltending arguably has stolen several series along the way and kept others a lot closer than they could have been. He will go to the HOF when his career is done whether he wins a Stanley Cup or not--that is if the world doesn't blow up first. There really isn't much to debate about that. Value for cap hit--the Rangers did a whole lot better with Henrik than they did with Rick and got a lot more out of Henrik in the most important situations.
If we're talking about Rick's playoff performances--his 12-13 certainly wasn't great but it's really the 13-14 playoffs that kind of made a lot of people look at him as a playoff underachiever. 3 goals and 10 points in a 25 game run to the Stanley Cup finals. If I'm remembering correctly all his goals were scored in the Canadiens series. That was the season he scored 42 regular season goals but when it came to the finals against Los Angeles his offense had pretty much dried up when the team needed his scoring touch the most. Some were more interested in shitting on the somewhat mobilely challenged Girardi playing with a broken finger on his shooting hand I suppose. The truth as I see it though is that you need your best players to play like your best players in situations such as the Stanley Cup Finals. Henrik as leader of our defense played very well. Rick Nash as leader of our offense did not.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,075
- 40,935
It's about the mental gymnastics people go through to twist stats in a way to prove a point. Lundqvist is just an example.
Jabroni
The People's Champ
- Jun 1, 2008
- 7,526
- 174
JT Kreider
FIRE GORDIE CLARK
I'll gladly point out Lundqvists failure in the Ottawa series too.
Gave up a crap goal from behind the net to lose Game 1, gave up 6 goals and blew multiple 2 goal leads to lose Game 2.
Then the team comes home and plays two flawless performances in front of him to tie the series back up.
Probably the only playoff wins where Lundqvist didn't save our bacon and wasn't #1, #2 and #3 stars since like the Atlanta series and the Nyalnder hat trick game.
The floor is his for Game 5. Be the difference maker he is paid to be. Be the difference maker franchise players are expected to be when your team needs it most.
Nope. More blown leads, more stinkers and gives up 5 goals again. Series over at that point.
No mental gymnastics.
Last edited:
