Dylan mcilrath---in 10 years---

[n8]

Sean O'Donnel, Brad Stuart, Rob Scuderi, Dennis Seidenberg
these guys all took time to really come together as tough defensemen.

 

[StepansLabyrinth]

Sean O'Donnel, Brad Stuart, Rob Scuderi, Dennis Seidenberg
these guys all took time to really come together as tough defensemen.

Shhhh everyone knows every good player peaks by the time they're 21.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Sean O'Donnel, Brad Stuart, Rob Scuderi, Dennis Seidenberg
these guys all took time to really come together as tough defensemen.

Shhhh everyone knows every good player peaks by the time they're 21.

Shhh...for everyone one of those examples he could have cited a multitude of projects that didn't put it together.

All the players you mentioned were justifications for Dylan McIlrath (Height: 6-5 Weight: 220lbs) drafted 1/10, who has yet to start an NHL game at the age of 21.

Rob Scuderi (Height: 6-1 Weight: 216lbs) drafted 5/134, started at 23 years of age
Dennis Seidenberg (Height: 6-1 Weight: 210lbs) drafted 6/172, started at 19 years of age
Sean O'Donnel (Height: 6-2 Weight: 238lbs) drafted 6/123, started at 21 years of age
Brad Stuart (Height: 6-2 Weight: 215lbs) drafted at 1/3, started at 19 years of age

Although all of the players are successful physical defensemen, only Scuderi was older than McIlrath when he started, and only Brad Stuart was drafted in the first round.

I know the motto of these boards are "anything can happen," and "[insert player] was off the radar, and look at him today," but according to your examples, McIlrath is behind mid pairing players, and 75% of them were taken in the 5th round or higher, so I don't understand your rational.

 

[Lindberg Cheese]

Taking over Kenny Powers' Phys Ed class pls owning the car dealership....

 

[Samuel Culper III]

What it always comes down to on these boards is the "true fans" maintain the unpopular opinions, have patience for guys like McIlrath, don't see what's wrong with paying a guy like Callahan 6M, etc. and the rest of us succumb to hive-mind, popular but uneducated opinions like McIlrath being a bad pick. No matter how rational or supported your opinion is, if it's not in line with the contrarian, high brow opinions of the upper echelon "true fans" who comprise this board's "elite" posters, you're just a product of the echo chamber who doesn't really know hockey, etc.

The "true fan" thing to do, right now, is believe in the McIlrath pick. Not because it was a good pick, but because the pedestrian know-nothing fans all agree that it was a bad pick. Since the majority is in agreement and wishes we'd used the pick on the BPA, it's just hive-mind thinking and a bunch of unqualified commentators parroting one another. Especially because of the fact that the topic has been brought up hundreds of times and beaten to death, and everyone is tired of hearing about Fowler and Tarasenko, defending the McIlrath pick is the cool, educated thing to do. A casual know-nothing drools over Tarasenko's flashy goals but a true fan and skilled observer of the game knows that McIlrath is "coming along well" and "'making strides" and will be a great pick because of his "unique skill set". The know-nothing's are just impatient kids who think Tarasenko is the new Jesus and the real fans understand the value of being patient with a unique kid like McIlrath and will even tell you that his potential upside is as high as a #2 or at least a solid middle pairing defender.

Having any other opinion, even if you watch Hartford and have seen him play more than 5-6 times, which is more than virtually 95% of posters here can actually claim (well, they can claim anything they want but it doesn't make it reality) just makes you an impatient member of the echo chamber. It's not just McIlrath. It's basically any hotly debated topic here at NYR HF. It's like hipster hockey analysis. The contrarian, unpopular opinion is a sign of the cultured, educated, knowledgable hockey fan. Anything that's widely agreed upon is just the casual hive-mind and not worthy.

Well, I am not a product of the echo chamber or a casual know-nothing. I do not believe McIlrath will surpass career #4-6 status as a dman and I don't think it took a genius to question this pick right from the minute it was made. As with other arguments, that somehow makes me a less knowledgable, less loyal, lower quality hockey and Rangers fan but, honestly, I don't care. The pattern here has gotten tiring.

 

[Baby Punisher]

Rumun Endur.

 

[RangerBlues]

Steady diet of old school violence and intent to injure.
Ill take 15-20 min of that a night.

 

[Miamipuck]

What it always comes down to on these boards is the "true fans" maintain the unpopular opinions, have patience for guys like McIlrath, don't see what's wrong with paying a guy like Callahan 6M, etc. and the rest of us succumb to hive-mind, popular but uneducated opinions like McIlrath being a bad pick. No matter how rational or supported your opinion is, if it's not in line with the contrarian, high brow opinions of the upper echelon "true fans" who comprise this board's "elite" posters, you're just a product of the echo chamber who doesn't really know hockey, etc.

The "true fan" thing to do, right now, is believe in the McIlrath pick. Not because it was a good pick, but because the pedestrian know-nothing fans all agree that it was a bad pick. Since the majority is in agreement and wishes we'd used the pick on the BPA, it's just hive-mind thinking and a bunch of unqualified commentators parroting one another. Especially because of the fact that the topic has been brought up hundreds of times and beaten to death, and everyone is tired of hearing about Fowler and Tarasenko, defending the McIlrath pick is the cool, educated thing to do. A casual know-nothing drools over Tarasenko's flashy goals but a true fan and skilled observer of the game knows that McIlrath is "coming along well" and "'making strides" and will be a great pick because of his "unique skill set". The know-nothing's are just impatient kids who think Tarasenko is the new Jesus and the real fans understand the value of being patient with a unique kid like McIlrath and will even tell you that his potential upside is as high as a #2 or at least a solid middle pairing defender.

Having any other opinion, even if you watch Hartford and have seen him play more than 5-6 times, which is more than virtually 95% of posters here can actually claim (well, they can claim anything they want but it doesn't make it reality) just makes you an impatient member of the echo chamber. It's not just McIlrath. It's basically any hotly debated topic here at NYR HF. It's like hipster hockey analysis. The contrarian, unpopular opinion is a sign of the cultured, educated, knowledgable hockey fan. Anything that's widely agreed upon is just the casual hive-mind and not worthy.

Well, I am not a product of the echo chamber or a casual know-nothing. I do not believe McIlrath will surpass career #4-6 status as a dman and I don't think it took a genius to question this pick right from the minute it was made. As with other arguments, that somehow makes me a less knowledgable, less loyal, lower quality hockey and Rangers fan but, honestly, I don't care. The pattern here has gotten tiring.

Maybe just maybe most people are freaking tired of so called Ranger fans wanting to be right about McIlrath sucking and appear to actively root for him to fail. That pattern has gotten tiring. You don't like him, we all get it. Why not post fifty times how he sucks only one of which was substantiated by your opinion on his actual play.

Good Lord you want to play the martyr, please just climb up and nail yourself to a cross.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

It's a symptom of the entire board, not just this topic. Also, your post just demonstrates the attitude I'm talking about. I don't like the selection and I think McIlrath doesn't have the potential to be better than a #4/5. To you that equates to not liking McIlrath himself and wanting him to fail. Being honest in my assessment and opinion of him earns me titles like a hater, a "so called" fan who roots for the player to fail, etc. None of that is true. If McIlrath was a third round pick no one would mind the pick, or him maxing out as a #5. In the same vein, I don't dislike McIlrath, the player, I dislike the selection and our management's decisions. Stating that I strongly believe he doesn't have the potential to be better than a #4 isn't rooting against him. It's being honest in my expectations for the player. Somehow, if you don't think he's got better potential than that, just because he was a high Rangers draft pick, it makes you less of a fan. That is exactly what I'm talking about. It goes on in most arguments, not just the McIlrath debate. Just because we selected him 10th doesn't mean we fans are obligated to like or defend the pick. And not doing so doesn't mean we're somehow rooting against the player, or the team, and are less loyal or knowledgable fans. That's what's tiring. You're tired of hearing how bad the McIlrath pick was? Thats too bad, because IMO it was a genuinely poor pick and all Rangers fans will be hearing about it for quite a bit longer. Doesn't mean I dislike McIlrath or won't like him as a #5 on our team when he gets here. It means it don't like the fact that we wasted the highest draft pick we've had in ages on what is most likely a bottom pairing dman whose skills are below average in most areas.

 

[Miamipuck]

It's a symptom of the entire board, not just this topic. Also, your post just demonstrates the attitude I'm talking about. I don't like the selection and I think McIlrath doesn't have the potential to be better than a #4/5. To you that equates to not liking McIlrath himself and wanting him to fail. Being honest in my assessment and opinion of him earns me titles like a hater, a "so called" fan who roots for the player to fail, etc. None of that is true. If McIlrath was a third round pick no one would mind the pick, or him maxing out as a #5. In the same vein, I don't dislike McIlrath, the player, I dislike the selection and our management's decisions. Stating that I strongly believe he doesn't have the potential to be better than a #4 isn't rooting against him. It's being honest in my expectations for the player. Somehow, if you don't think he's got better potential than that, just because he was a high Rangers draft pick, it makes you less of a fan. That is exactly what I'm talking about. It goes on in most arguments, not just the McIlrath debate. Just because we selected him 10th doesn't mean we fans are obligated to like or defend the pick. And not doing so doesn't mean we're somehow rooting against the player, or the team, and are less loyal or knowledgable fans. That's what's tiring. You're tired of hearing how bad the McIlrath pick was? Thats too bad, because IMO it was a genuinely poor pick and all Rangers fans will be hearing about it for quite a bit longer. Doesn't mean I dislike McIlrath or won't like him as a #5 on our team when he gets here. It means it don't like the fact that we wasted the highest draft pick we've had in ages on what is most likely a bottom pairing dman whose skills are below average in most areas.

I am done after this because it's not worth it. But here let me make an easier post for you to understand where I am coming from.

If you simply posted your reasons why his upside, which means if everything in his development goes right, was a #5 defensemen and left it at that, I don't care it shouldn't bother anyone. Calling him a bust and stating your reasons backed by your observations shouldn't bother any Ranger fans. That's why everyone is here to debate crap like that.

You're actively campaigning in this thread with an agenda and then whining when you get called out on the clear transparency with which you're posting. If you're so interested in being honest with your assessment please carry that same honesty with regards to your agenda.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I honestly don't have an agenda and never called him a bust. I wouldn't have even posted in this thread as many times as I have if it wasn't for some people being completely unable to do what you say, and accept a negative of opinion of our prospect. For arguments sake, however, my first post in a thread asking where we see McI was:

As for McIlrath it really comes down to this:

He's fine as far as how far along he is in his development, but his ceiling is woefully low for where he was drafted. Not his fault. The fact that we drafted to fill a need rather than taking anything close to BPA, and then supposedly expected the player we took to fill a need to take 4+ years to be ready is lunacy. In that time we've had a coaching change, one major trade (Nash), another medium trade (Gaborik), may now trade Callahan, may buy out Richards... In other words, in 2010 we drafted to fill a need and in the time we've been waiting, we've had an entire regime and direction change. Eventually having the privilege of a tough bottom pairing dman with limited upside is never going to be worth the wait.

I really don't see an agenda here, or any hate for the player. I make no bones about not liking the selection but I think this is a fairly even handed post. I state I think he'll be a bottom pairing dman and the wait for our #10 pick to come to fruition with a ceiling that low is disappointing. Still, not bashing the player, wishing him failure or displaying much of an "agenda". I then proceed to get told how wrong I am and how McIlrath has much more potential, some poster even claiming top pair potential. I find that claim to be pretty outrageous and a lot less likely than my feelings that he's a bottom pairing dman. I post a few short answers saying as much, mostly because I was lazy and didn't feel like writing more big paragraphs to justify my opinion. When someone pressed me for actual support for my opinion, I gave it, and I don't think that showed an agenda or an unfair bias against the player either. The poster who pressed me to give support even thanked me for posting it.

Nobody would know McI's name if he was on a different team.

Regarding why I feel he's a bottom pairing dman at best:

His skating is not good. His agility is reasonably good for a big guy but his top speed and acceleration are both lacking. It's a fallacy to say his skating has been described as good. It's been described as adequate and good "for a player of his size". It's been described as improving and mostly as an area of needed continued improvement. His puck skills are marginal, and again could be adequate, but his decision making is still not close to being on an NHL level, and I don't see it ever evolving beyond being able to pick up ~15 points a year, through routine zone clears and such. His positioning is not yet NHL quality either and he does not have the foot speed to make up for it. He doesn't show particularly promising anticipation, gap control, ability to read the play, awareness of guys jumping into the play or going back door. Nothing about him is exemplary or shows great promise besides his size and willingness to play mean. He is only adequate-to-average in most areas, exemplary in terms of size and pugnacity and less than average in terms of decision making. He will continue to develop, and I'm sure he'll carve out a career but I doubt he will ever play above a physical #5 role during it.

Again, I feel it's pretty fair and even handed. Not seeing an agenda. Regardless, as the thread continues, anyone who expresses an opinion similar to mine - that McI has a low ceiling and isn't likely to be much more than a bottom pairing physical dman - is vehemently disagreed with in the manner I described in the post you first took issue to. I stand by what I said in that post. There is an attitude of "I choose the unpopular view so my opinion is more valid and educated than yours" that permeates most of the debates on these boards and is very tiring. Just because the majority thinks something doesn't mean it's automatically uneducated echo chamber nonsense. Rather than the principle of "majority rules" these boards are now employing an attitude of "the majority is just a dumb, hive-mind echo chamber" as a mean of dismissing any popular opinion.

 

[Baby Punisher]

Steady diet of old school violence and intent to injure.
Ill take 15-20 min of that a night.

Throw in some offense & it's the best of both worlds.

 

[Baby Punisher]

Maybe just maybe most people are freaking tired of so called Ranger fans wanting to be right about McIlrath sucking and appear to actively root for him to fail. That pattern has gotten tiring. You don't like him, we all get it. Why not post fifty times how he sucks only one of which was substantiated by your opinion on his actual play.

Good Lord you want to play the martyr, please just climb up and nail yourself to a cross.

I have been very high on McIlrath since we drafted him. He is taking a little longer to develop mainly because of injuries, I don't think he is a bust. I would give him another year/season to find his game, but after that it's gonna be poop or get off the pot.

 

[Bardof425*]

What it always comes down to on these boards is the "true fans" maintain the unpopular opinions, have patience for guys like McIlrath, don't see what's wrong with paying a guy like Callahan 6M, etc. and the rest of us succumb to hive-mind, popular but uneducated opinions like McIlrath being a bad pick. No matter how rational or supported your opinion is, if it's not in line with the contrarian, high brow opinions of the upper echelon "true fans" who comprise this board's "elite" posters, you're just a product of the echo chamber who doesn't really know hockey, etc.

The "true fan" thing to do, right now, is believe in the McIlrath pick. Not because it was a good pick, but because the pedestrian know-nothing fans all agree that it was a bad pick. Since the majority is in agreement and wishes we'd used the pick on the BPA, it's just hive-mind thinking and a bunch of unqualified commentators parroting one another. Especially because of the fact that the topic has been brought up hundreds of times and beaten to death, and everyone is tired of hearing about Fowler and Tarasenko, defending the McIlrath pick is the cool, educated thing to do. A casual know-nothing drools over Tarasenko's flashy goals but a true fan and skilled observer of the game knows that McIlrath is "coming along well" and "'making strides" and will be a great pick because of his "unique skill set". The know-nothing's are just impatient kids who think Tarasenko is the new Jesus and the real fans understand the value of being patient with a unique kid like McIlrath and will even tell you that his potential upside is as high as a #2 or at least a solid middle pairing defender.

Having any other opinion, even if you watch Hartford and have seen him play more than 5-6 times, which is more than virtually 95% of posters here can actually claim (well, they can claim anything they want but it doesn't make it reality) just makes you an impatient member of the echo chamber. It's not just McIlrath. It's basically any hotly debated topic here at NYR HF. It's like hipster hockey analysis. The contrarian, unpopular opinion is a sign of the cultured, educated, knowledgable hockey fan. Anything that's widely agreed upon is just the casual hive-mind and not worthy.

Well, I am not a product of the echo chamber or a casual know-nothing. I do not believe McIlrath will surpass career #4-6 status as a dman and I don't think it took a genius to question this pick right from the minute it was made. As with other arguments, that somehow makes me a less knowledgable, less loyal, lower quality hockey and Rangers fan but, honestly, I don't care. The pattern here has gotten tiring.

First off, sorry you're not one of the cool kids although you do seem to fashion yourself as an intellectual. How many times have you seen McIlrath play? For me, it's only a handful of times. My belief that it is too early to judge this guy is based on the evaluations I've read from Gordie Clark and Jim Schoenfeld.

I would argue that the hip thing to do on this board is to show your dark side and take the position that the team is going nowhere, it's prospects are all overrated and management is incompetent. This gloom and doom perspective protects you from being accused of being a fanboy which everyone knows is a soft and unacceptable lot. As for questioning the pick that is done with every pick even Nathan McKinnon (although you won't read that now), so I'm not sure what value that statement brings. Let's see how he turns out instead of trying to project the career trajectory of a 21 year old. If we do that then it won't be tiring for you and then any exhaustion you experience will be self inflicted.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

First off, sorry you're not one of the cool kids although you do seem to fashion yourself as an intellectual. How many times have you seen McIlrath play? For me, it's only a handful of times. My belief that it is too early to judge this guy is based on the evaluations I've read from Gordie Clark and Jim Schoenfeld.

I would argue that the hip thing to do on this board is to show your dark side and take the position that the team is going nowhere, it's prospects are all overrated and management is incompetent. This gloom and doom perspective protects you from being accused of being a fanboy which everyone knows is a soft and unacceptable lot. As for questioning the pick that is done with every pick even Nathan McKinnon (although you won't read that now), so I'm not sure what value that statement brings. Let's see how he turns out instead of trying to project the career trajectory of a 21 year old. If we do that then it won't be tiring for you and then any exhaustion you experience will be self inflicted.

The thread is an invitation to project the pick. It wasn't my idea. I didn't bring it up out of the blue. I responded. Regardless, I would agree with what you said about the doom and gloom crowd, but I feel like I've noticed a new tier - just a few posters - that seems to think they're far smarter than everyone else whose response to everything is "patience" or "we'll/he'll be fine". Kind of white knighting for the team and indicating that, if you had been around as long as them or understood the game as well, you'd know that you're wrong. I don't know. It's a trend I've been noticing for a while. I could have made the statement in a different thread, that's for sure, but if just felt like it was going on in this one quite a bit. Like I said, it's not related to this topic specifically.

 

[Miamipuck]

I have been very high on McIlrath since we drafted him. He is taking a little longer to develop mainly because of injuries, I don't think he is a bust. I would give him another year/season to find his game, but after that it's gonna be poop or get off the pot.

It's a fact that defensemen take longer, especially the type like McIlrath. It is cliche to say we need to exhibit patience but I really think it's applicable here more than most pics. He was a developmental pick. In football especially, I hate those picks, hockey not so much. I understand the angst about using a 1st on that type of player.

That said, his upside isn't a #5 by a long shot. If everything goes right he can be a #2, similar to Beukeboom. Do I expect that? No, most likely he won't get there. However, he can be a legit tough as nails crease clearing #4, and that is definitely a needed player on this roster.

 

[Baby Punisher]

It's a fact that defensemen take longer, especially the type like McIlrath. It is cliche to say we need to exhibit patience but I really think it's applicable here more than most pics. He was a developmental pick. In football especially, I hate those picks, hockey not so much. I understand the angst about using a 1st on that type of player.

That said, his upside isn't a #5 by a long shot. If everything goes right he can be a #2, similar to Beukeboom. Do I expect that? No, most likely he won't get there. However, he can be a legit tough as nails crease clearing #4, and that is definitely a needed player on this roster.

I would be happy with either scenerio.