| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
 Posted - 02/17/2009 : 12:42:13
|
Poll Question:
Okay. So I have gone over this with my friends many times. If you were a head coach of an NHL franchise, who would you rather have on your team? Rick Nash or Ilya Kovalchuk? I'm interested in what people think, please write why you chose whoever you choose.
Some people skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is going to be.~Wayne Gretzky
|
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2009 : 13:09:51
|
In my opinion Rick Nash is a highly overrated, overall hockey player. And before anyone gets me wrong, I will say that what I mean by that is that when it comes to a complete game, he has none. I have seen Rick Nash play live three times. Before those times I actually liked him. After I saw him play however, I realized what his game is. Basically his game is, skate hard and try when you have the puck. Dog it by the center line and wait for a pass when you don't. Absolutely no hockey awareness without the puck. It's actually brutal to watch.
Now I know that some people will say that Nash is supposed to be an offensive player. A goal scorer. And he is. But I don't think that anyone can say that he even does that all that well. He hasn't scored more than 41 goals, and has not even hit the 70 point mark...funny to think that he makes like every all-star game and every Canadian olympic team. Meanwhile, a guy like Marc Savard, who has had 97 and 96 point seasons, doesn't even get a serious consideration for the olympic team. Even Kovalchuk, who in my opinion is the same type of player as Nash, offensive goal scorer and a bit lazy, gets his job done much better then Nash. He has had two 50 plus goal season and has actually broken the 70 point barrier. 3 times. All 3 of those being more then 85 point season. He'll probably hit 80 at least this year also. Nash MAY hit 70. But I will gaurantee EVERYONE this. Rick Nash will be on the olympic team in 2010. And a guy like...say, Marleau won't. And in my opinion, team Canada can use a guy like Marleau, a much more complete hockey player, much more.
So what is it about Rick Nash that the NHL and hockey Canada love so much? It boggles the mind. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear who I chose in this poll.
Some people skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is going to be.~Wayne Gretzky |
Edited by - ED11 on 02/17/2009 13:20:52 |
 |
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2009 : 14:37:11
|
International statistics
Year Event GP G A Pts PIM
2005 WC 9 9 6 15 8
2006 Oly 6 0 11 10
2007 WC 9 6 5 11 4
2008 WC 9 6 7 13 6
Senior Int'l Totals
33 Games played
21 Goals
19 assist
40 points
28 PIM
This is why team Canada loves him, Now i believe you're right Kovy has better stats play without the puck originaly yes they were both equally bad but since last year's regim change Nash was sat down with and told he was to molded and changed they want to turn him into the Iginla he is capable of being and he has responded so well seeing time on the pk now he was given the C his play without the puck has not taken leaps and bounds yet but Nash has shown the potential and willingness to be a Complete player in this league over the last year and a half,, Kovy will always been the scoring machine,,, now i think if nash had played with the likes of Hossa his stats would be similar now ifs and buts dont mattter in this world but his stats on the world stage are undeniable put nash on a line with the likes of Geztlaf and Heatly there is no international line that can contain them for an entire game they are all far to fast talented and strong to be contained this is why he is loved for team Canada and no way should he take the spot of Savard but he won't they are two different players who don't even play the same position same with Patty Marleau Nash is a winger if all the best pointers in Canada were centers we would not make our team up of just centers,, name me 8 Canadian wingers better than rick nash for team Canada, btw the way great post fianlly a player vs. player post where the 2 players are extemly comparable
Pasty |
|
|
|
Guest6616
( )
|
Posted - 02/17/2009 : 14:44:48
|
| Kovalchuck has the ability to carry a team on his back and stil produce with no one to play with. nash is overrated i say spezza toews or richards instead aof nash for team canada |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2009 : 16:21:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6616
Kovalchuck has the ability to carry a team on his back and stil produce with no one to play with. nash is overrated i say spezza toews or richards instead aof nash for team canada
again you named centers Nash isn't even in competition with any of these guys for a roster spot
Pasty |
|
|
|
Thrasher17
Top Prospect
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2009 : 18:11:39
|
I'm a fan of both these players and they both will, and should, represent their respective countries in 2010.
But lets face it, if you're a GM and these are your two choices, you're not going to be looking for a defensively responsible player, you're going to go for the best raw talent and scoring ability. And that has to be Kovalchuk hands down.
They both play for arguably the worst teams in the NHL over their careers, so there is no argument there. And when you look at production there isnt really much of a discussion.
Kovalchuk has over 40 goals in 4 of his 6 seasons, topping 50 twice, while Nash has one 40 goal season.
Kovalchuk has more points than Nash in every season and not just by a few points. Like ED11 said Nash has never even hit the 70 point plateau.
And just as a side note Kovalchuk didn't play on the same line as Hossa except maybe on the PP. This year he has spent the majority of his time on a line with Marty Reasoner and Chris Thorburn, and hes still producing.
|
|
|
|
DangleFest89
Rookie
122 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2009 : 20:02:37
|
| love kovie for what he has done with the talent he has you can call him selfish but really what he has done since heatley has left i call him a hero |
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2009 : 23:16:17
|
Thanks guys. I'm glad you like the poll.
Thrasher17, I agree with your statement that in this case a coach or a GM would be looking for an offensive threat. But on that note, Kovalchuk wins hands down. Nash has honestly not played to his potential as a top elite goal scorer. And remember Pasty, I used to love Nash. Until I actually saw him play. You do however bring up a good point with the international and Olympic numbers. And you are right, there aren't too many wingers that can take Nash's spot on the team Canada roster. However, Iginla, Heatley, Gagne, and St. Louis can't be overlooked. Thats 4. And you have to remember that room has to be left for role players like Doan, and maybe Cammalleri. And how about beginning to bring some of the up and comers? Perry? Boyes? I'm not saying that they should take his spot, but you have to think that after the last Olympics, something has to change. And this is all assuming that they won't risk a center man playing wing. Which I definitely would risk with someone like Marleau or Savard.
I have never doubted that Nash has the potential to be an Iginla. But trust me, he won't be for many reasons which would require me starting another topic. I would in a blink of an eye take Kovalchuk.
Some people skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is going to be.~Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 07:52:38
|
Yeah, I suppose I'd have to take Kovalchuk.
You haven't convinced me that Nash is as bad defensively as you make him out to be, or that he is that selfish . . . but even so, it has to be the guy who can score 50 goals on a crappy team. Kovalchuk is a supreme talent, and I think with the right guys around him, could develop into a more complete player. With his offensive upside however, you don't need to worry about his defense!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 09:06:26
|
I take Nash and with very little thought. Nash has never had a chance to play with anyone who could even be rated as a 2nd line player let alone a bonified 1st line player and he still throws up solid numbers. Sure, Atlanta isn't the best team out there, but Kovalchuk has played with the likes of Hossa, Kovlov, I think even Heatley for a while. Nash has never had anyone near that. PLUS, Atltanta has always been an offensive focused team. Columbus, under Hitchcock, is a very disciplined defensive team. Nash has never had the green light to be all offensive. Did ya notices that both Columbus and Atlanta have been weak teams through both Nash and Kovalchuk's careers but they have very different +/-? Nash started his career poorly, but has improved and has 3 of his 6 seasons as a plus player? Kovalckuk has never had a plus season and the fact that he is over 30 points worse in +/- while having almost 200 more points tells me that I take Nash over Kovalchuk any day of the week.
Nash has the abilities to put up the same number as Kovalchuk or better if he has a quality line mate. Plus, (pun intended) Nash is superior defensively.
I take Nash with litte to know thought. There is a reason he makes all star teams and national teams. Specifically the national teams. These are the most brilliant hockey minds picking these teams. Nash is one of Canada's best players. He's big, strong, fast, and can put the puck in the net. MOST IMPORTANTLY, when he plays on these national teams, he is more than willing to take 3rd or 4th line minutes and contribute any way needed to win. If he need to play physical and hit, he will, Speed, he'll do that to. Really, there is nothing he can't do.
I think you guys are grossly under rating Nash's ability all over 10ish points a season that Kovalchuk has achieved playing most of his career with All Stars or at least very good players such as Kozlov. |
|
|
|
Pasty7
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2312 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 09:50:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I take Nash and with very little thought. Nash has never had a chance to play with anyone who could even be rated as a 2nd line player let alone a bonified 1st line player and he still throws up solid numbers. Sure, Atlanta isn't the best team out there, but Kovalchuk has played with the likes of Hossa, Kovlov, I think even Heatley for a while. Nash has never had anyone near that. PLUS, Atltanta has always been an offensive focused team. Columbus, under Hitchcock, is a very disciplined defensive team. Nash has never had the green light to be all offensive. Did ya notices that both Columbus and Atlanta have been weak teams through both Nash and Kovalchuk's careers but they have very different +/-? Nash started his career poorly, but has improved and has 3 of his 6 seasons as a plus player? Kovalckuk has never had a plus season and the fact that he is over 30 points worse in +/- while having almost 200 more points tells me that I take Nash over Kovalchuk any day of the week.
Nash has the abilities to put up the same number as Kovalchuk or better if he has a quality line mate. Plus, (pun intended) Nash is superior defensively.
I take Nash with litte to know thought. There is a reason he makes all star teams and national teams. Specifically the national teams. These are the most brilliant hockey minds picking these teams. Nash is one of Canada's best players. He's big, strong, fast, and can put the puck in the net. MOST IMPORTANTLY, when he plays on these national teams, he is more than willing to take 3rd or 4th line minutes and contribute any way needed to win. If he need to play physical and hit, he will, Speed, he'll do that to. Really, there is nothing he can't do.
I think you guys are grossly under rating Nash's ability all over 10ish points a season that Kovalchuk has achieved playing most of his career with All Stars or at least very good players such as Kozlov.
Ken Hitchcock has made it clear he wants to create an iginla out of Nash and as beans has said over the last few years Nash has become a much more defensivly responsible player ,,, i think his numbers when playing with other players of his calibre show how great he is offensivly that being said i'd take Nash but not as beans said it would be a very very close call
Pasty |
|
|
|
Thrasher17
Top Prospect
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 14:51:39
|
I understand what you are saying about Columbus being a more defensive minded team. And Atlanta has focused almost entirely on the offensive side of the game.
But if you give Nash the excuse of being on a defensive team for his sub-par offensive numbers, then surely Kovalchuk must get the same pardon for his defensive stats.
It's tough to be a plus player when every time you lose the puck, the opposing team goes the other way and gets a chance to score.
On Atlanta this year, there are only 5 players with a positive +/- rating, only 3 of whom are regular, every game players. Columbus nearly triples that number with 14.
|
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2009 : 22:30:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I take Nash and with very little thought. Nash has never had a chance to play with anyone who could even be rated as a 2nd line player let alone a bonified 1st line player and he still throws up solid numbers. Sure, Atlanta isn't the best team out there, but Kovalchuk has played with the likes of Hossa, Kovlov, I think even Heatley for a while. Nash has never had anyone near that. PLUS, Atltanta has always been an offensive focused team. Columbus, under Hitchcock, is a very disciplined defensive team. Nash has never had the green light to be all offensive. Did ya notices that both Columbus and Atlanta have been weak teams through both Nash and Kovalchuk's careers but they have very different +/-? Nash started his career poorly, but has improved and has 3 of his 6 seasons as a plus player? Kovalckuk has never had a plus season and the fact that he is over 30 points worse in +/- while having almost 200 more points tells me that I take Nash over Kovalchuk any day of the week.
Nash has the abilities to put up the same number as Kovalchuk or better if he has a quality line mate. Plus, (pun intended) Nash is superior defensively.
I take Nash with litte to know thought. There is a reason he makes all star teams and national teams. Specifically the national teams. These are the most brilliant hockey minds picking these teams. Nash is one of Canada's best players. He's big, strong, fast, and can put the puck in the net. MOST IMPORTANTLY, when he plays on these national teams, he is more than willing to take 3rd or 4th line minutes and contribute any way needed to win. If he need to play physical and hit, he will, Speed, he'll do that to. Really, there is nothing he can't do.
I think you guys are grossly under rating Nash's ability all over 10ish points a season that Kovalchuk has achieved playing most of his career with All Stars or at least very good players such as Kozlov.
Beans,
Just because it is some of the "most brilliant minds in hockey" picking the teams for the Olympics, it does not mean that they can't make mistakes OR overlook other players.
Also, you say that Nash has never had anyone that can be rated as a 2nd line player. I disagree. Vyborny and Zherdev are 2nd line players in the NHL. Vyborny has lead the Blue Jackets in points in the 05/06 season and in the 06/07 season. Come on! Are you serious? You guys are comparing Nash to Iginla by saying that he has his potential, then you guys are saying that Nash has never played with ANYONE that can be rated a 2nd line player, which in my opinion he has, and yet he can't lead a team in points!?!? I am not saying that leading a team in points is what makes a player, and remember, I have seen him play live, but no matter what team you play for, if you are "one of Canada's best players", you should be able to lead a team in points. Or have hit the 70 point mark. Like...am I wrong in that aspect? Kovalchuk does it. And he doesn't get "10ish" points more then Nash. He gets almost 20 more points then Nash. Nash has 329 points in 417 games with a -58 and he's supposed to be a top elite player??? Hell, Hemsky has 315 points in 396 games, but there is NO way that people would rate him as a top elite player like Nash is made out to be. Kovalchuk has a terrible +/-, yes. But for what Kovalchuk and Nash are supposed to be, offensive goal scorers, Kovalchuk gets it done much better. And who is he playing with this year? Kozlov? Come on...Nash's team is in 6th place and a lot of players on that team are contributing. But even with his team doing as well as they are he is still dangling below a point per game.
Atlanta, by the way, sits in 14th.
I guess my point is this. If you were picking between these two players, you would be looking for a goal scorer. Mainly. Kovalchuk takes that. Hands down. As for some of the other aspects of the game, the two players are not that much different. They are both big. In the last 4 seasons, Nash has 29 more hits then Kovalchuk. They are both fast. They are both bad in the +/- department(and that is because they BOTH don't skate without the puck.) And they have both played for horrible teams.
It just seems to me, that for what these two players are in the NHL for, Kovalchuk gets the job done much better.
Some people skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is going to be.~Wayne Gretzky |
Edited by - ED11 on 02/18/2009 23:01:33 |
|
|
|
MSC
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
601 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 06:47:32
|
| Zherdev, while with Columbus was what you might call a bust. He was under performing and highly ineffective. He may be a second line player this year thanks to a change in scenery but previously with Columbus he was not. He was very Kovalevesque. They're putting pieces around Nash that could start shifting their defense first philosophy slightly though. A Nash, Brassard, Vorachek line could be a very potent thing in a few years if given the chance. |
|
|
|
Porkchop73
PickupHockey Pro
640 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 07:33:42
|
I think of this in two ways.
One: if i need a pure goal scorer then I I take Kovalchuk. The guy is a sniper and if i need someone for my playmaking centre to set up then I go with Kovalchuk. I don't buy the arguement that he had the players around him like Hossa, Heatley, Kozlov, and don't forget Savard. All of these players were snipers as well, all looking to shoot first and pass later. If you have team full of goal scorers and no one to set them up, then you have a problem. Hence Atlantas struggles.
Two: If i need an offensive centre with a defensive upside and a physical edge then I go with Nash. He is a totally different style of player then Kovalchuk. Nash goes strong to the net, often getting his goals from in close. Nash like most young players struggled defensively but under Hitchcock his defense has really improved. Nash is the type of player who does not need a high priced set up man to be productive because of his style of play.
If i was GM in the NHL I would love to have 1 line that is Kovalchuk style of skilled sniper with a skilled set up man. Then a 2nd line that is the drive hard to the net, high production, defensively responsible, and physical like Nash. That way I could adjust to the style of game my opponent is playing by employing either highly offensive units. Wouldn't that be great to have both. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 11:07:39
|
Just a couple of points:
1) I did miss Vyborny and Zherdev. However, as MSC stated, Zherdev did not play very good hockey in Columbus. And I don't care who you are, you can not compare Vyborny to the likes of Kovlov, Heatley, Savard(I think he played for ATL at the same time as Kovalchuk), or Hossa. There is not arguement in my mind that Kovalchuk has played with better offensive linemates which improves his ability to score.
2) Your comment about "one of Canada's best players" should be able to lead their team in scoring. Well, just this season let's look as some of Canada's best players. I can think of 3 players off the top of my head that would be on a national team if picked today that are not leading their teams. Iginla, Marleau, and argueably the best offensive player Canada has in Crosby. None of those guys are leading their teams in scoring. Weak point in my opinion
3)There were comments about Columbus being in 6th place in the West vs. Atlanta in 14th in the east. Completely irrelevant. Take a look at the two teams goals for and against. Atlanta has 172 goals for while Columbus has 159. The more offensive team is in Atlanta. And goals against, 204 for Atlanta compared to 161 for CBJ. Columbus is the more defensive team. I would have to say that Nash's production would increase in Atlanta and Kovalchuk's would decrease in CBJ. That's just simple math. And to the question of Kovlov. 50 pts in 58 games this year. Plus, are we maybe forgetting about Bryan Little and Todd White??? Both are having break out years. I don't think anyone can argue that ATL's offensive threads are better and help Kovalchuk more that Nash's line mates in CBJ.
4) The comment that if you are choosing between Nash and Kovalchuk must mean you are looking for a goal scorer is incorrect. The original question from ED11 is that if you are a head coach for an NHL franchise, would you rather have Kovalchuk or Nash?? That says nothing about goal scoring. My opinion is that if I can have a player that will score 40ish goals and 70-80 points but be able to play any role and responsibly defensively I would take that player of a potential 45ish goal scorer, 80-90 point guy that can not play all roles and is not as responsible defensively, I will take the defensively responsible guy.That guy is Nash. He brings more to the table. |
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 11:57:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Just a couple of points:
1) I did miss Vyborny and Zherdev. However, as MSC stated, Zherdev did not play very good hockey in Columbus. And I don't care who you are, you can not compare Vyborny to the likes of Kovlov, Heatley, Savard(I think he played for ATL at the same time as Kovalchuk), or Hossa. There is not arguement in my mind that Kovalchuk has played with better offensive linemates which improves his ability to score.
2) Your comment about "one of Canada's best players" should be able to lead their team in scoring. Well, just this season let's look as some of Canada's best players. I can think of 3 players off the top of my head that would be on a national team if picked today that are not leading their teams. Iginla, Marleau, and argueably the best offensive player Canada has in Crosby. None of those guys are leading their teams in scoring. Weak point in my opinion
3)There were comments about Columbus being in 6th place in the West vs. Atlanta in 14th in the east. Completely irrelevant. Take a look at the two teams goals for and against. Atlanta has 172 goals for while Columbus has 159. The more offensive team is in Atlanta. And goals against, 204 for Atlanta compared to 161 for CBJ. Columbus is the more defensive team. I would have to say that Nash's production would increase in Atlanta and Kovalchuk's would decrease in CBJ. That's just simple math. And to the question of Kovlov. 50 pts in 58 games this year. Plus, are we maybe forgetting about Bryan Little and Todd White??? Both are having break out years. I don't think anyone can argue that ATL's offensive threads are better and help Kovalchuk more that Nash's line mates in CBJ.
4) The comment that if you are choosing between Nash and Kovalchuk must mean you are looking for a goal scorer is incorrect. The original question from ED11 is that if you are a head coach for an NHL franchise, would you rather have Kovalchuk or Nash?? That says nothing about goal scoring. My opinion is that if I can have a player that will score 40ish goals and 70-80 points but be able to play any role and responsibly defensively I would take that player of a potential 45ish goal scorer, 80-90 point guy that can not play all roles and is not as responsible defensively, I will take the defensively responsible guy.That guy is Nash. He brings more to the table.
Okay, first off beans, I said that "one of Canada's best players", which was your quote to begin with, should be able to lead their team in points. Not scoring. Iginla is leading in points. Marleau is very close to leading in points. And actually is leading in scoring. But who can blame him when you have Thornton on the team right? And I would not put Marleau in Iggys caliber. Thornton definitely is. Nash however is made out by many to be in the caliber with the likes of Iggy and Thornton. Marleau is not. Savard isn't either. Yet I would take Marleau or Savard over Nash any day. So to say that I make a weak point when you don't even understand the point I made is actually a little weak.
Should "one of Canada's best players" not have hit the 70 mark at least once in 6 seasons of play? Especially when you're not a role player but a point producer? I think you should. Especially when you are considered to be as elite as Nash is.
Also, how do we know that if Kovalchuk played for Columbus, a more defensively minded team as you say, he wouldn't produce more? Would not having to worry about your back end as much, mean that Kovalchuk could really let his offensive talent fly? Maybe? There is no doubt in my mind that Kovalchuk would produce more offensively for Columbus then Nash does. That is just me though.
One more point. I think that you will agree beans, that these two players are pretty much the same type of players. No? Sure, Nash recently has been focusing more on the defensive side of things, but some of the other things I mentioned in my prior post, I think, ring true. The size, speed, shot, physically. By the way porkchop73, Nash is not a center and he is not that much more physical the Kovie. I will say this though, beans, you do bring up some good points that I have not thought of.
Good discussion guys. :)
Some people skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is going to be.~Wayne Gretzky |
Edited by - ED11 on 02/19/2009 11:59:48 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 14:34:05
|
ED11, I think that this is a perfect example of the misconception that offense = Good Player. Some of Canada's best talents are not offensive players. When I think of a guy like Brendan Morrow, the guy is absolute gold. He can do anything on the ice both offensively and defensively. I think of guys like Robyn Regehr who is arguably the best shut down defenseman in the game. It doesn't take offense to be a good players.
And you are right, Nash and Kovalchuk are similar types of players as I would characterize them both as speedy power forwards. However, the fact that Kovalchuk seems to have a slightly better scoring touch doesn't make him better. My point is that for the 5-10 points a season you will miss by choosing Nash over Kovalchuk, you will have at least that many if not more fewer goals into your net.
It's been fun! |
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2009 : 17:47:58
|
Yep, great discussing the topic with everyone, especially beans ;) You definitely brought up some good points.
Some people skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is going to be.~Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 08:41:54
|
Beans - I most vociferously disagree, and I hereby submit my rebuttal:
ED11, I think that this is a perfect example of the misconception that offense = Good Player. Some of Canada's best talents are not offensive players. When I think of a guy like Brendan Morrow, the guy is absolute gold. He can do anything on the ice both offensively and defensively. I think of guys like Robyn Regehr who is arguably the best shut down defenseman in the game. It doesn't take offense to be a good players.
There is no misconception about how important offense is to a "power forward" - a term you used to describe both Nash and Kovalchuk. A power forward, by very definition, is there to dominate physically and put pucks in the net. Mark Messier, Brendan Shanahan and Lindros in his heyday were the epitome of this characterisation, and they were all elite scorers as well as playmakers, and always drew top defensive assignment from the opposing team when they were in their prime. The very reason why we call these players great power forwards is not only their strong physical play, but their scoring prowess - otherwise, they would just be a second or third line role player or checker.
Now that we have defined what a power forward is and we know how he is to be judged (physical play and putting points on the board), we must examine if your assertion is true - are both Nash and Kovalchuk power forwards?
I submit that Kovalchuk is not. I would say he is a sniper.
I have come to this conclusion by listening to how he is termed by his coaches and management; by looking at his goal totals; and by noting his fairly non-existent physical play and offense-first mentality. 284 goals and 245 assists in 525 games is an impressive look at a goal-machine, and clearly he is a scorer, seeing the goal/assist ratio. To determine if he is a power forward, well - we can see by his play and penalty minutes and hit counter that this term would never apply. You might as well call Sellanne a power forward then - and trust me, I am not going to do that.
So, now we must recognise - we are comparing two players with different roles, and different styles, although they have one common denominator by which they are valued: goal scoring.
In that category, Kovalchuk beats him hands down, game over. I don't want to hear excuses about good teams/bad teams, defensive teams versus offensive teams, good linemates versus bad. From where I stand, Looking at years when Kovalchuk had almost no one to play with and Nash had no one to play with, Kovie still wins by a mile, and this is a similiar situation in that both teams had one go-to guy for scoring, basically.
Then you go on to say: However, the fact that Kovalchuk seems to have a slightly better scoring touch doesn't make him better. My point is that for the 5-10 points a season you will miss by choosing Nash over Kovalchuk, you will have at least that many if not more fewer goals into your net.
Well, again, you compare apples to oranges. Being a skilled sniper (and, arguably, playmaker), Kovie is rated almost solely on his goal-scoring, whereas Nash, as a power forward, is rated for his physical play and scoring combined. With that added dynamic, we expect a little less goal-scoring, after all - he is no Messier, or even young Shanahan.
Nash has accrued 179 goals and 152 assists in 418 games, and this year is on pace to have a career year in points and assists, on a remarkably improved Columbus team. Let's look at a power forward stat as well, hits: 59 hits, ranked T231 in the league.
Sorry, I'm not seeing the greatness here . . . and let me explain why. Nash is tied for 13th in goals, is 21st in points (a marked improvement over previous years, in fact), and is 231st in hits with 59. As a power forward, here is where he ranks in the NHL right now:
POWER FORWARDS
1. Ovechkin - arguably a sniper, but since he is 7th overall in hits (188 hits) as well as leading the league in goals (42) and 2nd in points (75), he must be here.
2. Dustin Brown - this young player is building on his breakout season with a dominant physical game, dishing out 209 hits so far good for 3rd overall. Along with 22 goals and 25 assists, this fresh-faced kid is as tough as nails and can score as well.
3. Ryan Getzlaf - a career year, with 66 points so far and a physical force to be reckoned with.
4. Patrick Marleau - having an incredible bounce-back year, 4th in goals with 33, and still has a good physical game. Would be higher if not for age and slightly decreased physical presence.
5. Eric Staal - another ho-hum season of 26 goals (11th) and spirited physical play, this guy will be one of the top ten power forwards for years to come.
6. Jerome Iginla - strange to see him so low here, but it's an off year: only 21 goals and 40 assists, mainly because his sniper linemate Cammalleri keeps scoring. Still one of the perrenial top power forwards.
7. Vincent Lecavalier - Everyone knows that this guy is a talented scorer and playmaker (25 goals, 29 assists), but did you know that he's also ranks 112th in the league with 84 hits? You do now.
8. Shane Doan - 22 goals, 31 assists, 11th in hits with 153. Hmm, maybe he needs to move up this list?
9. Mike Richards - a bit smaller than most of these guys, but he dishes it out as good or better (102 hits, good for #67). His gritty play and hard skating stands out, which is saying something for a guy with 22 goals and 35 assists.
10. Ryan Clowe - breakout season from this hulking forward - 102 hits, 20 goals, 27 assists. A future Eric Staal type player, perhaps.
11. Devin Setoguchi - 24 goals, 26 assists, 91 hits. 'Nuff said.
12. Rick Nash - 25 goals, 30 assists from the big guy, having a great year points wise. Could be ranked higher if not for a diminished physical role.
Now, for my rankings for snipers, Kovie's category:
SNIPERS
1. Ovechkin - this is why he's MVP, he is the complete package. Barring injuries, will continue to lead the league in goals for years to come. Blink, and it's in the net.
2. Hossa - he is money in the bank, year after year. 33 goals, good for 3rd overall right now, and dangerous on every shift, even with 2nd line minutes.
3. Vanek - True sniper with nearly half as many assists as goals. Dangerous at all times.
4. Parise - another great year, 2nd in goals with 35 on a suddenly offensive NJD squad.
5. Kovalchuk - perrenial top 5 sniper would be higher, without the slow start and terrible team. Perrenial top 5 goal scorer, no matter who he plays with.
I say that as a sniper, Kovalchuk ranks higher than Nash does as a power forward - hence, I choose Kovalchuk. 
The defence rests.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 10:14:23
|
Very intersting perspective and I can not argue with your logic, with the exception of one things.
A power forward does not need to hit it be rated as a power forward.
A power forward, in my opinion, is a player who used size over other attributes. They could be fast or they could be slow, but the fact that they are big is the factor. You can not say that a player such as Chris Kunitz is a power forward because he the 12th highest hitting forward in the NHL. Sorry, 6' and 193lbs doesn't class as a power forward to me.
In the end, I would tend to agree that Kovalchuk is more of a sniper than Nash is. However, I class them as power forwards because they are both big and strong and use that size to their advantage. Power Forwards.
That being said, the fact that Kovalchuk might be a better sniper than Nash does not make him a better player. I am comparing two players against each other, not their ranks against others.
Here's my report cards on the two players
Kovalchuk
Offense - A+ - He is at least a point a game player. There are only about 20 of those in the league each year. Definately A+.
Defense - C - At best, he is average.
Physical Abilities- A - Super fast for a 230 lb man, smooth skater, uses his size well. More power with his stick than skill.
Usability - C+ - He is an offensive player. I would not use him in defensive situatiions, PK, and I would find him a liability on the ice with a lead in the dying minutes of the game. Mostly one dimensional offensively.
Intangibles - B+ - I think he cares, and I think he loves the game. But I also think he could be significantly better defensively but chooses not to be. He also appears to fall asleep if his team is not playing well.
Overall - B+ - He is a super star offensively, but his lack of defense as well as his usability/intangibles drags him down.
Nash
Offence - A- - Less than a PPG player, but a guy averaging 35 goals a season is hard to come by. Definately has the skill but not up to Kovalchuk's level
Defense - B+ - Still a minus player and there are better defensive forward out there, but he is very responsible in his end.
Physical Abilities - A - Uses size well, not as fast as Kovalchuk, but I think more agile. He has moves on top of moves. And, I think better hands than Kovalchuk. Ilya is more of a power/shot type scorer. Nash can do that but has dekes that few can match.
Usability - A+ - He can play any forward position, PK, PP, EV, doesn't matter. He has shown that he can play different styles of hockey through the transitions between coaches in CBJ and at the National Level.
Intangibles- B+ - Similar to Kovalchuk, he does seem to lose desire if the team is not performing. However, I do think he has more dedication to improve the other areas of his game by his improvement in his overall +/-
Overall - A- - Nash's defensive ability and the fact that has proven to have the desire and ability to improve the weaker area of his game put him apart.
Ultimately, the final nail in the coffin for me is that Nash could mold effectively into any style of team. Offensive, defensive, trapping, doesn't matter. Kovalchuk's mostly one dimensional play drives him to be effective only on offensive teams. That being said, If I started a team tomorrow, and I had to pick Nash or Kovalchuk 1st, I take Nash. Reason being is that it doesn't matter what other players I get after that, I know I am getting 35 goals, 65 points, and effective player all over the ice. If I take Kovalchuk, I have to focus on offenisve player to ensure I am getting what Kovalchuk is capable of.
I still take Nash.
|
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 15:53:41
|
I will say this, you two, beans and slozo, have brought some really interesting ways at looking at this question. As well as some great insight.
I do agree with beans on the fact that the players are more similar then they are different. I would too say that they are both power forwards based on their sheer size and their ability to use that to help them with whatever other aspect that they excel at.
Kovie's being scoring.
Nash's being scoring as well....except...not as well as kovie's.
That is what ULTIMATELY makes me pick Kovie, not taking anything away from Nash's, arguably, better ability to fit with more styles of play.
Great insight though I must say. Great job.
Some people skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is going to be.~Wayne Gretzky |
|
|
|
Guest6177
( )
|
Posted - 02/20/2009 : 21:33:01
|
| KOVALCHUK HANDS DOWN |
|
|
|
Thrasher
Rookie
Canada
155 Posts |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 19:52:43
|
Wow, that was a good argument, I don't know what to say to follow up. I truly don't believe Nash is in the same high tier that Kovalchuk is in. I'm probably being biased because Kovie is my favorite player, but i think he is one of the top 5 most talented offensive players in the NHL. And i think he gets a bad wrap for his defensive play. Back im not sure how long ago, TSN showed an Atlanta vs Ottawa game and then Atlanta and another team the very next day (i think it was Montreal). And i specifically watched Kovalchuk (because no one else on Atlanta was fast enough to be interesting). While an absolute amazing in the offensive end, he surprised me with his defensive play. He was one of the first ones back on the back check and he was digging in the corners harder than i have seen other players. He truly has a passion for the game, and while i would not call him a complete two way player, he is not as terrible as everyone makes him out to be. You could argue his plus minus all you want, but notice how Atlanta lets in the second most goals of any team in the NHL. Not all his fault, the defense is suspect, and Lehtonen is still too young to be given full control of the team.
I am watching the Oilers vs Columbus game tonight, and right now its scoreless in the second. Nash has not really showed me his great defense (maybe people are not claiming he is great) but i don't understand how Kovalchuk gets such a bad name for defense when it looks like they play very similiar styles defensively. Then again, i have never made it a habit to watch the Blue Jackets play. But so far, i wouldn't say that Nash is a super star, all though he is a star, and the best player on his team. But if i were a coach wanting one of them on my team, i think Kovalchuks offensive upside is more than capable of covering up his apparent lack of defense. Let the defensemen and goalie worry about keeping the puck out, Kovalchuk will just outscore the other team. I truly think he is in the same class as Ovechkin, and if he were on Washington instead of Ovie, i think Kovalchuk would get alot more respect and recognition for how good of player he truly is. I don't know if i can say the same for Nash.
|
|
|
|
Thrasher17
Top Prospect
Canada
84 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 09:35:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Very intersting perspective and I can not argue with your logic, with the exception of one things.
A power forward does not need to hit it be rated as a power forward.
A power forward, in my opinion, is a player who used size over other attributes. They could be fast or they could be slow, but the fact that they are big is the factor. You can not say that a player such as Chris Kunitz is a power forward because he the 12th highest hitting forward in the NHL. Sorry, 6' and 193lbs doesn't class as a power forward to me.
In the end, I would tend to agree that Kovalchuk is more of a sniper than Nash is. However, I class them as power forwards because they are both big and strong and use that size to their advantage. Power Forwards.
That being said, the fact that Kovalchuk might be a better sniper than Nash does not make him a better player. I am comparing two players against each other, not their ranks against others.
Here's my report cards on the two players
Kovalchuk
Offense - A+ - He is at least a point a game player. There are only about 20 of those in the league each year. Definately A+.
Defense - C - At best, he is average.
Physical Abilities- A - Super fast for a 230 lb man, smooth skater, uses his size well. More power with his stick than skill.
Usability - C+ - He is an offensive player. I would not use him in defensive situatiions, PK, and I would find him a liability on the ice with a lead in the dying minutes of the game. Mostly one dimensional offensively.
Intangibles - B+ - I think he cares, and I think he loves the game. But I also think he could be significantly better defensively but chooses not to be. He also appears to fall asleep if his team is not playing well.
Overall - B+ - He is a super star offensively, but his lack of defense as well as his usability/intangibles drags him down.
Nash
Offence - A- - Less than a PPG player, but a guy averaging 35 goals a season is hard to come by. Definately has the skill but not up to Kovalchuk's level
Defense - B+ - Still a minus player and there are better defensive forward out there, but he is very responsible in his end.
Physical Abilities - A - Uses size well, not as fast as Kovalchuk, but I think more agile. He has moves on top of moves. And, I think better hands than Kovalchuk. Ilya is more of a power/shot type scorer. Nash can do that but has dekes that few can match.
Usability - A+ - He can play any forward position, PK, PP, EV, doesn't matter. He has shown that he can play different styles of hockey through the transitions between coaches in CBJ and at the National Level.
Intangibles- B+ - Similar to Kovalchuk, he does seem to lose desire if the team is not performing. However, I do think he has more dedication to improve the other areas of his game by his improvement in his overall +/-
Overall - A- - Nash's defensive ability and the fact that has proven to have the desire and ability to improve the weaker area of his game put him apart.
Ultimately, the final nail in the coffin for me is that Nash could mold effectively into any style of team. Offensive, defensive, trapping, doesn't matter. Kovalchuk's mostly one dimensional play drives him to be effective only on offensive teams. That being said, If I started a team tomorrow, and I had to pick Nash or Kovalchuk 1st, I take Nash. Reason being is that it doesn't matter what other players I get after that, I know I am getting 35 goals, 65 points, and effective player all over the ice. If I take Kovalchuk, I have to focus on offenisve player to ensure I am getting what Kovalchuk is capable of.
I still take Nash.
The biggest problem I see with your ratings for Kovalchuk is usability. C+??? I understand he doesnt play on the PK but I've watched Kovy play plenty of times and on many PP he literally plays the full 2 minutes. I remember watching a game at the beginning of this season where he played almost a 6 minute shift because the other team kept taking penalties!! You say you wouldnt play him at the end of a game if you were leading? When the opposing team pulls their goalie, Kovy looks like a kid on Christmas, giving it 150% to try to get the EN goal (Ever seen the video where he celebrates on an empty net breakaway before scoring?). I realize it may not be the correct form of motivation but hey, it works. Surely PK doesnt make the difference from C+ to A+? I would say Kovy is about a B or B+.
How about another category, Effectiveness. (EV, PK, PP)
EV - I was surprised to see their stats are pretty similar.
Kovy - 22G - 15A - 37P
Nash - 18G - 20A - 38P
Kovy has more goals but I'd give the slight edge to Nash for his defensive responsibility.
PK - Obviously Nash wins this one head-to-head, but I think as a coach i would probably go for other options. Neither one is a Selke candidate and I'd rather have my stars ready to go after the penalty ends.
PP - This one has to go to Kovy in a landslide.
Kovy - 10G - 18A - 28P
Nash - 5G - 10A - 15P
I'd feel safe saying that these guys are their teams go-to-guys on offence. ATL PP is ranked 11th in the league with 50G on 252 (19.8%) opportunities. CBJ is ranked last with 33G on 263 (12.6%) opportunities.
If I were to make a PP unit from all the players in the league, Kovy would definately be on the 1st, maybe 2nd line. I dont know where Nash would end up but it would be much farther down.
Lastly, if I were picking my team, and I had the choice between Kovy and Nash, I would go with Kovy. My reasoning is that with Kovy I know i have a solid 1 man point producing machine. I would be able to focus on solidifying my defense knowing I have a guaranteed point per game guy on offence, regardless of who he plays with. With Nash I would constantly be worrying about trying to find secondary scoring to complement him, because I dont think 65 points is good enough from my leading point man (theres a reason CBJ has never made playoffs). How many teams are successful with their leading producers at under 70 points? I'm sure it has happened but they must be stacked defensively or have many guys at that 65 point range (NJ, before this year, is one i can think of). |
Edited by - Thrasher17 on 02/27/2009 09:39:14 |
|
|
|
Guest9767
( )
|
Posted - 04/08/2009 : 04:41:52
|
| nash all the way |
|
|
|
Matt_Roberts85
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
936 Posts |
Posted - 04/08/2009 : 07:31:57
|
Wow, both of these guys are UFA at the end of next year. If neither resign with their respective clubs, a bidding war of epic proportions will ensue. Nash to Toronto, Kovy to Montreal? hmm, i guess it depends if the habs land Vinny at the draft.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Nash or Kovalchuk? 
