HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All Encompassing Tortorella..ella..ella..eh..eh...and Glen Cigar Thread Part IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-14-2013, 09:55 AM
  #701
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
No, this is the first game the whole series where I felt the Rangers were actually having a proper game plan against the Caps.

Its going to take more than one game to start thinking otherwise. However, Bruins are a much better matchup for Torts system.

Julian and Torts are both like Napoleonic generals. They aren't creative and you know exactly what your going to get. The troops line up and pound one another.
How noble of you. Im glad the 5-0 game 7 win was the first game you approve of. Let me ask you, was Asham's soft goal part of the game plan? How about the fortunate bounce to Pyatt in front of the net? Or MDZ's pass that had eyes and went right through Holtby? Was that part of the gameplan you endorse?

Fact is, Tortorella teams have a knack of being able to "stay with it" as he likes to say, and the 5-0 result was the result of hard work all series and some lucky bounces last night.

So many fickle fans on this board are so caught up in the fantasy of having a hockey team that will turn in perfect performances night in and night out, that they virtually ignore how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. How even the best teams have bad shifts, bad periods, and bad games.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 10:57 AM
  #702
usernamesteph
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 91
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
How noble of you. Im glad the 5-0 game 7 win was the first game you approve of. Let me ask you, was Asham's soft goal part of the game plan? How about the fortunate bounce to Pyatt in front of the net? Or MDZ's pass that had eyes and went right through Holtby? Was that part of the gameplan you endorse?

Fact is, Tortorella teams have a knack of being able to "stay with it" as he likes to say, and the 5-0 result was the result of hard work all series and some lucky bounces last night.

So many fickle fans on this board are so caught up in the fantasy of having a hockey team that will turn in perfect performances night in and night out, that they virtually ignore how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. How even the best teams have bad shifts, bad periods, and bad games.
I hate torts cuz he gives the overmatched zuccarello wayyyy too much ice time

usernamesteph is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 10:59 AM
  #703
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
How noble of you. Im glad the 5-0 game 7 win was the first game you approve of. Let me ask you, was Asham's soft goal part of the game plan? How about the fortunate bounce to Pyatt in front of the net? Or MDZ's pass that had eyes and went right through Holtby? Was that part of the gameplan you endorse?

Fact is, Tortorella teams have a knack of being able to "stay with it" as he likes to say, and the 5-0 result was the result of hard work all series and some lucky bounces last night.

So many fickle fans on this board are so caught up in the fantasy of having a hockey team that will turn in perfect performances night in and night out, that they virtually ignore how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. How even the best teams have bad shifts, bad periods, and bad games.
No truer words have been spoken. It's why I stay out of the GDT. Yes, people are going to get emotional, but they seem to lose all perspective.

jas is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 11:29 AM
  #704
qwertyaas
LGR@
 
qwertyaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 4,920
vCash: 500
Posted this on the main boards about Torts and the issue many have with him:

Still a lot that aren't pleased with Torts. The turn around between the first games and the final games in terms of play was huge. It went from a team with no transition play, no sustained pressure and looking lost to a puck possession team with a full transitional game, solid forecheck and scoring chances.

Was that Torts or was that the team? Torts strategy seems to be to make the safe plays. Chip it up the boards, dump it in and chase. The last two games of the series were the complete opposite. Rangers were playing a much more offensive game and you can see the difference (even though game 6 was a 1 goal game).

When Torts preaches 'Safe is Death', fans are on board. But for the majority of the time, it has been anything but that.

qwertyaas is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:08 PM
  #705
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
How noble of you. Im glad the 5-0 game 7 win was the first game you approve of. Let me ask you, was Asham's soft goal part of the game plan? How about the fortunate bounce to Pyatt in front of the net? Or MDZ's pass that had eyes and went right through Holtby? Was that part of the gameplan you endorse?

Fact is, Tortorella teams have a knack of being able to "stay with it" as he likes to say, and the 5-0 result was the result of hard work all series and some lucky bounces last night.

So many fickle fans on this board are so caught up in the fantasy of having a hockey team that will turn in perfect performances night in and night out, that they virtually ignore how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. How even the best teams have bad shifts, bad periods, and bad games.
No, that is not the issue. If the game was 2-0 I would said the same thing. It was the first game in the series the Rangers actually took the game to Washington and played in their end.

From the very beginning of this series, I said the Rangers need to maintain sustained pressure against the Caps D men. They did it the whole game. The first time they didn't fall back into a 1-2-2 shell this series when they had the lead. The first time they kept on attacking with a 2-1-2 consistently.

The caps maybe got one or two long possessions the whole games. If the Rangers played with that game plan(or had a functional power play), this series doesn't go 7 games.

But, I'm going to need more than one game to change my tune. They certainly didn't change their breakout plans in that game. They just dominated the caps along the boards. Thats going to be very different against the Bruins most likely.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:17 PM
  #706
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueshirt Believer View Post
No, that is not the issue. If the game was 2-0 I would said the same thing. It was the first game in the series the Rangers actually took the game to Washington and played in their end.

From the very beginning of this series, I said the Rangers need to maintain sustained pressure against the Caps D men. They did it the whole game. The first time they didn't fall back into a 1-2-2 shell this series when they had the lead. The first time they kept on attacking with a 2-1-2 consistently.

The caps maybe got one or two long possessions the whole games. If the Rangers played with that game plan(or had a functional power play), this series doesn't go 7 games.

But, I'm going to need more than one game to change my tune. They certainly didn't change their breakout plans in that game. They just dominated the caps along the boards. Thats going to be very different against the Bruins most likely.
So that 5-0 victory is fine with you. But the 4-3, 4-3, 1-0 victories weren't up to your lofty standards, huh?

The entered each one of those games with the same game plan. Conditioning and wanting to win game 7 more had more to do with the outcome than any major tweaking to the system.

But it must be nice to be an armchair quarterback and create the narrative you want based on the final score of the game.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:17 PM
  #707
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,490
vCash: 500
Say what you want about Sather but...

We turned a washed up expensive player for McDonagh.

Got salary cap relief because of it. Turned the salary cap relief into Gaborik. Gaborik had 2 40 goal seasons for us and helped us get 1st in the east last year and was pretty big against Washington last year. So he helped us get to the Conference Finals.

When he saw that Gaborik might have become an aging washed up expensive player himself he traded him for:

1) A guy that was our MVP skater against Washington and has 1st line center potential.

2) A defenseman that has 1st pair potential.

3) A pretty damn useful agitator.

All 3 are young.

Oh and McDonagh shut down Ovechkin in the series.

Game set match.

SnowblindNYR is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:21 PM
  #708
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,156
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
Say what you want about Sather but...

We turned a washed up expensive player for McDonagh.

Got salary cap relief because of it. Turned the salary cap relief into Gaborik. Gaborik had 2 40 goal seasons for us and helped us get 1st in the east last year and was pretty big against Washington last year. So he helped us get to the Conference Finals.

When he saw that Gaborik might have become an aging washed up expensive player himself he traded him for:

1) A guy that was our MVP skater against Washington and has 1st line center potential.

2) A defenseman that has 1st pair potential.

3) A pretty damn useful agitator.

All 3 are young.

Oh and McDonagh shut down Ovechkin in the series.

Game set match.
Why did he sign the washed up expensive player in the first place?

After the failure of the washed up expensive player, why did he then use his miracle cap space to give another big contract? And what about the 9M fourth line center?

He's managed to escape from mistakes. I would prefer he stop making the mistakes in the first place.

Glen Sather — master of the mulligan par.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:22 PM
  #709
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
Say what you want about Sather but...

We turned a washed up expensive player for McDonagh.

Got salary cap relief because of it. Turned the salary cap relief into Gaborik. Gaborik had 2 40 goal seasons for us and helped us get 1st in the east last year and was pretty big against Washington last year. So he helped us get to the Conference Finals.

When he saw that Gaborik might have become an aging washed up expensive player himself he traded him for:

1) A guy that was our MVP skater against Washington and has 1st line center potential.

2) A defenseman that has 1st pair potential.

3) A pretty damn useful agitator.

All 3 are young.

Oh and McDonagh shut down Ovechkin in the series.

Game set match.
I think you're overrating Brassard and Moore's ceilings, but yea, I get the point.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:28 PM
  #710
Ryan McDonut
McD for Captain
 
Ryan McDonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 3,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by usernamesteph View Post
I hate torts cuz he gives the overmatched zuccarello wayyyy too much ice time
zucc looks great out there with brassard. not sure why you think he's overmatched

Ryan McDonut is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:31 PM
  #711
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Why did he sign the washed up expensive player in the first place?

After the failure of the washed up expensive player, why did he then use his miracle cap space to give another big contract? And what about the 9M fourth line center?

He's managed to escape from mistakes. I would prefer he stop making the mistakes in the first place.

Glen Sather master of the mulligan par.
If he doesn't sign those players do we have trading chips to get McDonagh, Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett? Sure he made mistakes but he's a net positive BY FAR. We may not get McDonagh with someone else. We almost certainly don't get that trio with someone else.

SnowblindNYR is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:33 PM
  #712
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,156
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
If he doesn't sign those players do we have trading chips to get McDonagh, Brassard, Moore, and Dorsett? Sure he made mistakes but he's a net positive BY FAR. We may not get McDonagh with someone else. We almost certainly don't get that trio with someone else.
Come on. Let's not act as though that was the intent when he handed out the bad contracts to Gomez and Gaborik.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:34 PM
  #713
Homebrew76
Registered User
 
Homebrew76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NB, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 495
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nac Mac Feegle View Post
When your opponent is laying flat on the ground, never give him an opportunity to get back up.
Don't tell that to Chris Kelly's elbow or you'll have a bloody nose to show for it.

Oh, you were speaking metaphorically! lol

Homebrew76 is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:34 PM
  #714
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,804
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Come on. Let's not act as though that was the intent when he handed out the bad contracts to Gomez and Gaborik.
Don't see how the Gaborik contract was bad.

Thirty One is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:36 PM
  #715
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 18,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
I think you're overrating Brassard and Moore's ceilings, but yea, I get the point.
IMO, Brassard is the 2nd most talented player on the Rangers (after Nash) and has a high IQ to boot. It seems like his struggles in Columbus came from a lack of confidence. Watch him play he has excellent hands, great vision, and great passing skills. He won't be a 100 point player but I don't see why he can't be at least a borderline top line guy. Also I don't know why I'm overrating Moore's potential. He has similar skill to McDonagh and a better shot. McDonagh was supposed to have just 2nd line potential his rookie year.

SnowblindNYR is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:42 PM
  #716
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,747
vCash: 500
Llike I said when the deal was made, the Gaborik trade has Gorton's finger prints all over it. Two guys from the '06 draft that Gorton ran for the Bruins. Skill down the middle. Size and grit on the wings. Big, mobile defenders with poise.

Call it bias towards Sather if you like, but I'm giving Gorton the credit on the Gabby deal.

Trxjw is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:43 PM
  #717
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,156
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
Don't see how the Gaborik contract was bad.
It worked out better than Drury, Gomez and Redden if that's what you mean.

Go back to when Sather handed out the contract:

1) He had already failed on big-ticket items.

2) He gave a multi-million dollar, multi-year deal to a guy who played a total of 17 games the previous season and hadn't played over 80 games in the previous three.

Now, Gaborik did perform well for at times (a good seasons, a mediocre seaseon, a good season and bad season), but it's still a big ticket item that ultimately fell apart here and had to be dealt.

But let's assume that the Gaborik was an unqualified good move. What's the difference between the Gaborik deal and the Redden and Drury deals? Well, Gaboirik was 27 at the time. Meaning in theory Sather was paying for what he could do, not for what he's done. Lesson learned, right? Explain the Brad Richards deal then?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:47 PM
  #718
usernamesteph
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 91
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan McDonut View Post
zucc looks great out there with brassard. not sure why you think he's overmatched
I'm just kidding, zucca is the man

Obv

usernamesteph is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:49 PM
  #719
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It worked out better than Drury, Gomez and Redden if that's what you mean.

Go back to when Sather handed out the contract:

1) He had already failed on big-ticket items.

2) He gave a multi-million dollar, multi-year deal to a guy who played a total of 17 games the previous season and hadn't played over 80 games in the previous three.

Now, Gaborik did perform well for at times (a good seasons, a mediocre seaseon, a good season and bad season), but it's still a big ticket item that ultimately fell apart here and had to be dealt.

But let's assume that the Gaborik was an unqualified good move. What's the difference between the Gaborik deal and the Redden and Drury deals? Well, Gaboirik was 27 at the time. Meaning in theory Sather was paying for what he could do, not for what he's done. Lesson learned, right? Explain the Brad Richards deal then?
Sign what was considered the best option for one of the Rangers' biggest weaknesses - 1st line center - which is what Richards was last year. Unlike the Drury and Gomez signings, which were clear overpayments, as well as overkill. Richards was signed to a somewhat cap-friendly deal, (pre-new CBA). The new CBA changed the ramifications of the Richards' deal.

jas is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:50 PM
  #720
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,804
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
It worked out better than Drury, Gomez and Redden if that's what you mean.
No, I mean it was a good signing--without qualification of any kind. I don't believe there was a better use of the $30 million in cap space that was spent on him in his time here. Do you?

Thirty One is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:52 PM
  #721
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,156
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
Sign what was considered the best option for one of the Rangers' biggest weaknesses - 1st line center - which is what Richards was last year.

To a 9 year deal? Haven't we learned the "one player away UFA fix" doesn't work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jas View Post
Unlike the Drury and Gomez signings, which were clear overpayments, as well as overkill. Richards was signed to a somewhat cap-friendly deal, (pre-new CBA). The new CBA changed the ramifications of the Richards' deal.
The MO was the same as the Drury and Gomez deals. And did the expiration of the CBA sneak up on him?

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:52 PM
  #722
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,156
vCash: 500
Awards:
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
No, I mean it was a good signing--without qualification of any kind. I don't believe there was a better use of the $30 million in cap space that was spent on him in his time here. Do you?
Really lowering the bar there.

SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:54 PM
  #723
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by -31- View Post
No, I mean it was a good signing--without qualification of any kind. I don't believe there was a better use of the $30 million in cap space that was spent on him in his time here. Do you?
All things considered, probably not.

That 08-09 team had a first line of Voros-Dubinsky-Zherdev for a while. It was an awful roster devoid of any goal scoring. Gaborik came in here and filled that void in a guy way most of the time he was here. After almost 4 seasons, his limited game ran its course though.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 01:55 PM
  #724
Blueshirt Believer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6,566
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
So that 5-0 victory is fine with you. But the 4-3, 4-3, 1-0 victories weren't up to your lofty standards, huh?

The entered each one of those games with the same game plan. Conditioning and wanting to win game 7 more had more to do with the outcome than any major tweaking to the system.

But it must be nice to be an armchair quarterback and create the narrative you want based on the final score of the game.
The 4-3 win games were games the Rangers let the caps consistently tee up from the points. The caps, especially in game 4, controlled most of the game(we got mostly outplayed). Hank stood tall, and the Rangers exposed Caps D with some opportunistic goals.

There wasn't real sustained pressure in any of those games until last night. If you want to talk about how conditioning was better for the Rangers, whatever. Hey, I thought since Torts didn't have a training camp conditioning was a problem with this team? Now its a plus?

You wanna know the difference in our breakouts were last night. It wasn't an adjustment from Torts. It was the Caps, instead of trying to stay away from the wall and move the puck up high, tried to play in the corners against us. The Caps suck at forechecking. That allowed any Ranger battle won along the wall free passage up the neutral zone.

Blueshirt Believer is offline  
Old
05-14-2013, 02:00 PM
  #725
Thirty One
portnor, pls
 
Thirty One's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,804
vCash: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway View Post
Really lowering the bar there.
I'm blown away.

How should we evaluate UFA signings then?

Thirty One is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.