Toggle sidebar

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vidic15*
  • Start date Start date
  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blueshirt Believer said:
No, this is the first game the whole series where I felt the Rangers were actually having a proper game plan against the Caps.

Its going to take more than one game to start thinking otherwise. However, Bruins are a much better matchup for Torts system.

Julian and Torts are both like Napoleonic generals. They aren't creative and you know exactly what your going to get. The troops line up and pound one another.
Click to expand...

How noble of you. Im glad the 5-0 game 7 win was the first game you approve of. Let me ask you, was Asham's soft goal part of the game plan? How about the fortunate bounce to Pyatt in front of the net? Or MDZ's pass that had eyes and went right through Holtby? Was that part of the gameplan you endorse?

Fact is, Tortorella teams have a knack of being able to "stay with it" as he likes to say, and the 5-0 result was the result of hard work all series and some lucky bounces last night.

So many fickle fans on this board are so caught up in the fantasy of having a hockey team that will turn in perfect performances night in and night out, that they virtually ignore how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. How even the best teams have bad shifts, bad periods, and bad games.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
How noble of you. Im glad the 5-0 game 7 win was the first game you approve of. Let me ask you, was Asham's soft goal part of the game plan? How about the fortunate bounce to Pyatt in front of the net? Or MDZ's pass that had eyes and went right through Holtby? Was that part of the gameplan you endorse?

Fact is, Tortorella teams have a knack of being able to "stay with it" as he likes to say, and the 5-0 result was the result of hard work all series and some lucky bounces last night.

So many fickle fans on this board are so caught up in the fantasy of having a hockey team that will turn in perfect performances night in and night out, that they virtually ignore how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. How even the best teams have bad shifts, bad periods, and bad games.
Click to expand...

I hate torts cuz he gives the overmatched zuccarello wayyyy too much ice time
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
How noble of you. Im glad the 5-0 game 7 win was the first game you approve of. Let me ask you, was Asham's soft goal part of the game plan? How about the fortunate bounce to Pyatt in front of the net? Or MDZ's pass that had eyes and went right through Holtby? Was that part of the gameplan you endorse?

Fact is, Tortorella teams have a knack of being able to "stay with it" as he likes to say, and the 5-0 result was the result of hard work all series and some lucky bounces last night.

So many fickle fans on this board are so caught up in the fantasy of having a hockey team that will turn in perfect performances night in and night out, that they virtually ignore how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. How even the best teams have bad shifts, bad periods, and bad games.
Click to expand...

No truer words have been spoken. It's why I stay out of the GDT. Yes, people are going to get emotional, but they seem to lose all perspective.
 
Posted this on the main boards about Torts and the issue many have with him:

Still a lot that aren't pleased with Torts. The turn around between the first games and the final games in terms of play was huge. It went from a team with no transition play, no sustained pressure and looking lost to a puck possession team with a full transitional game, solid forecheck and scoring chances.

Was that Torts or was that the team? Torts strategy seems to be to make the safe plays. Chip it up the boards, dump it in and chase. The last two games of the series were the complete opposite. Rangers were playing a much more offensive game and you can see the difference (even though game 6 was a 1 goal game).

When Torts preaches 'Safe is Death', fans are on board. But for the majority of the time, it has been anything but that.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
How noble of you. Im glad the 5-0 game 7 win was the first game you approve of. Let me ask you, was Asham's soft goal part of the game plan? How about the fortunate bounce to Pyatt in front of the net? Or MDZ's pass that had eyes and went right through Holtby? Was that part of the gameplan you endorse?

Fact is, Tortorella teams have a knack of being able to "stay with it" as he likes to say, and the 5-0 result was the result of hard work all series and some lucky bounces last night.

So many fickle fans on this board are so caught up in the fantasy of having a hockey team that will turn in perfect performances night in and night out, that they virtually ignore how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. How even the best teams have bad shifts, bad periods, and bad games.
Click to expand...

No, that is not the issue. If the game was 2-0 I would said the same thing. It was the first game in the series the Rangers actually took the game to Washington and played in their end.

From the very beginning of this series, I said the Rangers need to maintain sustained pressure against the Caps D men. They did it the whole game. The first time they didn't fall back into a 1-2-2 shell this series when they had the lead. The first time they kept on attacking with a 2-1-2 consistently.

The caps maybe got one or two long possessions the whole games. If the Rangers played with that game plan(or had a functional power play), this series doesn't go 7 games.

But, I'm going to need more than one game to change my tune. They certainly didn't change their breakout plans in that game. They just dominated the caps along the boards. Thats going to be very different against the Bruins most likely.
 
Blueshirt Believer said:
No, that is not the issue. If the game was 2-0 I would said the same thing. It was the first game in the series the Rangers actually took the game to Washington and played in their end.

From the very beginning of this series, I said the Rangers need to maintain sustained pressure against the Caps D men. They did it the whole game. The first time they didn't fall back into a 1-2-2 shell this series when they had the lead. The first time they kept on attacking with a 2-1-2 consistently.

The caps maybe got one or two long possessions the whole games. If the Rangers played with that game plan(or had a functional power play), this series doesn't go 7 games.

But, I'm going to need more than one game to change my tune. They certainly didn't change their breakout plans in that game. They just dominated the caps along the boards. Thats going to be very different against the Bruins most likely.
Click to expand...

So that 5-0 victory is fine with you. But the 4-3, 4-3, 1-0 victories weren't up to your lofty standards, huh?

The entered each one of those games with the same game plan. Conditioning and wanting to win game 7 more had more to do with the outcome than any major tweaking to the system.

But it must be nice to be an armchair quarterback and create the narrative you want based on the final score of the game.
 
Say what you want about Sather but...

We turned a washed up expensive player for McDonagh.

Got salary cap relief because of it. Turned the salary cap relief into Gaborik. Gaborik had 2 40 goal seasons for us and helped us get 1st in the east last year and was pretty big against Washington last year. So he helped us get to the Conference Finals.

When he saw that Gaborik might have become an aging washed up expensive player himself he traded him for:

1) A guy that was our MVP skater against Washington and has 1st line center potential.

2) A defenseman that has 1st pair potential.

3) A pretty damn useful agitator.

All 3 are young.

Oh and McDonagh shut down Ovechkin in the series.

Game set match.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
Say what you want about Sather but...

We turned a washed up expensive player for McDonagh.

Got salary cap relief because of it. Turned the salary cap relief into Gaborik. Gaborik had 2 40 goal seasons for us and helped us get 1st in the east last year and was pretty big against Washington last year. So he helped us get to the Conference Finals.

When he saw that Gaborik might have become an aging washed up expensive player himself he traded him for:

1) A guy that was our MVP skater against Washington and has 1st line center potential.

2) A defenseman that has 1st pair potential.

3) A pretty damn useful agitator.

All 3 are young.

Oh and McDonagh shut down Ovechkin in the series.

Game set match.
Click to expand...

Why did he sign the washed up expensive player in the first place?

After the failure of the washed up expensive player, why did he then use his miracle cap space to give another big contract? And what about the 9M fourth line center?

He's managed to escape from mistakes. I would prefer he stop making the mistakes in the first place.

Glen Sather — master of the mulligan par.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
Say what you want about Sather but...

We turned a washed up expensive player for McDonagh.

Got salary cap relief because of it. Turned the salary cap relief into Gaborik. Gaborik had 2 40 goal seasons for us and helped us get 1st in the east last year and was pretty big against Washington last year. So he helped us get to the Conference Finals.

When he saw that Gaborik might have become an aging washed up expensive player himself he traded him for:

1) A guy that was our MVP skater against Washington and has 1st line center potential.

2) A defenseman that has 1st pair potential.

3) A pretty damn useful agitator.

All 3 are young.

Oh and McDonagh shut down Ovechkin in the series.

Game set match.
Click to expand...

I think you're overrating Brassard and Moore's ceilings, but yea, I get the point.
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway said:
Why did he sign the washed up expensive player in the first place?

After the failure of the washed up expensive player, why did he then use his miracle cap space to give another big contract? And what about the 9M fourth line center?

He's managed to escape from mistakes. I would prefer he stop making the mistakes in the first place.

Glen Sather — master of the mulligan par.
Click to expand...

If he doesn't sign those players do we have trading chips to get McDonagh, Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett? Sure he made mistakes but he's a net positive BY FAR. We may not get McDonagh with someone else. We almost certainly don't get that trio with someone else.
 
SnowblindNYR said:
If he doesn't sign those players do we have trading chips to get McDonagh, Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett? Sure he made mistakes but he's a net positive BY FAR. We may not get McDonagh with someone else. We almost certainly don't get that trio with someone else.
Click to expand...

Come on. Let's not act as though that was the intent when he handed out the bad contracts to Gomez and Gaborik.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
I think you're overrating Brassard and Moore's ceilings, but yea, I get the point.
Click to expand...

IMO, Brassard is the 2nd most talented player on the Rangers (after Nash) and has a high IQ to boot. It seems like his struggles in Columbus came from a lack of confidence. Watch him play he has excellent hands, great vision, and great passing skills. He won't be a 100 point player but I don't see why he can't be at least a borderline top line guy. Also I don't know why I'm overrating Moore's potential. He has similar skill to McDonagh and a better shot. McDonagh was supposed to have just 2nd line potential his rookie year.
 
Llike I said when the deal was made, the Gaborik trade has Gorton's finger prints all over it. Two guys from the '06 draft that Gorton ran for the Bruins. Skill down the middle. Size and grit on the wings. Big, mobile defenders with poise.

Call it bias towards Sather if you like, but I'm giving Gorton the credit on the Gabby deal.
 
-31- said:
Don't see how the Gaborik contract was bad.
Click to expand...

It worked out better than Drury, Gomez and Redden if that's what you mean.

Go back to when Sather handed out the contract:

1) He had already failed on big-ticket items.

2) He gave a multi-million dollar, multi-year deal to a guy who played a total of 17 games the previous season and hadn't played over 80 games in the previous three.

Now, Gaborik did perform well for at times (a good seasons, a mediocre seaseon, a good season and bad season), but it's still a big ticket item that ultimately fell apart here and had to be dealt.

But let's assume that the Gaborik was an unqualified good move. What's the difference between the Gaborik deal and the Redden and Drury deals? Well, Gaboirik was 27 at the time. Meaning in theory Sather was paying for what he could do, not for what he's done. Lesson learned, right? Explain the Brad Richards deal then?
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway said:
It worked out better than Drury, Gomez and Redden if that's what you mean.

Go back to when Sather handed out the contract:

1) He had already failed on big-ticket items.

2) He gave a multi-million dollar, multi-year deal to a guy who played a total of 17 games the previous season and hadn't played over 80 games in the previous three.

Now, Gaborik did perform well for at times (a good seasons, a mediocre seaseon, a good season and bad season), but it's still a big ticket item that ultimately fell apart here and had to be dealt.

But let's assume that the Gaborik was an unqualified good move. What's the difference between the Gaborik deal and the Redden and Drury deals? Well, Gaboirik was 27 at the time. Meaning in theory Sather was paying for what he could do, not for what he's done. Lesson learned, right? Explain the Brad Richards deal then?
Click to expand...

Sign what was considered the best option for one of the Rangers' biggest weaknesses - 1st line center - which is what Richards was last year. Unlike the Drury and Gomez signings, which were clear overpayments, as well as overkill. Richards was signed to a somewhat cap-friendly deal, (pre-new CBA). The new CBA changed the ramifications of the Richards' deal.
 
jas said:
Sign what was considered the best option for one of the Rangers' biggest weaknesses - 1st line center - which is what Richards was last year.
Click to expand...


To a 9 year deal? Haven't we learned the "one player away UFA fix" doesn't work?

jas said:
Unlike the Drury and Gomez signings, which were clear overpayments, as well as overkill. Richards was signed to a somewhat cap-friendly deal, (pre-new CBA). The new CBA changed the ramifications of the Richards' deal.
Click to expand...

The MO was the same as the Drury and Gomez deals. And did the expiration of the CBA sneak up on him?
 
-31- said:
No, I mean it was a good signing--without qualification of any kind. I don't believe there was a better use of the $30 million in cap space that was spent on him in his time here. Do you?
Click to expand...

All things considered, probably not.

That 08-09 team had a first line of Voros-Dubinsky-Zherdev for a while. It was an awful roster devoid of any goal scoring. Gaborik came in here and filled that void in a guy way most of the time he was here. After almost 4 seasons, his limited game ran its course though.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
So that 5-0 victory is fine with you. But the 4-3, 4-3, 1-0 victories weren't up to your lofty standards, huh?

The entered each one of those games with the same game plan. Conditioning and wanting to win game 7 more had more to do with the outcome than any major tweaking to the system.

But it must be nice to be an armchair quarterback and create the narrative you want based on the final score of the game.
Click to expand...

The 4-3 win games were games the Rangers let the caps consistently tee up from the points. The caps, especially in game 4, controlled most of the game(we got mostly outplayed). Hank stood tall, and the Rangers exposed Caps D with some opportunistic goals.

There wasn't real sustained pressure in any of those games until last night. If you want to talk about how conditioning was better for the Rangers, whatever. Hey, I thought since Torts didn't have a training camp conditioning was a problem with this team? Now its a plus?

You wanna know the difference in our breakouts were last night. It wasn't an adjustment from Torts. It was the Caps, instead of trying to stay away from the wall and move the puck up high, tried to play in the corners against us. The Caps suck at forechecking. That allowed any Ranger battle won along the wall free passage up the neutral zone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom