View Single Post
Old
06-24-2013, 08:14 AM
  #126
Lorb
.
 
Lorb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Its not that. At all.

In fact, its simply asking you to justify your entire viewpoint. If you don't think that a different coach could've brought better results, then whats the point of the coaching change?

Now, keep in mind this is coming from someone who thinks this roster lacks championship talent/depth, you know, the real problem. But I digress, and I'd really like to know how you think a different coach will be capable of taking a good but not great roster past the final 4 or 8 teams left in the league.
It's been a few days since this thread of replies started so let me backtrack. Okay, I was objecting to the question of how many cups would we have won comment because its hypothetical, but I digress on that. So it started as Chosen stating JT was effective because of 2011-2012 and that Torts is effective as a coach in general(?). I then replied with the fact that 2011-2012 was mainly the product of Henrik and I then added in a post that followed that said 2011-2012 was in fact a positive reflection of Torts. My emphasis was on the fact that his one successful year in his tenure here should be taken into consideration of his other years and importantly why he had good and bad years.

In terms of addressing why I think a coaching change is beneficial? The game has become far more contingent upon strategically using your personnel in strategizing effective defensive, transition, and offensive zone play including breakouts, PKs, PPs. Overall, his inability to adapt is his greatest downfall. Anyone of us on this board can predict his game plan night in and night out. If I were an opposing coach, I would need to have better personnel and put them up against certain NYR players in certain situations to start the game with a systematic advantage that will expose NYR in various situations. 2011-2012 is the product of how hard we played and how everyone was playing their best (ill credit torts with that). We executed a strategically simple game plan perfectly night in and night out. When it came to the PO, the opponents were better, there was more strategizing within a series in terms of line up and style of plan and our dominance receded there and we did not make it to the ECF easily.

This year, Torts was unable to adapt in so many situation. Whether it's the dump and chase (despite much concern expressed by MGMT). His line ups was a mess all year long. He split up Stepan and Nash when they were absolute gold for us in favor of a line up that was more balanced in his mind. His inability to handle players showed this year. I mean, how the **** does a coach manage to end up with 3 all star calibre players in Gaborik, Nash, and Richards and make a well below average outcome out of them in the RS and then the PO. 40 goal scorer on the 4th line? #1 center (who was largely responsible for his downfall to be fair to Torts) ending up as a failure during the RS and scratched in PO elimination games and replaced by a center who isn't really a center.

The power play was worse than our EV. No real attempt beyond his concepts of revitalizing the PP which is obviously not very good. The PK has been largely attributed to Sully but to be fair, I will credit Torts with what was a decent PK last year and a good PK in 11-12.

It's not the specifics about Torts. It's his overall inability to adapt. Hockey is a dynamic game and that Dynamicism comes alive especially in a 7 game series. NYR under Torts has been a plane piloted in a straight line without regard for storms and thunder clouds that could otherwise been avoided by adapting to the situation. The "safe is death" Moto of 2004 torts is basically the problem. He's being safe within his comfort zone and I know people are objecting to the notion of a new NHL with a need for new strategies etc. even without the existence of these new systems, Torts is not a good strategist. We don't have and will not have that great of a team to win a cup without a good strategist at the helm.

Every game and series offers challenges and the coach can turn a negative into a positive. Torts's ability to do that is less than that of most other coaches and that's why to win a championship, torts has to be left out of the equation.

Bylsmas penguins were loaded with 2 good goalies, some of the best players in the world for gods sake and they were schooled by the bruins in fairly dramatic fashion and that is in part because of coaching. I don't think torts is capable of out coaching another coach on any given night. We've never won a smooth or at least turbulence free series under torts and to win 4 series in the toughest way possible makes a cup that much harder to attain

There are ideas on how to improve the team that we all can think of and would implement and I just don't think Torts allows for this team to extend beyond what they have now and what they are doing now. Torts wanted more grit to his team
And wanted grinders when he had a Rick Nash to work with and adapt his strategy around. If nothing else, utilizing your strength and overcoming weaknesses to a roster is a coaches primary responsibility and they can accomplish that in many ways and he struggled with that this year and show no sign or willingness to change.


Last edited by Lorb: 06-24-2013 at 08:22 AM.
Lorb is online now   Reply With Quote