Player Discussion Dylan McIlrath Part V: #FreeHim

[RempireStateBuilding]

There is never a time when a guy who projects as a middle pairing defensemen with snarl, at his absolute ceiling, is a need over a 40 goal scorer. You can have 12 40 goal scorers in your line-up and trade the 13th for a defensemen who will have a better career than McIlrath could dream of.

That's a very poor argument to try and justify a pick that should not have been made at 10th OA. Especially when you talk about needing a bruiser, which is ridiculous.

Coulda woulda shoulda.

 

[Edge]

There is never a time when a guy who projects as a middle pairing defensemen with snarl, at his absolute ceiling, is a need over a 40 goal scorer. You can have 12 40 goal scorers in your line-up and trade the 13th for a defensemen who will have a better career than McIlrath could dream of.

That's a very poor argument to try and justify a pick that should not have been made at 10th OA. Especially when you talk about needing a bruiser, which is ridiculous.

I think at this point it comes down to two approaches:

Either justifying the pick, which is doable but difficult.

Or accepting the type of role McIlrath has the potential to play.

One will drive you nuts, the other gives you the chance to at least find some level of enjoyment.

 

[Ail]

Coulda woulda shoulda.

It's not even about a "coulda woulda shoulda", it's about not trying to justify a pick based on such an inconsequential need you would choose that need over a much more valuable and important one. Especially when you are in a draft position that increases the chances of that more valuable need of coming to fruition.

 

[Ail]

I think at this point it comes down to two approaches:

Either justifying the pick, which is doable but difficult.

Or accepting the type of role McIlrath has the potential to play.

One will drive you nuts, the other gives you the chance to at least find some level of enjoyment.

I agree, which is where I, and I think most are at right now.

Was it the right pick at 10th OA? No. However it is on the cusp of panning out in to something that will help the team, and that's an acceptable outcome without being blinded by hindsight.

 

[Ail]

Show me where you picked tank in the draft before hand? There is the argument your the Top air chair GM that posts here.

I didn't pick anyone in that draft, at any ranking.

Everyone that posts here is an arm-chair GM, including you. You're just convinced that your "insider knowledge" somehow makes your arm-chair theories more relevant or correct.

Although, after reading your fantasies for many years now, it would not surprise me if your views on what makes a successful hockey team were instrumental in making such a poor selection at 10th OA.

 

[Chaels Arms]

It's not even about a "coulda woulda shoulda", it's about not trying to justify a pick based on such an inconsequential need you would choose that need over a much more valuable and important one. Especially when you are in a draft position that increases the chances of that more valuable need of coming to fruition.

I agree with you that the mindset behind the pick at that time was flawed. I think our organization was in a very different place back then. Having Torts as our coach probably had a lot to do with that. Hopefully, if a similar situation arose today, they take the potential 40 goal scoring forward and sort out the toughness issue elsewhere.

Still though, it's nice that McIlrath looks like he's got a good chance of "making it" now and being an important part of this roster.

 

[Kel Varnsen]

Is a McIlrath thread or a Tarasenko/2010 NHL draft thread?

McIlrath's play today and role in the organization has nothing to do with what Tarasenko is doing for the Blues or what either man was doing as a kid five years ago.

 

[ThirdEye]

Not to mention, how many people actually predicted Tarasenko would turn into a 40 goal scorer? If that was the case he would have went in the top 3, not at #16.

Even the Blues passed on him once.

 

[McRanger]

There is never a time when a guy who projects as a middle pairing defensemen with snarl, at his absolute ceiling, is a need over a 40 goal scorer. You can have 12 40 goal scorers in your line-up and trade the 13th for a defensemen who will have a better career than McIlrath could dream of.

The Rangers didn't see his potential as a middle pair defenseman. Right or wrong they saw his potential as a top pair defenseman.

This is such a bizarre discussion; the "absolute ceiling" for every 1st round pick is very high. Sometimes teams will accept a lower "absolute ceiling" for a player is more likely to actually make the NHL, let alone make an impact, since most players do not.

Montreal did that when they took McDonagh 12th overall instead of Cherepanov or Esposito or half a dozen defensemen who were flashier and taking a potentially quicker routes to the NHL.

That's a very poor argument to try and justify a pick that should not have been made at 10th OA. Especially when you talk about needing a bruiser, which is ridiculous.

Enough with the "justify" nonsense. Enough. This board went bananas when they took McIlrath and have been jerked off about his selection in the half decade plus since. It seemed like a bad pick then and still looks like one today.

But McIlrath still might turn into a good player. So constantly bringing up the same crap to the one or two posters who actually liked the pick, as if to lecture everyone, is just infuriating or irritating for the rest of us.

Having to still put up with the constant "derp derp youz guyz justz dontz getz itz, McIlSUCKZ is da worstz dingz since datz Joeyz Jessimanz guyz" after having to live through the pick and everything that followed is just too f***ing cruel.

Don't be heartless. Think of your fellow posters.

 

[Ail]

Not to mention, how many people actually predicted Tarasenko would turn into a 40 goal scorer? If that was the case he would have went in the top 3, not at #16.

Even the Blues passed on him once.

This has nothing to do with Tarasenko vs. McIlrath. It's about any typical first round draft pick versus going off the board to pick a guy who normally would not go in the top-20, or even the first round at all. Where another team would have picked him is irrelevant, let them make the mistake.

Of course Tarasenko's future was not known at the time of a pick, but, if your choices are 9 other guys, or even 5 others, who project to be high impact, first round talent, and 1 guy who projects to be an average player, is a long-term work in progress, who may not even meet his average ceiling, who do you pick with a top-10 draft pick? Especially when you don't get them very often?

 

[eco's bones]

I truly see McIlrath as having prime-Orpik level potential. That's an elite level 3/4 in my books.

It took Orpik a long time to get where he was. Also, weirdly enough, I think that McIlrath would've benefitted much more from playing in the NCAA. I would've loved to have seen him get four years in college and two in the AHL.

There are some close similarities but IMO Dylan should be a better skater. I think he's a bit faster to begin with. Also Dylan is bigger and stronger--Orpik's a cheap shot artist who never backs it up. I don't see Dylan as a cheap shot artist but even so he can and will absolutely back it up.

If he becomes a second pairing defenseman--we'll have the kind of guy who can control the crease area--something we've been missing for a while. There are guys who play the heavy game like Martin last night--there are a few who are legit big time players like Ovechkin, Lucic, Perry who like to play a heavy game too. If Dylan improves to the point where he can handle those guys on a regular basis that will be real good for us.

 

[Edge]

Sounds about right.

Now let's see if he can establish himself as a third pair guy before we start thinking about playing on the second pair.

 

[JC704]

He looks good out there next to Yandle. At this point, all he needs is seasoning. His decisions are smarter, his passes look crisp (he's been making very nice outlet passes too), his positioning is solid. he wins board battles, he's limiting the physical element of players on the other side.

Players like this don't their stride until 26/27. We should be very lucky that he looks like a solid partner next to Yandle. His strengths complement Yandle's very nicely. My favorite pairing to watch right now. This organization at some point is going to have to make a tough decision. I'd argue that:

McDonagh-Klein
Staal-Boyle
Yandle-McIlrath

Needs to be what it looks like going forward.

 

[Ail]

The Rangers didn't see his potential as a middle pair defenseman. Right or wrong they saw his potential as a top pair defenseman.

This is such a bizarre discussion; the "absolute ceiling" for every 1st round pick is very high. Sometimes teams will accept a lower "absolute ceiling" for a player is more likely to actually make the NHL, let alone make an impact, since most players do not.

However, McIlrath was not only seen as a long-term project, "raw" was the common word, who might not ever even reach the NHL (aka a safe pick) but also not first round ranked player. I don't think many scouts or experts saw him with a typical first round ceiling, or as a safe player. Maybe the Rangers scouts did, that was their risk.

Enough with the "justify" nonsense. Enough. This board went bananas when they took McIlrath and have been jerked off about his selection in the half decade plus since. It seemed like a bad pick then and still looks like one today.

But McIlrath still might turn into a good player. So constantly bringing up the same crap to the one or two posters who actually liked the pick, as if to lecture everyone, is just infuriating or irritating for the rest of us.

So is a constant attempt to justify a bad pick at 10th overall. Why can't everyone just talk about how the player could help the team now regardless of where or why he was picked?

Having to still put up with the constant "derp derp youz guyz justz dontz getz itz, McIlSUCKZ is da worstz dingz since datz Joeyz Jessimanz guyz" after having to live through the pick and everything that followed is just too f***ing cruel.

Don't be heartless. Think of your fellow posters.

Okay sorry.

 

[eco's bones]

This has nothing to do with Tarasenko vs. McIlrath. It's about any typical first round draft pick versus going off the board to pick a guy who normally would not go in the top-20, or even the first round at all. Where another team would have picked him is irrelevant, let them make the mistake.

Of course Tarasenko's future was not known at the time of a pick, but, if your choices are 9 other guys, or even 5 others, who project to be high impact, first round talent, and 1 guy who projects to be an average player, is a long-term work in progress, who may not even meet his average ceiling, who do you pick with a top-10 draft pick? Especially when you don't get them very often?

But if I remember correctly McIlrath was ranked in the top 20 by a lot if not most draft experts or draft periodicals. He was a riser. FWIW Kreider was a big riser too.

Part of what happened with the 2010 draft is that the top 9 of 10 forwards went first (of which Tarasenko was the one who didn't) and d-men like Fowler and Gormley who were supposed to go top 5 both dropped. A main issue with Tarasenko was some were worried he wouldn't come to North America. Generally speaking I don't think most of the experts really saw him becoming a 40 goal guy. St. Louis even hedged their bet on him by taking Jaden Schwartz first.

Truthfully when Fowler dropped and became available to us I expected the Rangers would grab him. The other two I was thinking were Gormley and Tarasenko. Fowler would never have played for the Rangers in his draft year. He's got great talent--but he's not great defensively and he was (and kind of still is) all kinds of soft--a bad combination when your head coach is John Tortorella. We had Del Zotto who really looked like something then but was in and out of Tortorella's dog house. Fowler and Tortorella just doesn't seem like it would work to me. McIlrath and Tortorella though for sure. More than McIlrath and Vigneault anyway.

 

[haveandare]

This has nothing to do with Tarasenko vs. McIlrath. It's about any typical first round draft pick versus going off the board to pick a guy who normally would not go in the top-20, or even the first round at all. Where another team would have picked him is irrelevant, let them make the mistake.

Of course Tarasenko's future was not known at the time of a pick, but, if your choices are 9 other guys, or even 5 others, who project to be high impact, first round talent, and 1 guy who projects to be an average player, is a long-term work in progress, who may not even meet his average ceiling, who do you pick with a top-10 draft pick? Especially when you don't get them very often?

You're pretending people in the past knew the present. He wasnt picked with hopes of being average, that's a joke. Also fairly sure he was projected in the first round by many people.

 

[Ail]

But if I remember correctly McIlrath was ranked in the top 20 by a lot if not most draft experts or draft periodicals. He was a riser. FWIW Kreider was a big riser too.

It looks like he was ranked in the 20s by some and just outside the first by others. So I guess not a typical first round pick is an exaggeration, you're right.

You're pretending people in the past knew the present. He wasnt picked with hopes of being average, that's a joke.

I don't think any draft pick is made with a hope of being average. However I don't think it is unfair to say that some are more likely to land there than others.

 

[haveandare]

It looks like he was ranked in the 20s by some and just outside the first by others. So I guess not a typical first round pick is an exaggeration, you're right.



I don't think any draft pick is made with a hope of being average. However I don't think it is unfair to say that some are more likely to land there than others.

For sure but I also don't think it's unfair to say that teams are picking the guys that they think are most likely to be exceptional. Every year every team guesses and guesses wrong in some cases. Everyone but EDM and BOS missed on Tarasenko, he's the third best player in that draft easily.

 

[Ail]

For sure but I also don't think it's unfair to say that teams are picking the guys that they think are most likely to be exceptional. Every year every team guesses and guesses wrong in some cases. Everyone but EDM and BOS missed on Tarasenko, he's the third best player in that draft easily.

I agree that the Rangers probably thought very highly of McIlrath for a multitude of reasons. Which is really the point I was originally trying to make in response to Dogons. I think it is ridiculous to say the Rangers went off the board to make this pick because they needed a bruiser or physical presence. I'm sure that was factored in somewhere, but at 10th OA they must have seen much more than just a giant guy with a temper.

Sorry to everyone for dragging this down the 2010 draft road again.

 

[Vinny DeAngelo]

can we get away from the Mcilrath Tarasenko talk? i mean seriously everyteam misses in the draft thats how we get guys like datsyuk and zetterberg.

now on Mcilrath right now, i think him and yandle are a better second pair than staal-boyle and i wish the ice time reflected that. Mcilrath is quickly getting to Klein's level if not passing it. and considering how young he still is i dont think it's out of the question for him to be better than girardi. in 2-3 years i c him in the top four playing with either mcdonagh or skjei.

Mcdonagh-mcilrath
Skjei-girardi

switch mcilrath and girardi if u want but i think that would be two great shut down type pairs

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Obviously, I wish we took Tarasenko, I was hoping for it then when he was available, but we didn't. At this point, I'm just happy to see the progress Dylan has made and it looks like he's going to be a solid NHLer for us. It sucks not getting Tarasenko, but that part is done. We took McIlrath and now the hope is just that he can be the best that he can be.

As for his game, his skating has come along nicely as has his decision making and passing. He has a lot of poise with the puck now and plays with confidence. He's also a beast on the boards which is going to be very important. He's a bruiser and very physical, but his game is also very modern in that he's not a Luke Schenn type. Dylan can skate and make nice passes. His progress is very nice and he should be a solid part of the blueline.

 

[Beacon]

I think it's important to keep in mind that even if McIlrath hits his potential at the NHL, he's still likely at least two years away from really reaching that level.

How many players are as good in their rookie seasons as they are in their prime? McIlrath is already a very competent top-6 defenseman. I'd say he makes fewer and less egregious mistakes than your average #6. In 2-3 years, he'll definitely be a top-4 defenseman and maybe he'll be a first pair blueliner.

 

[Levitate]

Some positive words from AV about him:

“I think if last night was an indication, I really liked his game last night,†Vigneault said. “I thought not only without the puck defensively was he in good position but I do think he made a few plays with the puck that were high percentage and the right plays at the right time. He knows for the time being Kleiner is out, it’s on his right side so it’s giving him a good opportunity. A lot of times you get opportunities you’ve got to grab them and make the most of them and hopefully that’s what he’s going to do.â€

From Andrew Gross

 

[haveandare]

How many players are as good in their rookie seasons as they are in their prime? McIlrath is already a very competent top-6 defenseman. I'd say he makes fewer and less egregious mistakes than your average #6. In 2-3 years, he'll definitely be a top-4 defenseman and maybe he'll be a first pair blueliner.

I don't think first pair is out of the question either. Not a lock by any means but possible. I don't see him as the guy in a first pair but as the smooth steady compliment to the guy.

 

[Beacon]

He looks good out there next to Yandle. At this point, all he needs is seasoning. His decisions are smarter, his passes look crisp (he's been making very nice outlet passes too), his positioning is solid. he wins board battles, he's limiting the physical element of players on the other side.

Players like this don't their stride until 26/27. We should be very lucky that he looks like a solid partner next to Yandle. His strengths complement Yandle's very nicely. My favorite pairing to watch right now. This organization at some point is going to have to make a tough decision. I'd argue that:

McDonagh-Klein
Staal-Boyle
Yandle-McIlrath

Needs to be what it looks like going forward.

Why do people constantly mark Yandle below Staal? Yandle is easily better than anyone on this team not named McDonagh, and it's arguable that he's equal to McDonagh.