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

Recurring issues with this team

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-10-2013, 11:28 AM
  #101
94now
Registered User
 
94now's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Snow Belt, USA
Country: United Nations
Posts: 6,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mullichicken25 View Post
the Rangers haven't struggled in recent history because of a lack of heart, they've struggled from a lack of scoring, plain and simple. Look at their more successul seasons since the lockout and what do you see? Jagr and Gaborik scoring like madmen
Heartless and gutless superstars they were. Good point.

94now is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 11:46 AM
  #102
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,957
vCash: 500
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.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 12:04 PM
  #103
offdacrossbar
with the 10th pick..
 
offdacrossbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: da cuse
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 8,917
vCash: 500
lack of goal scoring and piz poor pp is the route cause of most of our woes.

a close second is our fixation with north american farm boy/hockey players who are all seemingly interchangeable 3rd liner types whos main attribute is effort/energy/ character and hands like lobster claws.

in short, we are an organization of ryan callahans. and i love ryan callahan, i really do.... but a team full of them will result in:

trying hard
hitting alot
showing up most every night
missing the net often
a sketchy pp
losing close games
being mostly void of offensive talent
and not scoring many goals outside of 10 ft from the goal mouth

sound familiar ?


oh ya, and vlad tarasenko has 3 points in 3 games....

offdacrossbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 12:06 PM
  #104
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 29,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
lack of goal scoring and piz poor pp is the route cause of most of our woes.

a close second is our fixation with north american farm boy/hockey players who are all seemingly interchangeable 3rd liner types whos main attribute is effort/energy/ character and hands like lobster claws.

in short, we are an organization of ryan callahans. and i love ryan callahan, i really do.... but a team full of them will result in:

trying hard
hitting alot
showing up most every night
missing the net often
a sketchy pp
losing close games
being mostly void of offensive talent
and not scoring many goals outside of 10 ft from the goal mouth

sound familiar ?


oh ya, and vlad tarasenko has 3 points in 3 games....
Do we really have to get into this again?

Please list out the rest of the 1st round. Thanks.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 12:17 PM
  #105
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,831
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.
Congratulations -- I don't think I've seen a post that captures the essence of backwards thinking like this one.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 01:05 PM
  #106
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
Congratulations -- I don't think I've seen a post that captures the essence of backwards thinking like this one.
Interesting reply.

It in no way addresses any of the points that I made about the numerous and varied coaching deficiencies and their impact on the teams play, but still.

Perhaps if I re-worded my post so it more directly indicted Sather it would please you.

That should be the only point of any post on these boards right?

Threads like these always pop up at the same time every year. A big loss. A two game losing streak. The end of the season.

And its always the same nonsense. The same posters pushing <insert agenda>, reading as if they typed their answers off pre-created index cards drawn at random from the complaint box at some sort of "Disgruntled and Uninformed Rangers Fan Club" meeting.

There is plenty of obtuse and backwards thinking on this board. Plenty. Just not sure you are properly able to identify it.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 01:36 PM
  #107
Fire Sather
4 MORE YEARS!
 
Fire Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 22,181
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Fire Sather
Quote:
Originally Posted by offdacrossbar View Post
lack of goal scoring and piz poor pp is the route cause of most of our woes.

a close second is our fixation with north american farm boy/hockey players who are all seemingly interchangeable 3rd liner types whos main attribute is effort/energy/ character and hands like lobster claws.

in short, we are an organization of ryan callahans. and i love ryan callahan, i really do.... but a team full of them will result in:

trying hard
hitting alot
showing up most every night
missing the net often
a sketchy pp
losing close games
being mostly void of offensive talent
and not scoring many goals outside of 10 ft from the goal mouth

sound familiar ?


oh ya, and vlad tarasenko has 3 points in 3 games....
A team full of them would result in 12 forwards who can all score 20 goals and play great defensively.

But we hardly have a "team full of them"

Fire Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 02:07 PM
  #108
TheTakedown764
Registered User
 
TheTakedown764's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 4,929
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.
thank you. Very accurate

TheTakedown764 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 03:01 PM
  #109
mullichicken25
Registered User
 
mullichicken25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NJ
Posts: 2,594
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.
Most reasonable people here agree that the time had come to move on to a new head coach, myself included.

However you're painting a pretty negative picture of the Torts-era rangers here and convieniently ignoring the team's best season since 94. Obviously there's plenty of merit in your points, but you're describing it as an absolute gong-show that it never really was.

The disappointment of the 2012 season doesn't change the fact that the 2011 team was the most consistant and well coached team we've seen in a long time.

mullichicken25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 04:20 PM
  #110
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
Interesting reply.

It in no way addresses any of the points that I made about the numerous and varied coaching deficiencies and their impact on the teams play, but still.

Perhaps if I re-worded my post so it more directly indicted Sather it would please you.

That should be the only point of any post on these boards right?

Threads like these always pop up at the same time every year. A big loss. A two game losing streak. The end of the season.

And its always the same nonsense. The same posters pushing <insert agenda>, reading as if they typed their answers off pre-created index cards drawn at random from the complaint box at some sort of "Disgruntled and Uninformed Rangers Fan Club" meeting.

There is plenty of obtuse and backwards thinking on this board. Plenty. Just not sure you are properly able to identify it.
What is there to address? You are treating an NHL team like a bunch of pee-wee players who need to learn the game before they can be properly evaluated. Its rubbish.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 05:34 PM
  #111
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mullichicken25 View Post
Most reasonable people here agree that the time had come to move on to a new head coach, myself included.

However you're painting a pretty negative picture of the Torts-era rangers here and convieniently ignoring the team's best season since 94. Obviously there's plenty of merit in your points, but you're describing it as an absolute gong-show that it never really was.

The disappointment of the 2012 season doesn't change the fact that the 2011 team was the most consistant and well coached team we've seen in a long time.
It was a negative picture because I only pointed out my problems with Torts. Or more specifically Torts system.

There was a lot to like about Torts. He helped develop and mature some of our key players. He instilled an accountability that the team hadn't seen since Keenan. The Rangers had a great work ethic. For the most part the teams conditioning was outstanding. All of this added up to an identity that was fun to root for.

But Torts was not an X's and O's guy. His system was a disjointed and its no surprised that Rangers struggled when teams had time to adjust to the Rangers game.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 05:37 PM
  #112
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,957
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue View Post
What is there to address? You are treating an NHL team like a bunch of pee-wee players who need to learn the game before they can be properly evaluated. Its rubbish.
You're right.

Coaching doesn't matter at all. It has no bearing on the teams success.

Teams just send 5 guys out at a time and hope for the best.

McRanger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 06:08 PM
  #113
Bleed Ranger Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 15,831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger View Post
You're right.

Coaching doesn't matter at all. It has no bearing on the teams success.

Teams just send 5 guys out at a time and hope for the best.
Didn't say that.

But to put so much credence into coaching that it prohibits you from even thinking about analyzing the roster is, in a word, ridiculous.

Bleed Ranger Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 06:13 PM
  #114
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94now View Post
Heartless and gutless superstars they were. Good point.
I must be misunderstanding your post. Are you calling Jagr heartless?

chosen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2013, 06:18 PM
  #115
chosen
Registered User
 
chosen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,735
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
Old
10-10-2013, 06:24 PM
  #116
TheTakedown764
Registered User
 
TheTakedown764's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 4,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chosen View Post
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.
There is no one good coach. All humans are different, and process data into different information using different methods. it's a way of life for all...

The best coaches are the ones that adapt, and continue to adapt, and do so with the right mentality and right motivation... it really comes down to a moral/personal motivational standpoint...
you instill that into your players, and they will begin to learn your ways, and that is how a well coached team looks

TheTakedown764 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:44 AM.

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.