View Single Post
Old
02-24-2012, 08:00 PM
  #963
smoneil
Registered User
 
smoneil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 2,291
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenjets36 View Post
Does he have any type of chemistry with any of his line mates? Where is the creative passing he had with Eriksson on this team? Maybe he has team chemistry and bonding with them, but on the ice, what you usually see is him dumping the puck or holding the puck instead of passing it. He's not trusting his instincts, and it probably means he doesn't trust his linemates, therefore he tries to do more with the puck than he needs to.

And Rick Nash has NEVER played with any semblance of a team. In the olympics, he was by far and away the best player on the ice, for any team. Talent wise, he is top 5. Crosby has Malkin, similarly Malkin has Crosby. Toews has Kane and Hossa. Datsyuk has Zetterberg and Fransen. Stars need other stars. Richards and Nash also know each other from that olympic team, where Nash played the left wing on his line... where he would need to play on our 2nd line.

And that's why you have to match players to have chemistry. Nash and Richards have already played together. Nash also plays a game more similar and suitable to Richards (a lot closer to that than Gaborik's style).

The fact that you argue that Nash isn't a top 5 talent means you must not watch him much. As you're referring to, team assembly and chemistry is very important. When in Nash's entire career have the Jackets supplied him with a good, even a decent core? Jagr in Washington faired with similar problems.

WE NEED SCORING.

I watch Nash far more than most people on this board, and I think that's the problem. Most of you guys see him once or twice a year, or only during the Olympics (where he was NOT Canada's best player) and remember that he was a 1st overall pick and you dream about what you think he COULD be. I see the player who actually plays NHL games and that player couldn't even shine the shoes of a real top-5 talent in the league.

You undo your own argument. Malkin, this season, does NOT have Crosby. He hasn't had Crosby all year. Malkin is putting up great numbers. Nash has not had a "star" to play with, but he's had a solid supporting cast (which frankly, is only marginally worse than what the Rangers could offer him). Outside of Richards and Gaborik, how different are Carter/Vyborny/Umberger/Zherdev/Vermette from Cally/Dubi/Stepan/AA? If people were arguing that Nash couldn't make Columbus into a winner because of his supporting cast, I would see the merit of such an argument (though I think it's more to do with the Jacket's awful D and Goalie than anything else). They aren't. People are arguing that Nash doesn't put up POINTS because of his cast. Plenty of superstars, and ALL of the top 10 talents in this league can and often have put up elite point totals without another superstar to help out. Nash, consistently, shows that he can't do that.

You talk about Richards and Eriksson. Did you bother to look at Richards' first season in Dallas? The one where he was adjusting to a new team, a new system and a new city? He had lousy numbers. Once he got comfortable, he put up a career year in his 2nd season with Dallas. You see mistrust of linemates because you want Nash and want to believe whatever you need to believe to justify bringing him in. I see a player adjusting to a new city/team/system because that fits with what happened the last time the player was traded and, from the beginning of the season, that's what the player himself has said would happen. Which of us do you think is more likely to be correct?

smoneil is offline