Will Dylan McIlrath be one of the worst picks in Rangers recent history?

[Doctyl]

First I would like to apologize to mods if this shouldn't be its own thread or if there is an ongoing discussion on this.


I admit the thread title is a little bit of an exaggeration, but the 4th anniversary of the McIlrath selection coming up and he does not look like he will be NHL ready for at least another year. The Rangers essentially drafted a goon 10th overall. I'm not saying he is a total bust like Sanguinetti or Jessiman, just that it seems like he will peak as a 2nd pairing dman and there was a lot of talent still available over him.

These are just some mock drafts and wikipedias predraft rankings

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-nhl-draft-rankings-big-board/article4322923/

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/allan_muir/06/22/nhl.mock.draft/1.html

http://www.nysportsday.com/2010/06/25/2010-nhl-first-round-mock-draft/


None of these have McIlrath going in the top 10.


Taken after McIlrath:
Fowler
Gormley
Schwartz
Tarasenko
Bjugstad
Bennet
Pysyk
Coyle
Kuznetsov
Etem
Nelson

Of these, 6 are on Wikipedia's top 10 NA and Euro prospects.


Can anyone explain why drafting a guy who is pretty much a goon 10th overall was a good idea? I do not understand this pick. I don't remember anything on Jessiman, but Sanguinetti was supposed to be a good prospect and taken early IIRC. McIlrath seemed like he was expected to be a late 1st round pick. Does anyone understand what caused the Rangers to go off the board while there was still top end talent available?

Click to read more...

 

[Matt4776]

Nope.

 

[Raspewtin]

Oh, great, this thread again.

You realize that Etem, Kuznetzov, Forbot, and Gormley aren't fulltime NHL'ers, right?

"McIlrath will just be a goon".

You are brutally misinformed. Clearly you don't watch him, he won't be just a goon.

It's just cool to bash him, lately. Even though our scoring has been way more than we have in recent memory, people still find time to ***** about this.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Jury is still out.

Still dont think it will wind up being as bad as Montoya in 2004, or Jessiman in maybe the best draft ever.

 

[Doctyl]

Oh, great, this thread again.

You realize that Etem, Kuznetzov, Forbot, and Gormley aren't fulltime NHL'ers, right?

"McIlrath will just be a goon".

You are brutally misinformed. Clearly you don't watch him, he won't be just a goon.

It's just cool to bash him, lately. Even though our scoring has been way more than we have in recent memory, people still find time to ***** about this.

I did not say he will be just a goon. I said it looks like he will top out as a 2nd pairing dman. I do not understand picking a 2nd pairing dman 10th overall in a draft where he wasnt expected to go top 15 and their still being high end talent on the board.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

McKenzie had McIlrath ranked at 15, and Dallas was set to take him at 11 had the Rangers passed on him.

 

[Raspewtin]

I did not say he will be just a goon. I said it looks like he will top out as a 2nd pairing dman. I do not understand picking a 2nd pairing dman 10th overall in a draft where he wasnt expected to go top 15 and their still being high end talent on the board.

Can anyone explain why drafting a guy who is pretty much a goon 10th overall was a good idea?

Uh, you kinda did.

They drafted to fill a need, a crease clearing 20+ minutes d-man, who the team hasn't had in years. Arguably just as much a need as a scoring winger.

Other than Tarasenko the wingers left aren't special. It didn't make too much sense to draft Fowler after DZ's rookie year.

 

[YoSoyLalo]

Uh, you kinda did.

They drafted to fill a need, a crease clearing 20+ minutes d-man, who the team hasn't had in years. Arguably just as much a need as a scoring winger.

Other than Tarasenko the wingers left aren't special. It didn't make too much sense to draft Fowler after DZ's rookie year.

Schwartz > Tarasenko.

 

[Doctyl]

Uh, you kinda did.

They drafted to fill a need, a crease clearing 20+ minutes d-man, who the team hasn't had in years. Arguably just as much a need as a scoring winger.

Other than Tarasenko the wingers left aren't special. It didn't make too much sense to draft Fowler after DZ's rookie year.

This just proves why drafting for need and not talent in the 1st round is a bad idea.

 

[Thirty One]

This thread is going to rustle some jimmies. That being said, yes.

McKenzie had McIlrath ranked at 15, and Dallas was set to take him at 11 had the Rangers passed on him.

Super. Let them make that mistake.

This just proves why drafting for need and not talent in the 1st round is a bad idea.

Pretty much this.

 

[Miller Time NYR]

did someone revive the horse? lets start beating the **** out of it again

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

This thread is going to rustle some jimmies. That being said, yes.


Super. Let them make that mistake.


Pretty much this.

Too soon to make these bust proclamations on him...

 

[Darth Milbury]

Islander fan who comes in peace with a quick anecdote about McIlrath.

One of the Isles prime WHL scouts, whose name I now forget, had this blog evaluating various players. This was a blog he was publishing before he got hired on the Island and, at the time, was considered a hot scouting prospect. I had been following him because it was clear he really knew his stuff and was closely watching these prospects.

I wish I could find the blog, but maybe some of you who can use google in a determined way can.

IN any case, he ranked McIlrath 10th overall. He basically said that, regardless of where McIlrath stood on the various mass media lists (like TSN, THN, Redline, ISS, etc) he did not believe McIlrath would last much past that spot.

What I gathered was that McIlrath's situation was like Griffin Reinhart the year the Isles drafted him. Most of the mass media lists had Reinhart a bit later in the first round, some even outside the top 10. But, all the scouts for the various teams had him a clear # 4.

I don't believe the Rangers really went off board with McIlrath. I think actual NHL scouts (regardless of what TSN and other media outlets say) viewed him quite highly and that is where most GMs had him ranked. If the Rangers didn't take him, he would have been gone at 11 or 12. Lots of teams wanted him.

I don't know whether he'll work out, haven't really been watching him. But, from what I can tell, NHL GMS and scouts all thought it was a smart pick. Maybe he'll work out, maybe he won't, but I don't think the Rangers made a bad pick.

 

[Thirty One]

Too soon to make these bust proclamations on him...

I didn't say bust. But I think the chances of him being in the realm of some of the other realistic picks in that range are incredibly slim.

 

[NYR425]

You talk about the 10th overall pick like it is a sure thing.Go back and look and you will see it is a crap shoot, more often then not the #10 pick does not pain out at all. If Dylan continues his development and ends up as a 2nd pair defenseman,we would have a very rare commotity. A Defenseman who plays the right side, can eat 20+ minutes, plus add the intimidation factor with his physical play and fighting. You have a player like very few have. I would take a player with the attrabutes Dylan has everyday and twice on Sunday over what was on the Board. Although Tarasenko is a top notch prospect and doing very good with St Louis it is no sure thing he will still be around 5 years from now. A top 4 of McD- Girardi, Staal- McIlrath would be amazing. I think that next year Dylan starts getting some minutes and 2 years from now he is starting to eat major minutes. He will be what 23 at that time, still very young with a long career ahead of him. Don't bring up Fowler because he is a left Defenseman. We had Staal,McD and del Zotto . Fowler dropped on everyones Board because he was and still is very soft.

 

[BarbaraAlphanse]

I didn't say bust. But I think the chances of him being in the realm of some of the other realistic picks in that range are incredibly slim.

Based on?

Time of the draft everyone said he would take at least 3-4 years to develop. We're at the end of that time table and he's... nearly... there.

I've watched him when I could these last 2 years. Try and make it out to Hartford a few times a year. He's definitely improved from when I saw him last year. He definitely looked much more dominant than when he played his cup of coffee on the big team too.

He's definitely prone to emotions. That's his game. I think he definitely struggled to play to his strengths because he was, of course, nervous.

He's slow. And his positioning definitely still needs improvement... but it's also definitely improving - steadily too. He's got a decent shot but no one could see that during the 2 games he was up... since he never shot it. He was reluctant to - sign of nerves. Doesn't want to take unnecessary chances.

Finally, if you put him next to Staal... that would be quite possibly the smartest decision made - for the future.

Girardi blossomed paired with Staal. Sauer became a rock for the short stint he had. Now Stralman has developed into a top 4 defenseman. McIlrath needs someone to guide him. Needs someone who will cover him in the event of a mistake. Needs someone to boost his confidence. I can think of no better defensive partner. Especially if Staal resigns... that should be the 2nd pairing for years. We didn't draft McI with the intention of being a 3rd pair defender playing 8-10 minutes a game.

I maintain that I believe his realistic reach is Douglas Murray. His positioning will get better. His confidence will increase. And he'll adjust to the speed of the league. It may take 1-2 more years in the NHL for brain farts to be mitigated... but that'll happen too, with time and with a responsible pair partner.

 

[JWK]

Hugh Jessiman wasn't that long ago.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

Wait they picked who

 

[Ail]

This thread is going to rustle some jimmies. That being said, yes.


Super. Let them make that mistake.


Pretty much this.

So much this.

He could be a good player, just not one you pick at #10.

Don't know how to feel about him over all, he could end up being a fan favorite, or the most lamented and loathed pick for a long time.

 

[TheDirtyH]

Schwartz > Tarasenko.

I was just going to post this. I get that Tarasenko is a good player, but if we could redraft, I don't pick him over Schwartz. The Tarasenko circle-jerks on these boards has always made me wonder whether people watch the Blues or not.

 

[irishlaxburger2]

My biggest gripe with taking McIlrath over Fowler (other than the obvious) is that it created a dynamic where we were all in on Del Zotto. Had we taken Fowler instead, Del Zotto would've ended up being expendable and we would've likely moved him while he still had value.

Instead, Del Zotto became our only hope as a young offensive defensemen. We became pot committed to him and refused to move him until he had very little trade value.

So not only did we get the inferior player (to this point, and likely in the future) in the Fowler/McIlrath sweepstakes, we also got nothing out of Del Zotto in the process.

 

[One Winged Angel]

The biggest problem I have with the McIlrath pick is although yes, we needed a big physical shutdown defender at that time, we needed scoring even more and with the talent that was available at that time, we could have obtained a player that fit that bill, which still to this day remains a pressing need.

Tarasenko, Etem, Kuznetsov, Coyle and so on could have done us a world of good. Even if they didn't make the club, we could have used them as a key piece in a trade for a scorer or a big time defender.

McIlrath might not be as an attractive trade piece to other GM's due to his slow development and limited (as compared to the other players taken after) ceiling.

Sure, he might have been high ranked by other players, but let them take a player like that. That's why you draft BPA in the 1st round unless there's a surefire player who fills a glaring need. McIlrath was far from surefire and was a big project from the start. It's the same mistake they made with taking Jessiman, but to a far less extent. They couldn't afford to draft another project at that time with taking a project like Kreider the year before.

 

[Beacon]

I did not say he will be just a goon. I said it looks like he will top out as a 2nd pairing dman. I do not understand picking a 2nd pairing dman 10th overall in a draft where he wasnt expected to go top 15 and their still being high end talent on the board.

You are incredibly misinformed. Not just about MCI, but about the draft in central.

If you can get a second pair defenseman with the #10 pick, it's not a bust, it's a slam dunk. Of the 10 players drafted at #10 before MCI, only one (!) became a top-6F/top-4D. Seven aren't in the NHL. this is true for #9 or #11 as well.

But fans only remember when someone succeeds, not the overwhelming majority that fails. Then they ask, "why did we not get Player X?"

The sitting staff isn't there to listen to Central Scouting. On average, they do a far superior job. Stepan also was an off the board pick. Even if the player doesn't turn out to be the best of anyone they could've chosen, it is no reason to whine.

And once more: getting a top-4 defenseman at #10 is a huge accomplished. To expect a start and whine otherwise only displays your lack of knowledge.

 

[HatTrick Swayze]

You can say the McIlrath would have been the pick regardless, but the run on forwards in that draft really screwed the Rangers. Gormley and Fowler were both pretty near consensus top-5 picks that dropped from the top-10.

Johansen and Nino being the biggest "reaches". Though ironically 2 of the better picks. Those two, Granlund, and maybe Skinner were supposed to be there when the Rangers picked. I was hard on the Johansen bandwagon. Oh well. Bjugstad would have been nice in hindsight. Many mocks had him in the top-15.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Illustrates a point about picking for need or best player available.