Toggle sidebar

Maybe Torts Wasn't the Problem

chosen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please with the "without Lundqvist" crap. With an ordinary goalie, the Bruins aren't a playoff team either. I call it crap, because the statement is meaningless.

I truly believe that, when the Rangers are healthy and playing their best, there isn't a team in the league they can't beat in a 7 game series, even if the opponent is at their best.

We have roster issues, to be sure. So does everyone else. Good for the Bruins that they had the D in the stables to survive the injuries to Seidenberg and Ference. If they had forward injuries instead, things wouldn't look so great for them, since their depth beyond their top-12 isn't all that good.

I never would claim that coaching was the only issue here, but it definitely was one.
 
Anyone that thinks Torts is the reason way this team wasn't in the finals is in for a reality check.
 
Interesting take.
Bruins beating the Pens has nothing whatsoever to do with Torts.

Rangers lost because they were undermanned, sure but also because the system they played sucked.
The same reason they didn't look good all season, same reason they barely beat the caps (Thanks Hank).
the system sucked. As simple as that.

It's not about 1 series, it's about 1 season worth of sucking.
 
stan the caddy said:
So you think the Rangers will be in the SCF next season?
Click to expand...

As with anything, they would need the right philosophy, the right decisions being made by coaching and players alike, the right attitude, and a little bit of luck.

We didn't have the right philosophy, the right decisions were not being made by coaches or players, the right attitude was not in the locker room, and we had little luck.

Luck changes. The other 3 were not going to change under this coach. I think we have a better chance of making the SCF with another coach (who brings the right philosophy and attitude) than we would with Tortorella.
 
kenjets36 said:
As with anything, they would need the right philosophy, the right decisions being made by coaching and players alike, the right attitude, and a little bit of luck.

We didn't have the right philosophy, the right decisions were not being made by coaches or players, the right attitude was not in the locker room, and we had little luck.

Luck changes. The other 3 were not going to change under this coach. I think we have a better chance of making the SCF with another coach (who brings the right philosophy and attitude) than we would with Tortorella.
Click to expand...

Torts "philosophy" took this team the farthest they've been since the late 90s. It wasn't the problem.
 
stan the caddy said:
Torts "philosophy" took this team the farthest they've been since the late 90s. It wasn't the problem.
Click to expand...

No. Henrik Lundqvist took this team the farthest they've been since the late 90s. Devils were beatable. That's on Torts.
 
kenjets36 said:
No. Henrik Lundqvist took this team the farthest they've been since the late 90s. Devils were beatable. That's on Torts.
Click to expand...

According to you guys, anything that didn't go right is on Torts.

Henrik Lundqvist's production peaked playing for Tortorella and his "philosophy". That's a fact.
 
stan the caddy said:
According to you guys, anything that didn't go right is on Torts.

Henrik Lundqvist's production peaked playing for Tortorella and his "philosophy". That's a fact.
Click to expand...

Or maybe he peaked because he naturally got better, as most players do after several years in the NHL?

When you have a goaltender like Henrik you help him out by scoring goals and letting him do what he does best. You don't employ a 6 goalie system.

Look at the Kings and Blackhawks. They have solid defenses but they also focus on attacking offensively. We didn't have that. There would constantly be shooting clinics in our own zone. That happened during our ECF run too. Don't try and excuse Torts for that. His system promoted collapsing and playing defense. That's plain wrong. No other successful team does that.
 
kenjets36 said:
No. Henrik Lundqvist took this team the farthest they've been since the late 90s. Devils were beatable. That's on Torts.
Click to expand...

Wow. How can you say that with a straight face?

Game 6: 3 goals on 29 shots
Game 5: 4 goals on 16 shots
Game 4: 3 goals on 29 shots
Game 3: 0 goals on 36 shots
Game 2: 3 goals on 27 shots
Game 1: 0 goal son 21 shots

He had 2 very good games (one where he wasn't tested much). He absolutely **** the bed in game 5 and was mediocre in the other games. Don't sit there and tell me that Lundqvist was the only reason we got that far because he was also part of the reason we didn't get further. His laughable performance in game 4 and mediocre performance in game 6 cost us the series.

The fault lies on everyone. Lundqvist is not immune from fault unless you want to be ridiculous and think he played like a Vezina caliber goalie that series. :rolleyes:
 
kenjets36 said:
Or maybe he peaked because he naturally got better, as most players do after several years in the NHL?

When you have a goaltender like Henrik you help him out by scoring goals and letting him do what he does best. You don't employ a 6 goalie system.

Look at the Kings and Blackhawks. They have solid defenses but they also focus on attacking offensively. We didn't have that. There would constantly be shooting clinics in our own zone. That happened during our ECF run too. Don't try and excuse Torts for that. His system promoted collapsing and playing defense. That's plain wrong. No other successful team does that.
Click to expand...

1. The Kings struggle offensively.

2. The Blackhawks have much more offensive talent than the Rangers. It's not even close to close.

Furthermore, there's been about a million dump ins in that series and but some Ranger fans act like you should hardly ever do it.
 
chosen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Disagree completely. This team on paper is about as talented as there is a team out there. Forwards and Defensemen

The system did them in and allowed zero creativity and halted offensive pressure to a standstill.

The biggest issue with the team was the embarrassing lack of offensive and puck control, which are mainly due to the system we ran.

A more open style of play should do wonders for the talented and fast skaters we have.
 
Jonathan. said:
Wow. How can you say that with a straight face?

Game 6: 3 goals on 29 shots
Game 5: 4 goals on 16 shots
Game 4: 3 goals on 29 shots
Game 3: 0 goals on 36 shots
Game 2: 3 goals on 27 shots
Game 1: 0 goal son 21 shots

He had 2 very good games (one where he wasn't tested much). He absolutely **** the bed in game 5 and was mediocre in the other games. Don't sit there and tell me that Lundqvist was the only reason we got that far because he was also part of the reason we didn't get further. His laughable performance in game 4 and mediocre performance in game 6 cost us the series.

The fault lies on everyone. Lundqvist is not immune from fault unless you want to be ridiculous and think he played like a Vezina caliber goalie that series. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He had 2 shut outs. 1 game where an own goal lost the game. 1 game where the Rangers collapsed and allowed the Devils to shoot from all over in over time. Game 5 he was mediocre, Game 4 the team in front of him didn't show up.

4/6 games he was outstanding. 2 of those 4 games the team didn't capitalize on their chances. 1/2 of the games he let in more than we're used to the team quit. The other game he had an off day. Don't see how you can say he "played mediocre for that series" when he did what he did in that series.
 
I don't think Torts is necessarily the reason the team has holes, but he was the reason we couldn't improve. Go out and get scoring help for what? So he can block shots?
 
kenjets36 said:
He had 2 shut outs. 1 game where an own goal lost the game. 1 game where the Rangers collapsed and allowed the Devils to shoot from all over in over time. Game 5 he was mediocre, Game 4 the team in front of him didn't show up.

4/6 games he was outstanding. 2 of those 4 games the team didn't capitalize on their chances. 1/2 of the games he let in more than we're used to the team quit. The other game he had an off day. Don't see how you can say he "played mediocre for that series" when he did what he did in that series.
Click to expand...

Yes. He had two great games. The rest were mediocre or ****ing horrible (like game 5). Cool. Maybe he should've bothered to show up game 5. The fact that you say he was merely "mediocre" in game 5 is hysterical.

Also, your definition of "outstanding" is quite a bit different than mine. He was outstanding during the regular season. He was far from it against the Devils.

Should the team have scored more? Absolutely. Should Torts have made some more adjustments? Definitely. I don't disagree with you there at all. But your laughable white washing of Hank's play in that series to suit your argument is just that -- laughable. He is just as much to blame as the skaters and Torts. It's a team game and he went down with the ship.
 
Machinehead said:
I don't think Torts is necessarily the reason the team has holes, but he was the reason we couldn't improve. Go out and get scoring help for what? So he can block shots?
Click to expand...

As if Nash was forced to block shots all game...

He was fine in the regular season. In fact, it was one of the better regular seasons of his career. Had the puck on his stick all playoffs and didn't do ****. Is that Tortorella's fault, too?
 
stan the caddy said:
1. The Kings struggle offensively.

2. The Blackhawks have much more offensive talent than the Rangers. It's not even close to close.

Furthermore, there's been about a million dump ins in that series and but some Ranger fans act like you should hardly ever do it.
Click to expand...

Recently, with all the injuries they have had, sure. Last year they were very dangerous offensively.

Blackhawks have 2 good scoring lines and 2 good checking lines. I love Quinneville's system. He allows his finesse players to skate freely. Then he has 2 forechecking lines to disrupt the other team. We had more offensive talent than they did before we traded Gabby. We opted for more balance, which I agree with. We have a better defense than they do, if we're all healthy. We have a better goalie than they do. We could be similar to them with a system like that.
 
stan the caddy said:
As if Nash was forced to block shots all game...

He was fine in the regular season. In fact, it was one of the better regular seasons of his career. Had the puck on his stick all playoffs and didn't do ****. Is that Tortorella's fault, too?
Click to expand...

We had this other guy that's a 3 time 40 goal scorer that the coach ran out of town. If we were to replace him we'd have the threat of it happening again hanging over us.
 
stan the caddy said:
As if Nash was forced to block shots all game...

He was fine in the regular season. In fact, it was one of the better regular seasons of his career. Had the puck on his stick all playoffs and didn't do ****. Is that Tortorella's fault, too?
Click to expand...

You seem to fail to recognize that the players we have on our roster now are not built for a Torts system. An open style of hockey is what we need so our talented players like Nash, Kreider, Stepan, etc. can showcase their skills.

Not a system where they are told to collapse, block shots, and dump and chase all game. That's not where the players we have made their name.
 
Jonathan. said:
Yes. He had two great games. The rest were mediocre or ****ing horrible (like game 5). Cool. Maybe he should've bothered to show up game 5. The fact that you say he was merely "mediocre" in game 5 is hysterical.

Also, your definition of "outstanding" is quite a bit different than mine. He was outstanding during the regular season. He was far from it against the Devils.

Should the team have scored more? Absolutely. Should Torts have made some more adjustments? Definitely. I don't disagree with you there at all. But your laughable white washing of Hank's play in that series to suit your argument is just that -- laughable. He is just as much to blame as the skaters and Torts. It's a team game and he went down with the ship.
Click to expand...

His play should have been enough to beat that Devils team. Was it superb? No. But then again look at the team in front of him. They quit in games 2,4,5, and 6. After the first 2 periods in game 6 they were completely out of gas. Henrik came up HUGE down the stretch. They couldn't close out. In game 5 i've agreed, he did not play his best in the slightest. Game 4 the team was a no show, they didn't come in energized or enthused at all. Game 2 same deal. Can't blame Henrik for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom