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

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I agree with you to an extent, but the team certainly isn't so devoid of talent that we should be struggling this much. Tortorella is a good coach of excellent players. However, when it comes to maximizing the results of average players, he's absolutely clueless, IMO. I'm not saying we need to let the team loose and watch the magic happen, because that's not realistic. I'm simply saying that great coaches can do more with less.

From what I've seen, his greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. His "my way or the highway" attitude does a good job of weeding out players that simply dont have the cajones to compete on a nightly basis and give whats necessary to win a cup. Unfortunately, he also takes that mentality to the ice and to his system. Is there any doubt that a line with Brassard and Nash should be playing a different type of game than a line with Boyle and Dorsett?

I dont mind creative east-west hockey, and I dont mind grinding dump and chase hockey. They both could be effective if done right. Theres two major problems with this team:

1. The PP - I dont have enough time to get started here
2. Lack of speed through the neutral zone -- this is killing the team. No breakout, no transition game, and no speed through the middle of the ice. I dont care what your system is -- if this isnt happening, you're not going to get many offensive chances.

 

[NYR Viper]

This is no transition year. This is the year we were supposed to push for a cup.

This is the year (adding Nash to Gaborik) was the year in which strides were made to improve on last year's conference finals appearance in which most called a transition year.

A failure to reach the CF again this year is a failure of a season because we were supposed to have been better.

As for Torts opening it up? That's a pretty good joke. He's shown no ability to implement a system that can generate an attack off the rush be that at ES or on the PP. His dump and chase philosophy in a puck possession world is destined to fail. His approach of keeping everything along the walls and behind the net will never be a system that can sustain long periods of offensive pressure.

The front office insistance on drafting nice guys with "charachter" have left the forward group pretty soft and un-able or worse, un-willing to impose their physical will on the opposition.

I have no faith in this organization from top to bottom. I'll always be a fan, but never a blind one.

They have players coming who play that way. Unfortunately, none of them proved to be ready this year. Like I said, transition year.

 

[Leetch2McDonagh27]

would you guys say a coach like Darryl Sutter would get more out of this team than Torts? Would a Babcock? How about Hitchcock or Quenneville? If the answer is yes.....then Torts MUST GO. Clear and Cut.

I have no doubts all those coaches would get more out of their players and produce better resutls. ZERO DOUBT in my mind. Which is why Torts HAS TO GO.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

They have players coming who play that way. Unfortunately, none of them proved to be ready this year. Like I said, transition year.

Thats a bunch of BS and you know it Boyler. Last summer, Glen Sather thought this season would be a transition year? Yea, right.

 

[Cake or Death]

I agree.

But I also severely disagree that this team is talented enough to have a dynamic transition game if the shackles were removed. Like I said earlier, I think theres one player on the roster that is an above average player on the rush and thats Rick Nash.

Can't disagree, but I don't think good transition is dependent only on puck rushing. Passes obviously move faster than players can, and most of the better transition teams I watch move the puck up the ice within a well coached system. Good positional play, with and without the puck, and relatively short to medium length passes.

Much like an excellent PP, an excellent transition seems to be a lot about what the guys without the puck are doing. On that note, I don't think it's a coincidence we have a bad PP and a bad transition game.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

would you guys say a coach like Darryl Sutter would get more out of this team than Torts? Would a Babcock? How about Hitchcock or Quenneville? If the answer is yes.....then Torts MUST GO. Clear and Cut.

I have no doubts all those coaches would get more out of their players and produce better resutls. ZERO DOUBT in my mind. Which is why Torts HAS TO GO.

How does comparing Tortorella to some of the best coaches in the league (who aren't available) justify firing him after this season?

 

[silverfish]

Thats a bunch of BS and you know it Boyler. Last summer, Glen Sather thought this season would be a transition year? Yea, right.

+1 on this. No way this was a transition year. It turned into one in the middle of the season, but this was the year to push for the Cup, and things failed on the ice.

EDIT - I still believe! But that's only because I'm a self-loathing brute

 

[Leetch2McDonagh27]

How does comparing Tortorella to some of the best coaches in the league (who aren't available) justify firing him after this season?

it justified because there are coaches that will get more from their players than Torts has. If this is the case....then TORTS is clearly NOT THE RIGHT guy for this job.

Sure those I mentioned are not available. But I'm sure there are candidates out there that would do a better job coaching and getting more from this team. Hell, Sutter was sitting at home feeding his chickens on his farm before he got the call from Lombardi. I'm sure there are coaches out there available that will improve this team on many levels.

Torts must go....there is no ifs, ands, or buts

 

[NYR Viper]

Thats a bunch of BS and you know it Boyler. Last summer, Glen Sather thought this season would be a transition year? Yea, right.

Glen Sather also thought giving Richards a 9 year contract was a good idea.

They were extremely top heavy. They were expecting a couple of young players to take the next step, they did not.

In hindsight, it was a transition year. They traded a TON of depth for 1 player. Then Gaborik and Richards failed to live up to expectations. It happens.

I m hoping that going into next season Torts starts to open it up a bit.

 

[RGY]

I'm going to lay off the dump and chase game argument for now though it ties into this:

The PP is and has been atrocious during Tortorella's entire tenure here. It has been a huge detriment to this team. Too many games, regular season and playoffs, could've been simply put away by tacking on more goals with even an average PP. A big part of it is a poor transition game and poor mentality when the puck is on a player's stick and that has been created by Tort's coaching style. He is not a good enough coach for this team. He has some good qualities but it is not enough. This is a much faster game than when he won the cup in 2004. The game changed but Torts never did.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Glen Sather also thought giving Richards a 9 year contract was a good idea.

They were extremely top heavy. They were expecting a couple of young players to take the next step, they did not.

In hindsight, it was a transition year. They traded a TON of depth for 1 player. Then Gaborik and Richards failed to live up to expectations. It happens.

I m hoping that going into next season Torts starts to open it up a bit.

Same could be said for all 13 of Glen Sather's years here.

 

[RGY]

Glen Sather also thought giving Richards a 9 year contract was a good idea.

They were extremely top heavy. They were expecting a couple of young players to take the next step, they did not.

In hindsight, it was a transition year. They traded a TON of depth for 1 player. Then Gaborik and Richards failed to live up to expectations. It happens.

I m hoping that going into next season Torts starts to open it up a bit.

Boyler this is not a transition year. If you are going to sit here and tell us that from the Nash trade on you thought this would be a transition year after going to game 6 in the ECF, then I'm sorry you are lying right through your teeth to all of us. Don't justify what has gone on by claiming you knew this was just a transition year when it was not.

 

[pld459666]

From what I've seen, his greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. His "my way or the highway" attitude does a good job of weeding out players that simply dont have the cajones to compete on a nightly basis and give whats necessary to win a cup. Unfortunately, he also takes that mentality to the ice and to his system. Is there any doubt that a line with Brassard and Nash should be playing a different type of game than a line with Boyle and Dorsett?

I dont mind creative east-west hockey, and I dont mind grinding dump and chase hockey. They both could be effective if done right. Theres two major problems with this team:

1. The PP - I dont have enough time to get started here
2. Lack of speed through the neutral zone -- this is killing the team. No breakout, no transition game, and no speed through the middle of the ice. I dont care what your system is -- if this isnt happening, you're not going to get many offensive chances.

Who?

Aside from JT Miller, and maybe McIlrath, our system doesn't sport those types of players.

Kreider - Big guy, fast guy...SOOOOFFFFTTTT guy. And as it stands right now, I am VERY concerned about his offensive abilities. Still early though.

St. Croix - perimeter player with size issues.

Skjei - Still quite a bit of developing to do.

Fasth and Lindberg - bottom 6'ers the pair.

The system is filled with small guys with questionable talent. Big guys with no offensive talent. Defenceman that are one dimensional or still to young to know much about.

Maybe a guy like Boo Nieves can develope into that type of player that plays the game with offensive confidence and truculence. But as it is, the vast majority of our prospects do not really address the problem facing this team in both offensive talent and that prickish behavior required to go to the dirty areas of the ice on a consistent enough basis to open up space for the other guys on the ice.

So concerned about drafting guys with chrarachter that thye may have forgotten to draft the guys with the talent needed to win actual hockey games.

And if it's not the players.....there's only one other thing it could be.

 

[stan the caddy]

I'm going to lay off the dump and chase game argument for now though it ties into this:

The PP is and has been atrocious during Tortorella's entire tenure here. It has been a huge detriment to this team. Too many games, regular season and playoffs, could've been simply put away by tacking on more goals with even an average PP. A big part of it is a poor transition game and poor mentality when the puck is on a player's stick and that has been created by Tort's coaching style. He is not a good enough coach for this team. He has some good qualities but it is not enough. This is a much faster game than when he won the cup in 2004. The game changed but Torts never did.

It's part coaching but a lot of it has to do with the Rangers not having a decent power play qb and shot from the point. The Rangers don't have a dman that can rip 170-200 shots on net in a season, that's a problem. Richards was supposed to step up and be the qb - he never did. Del Zotto was supposed to be our offensive defenseman of the future - he hasn't. Nash has been pretty useless on the power play, too. He might be good at blowing through the defense in transition but he's not much on the power play.

 

[silverfish]

Glen Sather also thought giving Richards a 9 year contract was a good idea.

They were extremely top heavy. They were expecting a couple of young players to take the next step, they did not.

In hindsight, it was a transition year. They traded a TON of depth for 1 player. Then Gaborik and Richards failed to live up to expectations. It happens.

I m hoping that going into next season Torts starts to open it up a bit.

Doesn't this scream the opposite to you though? If you're trading your depth for 1 player, you're not transitioning, you're going for it. The Rangers made a push this year for a Cup appearance. As of now, it looks like it failed.

I think they even admitted failure in that sense by dealing Gaborik at the deadline instead of letting the year play out, and then moving him at the draft (he had to be moved eventually). Things didn't go the way the Rangers thought it would go this season with the team they assembled, so they brought in new pieces. After the deadline I'd admit that this is more of a transition year than a year of going for it, but in July, before the season started? Sather and the Rangers made their push, and it failed.

 

[Tawnos]

Boyler this is not a transition year. If you are going to sit here and tell us that from the Nash trade on you thought this would be a transition year after going to game 6 in the ECF, then I'm sorry you are lying right through your teeth to all of us. Don't justify what has gone on by claiming you knew this was just a transition year when it was not.

He said "in hindsight..."

 

[NYR Viper]

Same could be said for all 13 of Glen Sather's years here.

Sadly true

Boyler this is not a transition year. If you are going to sit here and tell us that from the Nash trade on you thought this would be a transition year after going to game 6 in the ECF, then I'm sorry you are lying right through your teeth to all of us. Don't justify what has gone on by claiming you knew this was just a transition year when it was not.

I didn't claim anything. I said in hindsight, it was a transition year.

Doesn't this scream the opposite to you though? If you're trading your depth for 1 player, you're not transitioning, you're going for it. The Rangers made a push this year for a Cup appearance. As of now, it looks like it failed.

I think they even admitted failure in that sense by dealing Gaborik at the deadline instead of letting the year play out, and then moving him at the draft (he had to be moved eventually). Things didn't go the way the Rangers thought it would go this season with the team they assembled, so they brought in new pieces. After the deadline I'd admit that this is more of a transition year than a year of going for it, but in July, before the season started? Sather and the Rangers made their push, and it failed.

I think that fans took the Nash deal to mean that. I think the Rangers saw him, as Gaborik's replacement and looked at it as a long-term thing. I am sure they were hoping for both Nash and Gaborik to score at 40g paces and for Richards to return to 80 point status. (2) of the (3) did not happen.

 

[OverTheCap]

I don't think the organization intended for this year to be a transition year. Although it didn't take a genius to see that they lost depth in the offseason. Their mistake was underestimating how much that depth would be missed, which then resulted in the deadline trades.

Also, I doubt anyone in the organization thought Richards would decline so quickly. They probably figured they could get away with being a top heavy team relying on Nash, Gabby, and Richards - that plan didn't work out so well.

 

[Tawnos]

Doesn't this scream the opposite to you though? If you're trading your depth for 1 player, you're not transitioning, you're going for it. The Rangers made a push this year for a Cup appearance. As of now, it looks like it failed.

I think they even admitted failure in that sense by dealing Gaborik at the deadline instead of letting the year play out, and then moving him at the draft (he had to be moved eventually). Things didn't go the way the Rangers thought it would go this season with the team they assembled, so they brought in new pieces. After the deadline I'd admit that this is more of a transition year than a year of going for it, but in July, before the season started? Sather and the Rangers made their push, and it failed.

Trading depth for 1 player is definitely going for it. The problem is that the Rangers didn't yet have the depth to trade. The Nash trade was a failure from the very moment it happened.

First, it was a failure to recognize the things that made us successful last season. We had a team that played as greater than the sum of it's parts. The only way that happens is with team chemistry. I'm not just talking about on-ice chemistry, I'm talking about a group of guys all bought in on working towards the same goal in the same manner and the camaraderie that comes with that. Did anyone really expect that we were going to turn over more than a quarter of our forward group and maintain that level of chemistry? I, for one, did not. Tortorella has mentioned on a few occasions how it felt like we spent this season without an identity. It was definitely a symptom of the new faces combined with the lack of training camp and the short season.

Second, and this ties into the first, we did not yet have the internal depth to make this kind of move work. One year down the road, with Kreider, Miller, Thomas, and McIlrath a year further along in their professional careers, you probably would. Then, after your deplete your depth on the NHL roster making the trade, you plug-and-play guys who are already Rangers, even if they spent the whole year in Hartford being indoctrinated into the organization. That's how a modern NHL organization acts. Sather was just too trigger happy.

 

[Trxjw]

From what I've seen, his greatest strength is also his greatest weakness. His "my way or the highway" attitude does a good job of weeding out players that simply dont have the cajones to compete on a nightly basis and give whats necessary to win a cup. Unfortunately, he also takes that mentality to the ice and to his system. Is there any doubt that a line with Brassard and Nash should be playing a different type of game than a line with Boyle and Dorsett?

I dont mind creative east-west hockey, and I dont mind grinding dump and chase hockey. They both could be effective if done right. Theres two major problems with this team:

1. The PP - I dont have enough time to get started here
2. Lack of speed through the neutral zone -- this is killing the team. No breakout, no transition game, and no speed through the middle of the ice. I dont care what your system is -- if this isnt happening, you're not going to get many offensive chances.

Definitely agree with what you're saying. His stubbornness is his biggest weakness. You simply cannot keep forcing players to play a style that isn't suited for them and expect success.

The transition through the neutral zone is horrendous. They rely far too much on stretch passes, but stretch passes don't mesh with dump-and-chase. When forwards are moving east-west in the neutral zone, they don't have the speed to retrieve the pucks that they dump in. We need our defenders to be able to gain some ground in the neutral zone before making a pass, so that the forwards can get in on the forecheck. Marc Staal is fantastic at rushing the puck into the zone, or gaining the red line with speed in order to maximize the attack for other players. We really miss that element of his game.

 

[Florida Ranger]

Torts has never been "allright"....in any book

He needs to go, whichever way, I don't care. Whether we win or lose this series, he has got to go. He will never get the most out of his players. F this guy and F his Pigheaded style

Why because he doesn't coach the team the way you want it to be?

 

[Richter Scale]

it justified because there are coaches that will get more from their players than Torts has. If this is the case....then TORTS is clearly NOT THE RIGHT guy for this job.

Sure those I mentioned are not available. But I'm sure there are candidates out there that would do a better job coaching and getting more from this team. Hell, Sutter was sitting at home feeding his chickens on his farm before he got the call from Lombardi. I'm sure there are coaches out there available that will improve this team on many levels.

Torts must go....there is no ifs, ands, or buts

Your logic is impeccable: "There are better coaches! They aren't available! But purely based on their existence means that there must be other coaches who are better than Torts! I don't know who these other coaches are! Fire Torts!"

 

[pld459666]

He said "in hindsight..."

not the first time he mentioned that this was a transition year.

Check page 31.

When the season started no one involved in the game looked at this season as a transition year for the New York Rangers.

they added Nash, replaced Prust, Feds and Mitchell with Pyatt, Asham and Kreider. Many though we upgraded in Pyatt and Kreider....not so much as it turns out.

The Boyle fan boys swore we had our 3rd line center.

There's nothing about this season that screamed "Transition" until the deadline when we realized the Nash-Gaborik dynamic was complete and utter failure.

Only as the season wore on and the Rangers failed to live up to expectations and talent levels does the thought of transitiin creep in.

It's a good word to use when you have failed at your objective of improving on last years success.

Because getting rubbed out in the 2nd round, while nice, is still a major failure. For a team with cup aspirations, not even getting there is a failed season.

 

[tjs252]

Glen Sather also thought giving Richards a 9 year contract was a good idea.

They were extremely top heavy. They were expecting a couple of young players to take the next step, they did not.

In hindsight, it was a transition year. They traded a TON of depth for 1 player. Then Gaborik and Richards failed to live up to expectations. It happens.

I m hoping that going into next season Torts starts to open it up a bit.

Except, for all intents and purposes, Richards' deal was "6 years." It wasn't until the new cap-recapture provision (which I don't think anyone truly expected) that these long "retirement" contracts became an issue. The Richards signing, at least in the manner in was done (heavy front-load, retirement incentive in the final three years) was arguably the smartest thing Sather has done on the free-agent market. The player we wanted at the position we needed in a way that allowed the Rangers to flex their financial might even in a hard cap league.

Also, you cannot define seasons based upon hindsight, not in a hard cap league. This year and next were/are our "window" with so many critical RFA's and UFA's. You cannot have the "window" and then call it transition.

 

[pld459666]

Why because he doesn't coach the team the way you want it to be?

Because he has failed to implement a system that can generate sustained offensive pressure.

Because he has had a brutally bad PP for years now and has done nothing to fix that.

Because he makes no game to game adjustments.

Because he makes no in-game adjustments

Because he cannot leave well enough alone as it relates to his line combinations.

Because if we had a decent goalie as opposed to a great goalie, this team is in the lottery every year.

Just off the top of my head.