View Single Post
06-08-2013, 12:19 PM
Registered User
GAGLine's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 11,620
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
Fine. What do you base your opinion of a coach on? Where should the Rangers have finished?
Just like with the players, I judge the coach based on what I see on the ice. I saw a team that was routinely trapped in its own zone for long stretches. IMO, that isn't a product of the roster. It's a product of the strategies employed by the coach. I see an incompetent power play. Different personnel may help, but strategy plays a big part on the PP. I see the way Torts handled some of the players and how those players reacted. Some responded well to his coaching style. Some didn't. I didn't see in him an ability to adjust based on his roster, to use different approaches with different players when it was called for.

All of these things contribute to my opinion of the job he did. That doesn't make them fact. It doesn't prove anything. If you disagree, that's fine.

Boy, do I disagree with this. I say it's the opposite. People are ripping Torts to shreds without considering the personnel. I am the one talking about the other factors.
Did you not say this:

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?
Those are your words, not mine. If you can't see how false that statement is, I don't know what to tell you.

And you're wrong. People are criticizing Torts, but I haven't seen anyone suggest that with a better coach, this team would have won the cup.

Just because I criticize Torts doesn't mean I think Sather is doing a good job, or that the roster is championship caliber. All it means is that I don't think Torts is the right coach for this team going forward, and I think bringing in a different voice with a different system will benefit the team.

Technically, you are right, so you win that one. However, the Rangers roster is grossly flawed. This has nothing to do with the job the coach did.
You're making the mistake of assuming the problem has to be one or the other. It's my contention that it's both. Torts doesn't get a pass because the roster is flawed. The players don't get a pass because Torts is flawed. They all share the blame. Torts will be replaced. Some of the players will be replaced.

I don't think they worked at all better last year. They just didn't run into a team like the Bruins of this year. Direct question. Do you think the Rangers personnel was better than the Bruins?
Whether the Rangers personnel was better or not isn't really relevant. Having the better team on paper doesn't mean you are going to win. Ask the pens about that.

Last year, the Rangers played Tort's system as well as they possibly could. They blocked shots, they forechecked and they worked hard at both ends of the ice. The team was 11th overall in scoring during the season and 3rd in goals against. They finished 2nd overall in the league and top 4 in the playoffs. The Rangers finished ahead of boston in both the regular season and the playoffs.

If the Rangers had played the bruins in the playoffs last year, yes, maybe boston would have won. Which means what, exactly? That they match up well against us? That they have better players? That their coach is better than our coach? Or maybe it's some combination of all 3. The point is, you can't just point to the roster and say that's the reason, anymore than anyone else can point to Torts and say he is the only reason we lost.

I agree with you but this time you are missing my point. Torts is a good coach who wore out his welcome. All coaches wear out their welcome after a few years. That has not been the contention of the Torts critics, however.

The claim is that he is a bad tactician who can't adapt, can't fix what's wrong etc,. That is nonsense. No coach will keep his team's ear after a few years of being yelled at. That is why I have no problem with his being let go. That said, this is not the complaint of most fans. And again, no matter who coached them this year, their talent would have increased a total of zero. Boston is a far more complete team. Do you disagree?
Yes, boston is a more complete team. I won't argue that. But it is my contention that they are more complete because they both have a better roster AND because they have a better coach who is able to get the most out of that roster.

Again, blaming one doesn't absolve the other.

Guys like Trottier are the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule. Yes, there are some incompetent coaches, but very few. The hiring of Trottier is yet another indictment of Sather.
Of course it is. You'll never see me defend Sather. Sather said it himself. The only measure of success is winning and the Rangers haven't done that during his tenure.

Bringing in a new coach is very far from a guarantee of improved performance. If your statement were accurate, every new coach after an entrenched coach would make a team better. Let's use your Trottier example here.
Not a guarantee, but if the players aren't playing their best because the coach lost the room, then it stands to reason that with a new coach, they will be more motivated. The results may or may not change, but keeping the old coach certainly isn't going to help the situation. As I said, addition by subtraction.

Torts isn't the only reason the Rangers lost, but he is A reason. To completely absolve him of blame as you tried to do in your OP is just as foolish as those who claim he is the only reason we aren't contenders.

GAGLine is online now   Reply With Quote