View Single Post
Old
10-10-2013, 07:18 PM
  #115
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
The Rangers main problem under Torts wasn't the roster. It wasn't even a lack of scoring.

It was having no coherent system, anywhere on the ice, outside of the collapsing box defensive zone scheme, which was extremely taxing on the team and had, in my opinion, extremely questionable merits.

Other than that it was pretty much a mess.

They had no breakout plan other than to try to force the puck out up the boards, often through defenders. Their transition game was a disaster; no player ever seemed to know where his teammates were or where to look for support. There were times, far too many times, when two Rangers would be skating practically on top of each other. Inside the opposition zone wasn't any better. An overloaded below-the-goal "cycle" with no D support is pretty much a recipe for disaster; not only are you unlikely to get a scoring chance but you limit your time of possession and let the team walk out of their zone. And worst of all, Torts was unwilling or unable to make even the slightest adjustments. And that's not even talking about the bench issues (line changes, frequent bench minors, combos, matchings) and of course the horrendous PP.

Frankly I do not get all this talk about Torts' "defensive system" and how the Rangers will be forced to revert back to it. Defensive system? AV's 1-2-2 system is significantly less aggressive than Torts 2-1-2 (or more accurately 2---------1-2) and the defensive zone coverage of pressuring the puck is used by almost every team in the league. The only difference is who is responsible for what area the ice.

The only up-tempo aspect of the game that AV brings, and that will not change, is a focus on (quickly) moving the puck out of the zone and up the ice. It has nothing to do with "defensive hockey" it has to do with cultivating and maintaining a sufficient transition game. Something that was better under Tom Renney who had significantly less talent to deal with.

The bottom line is that this team has failed in areas that no properly organized team should.

When I see a Rangers team that consistently looks coached I will worry about the roster.
It's your contention that the teams that have the best coaches win?

If that were true, the same coaches would always win. Funny that in reality that they go from winning Cups to being fired on a regular basis.

Also funny that the best personnel always competes for the Cup while the worst personnel never does.

In closing, I would love to know who the really good coaches are in today's game.

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote