Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jul 24, 2012 2:35pm
You are delusional if you think all of the forwards you named are better than Nash.
End of Line
Posts: 6,867
Jul 24, 2012 2:47pm
How am I delusional? Almost all of those players either A. Score more points B. Play strong 2 way games and have been considered for the Selke C. Lets see your list on who isn't as good as the "Elite" Rick Nash.queencitybuckeye;1232646 wrote:You are delusional if you think all of the forwards you named are better than Nash.
gorocks99
Posts: 10,760
Jul 24, 2012 3:14pm
Heyyy, the Blue Jackets signed Murray to an entry-level contract:
https://twitter.com/Aportzline/status/227834656907722753
https://twitter.com/Aportzline/status/227834656907722753
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Jul 24, 2012 3:16pm
Who isn't just as good if not better?queencitybuckeye;1232646 wrote:You are delusional if you think all of the forwards you named are better than Nash.
End of Line
Posts: 6,867
Jul 25, 2012 1:40pm
What happened to qcb?
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Jul 25, 2012 2:05pm
I think he realized Nash is a Top 6 forward not a top 6 player...The_Crosby_Show;1233692 wrote:What happened to qcb?
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jul 25, 2012 2:11pm
He's neither. He's just a very, very good player, as the 75+ points he'll score next year will attest. (Which will put him above 60-75% of the forwards Crosby mentioned).Raw Dawgin' it;1233739 wrote:I think he realized Nash is a Top 6 forward not a top 6 player...
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Jul 25, 2012 2:17pm
"Top 6 forward" means he'd be on the first or second line of any team he played for.queencitybuckeye;1233742 wrote:He's neither. He's just a very, very good player, as the 75+ points he'll score next year will attest. (Which will put him above 60-75% of the forwards Crosby mentioned).
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Jul 25, 2012 2:21pm
Also - points aren't everything, his +/- is terrible. In his career he's had 3 seasons in the positive and his highest was +5. And one other thing...he's scored over 70 points once in his career. Now he's in one of the biggest markets in a country with the spot light on him...we'll see how he holds up.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jul 25, 2012 2:25pm
Sorry, misunderstood your meaning.Raw Dawgin' it;1233758 wrote:"Top 6 forward" means he'd be on the first or second line of any team he played for.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jul 25, 2012 2:26pm
All true but average players on otherwise good teams will often have good +/- numbers.Raw Dawgin' it;1233763 wrote:Also - points aren't everything, his +/- is terrible. In his career he's had 3 seasons in the positive and his highest was +5. And one other thing...he's scored over 70 points once in his career. Now he's in one of the biggest markets in a country with the spot light on him...we'll see how he holds up.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Jul 25, 2012 2:59pm
True - but a guy like Patrice Bergeron who puts up around 60 points a year with a +37 is a lot more valuable than a guy like Nash.queencitybuckeye;1233772 wrote:All true but average players on otherwise good teams will often have good +/- numbers.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jul 25, 2012 3:05pm
Maybe, but not for +/- alone, unless you also want to say Chris Kelly at +33 is more valuable than Nash.Raw Dawgin' it;1233818 wrote:True - but a guy like Patrice Bergeron who puts up around 60 points a year with a +37 is a lot more valuable than a guy like Nash.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Jul 25, 2012 3:23pm
40 points and +33 - yes he's more valuable. Nash had 59 points and a -19...queencitybuckeye;1233824 wrote:Maybe, but not for +/- alone, unless you also want to say Chris Kelly at +33 is more valuable than Nash.
If you go by the numbers, Kelly is more valuable. Not as talented, but more valuable. He was on the ice for 52 more goals than Nash, that's 1/4 of Columbus' goal total for the season.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jul 25, 2012 3:39pm
Which shows why numbers without context are dangerous. Hell, if Nash's output didn't improve next year, he'd go from -19 to somewhere around breakeven anyway.Raw Dawgin' it;1233857 wrote:40 points and +33 - yes he's more valuable. Nash had 59 points and a -19...
If you go by the numbers, Kelly is more valuable.
Raw Dawgin' it
Posts: 11,466
Jul 25, 2012 3:42pm
If he's in the negatives this year he's got some serious problems. Tortorella is a D first guy and if Nash doesn't start playing two way hockey you won't see much of him. He benches guy for not blocking shotsqueencitybuckeye;1233873 wrote:Which shows why numbers without context are dangerous. Hell, if Nash's output didn't improve next year, he'd go from -19 to somewhere around breakeven anyway.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Jul 25, 2012 3:45pm
I'd use "resume" instead of "start". Up until this past season, no one doubted the effort in his own zone. Ability-wise, he's at least adequate defensively, probably a bit better than that.Raw Dawgin' it;1233877 wrote:If he's in the negatives this year he's got some serious problems. Tortorella is a D first guy and if Nash doesn't start playing two way hockey you won't see much of him. He benches guy for not blocking shots
TedSheckler
Posts: 3,974
Jul 25, 2012 4:34pm
Oof!queencitybuckeye;1233742 wrote:He's neither.
End of Line
Posts: 6,867
Jul 26, 2012 1:06pm
QCB, you never answered my question. Out those players, which ones would you take Nash over just curious.