Maybe Torts Wasn't the Problem

[chosen]

I'd say Callahan is easily better than Dupuis.

As an all-around player I take Callahan 10 out of 10 times. As a scoring threat I give the edge to Dupuis.

You don't think Brassard is better than Dupuis either?

As a set-up man, yes. As an overall player, probably. As a goal scorer, no.

Hagelin, Brassard and Zuccarello also didn't disappear the second our team's top forwards in Stepan and Nash were shut down.

Hagelin skates fast and might become a decent scorer. Zuccarello is great in shootouts.

Also, take defensive core and goaltending into account. Your really think Pittsburgh has the horses back there to match us? Defense wins championships.

I don't know why you are directing this at me. I think Hank is one of top 5 goalies of the last 50 years and I think defensively, the defensemen are very good, but just like people blame Torts for the team's offensive woes, it's his system that enhances the play of his defensemen on the defensive side.

You get under Crosby and Malkin's skin a little bit and shut them down, you win. What's so hard to get?

You make it sound so easy that any coach should be easily able to accomplish it. Yet, they can't. It was the all-around players of the Bruins who accomplished it. You think the Rangers could have done that? Have they ever done that?

How would you know if we have any offensive talent on the blueline when we have a coach that preaches getting the puck off the glass and out?

Not a single one of them has a great shot from the point. Agree?

A few can carry the puck when called upon, but none are great at it. Disagree? To be fair, Del Zotto has shown glimpses, but not much more.

Look around the league. There is an absolute wealth of offensively gifted defensemen. Watch them for 20 minutes and it is clear. They don't live at MSG. Sather **** the bed by not getting a couple of them. That's his job.

Ever since Orr changed the game it has become a staple of the game, except at MSG. Before Torts there was Renney. Did any defensemen under him rock the world offensively? Is it that they have had 2 coaches in a row who don't know what you and I know, or is it the personnel?

 

[chosen]

Rask might not be the best goalie in the league, like Lundqvist is, but there aren't many I'd rank above him. He's definitely in the conversation as a top 5 goalie in the league.

Maybe this year. But a goalie has to stand the test of time. Fleury is a great example. A lot of people thought he was better than Lundqvist a few years ago. Giguere is another great example.

In my opinion, Hank and Quick are a cut above the rest.

 

[chosen]

Toronto pushed Boston to the limit. Does that have a bearing on the Pens or Rangers? I don't think so but if you're looking for a conclusion, maybe it means that Randy Carlyle is a better coach than Torts or Bylsma. I'd agree with that.

It's possible. I have no idea. I think to have any opinion of a coach, you have to watch them all the time, and even then I think it's just as likely to come to the wrong conclusion.

 

[chosen]

Was the coach the problem? Yes. His system was a problem and the way he treated the players was a problem. Watching Boston, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Los Angeles actually make PASSES to teammates to get the puck out of the zone was maddening when comparing them to us. Watching them skate to cover the point men was maddening to watch compared with us. Watching them create so many scoring chances compared to our constipated system was maddening to watch. We don't really know what the true quality of talent the Rangers have, because it was all dumbed down by the idiotic Tortorella system. Heck.......these teams actually passed the puck IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR DEFENSIVE ZONE! Imagine that!

Was Renney the problem before Torts?

The Rangers finished somewhere between the 5th and 8th best team in the league.

If the Rangers behaved like how you think was the obvious way to go, where do you think they would have finished this year?

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Look I hope it all works out. I will never stop rooting for this team.

But if, after opening it up, this team gets exposed as not being able to keep up with the elite teams of the league...I can't help but wonder what Sather's next brilliant move will be.

 

[cd211]

he wasn't the issue.. as bad as our team was this year, if and only if we had a f***en PP we could argue wed be in the cup finals.. we had to many opportunities and with that failure, torts had to go, regardless of what the players were saying about it..

we were 3-40+ on the PP in the playoffs thats a joke!!

we need someone like jagr again to ripp those one timers on the PP.. guy was amazing for us and if we had that we'd be in much different shape right now..

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

This thread can be summarized with a few quick statements:

1) Torts was the problem.
2) Torts was not the problem.
3) Try hard in the face to convince the other group that they are wrong.

Personally, I believe Torts style of hockey was not conducive to fielding a Stanley Cup team. His philosophy (again in my opinion) is not how hockey is meant to be played. The game is fun to play, and to watch, when you have offense and offensive creativity (clearly you need focus on defense to be successful in this league but what he did was neglect half of the game - the better half). He turned that around and said offense comes naturally, we must focus ourselves purely on the defensive aspects of the game. No one was exempt from this philosophy - even players who were being paid specifically to focus on offense. That is where the problem lied. He had no variation, he had no moderation, he had no ability to adapt his philosophy to his roster.

Think what you want to think, I'm not going to try and convince people to see things the way I see them. I'm a very happy guy knowing that we're halfway there in getting that team to the next level. The other half is choosing the right candidate. This move makes little sense if you hire someone who will take the team further back than Tortorella could have. Which is why I do not believe Messier will be the next coach of this team. I think we will opt with experience, but we will also choose the candidate who has a higher offensive repertoire. Why? Because this wasn't management firing Torts it was the players. We had no ability to sustain offensive pressure during any point of Torts' tenure - we had no ability to score goals. Players saw that as an insurmountable hump under this coach. Therefore, to keep the players happy (as a collective) the management will have to choose a coach who has an offensive style of coaching (at least a semblance of it). I'm thinking some sort of hybrid coach, who focuses on defense but doesn't neglect offense.

But i'm straying from the point. The point was is Torts to blame? And the answer is yes and no. The yes's are clear. He was unable to adjust and adapt. He was unable to stray from his philosophy. He lost the locker room and alienated guys. The no's are clear too. The players didn't play up to their expectations. It falls on both of them. However, we've traded and cut (and are about to cut/trade more) under performing players. You can't have the message being sent across the locker room that the coach is going to constantly be without blame but the players can be shipped out at his command. Torts powerplay and offense "stunk". His system generated no offense. His players also did not perform. Both were part of the problem, both deserved to be shipped out. And that is exactly what happened.

Part 1/2 is done. Part 2 of 2 is going to be getting the right guy to take this team over the hump. Torts wasn't that guy. He came close but his style of hockey is very taxing on the body. We need a guy who's going to focus on scoring goals a little more.

I think many of you are upset at the move because you have fear of the unknown. It's unclear who the next coach will be and since Messier is the top candidate (seemingly) you fear the move is even more backwards than keeping a coach incapable of getting us to the place we want to be to begin with. I agree if that's the case, but I think we should all wait and see who we get and what he can do with this group of guys before we start questioning the move.

 

[chosen]

he wasn't the issue.. as bad as our team was this year, if and only if we had a f***en PP we could argue wed be in the cup finals.. we had to many opportunities and with that failure, torts had to go, regardless of what the players were saying about it..

we were 3-40+ on the PP in the playoffs thats a joke!!

we need someone like jagr again to ripp those one timers on the PP.. guy was amazing for us and if we had that we'd be in much different shape right now..

The Penguins were 0-12 on the power play against Boston and their power play was light years better than the Rangers. Boston must have had something to do with these numbers.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

he wasn't the issue.. as bad as our team was this year, if and only if we had a f***en PP we could argue wed be in the cup finals.. we had to many opportunities and with that failure, torts had to go, regardless of what the players were saying about it..

we were 3-40+ on the PP in the playoffs thats a joke!!

we need someone like jagr again to ripp those one timers on the PP.. guy was amazing for us and if we had that we'd be in much different shape right now..

The Bruins PP has been horrendous as well.

They're just a better team than the Rangers, period.

 

[chosen]

Personally, I believe Torts style of hockey was not conducive to fielding a Stanley Cup team. His philosophy (again in my opinion) is not how hockey is meant to be played. The game is fun to play, and to watch, when you have offense and offensive creativity (clearly you need focus on defense to be successful in this league but what he did was neglect half of the game - the better half).

While I enjoy wide-open hockey, that is not the way the Playoffs are played by any team. You can't find a coach who will open it up in the playoffs. The only difference is having the players who can sustain offensive pressure while remaining within a defensive system.

As to your assertion that this type of play is not conducive to winning the Cup, the Devils did just fine with it and Torts has already shown he can win a Cup.

In retrospect, the Devils story is a great example because it was a common belief that they held back some of their offensively-gifted players. When those players went elsewhere, it turned out that they weren't that great offensively Gomez and Guerin pop immediately to mind.They were good but they were thought of as being restricted under Lamoriello.

Those of us who do not blame Torts for the Rangers falling short are not all of the opinion that he was great, either. His act probably wore thin on the players like every coach and we don't mourn his exit.

I also realize that I am in a possible minority of one that believes who coaches is almost meaningless except for the obvious buffoons like Trottier and Espo.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

The point was is Torts to blame? And the answer is yes and no. The yes's are clear. He was unable to adjust and adapt. He was unable to stray from his philosophy. He lost the locker room and alienated guys. The no's are clear too. The players didn't play up to their expectations

If this is what you think, I need to clarify my point - I think the players did play up to expectations and that this group just wasn't good enough to win a championship.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

he wasn't the issue.. as bad as our team was this year, if and only if we had a f***en PP we could argue wed be in the cup finals.. we had to many opportunities and with that failure, torts had to go, regardless of what the players were saying about it..

we were 3-40+ on the PP in the playoffs thats a joke!!

we need someone like jagr again to ripp those one timers on the PP.. guy was amazing for us and if we had that we'd be in much different shape right now..

We need a solid coach to coach offense that's an X and O guy as well as another shooter on the team. 3/40 is terrible. That's not even 10 percent.

 

[bernmeister]

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.

No, not clear at all.
Rangers - several problems - Torts arguably among biggest

Pens - goaltending sucks, + they seemed kinda burned out.

Bs -- nothing to brag about vs. us during regular year. But got rested end of season/first round, + Krug was jumpstarter for team.

Two separate things. Crappy netminding of overrated MAF has nothing to do w/Rangers dispirited under Torts, playing injured, etc.

TORTS completely was the problem.
I only concede he was not necessarily the only problem.

Good riddance.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

No, not clear at all.
Rangers - several problems - Torts arguably among biggest

Pens - goaltending sucks, + they seemed kinda burned out.

Bs -- nothing to brag about vs. us during regular year. But got rested end of season/first round, + Krug was jumpstarter for team.

Two separate things. Crappy netminding of overrated MAF has nothing to do w/Rangers dispirited under Torts, playing injured, etc.

TORTS completely was the problem.
I only concede he was not necessarily the only problem.

Good riddance.

Torts was the easiest to scapegoat and jettison, that much is for sure, and thats what happened.

Thats much easier to latch onto than the fact that about half of the forwards just aren't up to snuff on a championship team.

 

[Bluenote13]

Torts was the easiest to scapegoat and jettison, that much is for sure, and thats what happened.

Thats much easier to latch onto than the fact that about half of the forwards just aren't up to snuff on a championship team.

He was the only one at this point you could actually make a move on though, right ?

He was a problem. It had been enough Tort hockey, even if the roster is same or worse next season, a change was imminent. You can just try something just so long before it breaks. I wonder if the effect of what Gomez and crew did to Renney made an imprint on the core you see now.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

The fact that the style of his coaching became stale and ineffective anymore because of no goal support said it all. There needs to be adjustments to the game from each way. If you don't get goal support, then you won't win. That's part of why I think Sather relieved Torts of his duties.

 

[stan the caddy]

The fact that the style of his coaching became stale and ineffective anymore because of no goal support said it all. There needs to be adjustments to the game from each way. If you don't get goal support, then you won't win. That's part of why I think Sather relieved Torts of his duties.

I just don't see how his coaching style would become stale a month into the season, with no training camp, coming off of a season where they clinched a one seed.

You're not a failure if it was somone else's fault. That's the mentality in the Rangers locker room right now. Blame game.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

If this is what you think, I need to clarify my point - I think the players did play up to expectations and that this group just wasn't good enough to win a championship.

Well I'll agree to disagree with that statement. We didn't have much balance to begin the season and we certainly weren't helped by injury during the playoffs, however, when the team came out ready to play - when they gave a full 60 minute effort, they were very difficult to beat. Torts didn't motivate them and focus them well enough for the Bruins series. They did not play 1 game with a consistent effort for all 3 periods. You can't have that in the playoffs. That is why they were jettisoned out in the 2nd round, not because of lack of talent or too many injuries.

edit: this does not mean that I believe there can't be improvements made to the roster. Richards, Pyatt, Asham, and Powe are all dead weight. I believe Clowe has a few more seasons left in him but that's personal opinion and he can also become dead weight too. We have some holes to fill.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Well I'll agree to disagree with that statement. We didn't have much balance to begin the season and we certainly weren't helped by injury during the playoffs, however, when the team came out ready to play - when they gave a full 60 minute effort, they were very difficult to beat. Torts didn't motivate them and focus them well enough for the Bruins series. They did not play 1 game with a consistent effort for all 3 periods. You can't have that in the playoffs. That is why they were jettisoned out in the 2nd round, not because of lack of talent or too many injuries.

The team, with 1 Stanley Cup winner on the roster - who was a scratch -, needed the coach to motivate them in the 2nd round of the NHL playoffs? Maybe thats part of the issue too.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

I just don't see how his coaching style would become stale a month into the season, with no training camp, coming off of a season where they clinched a one seed.

You're not a failure if it was somone else's fault. That's the mentality in the Rangers locker room right now. Blame game.

No. The style was starting to get stale last season. Every game in the post season bar 2 or 3 we only scored 2 goals. That's not enough to win every game. The team loses so much time and energy dumping and chasing off the boards and all collapsing in front. Hank was the #1 reason why the Rangers were #1 in the conference.

 

[Bluenote13]

I just don't see how his coaching style would become stale a month into the season, with no training camp, coming off of a season where they clinched a one seed.

You're not a failure if it was somone else's fault. That's the mentality in the Rangers locker room right now. Blame game.

You see it as blame, I see it as the most qualified guys in this situation to make a call, they lived and breathed it for a long time, absorbing how many pucks to the body to just say oh these primadonnas are just looking to blame someone. Nope, that's an outsiders POV that cannot even be qualified by any real substantial evidence at this point.

Again, why can't it be a combo of things that is wrong with this team, why is it always a conversation of one thing and one thing only when discussing the individual bullet points of what needs fixing?

 

[Clown Fiesta]

Could you be specific?

Not specific in regards to "adjusting to his offense" but how about the Bruins series where he never made a change on the forecheck and gave the Bruins an easy outlet pass every time, right up the middle where the third man should have been instructed to go after they did it to us time after time.

 

[stan the caddy]

Well I'll agree to disagree with that statement. We didn't have much balance to begin the season and we certainly weren't helped by injury during the playoffs, however, when the team came out ready to play - when they gave a full 60 minute effort, they were very difficult to beat. Torts didn't motivate them and focus them well enough for the Bruins series. They did not play 1 game with a consistent effort for all 3 periods. You can't have that in the playoffs. That is why they were jettisoned out in the 2nd round, not because of lack of talent or too many injuries.

Every team in the league has good periods. Every team also struggles with inconsistency. What you're drscribing can be said about every team in the league.

The more talent you have, the less incosistent you look.

 

[stan the caddy]

You see it as blame, I see it as the most qualified guys in this situation to make a call, they lived and breathed it for a long time, absorbing how many pucks to the body to just say oh these primadonnas are just looking to blame someone. Nope, that's an outsiders POV that cannot even be qualified by any real substantial evidence at this point.

Again, why can't it be a combo of things that is wrong with this team, why is it always a conversation of one thing and one thing only when discussing the individual bullet points of what needs fixing?

It is blame, they blamed the coach.

In this situation, our "most qualified players in the room" haven't done dick in the playoffs and they ran off a coach months after having the most succesful season of their careers.

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Every team in the league has good periods. Every team also struggles with inconsistency. What you're drscribing can be said about every team in the league.

The more talent you have, the less incosistent you look.

No. The Bruins have effort in EVERY game. The Rangers played lethargically in half of the games. What you described is contradictory of what the team we lost to did. The only game in that series the Rangers decided to wake up for nearly 60 minutes was the first one, and even then they looked lackluster. Same with game 4. Game 5, they didn't have it.