Rick Nash

[True Blue]

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.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Did he do what he was getting paid to do or not?

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.

The presumption is that his main contribution and why he was here to do is to score goals. Is that not the main reason of why he is here?

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

No one stopped arguing it. For Nash to contribute meaningfully in the playoffs, he needs to score goals. For Henke to contribute meaningfully in the playoffs, he needs to stop goals.

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

Straw man. Neither Krieder nor Steppan are the vets that Nash is. Neither Krieder nor Stepan were traded for so that they can score goals for this team. And neither Krieder nor Steppan are getting paid $7.8m to score goals.

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

When the Rangers have traded for Kreider & Stepan as much as they have traded for Nash and when they are getting paid $7.8, to play on the top line and score goals, we can pick up this discussion.

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

This is not a Henke discussion. But if he were to allow 4-5 goals per game, then he would be equally to blame as Nash.

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?

When Henke fails to stop the puck as much as Nash fails to put the puck into goal, we can debate which is at fault more.

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

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.

I think you are right about the 3rd period in Pittsburgh. The Rangers were hitting the red line and dumping the puck. I think that was more or less a fatigue issue and it almost cost the Rangers.

I disagree about the Kings series. I think the Rangers did try to counter the Kings but couldn't. LA would get in the Rangers zone and pin them deep. The Rangers weren't dumping the puck at the red line, like against the Penguins. The Rangers just couldn't sustain anything. The Kings were a better team, the results were not an upset nor were they unexpected.

I don't think anybody is saying the Kings said "alright guys, time to win". I think the Kings knew how to wear the Rangers down.

 

[True Blue]

Did the Kings use their mind control to force the Rangers to not push the pace, at all, through entire third periods?

The Kings were the better team and adjusted to the Rangers. The Kings top players played as they were top players. The Rangers top players need to match and AV needs to be able to make adjustments.

This has nothing to do with the fact that : 1) The Kings were the better team & 2) Nash did do nearly enough to help his team.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

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?

Thats an easy one.

Lundqvist put forth a Conn Smythe-worthy performance in last year's playoffs.

Nash, well, didn't.

 

[Raspewtin]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Did he do what he was getting paid to do or not?

Win hockey games, no considering we lost 4/5 against LA.

You could apply that logic to the entire team though.

The presumption is that his main contribution and why he was here to do is to score goals. Is that not the main reason of why he is here?

No one stopped arguing it. For Nash to contribute meaningfully in the playoffs, he needs to score goals. For Henke to contribute meaningfully in the playoffs, he needs to stop goals.

Your barometers of "why he's here" is ridiculously narrow. He can't score, so he's not doing what he's paid to do. Is Yandle here "only" to score and anything else is just not living up to par? Is Boyle being great defensively not acceptable because he didn't magically make our PP top 10 in the NHL? Or do these ridiculous barometers only apply to Nash?

Straw man. Neither Krieder nor Steppan are the vets that Nash is. Neither Krieder nor Stepan were traded for so that they can score goals for this team. And neither Krieder nor Steppan are getting paid $7.8m to score goals.

What's hilarious is that Stepan and Kreider have more PO experience than Nash.........yet Nash being a "veteran" heightens his expectations somehow.

When the Rangers have traded for Kreider & Stepan as much as they have traded for Nash and when they are getting paid $7.8, to play on the top line and score goals, we can pick up this discussion.

So.............what's your expectations of them? To help win games? Might I ask why Nash doesn't benefit from that logic either, outside of arbitrary points like "He's paid a lot" and "we traded for him cause we needed extra goal scoring"?

This is not a Henke discussion. But if he were to allow 4-5 goals per game, then he would be equally to blame as Nash.

When Henke fails to stop the puck as much as Nash fails to put the puck into goal, we can debate which is at fault more.

You missed the point completely.

 

[Rick Nash 61]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

No one stopped arguing it. For Nash to contribute meaningfully in the playoffs, he needs to score goals. For Henke to contribute meaningfully in the playoffs, he needs to stop goals.

This is not a Henke discussion. But if he were to allow 4-5 goals per game, then he would be equally to blame as Nash.

When Henke fails to stop the puck as much as Nash fails to put the puck into goal, we can debate which is at fault more.

This is a very bad argument.. The only job Hank as a goalie is to stop goals. Nash as a forward can do way more than just score goals. Nash literally did everything but score last postseason. Is Patrice Bergeron a well known name because he scores goals? Absolutely not. Sure, Nash could have scored a few more and got some better chances, but he was also very unlucky and still helped the team immensely by playing a complete game. He is not the one to blame for why we lost the cup..

 

[Raspewtin]

Thats an easy one.

Lundqvist put forth a Conn Smythe-worthy performance in last year's playoffs.

Nash, well, didn't.

Nash played very well in the playoffs, obviously not conn smythe worthy........but well.

I just don't get how Lundqvist's team failing him (something totally out of his control) is so widely accepted, but Nash's shooting luck being ridiculously poor (something totally out of his control) is just balked at as some half baked nonsense. They both suffered from things out of their control. You don't "make your own luck", because then it wouldn't be luck; luck implies it's out of your control. Did we all expect Nash to superman himself into the net, and punch pucks into the goal through sheer grit and determination?

I think you are right about the 3rd period in Pittsburgh. The Rangers were hitting the red line and dumping the puck. I think that was more or less a fatigue issue and it almost cost the Rangers.

I disagree about the Kings series. I think the Rangers did try to counter the Kings but couldn't. LA would get in the Rangers zone and pin them deep. The Rangers weren't dumping the puck at the red line, like against the Penguins. The Rangers just couldn't sustain anything. The Kings were a better team, the results were not an upset nor were they unexpected.

I don't think anybody is saying the Kings said "alright guys, time to win". I think the Kings knew how to wear the Rangers down.

The Kings forecheck was masterful, but you can clearly see a discrepancy in performance when the game was tied, and when the Rangers led. The Rangers mysteriously "turned it on" and started generating more the second the games got tied. The Rangers were very good in 2/3 OTs against the Kings, does the argument now change to "oh, well the Kings were just sitting back"? That's the monkey wrench for me in this discussion.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Nash played very well in the playoffs, obviously not conn smythe worthy........but well.

I just don't get how Lundqvist's team failing him (something totally out of his control) is so widely accepted, but Nash's shooting luck being ridiculously poor (something totally out of his control) is just balked at as some half baked nonsense. They both suffered from things out of their control. You don't "make your own luck", because then it wouldn't be luck; luck implies it's out of your control. Did we all expect Nash to superman himself into the net, and punch pucks into the goal through sheer grit and determination?.

I didnt expect Nash's wet noodle wrist shots from outside the circles to go in against playoff goalies --- and they didn't.

Being a little more determined to get to the front of the net is certainly within Rick Nash's control.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

He's supposed to be an elite player. I don't care what people say about luck. There is luck, but somehow the big game players find a way to make it happen.

The Save

The Guarantee

The Conn Smythe [1.47 PPG]



The Good Intention

I'm sorry. This man needs to make his own luck.

 

[TheDirtyH]

He's supposed to be an elite player. I don't care what people say about luck. There is luck, but somehow the big game players find a way to make it happen.

The Good Intention

I'm sorry. This man needs to make his own luck.

Yeah that Pavel Bure guy. What a loser.

 

[we want cup]

Maybe Nash wouldn't have been so "unlucky" if he'd gone to the areas where high percentage chances happening instead of sticking his *** in the face of every defenseman he went up against and throwing pucks at the net from outside the circles.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

What's hilarious is that Stepan and Kreider have more PO experience than Nash.........yet Nash being a "veteran" heightens his expectations somehow.

No, Nash being an elite reg season goal scorer is what heightens his playoff goal scoring expectations over the clearly not elite goal scorers of Step or Kreids.

It seems like the Nash apologists excuse is that Rick Nash isn't actually a very good goal scorer, so us Nash critics are being unfair expecting the guy to score goals. In a similar way that it would have been unfair for people to kill Blair Betts for not scoring much during his tenure here. He's playing great D! That's all you can really ask of him!

 

[Raspewtin]

No, Nash being an elite reg season goal scorer is what heightens his playoff goal scoring expectations over the clearly not elite goal scorers of Step or Kreids.

It seems like the Nash apologists excuse is that Rick Nash isn't actually a very good goal scorer, so us Nash critics are being unfair expecting the guy to score goals. In a similar way that it would have been unfair for people to kill Blair Betts for not scoring much during his tenure here. He's playing great D! That's all you can really ask of him!

That's actually not what anybody said at all.

What it is unfair to expect of Nash, is for him to be able to manipulate his poor shooting luck. He should've had 5-6 more goals than he did. But that's them breaks and luck is fickle, and he didn't get them. If those shots actually went in, and avoided the hex that seemed to follow Nash around, we'd all be talking about him as a Ranger hero.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

That's actually not what anybody said at all.

What it is unfair to expect of Nash, is for him to be able to manipulate his poor shooting luck. He should've had 5-6 more goals than he did. But that's them breaks and luck is fickle, and he didn't get them. If those shots actually went in, and avoided the hex that seemed to follow Nash around, we'd all be talking about him as a Ranger hero.

Well the good thing about your excuse is these things average out and we can expect Nash to have a wonderful playoff season any day now.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Yeah that Pavel Bure guy. What a loser.

Bure was 16-15-31.

And do you think getting stoned by Richter helped the Canucks turn the series?

 

[True Blue]

This is a very bad argument.. The only job Hank as a goalie is to stop goals. Nash as a forward can do way more than just score goals. Nash literally did everything but score last postseason.

Let's blow this out a bit. Is Nash worth $7.8m if he scores zero goals but is the best defensive forward in the playoffs? Would that be why Sather traded for him?

 

[The Gloaming]

Both sides are hyperbolizing (is that even a word?) to the max here.

Rick Nash's sh% had little to do with luck and a lot to do with him not driving to the net nearly as hard as he should have been. I know it's a popular joke around here, but I really do think that he uses the buttmove when he's afraid of getting injured going 1 on 1. And he was using it plenty. Throwing "wet noodles" into the logo of the goalie from the blueline and not scoring doesn't indicate bad luck - it indicates bad shot selection.

As for the other side, I also don't think Nash played as bad as some people are saying. Was he doing all of the things I mentioned above? Yes, but he also did have some quality scoring chances that he didn't bury. That Voynov example falls into the category. As do the numerous chances he had in front of the net but didn't score on.

I'll finish with this - if we get the February Nash that was driving the net every shift - we at least go to the SCF again. And I hope the shorthanded magic between him and Stepan is rekindled in the postseason.

 

[True Blue]

Win hockey games, no considering we lost 4/5 against LA.

Hank did what he was paid to. Nash did not. Seems pretty simple. They lost as a team, but Nash's lack of scoring was one of the bigger contributing factors.

Your barometers of "why he's here" is ridiculously narrow. He can't score, so he's not doing what he's paid to do.

Seems pretty simple.

Is Yandle here "only" to score and anything else is just not living up to par?

Yandle's primary reason for being here is to improve the power play and to put up points as a defenseman. The primary job of shutting down other players goes to other defensemen.

Is Boyle being great defensively not acceptable because he didn't magically make our PP top 10 in the NHL?

Actually, even if we take the ridiculous assertion that Boyle's defense is great, the answer is yes. Because that is what he was brought here to do and why he makes the cash that he makes. Many a defenseman could have produced the same level of defense, and for a lot less money.

What's hilarious is that Stepan and Kreider have more PO experience than Nash.........yet Nash being a "veteran" heightens his expectations somehow.

Nash is a proven regular season vet, who is the highest paid player on his team and who was traded for so that the team can score goals. Are you really comparing him to Kreider and expecting equalization?

So.............what's your expectations of them? To help win games? Might I ask why Nash doesn't benefit from that logic either, outside of arbitrary points like "He's paid a lot" and "we traded for him cause we needed extra goal scoring"?

My primary expectation of them is to score goals. However, neither of them are on Nash's level and neither of them are being paid that much money to do so.

 

[Bring Back Avery]

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?

Hank has stolen his fair share of playoff games. Especially game 7s in several series. Nash hasn't done much in ANY playoff series.

 

[haveandare]

Both sides are hyperbolizing (is that even a word?) to the max here.

Rick Nash's sh% had little to do with luck and a lot to do with him not driving to the net nearly as hard as he should have been. I know it's a popular joke around here, but I really do think that he uses the buttmove when he's afraid of getting injured going 1 on 1. And he was using it plenty. Throwing "wet noodles" into the logo of the goalie from the blueline and not scoring doesn't indicate bad luck - it indicates bad shot selection.

As for the other side, I also don't think Nash played as bad as some people are saying. Was he doing all of the things I mentioned above? Yes, but he also did have some quality scoring chances that he didn't bury. That Voynov example falls into the category. As do the numerous chances he had in front of the net but didn't score on.

I'll finish with this - if we get the February Nash that was driving the net every shift - we at least go to the SCF again. And I hope the shorthanded magic between him and Stepan is rekindled in the postseason.

This is very accurate IMO.

Part of it was bad luck, part of it was not playing hard in the offensive zone. It's useless to speculate which one was worse, or which may have cost the team more. They were both problems. The thing is, one is completely up to chance and one isn't.

I'll say this right now and stand by it all postseason: if Nash is driving the net consistently, I don't care how bad his luck is or what his results are. Play like that and good things will happen. At the very least, he'll wear down opposing defenses and cause mismatches.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

That's actually not what anybody said at all.

What it is unfair to expect of Nash, is for him to be able to manipulate his poor shooting luck. He should've had 5-6 more goals than he did. But that's them breaks and luck is fickle, and he didn't get them. If those shots actually went in, and avoided the hex that seemed to follow Nash around, we'd all be talking about him as a Ranger hero.

Wow. What the hell games were you watching? Show me these 5-6 specific highlights where the only reason he didn't score was "poor shooting luck".

Also "luck" is a BS concept to begin with. Either you do something or you don't, it doesn't get filtered through some weighted lottery system.

 

[Doctyl]

Can we have him publicly executed in Times Square when he doesn't score on Thursday?

 

[Ail]

Can we have him publicly executed in Times Square when he doesn't score on Thursday?

Yeah and air it the next game during the MSG 150.

 

[Doctyl]

Yeah and air it the next game during the MSG 150.

Bill Pidto can commentate on it

 

[True Blue]

Can we have him publicly executed in Times Square when he doesn't score on Thursday?

Please point out where someone, anyone is running him out of town? Please point out where someone, anyone is demanding that he be thrown off the team?