Confirmed with Link: Rangers name Alain Vigneault head coach - Part II

[stan the caddy]

See, here's the problem. You keep acting as if Torts isn't at fault because the roster is flawed. Every roster is flawed to one degree or another. Some rosters under-achieve, some over-achieve. Some coaches get the most out of their players, some don't.

Why do you insist that there can only be 1 reason for this team's failure? I agree with you that the roster is a problem.

But that doesn't change my opinion that Torts was a problem as well. The team failed. The coach is part of the team. How can he not share the blame for that failure? How can he not share the blame for our horrid PP? How can he not share the blame for the strained relationship with his players?

Torts didn't need to win a cup to keep his job. He needed to make the most of the roster he was given and IMO, he didn't do that.

This is a quote from Torts after the series against the bruins:

http://bloguin.com/puckdrunklove/20...s-game-seven-emotions-for-fall-to-bruins.html





Torts admitted himself that he failed, yet you seek to absolve him of all blame.

That's because he's the coach and he has to "say the right things." Do you honestly think he blames himself for Nash's horrid playoff performace?

On the flip side, I know someone that doesn't blame himself for Rick Nash's horrid playoff performance... Rick Nash. He thinks he played well.





You ever think that maybe, just maybe, the team didn't fail? Maybe they got just as far as their talent could take them?

Torts needed to beat a Bruins team that looks unstoppable to keep his job. The high powered penguins scored a whopping two goals in four games against them.

 

[KreiMeARiver*]

Sather is?

in his attempts to destroy our team every July...

Part of me thinks it wouldn't matter who the GM is, and that Dolan would put pressure on any GM to sign the big ticket free-agent to keep butts in seats.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

It seems to me that there's a group of Rangers fans that LOVE playing the victim. Therefore it's always a "woe is me" the Rangers suck and have sucked since I've been watching. These are the people that will reinforce their victim status by trashing their team every chance they get.

 

[Kwayry]

Rebound? For Rundblad to rebound he would have had to have been good enough in the first place. Rundblad has never made inroads on improving his defense.

McBain at least was decent and is a NHLer. Rundblad is so bad defensively that he can't even be trusted to be the PP triggerman that I think is his max potential (i.e. a 5/6 d-man who plays most of his minutes on the powerplay). I think that is about where his potential is right now with his age, his lack of improvement, and his other deficiencies.

We are not a rebuildnig team. We can't afford to wait for the defensive side to "hopefully come someday." Why would we trade valuable pieces (you just mentioned Miller above) for someone like Rundblad? I would take a flyer on him off of waivers or for a 5th round pick. But that's about it.

1 - I mentioned they asked for Miller, I did not say I'd offer Miller.
2 - I will disagree with you on Rundblad. he is a better offensive Dman than McBain, he has the better shot and has better vision. On the defensive side, maybe McBain is better.
3 - As I said earlier, with Staal or McD as his p, his liablities are limited.
4 - He still fills a need, do you disagree or have other suggestions?

 

[Richter Scale]

It seems to me that there's a group of Rangers fans that LOVE playing the victim. Therefore it's always a "woe is me" the Rangers suck and have sucked since I've been watching. These are the people that will reinforce their victim status by trashing their team every chance they get.

For some on these boards, I would agree that this is true. But when it is brought up in a discussion over whether or not to keep a coach (or whether it was a good idea to fire one), you're missing the point if you think that this is the driving motivation in pointing out the deficiencies of the team.

 

[Doctyl]

rangers play buffalo. enroth gets the start. enroth has not won a game in his last 13(?) starts. rangers get shutout. torts says that they dont work on offense in practice. that right there shouldve been enough to fire him. the PP has been pitiful throughout his tenure as well. 9.1% in the playoffs. the only one lower was the wild who didnt score a single PP goal. we were the only team in the playoffs that scored a PP goal that was under 10%. yet boyle, richards, del zotto, and girardi kept getting put out there. anyone who says "well boyle was on when they scored so it worked," 9.1% IS NOT WORKING. 4 PP goals out of 44 PPs, thats embarrassing. yet there was no real shakeup in the PP personnel. yes kreider, moore, mcd, hags and stralman all got PP time but if they didnt score on their 1st shift they were replaced. terrible coaching. if we had mediocre offense and a mediocre PP, imagine what that could do for this team. they were 11th in GF/G and 1st in the conference. if the offense is average-good we are an elite team. 11th in GF/G and we had a crappy PP. imagine what a decent PP wouldve done for that team. torts's inability to get mediocre offense and a mediocre PP out of players he practically hand picked should say enough about him not getting the best out of his players.

 

[Thesensation19*]

The more I think about it the more I like it...

I like that he is really into the game itself. From past teammates to coaches hes worked with and coached against, they said great things about his preparation for every game. Cant say the same about Torts on doing his HW about the opponent or very much his own team. Something (i Like Torts overall) I did not like about Torts.

I like this Zone matching, I heard a few gaffes about it this year but I am sure hes learned from mistakes.

Canucks also installed a sleeping protocol that they really benefited from i heard over the last few years. And I would love for him to bring that kind of thing to the Rangers.



I watched some old clips of the Canucks. I feared that his forechecking would not be that dangerious but I was wrong.

He looks to force his offense to move the puck quickly but to also remember defense comes first. And they play as one. They seemed to all collapse around the puck. Something I think that will improve our shots against. Torts was not very good at that.

So I like the change. Its gonna be exciting...

 

[stan the caddy]

It seems to me that there's a group of Rangers fans that LOVE playing the victim. Therefore it's always a "woe is me" the Rangers suck and have sucked since I've been watching. These are the people that will reinforce their victim status by trashing their team every chance they get.

If you polled non-rangers fans and asked them to rate the Rangers performance over the past 70+ years, they'd tell you that the Rangers are a joke.

The Rangers have iced some quality teams since the lockout but nothing to brag about. This is a team that needs to get lucky to win a cup.

 

[NHRangerfan]

Considering the team lost in the 2nd round, you should be forced to explain yourself - specifically how the Rangers roster matches up against the teams that made the final 4. And how "getting more out of" this roster could've been done, and how it would have led to victories over those teams.

....but your entire point is rooted in fantasyland, so I understand the lack of an explanation.

I'll give you one

How about pressuring the points? Krug has looked human in this series so far against the Blackhawks. I guess pressuring the points requires better talent.

Sometimes a gameplan change doesn't require better talent, it only requires an adjustment

 

[GAGLine]

You ever think that maybe, just maybe, the team didn't fail? Maybe they got just as far as their talent could take them?

Torts needed to beat a Bruins team that looks unstoppable to keep his job. The high powered penguins scored a whopping two goals in four games against them.

I have considered it, and I don't think he got the most out of the talent that we have. Does that mean I think we should have been able to beat the bruins with the talent that we have? No. I'm not saying that and have never said that.

And no, Torts didn't need to beat the bruins to keep his job. Sather didn't say why he fired him, but it's pretty obvious at this point that the players don't want to play for him any more. You don't need any other reason than that for why he was let go.

But I look at the way the team plays, the way they collapse in the defensive zone, their inability to get to loose pucks, their failures on breakouts and offensive zone entries, their struggles on the PP and the PK, and I see a problem with the coaching. I'm not just looking at the results and saying the team should have done better.

Torts didn't have this team playing to its strengths. That's my opinion. You are free to disagree.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

in his attempts to destroy our team every July...

Part of me thinks it wouldn't matter who the GM is, and that Dolan would put pressure on any GM to sign the big ticket free-agent to keep butts in seats.

Ahhhh, ok. I wasn't sure what you were inferring!

 

[itsPLkielbasa]

rangers play buffalo. enroth gets the start. enroth has not won a game in his last 13(?) starts. rangers get shutout. torts says that they dont work on offense in practice. that right there shouldve been enough to fire him. the PP has been pitiful throughout his tenure as well. 9.1% in the playoffs. the only one lower was the wild who didnt score a single PP goal. we were the only team in the playoffs that scored a PP goal that was under 10%. yet boyle, richards, del zotto, and girardi kept getting put out there. anyone who says "well boyle was on when they scored so it worked," 9.1% IS NOT WORKING. 4 PP goals out of 44 PPs, thats embarrassing. yet there was no real shakeup in the PP personnel. yes kreider, moore, mcd, hags and stralman all got PP time but if they didnt score on their 1st shift they were replaced. terrible coaching. if we had mediocre offense and a mediocre PP, imagine what that could do for this team. they were 11th in GF/G and 1st in the conference. if the offense is average-good we are an elite team. 11th in GF/G and we had a crappy PP. imagine what a decent PP wouldve done for that team. torts's inability to get mediocre offense and a mediocre PP out of players he practically hand picked should say enough about him not getting the best out of his players.

I completely agree with the bold text above. I seriously thought that he would get fired after those comments...

 

[SnowblindNYR]

For some on these boards, I would agree that this is true. But when it is brought up in a discussion over whether or not to keep a coach (or whether it was a good idea to fire one), you're missing the point if you think that this is the driving motivation in pointing out the deficiencies of the team.

Not really. If you look at the Rangers with rose colored glasses you're probably more likely to say that Torts sucks because if you blame the coach that means the team is better than their results. Conversely if you want to believe that the team sucks you are more likely to say that Torts overachieved or at least didn't underachieve, because that way it allows you to say that the team sucks. If you're a realist you probably don't say either sucks. However, I was referring to the people that think the Rangers' talent is mediocre or worse. I think those people like playing the victim. They're not the most talented team in the league, but I think better than average and a coach can make them overachieve.

 

[Richter Scale]

3 - As I said earlier, with Staal or McD as his p, his liablities are limited.

Unfortunately, that is not how it typically works out in game situations. You can't take excellent dmen and pair them with god awful ones and get some happy medium of a "fairly good" d pairing. Not how it works.

A defenseman's partner can have a big impact on how effectively they play (see: Girardi-MDZ pairing). And even if it doesn't hurt the other d man's individual play, if you have one guy in a top 4 pairing whose defense is borderline AHL quality - that will hurt the team. Hell, even on the 3rd pairing it can hurt. The opposing team isn't dumb. They will attack the weak d man's side of the ice and take advantage of that weakness. How many more times in the past two seasons did this team get pinned in their own zone when one of Bickel/Gilroy/Hamrlik/Eminger/etc were out there than when the top 4 was?

 

[Hunter Gathers]

1 - I mentioned they asked for Miller, I did not say I'd offer Miller.
2 - I will disagree with you on Rundblad. he is a better offensive Dman than McBain, he has the better shot and has better vision. On the defensive side, maybe McBain is better.
3 - As I said earlier, with Staal or McD as his p, his liablities are limited.
4 - He still fills a need, do you disagree or have other suggestions?

1. I never said you offered Miller.
2. Based on what? His point totals do not speak of that at all. And MAYBE McBain is better? Clearly you are now just making **** up. McBain is quite a bit better defensively. And he's not even that great himself.
3. Based on what? He isn't even good in the AHL on the defensive end. Somehow our players will magically make him better?
4. I do not think we need an extremely limited PP triggerman who is a liability at even strength. So no. I do not think he fills a need.

 

[Hunter Gathers]

Unfortunately, that is not how it typically works out in game situations. You can't take excellent dmen and pair them with god awful ones and get some happy medium of a "fairly good" d pairing. Not how it works.

A defenseman's partner can have a big impact on how effectively they play (see: Girardi-MDZ pairing). And even if it doesn't hurt the other d man's individual play, if you have one guy in a top 4 pairing whose defense is borderline AHL quality - that will hurt the team. Hell, even on the 3rd pairing it can hurt. The opposing team isn't dumb. They will attack the weak d man's side of the ice and take advantage of that weakness. How many more times in the past two seasons did this team get pinned in their own zone when one of Bickel/Gilroy/Hamrlik/Eminger/etc were out there than when the top 4 was?

But, but it works in NHL 2013!!!1111

 

[SnowblindNYR]

If you polled non-rangers fans and asked them to rate the Rangers performance over the past 70+ years, they'd tell you that the Rangers are a joke.

The Rangers have iced some quality teams since the lockout but nothing to brag about. This is a team that needs to get lucky to win a cup.

Who cares about the Rangers' performance of the last 70+ years? Hell, who cares about the teams since the lockout when it comes to the team next year?

 

[NHRangerfan]

So the goal is to lose again in the 2nd round next season, but to do it prettier?

No

The goal is to not play a style that leaves you gassed come playoff time.

The goal is to not play a style that rquires you to go 7 games every round.

The goal is to adjust to what the other team is doing to counter it, like pressuring the points after you've been consitently torched by goals from dmen.

The goal is to adjust your break out so that if the opposition is taking away the boards you don't continue to whip it around the boards.

 

[Richter Scale]

They're not the most talented team in the league, but I think better than average and a coach can make them overachieve.

This is the problem. I agree, they are above average. They have, however, been performing above average in the last two seasons. ECF and 2nd round exit. That is above average. The core is fairly good. But the entire roster as it was constructed was not a championship team. With a few tweaks/break out seasons for prospects, maybe they will be. But that brings it back to personnel. There are holes that need to be filled. They haven't been.

A coach can only do so much. If you're relying on your team overachieving in order to just be competitive for a cup, then there is a problem with the roster. I don't know that I could point to a team that has won the cup in recent memory who realistically "overachieved."

 

[NHRangerfan]

That's because he's the coach and he has to "say the right things." Do you honestly think he blames himself for Nash's horrid playoff performace?

On the flip side, I know someone that doesn't blame himself for Rick Nash's horrid playoff performance... Rick Nash. He thinks he played well.





You ever think that maybe, just maybe, the team didn't fail? Maybe they got just as far as their talent could take them?

Torts needed to beat a Bruins team that looks unstoppable to keep his job. The high powered penguins scored a whopping two goals in four games against them.

And you thought the Bruins were a juggernaut after their miraculous comeback in Game 7 against the Leafs?

 

[Kwayry]

Unfortunately, that is not how it typically works out in game situations. You can't take excellent dmen and pair them with god awful ones and get some happy medium of a "fairly good" d pairing. Not how it works.

A defenseman's partner can have a big impact on how effectively they play (see: Girardi-MDZ pairing). And even if it doesn't hurt the other d man's individual play, if you have one guy in a top 4 pairing whose defense is borderline AHL quality - that will hurt the team. Hell, even on the 3rd pairing it can hurt. The opposing team isn't dumb. They will attack the weak d man's side of the ice and take advantage of that weakness. How many more times in the past two seasons did this team get pinned in their own zone when one of Bickel/Gilroy/Hamrlik/Eminger/etc were out there than when the top 4 was?

The current need he'd fill is the PP triggerman, that's where he'd start right away.
He has defensive liabilities that he needs to work on. He is young enough to still learn.

I will disagree on 1 thing, they got pinned because of the breakout system they had. Hopefully that will change with AV.

 

[stan the caddy]

I have considered it, and I don't think he got the most out of the talent that we have. Does that mean I think we should have been able to beat the bruins with the talent that we have? No. I'm not saying that and have never said that.

And no, Torts didn't need to beat the bruins to keep his job. Sather didn't say why he fired him, but it's pretty obvious at this point that the players don't want to play for him any more. You don't need any other reason than that for why he was let go.

But I look at the way the team plays, the way they collapse in the defensive zone, their inability to get to loose pucks, their failures on breakouts and offensive zone entries, their struggles on the PP and the PK, and I see a problem with the coaching. I'm not just looking at the results and saying the team should have done better.

Torts didn't have this team playing to its strengths. That's my opinion. You are free to disagree.

A lot of that is exaggerated. I didn't hear anyone complain about collapsing the forwards last year and I don't hear anyone criticizing Julien for doing it. A lot of the breakouts, loose puck battles, and power play issues lie directly on the players and even more of it is just the way the game is. The Bruins and Blackhawks are dumping it in A LOT. But around these boards you get a lot of people saying, "he stinks, he has them dump the puck in." Jagr, Straka, and Nylander aren't here anymore so we're not going to see the tic tac toe passing through the neutral zone.

The most hilarious thing I read around here is when somone rips him for telling players to use the boards to get the puck up the ice. As if that's bad coaching.

 

[RangerBoy]

Torts was a very good coach. His 24/7 rant between periods of the Rangers-Blues game was classic. If you watched him on Behind The Bench with Bill Pidto,Torts was a different person. If you heard him with Michael Kay or Mike Francesa,same thing. Answered every question. Torts told Pidto about looking to coach college hockey someday because he wanted to help mold young men.The team needed a change. The players got sick of him. Pro sports.



I hope Torts get the Canuck or Stars job.

 

[stan the caddy]

And you thought the Bruins were a juggernaut after their miraculous comeback in Game 7 against the Leafs?

The Bruins got hot. You can't say they're not a juggernaut right now. They swept the Penguins and held them to two goals. That's pretty amazing.

 

[Kwayry]

2. Based on what? His point totals do not speak of that at all. And MAYBE McBain is better? Clearly you are now just making **** up. McBain is quite a bit better defensively. And he's not even that great himself.

Yeah, i am making **** up just to spite you.
Or maybe it's based on what i read or what i see.
You love to dramatize things, not really sure why.