Maybe Torts Wasn't the Problem
View Single Post
06-08-2013, 02:35 PM
Join Date: Aug 2005
Originally Posted by
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.
Did you not say this:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We agree about some things and disagree about others. No big deal.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by chosen