Nash Rumors VII: This Could Get Nash-ty (IncarceratedBob is NOT a legitimate source)
View Single Post
02-24-2012, 10:29 PM
Join Date: Nov 2009
Originally Posted by
Gotta love the logic of the board.
Last time, the team loses in a shutout, scoring no PP goals. The response? "WE NEED GOALS AND PP SCORER! MUST HAVE NASH!"
Tonight, the team loses in a shootout with their backup goalie in the net. In said game, they score 3 goals, including two PP goals. The response? "WE SCORE GOALS? WE HAVE PP SCORERS? WE MUST HAVE NASH."
Y'all are STILL in love with the big name, and you just keep rotating your justifications to pretend that the team NEEDS Nash. Remember your Rangers history. This team is on the verge of bringing back the early 90s. I don't want to see them say "Naw. F that. Let's go right to the early aughts!"
Did you see those PP goals?
The first one was a decent shot by Staal, but really that's on Nabokov.
The second? LOL! Yeah that's the Rangers scoring prowess right there! Banking it in off Nabby's save and Hamonic's thigh.
Gabby's goal was the only thing even reminiscent of a scoring threat. As per the usual this year.
A better argument would be, that when this teams defense and goaltending is on, they don't need to score more than 1-2 goals, because they will completely dominate the other teams scoring threats.
View Public Profile
Visit Ail's homepage!
Find More Posts by Ail