The two posts I quote below are the epitome of blind Torts hating rage; and why a rational discussion about the problems of this team - and, yes, even of Torts' own problems - can't be had.
Any good performances or results are definitively, without question, happening despite him being the coach. He deserves zero credit for the things this team does well, when we win games, when things go well, or for the ECF appearance last year. But when **** hits the fan, suddenly all of the problems of this team can be laid at his feet. Talk about a double standard.
And then when confronted with an alternative perspective, or even just some context for the arguments you guys try to make, you decide to stop reading and ignore the points being made.
They stink away from the puck? Thanks torts. Did u adopt a dog from the coach? I was at the game tonight. No one was more out of position tonight than Boyle and he got rewarded with a ton of ice time. The coach is a clown. Tonight we won in spite of him.
Did not get past the part "ignoring this season". Huh??
But to respond to BBKers -- I figured you could connect the dots from the past two posts I made to why I choose to "ignore" this season in my thinking (poor phrasing on my part; more like 'overlook for now') - but I guess that is too much to ask if you're not going to actually read the post. I'll lay it out real simply:
- At best, during Renney's tenure, you could argue that the team had plateau'd and was going neither up nor down, but perennially a 5-8 seed playoff team.
- A more accurate description of Renney's tenure - in my mind - is that the team actually had a downward trend (in that they were slowly performing slightly worse and spinning their wheels as his time here went on - not just in his last 10-20 games).
- But however you look at it, Renney never had to deal with a lockout shortened season, and certainly didn't have to deal with the challenges that creates in the season he was fired.
- Tortorella's tenure started rocky, but has seen a distinctive upward trend until this year (~30 games).
- Tortorella's Rangers actually achieved something significant in getting to the ECF for the first time in about 15 years (whether you want to discount this or not, or say they did this despite him, the fact is it happened and it is applicable in the discussion).
- All teams have bad stretches that last as long as 30+ games. Even some of the best teams. Even teams with coaches that many here have suggested as replacements for Torts. I gave examples of this from last season with the top 4 teams in the East outside of the Rangers (all arguably worse stretches than what the Rangers are currently dealing with). Those coaches didn't suddenly get thrown out the door (nor was it really considered), and neither should Torts. The issue - and part of the reason the Rangers' struggles are being magnified by people this year - is that in a lockout shortened season, a bad stretch like that has an exaggerated impact on the season and standings compared to an 82-game schedule.
- Lastly, I'm choosing to overlook this season because of the external/whacky factors that come into play in a lockout shortened season (I elaborate on them below). I'm not saying the games mean nothing, or that other teams don't have to deal with the same issues - just that I can recognize how these things might impact this teams' play. And I'm willing to give Torts a second chance to start next season (though I'm not writing off this season yet).
But by all means, claim that I'm trying to paint a clear, black and white picture when it is in fact the opposite that is true. I've acknowledged the man has shortcomings, but said I think it isn't yet time to fire him. I've acknowledged that if the crap play continues 20-30 games into next year that I could be convinced that it is time to explore other options (as it would indicate that, without extenuating circumstances, the crap play carried over and continued). You and the majority of the Torts hater contingent on these boards, however, are the ones not looking at the context of the #s you're throwing out there comparing Torts and Renney. You guys are the ones not looking at the context of this bad stretch of games. You're the ones ignoring the lack of a training camp. You're the ones ignoring the massive roster turnover. You're the ones ignoring that our two top players are not playing like our two top players. And you're the ones screaming - verging on hysterics after any loss - that Torts and his "stoneage" hockey need to be kicked out on their ass literally every chance you get. But yea, I'm the one trying to paint a clear, black and white picture with no in-between.
----
Of the 15 teams ahead of the Rangers in league-wide standings, the only two that could be considered to have had as much roster turnover as them are Montreal and Minnesota -- both of which didn't actually
lose significant pieces, they just brought in upgrades. The only other teams to lose significant roster players were NJD and Detroit, both of whom only made small roster changes by bringing in a few pieces. By comparison, the Rangers lost 6 players (depending upon your perspective 4-5 significant pieces in Dubi, Anisimov, Prust, Feds, Rupp, Mitchell), and brought in 8 new ones (Nash, Asham, Halpern, Powe, Pyatt, Hamrlik, Kreider, Miller). That is almost half the roster for which Torts needed to determine their roles and places in the lineup, who needed to be taught a new system, and who needed to mesh with their fellow teammates. And we're really surprised when none of those things happens very quickly?
I'd hoped (misguidedly) that a rational discussion could be had. It is pretty obvious that isn't the case. So, what is the point of even trying to have a discussion? I'm done with this thread after this post; and I should have made that decision a lot sooner.
