Ramsay to Bruins; did he help, hurt?

Former Lightning associate coach Craig Ramsay was hired as a Bruins assistant. I liked what he did for the Lightning and the defense and the way his quiet demeanor was an opposite to Torts. But I wanted the distinguished board to weigh in.

I always found fascinating the divergence of opinions about Ramsay. Many did not like his stick-first philosophy and seeming disdain for having the blue liners play a more physical style. But there were others who thought he got all he could out of a defensive corps that, really, was never at the top of the league. There was no question he was a good teacher. And granted I only spoke to two defensemen after he left Tampa Bay -- Dan Boyle and Nolan Pratt -- but both seemed genuinely upset Ramsay was leaving.

Then there was the bad cop/good cop thing with Tortorella. Having seen that in action for quite a few years, there definitely was something to it. The best part was, when Ramsay decided to go all John Tortorella on a player or on the group, everybody was so shocked this mild-mannered man raised his voice, jaws dropped everywhere. But the message got across.

The bottom line is Ramsay helped the Lightning to a Stanley Cup title. He left, in part, because his relationship with Tortorella had run its course. Will he be missed? Or is that even a fair question before we see what new assistant Mike Sullivan can do?

Comments

[Sadie]

You know a coach was good if his departure made players upset. Of course he will be missed!

[Nan]

Well, just because a coach is missed does not mean he was a good coach. I think one could argue that players might try harder and pay more attention to a coach that is not constantly yelling at him. It sounds like the players really liked him and he presented a different viewpoint than Torts.

However, I think also that maybe Ramsey was not tough enough on them but hey why should he when Torts had enough to go around for both of them. It will be interesting to see Coach Sully in action. I am thinking that he might just be a younger version of Torts. I hope that they made the right decision in hiring him. He might be what this team needs to be more aggresive on defense. If not, Torts will be the next one looking for a new team to coach!

[Warren]

Of course, the bottom line is we won't know until we see the defense next season. Even then - it's a new corps. The players are disappointed? That just means they liked him - not that he'll be missed. Let's wish Coach Sully all the best. Go Bolts! See ya all in Brandon real soon.

[Richie]

I'm sorry to see Rammer go. He is, and always will be a true professional. A high quality person. He will be missed by both the players and the "close-in" Lightning family. He acted as a well needed buffer between the fire and brimstone Torts and the players. Always on an even keel - a great influnence behind the scene.I believe the lightning will regret this move.

[Joe]

If the truth be known, Torts lost "the room" a long time ago and the breakdown of his relationship with Ramsey was probably inevitable. Craig was an outstanding hockey player and a winning head coach long before he arrived in Tampa. As a high character hockey guy, he put up with Tortorella's petulance, childishness and self-centered behavior by respecting the chain of command.

Readers of these pages who love John T. will be annoyed by seeing this, maybe all the more because (buried deep below their wishful thinking and there devotion to the memory of '04) they really know this is true, but they don't want to admit it.

Any other GM would have canned Torts long ago and set things right. In all likelihood, be it from either an epiphany in the minds of the empty suits that direct the fortunes of this team or the sale of the Lightning to an knowledgeable agent who cares about hockey as much as concert promotions, Feaster and the hysterical one will be dismissed together in short order.

Good luck Rammer although you are now tied in with yet another bunch of perfidious managerial neurotics in Beantown.

[Another Joe]

We all liked Rammer and he was a big part of the Cup team.

It is obvious to all hockey fans that a change was needed. Its nothing against Rammer or Torts or anyone. Sometimes change is good for all involved.

Go Bolts!!!

[SarasotaBill]

This may come as a surprise to everyone, NOT, but I have a lot to say about this but first things first!

Welcome back Damian! Hope you had a great vacation! By the way, forget thanking us for being the 5th or whatever it was, most popular blog. There are a few reasons why people continue to visit here. First and formost, is our host. We get the latest news here and more stories than can be found anywhere else. Not only do we get the latest news, it's presented with some personality and interesting slants that get all us armchair gm's riled up. Well...........gets us thinking anyways. Anyone can read, or reprint, an AP story. There's much more than that here. Thank yourself!!

Secondly, and every bit as important, it's the people who come here to share their opinions. For the most part the people here are Bolt fans, intelligent hockey fans, and they share some interesting opinions. I don't always agree, but so what? How many agree with me? Doesn't matter. We will continue to agree, and disagree, but we will continue to respect our fellow fans and enjoy this place.

Welcome back to the board room!

Got several things to do tonight but I'll be back with more.

[Steve]

Joe,
Please tell us all how you know the truth. I need to know,

[Badbud]

"If the truth be known, Torts lost "the room" a long time ago"

Prove it.

[Lightning rod]

1st I like and admire Rammer as a player and assistant coach. 2nd He did/does not have the overall skill set to ever be a good head coach. 3rd He ran the defense, and as the game has changed in the last few years, his basic style of defense and he didn't adapt. It was just time for him to go.
I wish him well.

The Torts tirades, I find very interesting. All I have to say is: would anybody like to be in Philly with Bobbie Clark? His dentist did a good job on his teeth though.

[bear]

Rammer is a good man..too polite to a fault.

One thing Torts can count on, those Bruin games next year just got a whole lot tougher.

[Tim A]

Ramsay will fit in well with the Bruins. With the way Boston changes head coaches, he may very well find himself as the boss before the season is over.

There was nothing wrong with the way Ramsay coached, the only reason he is no longer with the Bolts was truthfully conveyed by the GM a few moths ago when he declared that there were some philosophical differences between the Torts and Rammer. I believe that Ramsay got fed up up with the Tortarella way of coaching and finally quit on everyone. After he quit it was evident by the long slump that the Bolts had near the beginning of last season. Ramssay came back to the fold and statrted coaching agaiin around December and January, thats when the team turned it around. However, Ramsay managed to tee-off everyone in the front office and now he is a rotten Bruin. I just hope he does not teach the Bruins how to defeat our guys. I hope he is successful, because he is a good guy, but I wish him no luck against the Bolts.

[SarasotaBill]

The stick first philosophy came about out of necessity. It's nowhere near the style of defense this team played in 03/04. After a year off, teams came back to a new set of rules. Early in 05/06, nobody, refs included, seemed to know what was a penalty and what wasn't. You so much as touch someone and it was 2 minutes. There was a lot of confusion about the rules. The calls were extremely inconsistent from game to game, period to period, and shift to shift. I remember Torts going ballistic over penalties. Rammer began coaching the guys the play the puck first style. It was the right adjustment at the right time. Early in 05, if a forward parked out in front of the net and a d-man so much as leaned on him, it was 2 minutes. Slowly but surely, the game evolved. Refs started to allow the guys to battle along the boards, in the corners, and in front of the net. The only thing that didn't change was the way the Bolts played defense. For one reason or another the style remained the same.

I recall Damian saying once that he saw our d-man miss several opportunities to land some big hits. I think we all saw that. But did they really miss them? That is my entire question about this style of defense. Did they really miss those opportunities or were they coached to play that puck first? Shane O'Brien is known as a big hitter with a bit of a mean streak. He'd have a guy beautifully lined up and at the last second he'd turn and swat at the puck. Drove me crazy. Last year I often thought of the "safe is death" sign that hangs in the Lightning locker room. I thought someone should either read it or take it down. Look.......these guys didn't make it all the way to the NHL without learning how to separate a player from the puck. That led me to believe one thing. They were playing as coached.

Several months ago I questioned the coaching mentioning Rammer by name. That went over like a lead balloon. Back then, posters e-mail addresses were available to anyone who wanted it. Believe me, I've got a few e-mails to prove that was a very unpopular statement. But I said at the time, and I'll say it again, I'm unsure if it was Rammer or the "team concept" that was responsible for this style of defense. I remain unsure. When Rammer was terminated, "philosophical differences" was the stated reason. "Philosophical Differences" can mean anything and often does. Power struggle? Personality conflict? Scapegoat? Sometimes it means just what it says. Was the style of defensive play the difference? Who knows. I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

In my opinion, we made it too easy for opposing forwards to enter the defensive zone, to carry the puck all over the zone virtually untouched, and park in front of the net at will. Now, I'm not sure what Sully brings to the table other than a strong resume as a player and a coach. I can only hope he brings a little aggressiveness and the "safe is death" attitude back to the D.

[mbab]

wow...so many opinions on this subject.....something had to change...that is the only thing anyone and all can probably agree on......when dan boyle leads your defense in hits and is by far the smallest guy....much can be read into this..........first, can you really coach guys who simply will not hit???sarich pratt kuba.....unless severely pushed to the wall.....these guys just will not hit night after night....i saw this in kuba after two games.....he got benched and came back a wee bit more physical......so is that any coaches fault???second,....back to the top.....someone or something had to change......usually the coach........maybe they fired the wrong coach?????.....torts ego burns me up....at times i think he is way to interested in pounding his chest versus good hockey decisions......is their anyone on any blog in the world that would rather have roy or karllson or craig on the bench than fedetenko??that was 110% pure ego.....but when you have players under performing.....flashback to our defense the last two years......how can you keep a coach that I never once saw him yell at a player....never once....at times it almost seemed like failure was acceptable.....now I did see torts bolt to the other end of the bench to give someone an earful.....complacency is an awful thing....i hope torts learns from that and doesn't hesitate to make anyone a healthy scratch this year.....i always felt sarich and pratt had no reason to worry last year......in ramseys defense....he didn't have much of a hand to play.....and no one was waiting in the minors to step in...............oops!!!same scenario as this year.....i hope the bottom six guys are swapped often this year to get every ounce out of them......anyways....he had to go....something had to be done........lets hope the new "coach" can get more "hurt and pain" out of our 6 defensemen....

[Tim A]

SB may have hit it right on the nose when he said, "They were playing as coached." I have no reason to believe that they were trying to play otherwise. Sometimes I often wonder if the defensemen in the NHL are afraid to knock players off the puck because of the inconsistent calls made by the officials on a nightly basis. Last season the Bolts were one of the least penalized teams in the league and I wonder if this is because they didn't hit like they were suppose to because they were afraid of getting a crappy call against them. I know that whenever they did play more aggressively they were almost without a doubt penalized for it. The league needs to make it clear that hitting is OK. An aggressive physical style of play is the only way that a team can win in the NHL. I also believe that last season the officiating in the Western Conference was much more consistent than it was in the Eastern conference. I've said it a million times, something has to be done where there is more consistency on calls throughout the league. A call in Tampa Bay should be the same as it is in Calgary visa versa. Gary Bettman needs to do all that he can to make sure that the league's officiating is conducted with much more professionalism and consistency than it has been the past two seasons.

[Satch]

MB, you were all over the place with that last post. still you raised some great points. did we fire the wrong coach? great question!! i think sb answered that by simply saying we will find out soon enough if it was the head coach or the assistant that has to held accountable for what many think was a less than acceptable style of defensive play.

this was an interesting observation. "when dan boyle leads your defense in hits and is by far the smallest guy....much can be read into this..........first, can you really coach guys who simply will not hit???" i don't know if boyle lead the team in hits or not but it wouldn't surprise me if he did. kinda sad if it is. you see this as "can you really coach guys who simply wont hit?" i tend to ask the same question as sb. did they refuse to hit or were they coached differently? ah....cant do that. might get 2 in hell.

on one last note. i cant blame ramsey for not jumping down someones throat. there has to be some semblance of sanity on that bench. while self proclaimed superman john tortella was jawing at everyone mild mannered clark (craig ramsey) kent tried to maintain a balance. it wasnt his job to hand out tongue lashings. that job was taken. ramsey had his place here for some time. now the welcome mat has been pulled from under his feet.

i dont know if its right or wrong but as sb said "we will find out soon."

im out!

[mbab]

satch...where you been???i was all over the place on that last blog.....i think that was my point....this whole team from top to bottom is all over the place....let's hope some sanity is in the near future for players and FANS!!!!! S-A-T-C-H-A-M-O is back.....i can now continue to be idiot me!!!!

[JB]

I'm gonna give it a "wait and see" approach. Our D was terrible last year, no doubts there. Go Sully!

[roho]

I tnink Torts is the one that needs to go, he's responsible for the defence in the end. Rammer is pro and will be happier in Boston.