HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Notices

Rick Nash

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-26-2013, 09:22 AM
  #951
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,323
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Gonna be interesting if we pick up Nash and miss the playoffs...and Columbus makes the playoffs after losing Nash.

One of those things that would make you go hmmmmmmmmm
About what exactly?

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:23 AM
  #952
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
The Rangers are playing worse with Nash....the Blue Jackets are playing better without Nash.

Just sayin'....
About this

Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:24 AM
  #953
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,323
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
About this
I fail to see how Nash is the factor in either situation.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:25 AM
  #954
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I fail to see how Nash is the factor in either situation.
Well he did change teams...so he is at the very least a factor.

Jonathan Toews is not a factor in this situation. Rich Nash is a factor. How much of a factor is certainly debatable.

Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:33 AM
  #955
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 15,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
The Rangers are playing worse with Nash....the Blue Jackets are playing better without Nash.

Just sayin'....
Grasping at straws is a nice way of putting it.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:36 AM
  #956
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
Grasping at straws is a nice way of putting it.
Not sure what you mean by that...

Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:36 AM
  #957
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,323
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Well he did change teams...so he is at the very least a factor.

Jonathan Toews is not a factor in this situation. Rich Nash is a factor. How much of a factor is certainly debatable.
You're oversimplifying. The Rangers woes come down to two things: Richards and Gaborik. Everything else is secondary. And on the list of woes, I hardly think Rick Nash rates a spot. As far as the CBJ being better, could they really have been worse.

Your taking a very convenient stance but one that is really reaching. You're taking one variable and using it as the sole basis of a main point. And that doesn't work.


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 03-26-2013 at 09:41 AM.
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:36 AM
  #958
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 12,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Well he did change teams...so he is at the very least a factor.

Jonathan Toews is not a factor in this situation. Rich Nash is a factor. How much of a factor is certainly debatable.
Straw man argument. Nash coming to the Rangers made Gaborik and Richards suck all of a sudden? That's pretty much the reason we're in 8th place right now, that and our bottom six is not performing well at all.

Nash has no effect on Richards and Gaborik, they are veterans after all. He also doesn't play in the bottom six so you can't blame him for that. In fact he seems to get dragged down when he plays with those two.

I'll also add that teams like Columbus are bound to overachieve at some point when mired in failure for so long, look at Florida last year. That's the parity that exists in the NHL.

Barbara Underhill is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:40 AM
  #959
Trxjw
Moderator
Bored.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 15,782
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Not sure what you mean by that...
We turned over half of our roster, we're missing our top defensemen, our #1C and 40 goal winger are nowhere near the players they were last year, and we've had very little in the way of depth scoring. Meanwhile, Nash has been far and away our best forward and is leading the team in scoring.

So to say that there's some correlation between the Jackets winning without Nash and us losing with Nash is circumstantial at best. That trade is a microscopic problem when it comes to the reasons this team is performing badly.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:43 AM
  #960
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
You're oversimplifying. The Rangers woes come down to two things: Richards and Gaborik. Everything else is secondary. And on the list of woes, I hardly think Rick Nash rates a spot. As far as the CBJ being better, could they really have been worse.

Your taking a very convenient stance but one that is really reaching.
I didn't even actually make a stance...just pointing out the standings. I have a distinct feeling many people here are not even aware how well Columbus is playing this year.

That said, as far as the Rangers are concerned there are a number of factors to be sure...on top of what you mentioned Hank is certainly not having the same kind of year he had last year, Girardi's game has deteriorated significantly, our forecheck has virtually disappeared, etc.

But I do think it's at the very least strange that Columbus would improve so much after losing the guy who was by far their best player.

Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:52 AM
  #961
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,323
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
I didn't even actually make a stance...just pointing out the standings. I have a distinct feeling many people here are not even aware how well Columbus is playing this year.
The standing are skewed and not comparable to last year because of the number of division and conference games and no games outside of division and conference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
But I do think it's at the very least strange that Columbus would improve so much after losing the guy who was by far their best player.
They've improved so significantly (if they really have) again because the standings are skewed and they couldn't have gotten worse. They also have gotten better goaltending then they have had in years. That has nothing to do with whether or not Nash was there.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:52 AM
  #962
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trxjw View Post
We turned over half of our roster, we're missing our top defensemen, our #1C and 40 goal winger are nowhere near the players they were last year, and we've had very little in the way of depth scoring. Meanwhile, Nash has been far and away our best forward and is leading the team in scoring.
Not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point, but for the sake of accuracy it must be pointed out that their top defenseman also missed the first half of the season last year...if I remember correctly he came back for the Winter Classic in Philly, right?...and without Staal (and Nash) we were still leading the league (or perhaps tied with the Bruins) after the Classic.


Last edited by Jersey Girl: 03-26-2013 at 09:58 AM.
Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:58 AM
  #963
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
The standing are skewed and not comparable to last year because of the number of division and conference games and no games outside of division and conference.

They've improved so significantly again because the standings are skewed and they couldn't have gotten worse. They also have gotten better goaltending then they have had in years. That has nothing to do with whether or not Nash was there.
I respect your opinion...I just totally disagree with it!!!

The standings are the standings...in a 'normal' year you play most of the games in conference anyway, so it's not like this is a whole new world or anything. I don't buy that the schedule makes much of a difference.

You did leave out that Columbus also added Artem Anisimov and Brandon Dubinsky...and we know what kind of offensive dyanamos they can be!

Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:59 AM
  #964
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,341
vCash: 500
It seems like you're trying to say that Rick Nash makes teams worse without flat out saying it

JohnC is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:02 AM
  #965
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,323
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
I respect your opinion...I just totally disagree with it!!!

The standings are the standings...in a 'normal' year you play most of the games in conference anyway, so it's not like this is a whole new world or anything. I don't buy that the schedule makes much of a difference.

You did leave out that Columbus also added Artem Anisimov and Brandon Dubinsky...and we know what kind of offensive dyanamos they can be!
I respect yours as well and I believe that historically, you and I have agreed for the most part. That's why I'm surprised by your opinion here. The argument/point you're making is just oversimplified to me and not up to the calibre of your usual posts. But I'm more than happy to agree to disagree.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:09 AM
  #966
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
I respect yours as well and I believe that historically, you and I have agreed for the most part. That's why I'm surprised by your opinion here. The argument/point you're making is just oversimplified to me and not up to the calibre of your usual posts. But I'm more than happy to agree to disagree.
Thank you!

I think I'm much more amazed that Columbus is playing so well than I am that Nash has to some extent fallen into the morass that is us. I've said a number of times this year (probably in this thread) that I think Nash is a beast...we just need consistent beast mode night in and night out, especially in a 48 game regular season.

This is why every summer I read here that X is going to fix our power play (X being Wade Redden, then Marian Gaborik, then B-rad Richards, then Rick Nash), I cringe a little. I haven't read the Zuccarello threads, but if someone in there says this will help our power play, I think I'll scream!

Jersey Girl is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:10 AM
  #967
tjs252
Registered User
 
tjs252's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 466
vCash: 500
I do think there is something to be said about the sports psychology of the "superstar". Teams - especially in truly team oriented sports like hockey, basketball, soccer - that have a superstar tend to be overly deferential and/or reliant upon that player. Look at LeBron, Ronaldo, Messi, Kobe. They get their numbers not just because they're talented, but because their teammates know that talent and look for them, even when it's sometimes contrary to the best "play" available.

When a team has an overly deferential supporting cast (sometimes by virtue of lack of talent, sometimes by just being overly deferential to the superstar) teams can suffer. It's rare for a guy to be able to enhance the level of play around him, I'd limit it to just LeBron, Chris Paul, and Crosby in North American sports.

I think that's the argument to make for Nash, and the changes with the Rangers and Blue Jackets. Nash is a good player, a very talented player, but teammates are asking him to do too much and looking for him to provide more than he's capable of giving.

tjs252 is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:12 AM
  #968
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 12,999
vCash: 500
It's just a coincidence with Nash being traded, but in all honesty, nobody here knows what the hell is going on with gaborik and Richards.

My opinion? Gaborik isnt fully rehabbed from his shoulder, and Richards with his millions was a lazy, disinterested fool during the lockout.

Sometimes guys just dont work well together. There's this cliche notion that "Oh...these guys are both Russian...they'll gel" or ".....they played to gether in Junior. They must be friends"

Its stupid to assume that everybody on a "team" gets along with everybody. Sometimes that means nothing and the sheer talent and professionalism on the team overrides any individual issues.

I just think the team doesnt respond to the coach, but have a little bit of respect for him for the way he "protects" them.

To me, this team needs a mentor and thinker......not a motivator and commander. That's what Captains and A's should be for.

GWOW is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:13 AM
  #969
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,323
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Thank you!

I think I'm much more amazed that Columbus is playing so well than I am that Nash has to some extent fallen into the morass that is us. I've said a number of times this year (probably in this thread) that I think Nash is a beast...we just need consistent beast mode night in and night out, especially in a 48 game regular season.

This is why every summer I read here that X is going to fix our power play (X being Wade Redden, then Marian Gaborik, then B-rad Richards, then Rick Nash), I cringe a little. I haven't read the Zuccarello threads, but if someone in there says this will help our power play, I think I'll scream!
Help the power play? More like ignite the offense. Evidently, we had Adam Oates in Europe and the entire front office was too stupid to realize it.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 10:36 AM
  #970
gabevh3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: ny
Country: United States
Posts: 679
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to gabevh3 Send a message via Yahoo to gabevh3
I think it's more when you have stars or a big name player other players don't play as hard or as desperate or defer to them a lot or the veterans don't feel it anymore.that's also what happened to the ranger teams that missed 7 straight besides the coaching or not being built well. The opposite example would be the 1980 us Olympic team.

gabevh3 is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 11:16 AM
  #971
Rangers Fail
4 8 15 16 23 42
 
Rangers Fail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 16,422
vCash: 500
Columbus has managed less GPG than us.

Success!

Rangers Fail is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 11:25 AM
  #972
BrianBoyle
4 teams in 5 yrs
 
BrianBoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the grass
Country: United States
Posts: 51,446
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
It's just a coincidence with Nash being traded, but in all honesty, nobody here knows what the hell is going on with gaborik and Richards.

My opinion? Gaborik isnt fully rehabbed from his shoulder, and Richards with his millions was a lazy, disinterested fool during the lockout.

Sometimes guys just dont work well together. There's this cliche notion that "Oh...these guys are both Russian...they'll gel" or ".....they played to gether in Junior. They must be friends"

Its stupid to assume that everybody on a "team" gets along with everybody. Sometimes that means nothing and the sheer talent and professionalism on the team overrides any individual issues.

I just think the team doesnt respond to the coach, but have a little bit of respect for him for the way he "protects" them.

To me, this team needs a mentor and thinker......not a motivator and commander. That's what Captains and A's should be for.
Good post, agreed 100%, especially with the bolded.

__________________

Neutral Milk Hotel are literally GOAT
Amy Poehler <3

Credit to Ail for the sig.
BrianBoyle is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 11:28 AM
  #973
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 29,323
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenith View Post
Good post, agreed 100%, especially with the bolded.
It is a good post. But what still is so strange is both of the most glaring underachievers on this team have had success with this coach.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 11:35 AM
  #974
BrianBoyle
4 teams in 5 yrs
 
BrianBoyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: On the grass
Country: United States
Posts: 51,446
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It is a good post. But what still is so strange is both of the most glaring underachievers on this team have had success with this coach.
Yeah, Richards is the one that just mystifies me. Gaborik, to me, looks like he's trying, and he's getting chances. He's had several breakaways over the past few games, he just has been struggling to finish.

Richards has been an abomination, IMO. He has added nothing of value on the ice - I'd say he's been a detriment to the team more so than a benefit. He's slow, timid, weak, and seems to just drift off on any given night. I don't know what has happened to him - whether his skills have simply left him, whether he didn't condition himself correctly in the offseason (hoping it's that one, because it's at least fixable), or whether he just doesn't care now that he's gotten his paycheck.

Either way, I think we're done with him in the summer of '14. Even if he bounces back next year, I don't think Sather will risk Richards continually declining over the 6 years past 2014.

BrianBoyle is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 11:36 AM
  #975
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,559
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It is a good post. But what still is so strange is both of the most glaring underachievers on this team have had success with this coach.
Its the lockout. People came back out of shape and out of sync.

McRanger is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.