Rick Nash

[Rick Nash 61]

Reasons we lost in the finals:

1. The defense, LA were tailor made to beat a team like ours.

2. AV's insistence on having the team sitting back in the 3rd period


-


3. The powerplay coming up empty multiple times

4. The referees


-


5. Brad Richards doing absolutely nothing right.

.......

13. Nash not scoring goals.

This is the post right here. Although I would put the referees up a slot or two.

 

[BB58]

Referees belong #2... That Stanley Cup outcome was equivalent to Super Bowl XL.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Reasons we lost in the finals:

1. The defense, LA were tailor made to beat a team like ours.

2. AV's insistence on having the team sitting back in the 3rd period


-


3. The powerplay coming up empty multiple times

4. The referees


-


5. Brad Richards doing absolutely nothing right.

.......

13. Nash not scoring goals.

I was beginning to think you watched more live game video than the stats blogs than I previously thought.

Nope!

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Good to know Nash playing like he was a defensive specialist on the fourth line actually didn't actually hurt us at all last year, I always had thought we lost in the final last year because we didn't score as many goals as the Kings did. Huh. Learn something new every day.

 

[Raspewtin]

I was beginning to think you watched more live game video than the stats blogs than I previously thought.

Nope!

Sorry, I didn't adjust my watchable spread sheets for PC/60 (persecution complexes per 60), or BAR (Blame above rationality), I'll get right to it.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Sorry, I didn't adjust my watchable spread sheets for PC/60 (persecution complexes per 60), or BAR (Blame above rationality), I'll get right to it.

Well that explains point 13 in your previous list. I apologize. No harm no foul.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Did the 2014 Rangers let Rick Nash down in the playoffs?

 

[Ail]

Philosoraptor pls,

The goal is to be defensive forward who may or may not score goals.

Therefore, goals.

 

[True Blue]

13. Nash not scoring goals.

Please answer 3 direct questions, yes or no.

1. Did Sather make the trade for him and brought him here to score goals? yes or no?

2. Did he score enough goals and do what he was brought here to do last year? yes or no?

3. In his career, can he be considered a goal scoring success in the playoffs? yes or no?

 

[Riche16]

Just as ridiculous as blaming Nash entirely for the loss in the finals last year is diminishing his role in it. A few goals from him would've either extended leads (leads that hopefully would've been protected until victory) or given leads when the score was tied (ending the game if we are talking OT).

Hockey is a team game and there were 22 reasons (24 if you want to put the backup who didn't play, and AV in there).

Nash played well. But didn't score. He was brought here to score goals. He is paid HANDSOMELY to score goals. He failed to do this and CANNOT be absolved of blame IMO. Yes we blew leads... Yes the refs ripped us off and didn't "allow the goaltender to do his job" at times. But Nash didn't do the job he is paid to do. He is not a defensive forward (while he has added that aspect of the game recently to his resume). He was brought here at great expense to put the puck in the net and had he done that we MAY have overcome those other failures. May.

 

[Raspewtin]

Please answer 3 direct questions, yes or no.

1. Did Sather make the trade for him and brought him here to score goals? yes or no?

He brought Nash here to win hockey games. Scoring goals would help with that.

2. Did he score enough goals and do what he was brought here to do last year? yes or no?

This is a loaded question.

3. In his career, can he be considered a goal scoring success in the playoffs? yes or no?

If you look at the number "4 in 37" with no context at all, absolutely.

 

[Bring Back Avery]

One goal can totally swing the momentum in a game. So, a goal here or there from Nash could've easily changed the outcome of a game/series.

 

[Raspewtin]

One goal can totally swing the momentum in a game. So, a goal here or there from Nash could've easily changed the outcome of a game/series.

There were 17 other skaters on the ice when we were busy blowing leads and our momentum that didn't score a goal.

 

[True Blue]

He brought Nash here to win hockey games. Scoring goals would help with that.

So his biggest contributions to the team is does not involve goal scoring?

This is a loaded question.

No, it is a simple question. Did he contribute meaningfully to the team? When I say meaningfully, I mean did he do all that he was brought here to do?

If you look at the number "4 in 37" with no context at all, absolutely.

A player whose livelihood is brought about by scoring goals and then does not score goals in the most crucial moments, I would say that there is plenty of context.

 

[Doctyl]

**** Rick Nash for not scoring a playoff goal yet this year ****ing choker disgrace to humanity get this loser off the team

 

[we want cup]

There were 17 other skaters on the ice when we were busy blowing leads and our momentum that didn't score a goal.

Nash is supposed to be a gamebreaking forward. The kind of guy who is supposed to make the difference between winning and losing by matching or outplaying the other team's equivalent players. He didn't do that.

We scored 10 goals in 5 games, including however many minutes of overtime we played. Scoring was a problem, and Nash is the biggest culprit in terms of that.

 

[True Blue]

**** Rick Nash for not scoring a playoff goal yet this year ****ing choker disgrace to humanity get this loser off the team

YEAH! That is EXACTLY what everyone is talking about! About time it was this perfectly stated!

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

id argue it had more to do with the offense deciding to play Tortorella hockey instead of playign AV hockey. They sat back and let the Kings own the puck.

when we pushed the pace, the Kings had no answer. when we sat back trying to protect the lead, it killed us.

I consistently find it hilarious that many folks continue to frame this argument like it had everything to do with the Rangers and nothing to do with the Kings.

 

[Bring Back Avery]

There were 17 other skaters on the ice when we were busy blowing leads and our momentum that didn't score a goal.

True, but Nash is paid more than most, if not all, of those guys. So, more is expected of him.

 

[Raspewtin]

So his biggest contributions to the team is does not involve goal scoring?

He did everything but score goals, where luck just wouldn't let them go in. I don't think he could've done much more, just really unlucky.

No, it is a simple question. Did he contribute meaningfully to the team? When I say meaningfully, I mean did he do all that he was brought here to do?

It absolutely was a loaded question. It had a presumption built into it, where no matter how I answer, I would appear wrong. That's what a loaded question is.

Are we really doing the "he's not meaningfully contributing if he isn't scoring goals" argument again?

A player whose livelihood is brought about by scoring goals and then does not score goals in the most crucial moments, I would say that there is plenty of context.

I'd hope you were furious with Stepan having no goals in the Kings series. Or Kreider for only having 1.

If you weren't, this is a logical fallacy.

True, but Nash is paid more than most, if not all, of those guys. So, more is expected of him.

Hank is paid more than any goalie in the league, so he should've stolen at least another game against the Kings.

............

That's utterly ridiculous right? He couldn't have possibly done more to win the games. So, why doesn't Nash benefit from this same logic?

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

I consistently find it hilarious that many folks continue to frame this argument like it had everything to do with the Rangers and nothing to do with the Kings.

It's a laughable argument. The Kings took it to the Rangers it's not like the Rangers didn't try. The Kings were the better team. They were the better team before the series. They were the better team when they had to be during the series. The Rangers led most of the time but in the end it was the Kings who found a way to win. The Rangers didn't, it's not because they played a collapsing defense. The Kings gave the Rangers no choice but to collapse.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

If Nash plays exactly like he did last playoffs AND can score consistently the Rangers are going to be tough to beat. Nash played well last playoffs, he did but he didn't do enough. Nothing wrong with saying it. Nothing wrong with saying he needs to do more this playoff year.

Nash wasn't Thomas Vanek bad last playoffs. He contributed and despite not being able to finish still played some real good hockey. With that said Nash needs to step it up, they all need to step it up. What helped them win in the regular season doesn't matter anymore.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

It's a laughable argument. The Kings took it to the Rangers it's not like the Rangers didn't try. The Kings were the better team. They were the better team before the series. They were the better team when they had to be during the series. The Rangers led most of the time but in the end it was the Kings who found a way to win. The Rangers didn't, it's not because they played a collapsing defense. The Kings gave the Rangers no choice but to collapse.

Right. There were times in the series where the Rangers speed surprised the Kings. But they made adjustments and neutralized the Rangers. It had nothing to do with the Rangers sitting back and everything to do with the Kings pushing forward.

 

[Raspewtin]

I consistently find it hilarious that many folks continue to frame this argument like it had everything to do with the Rangers and nothing to do with the Kings.

Did the Kings use their mind control to force the Rangers to not push the pace, at all, through entire third periods? I mean, it's not like LA wasn't terrific in those periods, but the Rangers absolutely sat back and shelled. You can't shell against desperate teams, it came centimeters away from burning us against a much worse Pens team in game 7. The Rangers pushed the pace against the Kings, the Kings had no answer. Your assertion that the Kings just decided "alright guys, time to win" in the third period, is just as ridiculous as giving the Kings no credit at all.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Did the Kings use their mind control to force the Rangers to not push the pace, at all, through entire third periods? I mean, it's not like LA wasn't terrific in those periods, but the Rangers absolutely sat back and shelled. You can't shell against desperate teams, it came centimeters away from burning us against a much worse Pens team in game 7. The Rangers pushed the pace against the Kings, the Kings had no answer. Your assertion that the Kings just decided "alright guys, time to win" in the third period, is just as ridiculous as giving the Kings no credit at all.

Ill use a boxing term for you: "Class shows over time"

The Kings were, marginally, a better team last year and that showed over the course of 60 minutes+ of hockey each game. Knowing the way AV coaches, and the way they pushed the pace against Pittsburgh and Montreal late in games, the most ridiculous position is insisting they just decided to abandon their style and sit back. The opposition caused them to do that.