Disagree with entering a dark period; this team is not without hope. There is a lot of deadweight on the roster but some bright spots on it too.

Let's call it for what it is: most of the players, we thought were reliable, are letting the team down in a big way.

Girardi and McDonagh have been disgraceful so far. Lundqvist is a shell of his usual self, Stepan--good decision on holding out--looks a step slow and his decision making is as bad as I have seen it. Callahan is still getting into game shape and it shows. Now Nash can't stay in the lineup due to injuries.

These are all proven top notch players and nobody is carrying their end of the bargain as of now.

Then you got the rest of this group with nobody stepping up. It's so easy to blame the coach but this looks like a group that is just not interested in playing hockey for the New York Rangers. The players need to be held more accountable than they are and maybe we should expect this continue if none of these players wake up and start to care.
- MidnightMarauder

it's hard not to think there was a big sigh of relief that big bad John Tortorella was gone. They were lucky they didn't have to deal with his intense training camp last season because of the lockout, and this year they had Club Med in Banff, Alberta to get themselves ready for a season.

The conditioning level of these players looks nothing like even what they had during Renney's tenure.

I was a proponent of hiring Vigneault, but that is fading really fast at this point.

My issue from the day they made the coaching change is they are taking this team away from what it does best which is defend and defend hard. The Bruins are a complete version of what the Rangers used to be. In watching this team now, there is no doubt Sather is behind this by himself. I'm not even saying they shouldn't have fired Torts, but why get away from what they did really well?? 3 game 7 wins don't mean anything?? If Torts lost the team they don't win game 6 at home in the 1st round!! They were overmatched by Boston lots of teams were! Its a post season sport isn't it?? Did they not have success in the post-season?? I don't care that its 4 games in, they are not even close, and I don't want to hear excuses, they're hideous right now, talk about systems?? Pond hockey doesn't work in the NHL especially when you don't have pond hockey players!!

Go ahead blast me I don't care

it's hard not to think there was a big sigh of relief that big bad John Tortorella was gone. They were lucky they didn't have to deal with his intense training camp last season because of the lockout, and this year they had Club Med in Banff, Alberta to get themselves ready for a season.

The conditioning level of these players looks nothing like even what they had during Renney's tenure.

I was a proponent of hiring Vigneault, but that is fading really fast at this point.
- jimbro83

Hard to have heart when your coach seems to have none either, I'm at a total loss for words, explanations or excuses, this is the worst possible start, a complete nightmare and debacle

My issue from the day they made the coaching change is they are taking this team away from what it does best which is defend and defend hard. The are a complete version of what the Rangers used to be. In watching this team now, there is no doubt Sather is behind this by himself. I'm not even saying they shouldn't have fired Torts, but why get away from what they did really well?? 3 game 7 wins don't mean anything?? If Torts lost the team they don't win game 6 at home in the 1st round!! They were overmatched by Boston lots of teams were! Its a post season sport isn't it?? Did they not have success in the post-season?? I don't care that its 4 games in, they are not even close, and I don't want to hear excuses, they're hideous right now, talk about systems?? Pond hockey doesn't work in the NHL especially when you don't have pond hockey players!!

Go ahead blast me I don't care
- Blueshirts4ever

Not going to blast you even one tiny bit. Before the season started Sather mentioned how the injuries last year decimated the team in the playoffs, but injuries weren't allowed to be an excuse for why Torts was fired.

The team "quit" on John Tortorella. But I don't think a team wins a game 4 in overtime vs Boston if they quit and I remember every second of game 5 in Boston, Roman Hamrlik gave that game away personally. And Torts had no choice but to play him do to the injuries. So, everything Sather says contradicts the facts in my opinion.

My issue from the day they made the coaching change is they are taking this team away from what it does best which is defend and defend hard. The are a complete version of what the Rangers used to be. In watching this team now, there is no doubt Sather is behind this by himself. I'm not even saying they shouldn't have fired Torts, but why get away from what they did really well?? 3 game 7 wins don't mean anything?? If Torts lost the team they don't win game 6 at home in the 1st round!! They were overmatched by Boston lots of teams were! Its a post season sport isn't it?? Did they not have success in the post-season?? I don't care that its 4 games in, they are not even close, and I don't want to hear excuses, they're hideous right now, talk about systems?? Pond hockey doesn't work in the NHL especially when you don't have pond hockey players!!

Go ahead blast me I don't care
- Blueshirts4ever

I don't think anyone can blast you for this. You are pretty much dead-on with your view here.

Should Torts have been fired...probably. Shoud the team make a complete 180 turn in style...probably not. They just needed a tune-up or some refining play to generate a bit of offense and not have players going all out just to block a shot in fear of being benched.

I am not going to disect what's going on here since I have yet to watch a game - early bird jobs don't mix with west coast games. It's not fun by any means to lose this bad, but they were road games, and it's only the 4th game of the season. If the Rangers look this bad 20 or so games in AND healthy, then I'd say there is a major issue here.

I will say this from what I have read (Jan's article): What the hell is up with those line combos? Seriously? Seriously! WTF?!!?

Hard to have heart when your coach seems to have none either, I'm at a total loss for words, explanations or excuses, this is the worst possible start, a complete nightmare and debacle
- cranford93

It's all very simple actually. Sather and his cohorts thought the team was good enough to win now. That's why Richards was not bought out, and why they made no major roster moves prior to the season. Their thinking was flawed, and allowing Lundqvist and a few others to influence his decision to fire Torts took the team in a direction it's not good enough to play. Does anyone think Torts didn't want the club to score? Of course not. He wasn't always a defensive mastermind, he coached the team he had, and he almost pulled it off. He was fired because no one liked him. No one in the front office staff, no one on the locker room's staff, no one in the media, but the players were ok with him, until he called Hagelin a "dumbass" on tv, and then it started falling apart. Now, they have a coach with a mandate to change the way the team plays, problem is just like Torts, he finding out this team, is not quick enough, big enough, and uh oh talented enough, to play any other way. There's an ole saying, "your never as good as you think you are when it's going good, and never as bad as you think when things are going bad". In this case I hope it's true, but make no mistake the thinking is flawed.

It's all very simple actually. Sather and his cohorts thought the team was good enough to win now. That's why Richards was not bought out, and why they made no major roster moves prior to the season. Their thinking was flawed, and allowing Lundqvist and a few others to influence his decision to fire Torts took the team in a direction it's not good enough to play. Does anyone think Torts didn't want the club to score? Of course not. He wasn't always a defensive mastermind, he coached the team he had, and he almost pulled it off. He was fired because no one liked him. No one in the front office staff, no one on the locker room's staff, no one in the media, but the players were ok with him, until he called Hagelin a "dumbass" on tv, and then it started falling apart. Now, they have a coach with a mandate to change the way the team plays, problem is just like Torts, he finding out this team, is not quick enough, big enough, and uh oh talented enough, to play any other way. There's an ole saying, "your never as good as you think you are when it's going good, and never as bad as you think when things are going bad". In this case I hope it's true, but make no mistake the thinking is flawed.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

I think this post is dead on, spot on there Old School

It's all very simple actually. Sather and his cohorts thought the team was good enough to win now. That's why Richards was not bought out, and why they made no major roster moves prior to the season. Their thinking was flawed, and allowing Lundqvist and a few others to influence his decision to fire Torts took the team in a direction it's not good enough to play. Does anyone think Torts didn't want the club to score? Of course not. He wasn't always a defensive mastermind, he coached the team he had, and he almost pulled it off. He was fired because no one liked him. No one in the front office staff, no one on the locker room's staff, no one in the media, but the players were ok with him, until he called Hagelin a "dumbass" on tv, and then it started falling apart. Now, they have a coach with a mandate to change the way the team plays, problem is just like Torts, he finding out this team, is not quick enough, big enough, and uh oh talented enough, to play any other way. There's an ole saying, "your never as good as you think you are when it's going good, and never as bad as you think when things are going bad". In this case I hope it's true, but make no mistake the thinking is flawed.
- OLDSCHOOL#6

Not too pile on here but I've been saying this same thing for some time on this thread with you guys. Torts was coaching the way he needed to with the personel he had to work with. With that said there is plenty of time for this ship to right itself and I think it will in the not too distant future.

I think this post is dead on, spot on there Old School
- jimbro83

I think if you replace Boyle, Pyatt and Asham with Kreider, Miller and Hagelin they are fast enough and big enough and a hell of a lot more talented, this roster is not indicative of the results, not to mention adding Nash back into the equation

Like I mentioned last night, each line had a slow useless dead weight on it, going 4 on 5 for most of the night isn't going to win games

If Tortorella doesn't blast Hagelin to the media the way he did (straw to break the camel's back, Dolan hates looking bad in the media) then he's still probably the coach.

Having said that, you guys were ready to blow up the team after 10 games last year and you finished 6th in the conference. I know these last 2 have been embarrassing but you're still only 4 into a season of 82. If its still looking this way 20 games in then, yeah, there's a bit of a problem.

If Tortorella doesn't blast Hagelin to the media the way he did (straw to break the camel's back, Dolan hates looking bad in the media) then he's still probably the coach.

Having said that, you guys were ready to blow up the team after 10 games last year and you finished 6th in the conference. I know these last 2 have been embarrassing but you're still only 4 into a season of 82. If its still looking this way 20 games in then, yeah, there's a bit of a problem.
- potvin05

But even with that comment the team didn't quit on him, 3 game sevens yo!

But even with that comment the team didn't quit on him, 3 game sevens yo!
- Blueshirts4ever

I made the Dolan quip for a reason. His interaction with the press was his downfall, IMO. Dolan hates that poop, and that matters big time to Jimmy.

Not going to blast you even one tiny bit. Before the season started Sather mentioned how the injuries last year decimated the team in the playoffs, but injuries weren't allowed to be an excuse for why Torts was fired.

The team "quit" on John Tortorella. But I don't think a team wins a game 4 in overtime vs Boston if they quit and I remember every second of game 5 in Boston, Roman Hamrlik gave that game away personally. And Torts had no choice but to play him do to the injuries. So, everything Sather says contradicts the facts in my opinion.
- jimbro83

To me its really really simple. Sather chalked it up to injuries and that was why the team lost. He then heard from the team and discovered they were done playing for Torts and so he was fired. Torts said it himself in an interview. He wasn't told he was fired for not having success; he was told he was being fired because he lost the team. It's that simple.

My question is, if you feel Torts level of success warrants him to stay but your core players tell you that they can't play for this guy anymore and there is a rift. What would you do? I don't blame Sather for letting Torts go in spite of his success here.

Also, I know it was discussed last night but why in the hell was Hank left in that game? Especially with the Olympics and the tighter schedule. Any game off he can get will help. at 4-0, its still very early, and you can have him rested for the Blues. Why have him finish that game? That REALLY pissed me off.

we need to realize that like 50% or more of this team has ONLY played in the NHL under tortorella and his defensive shot-blocking system he instilled. we're talking 4 years of being trained to shot block and collapse to the point that it's strictly instinctual for guys like mcdonagh, MDZ, stepan, etc. who have only played (or guys like girardi, callahan, boyle, stralman, etc. who have only truly succeeded and blossomed) under torts.

we're going from black to white in terms of defensive systems. it's going to take more than 4 games/1 month of being under AV to undo 4 years of playing under torts' system. the team is practically relearning the game.

with that aside, lundqvist has been absolutely mediocre at best. i'd be nervous if he didn't always start out like total ass every season but it's worse than normal to be honest.

again, get kreider and kristo up here to provide some speed, talent, and sniping to the wings and get pyatt/boyle/asham off the top 9 wings. yea pyatt might be a more reliable NHL forward in terms of playing defense and experience but the ceiling for a kid like kreider and kristo in terms of generating offense is exponentially higher.
- rangerdanger94

You are spot on with that first part - at least that's been what
Ive been telling myself. Also. Love the term 'absolutely mediocre'!

it's hard not to think there was a big sigh of relief that big bad John Tortorella was gone. They were lucky they didn't have to deal with his intense training camp last season because of the lockout, and this year they had Club Med in Banff, Alberta to get themselves ready for a season.

The conditioning level of these players looks nothing like even what they had during Renney's tenure.

I was a proponent of hiring Vigneault, but that is fading really fast at this point.
- jimbro83

Is it the coaching staff's fault that these guys forgot how to backcheck, play basic fundamental hockey?

I am not buying this new system nonsense. How long does it take professional athletes to learn X's and O's? It's way too easy to blame the new regime and not make each and every player, wearing that Rangers uniform, responsible for what is going on?

Maybe this team isn't as talented as we thought but they aren't working smart nor hard and those factors make up for a lack of talent.

When Renney was behind the bench, in 2005-2006, this team was pathetic talent-wise; with the exception of their top line and a surprising rookie in goal. The players worked their tails off and played good fundamental hockey and that covered up a lot of holes in the talent department.

They don't even look like an NHL team out there right now; they haven't looked this bad, in back to back games, since I have been a Rangers fan in 1991.

This isn't a matter of coaching or lack of coaching; this is a group of players that look like they would rather be bowling, out to lunch, anything but playing professional hockey.

I am not going to use the easy scapegoat of pointing the finger at Vigneault and his staff.

This is on the players and this is ultimately on Sather for, after 14 seasons, still can't assemble a team that can score goals with any regularity.

To me its really really simple. Sather chalked it up to injuries and that was why the team lost. He then heard from the team and discovered they were done playing for Torts and so he was fired. Torts said it himself in an interview. He wasn't told he was fired for not having success; he was told he was being fired because he lost the team. It's that simple.

My question is, if you feel Torts level of success warrants him to stay but your core players tell you that they can't play for this guy anymore and there is a rift. What would you do? I don't blame Sather for letting Torts go in spite of his success here.
- mrhattrick27

My argument isn't even retaining Torts, my argument is the style change, you can get a different voice, slightly different approach within the framework of what they were doing...I never thought they had the players to play the way Sather wants them to...

Also, I know it was discussed last night but why in the hell was Hank left in that game? Especially with the Olympics and the tighter schedule. Any game off he can get will help. at 4-0, its still very early, and you can have him rested for the Blues. Why have him finish that game? That REALLY pissed me off.
- mrhattrick27

I don't get that either. I didn't see Hank having a lot of chance on most of the goals (third one was a killer though) but AV has made a habit of leaving his goaltender in during blowouts and not calling timeouts to change momentum. He's not a terrible coach (although most in Vancouver would disagree with me) but his system is clearly not something his players understand yet. The defensive coverage is laughable, and it's not entirely lack of effort, it looks to me like most of the guys on the ice haven't got a clue what they're supposed to be doing.

That to me, is not a lack of talent, it's poor coaching. If you see guys running around banging into their own teammates, you've probably not made it clear how the system works. Pretty sure it's not 2 guys cover 1 guy while leaving someone else in the slot wide open.

AV's going to have to sit them down and go over it again. and again. and again.

The good news? It's game 4. I think you guys will agree with me when I say this is nowhere near as bad as the Isles yearly 10-12 game winless streaks...at least yet.

It's bad enough you get embarrassed 9-2 to the Sharks but then you come out and play like that to follow it up? Regardless of whether this team is playing a system it's not suited for or hasn't entirely grasped yet, coming out and wanting to show what happened in SJ was just one bad day has as much to do with X's and O's as it does heart. The Rangers showed no heart last night and that concerns me. I watched AV's presser and he talked about same result but better effort, really? Where was I to witness this? They looked better in the 3rd because unlike the Sharks, the Ducks took their foot off of the gas and sat back. Total embarrassment of the organization and us fans these last 2 games.

Is it the coaching staff's fault that these guys forgot how to backcheck, play basic fundamental hockey?

I am not buying this new system nonsense. How long does it take professional athletes to learn X's and O's? It's way too easy to blame the new regime and not make each and every player, wearing that Rangers uniform, responsible for what is going on?

Maybe this team isn't as talented as we thought but they aren't working smart nor hard and those factors make up for a lack of talent.

When Renney was behind the bench, in 2005-2006, this team was pathetic talent-wise; with the exception of their top line and a surprising rookie in goal. The players worked their tails off and played good fundamental hockey and that covered up a lot of holes in the talent department.

They don't even look like an NHL team out there right now; they haven't looked this bad, in back to back games, since I have been a Rangers fan in 1991.

This isn't a matter of coaching or lack of coaching; this is a group of players that look like they would rather be bowling, out to lunch, anything but playing professional hockey.

I am not going to use the easy scapegoat of pointing the finger at Vigneault and his staff.

This is on the players and this is ultimately on Sather for, after 14 seasons, still can't assemble a team that can score goals with any regularity.
- MidnightMarauder

I think literally everyone is at fault here. Like you said, a coach only has so much influence. He isn't the one telling Girardi not to cover the front of the net or telling Mac to ABSOLUTELY get walked around on a consistent basis.

But AV also didn't do ANYTHING to help the situation which doesn't help either. No time out after the 4th (frank)in goal? Leaving Hank in there? Not having any response at all?? C'mon man!

But honestly, my #1 thing is the guys look half asleep. If I am Sather/AV I WAKE THEM UP. Call up 3 kids. Throw them in the lineup in the Blues, tell them they have ONE GAME to PROVE they belong and hopefully hey provide a SPARK to this dead lineup..

But honestly, that won't happen, and I truly think we have to wait for Hags to come back, and like a storybook Nash will come back the same time, and when he (Hags) does we are going to see life injected into the lineup and he's gonna prove he is worth every penny on that new contract.

It's bad enough you get embarrassed 9-2 to the Sharks but then you come out and play like that to follow it up? Regardless of whether this team is playing a system it's not suited for or hasn't entirely grasped yet, coming out and wanting to show what happened in SJ was just one bad day has as much to do with X's and O's as it does heart. The Rangers showed no heart last night and that concerns me. I watched AV's presser and he talked about same result but better effort, really? Where was I to witness this? They looked better in the 3rd because unlike the Sharks, the Ducks took their foot off of the gas and sat back. Total embarrassment of the organization and us fans these last 2 games.
- pcjr307

Still can't score and now they can't defend or get NHL level goaltending.

Pretty good recipe for being a lottery team.

My argument isn't even retaining Torts, my argument is the style change, you can get a different voice, slightly different approach within the framework of what they were doing...I never thought they had the players to play the way Sather wants them to...
- Blueshirts4ever

I think they did if certain guys were in the lineup/playing well.

Take out Pyatt Asham Boyle and insert JT Miller, Kreider (the Kreider we THOUGHT we were getting), and Hags. that's 1/4th of your forward unit turned over to players than can thrive in a more open system.

Fact of the matter is the speedy, more skilled players we thought would crack the line up, didn't. So we are stuck with the slower players than don't fit the system.

To me, Step, Richards, Nash, Brassard, Zucc, Pouilt (sp?), JT, Kreider, Hags, Cally have the ability to play in that system.

So my prediction was just a little off.

I think literally everyone is at fault here. Like you said, a coach only has so much influence. He isn't the one telling Girardi not to cover the front of the net or telling Mac to ABSOLUTELY get walked around on a consistent basis.

But AV also didn't do ANYTHING to help the situation which doesn't help either. No time out after the 4th (frank)in goal? Leaving Hank in there? Not having any response at all?? C'mon man!

But honestly, my #1 thing is the guys look half asleep. If I am Sather/AV I WAKE THEM UP. Call up 3 kids. Throw them in the lineup in the Blues, tell them they have ONE GAME to PROVE they belong and hopefully hey provide a SPARK to this dead lineup..

But honestly, that won't happen, and I truly think we have to wait for Hags to come back, and like a storybook Nash will come back the same time, and when he (Hags) does we are going to see life injected into the lineup and he's gonna prove he is worth every penny on that new contract.
- mrhattrick27

No Nash and Hagelin doesn't help their cause at all and Callahan is obviously still playing his way back into game shape.

But good teams don't use injuries as excuses and it's not like they are losing close games or getting beat with bad breaks.

They are getting their doors blown off and there literally are no positives with this team, in the last two contests.

It's the severe lack of effort that is scaring me more than anything. Call ups need to be made; that's the first wake up call.

I think they did if certain guys were in the lineup/playing well.

Take out Pyatt Asham Boyle and insert JT Miller, Kreider (the Kreider we THOUGHT we were getting), and Hags. that's 1/4th of your forward unit turned over to players than can thrive in a more open system.

Fact of the matter is the speedy, more skilled players we thought would crack the line up, didn't. So we are stuck with the slower players than don't fit the system.

To me, Step, Richards, Nash, Brassard, Zucc, Pouilt (sp?), JT, Kreider, Hags, Cally have the ability to play in that system.
- mrhattrick27

I agree they are not without talent but this current lineup is just pathetically structured and that is on the coaches.

The lack of effort, the putrid defensive play, the inability to score and the heinous goaltending are all on the guys wearing Ranger jerseys.