Best Overall Player: Nash V.S. Frolov
- Thread starter Hockey Moose
- Start date
- Status
The times I have seen Nash play I thought his style of play is similar to that of Todd Bertuzzi.(Correct me if I'm wrong because I have only seen him a few times) As for Frolov I have just about seen every game he's played and I'm very happy with his progress(although I think that his shot could use some improvement). He is good on both ends of the ice and that is very important on the Kings. Frolov has a rare combination of skills. He has size and is strong on the puck. He also has good puck handling and plays good defense. I might say a blend of Allison and Palffy. I think that Nash will be a great player but I would not trade Frolov for him. The way he stepped up his game after Palffy and Straka went down made tears come to my eyes(maybe a little exaggerated). So, I would say both will be great players but I would rather have Frolov on my team.
hockeyfan33 said:
The forsberg Folov comparaison is aguable, but forget about Bure and Nash.
BTW I hate earing poeple insinuate that unidimetial terific goal scorer are not usefull player.
I mean if you score 35 goal and that's all you can do, maybe.
But 50-60 or more goal is something special that can make a lot of thing forgiveble.
IMHO....
BTW Nash bring a lot of thing in the game, not only goals....
BJ21
Ok....
I know that number are not evrything, but that ca tell a lot.
Jus to figure out how some poeple can go with Frolov on that one, can you tell me how many G and Pts you see him put in in his top seasons?
BJ21
I know that number are not evrything, but that ca tell a lot.
Jus to figure out how some poeple can go with Frolov on that one, can you tell me how many G and Pts you see him put in in his top seasons?
BJ21
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
nash without a doubt, but the difference isn't as wide as many of you are making it out to be. frolov has stepped up just as nash had and are both doing well in their sophmore campaigns. now although nash is 2 years younger, i don't think that is definitive gorunds that he's going to be better.
now many of you also argue that frolov has more to work with then nash. now that can also bring in the question of whether or not frolov really ahs better teammates or he's made them better. cause frolov has been doing his best AFTER the big players went down to injuries. not to mention the kings barely have $20 million on the ice right now with stumpel sucking up almost $3 million!
now many of you also argue that frolov has more to work with then nash. now that can also bring in the question of whether or not frolov really ahs better teammates or he's made them better. cause frolov has been doing his best AFTER the big players went down to injuries. not to mention the kings barely have $20 million on the ice right now with stumpel sucking up almost $3 million!
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
Epsilon
#basta
hockeyfan33 said:
Good lord.
This is the same nonsense we have had to put up with vis a vis Kovalchuk vs. whoever (Heatley, Gaborik, Spezza, hell even Frolov himself at one point) and it's just as big a load of nonsense now as it was then.
Don't get me wrong, I like Alexander Frolov. And I mean really like him, as in I think he could potentially be a top 10 player in the NHL one day. But Rick Nash has more offensive skill than any U22 forward in the NHL save Ilya Kovalchuk, and the fact that he isn't as good defensively as Frolov right now means little when they are both relatively new to the league and Nash is a few years younger.
Also, while I despise these types of comparsions on general principle (the Kovalchuk = Bure, whoever he was getting compared against = Modano nonsense was as irritating as anything I can think of), this one is particularly laughable.
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2003
- 21,531
- 9,292
frolov's great and all, but nash is just unreal. there's a reason frolov was a 20th overall pick and nash was a 1st, and you can tell why when you watch them play.
ukyo
Registered User
Bruwinz20 said:
Yeesh. I'd definitely say Nash, but Frolov ain't exactly Rosie O'Donnell.
Based on the four head-to-head games between them that I've seen, I'd rather say:
Nash vs Frolov ~= Bertuzzi vs Modano
Legionnaire
Help On The Way
luongofan said:
Well I'm glad you can see into the future.
People have different opinions of what makes for a successful player; deal with it.
I got to see Frolov here in Columbus Wed. night, from close range (I'm usually up in the cheapies).
Pretty impressive. Big, w/good defensive presence. Nice moves, especially on the wrap-around (I was sitting right behind that goal, about 6 rows up). Good all-around player.
I'm not jumping into the comparison fray---Nash obviously will continue to develope parts of his game---but I just don't see the huge disparity between the two that some see.
Pretty impressive. Big, w/good defensive presence. Nice moves, especially on the wrap-around (I was sitting right behind that goal, about 6 rows up). Good all-around player.
I'm not jumping into the comparison fray---Nash obviously will continue to develope parts of his game---but I just don't see the huge disparity between the two that some see.
Dark Metamorphosis said:
Bad arguement I can provide many examples of players who were chosen after became better players. Also Nash was drafted two years after Frolov.
And if "you watch them play" you would know that Frolov was a huge steal at 20th overal.
Bruwinz20 said:
That's not realy accurate and you know it.
However if you wanna look at it that way then sure Britney is hotter BUT throughout their careers Rosie has made as much profit, if not more, then Britney.
:p
jacketracket said:
Thank you, exactly.
I love Nash and I love Frolov. I do think Nash is the better scorer and will continue to be the better scorer. But if the difference isn't as big as most people think it is.
zeppelin97
Registered User
Frolov will maybe be like a Lethinen with more offensive upside. I'm not sold on Frolov's offensive game, but he does have undeveloped potential. Possibly an offensive game as good as Yashin's (40g, 90pts).
I love Nash more, overall. He has the hands and quick feet of Hejduk but the size of a powerforward. He'll be a damn good leader, imo.
I love Nash more, overall. He has the hands and quick feet of Hejduk but the size of a powerforward. He'll be a damn good leader, imo.
Sting
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2004
- 7,910
- 2,908
There is no comparison whatsoever. Frolov is getting points because all the real good LA players are out. I'm not saying he's bad, but he's not a franchise/superstar. Nash is already a franchise player and he's 5000x better than Frolov will ever be imo. And I don't like Columbus 
No comparison
Yep, bad comparison. It's not even close.
Perhaps a who would you rather have, Nash or Kovalchuk, would have been a more equal thread.
Yep, bad comparison. It's not even close.
Perhaps a who would you rather have, Nash or Kovalchuk, would have been a more equal thread.
KingPurpleDinosaur
Bandwagon Kings Fan
Sting004 said:There is no comparison whatsoever. Frolov is getting points because all the real good LA players are out. I'm not saying he's bad, but he's not a franchise/superstar. Nash is already a franchise player and he's 5000x better than Frolov will ever be imo. And I don't like Columbus
frolov getting points because all real good LA players are out? i guess we can make the same argument for Nash. As for Nash being 5000x better then frolov will ever be, im not sure where you're gettin that either. You are way overstating Nash's qualities while understating Frolov's. Would I take Nash? in a heartbeat. but the differnce between the two players is not even close to how u'r describing it.
For me its a case of horses for courses. They are two TOTALLY different players. One is a pure goal scoring machine who is one of the top two or three at that discipline in the game. He is a handful in front of the net and young enough to develope some sort of defencive game but probably nothing more than average at best when it comes to it. Nash is a big strong sniper. A one demensional one at this point but a grand one.
Frolov played the first part of the season on the "energy line" (read 3rd liners at best) with naught for PP time and saw absolutely tons of PK time and still has a fantastic +/- at 15. For a young lad in his second year to be THE PK option for his team to have that big of a +/- is quite a feat and one that none other in the league has.
A couple of months ago he also started seeing legitimate time up front and now has 39 points to go with his +/- 15. He *rarely* gets set up for his goals meaning he has to do loads of his own work for them. Not that Nash does, just pointing out an observation for Frolovs skills.
Frolov plays a disciplined two way game. Is his teams leading PK forward. (right there) is one of the leagues top +/- players and is 3 points behind Nash in scoring.
Two grand young players who are both going to be very special. Nash has more raw skill and goal scoring talent then Frolov, Frolov has a significantly better all around game then Nash.
Like I said, it depends on what you need. If you need an all around LW who will get you points and play a smart game then it is Frolov, if you need a game breaking big tough goal scorer who is going to get you PP points then it is Nash.
These comparisons are rarely if ever truly thought out or fair as homeritist tends to take them over at one point or another. I would say that BOTH are the right answer.
Frolov played the first part of the season on the "energy line" (read 3rd liners at best) with naught for PP time and saw absolutely tons of PK time and still has a fantastic +/- at 15. For a young lad in his second year to be THE PK option for his team to have that big of a +/- is quite a feat and one that none other in the league has.
A couple of months ago he also started seeing legitimate time up front and now has 39 points to go with his +/- 15. He *rarely* gets set up for his goals meaning he has to do loads of his own work for them. Not that Nash does, just pointing out an observation for Frolovs skills.
Frolov plays a disciplined two way game. Is his teams leading PK forward. (right there) is one of the leagues top +/- players and is 3 points behind Nash in scoring.
Two grand young players who are both going to be very special. Nash has more raw skill and goal scoring talent then Frolov, Frolov has a significantly better all around game then Nash.
Like I said, it depends on what you need. If you need an all around LW who will get you points and play a smart game then it is Frolov, if you need a game breaking big tough goal scorer who is going to get you PP points then it is Nash.
These comparisons are rarely if ever truly thought out or fair as homeritist tends to take them over at one point or another. I would say that BOTH are the right answer.
Sting
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2004
- 7,910
- 2,908
KingPurpleDinosaur said:
No, we can't neccessarily make the same argument for Nash because unlike L.A., there are quite a few other talented forwards on that team that aren't injured. See the All-star game? Nash held his own in that, although it can't be considered a true game. Don't get me wrong, I think Frolov is a pretty good player, but he cannot be compared to Nash at all.
- Status
