I can't be lieve we once debated O'Reilly vs. Stepan. Derek Stepan>>>>>>>>>>>>O'Reilly.
- tomburton99

Where are all the Stepan bashers now? On Yankees Buzz (or Bizz); trying to trade their team for the Nationals; or even for the Mets now!

in a tough weird little season, I think the best parts have been the huge leaps forward for Derek Stepan and Michael Del Zotto.

Stepan will be looking for some serious bank this summer

And hey, Marian Gaborik. Two goals in his last 70 shots on net. TWO.

But, if Lindy Ruff was coach, at least 8 more of those shots go in, right?

in a tough weird little season, I think the best parts have been the huge leaps forward for Derek Stepan and Michael Del Zotto.

Stepan will be looking for some serious bank this summer

And hey, Marian Gaborik. Two goals in his last 70 shots on net. TWO.

But, if Lindy Ruff was coach, at least 8 more of those shots go in, right?
- jimbro83

I didn't think under this coach he is allowed to take 70 shots. That sounds like he is attacking the net. The nerve of him. I guess the coaching staff needs to show this pro hockey player what the difference is between a slap and a wrist shot just to teach offense.

It has been weird but through it all theyvatcleast showed some guts last night.

I didn't think under this coach he is allowed to take 70 shots. That sounds like he is attacking the net. The nerve of him. I guess the coaching staff needs to show this pro hockey player what the difference is between a slap and a wrist shot just to teach offense.

It has been weird but through it all theyvatcleast showed some guts last night.
- Blueshirts4ever

You have taken exception over the last few days to people criticizing Torts' admission that he doesn't really coach offense. I don't want to mischaracterize you, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that a professional hockey coach shouldn't have to coach offense. The players should just know it.

So, here is my question. What is the purpose of a coach? If they should have to coach offense, what should they coach? If the players should just naturally know offense, should they also naturally know defense? Or, should the coach not even have to coach that either? Or special teams, should the coach have to coach a powerplay? Or a penalty kill?

If he is not responsible for coaching these things, and the players should just know them, why even have the coach? Just get rid of the coach, save the extra scratch, and give the season ticket holders a small refund so they go to Applebees.

And if a coach doesn't do anything, and it's all the players, then does Torts get any credit for last year? If he doesn't get blame for this year's offense? Why does he get credit for last year?

Last in the league in goals, still, even after last night's avalanche of goals.

How about this? I'll admit that it ain't all Tort's fault, if you admit that he at least bears some responsibility. Do we have an accord? And then we can move forward like happy clams until whatever tomorrow night may bring.

in a tough weird little season, I think the best parts have been the huge leaps forward for Derek Stepan and Michael Del Zotto.

Stepan will be looking for some serious bank this summer

And hey, Marian Gaborik. Two goals in his last 70 shots on net. TWO.

But, if Lindy Ruff was coach, at least 8 more of those shots go in, right?
- jimbro83

Couldn't score on a drunken Jersey Shore slob. He is having a miserable time scoring this season, understatement of the day huh?

You have taken exception over the last few days to people criticizing Torts' admission that he doesn't really coach offense. I don't want to mischaracterize you, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that a professional hockey coach shouldn't have to coach offense. The players should just know it.

So, here is my question. What is the purpose of a coach? If they should have to coach offense, what should they coach? If the players should just naturally know offense, should they also naturally know defense? Or, should the coach not even have to coach that either? Or special teams, should the coach have to coach a powerplay? Or a penalty kill?

If he is not responsible for coaching these things, and the players should just know them, why even have the coach? Just get rid of the coach, save the extra scratch, and give the season ticket holders a small refund so they go to Applebees.

And if a coach doesn't do anything, and it's all the players, then does Torts get any credit for last year? If he doesn't get blame for this year's offense? Why does he get credit for last year?

Last in the league in goals, still, even after last night's avalanche of goals.

How about this? I'll admit that it ain't all Tort's fault, if you admit that he at least bears some responsibility. Do we have an accord? And then we can move forward like happy clams until whatever tomorrow night may bring.
- Pete V

Pete, like most players involved with lousy season, I think Torts has had a lousy year.

Personally, I just think this system stuff is way overblown.

This team has created offense all year, it's been their ability to finish that's been their downfall for the most part, IMO.

I think the biggest criticism that should be directed at Torts is the amount of times this team has not been ready to play at the start of a game.

But, I refuse to blame Gaborik's incomprehensibly bad season on the coach, I completely 100% blame the player in this case. He is taking up 7.5 million in cap space. Put the effing puck in the net. I see this head case getting glorious opportunities game in and game out and blowing them.

But, with the amount of expectations this team had, I am not going to defend Torts. If he ultimately gets fired, so be it, I just don't think a different coach is suddenly going to make Gaborik find the corners instead of the goalie pads when he shoots.

Jay-Bo to the Blues. What happened? Wade Redden not cutting it?

You have taken exception over the last few days to people criticizing Torts' admission that he doesn't really coach offense. I don't want to mischaracterize you, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that a professional hockey coach shouldn't have to coach offense. The players should just know it.

So, here is my question. What is the purpose of a coach? If they should have to coach offense, what should they coach? If the players should just naturally know offense, should they also naturally know defense? Or, should the coach not even have to coach that either? Or special teams, should the coach have to coach a powerplay? Or a penalty kill?

If he is not responsible for coaching these things, and the players should just know them, why even have the coach? Just get rid of the coach, save the extra scratch, and give the season ticket holders a small refund so they go to Applebees.

And if a coach doesn't do anything, and it's all the players, then does Torts get any credit for last year? If he doesn't get blame for this year's offense? Why does he get credit for last year?

Last in the league in goals, still, even after last night's avalanche of goals.

How about this? I'll admit that it ain't all Tort's fault, if you admit that he at least bears some responsibility. Do we have an accord? And then we can move forward like happy clams until whatever tomorrow night may bring.
- Pete V

Yes we do have an accord. I never said that Torts doesn't deserve part of the blame for whats happened just like I don't think he deserves all of the credit last season.

Should a coah teach special teams of course, he should. Does he deserve part of the blame, yes and for the PK as much as the PPl. So again, I am not absolving Tortorella here. What he means by he doesn't coach offense is that once they get in the zone, he allows their instincts to take over. He has always said he provides them with concepts, getting the puck to certain areas, getting the puck to the net from the points, wall play, etc. I think what people are talking about in here is basically they want the Rangers to play pond hockey which is a very dangerous way to play b/c what will invariably happen is you get countered with odd mans and that is something the Rangers don't want to have happen. I happen to think when you hear the word system people think its about attacking. When in fact its almost always about the way you defend.

I have a soccer background and the concepts are very similar, in soccer you never hear coaches giving specific instructions while in the attcking third. You give players a framework then you let their talents takeover, but when we teach defending, we teach systems and we adjust systems to the way our opponents play. In hockey you hear 1-2-2 or Left Wing lock, or neutral zone trap in the old days, those are systems predicated on defense. I don't recall coaches naming systems after the way they attack. Look at Pitt last season and what a lack of defensive organization did to them, the nlook at what Jersey did to Philly.

In the Rangers case they are getting chances, they are not finishing, to me thats a lack of execution on the players parts. Gabby had a sequence last night in which he skated through two d-men, takes a shot, gets his own rebound and Pavlec still made the save. In baseball terms he is hittng the ball hard but right at people. Keeping with the baseball comparison, when a slugger is in a slump, how much do you think his hitting coach really does? He is a pro, thats my point. I think most coaches in the NHL let their talent play instinctively. When you have two of your 3 most gifted players not executing it looks bad.

I don't know if this satisfies you or not but thats my take. He does deserve some blame, I don't think he should be fired when clearly the team has become more top heavy.

Larry Brooks today says there is "considerable interest" around the league in Brian Boyle.

SWEEPSTAKES BABY!!!!

Yes we do have an accord. I never said that Torts doesn't deserve part of the blame for whats happened just like I don't think he deserves all of the credit last season.

Should a coah teach special teams of course, he should. Does he deserve part of the blame, yes and for the PK as much as the PPl. So again, I am not absolving Tortorella here. What he means by he doesn't coach offense is that once they get in the zone, he allows their instincts to take over. He has always said he provides them with concepts, getting the puck to certain areas, getting the puck to the net from the points, wall play, etc. I think what people are talking about in here is basically they want the Rangers to play pond hockey which is a very dangerous way to play b/c what will invariably happen is you get countered with odd mans and that is something the Rangers don't want to have happen. I happen to think when you hear the word system people think its about attacking. When in fact its almost always about the way you defend.

I have a soccer background and the concepts are very similar, in soccer you never hear coaches giving specific instructions while in the attcking third. You give players a framework then you let their talents takeover, but when we teach defending, we teach systems and we adjust systems to the way our opponents play. In hockey you hear 1-2-2 or Left Wing lock, or neutral zone trap in the old days, those are systems predicated on defense. I don't recall coaches naming systems after the way they attack. Look at Pitt last season and what a lack of defensive organization did to them, the nlook at what Jersey did to Philly.

In the Rangers case they are getting chances, they are not finishing, to me thats a lack of execution on the players parts. Gabby had a sequence last night in which he skated through two d-men, takes a shot, gets his own rebound and Pavlec still made the save. In baseball terms he is hittng the ball hard but right at people. Keeping with the baseball comparison, when a slugger is in a slump, how much do you think his hitting coach really does? He is a pro, thats my point. I think most coaches in the NHL let their talent play instinctively. When you have two of your 3 most gifted players not executing it looks bad.

I don't know if this satisfies you or not but thats my take. He does deserve some blame, I don't think he should be fired when clearly the team has become more top heavy.
- Blueshirts4ever

I agree. I don't think Torts should be fired, but should certainly change his team's style of play. If he can't or won't do that, then yes...it may be time for him to go. Otherwise, Torts stays.

I will say that Sully needs to go unless Sather brings in someone to teach an actual powerplay. Sully is doing well on the PK and defense, so keep him there and have someone else lead the PP at practice.

Larry Brooks today says there is "considerable interest" around the league in Brian Boyle.

SWEEPSTAKES BABY!!!!
- jimbro83

Size is literally the only reason why there is interest for this slug. Hope some team is dumb enough to take him off of the the Rangers hands.

Size is literally the only reason why there is interest for this slug. Hope some team is dumb enough to take him off of the the Rangers hands.
- MidnightMarauder

I hope so too, although he did take most faceoffs on team last night, and since they dumped Halpern, which was sort of weird, didn't have chance to comment on that, I just wonder who is taking them.

Unless last night was a showcase of Boyle, that's why he got 17 minutes and once he goes, Miller will play more and take more draws.

Jay-Bo to the Blues. What happened? Wade Redden not cutting it?
- mames11

The Blues are going for it, as evidenced by that blockbuster deal for Jordan Leopold. As Ek would say, dominoes...

I very much appreciate hearing your guys point of view. It makes me reconsider my own. I think the bottomline is that this is our team for the rest of the year. Torts isn't going anywhere, and neither are most of these players, so regardless of the fun little academic debates we have on here, we aren't going get to see whether another coach would get better results out of this team. Nobody will be able to prove themselves right, and who really cares anyway? I have no interest in being right. I have no interest and doing the I told you so thing. My only interest is in the Rangers winning.

So, let's go Rangers!

And plus, we have other things to talk about with the trade deadline.

Larry Brooks today says there is "considerable interest" around the league in Brian Boyle.

SWEEPSTAKES BABY!!!!
- jimbro83

I wouldn't trade Boyle. Sounds silly to say, I know. But...

Who would replace him:

On defensive faceoffs?
On the PK (who other than Cally blocks as many shots)?
Boyle also leads the team in hits.

Where his scoring in enigmatic (who on the Rangers' isn't), he has become a major force as a defensive forward. With his size, I wish he was a tad more physical, but he seems to be gaining confidence in this part of his game and is making more heavy hits lately.

Unless Sather adds Boyle to the deal with Gaborik to San Jose for Clowe and (the other) Boyle, I'd keep him.

I hope so too, although he did take most faceoffs on team last night, and since they dumped Halpern, which was sort of weird, didn't have chance to comment on that, I just wonder who is taking them.

Unless last night was a showcase of Boyle, that's why he got 17 minutes and once he goes, Miller will play more and take more draws.
- jimbro83

Depending on what the Rangers do, it will leave the team no choice but to permanently place Miller on the third line. Problem with that is Tortorella's inability to trust him in a close contest.

I think you are right in the Rangers showcasing Boyle last night. But losing key face offs and hanging a -2 on the evening isn't exactly enticing to interested teams. Hoping these unknown teams weren't deterred and he is no longer a Rangers by tomorrow night.

You have taken exception over the last few days to people criticizing Torts' admission that he doesn't really coach offense. I don't want to mischaracterize you, so correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that a professional hockey coach shouldn't have to coach offense. The players should just know it.

So, here is my question. What is the purpose of a coach? If they should have to coach offense, what should they coach? If the players should just naturally know offense, should they also naturally know defense? Or, should the coach not even have to coach that either? Or special teams, should the coach have to coach a powerplay? Or a penalty kill?

If he is not responsible for coaching these things, and the players should just know them, why even have the coach? Just get rid of the coach, save the extra scratch, and give the season ticket holders a small refund so they go to Applebees.

And if a coach doesn't do anything, and it's all the players, then does Torts get any credit for last year? If he doesn't get blame for this year's offense? Why does he get credit for last year?

Last in the league in goals, still, even after last night's avalanche of goals.

How about this? I'll admit that it ain't all Tort's fault, if you admit that he at least bears some responsibility. Do we have an accord? And then we can move forward like happy clams until whatever tomorrow night may bring.
- Pete V

Great points, Pete. Why bother teaching defense too, why doesn't that come naturally? It makes no sense.

Another thing that pisses me off is that blame always goes to the players. I read quotes from Mike Babcock after the Wings lost to Chicago 7-1. He said that the team didn't come out ready to play, and he takes full responsibility for that happening.

I very much appreciate hearing your guys point of view. It makes me reconsider my own. I think the bottomline is that this is our team for the rest of the year. Torts isn't going anywhere, and neither are most of these players, so regardless of the fun little academic debates we have on here, we aren't going get to see whether another coach would get better results out of this team. Nobody will be able to prove themselves right, and who really cares anyway? I have no interest in being right. I have no interest and doing the I told you so thing. My only interest is in the Rangers winning.

So, let's go Rangers!

And plus, we have other things to talk about with the trade deadline.
- Pete V

Pass the marshmallows, . There is nothing wrong with discussing differences, that is what this board is for, well mostly anyway. All opinions are welcome, no matter how wrong they might seem to some people.

Personally I like seeing disagreements because we can see another point of view that you might not have seen prior to it.

Having said that, it's all Tortorella's fault.

Pass the marshmallows, . There is nothing wrong with discussing differences, that is what this board is for, well mostly anyway. All opinions are welcome, no matter how wrong they might seem to some people.

Personally I like seeing disagreements because we can see another point of view that you might not have seen prior to it.

Having said that, it's all Tortorella's fault.
- MidnightMarauder

I don't like being in the echo chamber. The place wouldn't be fun if that was the case. Having said that, you're still a marshmallow, Marauder.

Great points, Pete. Why bother teaching defense too, why doesn't that come naturally? It makes no sense.

Another thing that pisses me off is that blame always goes to the players. I read quotes from Mike Babcock after the Wings lost to Chicago 7-1. He said that the team didn't come out ready to play, and he takes full responsibility for that happening.
- TheMessiah94

the coaching staff should definitely be criticized for Zucc not knowing the new rule about closing hand on puck.

I know it didn't hurt us and Torts joked about it after the game, but that is definitely a bad job there.

I very much appreciate hearing your guys point of view. It makes me reconsider my own. I think the bottomline is that this is our team for the rest of the year. Torts isn't going anywhere, and neither are most of these players, so regardless of the fun little academic debates we have on here, we aren't going get to see whether another coach would get better results out of this team. Nobody will be able to prove themselves right, and who really cares anyway? I have no interest in being right. I have no interest and doing the I told you so thing. My only interest is in the Rangers winning.

So, let's go Rangers!

And plus, we have other things to talk about with the trade deadline.
- Pete V

Word up!

That game on the 13th should be a real doozy w the Islanders, Ill be there. Really developing that hate again for the Isles, especially with the teams neck & neck & needing them to lose every night.

the coaching staff should definitely be criticized for Zucc not knowing the new rule about closing hand on puck.

I know it didn't hurt us and Torts joked about it after the game, but that is definitely a bad job there.
- jimbro83

Torts yucking it up afterwards was actually kind of refreshing but yes, that was probably something they should have told him about.

Great points, Pete. Why bother teaching defense too, why doesn't that come naturally? It makes no sense.

Another thing that pisses me off is that blame always goes to the players. I read quotes from Mike Babcock after the Wings lost to Chicago 7-1. He said that the team didn't come out ready to play, and he takes full responsibility for that happening.
- TheMessiah94

Because team defending doesn't come naturally to the all day all night joy of playing hockey in your backyard in Canada. I don't know about you but when I played nerf basketball as a kid I was dunking like Mike. Or when I was winning Stanley Cups in my basement I wasn't winning them by lauding my defnsive zone coverage, I was picking corners in Game 7 in OT then skated around with a tin foil cup in my Rangers jersey. You know you guys did the same thing

I got laughed at for saying Stepan is going to be our #1 center in a few years but he's really making a strong case for himself. Best things for me are, he makes his teammates better when they play with him. And he always seems to be getting the primary assists that directly lead to goals. Might just be my favorite player right now