Rick Nash

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steve Kournianos

@thedraftanalyst
Its the lockout. People came back out of shape and out of sync.

This is somewhat true for the big names.

If you use 1995 as an example:

Yzerman went from 1.41 PPG in 1994 to 0.81 PPG
Shanahan went from 1.26 to 0.91 PPG
Brindamour went from 1.15 to 0.81
Roenick went from 1.27 to 1.03
Gilmour went from 1.34 to 0.75
Bure went from 1.41 to 0.98
Gretzky went from 1.60 to 1.00


Look at those names -- Hart/Ross finalists, postseason all stars. Some of those guys (like Gilmour and Roenick) played overseas during the lockout.


Pro athletes, especially the veteran guys, are so regimented and particular. I dont know what Richards' offseason regiment is/was, but this is the second year in a row where he's been invisible for the first 40 or so games.

How the hell do you forget to pass the puck? That takes no physical strength. Thats why guys like Oates and Larionov and Messier and Francis played into their 40s.
 

*Bob Richards*

Guest
But couldn't you counter that with 2005-06 which had more goals in NHL history than any prior season?
 

cbjgirl

Just thinking
Jan 19, 2006
3,681
272
about last summer.
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.

Not to stir this back up again too much...

Nash was the best player and was also the longest tenured.

The problem was multifaceted:
1. The younger skill guys (i.e., Brassard and Voracek) would almost always defer to Rick. Meaning, if they were coming down the ice on a 3 on 2 or 2 on 1, Nash would end up with the puck since the others would pass it to him all the time.

1b. Other teams were well aware of issue #1, "you stop Nash, you stop the Blue Jackets" and would focus all their attention on Nash.

2. Older guys who were brought in to be "leaders" (i.e. Chris Clark, Ethan Moreau) didn't want to step on toes when brought into a new situation.

3. Doug MacLean seemed to neuter anyone with an opinion and gut the team of older players that could have been very good mentors. (i.e. Fedorov (made a comment to the media about Nash and Zherdev then got chewed out and decided to keep his mouth shut from then on even though he was correct in his comment) and Luke Richardson)

4. Howson failed to recognize the value in certain players "glue guys" and traded them away or didn't resign them (i.e., Jody Shelley, Manny Malhotra, Mike Peca)

On all teams there needs to be a balance of skill and drive/heart. The CBJ had a bad balance last year. This year, what the team is lacking in skill (particularly finishing) it has the drive and heart in spades. It is rather like the first season where the entire team appears to have a chip on their collective shoulders. Last year's team would crumple at the first sign of adversity, not this year.

It is too bad that Huselius was hurt before 2011/2012. I think the combo of Huselius / Carter / Nash could have worked quite well, but we never got to see it.
 

Amazing Kreiderman

Registered User
Apr 11, 2011
44,878
40,422
I fail to see how Nash is the factor in either situation.

Nash was doing perfectly fine with Stepan and Hagelin but Torts insists on playing him with Gaborik and Richards... He just ignores the fact every player is neutralized playing with those 2. Is it also Nash' fault when Callahan, Kreider or Hagelin play bad with those 2? He had a run where he had a point-streak of 11 or 12 games. The last time Gaborik and Richards were valuable for us was last season.
 

Richter Scale

Registered User
Aug 4, 2012
1,393
0
How the hell do you forget to pass the puck? That takes no physical strength.

I am by no means going to defend Richards, but uh, what? He didn't just "forget"... Comments like these just scream out that the poster either has never played the game or, if so, somehow lacks a basic hockey knowledge/understanding of what it takes to play. The first thing I'll say is that he hasn't just "forgotten." The second is that the physical strength of a player - in terms of just being in shape for the season - impacts the cerebral/skill aspects of the game more than people may realize.

A lot of the more fundamental parts of the sport don't necessarily require "physical strength" - like passing, stickhandling, positioning - but are things that can be pretty heavily impacted by an extended period of time off. They are parts of the game that - especially to play at a high level - you need to be in "game shape" to execute properly. By "game shape," I mean that they all come instinctively; you aren't taking the extra half second to think about what you're doing; you are able to see the ice, react quickly and make smart decisions; and need to have your timing synced with the pace of the game. Many of those things are like riding a bike, in that you don't truly "forget" how to do them -- but they are all things that can be thrown off if you haven't played a game in months or are second guessing yourself (practices don't count; no matter how hard the coach may try to make them resemble a game scenario, they simply won't be the same pace as a game or involve as many moving pieces). And any of those things being thrown off just a little bit can mean big problems at the NHL level.

So I don't think to characterize his failures in these areas as "forgetting" is really very accurate... It isn't like he just "forgot" these skills and they will never come back -- it has to do with his failure to be prepared for the season, which has been compounded either by becoming a mental-case during his slump, a lack of heart, effort, motivation, or some combination. This is abundantly clear at this point.

Richards didn't play any games during the lockout, just sat on his butt on vacation. Of course he's going to be a few steps behind a lot of the guys who did - this was foreseeable; too bad not by Richie himself... He started the first half of last season slowly as well (if this becomes a theme, color me unimpressed with his dedication in the offseason). He did end up turning it around somewhat - so I'm not writing him off yet. But that said, it's been 31 games. Dude needs to figure his **** out at some point. Obviously, we all would have hoped Richards would have gotten it together by now - he's had plenty of games to get back in game shape. But at this point I'm seeing his issues stemming from more than just his timing and hockey sense being off... he's slower, lacking the physical strength to get into areas of the ice he needs to be able to get (and no I'm not necessarily just talking about board work), and not showing the kind of effort or heart that you'd like to see out of a guy being paid $6.7 mil per year and who is wearing an 'A'. If he is too slow on his skates to keep up with the pace of the game, his passing, puck possession, and positioning will inherently suffer. The same goes for if he isn't strong on the puck. Those things are 100 % on him.

From a playmaking center like Richards, if you are both physically out of shape and haven't gotten your mental game/timing back yet, that spells disaster. And that is what we're seeing.



To try to get this back on topic... with how this relates to Nash...

If you have Richie and Gabby sucking, a black hole of a bottom 6, and a defense that can't consistently produce offense, the opposing team's defense needs to shutdown a total of 4 forwards (really only one line). That is not exactly going to stretch even the worst teams' defenses, and means Nash becomes the focus like he was on CBJ. Despite this, I think he's done a very good job for us this year.
 

Bleed Ranger Blue

Registered User
Jul 18, 2006
19,799
1,811
Nash was doing perfectly fine with Stepan and Hagelin but Torts insists on playing him with Gaborik and Richards... He just ignores the fact every player is neutralized playing with those 2. Is it also Nash' fault when Callahan, Kreider or Hagelin play bad with those 2? He had a run where he had a point-streak of 11 or 12 games. The last time Gaborik and Richards were valuable for us was last season.

Getting Richards and Gaborik going is paramount to any sort of success this season, period.

I totally dont mind giving them the benefit of playing with Nash to see if he can be a sparkplug for 2 guys that have solid track records of performance -- especially considering the Hagelin/Stepan/Callahan line has been doing alright.

I dont get what you're advocating at all. If you leave Richards and Gaborik out there continuing to drown, the team goes nowhere.
 

a tribe cq

That’s just like…your opinion man.
Jan 15, 2013
1,350
418
I dont know what Richards' offseason regiment is/was, but this is the second year in a row where he's been invisible for the first 40 or so games.

if collabing on a clothing line is considered a regiment, then he did a great job with it
 

Gospel of Prospal

America's Team
May 29, 2010
11,400
11,728
New York City
So where are all the haters now? Those who clamor for Anisimov, Dubinsky, Erixon and Audy-Marchessault (just including him for argument's sake). Those who regret doing the deal. Where are you now?

Nash is our best offensive player BY FAR and none of the four players and their future first round pick will be better than Nash.
 

jay from jersey

Registered User
Jan 30, 2008
5,953
4,190
everyone

would love the trade more if we spent a little more money to sign prust mitchell and feds. would have lessened the blow. prust being the major one.
 

LaffyTaffyNYR

Registered User
Feb 25, 2012
17,113
2,662
would love the trade more if we spent a little more money to sign prust mitchell and feds. would have lessened the blow. prust being the major one.

last I looked, we still have cap space and theoretically could have fit Prust in. the Nash trade wasn't why we dont have him, its because the Rangers didnt think he meant that much.
 

*Bob Richards*

Guest
Not re-signing Prust looks bad in Hindsight.

He really wasn't that good last season. His offense sucked and it was a disappointing year after his excellent 2011 season. Most of us understood the decision to let him walk when he signed that contract. Just too high.
 

LaffyTaffyNYR

Registered User
Feb 25, 2012
17,113
2,662
Not re-signing Prust looks bad in Hindsight.

He really wasn't that good last season. His offense sucked and it was a disappointing year after his excellent 2011 season. Most of us understood the decision to let him walk when he signed that contract. Just too high.

What is he making?? Pyatt is making 1.6......
 

*Bob Richards*

Guest
what? how.. Is that who we brought in to take Prust's spot?

You can't single him out. There are a number of players we brought into to remap the bottom 6. It's irrelevant because this is the Rick Nash thread.
 

trilobyte

Regulated User
Dec 9, 2008
25,714
3,895
RangersTown
I liked seeing Nash get gratification tonight. Not that I know, but I think a game like tonight's blew some cobwebs out of his head.
He gets frustrated, and too many games in a row where he is frustrated means he blows his stack a bit, takes penalties. I don't want to blow it up out of proportioin, but I see how Rick can get PO'd and be less of a threat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad