Maybe Torts Wasn't the Problem

[Inferno]

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.

yep, my only point on Krug is, other than his amazing shot, i saw nothing that really impressed me.

all defenseman look like norris winners against us, because our defensive zone scheme plays right into the defensemans hands.

works great against bums like the Bolts' teams, but other than that, its Henrik to the rescue.

 

[offdacrossbar]

some of us believe that in torts' eyes this WAS the best roster.

during torts' tenure here, he did his best to assemble a team that, in his eye, could compete and win while playing his "system". he replaced skill with size and grind. he replaced euros with good ole canadian farm boys and usa kids with lots of smash mouth jam. he had no use for "out of the box" creativity. he likes robots.

these players were his players. he was part of all the personnel decisions. the rosters were constructed with his input and players were dismissed based upon his assessments. he built his teams the way he wanted them constructed.

he got his perfect roster. 1 first line and 3 third lines.

this was his team. slats gave him what he wanted. ultimately thats what led to his dismissal. the team failed. he was released. as it should be.

 

[McRanger]

Was Torts THE problem? No idea.

But Torts, or more specifically Torts system, definitely was A problem. A big one.

 

[Bardof425*]

Because it's a message board. If such things were not debating it would cease to exist.

I get it because a message board has been set up every topic SHOULD be debated. Got it.

 

[Bardof425*]

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.

there ya go.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

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.

Stepan isn't a playmaker down low? That's where he always plays.

I also think players like Moore and McDonagh should have been given a chance to QB the PP over Girardi/DZ/Richsuckards. In fact, Tortorella SAID that Moore was QBing the PP, but, what do you know, not even one full game later, he's not on the PP. Consistency, what's that?

 

[Thirty One]

I get it because a message board has been set up every topic SHOULD be debated. Got it.

Not every topic, that would be impossible. You're being silly. Just the topics that people, as a group, feel worthy of debating. I do not support a topic dictatorship.

 

[offdacrossbar]

our pp woes were due to 2 things. specifically, sully and torts.

our players were more than adequate.

 

[stan the caddy]

Stepan isn't a playmaker down low? That's where he always plays.

I also think players like Moore and McDonagh should have been given a chance to QB the PP over Girardi/DZ/Richsuckards. In fact, Tortorella SAID that Moore was QBing the PP, but, what do you know, not even one full game later, he's not on the PP. Consistency, what's that?

He's fairly average or below average compared to what other teams have on their pp units. The Rangers aren't going to blow anyone away because they have Derek Stepan, unless Stepan really improves.

The Rangers don't have a Crosby,an Ovechkin, a Stamkos, a St. Louis, a Malkin, a Letang, a Giroux, a Sedin, a Weber, a Chara, a Kane, a Keith, a Subban, a Markov, a Doughty, a Green, or a Karlsson, etc.

I guess our power play is going to run through Nash, a guy that couldn't put up 20 power play points his final two seasons in Columbus. Not saying Nash isn't a good player, just think he's more built for 5 on 5 where he can go one on one with defenseman.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

our pp woes were due to 2 things. specifically, sully and torts.

our players were more than adequate.

Based on what? We had a couple of players that were good on the PP. You'd be hard-pressed to field two units. We could field one solid first unit, but have no depth on the 2nd (shocking that Sather's lack of foresight into secondary scoring would bite the team in the ass).

 

[Jersey Girl]

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

Yeah, everyone...except the GM, apparently.

 

[offdacrossbar]

Based on what? We had a couple of players that were good on the PP. You'd be hard-pressed to field two units. We could field one solid first unit, but have no depth on the 2nd (shocking that Sather's lack of foresight into secondary scoring would bite the team in the ass).

no jon we did have guys who could play. and you sure you want to blame just sather ? this was torts' team. he wanted this type of team. these were his guys.

we had gaby. perfect shooter but he was always on the wrong side of the ice making sure his shot was minimized. thats bad coaching.

we had zuk. perfect kinda creative passer for the pp. good with the puck and patient. a guy who has shown great ability in europe playing with the man advantage. he wasnt used properly. bad coaching.

we had beaver. good shot. good passer. smart. he was mishandled and misused. his 5 on 5 play was awful ill grant you that, but hes a guy who should be on every pp. he wasnt. bad coaching.

nash. he underperformed on the pp. you just gotta get him involved. bad coaching.

kreider. shoulda played more. he didnt. nuff said. bad coaching.

too much boyle. cally. pyatt on the pp for my liking. bad coaching.

too much del zotto. hes clueless mostly with the puck on the pp and his shot is abysmal. bad coaching.

while we dont/didnt have a true pp qb, we had guys who could have gotten the job done.

its coaching i tell ya....

 

[Jersey Girl]

no jon we did have guys who could play. and you sure you want to blame just sather ? this was torts' team. he wanted this type of team. these were his guys.

we had gaby. perfect shooter but he was always on the wrong side of the ice making sure his shot was minimized. thats bad coaching.

we had zuk. perfect kinda creative passer for the pp. good with the puck and patient. a guy who has shown great ability in europe playing with the man advantage. he wasnt used properly. bad coaching.

we had beaver. good shot. good passer. smart. he was mishandled and misused. his 5 on 5 play was awful ill grant you that, but hes a guy who should be on every pp. he wasnt. bad coaching.

nash. he underperformed on the pp. you just gotta get him involved. bad coaching.

kreider. shoulda played more. he didnt. nuff said. bad coaching.

too much boyle. cally. pyatt on the pp for my liking. bad coaching.

too much del zotto. hes clueless mostly with the puck on the pp and his shot is abysmal. bad coaching.

while we dont/didnt have a true pp qb, we had guys who could have gotten the job done.

its coaching i tell ya....

I thought Gaby had some good moments on the PP over the years...must have been good coaching.

Zucc? Eh...not enough good moments. Bad playing.

Nash did not play well enough on the power play considering his physical gifts. Bad playing.

Beaver hurt our PP. Bad playing.

Kreider...not enough time to make an accurate assessment. Still learning perhaps.

Boyle and Cally at least had some good moments on the power play. Good playing...and coaching?

del Zotto. Bad playing. Clearly.

Brassard came alive under Torts. Good coaching I guess.

Hagelin. Bad playing.

Stepan. OK playing.

Clowe. Not enough playing.

The lack of anyone who can run a power play from the point. Bad general managing.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Wait. Richards was mishandled? I thought he sucked? Mind = blown.

 

[haveandare]

no jon we did have guys who could play. and you sure you want to blame just sather ? this was torts' team. he wanted this type of team. these were his guys.

we had gaby. perfect shooter but he was always on the wrong side of the ice making sure his shot was minimized. thats bad coaching.

we had zuk. perfect kinda creative passer for the pp. good with the puck and patient. a guy who has shown great ability in europe playing with the man advantage. he wasnt used properly. bad coaching.

we had beaver. good shot. good passer. smart. he was mishandled and misused. his 5 on 5 play was awful ill grant you that, but hes a guy who should be on every pp. he wasnt. bad coaching.

nash. he underperformed on the pp. you just gotta get him involved. bad coaching.

kreider. shoulda played more. he didnt. nuff said. bad coaching.

too much boyle. cally. pyatt on the pp for my liking. bad coaching.

too much del zotto. hes clueless mostly with the puck on the pp and his shot is abysmal. bad coaching.

while we dont/didnt have a true pp qb, we had guys who could have gotten the job done.

its coaching i tell ya....

That's some serious revisionist history. Richards was absolutely awful on the PP. He shouldn't have been on either unit for most of the season let alone on "every PP." DZ is clueless and his shot is abysmal but Richards has a good shot and is a smart, good passer? They were both awful on the points - no idea what to do, broadcast every single move to the other team before they made it, absolute wastes of point spots most of the year.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

no jon we did have guys who could play. and you sure you want to blame just sather ? this was torts' team. he wanted this type of team. these were his guys.

we had gaby. perfect shooter but he was always on the wrong side of the ice making sure his shot was minimized. thats bad coaching.

we had zuk. perfect kinda creative passer for the pp. good with the puck and patient. a guy who has shown great ability in europe playing with the man advantage. he wasnt used properly. bad coaching.

we had beaver. good shot. good passer. smart. he was mishandled and misused. his 5 on 5 play was awful ill grant you that, but hes a guy who should be on every pp. he wasnt. bad coaching.

nash. he underperformed on the pp. you just gotta get him involved. bad coaching.

kreider. shoulda played more. he didnt. nuff said. bad coaching.

too much boyle. cally. pyatt on the pp for my liking. bad coaching.

too much del zotto. hes clueless mostly with the puck on the pp and his shot is abysmal. bad coaching.

while we dont/didnt have a true pp qb, we had guys who could have gotten the job done.

its coaching i tell ya....

First off, you should read more. When have I just blamed Sather? Don't worry. I'll wait.

1. Gabby was laughably bad this year. He was not much better in Columbus. All the cracks in the man of glass are finally beginning to slow him down. That can't be blamed on the player or the coach. Blame God, I guess.

2. Zuc was used fine. He's not nearly as talented as you seem to think he is. He's a solid player and I think he was fine on the PP and utilized correctly. I have no complaints with how he played or was used.

3. Richards sucking is now on Torts? Wow. Now I've heard it all.

4. Nash underperforming is bad coaching? Love to hear the logic behind that (I know that there is no logic behind it, so that's rhetorical).

5. Please tell me what Kreider did to warrant more time. I've already destroyed a number of arguments on this with other posters. What did he do to deserve more playing time? All he did was fall on his ass most of the year. He even sucked in Hartford.

6. Who the flying **** else were we going to play? WE HAD NO SECONDARY SCORING. WHY DO YOU THINK I POSTED THAT? And, as previously mentioned by someone else, Boyle was on for all of our PP goals in the playoffs.

7. This is one of the few things I will agree with (but only post-Gaborik trade). I would have liked to have seen more of Moore on the ice and less of MDZ/Girardi. But that was not even a real option for 3/4 of the season.

8. I love how you admit we don't have a PP QB then somehow speak out of the other side of your mouth and claim we still should have gotten it done. Laughable.

So, once again, this falls more on Sather. Is Torts immune? Not at all. No one on here is claiming him to be. However, you are laughably white washing Sather's abysmal job of acquiring secondary scoring and a true PP QB.

I also like your hypocritical ability to not give Torts credit for using Brassard correctly on the PP. Because it doesn't suit your argument you just do not address it. That would get you laughed out of a courtroom.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

That's some serious revisionist history. Richards was absolutely awful on the PP. He shouldn't have been on either unit for most of the season let alone on "every PP." DZ is clueless and his shot is abysmal but Richards has a good shot and is a smart, good passer? They were both awful on the points - no idea what to do, broadcast every single move to the other team before they made it, absolute wastes of point spots most of the year.

I've criticized offda for specializing in revisionist history in the past. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth in arguments like this. You can even see hypocritical statements from paragraph-to-paragraph in that post.

 

[chosen]

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.

On one hand, the poster said the system of Torts caused the Rangers to experience injuries. I challenged that with statistics that prove otherwise. How is that goading?

Now you come along and agree with his premise. Now I ask you, how did this system that supposedly caused injuries to the Rangers see them suffer far below the league average in this department?

Again, that's not goading. That is asking for evidence to support an assertion. Statistics point strongly against the theory.

 

[chosen]

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.

He hasn't continued to score at that ridiculous pace, and I have seen him make a couple of mistakes, but his skating, ice awareness, and passing are still quite good, under as much pressure as a defenseman can face.

I still love his upside.

Thanks for understanding that I wasn't insulting you. It was just a friendly poke.

 

[RangerLifer]

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.

I don't think he got fired because the Bruins beat us.

 

[Inferno]

He hasn't continued to score at that ridiculous pace, and I have seen him make a couple of mistakes, but his skating, ice awareness, and passing are still quite good, under as much pressure as a defenseman can face.

I still love his upside.

Thanks for understanding that I wasn't insulting you. It was just a friendly poke.

and see, i just dont think thats accurate at all....what pressure did we put on him?

our pressure on the defenseman has been LAUGHABLE at best. IMHO, it the #1 tactical flaw that Torts has had, and I've never agreed with it (still didn't want him fired...but if he lost the room, its done)

Krug had enough time to look up, assess everything, go to the bench, change sticks, come back, and tee up a shot....our pressure at the points was nonexistent.

 

[chosen]

and see, i just dont think thats accurate at all....what pressure did we put on him?

our pressure on the defenseman has been LAUGHABLE at best. IMHO, it the #1 tactical flaw that Torts has had, and I've never agreed with it (still didn't want him fired...but if he lost the room, its done)

Krug had enough time to look up, assess everything, go to the bench, change sticks, come back, and tee up a shot....our pressure at the points was nonexistent.

I was referring to the pressure he has been under since the Rangers series.

While he hasn't been potting goals since then, I feel for a defenseman with so little experience to be thrust into a large role for a team fighting for a Cup he has performed pretty well.

 

[Inferno]

I was referring to the pressure he has been under since the Rangers series.

While he hasn't been potting goals since then, I feel for a defenseman with so little experience to be thrust into a large role for a team fighting for a Cup he has performed pretty well.

I think that team insulates individual weaknesses VERY well.

 

[Thesensation19*]

I like Torts. I think hes one of the great coaches of today. I just believe the off-season and shortened season messed with the Rangers. A LOT of changes were made during the offseason. We got rid of key players for special teams and important minutes. We never replaced them correctly.

We thought, OH! Prust is a grinder and a fighter. Lets replace him with Asham. Two differ players. Prust had much more of a bite, not to mention that he was also very much in tune with Torts system and style and had chemistry with the team.

We put in Pyatt for Fedetenko or Dubinsky you can say. Pyatt had no emotion all season. He was a big lump chugging along. I hope hes gone. Should have been traded.

I am glad for the new trade that brought in Moore and Brassard but we need new role players. The thing now is that we will have a new coach, so idk who to get really.

I just dont see how its Torts fault in the Boston series. The team did look emotionless many times but as hard as I was on the Rangers, I realized Boston did not look much better. They just were a better team. Hence why they are in the finals and took Chicago to 3OTs.

I mean, if there were issues in the locker room wouldnt we have missed the playoffs? Wouldnt we have lost in the first round rather than come back from a bad deficit and win it in 7.

I think players were banged up as any hockey team is, unlucky... Boston was better. And the team we had just wasnt the same guys. Something that is on the hands of the GM.

Hes a terrible GM in the off-season and FA. He should be fired. I stuck up for him for his draft picks, for his days in EDM, for his amazing trades... but in the end. How many chances does one guy get? He must have a clause, or Dolan must really like him (Sather has increased the NYR revenue and profit since he took over).


I liked Torts. I think we could have won with him if we kept along the same path. Not just trade away key guys from a superstar... not just replace our key role gusy with guys who play "similar"...

We played bad this year for the most part

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Really can't wait to see what the excuses are next season. Gonna need to stock up on popcorn.