Player Discussion Nick Ritchie

[LSCII]

You obviously have something out for the guy when you call him a “clown”, “plug” and a “stiff”

How can I expect you to have a rational thought? Just admit you don’t like him and it’s not because “I just don’t want him in the top 6” (which I don’t either)

I call him a clown and a plug because they're fair descriptors. I have no ill will towards him any more than I did his brother, Backes or Beleskey before him. I just don't need to see the same movie 4 times to know it sucks.

 

[Sheppy]

Maybe. I look at how badly he's being misused though, and I don't see it getting any better. This is like when they kept forcing his brother up into the top 6. Or Backes before him. Or Beleskey before him. At some point, you have to give up the ghost of having DK play with a big physical winger because while Krejci has had success with that type of player, the guys he was successful with also could actually f***ing score. Ritchie is not Lucic, Horton, or Iginla. He's not even in the same realm.

So is he being misused or is it because he’s a clown, plug, or stiff? Point me in the direction.

I think he has a place on this team, and I agree, he’s not a second line player, neither is Kuhlman.

 

[Sheppy]

I call him a clown and a plug because they're fair descriptors. I have no ill will towards him any more than I did his brother, Backes or Beleskey before him. I just don't need to see the same movie 4 times to know it sucks.

When you’re calling someone a clown, plug and stiff and say he sucks, you absolutely have ill will towards them. You don’t like him, that’s fine. There’s a few players in this league I feel the same way about.

 

[LSCII]

When you’re calling someone a clown, plug and stiff and say he sucks, you absolutely have ill will towards them. You don’t like him, that’s fine. There’s a few players in this league I feel the same way about.

So clown was a little hyperbolic, obviously. But in terms of his ability to play hockey in the NHL? He's a dime a dozen kind of player. He's not someone you need to elevate to a line he's so clearly not capable of playing on, which is what's happening. If he was in the bottom 6 and pulling bottom 6 numbers, I'd be okay with it. But he's not.

 

[Sheppy]

So clown was a little hyperbolic, obviously. But in terms of his ability to play hockey in the NHL? He's a dime a dozen kind of player. He's not someone you need to elevate to a line he's so clearly not capable of playing on, which is what's happening. If he was in the bottom 6 and pulling bottom 6 numbers, I'd be okay with it. But he's not.

What are you basing him not putting up bottom 6 numbers? One game after a 4 month break due to a pandemic?

This year he had 22 points in 48 regular season games. Where would that fit in with the Bruins bottom 6 players this year? I’m guessing pretty even, if not better than a handful.

 

[Pia8988]

His best contribution will be keeping Neely from signing Simmonds and being the next Beleskey/Backes

 

[Sheppy]

I thought he was the best player on his line last night, honestly.

 

[LSCII]

What are you basing him not putting up bottom 6 numbers? One game after a 4 month break due to a pandemic?

This year he had 22 points in 48 regular season games. Where would that fit in with the Bruins bottom 6 players this year? I’m guessing pretty even, if not better than a handful.

I base him not being a top 6 player not over 1 game, but over his career. Yet the majority of games here, even though it's only been a handful, he's been on the second line. If he were playing in the bottom 6 getting 10-11 minutes a night, I could live with it. But I don't think that's the plan going forward, as evidenced by him getting 2 minutes of PP TOI yesterday. And it was 21 points, to be exact. 9 goals and 12 assists. For Boston he's been 7 games, 1 g, 1a, -2.

 

[LSCII]

I thought he was the best player on his line last night, honestly.

Yeah, this is where we're going to have to disagree.

 

[Sheppy]

Yeah, this is where we're going to have to disagree.

Oh this is where?

 

[LSCII]

Oh this is where?

In terms of discussing this player and the game yesterday? Yeah. In terms of your view of hockey and what you want for your the team overall? Nope.

You were doing so well here too. Even agreeing that Ritchie doesn't belong in the top 6. Then you throw out best player yesterday and ruin all the progress. Why do you think he was their best player?

 

[Sheppy]

I base him not being a top 6 player not over 1 game, but over his career. Yet the majority of games here, even though it's only been a handful, he's been on the second line. If he were playing in the bottom 6 getting 10-11 minutes a night, I could live with it. But I don't think that's the plan going forward, as evidenced by him getting 2 minutes of PP TOI yesterday. And it was 21 points, to be exact. 9 goals and 12 assists. For Boston he's been 7 games, 1 g, 1a, -2.

Oh, 21 my bad. Again, where does that rank with the bottom 6 players on the Bruins roster? It’s funny, I don’t see Karson Kuhlman getting shit on like Ritchie, which is absolutely hilarious.

“HE SKATES FAST!”

 

[LSCII]

Oh, 21 my bad. Again, where does that rank with the bottom 6 players on the Bruins roster? It’s funny, I don’t see Karson Kuhlman getting shit on like Ritchie, which is absolutely hilarious.

“HE SKATES FAST!”

Never said a word about Kuhlman. But hey, tilt at windmills all you want.

 

[Sheppy]

In terms of discussing this player and the game yesterday? Yeah. In terms of your view of hockey and what you want for your the team overall? Nope.

You were doing so well here too. Even agreeing that Ritchie doesn't belong in the top 6. Then you throw out best player yesterday and ruin all the progress. Why do you think he was their best player?

I said he was the best player on his line. He was, Krejci couldn’t do a god damn thing and Kuhlman was handling the puck like it was a football.

You can be as condescending as you want to me, that’s fine. In my opinion he was better than both of his line mates yesterday. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that.

 

[Sheppy]

Never said a word about Kuhlman. But hey, tilt at windmills all you want.

That’s the thing, you shit on Ritchie because he’s Ritchie.

Again, seeing how you’re not answering me. Where does Ritchies numbers make him a non productive bottom 6 player in comparison to the rest of them?

 

[Root]

He needs to get in better shape. I don't think he is a bad skater, he is not fast but he can keep up. His problem is as the game goes on he noticeably gets slower. This was the case in March as well.

I disagree with the people that think he doesn't have the skill to be a top 9 player, I think he does but isn't in the proper shape. I don't know what he does in the offseason but I think he lives in the Toronto area, wish he would work with Gary Roberts.

Nick Ritchie is in his 23-24 year old season and has 111 points in 294 games = .37 points a game.

For what it is worth, Tom Wilson by his 23-24 year old season played 391 games and had 104 points = .27 points a game

Similar story with Michael Ferland, even Scott Laughton (I know he's not completely comparable) didn't start to put it together until this season (25-26 years old).

Get this guy in shape and I still think he can be a real effective player. really don't think he deserves all the heat he takes but he does deserve criticism for not being in the best of shape.

 

[Sheppy]

He needs to get in better shape. I don't think he is a bad skater, he is not fast but he can keep up. His problem is as the game goes on he noticeably gets slower. This was the case in March as well.

I disagree with the people that think he doesn't have the skill to be a top 9 player, I think he does but isn't in the proper shape. I don't know what he does in the offseason but I think he lives in the Toronto area, wish he would work with Gary Roberts.

Nick Ritchie is in his 23-24 year old season and has 111 points in 294 games = .37 points a game.

For what it is worth, Tom Wilson by his 23-24 year old season played 391 games and had 104 points = .27 points a game

Similar story with Michael Ferland, even Scott Laughton (I know he's not completely comparable) didn't start to put it together until this season (25-26 years old).

Get this guy in shape and I still think he can be a real effective player. really don't think he deserves all the heat he takes but he does deserve criticism for not being in the best of shape.

Good takes are hard to come by, man.

 

[Pia8988]

Good takes are hard to come by, man.

"Takes I agree with are hard to come by, man"

 

[LSCII]

That’s the thing, you shit on Ritchie because he’s Ritchie.

Again, seeing how you’re not answering me. Where does Ritchies numbers make him a non productive bottom 6 player in comparison to the rest of them?

One season is an anomaly. If he does it again, you may be onto something. Beleskey had 32 points in 65 games the year before Boston signed him. How many times did he go on to be a .50 PPG guy after that?

 

[LSCII]

He needs to get in better shape. I don't think he is a bad skater, he is not fast but he can keep up. His problem is as the game goes on he noticeably gets slower. This was the case in March as well.

I disagree with the people that think he doesn't have the skill to be a top 9 player, I think he does but isn't in the proper shape. I don't know what he does in the offseason but I think he lives in the Toronto area, wish he would work with Gary Roberts.

Nick Ritchie is in his 23-24 year old season and has 111 points in 294 games = .37 points a game.

For what it is worth, Tom Wilson by his 23-24 year old season played 391 games and had 104 points = .27 points a game

Similar story with Michael Ferland, even Scott Laughton (I know he's not completely comparable) didn't start to put it together until this season (25-26 years old).

Get this guy in shape and I still think he can be a real effective player. really don't think he deserves all the heat he takes but he does deserve criticism for not being in the best of shape.

Solid rundown on him in general. I think the real red flag in your analysis is that he's 24 and not in shape though, no? He's a professional hockey player and he can't bother to be in shape? That to me is a huge issue. I think even if he was in shape, he'd still be slow as shit, but maybe slightly less. Either way, as a pro, to say he's not in shape is troubling.

 

[Sheppy]

One season is an anomaly. If he does it again, you may be onto something. Beleskey had 32 points in 65 games the year before Boston signed him. How many times did he go on to be a .50 PPG guy after that?

Every season he’s produced legitimate bottom 6 numbers.

 

[member 96824]

Get this guy in shape and I still think he can be a real effective player

This has been the story Nick. Bring the ducks fans over and ask how many times they’ve heard this exact sentence.

Even right in his draft scouting report..
“If he gets into great shape over the summer and increases his quickness, then there's no reason Ritchie couldn't be in the NHL for the 2014-15 season.”

At this point, Nick Ritchie committing, getting in shape, and upping his foot speed is not a “when” or even a “what if”..it would be a complete 180.

Edit: I don’t know why that link is doing what it’s doing

 

[member 96824]

Nick Ritchie is the human form of a New Years resolution

 

[LSCII]

Nick Ritchie is the human form of a New Years resolution

And top 6 winger...

 

[LSCII]

Every season he’s produced legitimate bottom 6 numbers.

Agreed. Which is why I said if he were in the bottom 6 and playing 10 minutes a night, it would be fine. He's not a top 6 player. Never has been.