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

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Valid. But based on that, maybe we can at least agree that we probably have overall had a better roster than Phoenix but as they are out-performing us, maybe our coach hasn't gotten the most juice out of the orange.

Thats fair to say. I've admitted such.

But I think the major problems are equally if not moreso associated to other factors. Chief among them being absurdly high expectations that don't quite match with the talent level on this roster.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

I'm just saying that AV gets criticism for a lot of things that fans here give to Torts so the suggestions to make this move always confused me.

My point is the arrogance of fans to constantly think they know better than the guys who are experts at the highest level, watch these guys in practice every day, pour over film, and have a staff of experts to consult with is comical.

 

[pld459666]

Please stop using this meme seriously. It is a bald faced lie. It has been taken so far out of context and twisted since his original comments. In no universe did he say, or intend to say, that he didn't coach offense. Go back and watch/listen to the interview. All he was saying is that he didn't feel the system got in the way of offensive creativity. There is a world of difference between the two.

Want to use it as a joke? Fine; I may actually even laugh if its after a stretch of games where the NYR have been awful offensively. But stop using it as a serious justification for firing the guy. It is ridiculous.

lets use the flip side to that argument as the basis for firing him.

Lets assume that they DO practice offence.

They practice offence and this is the product that we get? Isn't that alone enough of a reason to find someone else for the job?

They Practice the PP and we get what we have been getting? I mean, at some point we are going to need to see some progress and he's been here how long? No progress.

It's a funny line to use "We don't practice offence", what's NOT funny is that they DO practice offence and it looks like they need ALOT more practice.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

My point is the arrogance of fans to constantly think they know better than the guys who are experts at the highest level, watch these guys in practice every day, pour over film, and have a staff of experts to consult with is comical.

Okay.

Let's have no differing opinions whatsoever.

Board would definitely be fun.

 

[*Bob Richards*]

My point is the arrogance of fans to constantly think they know better than the guys who are experts at the highest level, watch these guys in practice every day, pour over film, and have a staff of experts to consult with is comical.

But we are only fans and this wouldn't really leave us much to talk about considering that no one here has any actual NHL experience.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Okay.

Let's have no differing opinions whatsoever.

Board would definitely be fun.

But we are only fans and this wouldn't really leave us much to talk about considering that no one here has any actual NHL experience.

No, you should just look to try to understand it from the coach's perspective first assuming he's a qualified and rational human being. If everyone did this we wouldn't have people posting all the stupid things they do all the time.

 

[Ail]

My point is the arrogance of fans to constantly think they know better than the guys who are experts at the highest level, watch these guys in practice every day, pour over film, and have a staff of experts to consult with is comical.

There's a big difference between knowing what is best, and knowing what's not. I am pretty sure even some of the most simple posters on this site can tell you when something is not working. Which is exactly what most people come on here to post about. How many times in this thread have we seen people posting "Fire Torts!" yet offering no substitute or even suggesting what would be best? A trillion? No one here is even remotely claiming to know what is best, if anything they're claiming to know what's not and to them, Torts is not the best, or even close.

No, no one here has all or even any of the answers, but guess what, neither do all the experts you are okay with doing whatever they want because they are so called experts. Even experts make mistakes, even experts have character flaws, and weaknesses. If every single coach in the NHL was a great coach for every team then no one would ever get fired and teams would all be buying in 24/7. The reality is some things work some places, and not others. Sometimes they work for years, sometimes they work for months or not at all. Torts is two losses from having his tenure in NY ending sooner rather than later, and it has nothing to do with knowing what is best.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No, you should just look to try to understand it from the coach's perspective first assuming he's a qualified and rational human being. If everyone did this we wouldn't have people posting all the stupid things they do all the time.

Ive been on the fence about the whole issue, but you mean to tell me that Torts is always a "rational" human being. This is the same guy that got himself suspended for a playoff game, no?

The man is stubborn, and that makes him an even bigger target in these discussions.

 

[Richter Scale]

lets use the flip side to that argument as the basis for firing him.

Lets assume that they DO practice offence.

They practice offence and this is the product that we get? Isn't that alone enough of a reason to find someone else for the job?

They Practice the PP and we get what we have been getting? I mean, at some point we are going to need to see some progress and he's been here how long? No progress.

It's a funny line to use "We don't practice offence", what's NOT funny is that they DO practice offence and it looks like they need ALOT more practice.

The reason I think this argument is a poor one; and the difference between us is you - and other who use that line - seem to blame the lack of offense entirely on the coach.

I won't say he isn't at fault at all (especially for the PP) - but I see a bigger part of the problem being the consistent roster turnover and the player personnel.

It is nice to blame the coach for all the team's problems - because that means that one, arguably easy, thing needs to be changed and suddenly this is a Stanley Cup contender! If instead the problem is some combination of having players under-performing, a lack of depth, a lack of finishers or offensively creative players, constant roster turnover from your GM, or a group of fine players but mismatched pieces -- then suddenly that is a lot bigger of a hurdle to overcome.

Don't get me wrong, I think this team can be a lot better than what they're showing right now. But I think that most of that will have to come from the players stepping up - not from the coach.

 

[Calad]

Torts has chosen his words carefully when this team has underperformed. I get the feeling he knows the players are sick of his act. I've watched games in every series and IMO the first two games of this series something's not right. Seeing little to no emotion or desperation.

Does anyone believe lindberg or fasth will succeed under torts and his system? Lol no way in hell, he going to ruin every prospect he comes in contact with.

Like he ruined Stepan, McD, MDZ, and Hagelin, right? Torts has his shortcomings for sure, but can you at least be realistic?

 

[Off Sides]

My point is the arrogance of fans to constantly think they know better than the guys who are experts at the highest level, watch these guys in practice every day, pour over film, and have a staff of experts to consult with is comical.

At one point in time an expert in the field of ice hockey came up with the neutral zone trap. Other experts found a way around it by not playing in the neutral zone. A whole new group of experts now has come up with a way to both beat the trap and play in the neutral zone, it's an idea that if just left up to the former experts would have never come to light.

 

[Tawnos]

Like he ruined Stepan, McD, MDZ, and Hagelin, right? Torts has his shortcomings for sure, but can you at least be realistic?

I was discussing this with someone last night. There isn't a single prospect in the Rangers organization during his time here that Tortorella has ruined.

 

[schabadoo]

No, you should just look to try to understand it from the coach's perspective first assuming he's a qualified and rational human being. If everyone did this we wouldn't have people posting all the stupid things they do all the time.

You'd lose the handful of posters that make up the majority of posts around here...

 

[NHRangerfan]

Well, the Gaborik trade was clearly a good decision, with the recent news of Gaborik re-injuring his groin — he is pretty much done. We got three solid, young NHL players in return. There really is no room to complain about that move, it was handled excellently by Sather, IMO.

The Clowe trade is the move I can see people having problems with, and I can see why. I was behind the trade 100% and I still am. I like Clowe a lot and I like what he's brought to this lineup. I think, of he plays, he's going to have a noticeable impact on the game tonight. That said, yeah, it hurts giving up two/three top-90 picks for a player who might not be here long term, although I think the Rangers are going to try and keep Clowe (at a reasonable price, hopefully).

The Nash trade...well, the jury is still out on that one. Nash had a very productive season, and with the recent acquisitions, Dubinsky/Anisimov aren't missed. The contract is hard to swallow, but, again, I think it's a good move. It hurts giving up the first rounder, but Nash is a great goal scorer who is big and, IMO, he has been better than Gaborik ever has in the playoffs, even if he hasn't produced any points — no one has produced in the playoffs, thus far.

I don't know if the Nash/Gaborik trades were done for the reasons you say — Sather has always been interested in Nash, and the time to trade Gaborik was at the deadline.

Again, though, that doesn't mean I want Sather to stay. Just that I don't think those two moves in particular were bad, or even misguided moves.

The point SBOB was making was not questioning the quality of the individual moves, but that they appear to be bi-polar in nature...need moar scoring so ship off a bunch of depth...oh no need moar jam because we got rid of our depth so trade on of our scorers for more depth.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

The point SBOB was making was not questioning the quality of the individual moves, but that they appear to be bi-polar in nature...need moar scoring so ship off a bunch of depth...oh no need moar jam because we got rid of our depth so trade on of our scorers for more depth.

I know the point he was making — what I was saying is that the Gaborik move happens regardless of the Nash trade, IMO. I don't think Gaborik would have been good this season under any circumstances. The injuries have done him in.

 

[haveandare]

This.

Guys! We can't score! Let's get Nash!

Derp. Now we don't have depth. Let's trade Gaborik.

And we're back to one offensive threat and a bunch of passengers.

Now we're back to the same setup that led the team to their best season in 20 years? Oh no!

How is there no longterm planning on display there?

Nash is younger than Gaborik and isn't riddled with injuries. Nash doesn't look like he's about to lose the skills that made him successful any second now, Gaborik does.

Dubi scored 10 goals last year and we were up in arms. He had 2 this year and still has a fat cap hit. Trading him and getting Brassard in the other deal was smart in the long-term - more production for a less money. Moore filled a huge need on the backend while being far more of a sure thing than Erixon. Dorsett provides something that was sorely lacking and that none of the players traded to CBJ were providing.

I don't think there was a lack of planning there. The guys NYR got in those trades are better for the long-term health of the team than the guys they gave up. Losing the 1st rounder hurts, but the team's got a lot of young guys knocking on the door right now.

 

[BB58]

This.

Guys! We can't score! Let's get Nash!

Derp. Now we don't have depth. Let's trade Gaborik.

And we're back to one offensive threat and a bunch of passengers.

Perfectly written. You've read my mind.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Okay.

Let's have no differing opinions whatsoever.

Board would definitely be fun.

Differing opinions are awesome. However, this rampant groupthink we see here is negating a lot of that and sucks.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

It's a not a question of creativity. It's a question of not making every move in a vacuum.

"Let's trade for Nash. We had trouble scoring in the playoffs now with Nash and Gaborik we have two legit goal scorers"

"Oh no now we don't have any grit and we lack depth."

"OK, so we'll trade Gaborik and gut our draft. Yay! No we have some grit (when Dorsett or Clowe are on the ice) and we have some depth."

"Oh wait, now we're having trouble scoring in the playoffs."

The Nash trade was great. It would've worked out well had Sather signed good replacement players and/or re-signed Prust. The problem is, he did not.

1) Kreider has been a failure this season. Sather relied on Kreider to step up and become the secondary scoring. That is all on Sather for not having a contingency plan, there.

2) Pyatt has been laughably bad. One of the worst Rangers I can ever remember. That's a huge swing and a miss, too.

3) The Gabby trade was a fantastic trade where we got rid of an aging, broken, possibly even cancerous player that just did not or could not play to the level we needed. We got some really nice depth and some good young players for him. The Nash trade did not do the same for Columbus since Nash was always performing at a high level there (even when they traded him).

I am not happy with Sather, but he's also not the worst GM around. His lack of finding good replacement players is a real problem, though. I love the Gabby deal, I love the Nash deal, but I hated his UFA signings. Dude is very good at making trades but just completely fails when it comes to the UFA market.

I agree with your vacuum comment for sure, too. I think that we have improved via trade but fell flat via UFA in that regard. Just a very annoying process to have to put up with.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

The point SBOB was making was not questioning the quality of the individual moves, but that they appear to be bi-polar in nature...need moar scoring so ship off a bunch of depth...oh no need moar jam because we got rid of our depth so trade on of our scorers for more depth.

And both trades were very good deals for us. The problem is not in the trades. It's in how he addresses the replacements in the UFA market.

 

[Drewbackatu*]

This is exactly what many feared the minute the Gaborik trade was announced. The entire summer we heard "Rangers are unbeatable now that they've added Nash to Gaborik & Co. Two All-Star snipers, so much scoring!"

Then Sather's work is undone at the deadline when he sends Gaborik to Columbus and the Rangers are back to being a one star (not counting goal) team. Like SBOB said, there's no plan. If the plan were to basically swap Gaborik for Nash, then they could have done a 1-for-1 deal. But it obviously wasn't because Nash was brought in to supplement the offense already provided by Gaborik.

Not to mention the fact that the players they got back from Columbus aren't as versatile as the ones they traded, or the fact that the fleixibility provided by forwards like Anisimov and Dubinsky that the Rangers lost has been cited by Tortorella early in the season as one of the weaknesses of this team. Plus the Rangers miss Gaborik's speed. Speed wins in this league. It's why you always notice Hagelin all over the place on the ice. Too bad his hands aren't so great.

Teams need gamebreakers to win in the playoffs who can strike fast. The Rangers can't expect to grind their way to enough goals to win playoff games from behind the "icing line" as Pierre called it. I don't see how you don't utilize as much of the offensive zone as you can to create something rather than focusing on creating your attack behind the net. The Isles yesterday were coming at the Penguins in waves with speed through the attack zone in addition to winning the hard puck battles along the boards.

Lundqvist is so good that his high level of play most nights hides the fact that this team is deficient offensively AND to a lesser degree defensively on a year-to-year basis. The weaknesses are magnified and become most critical during the playoffs when an opposition goalie steps up and matches Lundqvist's play on the stat sheet, like Holtby is doing now. While the Rangers aren't creating the high quality scoring chances that Washington is, Holtby is still stopping nearly everything that's thrown at him. When another team's goaltender is stopping everything, that takes away the Rangers' one advantage over nearly every other team, the goaltending. The Rangers aren't good enough in any other areas of the game to win when Lundqvist is equaled.

Excellent post! Lotsa good points succinctly and poigantly stated.
Gotta admit that "Hockey is definitely different here!"

 

[pld459666]

The reason I think this argument is a poor one; and the difference between us is you - and other who use that line - seem to blame the lack of offense entirely on the coach.

I won't say he isn't at fault at all (especially for the PP) - but I see a bigger part of the problem being the consistent roster turnover and the player personnel.

It is nice to blame the coach for all the team's problems - because that means that one, arguably easy, thing needs to be changed and suddenly this is a Stanley Cup contender! If instead the problem is some combination of having players under-performing, a lack of depth, a lack of finishers or offensively creative players, constant roster turnover from your GM, or a group of fine players but mismatched pieces -- then suddenly that is a lot bigger of a hurdle to overcome.

Don't get me wrong, I think this team can be a lot better than what they're showing right now. But I think that most of that will have to come from the players stepping up - not from the coach.

That's a fair argument. It would be nice if guys like Richards actually made his line mates a bit better.

I guess my real issue is that I don't believe the system is a sound one.

I don't believe that any system designed to work the walls, and below the net is one that will generate consistent offensive pressure. It's as safe a system as you can find. It keeps the puck away from the center of the ice thus reducing the chances against, but that works both ways as it naturally reduces the chances for as well.

First of all, I don't believe we have the players capable of playing this grinding system. Stepan, Hagelin, Richards and Nash are not physical by nature, yet you are asking them to play a system better suited to naturally physical players.

second of all, playing along the walls and behind the net doesn't allow for much net front presence which is where goals are scored come playoff time. In fact, it's easier to score playing in front of the net during any portion of the season, but again, that's asking players to play out of their natural instincts

The system is perimeter in nature being played by perimeter players for the most part and it shows.

to your final point, I have to disagree. The players can step up, I just don't believe in this system. I think it's a flawed system played by a group of players that are more than content to allow the game to come to them.

As you can tell I am not a big fan of passive teams and this team is so passive.

it's frustrating.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

So what do you know, seems like Torts doesn't force players to only grind along the boards all game. Who would have guessed?

 

[cd211]

i know one thing.. pyatt would be in street cloths next game.. id bring newbury, haley even kreider in... guy isn't an every day player..

 

[Tawnos]

So what do you know, seems like Torts doesn't force players to only grind along the boards all game. Who would have guessed?

There is certainly a point where it's the player's responsibility for what goes on in the games.

I've liked Tortorella a lot, but there have been some pretty major flaws exposed in his system over the last year and none of them have been rectified. The one that was driving me crazy tonight was the D zone collapse. I don't have a huge problem with it once the opponent is cycling. However, there were at least 4 times, probably more, tonight where a D retrieved a dump in the corner, wound it around, and there was no one there because the forward coming back was already collapsing down low. It's a free entry for the opponent. That's not an execution, it's a system issue.