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

Rick Nash Part II

View Poll Results: Do you want to get rid of Rick Nash?
Yes 153 65.95%
No 79 34.05%
Voters: 232. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-06-2014, 03:19 AM
  #51
Swept In Seven
Disciple of The Zook
 
Swept In Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9,658
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamitter View Post
If anything, he's playing too conservatively defensively. He's not exactly a very fast guy, or hasn't been this season. He used to cheat to get breakaways. He hasn't done that once these playoffs. He occasionally plays a little more aggressively on the PK than others, but thats it. He has been the first man back on the backcheck consistently.

I'm not seeing a lack of effort level here.
Have to disagree about the "fast" s tatement, he is one of our faster players and you can see it when he goes on the forecheck or coming back on the backcheck. I do agree that he is playing to tentatively and avoiding taking risks. He doesn't fly the zone early or look to go on the transition.

I think he is playing too safe to be at his most effective

Swept In Seven is offline  
Old
06-06-2014, 05:56 AM
  #52
TeamStewie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 346
vCash: 500
Callahan would've done the same things for a couple of million less. He needs to score.

TeamStewie is offline  
Old
06-06-2014, 06:08 AM
  #53
iamitter
Thornton's Hen
 
iamitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swept In Seven View Post
Have to disagree about the "fast" s tatement, he is one of our faster players and you can see it when he goes on the forecheck or coming back on the backcheck. I do agree that he is playing to tentatively and avoiding taking risks. He doesn't fly the zone early or look to go on the transition.

I think he is playing too safe to be at his most effective
He's not slow, but he hasn't blown past anyone this post season and barely this season. He used to be at his most effective on the rush, driving to the net. He very rarely does that now.

iamitter is offline  
Old
06-06-2014, 07:21 AM
  #54
mandiblesofdoom
Registered User
 
mandiblesofdoom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 890
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDonaghisGod View Post
I think he's in horrible shape. Seems to have lost much of his former speed. Falls down way too much. Makes horrible decisions with puck on his stick. The dynamic player that we saw in Columbus seems to be distant memory. It's a shame because we could really use that guy in this series.
I've been wondering, does the falling down have to do with the concussions? He surely does fall down a lot. It makes him look on the old side.

mandiblesofdoom is offline  
Old
06-06-2014, 08:25 AM
  #55
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 9,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianBoyle View Post
No, no, and no. His effort level is perfectly fine. Kreider was talking in an interview from not too long ago about how much Nash busts his ass out there, and I see absolutely no signs of him giving a lackluster effort. His awareness is what offends me at times. He makes some awful reads.



Except he does cycle effectively, and he controls the puck when on the ice more that his opponents do, and that's playing against top lines.



If you think controlling possession against other teams best players (while still throwing some points in there) is "doing nothing", I don't know what to tell you.

Yes, his goal total is disappointing. No, his overall play is not. If anything, his play, overall, is as well rounded as I've ever seen it.
well rounded ? the guy should dominate opponents. he should dominate shifts. dominate periods. dominate games. he has that talent. hes big and strong and a force but he doesnt do any of that.

you are setting the bar very low with your statements. this team cannot afford its highest paid players to be muckers and grinders. didnt we learn that already ?

rick nash is an elite 1st line power forward. or atleast thats what i hear..... dude needs to score and he isnt. hes ne of the least productive players per ice time on the roster.

what you are describing is a 3rd line guy. didnt we run ryan callahan out of town for this kind of play ? (actually, he ran himself out of town for playing like and being a 3rd liner and asking to be paid like a 1st line guy.)

i have no problem with a player cycling, and looking like he busts it- i disagree there however, and being "rounded".

but this is rick nash.

he needs to be alot better.

offdacrossbar is offline  
Old
06-06-2014, 08:37 AM
  #56
Mr Clutch
Registered User
 
Mr Clutch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 373
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisKreider20 View Post
Nash, Stepan and Staal for Malkin?

I'd do it.
I would too...that would give us the cap room to resign stralman as well

Mr Clutch is offline  
Old
06-06-2014, 12:28 PM
  #57
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,818
vCash: 500
Why isn't AV playing Nash on the powerplay?


I'll never understand that. ...

NikC is offline  
Old
06-06-2014, 12:46 PM
  #58
Alvvays
I know u u cant sing
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 60,589
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
well rounded ? the guy should dominate opponents. he should dominate shifts. dominate periods. dominate games. he has that talent. hes big and strong and a force but he doesnt do any of that.

you are setting the bar very low with your statements. this team cannot afford its highest paid players to be muckers and grinders. didnt we learn that already ?

rick nash is an elite 1st line power forward. or atleast thats what i hear..... dude needs to score and he isnt. hes ne of the least productive players per ice time on the roster.

what you are describing is a 3rd line guy. didnt we run ryan callahan out of town for this kind of play ? (actually, he ran himself out of town for playing like and being a 3rd liner and asking to be paid like a 1st line guy.)

i have no problem with a player cycling, and looking like he busts it- i disagree there however, and being "rounded".

but this is rick nash.

he needs to be alot better.
He's dominating possession in these playoffs. He isn't even remotely comparable to what Callahan was for us.

He's tied for second among Rangers forwards (not counting Carcillo) in Corsi Relative, he's third among Rangers forwards in Corsi QoC, and he's second among Rangers forwards in Corsi Rel QoC (Kreider is first, having played in half the games that Nash has).

What does that tell us?

It tells us that he is controlling play when on the ice against the other team's best players, i.e, assisting in keeping the other team's offensive threats in check, big time, while still being a relative threat to score.

It isn't just the advanced stats that show that, either...I've seen with my own eyes that when Nash is on the ice, we tend to control the puck a lot more than the other team, and we generally seem to be in the offensive zone when he is on the ice.

As I said, yes, his offensive production is lacking...but that is basically the only issue with his game at the moment. I realize that it's probably the biggest part of his game, but it's not as if he's been a passenger - he really hasn't. He has absolutely contributed in getting this team to the finals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TeamStewie View Post
Callahan would've done the same things for a couple of million less. He needs to score.
Callahan wishes he was as effective a possession player as Nash.


Last edited by Alvvays: 06-06-2014 at 12:57 PM.
Alvvays is offline  
Old
06-06-2014, 12:55 PM
  #59
Aufheben
Global Moderator
 
Aufheben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 17,507
vCash: 69
Nash has been good since the ECF, I don't know what people are watching.

__________________



Aufheben is offline  
Old
06-06-2014, 01:48 PM
  #60
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
 
ReggieDunlop68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,718
vCash: 500
OMG!

People are star struck! I wanted Nash on this team, but this thread!

I don't think I've read neither this many apologies nor more sophisticated forms of reimagining for any player in Rangers history!

This includes the team's franchise player, Henrik Lundqvist.

ReggieDunlop68 is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 04:59 AM
  #61
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In my food garden.
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,710
vCash: 500
At this point, I don't know who should be bought out with the the last "free" buyout.

Richards contract ends @ 2019, Nash @ 2021. Advantage Richards.
Nash has a $7.8m cap hit, Richards a $6.66m cap hit. Advantage Richards.

I really don't know who you should buy out. Both are bad fits for this team, Richards because he is so incredibly slow, Nash because he is a two-way forward earning almost $8m, with not much offensive upside left apparently. At this point, Richards deserves his salary more than Nash and it's not like he can get much slower than this, although I'm very worried how much more he can detoriate with age.

I think I would buy out Nash ahead of Richards, but it's a very tough decision. I want to get rid of both, honestly.


Last edited by Chimp: 06-07-2014 at 05:05 AM.
Chimp is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:10 AM
  #62
17futurecap
Registered User
 
17futurecap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 7,397
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
At this point, I don't know who should be bought out with the the last "free" buyout.

Richards contract ends @ 2019, Nash @ 2021. Advantage Richards.
Nash has a $7.8m cap hit, Richards a $6.66m cap hit. Advantage Richards.

I really don't know who you should buy out. Both are bad fits for this team, Richards because he is so incredibly slow, Nash because he is a two-way forward earning almost $8m, with not much offensive upside left apparently. At this point, Richards deserves his salary more than Nash and it's not like he can get much slower than this, although I'm very worried how much more he can detoriate with age.

I think I would buy out Nash ahead of Richards, but it's a very tough decision. I want to get rid of both, honestly.
You have the contract end dates flipped, Nash has 4 years left, Richards has 6. Give me the soon to be 30 year old Nash over 34 year old Richards, even with the concussion concerns for Nash.

17futurecap is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 08:34 AM
  #63
OverTheCap
Registered User
 
OverTheCap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 10,045
vCash: 500
Even Sam Rosen said yesterday that Nash needs to do more, and he doesn't often criticize our own players.

Nash doesn't always make good decisions with the puck, i.e., he'll pass when he should shoot and hesitates off the rush. He'll have a few decent shifts and follow it up with a play that leaves you wondering "why in the world did he do that?" I think his play is acceptable for a secondary scorer/depth player, but that isn't enough considering Nash's skillset. I would expect someone like Boyle to routinely flub an odd man rush but that shouldn't be happening with Rick Nash.

OverTheCap is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 08:40 AM
  #64
ThisYearsModel
Registered User
 
ThisYearsModel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Country: United States
Posts: 7,555
vCash: 500
We have seen Nash long enough now. He is just not the same player since his concussions. He is what he is.........a guy who scores 3 playoff goals in 33 games. He is a $7.8MM penalty killer who can chip in 20 goals if teamed with good players. Why would anyone expect him to be any better? The test period has been plenty long enough. He is what his performance says he is. If he were the "old" Nash, the Rangers would win the cup.

ThisYearsModel is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 08:51 AM
  #65
Dactyl
stats are pure CRAP
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bofflol
Country: United States
Posts: 17,549
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisYearsModel View Post
We have seen Nash long enough now. He is just not the same player since his concussions. He is what he is.........a guy who scores 3 playoff goals in 33 games. He is a $7.8MM penalty killer who can chip in 20 goals if teamed with good players. Why would anyone expect him to be any better? The test period has been plenty long enough. He is what his performance says he is. If he were the "old" Nash, the Rangers would win the cup.
How can you call him a penalty killer who chips in 20 goals when he's been on pace for 30+ practically every season of his career?

Dactyl is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 09:48 AM
  #66
corduroyg
Registered User
 
corduroyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: nyc
Posts: 272
vCash: 500
Call me crazy but I want more ice time for Nash. I want him on the pp. double shift him sometimes. We need him to score so play him more.

corduroyg is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 10:19 AM
  #67
TurgePurge*
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 340
vCash: 500
Saying you want Nash on the PP is easy. Problem is where do you play him. He's not a shooter or a quick puck mover. Our PP units like to dissect the PK with quick puck movement. Thats not Nash's game.

TurgePurge* is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 11:46 AM
  #68
Alvvays
I know u u cant sing
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 60,589
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimp View Post
At this point, I don't know who should be bought out with the the last "free" buyout.

Richards contract ends @ 2019, Nash @ 2021. Advantage Richards.
Nash has a $7.8m cap hit, Richards a $6.66m cap hit. Advantage Richards.

I really don't know who you should buy out. Both are bad fits for this team, Richards because he is so incredibly slow, Nash because he is a two-way forward earning almost $8m, with not much offensive upside left apparently. At this point, Richards deserves his salary more than Nash and it's not like he can get much slower than this, although I'm very worried how much more he can detoriate with age.

I think I would buy out Nash ahead of Richards, but it's a very tough decision. I want to get rid of both, honestly.
Well, first off, Nash's contract ends a year before Richards'. So this goes from hilariously off base to flat out wrong.

I had this thought to myself, actually...two series ago, down 3-1, when I and many others were irrational.

There is no question. Richards should be bought out, not Nash. Nash is younger, better, and his contract runs out sooner.

Alvvays is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 12:16 PM
  #69
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,949
vCash: 500
I think Nash was good in G1 against LAK. He was one of our better forwards in the first half, and created a lot of chances where he couldn't get the puck through traffic. I wonder how close some of those where, he put the puck in the right areas and I don't think Quick would have had all of them, but pucks aren't going through for him and its hard to tell from the TV.

Ola is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 12:17 PM
  #70
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,949
vCash: 500
One thing though, and I know this will be called out as an "excuse" or whatever, but I don't care, I still think the -- major -- problem with our top line is that they are playing infront of a D pairing that all season has provided them with ZERO offensive punch.

Over our 113 games this year, I think you can count elite offensive plays by Stralsy and Staal on one hand. They combined for like 25 pts in 160 games during the regular season and is bascially on the same pace during the POs.

That is one thing that is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with this team, and I hate it because it wrecks so much. Look at LAK, look at the PITT series. A good defensive team will just shut down a scoring line that is -- not -- a scoring "unit", ie involves and is backed up by D's that is able to open things up. And the only time we have scored some goals, its when McD has stepped up and filled that role.

When the defending team takes away the ice infront of the net -- what the **** is 3 forwards going to do on the ice? Yeah, you can pull a Pat Kane and skate 8 laps in the attacking zone and shot from the blueline. But we don't have a Pat Kane...

Slats need to get a PMD for this team.

Ola is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 02:53 PM
  #71
KingWantsCup
Grinch who stole...
 
KingWantsCup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 5,946
vCash: 350
Here's the bottom line. Nash has not been the player we've needed him to be for the vast majority of the playoffs. However we've managed to go far without him at the top of his game. This will not be the case against the Kings. You need everyone --especially your top guys-- firing on all cylinders. We will either win because of him or lose because of him. We can not win despite him.

KingWantsCup is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 03:12 PM
  #72
ltrangerfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,028
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingWantsCup View Post
Here's the bottom line. Nash has not been the player we've needed him to be for the vast majority of the playoffs. However we've managed to go far without him at the top of his game. This will not be the case against the Kings. You need everyone --especially your top guys-- firing on all cylinders. We will either win because of him or lose because of him. We can not win despite him.
+1 If Nash doesn't get it done this team is toast.

Todo, We ain't in Montreal anymore.

ltrangerfan is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:16 PM
  #73
Mooch9782*
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 6
vCash: 500
To all of those defending Nash as playing solid in all other areas of the ice (to include the "experts" on sports shows that watch maybe 10 Rangers games a year tops) I pose a simple question: Is their a single player on this team that is playing worse or more worthless than Rick "No-Show" Nash?

The fact that our superstar turd is playing a solid game, much similar to a Blair Betts type, does not change the fact that he looks like he is scared to touch the puck or play the game. Concussions, playoffs, soft pillowlike personality - whatever, he is not "New York". Send his soft ass back to a soft ass city like Columbus, Florida, etc....

Mooch9782* is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 05:52 PM
  #74
Alvvays
I know u u cant sing
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 60,589
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooch9782 View Post
To all of those defending Nash as playing solid in all other areas of the ice (to include the "experts" on sports shows that watch maybe 10 Rangers games a year tops) I pose a simple question: Is their a single player on this team that is playing worse or more worthless than Rick "No-Show" Nash?

The fact that our superstar turd is playing a solid game, much similar to a Blair Betts type, does not change the fact that he looks like he is scared to touch the puck or play the game. Concussions, playoffs, soft pillowlike personality - whatever, he is not "New York". Send his soft ass back to a soft ass city like Columbus, Florida, etc....
Great, well informed post! Lots of factual evidence here. I especially love terms like "superstar turd" and "soft pillow like personality", because those are cool and smart!

Alvvays is offline  
Old
06-07-2014, 07:51 PM
  #75
redgrant
Registered User
 
redgrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,670
vCash: 500
Nash is beyond worthless. Hes not getting a gazillion dollars for intangibles.

redgrant 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 07:34 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.