HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Most of Nash's goals are meaningless...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-06-2013, 01:20 AM
  #76
Aufheben
Moderator
The jam must flow...
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,362
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
No he does not. He tries to avoid contact. That's why I called him a dangler and that's why calling him a power forward is absurd. So again no, lets not call him a power anything because the guy doesn't play a power game whatsoever

And the gold medal argument is a joke, the guy played on team Canada. I could have taken his spot on that team and won a gold medal with them. All the man has done in the NHL is lose. And when he came here he played like a loser. He plays hockey like it's an individual, not a team, sport
And you call my argument a joke? If he didn't deserve to be on Team Canada, surely they could have found someone else better. 'All the man has done is lose' and then you go on to say that hockey is a team sport. Do you not see the contradiction there?

When his team wins you give all the credit to the team; When his team loses, you blame it on him. I'll give him a pass on the playoffs for these reasons: Shortened season. Almost the entire team had a crappy postseason. He hardly has any playoff experience. He might have been injured. The guy is also our only goalscoring threat; The opposition's defense can focus entirely on him.

Nash is the least of this teams problems.


Last edited by Aufheben: 09-06-2013 at 01:28 AM.
Aufheben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 01:29 AM
  #77
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,525
vCash: 500
Let's not act like Nash wasn't important for Team Canada

JohnC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 02:10 AM
  #78
Cresto
Much Disappoint
 
Cresto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,484
vCash: 500
Kel would get along great with the guy that thinks Nash is like Higgins.

Cresto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 03:53 AM
  #79
Fanned On It
Registered User
 
Fanned On It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
Lowering the bar including guys like Seguin and Selanne in there. Then you include Ovechkin who played in less games and against the best goalie in the world in his games, so there goes that example. Now you consider Toews who got a solid amount of bad press for his offensive output, but he's not supposed to be the pure goal scorer Nash is supposed to be. Nash contributes NOTHING other than his goal scoring. He's been a poor playmaker, he's got no heart, he doesn't play D, he doesn't hit, he doesn't lead. Toews is/does all of those things which make him valuable even when he's not putting the puck in the net. Same goes for Kane, who's season high goal total was 30 which he only did once.

Nash has been a disappointment so far. And I had low expectations of him coming into things.
Uh, what? In the playoffs maybe.. Nash is a pretty damn good playmaker if you ask me. That pass to Kreider for the OT win against Boston? Playmaking..

Fanned On It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 08:11 AM
  #80
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
That's fine, it's your opinon. Not very objective though, and it isn't like I haven't read your snide remarks in other threads about Nash which clearly shows your willingness to put your bias aside. The team played pretty darn bad Nash had some key plays, so did some other guys but as a whole they just didn't play consistently good hockey.
My opinion is not objective? Seriously, you're going to stoop to 'my opinion is better than yours'? Come on, you're better than that. The only thing you don't like about my Nash opinion is that it doesn't match yours. That's the way it goes sometimes...accept that we agree to disagree and move on.

I stick by my opinion that Nash's effort in the playoffs was poor. And if you've been stalking my opinions in other threads, yes, you would have seen that I've said that before. I figured you would at least appreciate the consistency.

As I said, I'm willing to give Nash a mulligan for last year's playoffs based him playing for Tortorella for the first time, and that fact that he had only played in one playoff series in his ten year career in Columbus.

But if Nash's effort is bad again this playoff season...no more excuses.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 09:06 AM
  #81
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
My opinion is not objective? Seriously, you're going to stoop to 'my opinion is better than yours'? Come on, you're better than that. The only thing you don't like about my Nash opinion is that it doesn't match yours. That's the way it goes sometimes...accept that we agree to disagree and move on.

I stick by my opinion that Nash's effort in the playoffs was poor. And if you've been stalking my opinions in other threads, yes, you would have seen that I've said that before. I figured you would at least appreciate the consistency.

As I said, I'm willing to give Nash a mulligan for last year's playoffs based him playing for Tortorella for the first time, and that fact that he had only played in one playoff series in his ten year career in Columbus.

But if Nash's effort is bad again this playoff season...no more excuses.
At least you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt -- not knowing for sure if he was injured and 12 games not exactly being a large sample size and all.

I think Nash just fell into some bad habits being on a perennial loser for a decade. It takes its toll not playing in big games for that long of a period. I'll tell you what though, it's a lot easier to will a player to play with some urgency than to teach Nash's size and skill.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 10:00 AM
  #82
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
At least you're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt -- not knowing for sure if he was injured and 12 games not exactly being a large sample size and all.
Unfortunately that's the way it goes with North American sports...playoffs are what matters and they tend to be, by definition, small sample sizes...even smaller when you lose.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 10:20 AM
  #83
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
My opinion is not objective? Seriously, you're going to stoop to 'my opinion is better than yours'? Come on, you're better than that. The only thing you don't like about my Nash opinion is that it doesn't match yours. That's the way it goes sometimes...accept that we agree to disagree and move on.

I stick by my opinion that Nash's effort in the playoffs was poor. And if you've been stalking my opinions in other threads, yes, you would have seen that I've said that before. I figured you would at least appreciate the consistency.

As I said, I'm willing to give Nash a mulligan for last year's playoffs based him playing for Tortorella for the first time, and that fact that he had only played in one playoff series in his ten year career in Columbus.

But if Nash's effort is bad again this playoff season...no more excuses.
I didn't say mine was better, I am merely suggesting that with Nash it seems possible you may have noticed poor play and made it larger than it actually was, which happens with players that are supposed to be leading a team in one way or the other. Look at how many people ***** when Hank let's in a softie, Callahan was also getting a lot of flak last season and in the playoffs. I just think sometimes things get blown out of proportion.

When I sit back and look at it all now I see it differently, which is ok and yes we can agree to disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCrusty View Post
Kel would get along great with the guy that thinks Nash is like Higgins.
He's really reaching now, Nash was a catalyst for that olympic team and if he hadn't been he wouldn't be considered a lock for this years team. His playmaking has always been underrated, he made some very good plays last year.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 10:32 AM
  #84
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Unfortunately that's the way it goes with North American sports...playoffs are what matters and they tend to be, by definition, small sample sizes...even smaller when you lose.
Yes, Im sure thats how it is for the vast majority of sports fans. Problem is, the vast majority of sports fans are dolts.

You're a better fan than that, so thats why Im surprised you're perpetuating this stuff know that Nash is a very very good hockey player in general.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 11:23 AM
  #85
Off Sides
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 915
vCash: 561
I think it's fair to question Nash and his playoff performance and whether or not he has what it takes to lead a team offensively in them.

I can imaging him being a major cog of a Cup winning team but probably not "the cog" that goes out there and asserts his will on the other team making it very difficult for them to contain him. It's just an opinion but I just do not see him as the type of player where regardless of the other team's game plan against him, he is going to go out there and literally make good things happen on a consistent basis. Seems more like if in the right situation he's not going to blow the play, but he's not exactly making those right situations happen.

Off Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 11:42 AM
  #86
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Sides View Post
I think it's fair to question Nash and his playoff performance and whether or not he has what it takes to lead a team offensively in them.

I can imaging him being a major cog of a Cup winning team but probably not "the cog" that goes out there and asserts his will on the other team making it very difficult for them to contain him. It's just an opinion but I just do not see him as the type of player where regardless of the other team's game plan against him, he is going to go out there and literally make good things happen on a consistent basis. Seems more like if in the right situation he's not going to blow the play, but he's not exactly making those right situations happen.
Not many guys that can.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 12:12 PM
  #87
Off Sides
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 915
vCash: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
Not many guys that can.
I agree there, was just trying to find a way to define what I see as the difference between awesomeness and what Nash showed which I see as a step below. I think he could be awesome with a little more (drive, determination, situation, etc) I just have not seen it(one playoffs) and I think that was sort of the Columbus fan's view as well.

Off Sides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 12:26 PM
  #88
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,803
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Sides View Post
I agree there, was just trying to find a way to define what I see as the difference between awesomeness and what Nash showed which I see as a step below. I think he could be awesome with a little more (drive, determination, situation, etc) I just have not seen it(one playoffs) and I think that was sort of the Columbus fan's view as well.
If anything, I think it has more to do with him being a player that fell into bad habits in Columbus.

He needs to work at getting better with the puck along the boards/in the trenches. In bigger games, theres simply not enough room out there to do the dazzling things on the rush that hes capable of.

The coaching staff should sit him in a chair and show him a highlight real of Jagr from the past 10 years. Jagr was a guy who also wasn't outwardly playing with emotion, but he became one of the better board players in the last half of his career.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 01:03 PM
  #89
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Off Sides View Post
I agree there, was just trying to find a way to define what I see as the difference between awesomeness and what Nash showed which I see as a step below. I think he could be awesome with a little more (drive, determination, situation, etc) I just have not seen it(one playoffs) and I think that was sort of the Columbus fan's view as well.
I agree, it was definitely the view in Columbus, but I think they fell into the habit of blaming Nash for the downfalls of the organization. But to be fair they lacked a lot of key components over the years.

It's no surprise the team actually performed better one he left, it was a culture change and they definitely needed it. It isn't a player's fault when an organization puts them in a pedestal and says this is our guy, this is how we win. It's a bad move though because it takes the emphasis away from the team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
If anything, I think it has more to do with him being a player that fell into bad habits in Columbus.

He needs to work at getting better with the puck along the boards/in the trenches. In bigger games, theres simply not enough room out there to do the dazzling things on the rush that hes capable of.

The coaching staff should sit him in a chair and show him a highlight real of Jagr from the past 10 years. Jagr was a guy who also wasn't outwardly playing with emotion, but he became one of the better board players in the last half of his career.
Jagr was always the guy that you wanted on the ice in the last few minutes when you were down, he was also a guy who could score at will a lot of nights. Nash certainly doesn't have that ability yet, but it could be there, he needs to learn the game outside of Columbus. Which isn't a knock against Columbus I just don't think coming in at a young age and being the guy was the best move for him. Jagr had Lemiuex and some other very good players to learn from.

I'm excited to see what AV can get out of Nash considering what he did with the Sedins, Kesler, and a few others.

Nash has been labeled as a self centered player, I just don't think it's a fair label. I think he was asked to be that player and with his level if talent it was a role that came naturally from an early age. I think he's actually low maintenance and contrary popular belief would rather his team do well than him personally.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 02:12 PM
  #90
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Yes, Im sure thats how it is for the vast majority of sports fans. Problem is, the vast majority of sports fans are dolts.

You're a better fan than that, so thats why Im surprised you're perpetuating this stuff know that Nash is a very very good hockey player in general.
Players in all sports are judged more by what they do in the playoffs than the regular season...even though the sample size is much smaller. That goes for smart fans, and dolts like me.

Nick Swisher was vilified on the airwaves because nobody cared that he hit 36 regular season homeruns last year...it was yet another playoff failure (no homers in the small sample size of 30 at bats, with a .167 batting average) that did him in. Even the smart fans were not happy.

There are MANY more examples.

I never said Nash was not a very good hockey player. It was Barbara Underhill who was tripping over herself trying to make sure we all label him a 'star', but not a 'superstar', trying to lower expectations I suppose. I think Nash played really well in the regular season...but that's not good enough in the NHL.

I'm hoping Nash makes this discussion moot a year from now with a really strong playoff effort.


Last edited by Jersey Girl: 09-06-2013 at 02:17 PM.
Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-06-2013, 04:48 PM
  #91
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,585
vCash: 500
M.Hossa is a player who similarly who put up good #s in the regular season but couldn't carry his play into the playoffs until much later in career until he got support.

Nash needs help. As good as he is we need more offensive output from others.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2013, 12:02 AM
  #92
davidbklyn
Registered User
 
davidbklyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 1,755
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
Hmm ok, well like I said multiple other times it was hyperbolic as in an exaggeration, and to be taken lightly. There are CBJ fans out there that have said it, and it got brought into a discussion on our board, and has been tossed around semi regularly not to mention I saw it a multitude of times last year. So sorry, not sorry.
Gee, forgive me for taking exception to the liberties you're taking in voicing the dispositions of fans of a team you don't even follow (and so we're clear, I'm not really asking you to forgive me). Look, if you're going to represent another fan base and butcher it while you're at it, you should expect a little pushback. So thanks, but no thanks.


Quote:
When there is a false perception of a player then it's something that I feel is a suitable topic for a hockey forum, I'm sorry you disagree. It was nothing more than to see if that claim held any water or not. So I'll decide what I want to spend my time looking into, if that's alright.
It's perfectly fine, you do what you want. And when there is a false perception of a team's fans, I feel it's a suitable axe to grind in a hockey forum.

Quote:
You're obviously a little sour, and I'm sorry if I had a part to play in that, but you really shouldn't take everything you read on the internet so serious.
See the first part of this response re: my sourness. And don't worry, I don't take you very seriously. But, since you offered me some advice, I'll return the favor: you really shouldn't be so pedantic on the internet.

Quote:
Oh and I gave you an example several posts ago, not going to do it again. I've asked you a multitude of questions, and made claims that you haven't addressed or refuted so it's really turned into a waste of time to respond. Especially considering you've ignored what I said multiple times about the first line of the OP, which in the end is your problem. I offered you an explanation and in the end agree to disagree on everything else.
We are clearly talking past each other, but I have a feeling you do that to a lot of people; there are plenty of examples in this thread alone. As to your explanation for the first post, I haven't ignored it, but your paying lip service to the chauvinism of blithely misrepresenting another fan base doesn't get you off the hook. You have even in recent posts assigned motives to CBJ fans when in fact you know nothing about such things. You can continue you palaver about Rick Nash, but don't be surprised that some of the things you're saying, which are boneheaded, are called out.

As far as Rick Nash goes, I have no idea about how many of his goals are meaningless. But I will repeat what I have said before: if your team is playing soft, talented players are underperforming, and the coach has been fired... you better check to see if Rick Nash is on the roster.

I'm going to leave it at that because, again, we're talking past each other. Also, this is the Rangers fans' board, and your fellow fans have been more gracious than you in indulging some guy talking about CBJ fans

davidbklyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2013, 12:17 AM
  #93
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Eh, whatever bud. You had an issue, I explained myself and you still took exception at which point it isn't really my fault any more as I don't control your feelings. Which isn't a great way to get me to listen to you, and as far as any other poster you thought I talked past it's for a similar reason.

As far as blaming Nash for all of this teams issues last year, I highly doubt he had much of anything to do with it. Once again that's you clinging to your perception of him in CBJ. Which is fine, I mean why not, there isn't any possible way people can change right?

I won't speak to all CBJ fans because I've actually had some decent conversations with several of them, but there are a few that seem to defend Columbus from any sort of criticism that doesn't follow certain guidelines, things like Brassard is a bad player with a bad attitude and Nash is a prima donna. Probably pointless to say that, since you'll deny any Columbus fan saying that and just claim that I have no clue what I'm talking about. Maybe a bunch of people registered for HF around the time of the Nash trade rumors claiming to be Columbus fans just to say all those things I referenced earlier in the thread? IDK the internet can be a crazy place.


Last edited by Barbara Underhill: 09-07-2013 at 12:34 AM.
Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2013, 03:34 AM
  #94
Fanned On It
Registered User
 
Fanned On It's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 1,844
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kel Varnsen View Post
Well excuse me, I didn't realize HF board poster Barbara Underhill refuses to recognize the fairly common hockey label "dangler". I should have known better. But it's clearly the best designation for Nash. Power Forwards use POWER. Nash really doesn't. He dangles and dekes, he doesn't run people over and out muscle them anywhere on the ice. He's got a big body, but that doesn't automatically make him a physical player or a power forward. The closest label for him we got, the one that fits him 100%, is dangler.
Nobody outside of EA NHL players and some people on this forum uses the word "dangler" to describe players. I have never heard an NHL analyst on TV or the radio use that descriptor. It just sounds funny lol.

But I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you about Nash not using power to get to the net. I feel like, while he doesn't run people over, he uses a combination of slick hands and the power of his body to get to the net and score.

Not in the playoffs unfortunately.

Fanned On It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-08-2013, 05:46 PM
  #95
OrbitalDynamics
Ants? Solid Plan.
 
OrbitalDynamics's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Stalag Luft LGA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,983
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
Nash needs help. As good as he is we need more offensive output from others.
Crux of the issue right there.Expecting him to saddle up, throw the team on his back and forge ahead deep into the playofs is unrealistic.He didn't do it in CMH,why would you expect it here?

If goals were water, last year's team would have had a hard time locating the ocean at the beach.

Last year is last year, let it go FFS, it's getting old.

OrbitalDynamics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 01:17 PM
  #96
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
As far as blaming Nash for all of this teams issues last year, I highly doubt he had much of anything to do with it.
You highly doubt Nash had much of anything to do with it? What knowledge base are you coming from to make that determination?

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 03:33 PM
  #97
JohnC
#FreeSteve
 
JohnC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,525
vCash: 500
I heard Nash broke Gaborik's body and punched Richards in the brain

JohnC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 04:25 PM
  #98
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
You highly doubt Nash had much of anything to do with it? What knowledge base are you coming from to make that determination?
Common sense dictates that by being one of the most productive players on the team he can't really have been the reason for scoring woes. He also didn't cause Richards and Gaborik to slump, or injure any of his own teammates. Which is a bulk of the problems we had last year.

As far as Torts getting fired, seems hard to believe that Nash had that much pull after a 48 game season to convince his teammates to turn on him and get him fired. Especially considering it was obvious from the first month of the season that the team was tuning him out and not all was perfect in Ranger land.

It's all coincidental, yet people are going to read way deeper into it than necessary to come up with some reason to blame a player they dislike.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 07:06 PM
  #99
thebus2288
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 597
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
I agree, it was definitely the view in Columbus, but I think they fell into the habit of blaming Nash for the downfalls of the organization. But to be fair they lacked a lot of key components over the years.

It's no surprise the team actually performed better one he left, it was a culture change and they definitely needed it. It isn't a player's fault when an organization puts them in a pedestal and says this is our guy, this is how we win. It's a bad move though because it takes the emphasis away from the team.
Ha. After all the little jabs at the CBJ and the stuff you have to say that's just completely wrong you finally got some things right. You pretty much prove that YOUR argument is wrong. YOU and some others say he fell into bad habits(that YOU say don't exist) playing for Columbus for so long. Then you say we're wrong for putting any blame on Nash for the downfalls because we lacked key components(DEPTH!?!..HEART!?!) that we got in return for...RICK NASH. Then, you say it's no surprise the team did better without him. That's says it all right there. For all those who say Nash has been held back by Columbus it can just as easily be SEEN that they were actually being held back by him. It being pure salary based or the fact they we're being "led" by that type of player its still on him.

Dude was a primary reason I started rooting for the CBJ and 1 of if not my favorite players up until people like you turned it into a Nash vs. Columbus thing. Even after a short year some of the Ranger fans are realizing what he is, while others like you are still in denial based on hope of what YOU think he can become. He's a good player, but he's soft and nowhere near a leader. These powerful moves you talk about driving to the net are against the Kris Russell and Erik Karlssons of the NHL.

Enjoy that decent near PPG season. Because I know myself along with every other CBJ fan likes our chances with Artem and Duby. Hitch and Torts are 2 of the more demanding coaches still in the league. The other thing they have in common is not a coincidence.

thebus2288 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 09:09 PM
  #100
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,120
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebus2288 View Post
Ha. After all the little jabs at the CBJ and the stuff you have to say that's just completely wrong you finally got some things right. You pretty much prove that YOUR argument is wrong. YOU and some others say he fell into bad habits(that YOU say don't exist) playing for Columbus for so long. Then you say we're wrong for putting any blame on Nash for the downfalls because we lacked key components(DEPTH!?!..HEART!?!) that we got in return for...RICK NASH. Then, you say it's no surprise the team did better without him. That's says it all right there. For all those who say Nash has been held back by Columbus it can just as easily be SEEN that they were actually being held back by him. It being pure salary based or the fact they we're being "led" by that type of player its still on him.

Dude was a primary reason I started rooting for the CBJ and 1 of if not my favorite players up until people like you turned it into a Nash vs. Columbus thing. Even after a short year some of the Ranger fans are realizing what he is, while others like you are still in denial based on hope of what YOU think he can become. He's a good player, but he's soft and nowhere near a leader. These powerful moves you talk about driving to the net are against the Kris Russell and Erik Karlssons of the NHL.

Enjoy that decent near PPG season. Because I know myself along with every other CBJ fan likes our chances with Artem and Duby. Hitch and Torts are 2 of the more demanding coaches still in the league. The other thing they have in common is not a coincidence.
That or you could realize all those factors play a part in the grand scheme of things. A team that lacked depth and heart got three solid players in exchange for one and improved? You don't say?

We improved when we moved Gaborik for three solid players, so that right there kind of proves the point. Dorse is the only "heart and soul" guy we got, and he didn't even play for us for what six weeks. Your roster was weak, after the Nash trade it wasn't as weak. I really don't see how that can be denied.

We'll never agree and that's fine, I find it funny that you guys keep saying CBJ fans never said that, as if you have read every post by every CBJ fan. We all know their are outliers in each fan base, I explained myself half a dozen times and it's getting kind of old. See you guys this upcoming season.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 04:51 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.