Toggle sidebar

Maybe Torts Wasn't the Problem

bernmeister said:
Sounds like someone wants to infer if I choose not to name a specific person, then it could not possibly be that anyone ever got hurt


.... but several did:naughty::D:p::p::cry:
Click to expand...
How did the system directly cause it? Players get hurt all the time blocking shots on every team.

Someone else has explained that the Rangers aren't the premier shot blockers in the game, and in yesterday's Bruins-Hawks game I saw a lot of blocked shots, with players throwing themselves in front of blasts.

Every team blocks shots as part of their strategy. Imagine how many shots Ottawa must have blocked to see their whole team go down.

It is good to hear, though, that with Torts gone, those injuries are a thing of the past.

26 teams had more man games lost this past season. Yeah, Torts' system really caused a lot of injuries.

On the other hand, your use of emoticons went a long way to proving your point.
 
chosen said:
How did the system directly cause it? Players get hurt all the time blocking shots on every team.

Someone else has explained that the Rangers aren't the premier shot blockers in the game, and in yesterday's Bruins-Hawks game I saw a lot of blocked shots, with players throwing themselves in front of blasts.

Every team blocks shots as part of their strategy. Imagine how many shots Ottawa must have blocked to see their whole team go down.

It is good to hear, though, that with Torts gone, those injuries are a thing of the past.

26 teams had more man games lost this past season. Yeah, Torts' system really caused a lot of injuries.

On the other hand, your use of emoticons went a long way to proving your point.
Click to expand...

Bern went to great lengths to explain how he concedes that Torts' system didn't DIRECTLY cause the injuries, yet you still feel the need to bait him into saying just that and then attack him for it. Pretty ridiculous.

Anyone who doesn't see how that system put players at higher risk for these types of injuries is kidding themselves. Harp on the "success" of the system all you want, but it without a doubt put guys in harm's way more often than others.

Also, anyone saying that Torts got the absolute most possible out of these teams is speculating just like people who are speculating that new coach x can do better. The bottom line is that it was time for him to go and he went. Moving on.
 
Funny, I don't see anyone blaming Julien's system for Campbell's shotblocking injury. They are a team that has had plenty of injuries as well... Seidenberg, Ference, Horton, etc.

Straka broke his hand blocking Chara's shot when Renney was coach, and Cally suffered a leg injury under Renney. Dubinsky, Prust, and Anisimov suffered injuries this year, even though they escaped Torts' system. Shotblockers and players who engage in a physical brand of hockey get injured sometimes, it's a part of the sport.
 
Torts was part of the problem; not part of the solution. why debate how big a problem he was? move on.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Ha, what amazes me is how few people know what the solution is beyond firing the coach.
Click to expand...

They have their generic answers. The new coach needs to "open it up."

That last time I heard that argument was with the Jets. As in, "Mark Sanchez is a good quarterback, Schottenheimer just needs to open it up."

They want their cake and they want to it eat it, too. I've seen several people post things along the lines of, "I want a coach that is going to open it up and not sacrifice defense."
 
stan the caddy said:
They have their generic answers. The new coach needs to "open it up."

That last time I heard that argument was with the Jets. As in, "Mark Sanchez is a good quarterback, Schottenheimer just needs to open it up."

They want their cake and they want to it eat it, too. I've seen several people post things along the lines of, "I want a coach that is going to open it up and not sacrifice defense."
Click to expand...

I wonder who they will be sharpening the blades for next...Lundqvist?
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
I wonder who they will be sharpening the blades for next...Lundqvist?
Click to expand...

Ok, maybe it's time for the Tortarella protectors to give it a rest already, he's gone, adios, see ya.

There were valid reasons for keeping or firing the guy, but everyone, even the best players/coaches in the world have a shelf life.
 
Synergy27 said:
Implying that you know THE solution is equally amazing.
Click to expand...

You'll have to point out where I said I did.

Theres not one solution -- but having a number of players on the roster that just simply aren't championship caliber is a huge piece of the puzzle.
 
Bluenote13 said:
Ok, maybe it's time for the Tortarella protectors to give it a rest already, he's gone, adios, see ya.

There were valid reasons for keeping or firing the guy, but everyone, even the best players/coaches in the world have a shelf life.
Click to expand...

Im over it. I didnt even particularly like Tortorella. I just steadfastly believe that the major problems with this team (then, now, and beyond) lie within player personnel. Namely, players being asked to fulfill roles that are beyond their capabilities. What happens when thats a pervasive problem? The gameplan becomes more conservative. Its happened with the last 2 coaches. It'll happen with this one too.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
You'll have to point out where I said I did.

Theres not one solution -- but having a number of players on the roster that just simply aren't championship caliber is a huge piece of the puzzle.
Click to expand...

I won't because I said you implied it, but perhaps I misunderstood your intent. The Rangers have a competitive roster, clearly not a best of the best type roster. The debate is about how to maximize it, not how good it is in a vacuum.
 
Bleed Ranger Blue said:
Im over it. I didnt even particularly like Tortorella. I just steadfastly believe that the major problems with this team (then, now, and beyond) lie within player personnel. Namely, players being asked to fulfill roles that are beyond their capabilities. What happens when thats a pervasive problem? The gameplan becomes more conservative. Its happened with the last 2 coaches. It'll happen with this one too.
Click to expand...

I agree the roster assembled this year was mediocre and many were asked to play above their heads, while others never got it going. And NONE of this is new to long time Ranger fans.

But the PP not clicking, like, ever, that was a problem that could've at least used some creativity. Brad Richards played like a dog the whole season, why did it take so long for Torts to make him an example??

I was no fan of Torts but he did a good job with this team overall. But did he do everything in his power to adapt when the chips were down? IDK, I feel like he was limited to what he does best and stuck to it. Too stubborn. The players didn't seem to think he was working, that just solidifies it to me. Season was over, unlike the disrespectful way Renney was handled.


I argued for days, maybe months about Renney/Torts and said the same things you are all saying defending the coach against the players. It does no good, people see it how they want to, not for what it really is.
 
Bluenote13 said:
I agree the roster assembled this year was mediocre and many were asked to play above their heads, while others never got it going. And NONE of this is new to long time Ranger fans.

But the PP not clicking, like, ever, that was a problem that could've at least used some creativity. Brad Richards played like a dog the whole season, why did it take so long for Torts to make him an example??

I was no fan of Torts but he did a good job with this team overall. But did he do everything in his power to adapt when the chips were down? IDK, I feel like he was limited to what he does best and stuck to it. Too stubborn. The players didn't seem to think he was working, that just solidifies it to me. Season was over, unlike the disrespectful way Renney was handled.


I argued for days, maybe months about Renney/Torts and said the same things you are all saying defending the coach against the players. It does no good, people see it how they want to, not for what it really is.
Click to expand...

I agree with all and every point. But... it seems Slats got it. We need an excellent coach for the personnel at hand just to stay afloat. Torts is not that.
 
94now said:
I agree with all and every point. But... it seems Slats got it. We need an excellent coach for the personnel at hand just to stay afloat. Torts is not that.
Click to expand...

But Alain Vignealt, Lindy Ruff, and Mark Messier are excellent coaches? That's who he's looking at. Vignealt's had many disappointing playoff runs, so has Lindy. Mark doesn't even have any experience.
 
Bluenote13 said:
Ok, maybe it's time for the Tortarella protectors to give it a rest already, he's gone, adios, see ya.

There were valid reasons for keeping or firing the guy, but everyone, even the best players/coaches in the world have a shelf life.
Click to expand...

The team didn't make progress. Took half a step backward. Not necessarily a good reason to fire the coach but as a variable with other things--then it's a maybe. I'm not torn up about it--I just happen to agree at least with some that the Rangers as currently constructed do not have enough talented personnel to get away with opening things up--the backbone of the team is their goalie and after that comes the defense. Firing Torts is not necessarily a step toward a solution. A lot depends on who replaces him and at least a good number of those who wanted Torts gone aren't really coherent about what that solution looks like either apart from we need to score lots and lots of goals. It would be nice I suppose but we don't have any really elite forwards or a proven offensive defenseman which are usually key for that. I think no matter who replaces Tortorella the likelihood is that if we do score more goals it will be a negligible amount.
 
I think both sides are feeding this 'lack of goals' thing.

It was the ineffective PP that was a huge problem. 5 on 5 I have no problem playing a defensive system, as long as the players can do it and not 'totally' sacrifice offense. The makeup of the team changed from one year to the next, smart hockey people knew a step back was almost a given, many of us here said the same, though as fans there is an eternal optimist in all of us when we make a big trade like the Nash one.
 
I think their power play personnel might be the worst in the entire league. They don't have a good playmaker on the blueline or a defenseman that can rip one timers. In fact, they don't really have anyone with a decent shot at all. They don't have a playmaker down low. They have two guys that can stand in front of the net in Callahan and Boyle. Nash isn't that impressive on the power play. Most of his goals come in transition on even strength. It doesn't surprise me that they struggle.
 
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 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 expand...
Since the Rangers series...what...1 point, and even play? that team is a sum of their parts, not individuals...everone makes everyone look better than they are...except for Chara who is a frikkin monster.
 
Inferno said:
Since the Rangers series...what...1 point, and even play? that team is a sum of their parts, not individuals...everone makes everyone look better than they are...except for Chara who is a frikkin monster.
Click to expand...

He was also horrific in last night's game.

Again, the collapsing D really did make Krug look a lot better than he really is.
 
Son of Steinbrenner said:
I can't speak for Inferno, I don't get along with him BUT if he thinks he's wrong he's man enough to admit it. For you to call him out in this thread instead of sending him a friendly PM is complete garbage. It's the type of thing you'd expect from a teenager not somebody that is clearly much older than that. It's not a related not in the spirit of the thread you created. It's related in the I'm right you're wrong tone of almost all your posts.
Click to expand...

Thanks, agreed, we don't always get along, but I definitely respect your opinion brother :)

With that said, I don't back off my stance, simply not enough data to call Krug a stud, especially not after 1 series where he played against a team which quite literally plays to his exact strengths...we place ZERO pressure on the points, allowing the D to get involved with all day to shoot.

Kid has a rocket of a shot, and gets it on net, not gonna deny that at all, but thats all i saw, nothing else about his game screams star, or even above average player.

a rocket of a shot does not a player make.

since the series against us he hasnt done much offensively. he hasnt hurt the team defensively, but tahts because the Brooins control the puck so damn much..though he did cost his team a goal in the first game of the SCF, so, theres that.


ill stick with my opinion, simply not enough data to call this kid anything more than he is right now, a rookie on a hot streak....or at least he WAS on a hot streak. 1 assist since his barrage on Henrik.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom