ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
Correction...
Most people who are frustrated with Rick Nash feel that way in the playoffs, which is generally supported by fancy stats as well as the good ol' eye.
Dan Girardi: Part III
- Thread starter Megustaelhockey
- Start date
- Status
Correction...
Most people who are frustrated with Rick Nash feel that way in the playoffs, which is generally supported by fancy stats as well as the good ol' eye.
ReggieDunlop68
hey hanrahan!
How is he poorly affecting the team? What are we lacking when AV plays him in this role? What would occur if he were moved to a different role?
I keep hearing how he is total ass. If he is ass, then there should be a drastic improvement in our play if he were used properly. What would that be?
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
I don't know how a team with Rick Nash getting premier minutes could make to the SCF and ECF back to back if he wasn't good in the playoffs. AV continues to play him and use him in critical situations. I'll trust my eyes and the coach over you. You really expect me to believe this team could be this successful with a guy getting those minutes not contributing?
Yeah, real likely! Get out of town Charlie Brown!
Two very different arguments there.
Nobody is calling Rick Nash a marginal NHLer. I think we can all agree as a fan base we are content with Nash during the regular season. It's when the playoffs get here and the games get big he just for whatever reason doesn't play the same. It has to be a mental thing.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
How is this team's post-season success possible with Rick Nash on the top line, but not contributing? They should be exiting in the first round. He's an important goal scorer.
Good defensively? Sure
Good as in scores big goals which was the whole point in acquiring him. No
Anyway this isn't the Nash thread so I'm not sure why you are bringing him up here.
Who only scored 1 important goal in the whole run. Are you starting to see why fans get on Nash come April?
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
It's not always about goal scoring. You can't just look at someone's goals scored without context. Is goal scoring the only way to play offense? I'm sure in an ideal world we would just have 4 lines of guys who can score big goals, but sometimes you need support guys who are steady in the offensive zone and keep it simple.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
If he only scored one important goal, how could they possibly get to the SCF and ECF in back to back years?
silverfish
got perma'd
So Nash was successful because the team was successful?
Or are you being facetious and I completely missed it?
we want cup
Registered User
Stepan, Brassard, Kreider, McDonagh, Hagelin, Yandle, D. Boyle, etc. And previously there was B. Boyle, Stralman, St. Louis, Richards, et al.
I think the list looks a lot better like this:
Girardi is tied for the 21st highest cap-hit among NHL d-men.
I'm a Girardi defender on here, but I agree, I'd take most of them over him with the exception of Enstrom and a few others due to contracts or age (Campbell, Phaneuf, Chara). I'd rate Green, Niskanen, and Markov at a comparable but slightly higher value than G. Then again, some of those guys are the best in the world, and I would agree Girardi is overpaid a bit (although due to market conditions).
On a different note, and just curious: what are some other examples of players that are/were generally considered very good, but have poor advanced stats?
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
It's almost as if you were saying that it was possible, that the TEAM was able to make up for the premier goal scorers inability to score. It sounds to me like you're trying to say that despite Rick Nash not scoring, other people did which allowed the Rangers to advance further in to the playoffs.
It's almost as if you are saying that it is possible that teammates are able to cover up for the fact that someone getting crucial minutes might not be playing as well as someone in those minutes should.
It's almost as if you are implying that a defense partner, and all-world, elite, future hall of fame, franchise goaltender could play well enough to make up for Dan Girardi not being as good as most here believe he is.
It's almost as if team success cannot be attributed to an individual player.
Hmph...
Nah, that's crazy. I don't think so.
we want cup
Registered User
The difference is that Rick Nash has failed to make a sufficient impact on the scoresheet from game to game in every playoff season he's played. No matter who he's been put out with, or against, he has underachieved and failed to produce adequately by scoring goals. His defensive play and hard work have been evident and praiseworthy, and this year he chipped in some nice assists, but the Rangers need him to be consistently dangerous offensively.
Dan Girardi has consistently played against first and second line players from either the first or second pair since 2008 (mostly first pair). He's achieved good results much more often than not in that time. He's logged significant minutes playing with McDonagh, Staal, Rozsival, Fedor Tyutin, and probably a few others over the years. No matter who he gets put with or against, the results are solid.
As far as Lundqvist's impact, I love Hank as much as anybody, and think he's probably going to go down as one of the greatest Rangers ever, Cup or no. That being said, there is something to be said about the benefit an all world player like that gets from being with a franchise which has maintained a defensively steady team like the Rangers have. Hank's consistency is what sets him apart, and the team makes it easy for him to be consistent by being so themselves. Dan Girardi has been and is a significant player for this team in that capacity.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
Has Girardi made a significant impact defensively on the score-sheet? Can you demonstrate that without using team and goaltender statistics, wins, or team achievements?
The results are solid? He's achieved good results? Which ones? Again, can you demonstrate that without using any of the aforementioned categories? The results statistically say that no matter who he is put with the results are sub-par. He has consistently been deployed against some of the league's toughest competition, but yet, the results vary wildly from below average, to elite. There's nothing consistent about his results against his competition except that they all have a better chance of scoring when he is on the ice, and the only reason they don't always make the best of that chance is because of that all world goaltender whom you downplay in your next paragraph.
Henrik Lundqvist has no one to thank, Dan Girardi should be sending him thank you cards at every holiday, however. Defensively steady? Again, by what measure? Goals Against? Save Percentage? Wins/ROW? Playoff Success? Those are team and goaltender statistics. How can you demonstrate the defense is as steady as you are claiming? How "easy" were they making it on him during the 2012 run when they were collapsing, screening him, deflecting pucks, letting opposing defensemen rifle them from the points OVER AND OVER. Is that playing to the strength of an elite goaltender? Was that helping him win the Vezina?
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
The only thing more insulting to Henrik Lundqvist around here besides calling this defense elite or tops in the league, is trying to give any of them, especially Dan Girardi who has made his job more difficult than most over the years, credit for his incredible play and career.
Mac n Gs
Gorton plz
- Jan 17, 2014
- 22,594
- 12,928
He's one of our worst possession players playing some of the highest minutes on the team. AV unnecessarily sheltered Boyle and Yandle, who could alleviate G of some of his minutes. I never said he was ass either. He lacks the key ability to move the puck out of the zone...and he starts in the defensive zone an awful lot.
Right because he can do it all by himself right? Please.
Why don't you ask Lundqvist about what he thinks of his defenders, esp Dan Girardi.
What goaltender would take offense to giving his defenders some of the credit for their success? That is like a QB not giving his offensive line any credit for their success.
Of course Hank will give credit. He shouldn't though, it's mostly him doing the work.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
I would love to ask Lundqvist his honest opinion on many things, but why would he ever answer any question about his teammates and his success honestly? For being the player and person he is, he is fairly humble and modest. Not to mention he would never **** on his teammates, even if they did suck. He's a classy guy.
Also, saying they make it "easy" for him and he's been able to be so good because of the defenses he's had in front of him is not giving them some of the credit. It's insulting and insinuating that without the Rangers defense he wouldn't have had the elite career he has. Which is complete and total ********.
gap control excellent? he let's guy walk in so far! ovechkin did it twice in the eastern semis
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
I bet if you asked Lundqvist what makes him so good he'll also say his parents, coaches, friends, family, and of course the support of New York Rangers fans, the best franchise in the league to be a part of and to whom he owes so much. Without the fans none of this is possible.
Thank you Henrik, without me you'd probably be in the AHL.
Thank you Henrik, without me you'd probably be in the AHL.
Ail
Based and Rangerspilled.
- Status
