New York Rangers All Decade Team - Second Line Center
We are quickly approaching the end of the first decade of the 21st Century. It is time for us the fans to pick who we would want as our All-Decade Team. In the next few weeks 22 polls will be posted to fill the team. 13 Forwards, 7 defense man and 2 goalies will be chosen.
The Sixth poll will be for the Second Line Center.
Starting Goaltender: Henrik Lundqvist
Backup Goalie: Mike Richter
First Line Center: Michael Nylander
First Line RW: Jaromir Jagr
First Line LW: Martin Straka
Second Line Center: OPEN
Second Line RW: OPEN
Second Line LW: OPEN
Third Line Center: OPEN
Third Line RW: OPEN
Third Line LW: OPEN
Fourth Line Center: OPEN
Fourth Line RW: OPEN
Fourth Line LW: OPEN
First Pair Defenseman: OPEN
First Pair Defenseman: OPEN
Second Pair Defenseman: OPEN
Second Pair Defenseman: OPEN
Third Pair Defenseman: OPEN
Third Pair Defenseman: OPEN
Nedved as a Ranger: 478 games, 149 goals, 202 assists, 351 points. 60 points per 82 games. He was a very good Ranger.
As a comparison, Lindros as a Ranger:
192 games, 66 goals, 92 assists for 158 points.
Nedved may have scored at a lower point per game pace, .73, than Eric's .82, but I think the fact that Nedved produced over a longer time frame should give him the edge. I have a feeling that Eric may win this based upon his name alone though, unfortunately Nedved isn't a very "sexy" choice.
Nedved may have scored at a lower point per game pace, .73, than Eric's .82, but I think the fact that Nedved produced over a longer time frame should give him the edge. I have a feeling that Eric may win this based upon his name alone though, unfortunately Nedved isn't a very "sexy" choice.
I don't think Nedved had wingers as good as Fleury as well, though.
I voted Lindros by accident, meant to click Nedved.
Nedved may have scored at a lower point per game pace, .73, than Eric's .82, but I think the fact that Nedved produced over a longer time frame should give him the edge. I have a feeling that Eric may win this based upon his name alone though, unfortunately Nedved isn't a very "sexy" choice.
He was also pretty durable. He played in between 70-79 games for 5 straight seasons for us. The last, he was sent to Edmonton, but I'm still counting it.
He was also pretty durable. He played in between 70-79 games for 5 straight seasons for us. The last, he was sent to Edmonton, but I'm still counting it.
He's probably the most under appreciated Ranger of recent memory.
You need to look beyond the stats when you look at Nedved. He was soft as hell and was streaky. He got boo'ed for a reason. His only good year was the 2002-2003 season when he decided to play up to his potential after Leetch went down.
Went Mike York. Lindros was appealing to me but he just didn't play enough IMO to warrant the spot. York was pure hustle and had the offense to go along with it.
I wanted to go with Lindros solely because I felt that even though Nedved put up decent numbers, against other teams he wasn't viewed as this team's top line and more often than not didn't face the checkers and the shutdown defensemen (yeah, still can't believe Stevens going out against Mess each game while, Sutton, I believe it was, who went out against Nedved (and Nedved ended up getting a hattrick against him)). Nedved's numbers make it hard not to put him here, or at #1.
no offense but he played in more games through the course of the same amount of seasons as Lindros and tallied less points. In fact, his most productive periods came when he was Lindros' winger, not even at center.
To the notion of Nedved being boo'd outta here...the fans reward hustle (i.e., York) and don't like soft players who don't seem to always try (Nedved). At the end of the day, the team with Nedved over York will always do better. It's not great to watch every night, but the results will always do better (and you can probably insert the name Ortmeyer in for York).
must've been one darn good wrist shot to tally those points. And yes, Nedved sucked along the boards...and there are tons of guys better along the boards but who probably weren't anywhere near the level of Nedved on the rush. That's why you create units of 5 that complement each other well and cover the bases as much as possible. As an aside, I am and have always been a critic of Nedved - not even close to a fan - but sometimes I find the need to defend him against certain broad criticisms.
no offense but he played in more games through the course of the same amount of seasons as Lindros and tallied less points. In fact, his most productive periods came when he was Lindros' winger, not even at center.
To the notion of Nedved being boo'd outta here...the fans reward hustle (i.e., York) and don't like soft players who don't seem to always try (Nedved). At the end of the day, the team with Nedved over York will always do better. It's not great to watch every night, but the results will always do better (and you can probably insert the name Ortmeyer in for York).
York Averaged 22 goals/season with the Rangers. Jed Ortmeyer has a career high of 5 goals. I fail to see how they are interchangeable.
There's more to hockey than points. Nedved was worthless if he didn't have the puck on his stick in the slot.
You need to look beyond the stats when you look at Nedved. He was soft as hell and was streaky. He got boo'ed for a reason. His only good year was the 2002-2003 season when he decided to play up to his potential after Leetch went down.
Went Mike York. Lindros was appealing to me but he just didn't play enough IMO to warrant the spot. York was pure hustle and had the offense to go along with it.
Agreed on Nedved, yeah he put up numbers but man was he streaky, and all those offsides....
But Lindros only played 40 less games as a Ranger compared to York.
must've been one darn good wrist shot to tally those points. And yes, Nedved sucked along the boards...and there are tons of guys better along the boards but who probably weren't anywhere near the level of Nedved on the rush. That's why you create units of 5 that complement each other well and cover the bases as much as possible. As an aside, I am and have always been a critic of Nedved - not even close to a fan - but sometimes I find the need to defend him against certain broad criticisms.
it was a darn good wrist shot for sure actually. he was just extremely frustrating to me, I never liked him partly b/c we traded Kovalev for him so that creats some bias but his game just irritated me immensely.
I'm leaning towards Nedved but he is like the poster boy of the Dark Ages for me. We've seen a lot of players come and go in those 7 years, but Nedved was the constant on offense, playing for the Rangers for 6 out of those 7 years they failed to make the playoffs. He performed pretty well but I just always associate him with that miserable era.
