View Single Post
02-24-2012, 08:21 PM
Rust Heisenberg
Registered User
Rust Heisenberg's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 6,495
vCash: 50
Originally Posted by smoneil View Post
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?
I also watch Nash more so than most on this board, as my room mate is a diehard bluejackets fan, as odd as that may seem..

As for Malkin, I didn't limit his success to any one particular year. But his team is built to succeed from top to bottom. Strong defense, strong offensive core, very good coach. Are you comparing the Penguins to the Jackets? I thought you said you watch their games more often than most here yet you make a statement like that. As for CBJ's core, of course it is no where as near as good as ours. What type of statements are these? If that core was as good as ours they'd be a lot more successful than they are. The Blue Jackets have no goalie, no defense, and their offense is composed of players who are journeymen or ridden away from their past teams. If Zherdev was a part of a "core" he would still be on this team. Our core offers consistency, at least a lot more so than that of CBJ's. As for Richard's first season in Dallas... he was injured! Of course his stats are gonna be bad if he doesn't play for 1/3 of the season.

And how about this...

Which is a more likely statement?

"Richards succeeds with a bunch of role players who can't consistently score?"


"Richards succeeds with a bonafide NHL sniper?"

And also... please answer me this... who exactly has Nash had to help him with scoring? An aging and inconsistent Kristian Huselius? Journeyman Antoine Vermette? An injured Jeff Carter basically thrown off of his team and forced into the situation he was in in CBJ? Derrick Brassard, a 2nd liner?

Don't even try to argue that Nash has had adequate support. He's a star in a terrible situation (a situation that he himself chose) but nonetheless a terrible one. He's a stud. Period.

Rust Heisenberg is offline