All Encompassing Tortorella..ella..ella..eh..eh...and Glen Cigar Thread Part III

[NickyFotiu]

The one assistant coach thing is so weird to me... Why give away help? You can hire anybody, be unorthodox if you like, but just declining to make use of something that should help you compete makes me think you are immune to evidence and reason altering your professional approach.

We should have hired a guy that knows how to run the powerplay a long time ago. Torts does not even like to talk about the offense.

 

[esidebill]

We should have hired a guy that knows how to run the powerplay a long time ago. Torts does not even like to talk about the offense.

Replace Jim Mora saying "playoffs" with Tortorella saying "offense", and that's how that would work.

 

[Fleury4ever]

We should have hired a guy that knows how to run the powerplay a long time ago. Torts does not even like to talk about the offense.

Hire a monkey that passes around Gatorade and smelling salts, just do something! Otherwise I'll think Torts is just set in his ways and content to become obsolete; he's not incompetent, just might not be that smart.

The Cup run in 04 is nice and all, but TB could have lost to the old and beat up Flyers, and barely beat Calgary who was the 6 seed and had a bunch of injuries (and maybe they didn't! Martin Gelinas!).

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

We should have hired a guy that knows how to run the powerplay a long time ago. Torts does not even like to talk about the offense.

Yea, lets hire a tactician so you can complain about how the team is soft within a year.

And on and on we go.

 

[NY Lito]

Yea, lets hire a tactician so you can complain about how the team is soft within a year.

And on and on we go.

I think a lot of the Torts' haters forgot how much he's changed the makeup of this team. Main reason why I like him is the fact he gave the team balls. We were pushed around for far too long.

Renney's teams were the epitome of soft. Torts changed that, along with some of our homegrown guys.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I think a lot of the Torts' haters forgot how much he's changed the makeup of this team. Main reason why I like him is the fact he gave the team balls. We were pushed around for far too long.

Renney's teams were the epitome of soft. Torts changed that, along with some of our homegrown guys.

Not only that, but I remember how I was told Tom Renney was holding back the offensive potential of one of the worst rosters assembled in my time as a Ranger fan 2008-2009. Oops.

I just dont get why its so difficult to admit that players stink sometimes and theres nothing a coach can do about it.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Yea, lets hire a tactician so you can complain about how the team is soft within a year.

And on and on we go.

That is a nonsesical reply for multiple reasons.

1. I do not think every team that has a coach who works on the power play becomes soft. Your connection and logic there is a huge reach.

2. I have never complained that the team is soft so where did that even come from?

 

[Ryan McDonut]

Not only that, but I remember how I was told Tom Renney was holding back the offensive potential of one of the worst rosters assembled in my time as a Ranger fan 2008-2009. Oops.

I just dont get why its so difficult to admit that players stink sometimes and theres nothing a coach can do about it.

and our roster is much much better than that one and we're still right around the same spot standings wise.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

That is a nonsesical reply for multiple reasons.

1. I do not think every team that has a coach who works on the power play becomes soft. Your connection and logic there is a huge reach.

2. I have never complained that the team is soft so where did that even come from?

My greater point is that you have zero clue what or who you want...just that its not Tortorella.

 

[NickyFotiu]

My greater point is that you have zero clue what or who you want...just that its not Tortorella.

Another nonsensical reply mixed with insults. The irony is your reply was to my suggestion we bring that we should have brought in somebody to help run the PP years ago. I did not say that person should be the one to replace Torts. Reading is fundamental.

 

[bmoak]

Didn't Torts build his coaching rep as a special-teams guy as Muckler's assistant in Buffalo?

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

John Tortorella's resume:

Career Regular Season Record: 404-338-37-67 (.544)
Career Record w Rangers: 153-106-27 (.591)

Stanley Cup Champion (2004)
Jack Adams Award (03-04)
Most wins by any American born coach.

You would think that with this resume, Torts would earn more respect around here. Unfortunately that's not the case. Too many fans on this board give the players pass after pass, and instead blame Torts for all of our problems. When we win: the players are awesome. When we lose: it's all Torts' fault. If you're going to criticize Torts when he lose, then give him credit when we win. He's been a winner throughout his entire career. And for those of you who want him fired, please name a few acceptable replacements. Last year we were two goals away from the Stanley Cup finals (lost Game 5 by one goal, lost Game 6 in OT)...you would think that Torts would get a little leeway from our fanbase. Unfortunately he does not.

To be brutally honest, I wouldn't count any accomplishments from any player or coach that were made before the 2005-06 season. The game right now is completely different from the dead puck era.

He isn't a bad coach by any means, but he also isn't so elite to be beyond reproach, either.

Torts is one of those guys who makes a point of "positioning" himself quite well, if you catch my drift. Once he got a little traction in the league, he made connections and caught onto a young, up and coming team in Tampa that was destined for great things, no matter who was behind the bench. And, once those nutball owners started a complete dismantling after the cup, he started making waves to get out before the team hit rock bottom and carried his career along with it. He used his ring to secure a premium job in NYC, and talked everyone into the "process."

Check out how many times he uses the word 'process', and 'patience', 'jam', and 'time', etc. He has many of the lemmings convinced that any downfalls this year should all be blamed on a short training camp (even though the other 29 teams were going through the same thing). For him, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors, a lot of yelling and shouting, and slight of hand. Once the smoke clears, there isn't a whole lot of substance there.

Like others have said, without an all-world netminder, this would not be a playoff team.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

To be brutally honest, I wouldn't count any accomplishments from any player or coach that were made before the 2005-06 season. The game right now is completely different from the dead puck era.

He isn't a bad coach by any means, but he also isn't so elite to be beyond reproach, either.

Torts is one of those guys who makes a point of "positioning" himself quite well, if you catch my drift. Once he got a little traction in the league, he made connections and caught onto a young, up and coming team in Tampa that was destined for great things, no matter who was behind the bench. And, once those nutball owners started a complete dismantling after the cup, he started making waves to get out before the team hit rock bottom and carried his career along with it. He used his ring to secure a premium job in NYC, and talked everyone into the "process."

Check out how many times he uses the word 'process', and 'patience', 'jam', and 'time', etc. He has many of the lemmings convinced that any downfalls this year should all be blamed on a short training camp (even though the other 29 teams were going through the same thing). For him, there's a lot of smoke and mirrors, a lot of yelling and shouting, and slight of hand. Once the smoke clears, there isn't a whole lot of substance there.

Like others have said, without an all-world netminder, this would not be a playoff team.

And without water we'd all die. Who cares? We have an all-world netminder. We drafted him and we pay him big money in a salary cap league. To count the good play of Hank against Torts is illogical.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

. after a certain period of time, no matter how much one tries, if he fails to succeed, then he should be relieved of his duties so that someone else can attempt to succeed

Can't argue with that at all. Glen sucks and he should be gone. I'd say you overrate our financial advantage because the cap limits our spending. But that point right there is what matters. No excuse for this duration of failure. If we condense everything into post lockout only this team has been fun and done well. But when you look at all factors this team has been a massive dissappointment and only for a single season last year did we go anywhere significantly higher than status quo

I'm happy watching a team that can win more often than not simply b/c I've mellowed a little and become distracted with life things. But I would love nothing more than to see a team of mine become THE team or at least one of THE top teams for more than a season. Instead my team is routinely THE circus or THE massive dissappointment. I used to break a lot of glass around the house because of incompetent fools like Sather

 

[JohnC]

And without water we'd all die. Who cares? We have an all-world netminder. We drafted him and we pay him big money in a salary cap league. To count the good play of Hank against Torts is illogical.

I'm not even trying to be mean, but can you find anything negative to say about Torts at all? Or are you miraculously 100% okay with the guy?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

And without water we'd all die. Who cares? We have an all-world netminder. We drafted him and we pay him big money in a salary cap league. To count the good play of Hank against Torts is illogical.

I think thats miswording it. It's reasonable to step back and point out that the credit you attribute to Torts is being erroneosly credited because it's really credit that belongs to one of the best G's in the history of the NHL.

Maybe it should be Torts credit but people who argue that Tortsis being credited for Hank's accomplishments have a very strong leg to stand on.

Team has done many things better under Torts though and I thought lst year he had made a Coughlin like turnaround to be a bit more player reasonable/friendly. I legitamately feel that we got saddled with a complete bust in Richards who is annihilating our top 6.

I don't want to erroneously blame Torts for Richards failures but clearly Torts is lacking at least to me he is. I could be wrong

 

[Kel Varnsen]

I'm not even trying to be mean, but can you find anything negative to say about Torts at all? Or are you miraculously 100% okay with the guy?

He shouldn't have gotten himself suspended in the playoffs against the caps back when that all happened.

I hate all the nitpickey stuff, because honestly it just reads to me as incredible arrogance. Not just for Torts, but in general I think fans are way to quick to belittle coaches as GMs.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

He shouldn't have gotten himself suspended in the playoffs against the caps back when that all happened.

I hate all the nitpickey stuff, because honestly it just reads to me as incredible arrogance. Not just for Torts, but in general I think fans are way to quick to belittle coaches as GMs.

From all the angry threads on the board so far this season, I daresay none of the players are getting off the hook, either. And hey, this is a discussion forum, and playing an armchair GM/coach/player is a ton of fun.

Now, I wouldn't blame Torts for constantly putting Callahan on the ice; the guy is a warrior and saved this team numerous times. The last dozen games have been horribly uncharacteristic for him. Even when he doesn't put up points, he does many other things well away from the puck that benefit the team.

But the numerous chances to Richards and Boyle? (Yes, they've both been better the last 3-4 games, but that doesn't erase the first 35 stinkers.) If I was a guy on the 3rd or 4th line riding the pine most of the game and saw that for so long...chances are it wouldn't exactly be a happy dressing room.

Let's face it, the majority of fans on here are the ones who can put together winning line combinations, and who can see the same player making the same mistakes, over and over. I don't understand how the coaching staff doesn't see it (or at least doesn't address it).

 

[NYR Sting]

Um, isn't that what they're doing now?

Not in my opinion. World class hockey means being an effective offensive team. It means having world class offensive players on your team.

2005-06: 14th in GPG, 8th in PP%
2006-07: 18th in GPG, 8th in PP%
2007-08: 25th in GPG, 22nd in PP%
2008-09: 28th in GPG, 29th in PP%
2009-10: 16th in GPG, 13th in PP%
2010-11: 16th in GPG, 18th in PP%
2011-12: 11th in GPG, 23rd in PP%
2012-13: 24th in GPG, 21st in PP%

Since the lockout, the team has on average been 19th in the league in goals per game, and 18th in PP%. I'm not saying you have to be the best offensive team in the league to be a top contender, but you certainly have to be better than below average. I'm not saying that defense and physicality isn't entertaining, but the best, most entertaining teams tend to bring both offense and defense into the equation. Not this team.

This team has consistently been one of the better defensive teams in the league since the lockout. That is not a John Tortorella-inspired identity. Tom Renney's teams were just as strong defensively. Top 5 or 10 in GAA every single season since the lockout. How much success has that brought the Rangers? Is it any surprise that the most successful season, 2011-12, was the only season where they were an above-average offensive team? You can't rely simply on defense; that isn't enough.

Of the 7 champions since the lockout, every single one except for Los Angeles has been one of the top 10 offensive teams during the regular season. Los Angeles was an absurd anomaly. The only 8th seed to ever win a championship and one of only two bottom-half seeds to win a Cup in the last 30 or 40 years. They were a stacked team that GREATLY underachieved during the regular season (29th in goals per game during the regular season), fired their coach midway, and then ranked 3rd in goals per game during the playoffs.

This is where Glen Sather has failed the most. He has not been able to acquire enough world class offensive talent, and as such, his teams have very little hope of winning, because it is nearly impossible to win if you don't have some of the best players in the world. And, in my personal opinion, it isn't all that entertaining to watch. Leaving biases toward players on my favorite team aside, I'd much rather watch teams like Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Vancouver, Ottawa than the Rangers. These teams play an exciting, beautiful style of hockey more often than not, and not surprisingly, they've all either won the Cup since the lockout, or at least made the Finals.

Can't argue with that at all. Glen sucks and he should be gone. I'd say you overrate our financial advantage because the cap limits our spending. But that point right there is what matters. No excuse for this duration of failure. If we condense everything into post lockout only this team has been fun and done well. But when you look at all factors this team has been a massive dissappointment and only for a single season last year did we go anywhere significantly higher than status quo

I'm happy watching a team that can win more often than not simply b/c I've mellowed a little and become distracted with life things. But I would love nothing more than to see a team of mine become THE team or at least one of THE top teams for more than a season. Instead my team is routinely THE circus or THE massive dissappointment. I used to break a lot of glass around the house because of incompetent fools like Sather

The cap limits spending only on players. It doesn't limit spending on every other aspect of operating a team. The money you spend on staff, on scouting, on facilities, etc. is not limited. In these areas, the Rangers have an enormous advantage over small market teams that lose money even when they have successful seasons, and certainly over routinely bad teams like Florida, losing money hand over fist, season after season. That advantage should give teams like NYR, MTL, TOR a leg up. But these teams have all been poorly managed for years, so instead of using this advantage to crush the opposition, they use it just to keep pace with them.

 

[Ail]

Not in my opinion. World class hockey means being an effective offensive team. It means having world class offensive players on your team.

2005-06: 14th in GPG, 8th in PP%
2006-07: 18th in GPG, 8th in PP%
2007-08: 25th in GPG, 22nd in PP%
2008-09: 28th in GPG, 29th in PP%
2009-10: 16th in GPG, 13th in PP%
2010-11: 16th in GPG, 18th in PP%
2011-12: 11th in GPG, 23rd in PP%
2012-13: 24th in GPG, 21st in PP%

Since the lockout, the team has on average been 19th in the league in goals per game, and 18th in PP%. I'm not saying you have to be the best offensive team in the league to be a top contender, but you certainly have to be better than below average. I'm not saying that defense and physicality isn't entertaining, but the best, most entertaining teams tend to bring both offense and defense into the equation. Not this team.

This team has consistently been one of the better defensive teams in the league since the lockout. That is not a John Tortorella-inspired identity. Tom Renney's teams were just as strong defensively. Top 5 or 10 in GAA every single season since the lockout. How much success has that brought the Rangers? Is it any surprise that the most successful season, 2011-12, was the only season where they were an above-average offensive team? You can't rely simply on defense; that isn't enough.

Of the 7 champions since the lockout, every single one except for Los Angeles has been one of the top 10 offensive teams during the regular season. Los Angeles was an absurd anomaly. The only 8th seed to ever win a championship and one of only two bottom-half seeds to win a Cup in the last 30 or 40 years. They were a stacked team that GREATLY underachieved during the regular season (29th in goals per game during the regular season), fired their coach midway, and then ranked 3rd in goals per game during the playoffs.

This is where Glen Sather has failed the most. He has not been able to acquire enough world class offensive talent, and as such, his teams have very little hope of winning, because it is nearly impossible to win if you don't have some of the best players in the world. And, in my personal opinion, it isn't all that entertaining to watch. Leaving biases toward players on my favorite team aside, I'd much rather watch teams like Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Vancouver, Ottawa than the Rangers. These teams play an exciting, beautiful style of hockey more often than not, and not surprisingly, they've all either won the Cup since the lockout, or at least made the Finals.



The cap limits spending only on players. It doesn't limit spending on every other aspect of operating a team. The money you spend on staff, on scouting, on facilities, etc. is not limited. In these areas, the Rangers have an enormous advantage over small market teams that lose money even when they have successful seasons, and certainly over routinely bad teams like Florida, losing money hand over fist, season after season. That advantage should give teams like NYR, MTL, TOR a leg up. But these teams have all been poorly managed for years, so instead of using this advantage to crush the opposition, they use it just to keep pace with them.

Great post. I feel exactly the same.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The cap limits spending only on players. It doesn't limit spending on every other aspect of operating a team. The money you spend on staff, on scouting, on facilities, etc. is not limited. In these areas, the Rangers have an enormous advantage over small market teams that lose money even when they have successful seasons, and certainly over routinely bad teams like Florida, losing money hand over fist, season after season. That advantage should give teams like NYR, MTL, TOR a leg up. But these teams have all been poorly managed for years, so instead of using this advantage to crush the opposition, they use it just to keep pace with them.

This is a key point that gets overlooked far too often. Its just bizarre that some folks can say that Sather's hideous signings havent hurt the organization because hes been able to get out of them or bury players.

Wade Redden made roughly $20M for playing in the minor leagues. Noone thinks that money could have been used across the organization? Sheesh.

 

[Blueshirt Special]

Great post. I feel exactly the same.

Agreed.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Not in my opinion. World class hockey means being an effective offensive team. It means having world class offensive players on your team.

2005-06: 14th in GPG, 8th in PP%
2006-07: 18th in GPG, 8th in PP%
2007-08: 25th in GPG, 22nd in PP%
2008-09: 28th in GPG, 29th in PP%
2009-10: 16th in GPG, 13th in PP%
2010-11: 16th in GPG, 18th in PP%
2011-12: 11th in GPG, 23rd in PP%
2012-13: 24th in GPG, 21st in PP%

Since the lockout, the team has on average been 19th in the league in goals per game, and 18th in PP%. I'm not saying you have to be the best offensive team in the league to be a top contender, but you certainly have to be better than below average. I'm not saying that defense and physicality isn't entertaining, but the best, most entertaining teams tend to bring both offense and defense into the equation. Not this team.

This team has consistently been one of the better defensive teams in the league since the lockout. That is not a John Tortorella-inspired identity. Tom Renney's teams were just as strong defensively. Top 5 or 10 in GAA every single season since the lockout. How much success has that brought the Rangers? Is it any surprise that the most successful season, 2011-12, was the only season where they were an above-average offensive team? You can't rely simply on defense; that isn't enough.

Of the 7 champions since the lockout, every single one except for Los Angeles has been one of the top 10 offensive teams during the regular season. Los Angeles was an absurd anomaly. The only 8th seed to ever win a championship and one of only two bottom-half seeds to win a Cup in the last 30 or 40 years. They were a stacked team that GREATLY underachieved during the regular season (29th in goals per game during the regular season), fired their coach midway, and then ranked 3rd in goals per game during the playoffs.

This is where Glen Sather has failed the most. He has not been able to acquire enough world class offensive talent, and as such, his teams have very little hope of winning, because it is nearly impossible to win if you don't have some of the best players in the world. And, in my personal opinion, it isn't all that entertaining to watch. Leaving biases toward players on my favorite team aside, I'd much rather watch teams like Chicago, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Vancouver, Ottawa than the Rangers. These teams play an exciting, beautiful style of hockey more often than not, and not surprisingly, they've all either won the Cup since the lockout, or at least made the Finals.

I like how you prefaced your "offense matters more than defense" argument with how it's just your opinion. So it's my opinion that defensive hockey is more entertaining, I'd rather watch that sort of hockey. So, this doesn't seem to be a legitimate point of criticism towards the team.

Pitt and Chicago got to where they are by being totally incompetent for long periods of time which allowed them to fall ass backwards into a long string of incredibly high draft picks. That's not being well run. That's just being in a system that rewards incompetence.

 

[NYR Sting]

I like how you prefaced your "offense matters more than defense" argument with how it's just your opinion. So it's my opinion that defensive hockey is more entertaining, I'd rather watch that sort of hockey. So, this doesn't seem to be a legitimate point of criticism towards the team.

Amusing. None of this is even remotely accurate.

- "Offense matters more than defense" isn't my argument. I never said that.
- When I said not in my opinion, I was referring to the quality of being entertained, not that one matters more than the other. How could you possibly not pick up on that?
- If you'd rather watch defensive hockey, that's fine. Personally, I think that's absurd and shows a terrible under appreciation for the beauty of the sport, but hey, to each their own. Regardless, that opinion would put you in the minority, but then again, I don't believe that this opinion is even true to begin with.
- It most certainly is a legitimate point of criticism, because the argument that I actually made, rather than the one you (as always) erroneously attributed to me, was that it is virtually impossible to win a championship if you don't have a tremendous offense; that a strong defense alone gets you hardly anywhere, the Rangers being clear proof of that. I provided the proper evidence to back that statement up.

Pitt and Chicago got to where they are by being totally incompetent for long periods of time which allowed them to fall ass backwards into a long string of incredibly high draft picks. That's not being well run. That's just being in a system that rewards incompetence.

Ah, so now it is the system. Another excuse. Brilliant. So what system would you propose? Should the best teams in the league draft the best players? Or maybe the system, the same one that is used in every sport, be designed to benefit only Glen Sather, where mediocre teams that strive to be just good enough for the fans to not boo routinely, get rewarded. Maybe we should go back to the old days, where rights are territorial. That will bode well for this team, huh? The entire point of the draft is to make sure that sports has a cyclical nature, to try and give every team the opportunity to go through ups and downs.

The Rangers limit themselves by refusing to take part in this natural cycle, and in the process, greatly lower their chances of acquiring the world's best players. As a result, they greatly diminish their ability to compete at the highest level. As I said before, if the Rangers choose to limit themselves in this fashion (despite the fact that this is the most idiotic course to take), then they should find someone who is able to navigate a different strategy that leads to accomplishing the goal of winning. Glen Sather has failed, and failed miserably, at this task.

And by the way, the Penguins made the playoffs for 11 consecutive seasons, a span during which they won more championships than the Rangers have in the last 70 years. This streak of great success, by the way, began with them drafting Mario Lemieux 1st overall, and Jaromir Jagr 5th overall. In addition to two Cups, they also made the conference finals two other times. Then, with Lemieux's future uncertain thanks to his health, and no longer able to afford some of their players (in part thanks to Lemieux's enormous salary), they traded Jagr, one of the best players of all-time, and rebuilt for three years. Maybe getting Crosby was a conspiracy, maybe it wasn't, but they did nothing out of the ordinary. They did what any reasonable team would and should do: they enjoyed a peak period, realized that they needed to start over, and sacrificed a few years in order to give themselves a chance to compete and give their fans a chance to enjoy something worth paying for.

Even the Red Wings, who achieved prolonged success over years and years without getting high draft picks, still began their run with Yzerman, who had been a 4th pick overall. Does that mean the Red Wings, clearly the best run organization in the sport for the last 20 years, deserve less respect? They drafted Joe Murphy 1st overall in '86, and Keith Primeau 3rd overall in '90. Those two players eventually helped them get Shanahan, who was a huge part of their lengthy run as a perennial cup contender.

Everyone plays by the same rules. If the Rangers choose to play by a different set of rules, than they should find a way to succeed in spite of them. Glen Sather has had 13 years to try. He has failed, despite virtually every advantage a man in his position could ask for, despite numerous coaching changes and countless roster overhauls. When is enough enough?

I look forward to seeing you avoid addressing this central question yet again in your next post.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Tortorella changes lines ahead of Islanders showdown

Published: April 12, 2013 5:41 PM
By STEVE ZIPAY

Declaring that two of his lines were "stale offensively," Rangers coach John Tortorella tinkered with his trios on the eve of a showdown for playoff positioning on Long Island.

During practice Friday, Tortorella switched right wings Brian Boyle and Mats Zuccarello, putting Boyle with Brad Richards and Ryane Clowe and Zuccarello with Derick Brassard and Carl Hagelin.

"I think Brian's been, little by little, getting his game," Tortorella said, "but it wasn't one particular guy I was trying to change. I just thought we were stale offensively."

http://www.newsday.com/sports/hocke...s-lines-ahead-of-islanders-showdown-1.5063321