Maybe Torts Wasn't the Problem

[GAGLine]

So, is Carlyle a good coach?

You missed my point. I'm not making the contention that Carlyle is a good coach because toronto took boston to 7 games. I merely used that as an example of how baseless your suggestion was that Torts was not to be blamed because Pittsburgh lost in 4.

You looked at a result and assumed the cause without examining all the other variables. That would be like me going outside and dancing, 10 minutes later it starts raining, and I conclude that my dancing made it rain.

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

No, they didn't. To have perfect rosters, you must have perfect players. To have perfect players you must have perfect people. There are no perfect people. Everyone makes mistakes. Those teams just happened to be good enough to make less mistakes than their opponents, or to overcome any mistakes they did made.

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'd say last year they were working pretty well together. About as well as could be hoped.

How long did Herb Brooks coach those players? Less than a full year. That's basically 1 season in NHL terms. He was also dealing with a bunch of kids who had never played professionally before. Torts was here for 4 seasons. He had to deal with kids and vets. BTW, guess how long Herb Brooks coached the Rangers. That's right, 4 years.

I have no problem with changing the coach. I just don't think it will help or hurt.

So is it your contention that who the coach is doesn't matter? Should we bring Trottier back? How about Muckler?

If the players are tuning the coach out, then bringing in a new coach HAS to help, if only as addition by subtraction.

 

[haohmaru]

Googling that Lundqvist quote only leads to this thread.

I highly doubt the validity of the Lundqvist "quote".

 

[Stanley Foobrick]

I highly doubt the validity of the Lundqvist "quote".

..... and that's exactly why it needs to be removed.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

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.

They were planning on bringing him back when they gave him an extension - during the season.

During the season is not the same thing as at the end of their playoff run.

We have absolutely no way of knowing if these "player meetings" had anything to do with the firing. Not until a player or member of management comes out and specifically says that.

It is all assumption on the part of bloggers and journalists who want to dig the knife in as deeply as possible to get a sensational headline.

 

[chosen]

You missed my point. I'm not making the contention that Carlyle is a good coach because toronto took boston to 7 games. I merely used that as an example of how baseless your suggestion was that Torts was not to be blamed because Pittsburgh lost in 4.

Fine. What do you base your opinion of a coach on? Where should the Rangers have finished?

I will answer anyone's questions. I would like if someone could answer any of my questions in this thread (or elsewhere) instead of throwing out blanket statements that rip Torts' job performance.

You looked at a result and assumed the cause without examining all the other variables.

Boy, do I disagree with this. I say it's the opposite. People are ripping Torts to shreds without considering the personnel. I am the one talking about the other factors.

No, they didn't. To have perfect rosters, you must have perfect players. To have perfect players you must have perfect people. There are no perfect people. Everyone makes mistakes. Those teams just happened to be good enough to make less mistakes than their opponents, or to overcome any mistakes they did made.

Technically, you are right, so you win that one. However, the Rangers roster is grossly flawed. This has nothing to do with the job the coach did.

I'd say last year they were working pretty well together. About as well as could be hoped.

I don't think they worked at all better last year. They just didn't run into a team like the Bruins of this year. Direct question. Do you think the Rangers personnel was better than the Bruins?

How long did Herb Brooks coach those players? Less than a full year. That's basically 1 season in NHL terms. He was also dealing with a bunch of kids who had never played professionally before. Torts was here for 4 seasons. He had to deal with kids and vets. BTW, guess how long Herb Brooks coached the Rangers. That's right, 4 years.

I agree with you but this time you are missing my point. Torts is a good coach who wore out his welcome. All coaches wear out their welcome after a few years. That has not been the contention of the Torts critics, however.

The claim is that he is a bad tactician who can't adapt, can't fix what's wrong etc,. That is nonsense. No coach will keep his team's ear after a few years of being yelled at. That is why I have no problem with his being let go. That said, this is not the complaint of most fans. And again, no matter who coached them this year, their talent would have increased a total of zero. Boston is a far more complete team. Do you disagree?

So is it your contention that who the coach is doesn't matter? Should we bring Trottier back? How about Muckler?

Guys like Trottier are the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule. Yes, there are some incompetent coaches, but very few. The hiring of Trottier is yet another indictment of Sather.

If the players are tuning the coach out, then bringing in a new coach HAS to help, if only as addition by subtraction.

Bringing in a new coach is very far from a guarantee of improved performance. If your statement were accurate, every new coach after an entrenched coach would make a team better. Let's use your Trottier example here.

 

[3rd Guy High]

Am I the only one that didn't think Pittsburgh was actually that good?

They beat the islanders in 6 and looked like crap and they beat Ottawa....

They have all the weapons in the world up front but they're always falling apart on defense and their goaltending and d core sucks aside from Letang and Orpik.

I honestly believe we would have beaten the Penguins. Shut down their "whining stars" and get in their head and they don't have much left aside from Iginla who didn't really show much in the Boston series.

As far as the coach, it was obvious during the season he was losing the room. Between their inconsistency and not getting going until they absolutely had to after the trade deadline, it was obvious they were getting sick of Tort's message. You could see it in the way torts addressed the media this year. He was much less harsh on the team after losses than in previous years.

 

[Tawnos]

Either/or opinions on this are beyond pointless.

There is nothing that was the problem. But the coach was certainly a problem.

 

[Kershaw]

As in all sports, coach is the easy cop-out.

 

[chosen]

Shut down their "whining stars" and get in their head and they don't have much left aside from Iginla who didn't really show much in the Boston series.

Yeah. Shutting down Crosby and Malkin is a piece of cake. That is all it takes.

Dupuis, Kunitz, and Neal laugh at your talent appraisal.

 

[Clown Fiesta]

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.

So the fact that it was being reported that the players weren't exactly pleased during their exit interviews isn't enough for you? We now need them to come forward and confess what was said between them and Sather? Not going to happen. It rarely happens in pro sports that the exact details of internal business such as this is revealed. Especially not with the Rangers.

Opinions don't change?

They were planning on bringing him back when they gave him an extension - during the season.

During the season is not the same thing as at the end of their playoff run.

We have absolutely no way of knowing if these "player meetings" had anything to do with the firing. Not until a player or member of management comes out and specifically says that.

It is all assumption on the part of bloggers and journalists who want to dig the knife in as deeply as possible to get a sensational headline.

What else would spark them to suddenly fire him at the end of the playoffs? They extended him, Sather had no plans to fire him. It's a safe assumption to believe the players had quit on him.

Talk about wanting to sensationalize everything, it's laid out pretty clear for everyone. Yet here we are in another thread discussing the firing of Torts and people still think it was some sort of conspiracy or something. Had the players still been "in love" with Torts he'd still be here.

 

[3rd Guy High]

Yeah. Shutting down Crosby and Malkin is a piece of cake. That is all it takes.

Dupuis, Kunitz, and Neal laugh at your talent appraisal.

We just shut down the top goal scorer in the league in Ovechkin. Crosby and Malkin looked like absolute **** the first two games.

You really don't think Dupuis, Kunitz and Neal feed off of Crosby and Malkin? If they had that much talent they wouldn't have been complete no shows when Malkin and Crosby looked out of it. So I laugh at your talent evaluation. Dupuis and Kunitz are probably two of the most overrated players in the league. They're average 2nd/3rd line two way players that can fill in on any line and are catapulted to 1st line status because of who they play with. Much like Hagelin would be best suited on the 2nd or 3rd line, but can fill in on the first and does a damn good job of it.

Maybe we would have difficulties with our injury riddled lineup, but with Staal and McDonagh in the lineup as well as Lundqvist in between the pipes I would feel very confident going up against Pittsburgh. They're just not that good when you shut down their top 2 guys. Get in their heads and its that much easier. The bruins just showed that.

 

[Tawnos]

Chosen,

Question for you, regarding the Bruins series. If Tortorella wasn't a part of our problem in that series, why did he say himself that he didn't do a good enough job prepping the team for it?

I missed where you responded to that already. Sorry.

The fact is, though, that you don't need Tortorella to say that he didn't do a good enough job preparing the team or adjusting to the Bruins attack. You need look no further than the PK, which was adjusted for the Caps, but never readjusted when the Bruins were taking advantage of it.

 

[free0717]

Bottom line is the reason the Rangers lost to the Bruins is because they were not good enough. The Bruins were much deeper at every position and that depth won against both the Rangers and the Penguins. I tip my hat to the Bruins because they are the better team.

I loved Torts. Loved his intensity, his fire, his passion. I cant say what the room was like because I was not in the room. However there was a streak of about 8 games during the season where Marian Gaborik had a break a way and didn't score. Torts system put Gabby in position to score but he couldn't get the job done. However Torts intensity is what grinded on every player and forced him to lose the room. When Torts was hired, everyone knew there would be a shelf life to this guy. That time came. Torts, you will be missed. You were not perfect, but you brought accountability to this team. Something that had been sorely lacking. You brought a conditioning level to this team that it never had.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

It's funny. When Boston won the first 2 so handily I had this same thought. And then I remembered how unbalanced this team was. The only reason we got so far in the playoffs is a player called Henrik. Wasn't Torts' system.

We needed more offense. Boston sustains a lot more offensive pressure than we ever did. Couple that type of pressure with Henrik and we'll look as good as Boston does this year.

Torts was a problem. He needed to go. We need sustained offensive pressure.

 

[Ola]

Unintentionally or not, you just said that the Rangers would have won the Cup if not for Torts. I disagree.

Chosen, I am not sure if this thread is a joke (this reply seem to indicate it) or if you are just delusional.

You literary talk about us being close to Boston. They had fire practise against us from the drop of the puck to the series ended.

You should always have a chance to win with the best goalie in the league, but we didn't even have that.

 

[skymachine]

Bottom line is the reason the Rangers lost to the Bruins is because they were not good enough. The Bruins were much deeper at every position and that depth won against both the Rangers and the Penguins. I tip my hat to the Bruins because they are the better team.

I loved Torts. Loved his intensity, his fire, his passion. I cant say what the room was like because I was not in the room. However there was a streak of about 8 games during the season where Marian Gaborik had a break a way and didn't score. Torts system put Gabby in position to score but he couldn't get the job done. However Torts intensity is what grinded on every player and forced him to lose the room. When Torts was hired, everyone knew there would be a shelf life to this guy. That time came. Torts, you will be missed. You were not perfect, but you brought accountability to this team. Something that had been sorely lacking. You brought a conditioning level to this team that it never had.

Stole the words out of my mouth. Great post.

 

[Ola]

Lol at the notion that we were "close" to beating Boston. It would have taken a 1980s miricle to beat them.

Media basically didn't even cover that series. We got 2-3 tweets from the biggest names, then there where 15-20 for the other games. We were not even close.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

Bottom line is the reason the Rangers lost to the Bruins is because they were not good enough. The Bruins were much deeper at every position and that depth won against both the Rangers and the Penguins. I tip my hat to the Bruins because they are the better team.

I loved Torts. Loved his intensity, his fire, his passion. I cant say what the room was like because I was not in the room. However there was a streak of about 8 games during the season where Marian Gaborik had a break a way and didn't score. Torts system put Gabby in position to score but he couldn't get the job done. However Torts intensity is what grinded on every player and forced him to lose the room. When Torts was hired, everyone knew there would be a shelf life to this guy. That time came. Torts, you will be missed. You were not perfect, but you brought accountability to this team. Something that had been sorely lacking. You brought a conditioning level to this team that it never had.

You make some valid points but youre painting too idealistic of a picture here. He was too stubborn to coach a team. He hit the right balance of players last year and his team wore down on him right when it needed to peak. You call it excellent conditioning, I call it fatigue. They had the upper hand on teams during the beginning of the season, yes, but thats not the time of season that counts.

He brought accountability to his players, yes, but then he himself never was accountable. He'd throw his players under the bus to the media, he'd shift around lines he made when they didn't work, he never had an answer for a struggling offense or powerplay. That's irony more so than accountability.

Torts system never put Gabby in a position to get 8 breakaways in a rows. That's an anomaly not a representation. Also, 8 games? I don't remember Gabby having 8 breakaways in a season for us, let alone an 8 game stretch in a half season.

I'm not going to blame Torts for everything. A pretty big part of why this team failed, this season, was because the players did not perform to their contracts (most of them at least). However, Torts was far more detrimental to this group of guys than they were to themselves. You can't force players to be something they are not and he wanted each and every player to be the same mold, the same type. Can't have that my friend.

Don't get me wrong, we need someone who brings that same intensity and passion here that Torts brought, but we don't need a dictator who can never adjust to his rosters or adjust to a game plan outside of his own.

 

[chosen]

So the fact that it was being reported that the players weren't exactly pleased during their exit interviews isn't enough for you? We now need them to come forward and confess what was said between them and Sather? Not going to happen. It rarely happens in pro sports that the exact details of internal business such as this is revealed. Especially not with the Rangers.

Opinions don't change?



What else would spark them to suddenly fire him at the end of the playoffs? They extended him, Sather had no plans to fire him. It's a safe assumption to believe the players had quit on him.

Talk about wanting to sensationalize everything, it's laid out pretty clear for everyone. Yet here we are in another thread discussing the firing of Torts and people still think it was some sort of conspiracy or something. Had the players still been "in love" with Torts he'd still be here.

You make up a quote and instead of apologizing when called on it, you criticize your critics.

Are you a lawyer?

 

[Son of Steinbrenner]

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.

All coaches are replacable....I bet your vast years following the team taught you that. Us fans that aren't as wise as you just learned something new...

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?

Maybe this just became apparent to you but if you've read this board since the day Torts was fired you would see not many posters pointed to the Bruins series as the ONLY reason Torts was fired.....

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

Probably not, what's the point of even bringing the Penguins series into this?

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.

One series has nothing to do with the other. The Rangers won 1 game the Penguins won no games. The difference isn't that big.

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

So Nash didn't deserve to get criticized? Gotcha....

I think if Crosby and Malkin were Rangers and the team won a cup a few years ago people would give them a bit of a pass. This strange thing exists called context....

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.

Nobody has a clue but this board is a place where fans can speculate. What's wrong with that? It's also not a stretch to say if the Rangers had better special teams they could've gone further. Does that point to the coach? Considering the day of Game 4 against the Bruins the coach is admitted it was a mistake to keep McD off the power play all year. Considering the coach pointed to his own short comings is it wrong for fans to speculate?

What do you suggest, should we shut down the board until training camp?

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.

So I guess you are in the Messier for coach category? Chosen wants Messier to coach the team. I don't know if you do but I can make the assumption from what you just said above. Just as you make assumptions about Rangers fans we can make assumptions about you.

None of us have a clue how the coach will work out, but we can make educated guesses. Whether somebody's right or wrong doesn't really matter to people that have lives.

What matters most is the GM and luck.

Players don't matter?

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

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.

 

[chosen]

We just shut down the top goal scorer in the league in Ovechkin. Crosby and Malkin looked like absolute **** the first two games.

You really don't think Dupuis, Kunitz and Neal feed off of Crosby and Malkin? If they had that much talent they wouldn't have been complete no shows when Malkin and Crosby looked out of it. So I laugh at your talent evaluation. Dupuis and Kunitz are probably two of the most overrated players in the league. They're average 2nd/3rd line two way players that can fill in on any line and are catapulted to 1st line status because of who they play with. Much like Hagelin would be best suited on the 2nd or 3rd line, but can fill in on the first and does a damn good job of it.

Maybe we would have difficulties with our injury riddled lineup, but with Staal and McDonagh in the lineup as well as Lundqvist in between the pipes I would feel very confident going up against Pittsburgh. They're just not that good when you shut down their top 2 guys. Get in their heads and its that much easier. The bruins just showed that.

Please present a list of forwards on the Rangers who have better offense than those you ridiculed. After Nash and Stepan, who is markedly better?

Crosby and Malkin didn't look very good because of Boston's play. They were fine against the Islanders.

Too many fans think that only their team is on the ice at any given time.

 

[chosen]

Chosen,

Question for you, regarding the Bruins series. If Tortorella wasn't a part of our problem in that series, why did he say himself that he didn't do a good enough job prepping the team for it?

I missed where you responded to that already. Sorry.

The fact is, though, that you don't need Tortorella to say that he didn't do a good enough job preparing the team or adjusting to the Bruins attack. You need look no further than the PK, which was adjusted for the Caps, but never readjusted when the Bruins were taking advantage of it.

Again. Do you think the Rangers are better than the Bruins? I think with an ordinary goaltender, the Rangers don't even make the playoffs. I never said Torts was a great coach but he is certainly good enough to win a Cup.

I really believe that our forward corps is clearly below average and that we have no offensive defensemen. That is a far bigger issue than who coaches.

 

[chosen]

Chosen, I am not sure if this thread is a joke (this reply seem to indicate it) or if you are just delusional.

You literary talk about us being close to Boston. They had fire practise against us from the drop of the puck to the series ended.

You should always have a chance to win with the best goalie in the league, but we didn't even have that.

I have been serious in this thread. The only laughable part of this thread is where you posted the ridiculous belief that the Rangers didn't play 5 good games this year, along with the rest of that post.

You are right that Boson dominated the Rangers. I believe it's the personnel. You believe it's the coach. We disagree.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I have been serious in this thread. The only laughable part of this thread is where you posted the ridiculous belief that the Rangers didn't play 5 good games this year, along with the rest of that post.

You are right that Boson dominated the Rangers. I believe it's the personnel. You believe it's the coach. We disagree.

It's a mixture of both. We got rid of, and will get rid of more, under performing players. Coaches were under performing and had to go too.

 

[GAGLine]

Fine. What do you base your opinion of a coach on? Where should the Rangers have finished?

Just like with the players, I judge the coach based on what I see on the ice. I saw a team that was routinely trapped in its own zone for long stretches. IMO, that isn't a product of the roster. It's a product of the strategies employed by the coach. I see an incompetent power play. Different personnel may help, but strategy plays a big part on the PP. I see the way Torts handled some of the players and how those players reacted. Some responded well to his coaching style. Some didn't. I didn't see in him an ability to adjust based on his roster, to use different approaches with different players when it was called for.

All of these things contribute to my opinion of the job he did. That doesn't make them fact. It doesn't prove anything. If you disagree, that's fine.

Boy, do I disagree with this. I say it's the opposite. People are ripping Torts to shreds without considering the personnel. I am the one talking about the other factors.

Did you not say this:

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?

Those are your words, not mine. If you can't see how false that statement is, I don't know what to tell you.

And you're wrong. People are criticizing Torts, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that with a better coach, this team would have won the cup.

Just because I criticize Torts doesn't mean I think Sather is doing a good job, or that the roster is championship caliber. All it means is that I don't think Torts is the right coach for this team going forward, and I think bringing in a different voice with a different system will benefit the team.

Technically, you are right, so you win that one. However, the Rangers roster is grossly flawed. This has nothing to do with the job the coach did.

You're making the mistake of assuming the problem has to be one or the other. It's my contention that it's both. Torts doesn't get a pass because the roster is flawed. The players don't get a pass because Torts is flawed. They all share the blame. Torts will be replaced. Some of the players will be replaced.

I don't think they worked at all better last year. They just didn't run into a team like the Bruins of this year. Direct question. Do you think the Rangers personnel was better than the Bruins?

Whether the Rangers personnel was better or not isn't really relevant. Having the better team on paper doesn't mean you are going to win. Ask the pens about that.

Last year, the Rangers played Tort's system as well as they possibly could. They blocked shots, they forechecked and they worked hard at both ends of the ice. The team was 11th overall in scoring during the season and 3rd in goals against. They finished 2nd overall in the league and top 4 in the playoffs. The Rangers finished ahead of boston in both the regular season and the playoffs.

If the Rangers had played the bruins in the playoffs last year, yes, maybe boston would have won. Which means what, exactly? That they match up well against us? That they have better players? That their coach is better than our coach? Or maybe it's some combination of all 3. The point is, you can't just point to the roster and say that's the reason, anymore than anyone else can point to Torts and say he is the only reason we lost.

I agree with you but this time you are missing my point. Torts is a good coach who wore out his welcome. All coaches wear out their welcome after a few years. That has not been the contention of the Torts critics, however.

The claim is that he is a bad tactician who can't adapt, can't fix what's wrong etc,. That is nonsense. No coach will keep his team's ear after a few years of being yelled at. That is why I have no problem with his being let go. That said, this is not the complaint of most fans. And again, no matter who coached them this year, their talent would have increased a total of zero. Boston is a far more complete team. Do you disagree?

Yes, boston is a more complete team. I won't argue that. But it is my contention that they are more complete because they both have a better roster AND because they have a better coach who is able to get the most out of that roster.

Again, blaming one doesn't absolve the other.

Guys like Trottier are the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule. Yes, there are some incompetent coaches, but very few. The hiring of Trottier is yet another indictment of Sather.

Of course it is. You'll never see me defend Sather. Sather said it himself. The only measure of success is winning and the Rangers haven't done that during his tenure.

Bringing in a new coach is very far from a guarantee of improved performance. If your statement were accurate, every new coach after an entrenched coach would make a team better. Let's use your Trottier example here.

Not a guarantee, but if the players aren't playing their best because the coach lost the room, then it stands to reason that with a new coach, they will be more motivated. The results may or may not change, but keeping the old coach certainly isn't going to help the situation. As I said, addition by subtraction.

Torts isn't the only reason the Rangers lost, but he is A reason. To completely absolve him of blame as you tried to do in your OP is just as foolish as those who claim he is the only reason we aren't contenders.