Toggle sidebar

Maybe Torts Wasn't the Problem

chosen

chosen

Registered User
Aug 2, 2005
12,631
5,135
ASPG
I am neither a Torts supporter or hater. I think he is a good coach, but he is easily replaceable. That is because they all are.

Now that Boston has wasted Pittsburgh, isn't it apparent to most people that the reason the Rangers loss to the Bruins had nothing to do with their coach?

Is their anyone out there who believes that Rangers personnel is better than Pittsburgh, aside from goaltender?

The Rangers put up a much more competitive series than Pitt did. Yes, they only won one game, but Pitt looked totally overmatched. The Rangers didn't.

Those of you who criticized Nash during the series would now be screaming that Crosby and Malkin suck if you were Penguins fans.

The Rangers finished up about where they should have, despite all the crying and moaning throughout this site. In the thread speculating about who should coach next, we have people explaining that this coach would be a great choice or a terrible choice without having a clue how any coach will end up doing.

To me, it's funny watching a fan say that his choice will be a "great fit" or a disaster that will wreak havoc on our city. Face it, none of us has a clue how a coach will work out, and my very minority opinion is that barring the very rare exception of incompetence, it doesn't matter in the least who is chosen to run the show.

What matters most is the GM and luck.

On an unrelated matter, Krug is the real deal. Let me know when you come around on that one, Inferno.
Click to read more...
 
Last edited:
chosen said:
I am neither a Torts supporter or hater. I think he is a good coach, but he is easily replaceable. That is because they all are.

Now that Boston has wasted Pittsburgh, isn't it apparent to most people that the reason the Rangers lost to the Bruins had nothing to do with their coach?

Is their anyone out there who believes that Rangers personnel is better than Pittsburgh, aside from goaltender?

The Rangers put up a much more competitive series than Pitt did. Yes, they only won one game, but Pitt looked totally overmatched. The Rangers didn't.

Those of you who criticized Nash during the series would now be screaming that Crosby and Malkin suck if you were Penguins fans.

The Rangers finished up about where they should have, despite all the crying and moaning throughout this site. In the thread speculating about who should coach next, we have people explaining that this coach would be a great choice or a terrible choice without having a clue how any coach will end up doing.

To me, it's funny watching a fan say that his choice will be a "great fit" or a disaster that will wreak havoc on our city. Face it, none of us has a clue how a coach will work out, and my very minority opinion is that barring the very rare exception of incompetence, it doesn't matter in the least who is chosen to run the show.

What matters most is the GM and luck.

On an unrelated matter, Krug is the real deal. Let me know when you come around on that one, Inferno.
Click to expand...

"The guy behind the bench is a roadblock to success." - Everyone during exit interviews.

So who cares? Players quit responding to him, time to replace him.

Also isn't that true with pretty much every big decision in life? Never knowing how things will end up?

Not entirely sure the point of this thread, but you seem annoyed that people have been speculating on a forum built off speculating.

Edit: Toned down the hyperbole for some of you folks. Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
You're making a false assumption. I could just as easily point to the toronto series and wonder why Carlyle had them a minute away from beating boston yet we lost in 5.

There is no perfect roster. There is no perfect coach. Our coach and our roster were no longer working well together. It's far easier to change the coach than to change all the players. That doesn't mean there won't be roster changes, but Torts' act had gotten old. It was time for a change. There's really nothing more to it than that.
 
Did we play FIVE good game all year?

Did we do anything well under Torts, except blocked shots?

-Did we attack well? No.

-Did we PP well? No

-Did we defend well? No (constant major breakdowns).

-Did we PK well? No (horrible for a team with Hank).

-Did we play physical? No (I wonder if any team in the league laid fewer big hits than us).

There was one reason and one reason only we managed to get one of the last POs spots, Hank.
 
Barbara Underhill said:
"The guy behind the bench is a roadblock to success." - Henrik Lundqvist
So who cares? Players quit responding to him, time to replace him.

Also isn't that true with pretty much every big decision in life? Never knowing how things will end up?

Not entirely sure the point of this thread, but you seem annoyed that people have been speculating on a forum built off speculating.
Click to expand...

Is there a source for that quote? Seems to be a lot of people putting words into the mouths of players lately (especially Hanks).

Pretty strange to think how Lundqvist was gushing over the "best coach in the world" during his Vezina speech less than a year ago to leading a coup today. It just doesn't add up.

Need some concrete evidence what actually happened before we can sit there and say for sure it was the players that revolted on him. And no, random blogs and interwebs musing are not evidence.
 
Management was bringing Torts back. They gave him an extension during the season. Go look at Sather's comments to Brooks a few weeks before Torts was fired. John had one year remaining the extension he signed in 2011. The players were sick of John. Management had bo choice. Of course,the experts on these boards will say management should have about the disconnect. Management doesn't belong in the room with the players. That is the coaches domain.
 
Its as much a mental thing as it is a skill thing. The Penguins were probably the most skilled team in the league this season, even more so than the Blackhawks. However, they are feeble and weak mentally. They are a team full of spoiled babies and they get exposed when any team pushes them around or gets in their head.

The Rangers players, almost to a man are stronger mentally. That's why they put up more of a fight. Despite being shallow on skill.

The coaching staff's tactical approach was absolutely one of the most prominent reasons they lost. And one of the team's strongest aspects, mental toughness, wasn't up to snuff, and Tortorella admitted that he failed to mentally prepare his team. Yes, its on the individual to prepare himself, but a coach is a leader and should be able to prepare his team.

In other words, it was as much Tortorella and the coaching staff's fault as much as it was the roster's.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Barbara Underhill said:
"The guy behind the bench is a roadblock to success." - Henrik Lundqvist

So who cares? Players quit responding to him, time to replace him.

Also isn't that true with pretty much every big decision in life? Never knowing how things will end up?

Not entirely sure the point of this thread, but you seem annoyed that people have been speculating on a forum built off speculating.
Click to expand...

What is the point of any thread? Do they all have to rip a player or a coach? What is the point of a thread that sends happy birthday greetings to a player? No thread has more validity than another.

I am annoyed about hundreds of posts explaining why this coach will be great or bad, when in truth, no one has any idea.

Opinions on players are at least based on something we can all observe. Opinions on coaches are based on fairy dust.

More to the point, based on personnel, do you believe the Rangers should have gone further than they did?
 
Belittling and degrading young players is foolish and cost this idiot his job. Don't let the door hit you in the Ass on way out
 
GAGLine said:
You're making a false assumption. I could just as easily point to the toronto series and wonder why Carlyle had them a minute away from beating boston yet we lost in 5.

There is no perfect roster. There is no perfect coach. Our coach and our roster were no longer working well together. It's far easier to change the coach than to change all the players. That doesn't mean there won't be roster changes, but Torts' act had gotten old. It was time for a change. There's really nothing more to it than that.
Click to expand...

So, is Carlyle a good coach?

There are perfect rosters. Islanders and Edmonton and Montreal have all had perfect rosters at one time.

When was our coach and roster working well together? Is your point that the players didn't like the coach? Who cares. America won its most famous Olympic gold medal under a coach they despised.

I have no problem with changing the coach. I just don't think it will help or hurt.
 
Ola said:
Did we play FIVE good game all year?

Did we do anything well under Torts, except blocked shots?

-Did we attack well? No.

-Did we PP well? No

-Did we defend well? No (constant major breakdowns).

-Did we PK well? No (horrible for a team with Hank).

-Did we play physical? No (I wonder if any team in the league laid fewer big hits than us).

There was one reason and one reason only we managed to get one of the last POs spots, Hank.
Click to expand...

Unintentionally or not, you just said that the Rangers would have won the Cup if not for Torts. I disagree.
 
puckrush said:
Its as much a mental thing as it is a skill thing. The Penguins were probably the most skilled team in the league this season, even more so than the Blackhawks. However, they are feeble and weak mentally. They are a team full of spoiled babies and they get exposed when any team pushes them around or gets in their head.

The Rangers players, almost to a man are stronger mentally. That's why they put up more of a fight. Despite being shallow on skill.

The coaching staff's tactical approach was absolutely one of the most prominent reasons they lost. And one of the team's strongest aspects, mental toughness, wasn't up to snuff, and Tortorella admitted that he failed to mentally prepare his team. Yes, its on the individual to prepare himself, but a coach is a leader and should be able to prepare his team.

In other words, it was as much Tortorella and the coaching staff's fault as much as it was the roster's.
Click to expand...

Within one post you lauded the mental toughness of the Rangers and complained about their lack of mental toughness.

On what do you base the notion that the Penguins lacked mental toughness?
 
chosen said:
Within one post you lauded the mental toughness of the Rangers and complained about their lack of mental toughness.

On what do you base the notion that the Penguins lacked mental toughness?
Click to expand...

Um, because they just finished an emotional seven game series and maybe, just maybe, even if you are strong mentally, you can still be off and unprepared?

Which is exactly what ****ing happened.

And its on the coach to recognize it and reel them in and get them prepared.
 
It all comes down to Sather. Something a lot of board members refuse to admit when they place the blame solely on Torts. I don't think this is a bad team or anything ridiculous like some think, but I agree with you. It finished where it should have. I think the team could've won a game or two more if it wasn't so lucky, but overall? Yeah, I think it finished about where it should.
 
puckrush said:
Um, because they just finished an emotional seven game series and maybe, just maybe, even if you are strong mentally, you can still be off and unprepared?

Which is exactly what ****ing happened.

And its on the coach to recognize it and reel them in and get them prepared.
Click to expand...

If a person is mentally tough, they are mentally tough. Yeah, I know that is inanely redundant, but the point is that going by results is a difficult way to determine mental toughness.

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's how the smart money bets."

Teams with better personnel and better luck will almost always win.
 
Agree Sather is to blame, as well. The issue is the guy just won't go away. Its on him to step away. Dolan, that POS, won't fire Sather. We are stuck with him until he decides to step away.

With the firing of Tortorella, the cancer (not mentioned to be disrespectful), and disappointing results this season, it was the PERFECT time for Sather to step aside and allow Gorton to take control as GM.
 
chosen said:
If a person is mentally tough, they are mentally tough. Yeah, I know that is inanely redundant, but the point is that going by results is a difficult way to determine mental toughness.

"The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's how the smart money bets."

Teams with better personnel and better luck will almost always win.
Click to expand...

You can be mentally tough and still be unprepared.

Tortorella couldn't match Julien's coaching. The Rangers won a game on sheer will. Tortorella was asleep at the wheel. He admitted he failed to prepare them. And like Dragoon said, he's a bully who throws his players under a bus, belittled his young guys, shortened his bench against a team that rolled four lines, he refused to adjust.

Tortorella had to go.

I agree he wasn't the sole problem, but he was a big one.
 
puckrush said:
You can be mentally tough and still be unprepared.

Tortorella couldn't match Julien's coaching. The Rangers won a game on sheer will. Tortorella was asleep at the wheel. He admitted he failed to prepare them. And like Dragoon said, he's a bully who throws his players under a bus, belittled his young guys, shortened his bench against a team that rolled four lines, he refused to adjust.

Tortorella had to go.

I agree he wasn't the sole problem, but he was a big one.
Click to expand...

Tortorella took the blame. That is an admirable thing, not an admission of wrongdoing that carries any weight. Is this evidence to you?

What made Julien a better coach? Was it that he had a vastly superior set of forwards? Defensemen who could lug it out of the zone?

Tell me what made Julien a good coach. Why has he been run out of other cities? Did he just get smart or is his personnel better?

If not for Lundqvist, the Rangers would be a totally mediocre team. Unfortunately, Lundqvist can't skate the puck out of the zone nor shoot it into the net.

Torts seems to be a dirtbag, but given his personnel, he played the right system. If they went wide-open, they would have had their ***** handed to them on a nightly basis.
 
Dagoon44 said:
Belittling and degrading young players is foolish and cost this idiot his job. Don't let the door hit you in the Ass on way out
Click to expand...

Not winning and Lundqvist's opinion cost him the job.

Edit: I accepted Barbara's Lundqvist's quote as fact. I guess I should not have taken her word for it.

Belittling Hagelin on the power play may have mattered but only because it exposes Sather as the problem.
 
Last edited:
It became a fashionable thing to say that Torts never unleashed the offense. Well, Marian Gaborik and Ryan Callahan had their best seasons playing under Torts. Rick Nash was on a pace to have his best in years under Torts. Derick Brassard played some of the best hockey of his career under Torts (albeit in a limited sample).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom