View Single Post
Old
05-30-2013, 03:32 PM
  #62
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipNash27
Give me a coach who focuses more on offense and gets this team at least in the top half of the league in goal scoring and PP percentage and let Lundqvist do his thing and we'll see results.
They were in the top half of the league in goals for this year. 17 teams were below them. They were tied for 12th in the league. 2.7 goals per game average.

Last year it was similar. 17 teams below them. They were 13th in the league in goals for. 2.76 goals per game average.

This myth that Torts killed offense is ridiculous. Was it great? No – but who cares? It was arguably near good enough; defense and goaltending wins championships. Was the offense as bad as people seem to think it was? Hell no. And if people are expecting this team to explode offensively next year now that Torts is gone… unless there a significant change in personnel – you’re in for a big surprise.

The team’s scoring woes have had more to do with a lack of offensively creative personnel than the coach. Shockingly, Sather made some moves at the deadline this year that may have helped that to a degree. Is it any shock that in the 13 games after the trade deadline, with an infusion of some creativity and skill on the roster, that the team’s goals per game jumped to 3.6? They had an easier schedule in the following 13 games for sure – but in the previous 17 games the Rangers played against the same teams they played in their final 13 games, their average goals per game was 2.24. If you’re worried that includes more games against better competition (like Pitt)… An alternative way to look at it is, if you take the average goals per game the Rangers scored against the same opponents before the trade deadline, and weight them according to the distribution of 13 games played against each after, their goals per game shrinks to 2.12. So what changed? Was it Torts? Or the players? I don’t get why this is so difficult for people to accept.

Torts had some major issues - primarily the PP and the defensive zone scheme. But he really didn’t stop these players from being creative offensively or getting points on the scoreboard.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC
This is irrational fear. why does parting ways with a personality like Tortorella mean we're hiring Gandhi as head coach?
Is it really? Oh, I don’t know why people could possibly be worried about it… maybe because those who are expressing concern about this are, you know, looking at Sather’s history with NYR; the guy who is in charge of finding the next head coach?...

We don’t have an identity. Draft players with “character;” who cares about skill, creativity, or hockey sense!?!

We don’t have Leetch anymore. Don’t ever stop searching for his replacement! Sign Wade Redden!

We need a 1C. Sign Gomez AND Drury to ridiculous contracts!

Last coach was too monotone, too bland, too much of a player’s coach. Hire Tortorella!!

Team needs more JAM. Get all the JAM! All of it!

We don’t have a crease clearing defensemen or any snarl on the blueline. Draft McIlrath at the expense of some pretty good offensive prospects!

We don’t have enough offense. Sign Gaborik!

We STILL need a 1C. Sign Brad Richards to ANOTHER ridiculous contract!

We don’t have enough offense, again. Trade for Rick Nash and blow up an ECF team!

We lost our JAM. Get back the JAM!

We don’t have enough depth. Trade Gaborik and get back some depth!

We had a mediocre, lockout shortened, irregular season during which there was not more than 30 games in which the team played with a stable roster, but the team still made it to the second round? But no Stanley Cup, you say? Fire Torts!!


Last edited by Richter Scale: 05-30-2013 at 03:40 PM.
Richter Scale is online now