Nash to the Rangers.

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby coco_canuck » Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:46 pm

clem wrote:
Maybe your thinking of a handicap which results in a high volume, semi-coherent stream of opinion.


Very good clem, I'm happy you're resorting to mental retardation jabs.

The intonation meant by my post was in reference to levelling the field by a measure.

But thanks for coming out.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Gino's Knuckle » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:01 pm

Thanks for the info, clem.
Gino's Knuckle
CC Rookie
 
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:19 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Topper » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:09 pm

clem wrote:
Topper wrote:
clem wrote:Full credit given.

I've seen plenty of disparaging remarks towards others by you guys.
If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

If you're looking to play favourites, keep looking.
For fuck sakes.

I...I...I now gets full credit because your current perception is us vs. them.

okie dokie clem

Who is us, & who is them?


You tell me clem, you are the one who wrote "disparaging remarks towards others by you guys"
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4671
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby clem » Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:58 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
clem wrote:
coco_canuck wrote:As you encounter higher forms of argumentation, you have to expect that your entire argument is open to scrutiny, i.e. the type of source you're citing.
Which forms would those be?
Higher in the relative sense, we're talking considerable handicap.

coco_canuck wrote:
clem wrote:
Maybe your thinking of a handicap which results in a high volume, semi-coherent stream of opinion.


Very good clem, I'm happy you're resorting to mental retardation jabs.

The intonation meant by my post was in reference to levelling the field by a measure.

But thanks for coming out.

Politically correct R you all right. ;)

And if your level (er handicap) were off, the bias provided someone known to spout off opinions could result in a giant stream of the things. A veritable torrent of semi-coherent opinions.
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby coco_canuck » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:07 pm

clem wrote:And if your level (er handicap) were off, the bias provided someone known to spout off opinions could result in a giant stream of the things. A veritable torrent of semi-coherent opinions.


That was superfluously incoherent.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby clem » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:13 pm

Topper wrote:
clem wrote:
Topper wrote: I...I...I now gets full credit because your current perception is us vs. them.

okie dokie clem
Who is us, & who is them?
You tell me clem, you are the one who wrote "disparaging remarks towards others by you guys"
You're the one who wrote us & them. Not being a mind reader, I wouldn't hazard a guess at how you interpret this.
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby clem » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:14 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
clem wrote:And if your level (er handicap) were off, the bias provided someone known to spout off opinions could result in a giant stream of the things. A veritable torrent of semi-coherent opinions.


That was superfluously incoherent.

The irony of it all.
User avatar
clem
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 am

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Meds » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:16 pm

I'm getting a kick out of some of the jabs that go back and forth.

Mostly I get a kick out of who seems to be targeted the most.

Pot1 and Coco seem to get called out the most for something or other by some poster who feels he needs to chop them down off of whatever "horse" they are currently on. Ironically it is always the chopper who ends up feeling the most frustration at the end of the day. Thing of it is, the guy who decides to take them down a peg usually has a beef with one of their opinions and so he wades in and argues his point, then they argue theirs, then the frustrated party takes a pot shot (no pun intended) and send one across their bow hoping that it will let them know he means business. They respond in kind, though usually graze the other fellow rather than just send one through the air in front of them. The end result is what we see now, and any worthwhile debate is lost because now neither party has time for the other.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Topper » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:36 pm

clem wrote:
Topper wrote:
clem wrote:Who is us, & who is them?
You tell me clem, you are the one who wrote "disparaging remarks towards others by you guys"
You're the one who wrote us & them. Not being a mind reader, I wouldn't hazard a guess at how you interpret this.

Have you caught your tail yet?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4671
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby coco_canuck » Mon Jul 30, 2012 2:59 pm

I detest the Rangers, but looking at their roster and cap situation, they're sitting pretty.

Their projected roster looks like this:

Nash-Richards-Gaborik
Hagelin-Stepan-Callahan
Pyatt-Kreider-Boyle
Asham-Halpern-Rupp

They have a lot of flexibility up front with Kreider, Boyle and Stepan, who can all play the pivot and wing. If say Hagelin struggle on the 2nd line, someone like Boyle or Kreider could move up.

There's a good mix of veterans, size, skill, speed, two-way play, and grit in the forward group.

J.T Miller is a good young forward who will also get a look in camp, and could break into the top 9.

Staal-Del Zotto
Girardi- McDonagh
Sauer-Stralman
Bickell

It may not be the flashiest blue line overall, but it's strong defensively, has solid speed, and they move the puck well. They may lack a little class in the 3rd pairing, and they could probably do with another fast, and offensive defenceman. But with Torts coaching, this defence should be more than adequate with Lundqvist manning the net.

Last year they lacked some pop, and now they added Rick Nash, who should make them more of a threat offensively. Outside of Nash scoring +40 goals, they clearly need Hagelin, Stepan and Kreider to develop and be big contributors, but the Rangers are definitely a contender in the East.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby dbr » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:06 pm

I don't expect the Rangers will load up their first line given that they often separated Richards and Gaborik last year (five of their six most frequently used combinations at even strength last year had one of Gaborik or Richards but just one of those featured both).

Furthermore while they are all great players and a line with Nash, Richards and Gaborik would certainly be effective I wonder if they'd be less than the sum of their parts given that all three players like to carry the puck..
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby coco_canuck » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:29 pm

dbr wrote:Furthermore while they are all great players and a line with Nash, Richards and Gaborik would certainly be effective I wonder if they'd be less than the sum of their parts given that all three players like to carry the puck..


Yeah, I think you're right, the Rangers won't load up all the time, but they'll certainly play together from time to time.

There's lots of versatility with that line-up, and they can go with 3 formidable lines if they mix it up right.
User avatar
coco_canuck
CC 1st Team All-Star
 
Posts: 966
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:54 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Strangelove » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:42 pm

Potatoe1 wrote:Erixson would easily be our best prospect and a first rounder is always a valuable chip.

clem wrote:If we use HF's definition of a prospect (less than 65 NHL games & under 24yrs) & their player success probability,
the Canucks with roughly equal probability of success (as Erixon) are: Lack, Kassian, Duco, & Tanev.

Erixson would not easily be our best prospect.

Potatoe1 wrote:Who says I'm in agreement with how HF defines prospects?

I dont really consider Kassian and Tanev prospects anymore.

Out of the rest of the group I think Erixson is easily the best of the group. Very easily actually.

clem wrote:Independent (from club alliance), third party opinions tend to be more credible than blowhards who like to talk about themselves.

Strangelove wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_All-Rookie_Team
In order to be considered a rookie in the NHL, the rookie must be eligible to win the Calder Trophy. The qualification criteria to be eligible are that the player must not have played in more than 25 NHL games in any previous year...


clem wrote:The discussion was about prospects, not rookies.


Actually the discussion was about "Independent (from club alliance) opinions" vs the opinions of "blowhards".

So I offered up an official NHL perspective to counter your HF perspective.

Most NHL fans view a hockey players progression terminologically thusly:

.... "prospect".... "rookie".... "established player".

(feel free to disagree but be careful lest you be dubbed a "blowhard") :wink:

Now, since Kassian and Tanev are beyond the "rookie" barrier in accordance with the official NHL definition it is very reasonable indeed for Mr Potatoe1 to no longer consider them to be "prospects". And he is most certainly NOT a "blowhard" for stating that opinion.

clem wrote:kiss my ass


:shock:

My word, bad form old chap, BAD FORM!
____
"I like to think that this team can get its mojo back" - Ryan Miller
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7163
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Cornuck » Mon Jul 30, 2012 3:46 pm

Geez, I go away for a while and all hell breaks loose!

...and to stay on topic: "The Rangers suck."
Over 40 years of pain - I just want one day of glory.
User avatar
Cornuck
Moderator & MVP
Moderator & MVP
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 11:39 am
Location: Chester, NE

Re: Nash to the Rangers.

Postby Meds » Mon Jul 30, 2012 11:59 pm

coco_canuck wrote:
dbr wrote:Furthermore while they are all great players and a line with Nash, Richards and Gaborik would certainly be effective I wonder if they'd be less than the sum of their parts given that all three players like to carry the puck..


Yeah, I think you're right, the Rangers won't load up all the time, but they'll certainly play together from time to time.

There's lots of versatility with that line-up, and they can go with 3 formidable lines if they mix it up right.


To me they have a stacked top line in Gaborik/Richard/Nash and then nothing beyond Callahan on the 2nd line.

OR.....

They have a good top line and a decent 2nd line if they mix Gaborik and Nash up and down through the two lines.

I think they do load it up because we've seen what happens when Nash is playing with perreniel 2nd line skaters.....he puts up a whopping 79 points. With Richards he has a better chance at hitting some higher point totals, but even Richards has been an up and down guy throughout his career who gets his points in bunches and then takes it to another level in the playoffs. I think the only way they get full value for those 3 is if they load them up and take the chance that their top line is going to put up 250+ points as a unit.
User avatar
Meds
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Cookie La Rue, NzVanFan and 2 guests