I Eat Crow
Fear The Mullet
- Jul 9, 2007
- 19,975
- 13,635
I don't disagree. My point is that Nash has never been that guy. Brian Boyle syndrome. Has size but doesn't like to use it to impose his will on opposing players.
Who is the biggest disappointment?
- Thread starter Rangers ftw
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
I don't disagree. My point is that Nash has never been that guy. Brian Boyle syndrome. Has size but doesn't like to use it to impose his will on opposing players.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
He scored a SHG yesterday down 1-0.
He assisted on a GTG and scored a second huge GTG in the Carolina comeback win'
He made a 2-0 lead a 3-0 lead in Florida, then Florida made it 3-2 so he got the GWG
He scored the GWG in the 2-1 win over Chicago in a 3rd period Chicago owned
He scored the GTG in the third to force a shootout against the CBJ's
He scored the GWG late in the third to beat Dallas
He opened the scoring of a 3-2 win at Dallas
He tied the game late in the 2nd in a 2-1 loss to STL
He scored the first two goals of the game in a 5-3 loss to the Isles
He scored the first two goals of a 4-1 win against Washington
He scored the GWG in a 4-1 win at Ottawa
He opened the scoring of a 4-3 win over Tampa
He opened the scoring of a 3-1 win at Buffalo
He tied the game with a goal in the 1st period of a 3-2 loss to Boston
That's 16 of his 22 goals that seem pretty meaningful to me.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
Nash would have more assists if Kreider and Stepan buried a ton of great chances. There are very few instances where his center, Stepan, has set him up for gimme chances.
Nash has had to work for most of his goals. It's not like he's Rob Brown and Stepan is Mario, feeding him goal mouth tap ins.
Nash has had to work for most of his goals. It's not like he's Rob Brown and Stepan is Mario, feeding him goal mouth tap ins.
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
- Jul 11, 2012
- 13,694
- 1,493
The point is that he seems to score lots of goals that are either redundant or in a blowout... oddly enough, when we do play blowout games and win, he doesn't score ANY (remember the 7 goal Toronto game?) Plus, if we use that data, you're claiming that
The issue is that the guy is not sidney crosby, and yet makes a mere $900,000 less than him, and that's clearly a problem. He's a 6M guy on a good day. I understand the guy kills penalties, but that simply means he's being used as an all-around player, which if Sather had noticed, Nash is NOT that type of player, yet the guy he traded for Nash was (dubinsky). a whopping 36% of his goals are coming during blowouts/unnecessary scoring streaks... that's a pretty high number... What that basically comes out to is:
40 goals in 82 games, 14 of those are useless, which puts him at 25 goals a year...
Let that sink in... $7.8M, 25 goals a year.
I hate looking in hindsight, but I really feel that this trade has to be one of the most unproductive trades from an on-ice standpoint (ironically, it was one of the best on paper)
If Nash gets the benefit of the doubt with this type of excuse, then why are you demanding Lundqvist to play to his "normal standards" when the team defense was a complete mess for most of the season?
BlueshirtBlitz
Foolish Samurai
...And Stepan would probably have 55-60 points already if Nash could bury what he set up for him.
Stepan has been getting it done without help from Nash for long stretches all year. 11 points in 12 games (or whatever it's at now) and maybe only one of those is because of Nash.
Yesterdays shorty was the first time post-Olympics I was happy Rick Nash was on this team.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
Richards and Nash had pathetic postseasons last year. Richards was both good and clutch in 2012.
They've both slumped towards the stretch drive. Not a good sign. Richards looks like a different player since the Olympics and Nash has been engaged half the time.
You pay your stars for big moments. If the Rangers fail to make the playoffs or if they fail in the postseason, the both need to go immediately.
They've both slumped towards the stretch drive. Not a good sign. Richards looks like a different player since the Olympics and Nash has been engaged half the time.
You pay your stars for big moments. If the Rangers fail to make the playoffs or if they fail in the postseason, the both need to go immediately.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
I'm not excusing Nash. I'm just explaining it. The guy avoids contact with everybody and refuses to get into the trenches to score goals. He wasnt like that last season.
Like Henrik. The defense may explain the spike, but it doesnt excuse him. He still sees the puck, and not more than previous seasons.
Blaming the defense? I guess that's a start. For years, Henrik has been placed above blame because of the offense.
There's nothing excusing Lundqvist's worst career season. Luckily his worst season is normally the best for most goalies. Still, it doesnt excuse him.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
Nash's shooting pct the last four seasons
10.5
9.8
11.9
10.5
Stepan's shooting pct the last four seasons
12.7
10.1
16.7
7.9
Sorry, not buying it. I watch the same games you do. Obviously we interpret things differently.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
Nash wasnt brought here to carry the team. Only a few people around here knew that his cap hit would automatically put him at a disadvantage.
Nash didnt demand that contract from Sather. he was given the contract by another moron GM and owner who wanted to lock up the face of their franchise.
I get it. We're blue collar fans and like underdogs, and shun the rich, spoiled athletes. The problem with most Rangers fans is they think every star they acquire is some Silver Bullet. At least initially. Then when they struggle, it all goes back to the salary.
Nash on Columbus was a franchise player and Captain of a garbage team. On the Rangers, he's a complimentary player on an above-average team.
It's called expectation management. Any fan who thought Nash would be a 40-40 guy was just ignorant.
Some of us knew it would be 30-30.
Nash is who we thought he was. Why are people disappointed? Because they expected too much.
Rangers fans who expect too much?
Pick a new team, is my advice.
Nash didnt demand that contract from Sather. he was given the contract by another moron GM and owner who wanted to lock up the face of their franchise.
I get it. We're blue collar fans and like underdogs, and shun the rich, spoiled athletes. The problem with most Rangers fans is they think every star they acquire is some Silver Bullet. At least initially. Then when they struggle, it all goes back to the salary.
Nash on Columbus was a franchise player and Captain of a garbage team. On the Rangers, he's a complimentary player on an above-average team.
It's called expectation management. Any fan who thought Nash would be a 40-40 guy was just ignorant.
Some of us knew it would be 30-30.
Nash is who we thought he was. Why are people disappointed? Because they expected too much.
Rangers fans who expect too much?
Pick a new team, is my advice.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
Thats why I picked Lundqvist. I expect him to be in the top 5-10 in SVPCT, GAA and shutouts.
I expect him to win 33-37 games.
I expect him to bail the team out in 75pct of the wins.
Why? Because he's done it his entire career. Bad defense? Bad offenses? bad power play?
All that meant dick to Lundqvist. He produced on an elite level for almost a decade in the face of weak defenses, weak offenses and weak coaches.
Not this year. Very disconcerting.
I expect him to win 33-37 games.
I expect him to bail the team out in 75pct of the wins.
Why? Because he's done it his entire career. Bad defense? Bad offenses? bad power play?
All that meant dick to Lundqvist. He produced on an elite level for almost a decade in the face of weak defenses, weak offenses and weak coaches.
Not this year. Very disconcerting.
To be completely honest, I have 3 candidates.
1.Dorsett-man I had high hopes for him. I thought he would turn out to be better than Prust was at hockey.
2. Staal- he is a top 4 defenseman with the ability to step in on the 1st pairing, but 11 points from the blue line? Seems like what McDonagh improved on, Staal regressed on.
3. Lundqvist- beyond Sub-par season for him, I don't care how many "perfect shots" he faces every game, he used to stop 9/10, he used to stop breakaways and penalty shots. Now it seems he's rattled and uncomfortable every time. Shooters know not to deke him and aim a shot 9 hole on him. If the puck is going into a corner in the net, it's usually in this year. A hybrid defense can benefit him tremendously next season.
Nash is still invisible.
1.Dorsett-man I had high hopes for him. I thought he would turn out to be better than Prust was at hockey.
2. Staal- he is a top 4 defenseman with the ability to step in on the 1st pairing, but 11 points from the blue line? Seems like what McDonagh improved on, Staal regressed on.
3. Lundqvist- beyond Sub-par season for him, I don't care how many "perfect shots" he faces every game, he used to stop 9/10, he used to stop breakaways and penalty shots. Now it seems he's rattled and uncomfortable every time. Shooters know not to deke him and aim a shot 9 hole on him. If the puck is going into a corner in the net, it's usually in this year. A hybrid defense can benefit him tremendously next season.
Nash is still invisible.
cd211
Registered User
as long as richards is making the most money he will be the biggest disappointment until he's gone.. end of story!!!
Nash has been good, but doesn't deserve to be the biggest.. Richards by far.. dude is suppose to be our all-star 1 center and pp guru and hes been far from all of them..
Nash has been good, but doesn't deserve to be the biggest.. Richards by far.. dude is suppose to be our all-star 1 center and pp guru and hes been far from all of them..
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
Gaborik was always a better goal scorer and he did go into the tough areas to score, at least more than Nash.
Nash doesnt socre a lot of stationary goals. Thats because he doesnt like to get hit.
No tip ins. No slam dunks. No one-timers.
It's wristers from the circles and odd-man rushes.
One of ownership, the medical staff, the coaching staff or himself has decided that it;s best he remain away from the puck as much as possible. He's obviously not getting dirty, and with that, you wont see 40 goals.
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
- Jul 11, 2012
- 13,694
- 1,493
and unfortunately, it means that he's never going to be as productive as his cap hit...
pathetic, if you ask me... the guy is so fragile that one more concussion could end his career...
Not that I wish death on the guy, but I'd almost be OK with it if it meant he had to retire... Of course I'd rather see a draft pick and a #1C prospect come back in a trade, but quite frankly, I'd take Ovi over Nash any day
What Im saying is if "explaining things" is blaming Kreider and Stepan for flubbing opportunities, Im not quite sure how Lundqvist receives more blame for his team's lack of commitment towards protecting the slot. Thats explaining things too when it comes to talking about departures from what we're used to.
The difference is, the teams change in philosophy should theoretically help Nash's numbers.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
You're going to have to ask the coach why he plays only 17 mins a game.
He leads the team in goals despite missing 17 games.
Stop looking at the amount of money he makes. It's not your money.
AlternateSideParking
Registered User
- Dec 11, 2005
- 21,596
- 5,131
SA16
Sixstring
So your response is to just attack an advanced stat and say based on your opinion this is what is happening? First of all it's not even advanced. Why not just look at how many goals he scores when either down 1, tied, or up 1 and look at that as a percentage of his total goals and compare it to other 30+ goal scorers? Doesn't seem like a particularly advanced or complicated stat. I can almost guarantee over the past few years he is within one standard deviation of the average in either direction. Oh, but of course you wouldn't want to look at that since it will prove your opinion false.
Nash scores around 35 goals a year. If you want him to be more active and more consistent then you're basically requesting Stamkos or Ovechkin. Oh wait, I forgot, Nash is inconsistent. I guess that's why he's the only player in the league who has scored 20+ each of the last 9 years. What you seem to want is a 41 goal scorer who scores 1 goal exactly every other game and hits a bit as well. Things don't work that way. It's called math and statistics.
In fact among players with 20+ goals this year Nash has the second highest percentage of game winning goals at 31.8% (And no, this is not a significant sample size but since everyone likes to make conclusion based on insignificant sample sizes I thought I'd throw that out there. And yes, GWG is not exactly the greatest stat since a "meaningless" goal in a 4-0 game can become a GWG if the other team then scores 4. Despite all this it is still DESCRIPTIVE - not predictive - for this year and completely argues against everything you said about him scoring meaningless goals because what we're seeing here is he's been second best at scoring meaningful goal this year).
So essentially what you are "seeing" is wrong - at least in regards to his goal scoring.
Last edited:
TheTakedown
Puck is Life
- Jul 11, 2012
- 13,694
- 1,493
Thank you for those stats, that leads to me realize what is actually wrong...
I think most have a problem with Nash when he is NOT scoring, that is, everything else he does on the ice is not up to par compared to that of another all-around player... I don't want to hear the "good defensively" excuse, because Nash is just as guilty for using his stick as a magic leprechaun as much as our 3rd and 4th liners. Fine, because Nash is supposed to be a superstar right? Well, aren't superstars supposed to be able to take control of a game? Is it too much to ask Nash to try and PUSH the pace for once? Because Ovechkin, Stamkos, Crosby, Malkin, Parise, Datsyk, Zetterberg, Toews, Kane... These are elite superstars, and each of these guys are able to take over games more than several times in a week... How many times are you seeing a headline for one of them? Now what about for Nash? That's what I thought.
That brings us to Nash's goals, which tell a great story, sure... However, I'd love to see if there is a stat that tells us how many times Nash will try to dangle again and again and again, only to turn the puck over? How about the times when he selfishly tries to carry through through defenders instead of passing to an open winger? How about when he starts "coasting" on the games where he's mailed it in?
That's what all of these Nash critics are crying about... it's aggravating, but I have to agree for the most part... Nash is NOT a complete player, and his ability to take over a game is nothing more than OK, because quite frankly, like some have stated, he's a complimentary piece, and isn't able to do that... unfortunately, at that point he loses the "superstar" tag, and just becomes a regular scorer, which is fine, but I wish Sather had judged who he was going after during this trade, because Nash wasn't the answer for this team. I'm not rangers management, and this isn't my money, but in my opinion, Nash looks like a player who is mentally weak, and sometimes too physically challenged, and that seriously affects his "superstar" play.
Last edited:
Wamsutta
I'm Glen Sather IRL
Nash still has 22 goals with recent history of concussions. Staal was given every chance to recover long term and every excuse in the book was thrown out there to defend him. How anyone could answer Nash to this question is pure spite. I guess Richards was bought out already...
HockeyBasedNYC
Feeling it
Gotta go with Nash. For what we gave up and his complete and utter inconsistency and injury issues. Its frustrating. Especially when you see him go off and dominate for a half dozen games and then become completely invisible for long stretches after. Hopefully his next hot streak comes in the playoffs.
Second for me is Mcilrath. I know, i know, hes had injuries and it takes a defenseman a while to develop blah blah blah. But we all screamed when the Rangers made this pick and we were right to question it. He should be here now. If he was a true first round talent, he would be here. And the disappointment is more the reason the Rangers selected him, not so much him. For once the Rangers had a top 10 pick and had to go against the grain. Fowler was on the board and while it was a safer pick it was the right pick and everyone knew it.
Second for me is Mcilrath. I know, i know, hes had injuries and it takes a defenseman a while to develop blah blah blah. But we all screamed when the Rangers made this pick and we were right to question it. He should be here now. If he was a true first round talent, he would be here. And the disappointment is more the reason the Rangers selected him, not so much him. For once the Rangers had a top 10 pick and had to go against the grain. Fowler was on the board and while it was a safer pick it was the right pick and everyone knew it.
