View Single Post
06-09-2013, 07:18 AM
Registered User
pld459666's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Danbury, CT
Country: United States
Posts: 19,265
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
I am neither a Torts supporter or hater. I think he is a good coach, but he is easily replaceable. That is because they all are.

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?

Is their anyone out there who believes that Rangers personnel is better than Pittsburgh, aside from goaltender?

The Rangers put up a much more competitive series than Pitt did. Yes, they only won one game, but Pitt looked totally overmatched. The Rangers didn't.

Those of you who criticized Nash during the series would now be screaming that Crosby and Malkin suck if you were Penguins fans.

The Rangers finished up about where they should have, despite all the crying and moaning throughout this site. In the thread speculating about who should coach next, we have people explaining that this coach would be a great choice or a terrible choice without having a clue how any coach will end up doing.

To me, it's funny watching a fan say that his choice will be a "great fit" or a disaster that will wreak havoc on our city. Face it, none of us has a clue how a coach will work out, and my very minority opinion is that barring the very rare exception of incompetence, it doesn't matter in the least who is chosen to run the show.

What matters most is the GM and luck.

On an unrelated matter, Krug is the real deal. Let me know when you come around on that one, Inferno.
I've said it from day one. The match up with Bruins for some reason favored the Rangers. What the Bruins did to pitt has no bearing on that

pld459666 is offline   Reply With Quote