: Player Discussion:
View Single Post
04-13-2013, 04:25 AM
Join Date: Jul 2007
Originally Posted by
First of all, that isn't even true. Gomez outscored Richards only in his first season, and he did it just barely. Second of all, I left it out because it isn't relevant. 4 points more for Gomez is hardly enough to make up for everything else that Richards did or better last year.
Richards has been awful this year, and I'm very disappointed by that. And he wasn't even great last year. But if you think Gomez, at any point during his time with the Rangers, was better than Richards was last year, we have nothing more to discuss. That is ludicrous.
Are you kidding me? Your argument against Gomez was that he
"two of the most inefficient seasons for a top line center". Yet, the guy you're defending did even worse. That's why I brought it up. You're just coming off as biased. And yes, let's nitpick, it's not true. Allow me to bump this is two weeks when it's a reality then. You dug yourself a hole with that comment. Go into attitude, go into intelligence, go into who's from a cooler place in north america, but for gods sake, what's the point of bringing up Scott Gomez's production as a Ranger in a Brad ****ing Richards thread.
Negligible or not, he outscored Brad.
Yes, I think Gomez was a hell of a lot better as a Ranger then Richards is/was. He outscored him during the regular season, and his PPG in the playoffs was better. On a team that was significantly more poorly constructed then the one we have now.
Were either of them good signings? No, I would never argue that. But for people to dismiss them as comparable is sad quite frankly.
You must have really enjoyed the 2008-09 season, when Scott Gomez, a one time 20 goal scorer with a blistering shooting percentage of 6, took 271 shots, just about as much as routine 30-40 goal scorers like Malkin, Iginla, Kovalchuk, Sedin, and Semin. The Rangers were 28th in goals that season. Coincidence?
Yet we're currently 25th in goals this season, 3 ahead of 30th. You said yourself 4 points is "hardly enough to make up for everything else". What about 3 goals? Our offense is just as pathetic. The difference? Gomez still ****ing produced.
Yeah, let's criticize the guy for shooting on a team supported by the likes of a washed up Markus Naslund, Nikolai Zherdev and Chris Drury. What is even the point of this argument? My enjoyment of the team has nothing to do with individual performances.
The same piece of crap who was the only major roster difference between not making the playoffs and achieving the most successful season in 15 years for this club?
Probably the worst argument of the bunch. Lundqvist winning the Vezina, McDonagh, Girardi and MDZ playing like Norris caliber defensemen, and guys like Kreider, Hagelin and Mitchell stepping in and playing the system to a T is what made the difference. Richards was crap last season as well, but we were winning so it was hardly a problem to some. That's what makes this place a psychologists wet dream from time to time. Selective memory.
I guess I must be an idiot, because I'm pretty sure Glen Sather wouldn't have needed to sign Brad Richards if he had managed to get a younger, cheaper, better first line center. And he might have been able to do that through the draft, but instead, he decided to sign Scott Gomez.
Why not criticize the piece of crap responsible for creating the circumstances under which the only chance that the Rangers had to get anything even remotely resembling a first line center was signing Richards?
Is this a diversion tactic or something? We can vent about Glen Sather in another thread. He has his fair share of problems. But this thread is a player discussion on Brad Richards, and he's been a steaming pile of **** for his entire tenure as a Ranger. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about that, and you even said it yourself. First you say Sather didn't have a choice, then you come back saying I should be blaming our GM. Tip-toeing around the topic of subject, because there's no defending Richards in an argument.
Quotes like the above make it seem like you're not even sure what you're arguing about, no offense.
I respect your opinion, but I think anyone who can even remotely support Richards is out to lunch. It's disgraceful what he's done as a Ranger.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by ColonialsHockey10