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

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I agree Richards and DZ are not good at the point, but who else do you want him to put out there?

Stepan? Need him near the net
Moore? Has done some good things...but some bad giveaways as well
Girardi? Nice shot last night, but he's been botching power plays the rest of the series
Fowler? We didn't draft him
Stralman? Possibly, but he makes some questionable decisions sometimes

What I really want is for all those guys who GUARANTEED over one particular summer that the signing of Richards would fix the power play for years...and questioned anyone's hockey sanity who dared disagree...to step up and accept their mea culpa.

McDonagh?

 

[Trxjw]

I agree Richards and DZ are not good at the point, but who else do you want him to put out there?

Stepan? Need him near the net
Moore? Has done some good things...but some bad giveaways as well
Girardi? Nice shot last night, but he's been botching power plays the rest of the series
Fowler? We didn't draft him
Stralman? Possibly, but he makes some questionable decisions sometimes

What I really want is for all those guys who GUARANTEED over one particular summer that the signing of Richards would fix the power play for years...and questioned anyone's hockey sanity who dared disagree...to step up and accept their mea culpa.

I don't think Del Zotto is bad at the point, I think he's bad when he's paired with Richards. They do the same thing and they just cannot co-exist on the blue line during the PP. However, I'd put Moore and Girardi on the first unit and Del Zotto and McDonagh on the second.

 

[nyranger61494]

McDonagh?

I don't think Del Zotto is bad at the point, I think he's bad when he's paired with Richards. They do the same thing and they just cannot co-exist on the blue line during the PP. However, I'd put Moore and Girardi on the first unit and Del Zotto and McDonagh on the second.

I agree with you guys but is there a concern about his icetime? Especially without Staal. Do you simply add it on to his total and hope/expect him to be able to handle the increase in workload? Or do you look to limit his PK or even strength time? I suppose if Girardi can handle it, McD should be able to as well.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

McDonagh?

Nash? If they want him to shoot?

 

[Blueshirt Believer]

I don't think Del Zotto is bad at the point, I think he's bad when he's paired with Richards. They do the same thing and they just cannot co-exist on the blue line during the PP. However, I'd put Moore and Girardi on the first unit and Del Zotto and McDonagh on the second.

Correct. I don't think either are necessarily bad PPQB's. The problem is that neither has a right handed triggerman as their off point option. The Rangers need a hard shooting defensemen(or forward at this point) who can keep PK units honest.

The successful PP's have both a PPQB and triggerman at the the points or a Defensemen who is both(very rare).

But, having both Del Z and Richards together is a total redundancy. That don't compliment one another and their offensive tendencies are too similar. Its also fairly obvious that neither one has a lot of confidence in their point shooting(which isn't hard to understand).

 

[Trxjw]

Correct. I don't think either are necessarily bad PPQB's. The problem is that neither has a right handed triggerman as their off point option. The Rangers need a hard shooting defensemen(or forward at this point) who can keep PK units honest.

The successful PP's have both a PPQB and triggerman at the the points or a Defensemen who is both(very rare).

But, having both Del Z and Richards together is a total redundancy. That don't compliment one another and their offensive tendencies are too similar. Its also fairly obvious that neither one has a lot of confidence in their point shooting(which isn't hard to understand).

I don't think a right-handed trigger man is necessary, but someone who is mobile enough to get into a shooting position is important. Stralman and Girardi are both righties with big point shots, but neither are mobile enough to stretch out a shooting lane.

Look at McCabe/Kaberle in their prime in Toronto. Both lefties, and they were lethal on the PP. Kaberle led the league in PP assists amongst defenders in 05-06 while McCabe was 2nd in PP goals and 3rd in PP assists -- due in large part to deflections from his shot. McCabe didn't have the vision to run a PP himself, but he was mobile enough to work his way into prime shooting lanes so he could one-time passes from Kaberle. That's the kind of player we need paired with Del Zotto, IMO. McDonagh can do that. Moore can do that as well.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Stralman and Moore should be at the point.

 

[Ail]

Is it really that hard to cheer for this team and just be happy that they are winning?

No, it's not at all. You instantly assume this isn't the case just because someone lacks confidence in the team. You can both be without confidence in your team, but also cheer for them to succeed. They are not mutually exclusive. You also assume because someone determines in their own mind, from their own point of view that the team is relatively average, they are not or can not be happy with the fact they are winning games.

It's called not having high expectations. There's nothing wrong with setting yourself up for what is probably the most likely scenario, yet still hoping it will not be the case.

You can cheer for the team however you want, but don't tell the rest of us how to do it.

 

[aufheben]

Stralman and Moore should be at the point.

Yes!

Or, Moore-McDonagh!

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Yes!

Or, Moore-McDonagh!

Or Del Zotto/Moore.

Moore is mobile and has a big shot. Del Zotto is a great passer.

Just like the Kaberle/McCabe pairing that Trxjw brought up.

 

[Ail]

Or Del Zotto/Moore.

Moore is mobile and has a big shot. Del Zotto is a great passer.

Just like the Kaberle/McCabe pairing that Trxjw brought up.

Unfortunately when DZ isn't confident he can't be trusted not to flub the puck over the blue-line or cause a rush the other way.

I have zero faith in him on the PP right now.

 

[aufheben]

I'd be cool with Del Zotto-Moore. Would prefer Stralman though. Forwards?

As long as DZ has someone responsible on the other point for when he inevitably ****s up.

 

[Richter Scale]

No, it's not at all. You instantly assume this isn't the case just because someone lacks confidence in the team. You can both be without confidence in your team, but also cheer for them to succeed. They are not mutually exclusive. You also assume because someone determines in their own mind, from their own point of view that the team is relatively average, they are not or can not be happy with the fact they are winning games.

It's called not having high expectations. There's nothing wrong with setting yourself up for what is probably the most likely scenario, yet still hoping it will not be the case.

You can cheer for the team however you want, but don't tell the rest of us how to do it.

Twist my post however you like by taking a couple sentences out of context... doesn't change the fact that the main point I was trying to convey was not about "cheering the 'right way' " but instead *****ing about a subset of people on these boards who go out of their way to find reasons that this team is awful no matter what happens - and even if the reasons they cite are complete hogwash. There is a big difference between the two.

The quote I referenced is a prime example of that. In fact, the Caps have been one of the best teams in the league this year; they are not a god awful team as was implied. But because apparently the Rangers (or their coach - to keep it on topic) couldn't possibly be doing something right by winning a few games against them, the facts get thrown out the window and a bs reason for why they won is offered.

The point was not whether you cheer for this team the "right way" or not. I even went out of the way to say you don't have to be optimistic. Go ahead and be your pessimistic self. Just don't force the rest of us to read stuff that is patently false so that you can put up a defense mechanism (I'm using "you" in a general sense). It is an act that gets old very quickly.

 

[Blueshirt Believer]

Twist my post however you like by taking a couple sentences out of context... doesn't change the fact that the main point I was trying to convey was not about "cheering the 'right way' " but instead *****ing about a subset of people on these boards who go out of their way to find reasons that this team is awful no matter what happens - and even if the reasons they cite are complete hogwash. There is a big difference between the two.

The quote I referenced is a prime example of that. In fact, the Caps have been one of the best teams in the league this year; they are not a god awful team as was implied. But because apparently the Rangers (or their coach - to keep it on topic) couldn't possibly be doing something right by winning a few games against them, the facts get thrown out the window and a bs reason for why they won is offered.

The point was not whether you cheer for this team the "right way" or not. I even went out of the way to say you don't have to be optimistic. Go ahead and be your pessimistic self. Just don't force the rest of us to read stuff that is patently false so that you can put up a defense mechanism (I'm using "you" in a general sense). It is an act that gets old very quickly.

Alright I was being cordial about it. Caps are not a great team. They played fairly well down the stretch in a mediocre division(not great for 40 games as you said-hell they didn't lead their division for most of the season). Their biggest achievements in their last 10 games was beating a struggling Montreal team twice and a "nothing to play for"Boston for the last game of season.

They had a hot PP, and were marginal 5v5 with the one of the worst PK's in the NHL. Hardly one of the best NHL teams. Hell, we finished one point behind them in a much tougher division. We had a roller coster of a season. I would hardly categorize the Rangers as one of the best teams of the NHL either.

Oh btw, I don't force you to read my posts. You got a problem with it, put me on ignore.

 

[cd211]

I was impressed with yesterdays game.. that is how we are suspose to play in "Tort's" system.. we just always lack consistency and I feel each game we've gotten better and better.. this team has underachieved all year, they well you would think they will use that as motivation to be successful but we're moving in the right direction...

torts must....

1- tell his fwds to stop clasping to provide support for d, the caps funnel all pucks back the point and they provide their magic and we always get burned.. they score more goals and provide more offense then their fwds at most times during the game...

2- PP is improving but the approach should be like game 3 when moore was moved to PP... Keep on SHOOTING.. shoot shooot and shoot simple as that..

3- Pyatt hasn't played bad.. just htink hes slow and we have better and able bodies in street cloths that could provide so much more.. Kreider, Newbury, haley.. I just want someone with speed to track more pucks down on the forecheck.. speeed kills!

I love that everyone is back healthy and in the lineup (i know staal) but i think it helps being at full strength.. we are a deep team when firing on all cylinders!!

 

[bobby peru]

I can't believe in all the posts here suggesting that torts takes the passion out of the players no one bothered to mention the horrible attitudes of the fans that start booing 30seconds into the power play. Everyone is going on about how all our big trades just fade, yet torts hasn't always been there. But us 'fans' have been. While it's clear from watching a game at MSG that ranger's fans can appreciate good hockey, it's clear from this thread after a game that many of these fans have ridiculous demanding attitudes. They are more interested in chanting potvin sucks than anything else. I only ever hear strong support when the rangers have a 2 goal lead. And we wonder why we have trouble in montreal where the habs have the SUPPORT of their fans.

Yeah, I want them to shoot too. But I still like the rangers and treat them with respect because they aren't there for me to yell at in order to get MY issues out.

I think Richter Scale hits the nail on the head, in fact, his posts here motivated me to sign up because I'm tired of seeing everyone beat up on Kel and others because they aren't going to myopically nitpick at nonsense. It's not like anyone ever suggested torts was perfect, or that there isn't something that can be done to make the rangers better. I'd appreciate it if people could actually articulate those concerns, it's way more interesting. Instead it's this circle-jerk of EVERYTHING being torts fault.

This is a team that's been together for about a month, I really want to see where they can go. I also agree with dethomas in that I think the compete level has been what the rangers lacked (last year too - had a lot of trouble getting multiple tough games in a row), and that the last game looked really nice for us. If that's how we start games, we are going to win. If that's how we play games we are going to be competitive. If we can improve, we can go far.

 

[NYRKindms]

One thing that I was wondering about Torts is this:

For a guy who likes to shorten the bench as much as he does. And has historically been known not to play his 4th line a lot, Why doesn't he carry 7 defensemen on the roster ?

Given all the talk about TOI with the defenseman would not having a 7th on the bench help ? Player could just be a specialist etc or whatever. That way you get one of your top players double shifting on the 4th. Have the 7th guy eat some minutes etc

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

One thing that I was wondering about Torts is this:

For a guy who likes to shorten the bench as much as he does. And has historically been known not to play his 4th line a lot, Why doesn't he carry 7 defensemen on the roster ?

Given all the talk about TOI with the defenseman would not having a 7th on the bench help ? Player could just be a specialist etc or whatever. That way you get one of your top players double shifting on the 4th. Have the 7th guy eat some minutes etc

He shortens his bench with his defensemen even more. The #6 guy got 5 mins the other night - what do you think a #7 guy would get?

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

One thing that I was wondering about Torts is this:

For a guy who likes to shorten the bench as much as he does. And has historically been known not to play his 4th line a lot, Why doesn't he carry 7 defensemen on the roster ?

Given all the talk about TOI with the defenseman would not having a 7th on the bench help ? Player could just be a specialist etc or whatever. That way you get one of your top players double shifting on the 4th. Have the 7th guy eat some minutes etc

Which defenseman exactly would Torts dress? If he trusted Gilroy or Hamrlik, wouldn't they be playing?

He played Stu Bickel 5 minutes in a 3OT game. What 7th defenseman would really play?

 

[McRanger]

Which defenseman exactly would Torts dress? If he trusted Gilroy or Hamrlik, wouldn't they be playing?

He played Stu Bickel 5 minutes in a 3OT game. What 7th defenseman would really play?

Depends on the situation.

What if Staal is back and the 7th D/4th liner is Eminger as insurance? If we actually had a solid lead Eminger would take shifts on D and let our other guys rest a bit. Asham played even less than Eminger did last game. I doubt we see much of a difference.

We have 3 games in 4 nights coming up.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Depends on the situation.

What if Staal is back and the 7th D/4th liner is Eminger as insurance? If we actually had a solid lead Eminger would take shifts on D and let our other guys rest a bit. Asham played even less than Eminger did last game. I doubt we see much of a difference.

We have 3 games in 4 nights coming up.

Steve Eminger gives me little comfort. And again, Eminger played 6 minutes in game 4. Does the coach see him as insurance?

 

[McRanger]

Steve Eminger gives me little comfort. And again, Eminger played 6 minutes in game 4. Does the coach see him as insurance?

Eminger played more than Asham. I really don't see what difference a guy makes on the 4th line playing 1 shift a period. Unless we expect Asham to score again.

On defense Eminger played 10 minutes in game 1 and 14 minutes in game 2. If something happens to Staal or one of our other D or we actually have a big lead, I think he would play somewhat significant minutes. Is there any circumstance where Asham would?

If we somehow win tonight we have a possible back-to-back situation for game 6 and 7.

Anyway I don't think its the worst idea.

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Eminger played more than Asham. I really don't see what difference a guy makes on the 4th line playing 1 shift a period. Unless we expect Asham to score again.

On defense Eminger played 10 minutes in game 1 and 14 minutes in game 2. If something happens to Staal or one of our other D or we actually have a big lead, I think he would play somewhat significant minutes. Is there any circumstance where Asham would?

If we somehow win tonight we have a possible back-to-back situation for game 6 and 7.

Anyway I don't think its the worst idea.

If he's not playing his 12 forward or his 5/6th defenseman, does it really matter what position the player who isn't playing plays?

 

[Emptyvoid]

If he's not playing his 12 forward or his 5/6th defenseman, does it really matter what position the player who isn't playing plays?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but it's much easier to distribute extra minutes among 11 forwards than it is among 5 defenseman.

 

[Emptyvoid]

I wish this team would work on their breakout strategy, I feel it's the weakest part of their game and the reason we get hemmed into our defensive zone so often. When you get hemmed in like that, minutes at a time, your defense is going to look like crap.

Immediately throwing it up the glass is not a good strategy, they shouldn't treat the puck like a damn hand grenade ALL THE TIME in the defensive zone. Sometimes their break outs are good, but that isn't a common enough occurrence.

How bad the breakout is is readily apparent on our PP when we struggle.