Alain Vigneault

[Jersey Girl]

Why yes you can, because that's exactly what you've been doing all day. Tsk tsk.

Never did I try discredit his cup, the issue is that isn't relevant to this discussion considering AV coached the Canucks at the sane time Torts coached the Rangers, which is the best parallel we can use for comparison. I'm concerned about you.

Yeah, when you get back to the personal comments - AGAIN - that pretty much says it all.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I'm just having some fun with you, because I appreciate that you don't take this too seriously.

And if you wonder how I feel about AV - and Torts - please read the OP of this thread! I'll give you hint, it's written by someone very smart - not to mention cute!

You are right...I do not take it too seriously. It was also good that you pointed out that you were the OP. I did not realize that. Still I noticed you did not answer my question.

Regarding how cute the OP is I always assume everyone on the Internet is 300 pounds in ripped clothes unless pictures are shown to prove otherwise.

 

[Jersey Girl]

You are right...I do not take it too seriously. It was also good that you pointed out that you were the OP. I did not realize that. Still I noticed you did not answer my question.

Regarding how cute the OP is I always assume everyone on the Internet is 300 pounds in ripped clothes unless pictures are shown to prove otherwise.

Lol me too...

Actually, I've posted more than once today in this thread - but that part keeps getting ignored by those who just want a p****** match - that I was not a huge fan of Torts.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Yeah, when you get back to the personal comments - AGAIN - that pretty much says it all.

Yeah, exactly. Lol.

You intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted 3/4 of my posts, decided to deflect any time I asked you to respond to a question or prove otherwise, said I was getting personal, deflected some more, got personal towards me, misinterpreted something yet again, and told me I was being personal again...

Literally.

So forgive me for lacking the patience to deal with that crap. Maybe you could ask BRB to come back into the conversation so you can agree with him rather than trying to back things up on your own.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Yeah, exactly. Lol.

You intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreted 3/4 of my posts, decided to deflect any time I asked you to respond to a question or prove otherwise, said I was getting personal, deflected some more, got personal towards me, misinterpreted something yet again, and told me I was being personal again...

Literally.

So forgive me for lacking the patience to deal with that crap. Maybe you could ask BRB to come back into the conversation so you can agree with him rather than trying to back things up on your own.

...and now a p****** match about having a p****** match. Whatever.

Time to both let it go...

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Torts' cup win from 2004 is really not that relevant considering how drastically different the league is now. I'd say AV coming within one win of the cup is much more relevant and indicative of potential success.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

...and now a p****** match about having a p****** match. Whatever.

Not exactly, but since you want to derail this so badly I'll just leave it alone. Unless I see another snarky comment directed towards me.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Not exactly, but since you want to derail this so badly I'll just leave it alone. Unless I see another snarky comment directed towards me.

Like I said, time to both let it go...

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Torts' cup win from 2004 is really not that relevant considering how drastically different the league is now. I'd say AV coming within one win of the cup is much more relevant and indicative of potential success.

And I'd say neither are really indicative of anything. All these Torts vs. AV arguments revolve around different cities, different seasons, different rosters.

Everyone and their mother thinks that this team is deeper than the '11-12 team, yet any level of success or failure gets tied to the coach and his style rather than players' talents.

Its almost as if the apathy of Sather's shoddy roster building is so far advanced that we have to find something else to argue about even though roster construction is the core issue.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

And I'd say neither are really indicative of anything. All these Torts vs. AV arguments revolve around different cities, different seasons, different rosters.

Everyone and their mother thinks that this team is deeper than the '11-12 team, yet any level of success or failure gets tied to the coach and his style rather than players' talents.

Its almost as if the apathy of Sather's shoddy roster building is so far advanced that we have to find something else to argue about even though roster construction is the core issue.

Yeah, I agree completely. I really like AV and think the switch from Torts was necessary...but in the long run, coaching was not the only reason we got shelled in five last year. Having a good, deep, well rounded roster is much, much more important than any coach could be, this isn't the NFL.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Yeah, I agree completely. I really like AV and think the switch from Torts was necessary...but in the long run, coaching was not the only reason we got shelled in five last year. Having a good, deep, well rounded roster is much, much more important than any coach could be, this isn't the NFL.

Well rounded are the key words for me.

In 2 short years, we went from a grind it out/tough ass team to almost entirely a skill/puck possession team. It really doesn't matter which style you like more because, in the end, the cup champion usually possesses both attributes.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Well rounded are the key words for me.

In 2 short years, we went from a grind it out/tough ass team to almost entirely a skill/puck possession team. It really doesn't matter which style you like more because, in the end, the cup champion usually possesses both attributes.

I agree.

I can't believe I'm actually going to say something nice about Sather but...seems to me he started fitting the roster to AV's coaching style even before AV got here. Gotta give Sather some credit for that.

Seems even more apparent since in Vancouver it doesn't seem like Gillis did that at all - Torts was asked to mold his style to a roster that doesn't fit. Not saying this to defend Torts - I'll just never get why they hired him in the first place.

 

[True Blue]

In 2 short years, we went from a grind it out/tough ass team to almost entirely a skill/puck possession team. It really doesn't matter which style you like more because, in the end, the cup champion usually possesses both attributes.

That is true and whichever style you prefer, only the results will dictate which is more successful.

 

[Richter Scale]

Why yes you can, because that's exactly what you've been doing all day. Tsk tsk.

Never did I try discredit his cup, the issue is that isn't relevant to this discussion considering AV coached the Canucks at the sane time Torts coached the Rangers, which is the best parallel we can use for comparison. I'm concerned about you.

If you really cared about parallel comparisons, you would acknowledge that comparing AV's 10-11 SCF VAN team to any team that NYR has had while Torts was head coach is no where near comparable. By comparison, AV was working with a stacked team while coaching VAN in those years and couldn't get it done. His VAN teams ended up underachieving. And in the past couple years, that team has been on the way out -- even your beloved AV couldn't get this backsliding team to win more than a single game in their last two playoff appearances.

Torts was given nothing but flawed roster after flawed roster while coaching NYR. And those teams may not have performed beautifully, but as a whole, they overachieved. Second rounds and the ECF for those rosters ain't too shabby for what he had to work with.

The difference between a thoughtful analysis and what you're doing in this thread is that you're looking at win-loss ratios in a vacuum, assuming all other factors are equal. The problem is, not all other factors are equal. Not to mention you're just discounting any other factor that would disagree with your position (i.e. a Stanley Cup win -- sorry, it is not irrelevant, even from just prior to the lockout). Feel free to respond to these points if you like - but I'm not going to address this topic further; as this is not something that interests me.

--

All of this is getting to be beside the point and just a circular discussion anyway. Who cares whether Torts or AV has had the better coaching career? (That is the argument you guys are now having, if you haven't noticed). All I care about is who was/is the better coach for NYR and who got the best out of the NYR teams they coached. This discussion is no longer advancing that debate.

Wait to see how AV does with this team in the playoffs (with a deeper and more offensively skilled team, mind you). Then you will have a somewhat closer apples to apples comparison. And then you can throw your stones from afar.

--

If you are interested in having that debate now though, then I'll engage. Here is my opinion on that subject: From what I've seen so far, I'd say Torts got more out of his NYR teams. I'm pretty unimpressed - despite the improvement in the second half - with a coach who is working with a team makeup that is more offensively talented, deeper (though perhaps less well rounded), and is composed of a better and more stable back-end; but is unable to put up GF / GA / Win / Loss numbers that are an improvement over the last couple seasons.

But it is obviously still early in AV's tenure, things seem on the upswing for him, and we've seen no playoff action yet. So he could very well win me over. We'll see how things go from here. I'm obviously excited for playoffs - but I'm almost more excited for next season to see how the team does after having had a full season to work with him, have MSL adjust to the team, and for AV to mold them to his vision.

Caveat: All of this isn't to say I believe coaching matters a ton in the final product in terms of what a team achieves - in my mind the personnel matters far more. Especially if the personnel isn't a coherent unit that fits any sort of team concept.

 

[Cake or Death]

Not sure why an AV thread needs to turn into such an AV vs Torts debate. Personally, I like what both Torts and Renney added to the organization and they seemed like the right guys at the time. I think the time was up for both guys when they were both gotten rid of, but I can still appreciate what they brought to the table for the franchise. All an AV vs Torts debate does is force people who engage in it to fortify their position, often by bashing someone. Not sure why we can't just stay on topic without bashing guys who are (1) no longer here and (2) truly did the best they could for the team and (3) obviously cared about the NY Rangers organization. Just my two cents.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Not sure why an AV thread needs to turn into such an AV vs Torts debate. Personally, I like what both Torts and Renney added to the organization and they seemed like the right guys at the time. I think the time was up for both guys when they were both gotten rid of, but I can still appreciate what they brought to the table for the franchise. All an AV vs Torts debate does is force people who engage in it to fortify their position, often by bashing someone. Not sure why we can't just stay on topic without bashing guys who are (1) no longer here and (2) truly did the best they could for the team and (3) obviously cared about the NY Rangers organization. Just my two cents.

Great points.

I wrote the OP in support of AV, but today I wound up defending Torts today because people were denigrating the 2012 trip to the ECF as a fluke.

The truth is more what you said, both Torts and AV did/are doing what they think is best at the time.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

If you really cared about parallel comparisons, you would acknowledge that comparing AV's 10-11 SCF VAN team to any team that NYR has had while Torts was head coach is no where near comparable. By comparison, AV was working with a stacked team while coaching VAN in those years and couldn't get it done. His VAN teams ended up underachieving. And in the past couple years, that team has been on the way out -- even your beloved AV couldn't get this backsliding team to win more than a single game in their last two playoff appearances.

Stacked by whose definition? IMHO they were one of the weaker top tier teams. They also underachieved based on Canadian medias expectations, that's really not a difficult task. This point can't be proven or debunked in any definitive manner, and no "because people on HF said so" isn't definitive. In terms of overall talent and having a balanced lineup I didn't envy Vancouver.

No kidding exact parallels don't exist in situations involving what, roughly 50 individuals? That's why I said the "best" parallel. Because you know what is even further from parallel, a team from a decade ago.

Torts was given nothing but flawed roster after flawed roster while coaching NYR. And those teams may not have performed beautifully, but as a whole, they overachieved. Second rounds and the ECF for those rosters ain't too shabby for what he had to work with.

I agree to an extent, but then again I had already mentioned I though the ECF appearance was an anomaly, that doesn't mean it was bad or unwarranted, just that the right things happened at the right time. Now saying that 2nd round appearances "ain't too shabby" is a bit of a stretch considering who we have in net, and the fact that while not stacked they certainly weren't devoid of talent and or work ethic. Players whom a large portion of this fan base still laud after they've moved on in one way or the other. If it was so terrible, why do people miss them so bad? Why do they cling to '11-'12 as some defining moment in NYR history.

The difference between a thoughtful analysis and what you're doing in this thread is that you're looking at win-loss ratios in a vacuum, assuming all other factors are equal. The problem is, not all other factors are equal. Not to mention you're just discounting any other factor that would disagree with your position (i.e. a Stanley Cup win -- sorry, it is not irrelevant, even from just prior to the lockout). Feel free to respond to these points if you like - but I'm not going to address this topic further; as this is not something that interests me.

I'm not discounting anything, I am saying it's not relevant to the discussion. The one I was trying to limit to the most comparable time frame, so I could avoid people constantly saying "dat cup doe". That cup has absolutely zero to do with the Rangers or Canucks, John Tortorella and Alain Vigneault on the other hand have quite a bit to do with them. I used statistics as a way to illustrate to a poster that in a results driven business such as professional sports AV had actually had more success. I'm not going to waste my time listening to people compare '11-'12 Dubinsky to '12-'13 Kesler and who may or may not have brought more to their team. You realize no one will ever agree in those situations right? It's hard to argue against results.

All of this is getting to be beside the point and just a circular discussion anyway. Who cares whether Torts or AV has had the better coaching career? (That is the argument you guys are now having, if you haven't noticed). All I care about is who was/is the better coach for NYR and who got the best out of the NYR teams they coached. This discussion is no longer advancing that debate.

That's the direction it went, who cares, don't read it.

Wait to see how AV does with this team in the playoffs (with a deeper and more offensively skilled team, mind you). Then you will have a somewhat closer apples to apples comparison. And then you can throw your stones from afar.

Thanks!

--

If you are interested in having that debate now though, then I'll engage. Here is my opinion on that subject: From what I've seen so far, I'd say Torts got more out of his NYR teams. I'm pretty unimpressed - despite the improvement in the second half - with a coach who is working with a team makeup that is more offensively talented, deeper (though perhaps less well rounded), and is composed of a better and more stable back-end; but is unable to put up GF / GA / Win / Loss numbers that are an improvement over the last couple seasons.

Splitting hairs if you ask me, the numbers are pretty darn close to the 3 year averages of Torts and that's with the rough start, which isn't excusable but regardless it skews the numbers.

They are more talented now, but at the start of the year I don't recall many people thinking that.