Player big P
no more striptease no more flashes
Yeah I guess it is more reasonable that every player on the team is a gutless coward than Tortorella being an abrasive *******.
Speculation: The Off-Season Thread Part VI - Are we there yet? (Grabovski to Caps, 1 yr)
- Thread starter NYR Viper
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
Didn't see anyone make that claim.
If you're saying that we didn't have a significant insight into his personality, then I don't know what to tell you.
Considering they were just coming off the most successful Rangers season in close to 20 years, I'd say that abrasive ******* was doing something right.
What changed last season? A lot of players, thats what.
So, I'd say its more reasonable to say a few players going the way of gutless cowards is what occurred.
Clown Fiesta
Registered User
What changed is the players who responded to the abrasiveness The season before got tired of it. Not exactly shocking, people can only take so much of it.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,925
- 22,848
We don't know that Torts isn't lying, or at least giving us his version of the truth. We don't know what else was said behind closed doors. Really, we don't know anything for sure about what happened. Yet you have no problem casting judgement against the players.
pld459666
Registered User
Addressing the way Torts treats players directly with Torts would have been a general waste of time and energy on the players parts. He would have brushed it off as sour grapes and tried to explain his position and had he remaind in position would have done the same things.
Guys like that do not change when the people that are reporting to him do not like him. He's said it countless times. He's not there to make friends. He's there to do a job. He goes about doing that job a certain way, don't like it, tough.
Why is he all of a sudden going to change that because a few players voiced their opinions of him to him.
The issue would have been raised with him, and it would have died with him and nothing would have changed.
I think the Players did the right thing in by passing Torts altogether on this.
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
“I think I’m going to learn from him because he’s into the science of the game and that’s something where I’m a bit of a Neanderthal,” Tortorella said. “I want to learn more about it....
When you say ‘style of play’ I find it such an interesting subject,” Tortorella said. “When I was in New York, I was labelled a defensive coach because we didn’t score like Tampa.
“I don’t believe in a defensive style. I don’t believe in an offensive style. I believe in a complete style. You need that to get where you need to be.
“Am I going to get in the way of the Sedins’ creativity and offence and crawl all over them if they take a chance and make a mistake? Absolutely not.
“I don’t do that. I just want a two-way street when it comes to play without the puck. Because then it isn’t creativity, it isn’t talent, it is in a foundation of playing the proper way without the puck.
“That happens to be called defence. You have to be responsible.
“I talked about blocking shots in New York, so I get framed as a guy who just wants to block shots and play defence.
“It’s such a wrong thought.
“But it does need to be a part of your game.”
I think this had more to do with why he was fired than anything else. The Rangers were not playing a complete game. He is saying all the right things but the product on the ice did not reflect that.
Whether or not it was the players not being able, or refusing to play that way, or his coaching style causing the disconnect, it's up for debate, but ultimately as the head coach it was his responsibility to get them to play that way.
When you say ‘style of play’ I find it such an interesting subject,” Tortorella said. “When I was in New York, I was labelled a defensive coach because we didn’t score like Tampa.
“I don’t believe in a defensive style. I don’t believe in an offensive style. I believe in a complete style. You need that to get where you need to be.
“Am I going to get in the way of the Sedins’ creativity and offence and crawl all over them if they take a chance and make a mistake? Absolutely not.
“I don’t do that. I just want a two-way street when it comes to play without the puck. Because then it isn’t creativity, it isn’t talent, it is in a foundation of playing the proper way without the puck.
“That happens to be called defence. You have to be responsible.
“I talked about blocking shots in New York, so I get framed as a guy who just wants to block shots and play defence.
“It’s such a wrong thought.
“But it does need to be a part of your game.”
I think this had more to do with why he was fired than anything else. The Rangers were not playing a complete game. He is saying all the right things but the product on the ice did not reflect that.
Whether or not it was the players not being able, or refusing to play that way, or his coaching style causing the disconnect, it's up for debate, but ultimately as the head coach it was his responsibility to get them to play that way.
Rumor::: Mikhail Grabovski nearing decision, Caps likely choice
http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on...grabovski-nearing-decision-caps-likely-choice
http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on...grabovski-nearing-decision-caps-likely-choice
NYR Viper
Registered User
Glad you are telling it like it is.
Have been suggesting we move some vets w/higher cap for better prospects with high chance of being productive/reasonable chance of being stellar, but unfortunately, this is too outside the box for many.
http://www.theprovince.com/sports/h...hford+Tortorella+open+book/8817976/story.html
What I'm most confused about is the picture, however.
Do you think he's saying, "Oh please, you silly goose" or he's anticipating a high-five from some one walking behind him?
What catches my attention is how it looks like JT's got a pair of horns going on....
That's open at the center, it sure ain't a halo.
- Sep 17, 2007
- 24,925
- 22,848
I think my brain just exploded. RB was railing against the fantasy hockey mindset and you agree with him? Your proposals are nothing but fantasy.
Making deals that make us a significantly worse team in the short term in the hopes that we will be better in the long term isn't thinking outside the box.
HatTrick Swayze
Just Be Nice
I think those comments are 100% spot on. Was his act worn out here? By all accounts. I wasn't in the room, I don't know. Are there aspects of his gameplan I wish he tweaked? Sure.
But I have a really tough time with the narrative of "he got the job preaching safe is death, but switched to 6 goalie system! Lol what an idiot! Torts why u no practice offense??" Like he just decided to switch because he felt like it. Not because he, ya know, evaluated the talent of his team. I'm not saying YOU are saying this...but spend 5 min reading the comments of the broader fanbase on the nyr facebook page...
I have an even tougher time envisioning a new coach coaxing a lot more offense out of this group - and by a lot I mean enough offense to make any defensive trade offs worth it in terms of Ws and Ls. I think some people are expecting AV to catapult this team into a top 5-10 offense. Maybe if he brings the Sedins in his suitcase.
Sorry to be such a wet blanket. I will always have hope and I really do hope I'm wrong...
Last edited:
Off Sides
Registered User
- Sep 8, 2008
- 9,755
- 5,585
I am not sure how much the goals and assist totals change under a new coach, not even sure their playing style changes that much but I don't think they were changing the way they played under Torts at all.
All coaches want their players to be defensively responsible away from the puck. However Torts did not just have them playing that way. Getting trapped in their own zone for long periods of time and surviving by blocking shots is not responsible, it's attempting to stop goals by last resort.
I fully understand trying to rush the puck through the neutral zone is inherently dangerous, turnovers happen. Does not mean they can not improve at it to the point it gives them another option beyond the tip, chip, dump and chase.
I don't think Torts was a bad coach and I certainly can not argue with the results, the team finished about where I think they should have the past two seasons.
My difference of opinion is from those who think he was the right coach going forward. The Rangers were not adding anything to their game that they did not already have the past two years. Other coaches were predicating on the predictability.
While many of the players stats may have been as good if not better than they have been, while some player were developing just fine, as a team was their play really improving? Were they adding new wrinkles to their game that were catching the other team off guard causing them to be trapped in their own zone? Were they forcing the other team to adjust to their play, if that team had comparable talent to the Rangers. Were they improving on being able to rush the puck up ice? Was the power play improving?
Seemed to me more like the Rangers were just stagnating. No idea if they will evolve under a new coaching regime, but I just did not get the feeling they were going to under Torts.
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
The Rangers offense during the regular season hasn't really been as big of a problem as people claim, in terms of numbers. The year they finished first in the East, they did it because they were 2nd in 3+ goal games in the entire league. They had enough offense, even if it wasn't overwhelming.
The real problem is that during the playoffs, the rest of the teams tighten up and the Rangers had a harder time scoring. The rigidity of the coach's mindset didn't allow for them to push as hard, offensively, as they could have. This caused friction between the team and the coach.
It isn't about the team's offensive capabilities. It's about opening up just enough to score some goals in the playoffs. After watching three playoffs under this coach, I was starting to believe that his system was at fault, by it's very nature. That's why I'm excited about a coaching change, more than anything else.
The real problem is that during the playoffs, the rest of the teams tighten up and the Rangers had a harder time scoring. The rigidity of the coach's mindset didn't allow for them to push as hard, offensively, as they could have. This caused friction between the team and the coach.
It isn't about the team's offensive capabilities. It's about opening up just enough to score some goals in the playoffs. After watching three playoffs under this coach, I was starting to believe that his system was at fault, by it's very nature. That's why I'm excited about a coaching change, more than anything else.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
They also benefitted from the majority of their biggest rivals lose their best players for long periods of time (Crosby)
The problem is also, there's not confidence in the offense. The team (at least under Torts) was built to play with the lead. If they got down there they started gripping. Torts was right when he said the power play woes took on a life of their own.
Chicken or egg. The system or the talent.
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
Exactly. It also felt like Torts required even harder adherence to the system in the POs which made the team more predictable and easier to shut down.
Look at the Rangers-Caps series in 2013, all indications from the regular season was that the Rangers would own, maybe even dominate, even strength play while the Caps would rely on their deadly PP. What happened was that the Caps owned the Rangers 5v5 most of the series. And it was similar throughout the 2012 playoffs, Hank carried us big time.
It seemed like the Tortorella Rangers ability to control the game went into the toilet as soon as the playoffs arrived, and to my eyes it seemed to come from a compete adherence to the system.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
pld459666
Registered User
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
Well, it turns out I misremembered slightly. I went and double checked because I thought I remember the Pens ahead of them. They finished 5th. They hit 3+ 49 times during the regular season. Pittsburgh did it 51 times. Nashville (another deceptive team), Philadelphia, and Vancouver did it 50 times a piece. What's crazy, and kind of goes to your point about playing with the lead, is that the Rangers got 93.9% of the possible points they could've gotten when scoring 3 or more. That's second. The only two other teams over 90% were LA (90.3%, but they were 29th in GF3+) and St Louis (95%, but they were 19th in GF3+). The Rangers had an above average group offensively in the regular season. It was in the playoffs that things changed. Talent doesn't suddenly change in the playoffs, but the ability to use that talent has an effect.
By the way, evolutionarily speaking, the egg came first.
Paulie Walnutz
HFNYR JUST AS SOFT AS NYR
- Oct 1, 2008
- 11,131
- 9,406
I'd rethink that if I was you. This team's offensive talent is mediocre at best! And on top of that they're small and not physical enough. The bottom 6 is still a trouble spot IMO, and the top 6 you have one legitimate first liner.
First off, this is all speculation, just my opinions. But I really think my view on the Torts situation depends on who was complaining.
If it was Callahan, McDonagh, Boyle, Hagelin, Stepan, Girardi, any of those guys... Torts is one of the main reasons that they turned into the players they did and had the spots they had, some of them being slotted way above their talent level and played in key situations where they didn't belong. So for them to turn around and complain about him behind his back, that's pretty lame. Good luck getting those opportunities in the future.
If it was Nash, Hank, Kreider, Richards, Zuc, well that'd be more understandable. They were really at a point where they didn't owe Torts anything in my opinion, and there could be an argument that he was a detriment to how they were playing.
As to the issue of someone standing up to Torts, I think there's a bit of a leadership debacle in the locker room. Callahan wears the C, but he's a third line grinder that got the honor of team captain by being Torts lapdog. Richards is too softspoken and basically as far from "assertive" as I think a person can get. I really don't see him staging a coup.
I think Lundqvist is the only guy in the room with a leadership role and a backbone, and I think he knew (rightfully so) that he's more valuable to the team than Torts, and anyone else for that matter. So I wouldn't be surprised if he voiced some displeasure to Sather about the situation. He said he didn't ask for Torts to be fired and I completely believe him, but that doesn't mean he didn't ask Sather to get him to loosen up a bit.
If it was Callahan, McDonagh, Boyle, Hagelin, Stepan, Girardi, any of those guys... Torts is one of the main reasons that they turned into the players they did and had the spots they had, some of them being slotted way above their talent level and played in key situations where they didn't belong. So for them to turn around and complain about him behind his back, that's pretty lame. Good luck getting those opportunities in the future.
If it was Nash, Hank, Kreider, Richards, Zuc, well that'd be more understandable. They were really at a point where they didn't owe Torts anything in my opinion, and there could be an argument that he was a detriment to how they were playing.
As to the issue of someone standing up to Torts, I think there's a bit of a leadership debacle in the locker room. Callahan wears the C, but he's a third line grinder that got the honor of team captain by being Torts lapdog. Richards is too softspoken and basically as far from "assertive" as I think a person can get. I really don't see him staging a coup.
I think Lundqvist is the only guy in the room with a leadership role and a backbone, and I think he knew (rightfully so) that he's more valuable to the team than Torts, and anyone else for that matter. So I wouldn't be surprised if he voiced some displeasure to Sather about the situation. He said he didn't ask for Torts to be fired and I completely believe him, but that doesn't mean he didn't ask Sather to get him to loosen up a bit.
Blue Blooded
Most people rejected his message
5v5 the Rangers have a great roster, even in regard to forwards. Our issues stems from special teams.
We DO have a legit 1st line. Hagelin-Stepan-Nash. They are respectively 36th, 69th, and 31st in zone start adjusted 5v5 scoring over the past 2 years. They were a top 5 line in the league this past season.
Some players are in the top 100 due to playing easy minutes, like Mathieu Perreault (47th), Matt Halischuk (54th), Matt Read (34th), or even our very own Benoit Pouliot (28th!). But Hagelin, Stepan, and Nash has put up their numbers against top competition.
People look at point totals and give out labels such as "1st liner" when point totals are often quite misrepresentative of the players ability in certain roles. Hagelin is a top 5v5 LW in this league but he stinks on the PP, therefore he will never reach the point totals most people will want from their 1st liner. But someone else will play on the PP in their stead and put up those points, like say Ryan Callahan - who is a 2nd/3rd line tweener 5v5, but a fantastic special teams player.
Players like Brown, Perry, Getzlaf, Marleau, Oshie, Backes, BrassGOD primarily score on the PP while not being very effective ES scorers.
The Rangers have 5 players with 2+ ZS adj. P/60 over the past two seasons 5v5: Pouliot, Nash, Hagelin, Stepan, Richards. Only Boston, Pittsburgh, Detroit, and Carolina can say the same.
Last edited:
JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK
Twenty f*ckin years
- Oct 8, 2010
- 80,025
- 17,638
You realize the Rangers problem last year was that they had nothing past their high end offensive talent, right? They were carried by two forwards, their defense, and goaltending.
Health, a full year of Brassard, a bounce back year from Richards, and the additions of Moore/Boyle improve the forward group greatly, and combined with the elite blueline, makes the Rangers a very good team.
LaffyTaffyNYR
Registered User
- Feb 25, 2012
- 17,113
- 2,662
- Status
