HFBoards

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

Most of Nash's goals are meaningless...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-09-2013, 10:08 PM
  #101
Aufheben
Moderator
Crick Nash
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The jam must flow...
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,111
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
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.
There's no tunnel vision quite like internet forum tunnel vision.

Aufheben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 10:37 PM
  #102
thebus2288
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
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.
You seem to be the one that won't accept certain factors or look at the grand scheme of things. Hell, why'd you even feel the need to start this thread? The reason you needed to make the Gaborik trade is because you lost your depth in the original trade and Nash(as you hoped, or still believe) didn't make up for it. I don't know what point you proved by saying you improved after the 2nd trade, because you didn't after the 1st. I also don't know where your getting the thought that we're saying NOBODY has said he scores "meaningless" goals. We're actually in here(along with some NYR fans) TRYING to tell you this. Your very good(bad) at backtracking, changing your stance or subject, or just ignoring things overall.

The 1 guy said that what you were saying wasn't the majority feeling of the CBJ fans on Nash, while still saying negative(but justified) things about him. You responded essentially saying "People do say it!!". Yeah...we're saying it in here...right now. Maybe you should have started with saying the majority of hockey fans NOT Columbus fans. Believe me we heard lots of bad things about him when he was with us and for a long time a lot of us responded just like you. A NYR fan summed it up by saying something like "the big plays/goals seemed to happen a lot more early in the year against weaker defensive teams than it did later on when games were more important". I really don't see how that can be denied. No? It will not change, I'm sorry. And this is where the talk of "meaningless goals" comes from. You've explained yourself quite a bit but along with disagreeing with damn near all of it I don't even know what point your trying to prove anymore.

Wait, are you Aaron Johnson??

thebus2288 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 11:37 PM
  #103
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebus2288 View Post
You seem to be the one that won't accept certain factors or look at the grand scheme of things. Hell, why'd you even feel the need to start this thread?
Because it's a hockey discussion forum, specifically a NYR hockey discussion forum, and who does Rick Nash play for? Oh that's right the Rangers, and what team am I a fan of? That's right the Rangers. Did I see both CBJ and NYR fans make a claim that Nash scored a lot of "meaningless goals" or "garbage time"? Yes. Did I decide when I had spare time to spend a few hours dissecting that, purely out of curiosity? Yes. Is that my right? Yes.

Out of all the threads on HF it's funny two CBJ fans have come in here and deemed it completely unnecessary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebus2288 View Post
The reason you needed to make the Gaborik trade is because you lost your depth in the original trade and Nash(as you hoped, or still believe) didn't make up for it. I don't know what point you proved by saying you improved after the 2nd trade, because you didn't after the 1st. I also don't know where your getting the thought that we're saying NOBODY has said he scores "meaningless" goals. We're actually in here(along with some NYR fans) TRYING to tell you this.Your] very good(bad) at backtracking, changing your stance or subject, or just ignoring things overall.
The reason we needed to make the Gaborik trade is because Gaborik was playing poorly, Nash was playing very well and our team was underachieving, including but not limited to Brad Richards, and the depth guys we brought in to replace the depth guys we traded for Nash. The team was playing poor hockey from the get go, trust me I've watched them enough to know that it wasn't because Rick Nash was playing good hockey. Even Lundqvist wasn't playing at his best for a stretch, so we are going to blame that on Nash as well? He's one man, not a God even though that's what they tried to sell you in CBJ.

When did I change my stance on anything? I think it's been fairly clear since the beginning that I believe Nash is a good player, while not giving him a pass on everything. I am simply suggesting that possibly some people dislike him and have an axe to grind, both CBJ and NYR fans, and imagine that they are in this thread sharing their views and they sound strikingly similar, while more posters are actually giving him some benefit of the doubt.


Last edited by Barbara Underhill: 09-09-2013 at 11:47 PM.
Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2013, 11:48 PM
  #104
BBKers
Registered User
 
BBKers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South Koster, Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,604
vCash: 500
Send a message via Skype™ to BBKers
Most of life is meaningless.
What is the point?

BBKers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 12:07 AM
  #105
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBKers View Post
Most of life is meaningless.
What is the point?
To fill the time between the truly meaningful things.

Not my personal view as I think all of life has meaning, but this isn't the place for that topic haha.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 12:10 AM
  #106
thebus2288
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Michigan
Country: United States
Posts: 578
vCash: 500
The point is that if you have an opinion and claim that people feel a certain way or question WHY people feel a certain way, then you should be able to handle the fact that others will either disagree or at least explain their opinion on the subject.

Especially considering this thread was made in spite of those people.

thebus2288 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 12:37 AM
  #107
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebus2288 View Post
The point is that if you have an opinion and claim that people feel a certain way or question WHY people feel a certain way, then you should be able to handle the fact that others will either disagree or at least explain their opinion on the subject.

Especially considering this thread was made in spite of those people.
Thank you, except I handle people disagreeing just fine, just because I don't buy their BS and question it doesn't mean I can't handle it.

I don't know if you realize this but I've told several people that it's ok they have a different opinion and that I disagree which is also ok.

I'm not attempting to change anyone's opinion, I really don't care, but I have my own and believe strongly in my assessment of this team and Nash and won't sell myself short to appease anyone, specifically people whom have a clear negative bias towards a topic.

Also it wasn't made in spite of anything, that implies I'm a spiteful person which is false. It was made to look into a claim and see if said claim held any water. It's not as if I said "I made this thread to prove these ****ers wrong."


Last edited by Barbara Underhill: 09-10-2013 at 12:43 AM.
Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 08:13 AM
  #108
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
Thank you, except I handle people disagreeing just fine, just because I don't buy their BS and question it doesn't mean I can't handle it.

I don't know if you realize this but I've told several people that it's ok they have a different opinion and that I disagree which is also ok.

I'm not attempting to change anyone's opinion, I really don't care, but I have my own and believe strongly in my assessment of this team and Nash and won't sell myself short to appease anyone, specifically people whom have a clear negative bias towards a topic.

Also it wasn't made in spite of anything, that implies I'm a spiteful person which is false. It was made to look into a claim and see if said claim held any water. It's not as if I said "I made this thread to prove these ****ers wrong."
I'm going to have to agree with this post. I've disagreed with everything Barbara has stated in this thread, and in MY OPINION this is just an agenda for the poster to rationalize Nash's poor play and effort in their own mind.

That said, we've agreed it's just our personal opinions being stated here...nobody is right and nobody is wrong, and nobody's opinions holds any more weight than anybody else's.

If this poster wants to go on and think these things about Nash, there is no harm being done...it's only one person's opinion.

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 09:53 AM
  #109
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
I'm going to have to agree with this post. I've disagreed with everything Barbara has stated in this thread, and in MY OPINION this is just an agenda for the poster to rationalize Nash's poor play and effort in their own mind.

That said, we've agreed it's just our personal opinions being stated here...nobody is right and nobody is wrong, and nobody's opinions holds any more weight than anybody else's.

If this poster wants to go on and think these things about Nash, there is no harm being done...it's only one person's opinion.
Grrr. I admitted he needs to be better in the PO's...

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 05:42 PM
  #110
NYRangers723
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Nash can be streaky. When he is on his game he is pretty unstoppable. However he also has a string of games where he is invisible. I think this year will be a big year for him

NYRangers723 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 06:01 PM
  #111
GarretJoseph
Registered User
 
GarretJoseph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 7,548
vCash: 500
yes, goals are meaningless. It's not like you need goals to win or anything.

GarretJoseph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 09:41 PM
  #112
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufheben View Post
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.
I never said he didn't deserve to be there, I called it a joke that you want to attribute that medal to him in particular. My point was that if you swap Nash with someone else that team very well might go on to win it all anyway.

The reason for thinking about that that way is that generally the "Nash Rule" is that whatever team Nash is on is a loser. So we have one exception to that rule. Now this can mean one of two things. The rule is a bad rule, or there were some unique circumstances which were able to negate the rule in that instance. You contend the former, I contend the latter. There is way more evidence to back up my POV than your POV. It's far more likely your theory was a fluke than my theory was a fluke.

As for your new points, they're pretty bad sorry to say. Was Nash the only one who had to play in a shortened season? Then why is he the only one who gets to use it as an excuse to play like dog poop? Almost the entire team had a crappy postseason. Like Dick Cheney once famously said when confronted with the fact that almost everyone disagreed with him, "So?" Nash is supposed to be our BEST forward by far. Look at that contract, look at what we gave up to get him. He should be held to a HIGHER standard than the rest of our skaters, not the same or lower one. And it's a bit of a canard that the whole team sucked in the playoffs.

I've almost finished tearing apart your that point, but to finish let me bring in your next point and kill two birds with one stone. He has hardly any PO experience. Neither did Brassard and yet he was incredible in the playoffs. Down goes the whole team sucked argument as well as the lack of PO experience argument. Next.

He might have been injured. Yeah, no. He wasn't. Get over it. He said he wasn't, he hasn't had major surgery. The team hasn't said he was injured. He wasn't seen limping or in a cast or sling or brace. This is rationalization at its worst. Completely outside reality.

He's our only real goalscoring threat during the reg season as well. If he wasn't going to be able to be the only real goalscoring threat we might as well have never traded for him and just went in there with DEPTH! What's the point in trading for a selfish goalscorer who doesn't use his teammates if he can't score goals when he's the biggest threat?

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 11:13 PM
  #113
Aufheben
Moderator
Crick Nash
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The jam must flow...
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,111
vCash: 130
I've posted plenty of times that I have been, and am still 50/50 on the Nash trade. I'm just not gonna write him off after 1/2 a season with us. He had a great regular season, and a bad playoffs. I'm not sure that averages out to a crucifixion. You call him a loser, I point out a Gold medal, and you call it a fluke. So I agree to disagree.

Look at Kovalchuk and the Thrashers. He starts his career with an expansion team from the ground up. Selfish goalscorer, loser, etc. Joins Devils, adjusts his game to suit a team that doesn't perennially suck, and he plays a large part in getting the Devils past us and to the Finals.

Mention Stepan's playoff performances, and everyone agrees he needs to be better. Mention Nash's and people start losing it.


Last edited by Aufheben: 09-10-2013 at 11:42 PM.
Aufheben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 05:14 AM
  #114
Dactyl
Registered User
 
Dactyl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 6,993
vCash: 500
do people honestly believe that the trade is what killed us last year? if we had arty and dubi we would likely have been worse off. we were one of the worst offensive teams in the league before ripping apart terrible teams during the last few weeks. nash outscored both arty and dubi last year. would anyone really want less offensive skill and production on the team that we had last year?

what actually killed us is that richards and gaborik played like **** last year. the trade didnt deplete our depth, we let half of our bottom 6 go in the offseason. how is that nash's fault?

Dactyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 06:59 AM
  #115
Bullseyes
Registered User
 
Bullseyes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 2,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dactyl View Post
do people honestly believe that the trade is what killed us last year? if we had arty and dubi we would likely have been worse off. we were one of the worst offensive teams in the league before ripping apart terrible teams during the last few weeks. nash outscored both arty and dubi last year. would anyone really want less offensive skill and production on the team that we had last year?

what actually killed us is that richards and gaborik played like **** last year. the trade didnt deplete our depth, we let half of our bottom 6 go in the offseason. how is that nash's fault?
I think it's more like with the Nash trade, the Rangers lost the part of them that made them so good the year before - the hardworking, grind it out, etc. that they played that year. Dubinsky and AA played a big part of that.

Of course, what you said is very true. The way that Gaborik played and Richards played are significant factors in the regular season and post season. So is the way that Nash played in the post season, which needs to be better.

I'm still on the fence when it comes to the trade though. I guess we'll see.

Bullseyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 09:45 AM
  #116
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 373
We lost what 5 or six guys from that team that made that style of game successful, it isn't just the Nash trade it was letting certain UFA's go.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 11:06 AM
  #117
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
We lost what 5 or six guys from that team that made that style of game successful, it isn't just the Nash trade it was letting certain UFA's go.
Endless rationalizations to defend Nash...gotta love your dedication!

Jersey Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 11:29 AM
  #118
pete goegan
HFBoards Sponsor
 
pete goegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
... or so Columbus fans want you to believe.
Some Jackets fans have "jilted lover syndrome." Rick is a very, very good hockey player and an even better example of how to act as a "star." It will be a very long time before we see a talent his equal in Columbus. That said, he put in 9 tough years here and his time was up. I'm pleased with where the Jackets are now as a result of, among other things, our two trades with the Rangers. I'll always be a fan of Rick Nash and look forward to seeing him succeed in NYC. Just not when he plays Columbus!

pete goegan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 11:32 AM
  #119
Jim Ramsay
Registered User
 
Jim Ramsay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Warwick, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 487
vCash: 500
Loved the trade then and still do.. For a guy that tied for 10th in goals scored last season he seems to get a lot of flack around here.

There are people who will say we shouldn't have traded away some of the core, but honestly Dubinsky doesn't seem like he will be able recapture that offense he found early in his career and while he can provide some elements to a game he is not worth his price.... The few times I have seen Erixon play he seems extremely too soft to be a great top 4 defenseman.. Anisimov hurt the most for me but you have to give to get.

Jim Ramsay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 11:58 AM
  #120
Kel Varnsen
Below: Nash's Heart
 
Kel Varnsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,100
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dactyl View Post
do people honestly believe that the trade is what killed us last year? if we had arty and dubi we would likely have been worse off. we were one of the worst offensive teams in the league before ripping apart terrible teams during the last few weeks. nash outscored both arty and dubi last year. would anyone really want less offensive skill and production on the team that we had last year?

what actually killed us is that richards and gaborik played like **** last year. the trade didnt deplete our depth, we let half of our bottom 6 go in the offseason. how is that nash's fault?
2011-2012 we had a team that was better than the sum of its parts. How hard is that for you and your ilk to understand?

As for how the other loses are Nash's fault, well, I can think of 7.8 million reasons for that...

Kel Varnsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 12:04 PM
  #121
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey Girl View Post
Endless rationalizations to defend Nash...gotta love your dedication!
More like facts as to why our team wasn't the same. Love your ignorance in that regard.

Not everything has to do with Nash.

Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 12:23 PM
  #122
Aufheben
Moderator
Crick Nash
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The jam must flow...
Country: Angola
Posts: 10,111
vCash: 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
We lost what 5 or six guys from that team that made that style of game successful, it isn't just the Nash trade it was letting certain UFA's go.
You're fighting a losing battle I think.

Aufheben is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 12:51 PM
  #123
Barbara Underhill
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuke
 
Barbara Underhill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montana
Country: United States
Posts: 13,119
vCash: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufheben View Post
You're fighting a losing battle I think.
I know, and having my intelligence and sanity questioned in the process .

But just because I don't mind all of that, I'll continue to lay out facts for people to ignore.

Dubinsky and Anisimov had a combined hit of a little over 6m, by adding Nash we took on 1.8m.

Fedotenko, Prust, and Mitchell were also lost, however not because of Nash's added 1.8 unless you believe he called Prust and told him to ask for substantially more than he is worth, we also gave MDZ a raise so let's start blaming him as well.

The management thought it would be ok to let those three go and bring in Pyatt, Halpern, and Asham to replace them. Obviously that didn't work out as well as they thought it would.

Also, I have a two year old, so I fight losing battles on an hourly basis.


Last edited by Barbara Underhill: 09-11-2013 at 01:21 PM.
Barbara Underhill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 01:17 PM
  #124
SPG
Registered User
 
SPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Utica, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,898
vCash: 500
Aren't all goals meaningless for the Columbus BlueJackets?

SPG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2013, 01:33 PM
  #125
Jersey Girl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbara Underhill View Post
More like facts as to why our team wasn't the same. Love your ignorance in that regard.

Not everything has to do with Nash.
Rationalizations do tend to be based in fact...but sometimes not all the facts, just some of the facts spun in a way to further your argument.

Jersey Girl 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 02:19 PM.

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.