Barnaby
Registered User
A fan may go about that line of thinking, but management wouldn't. Unless they want to get canned.
Apparently management wants to get canned then, since Russians get drafted later than they normally would all the time.
A fan may go about that line of thinking, but management wouldn't. Unless they want to get canned.
i made a decision on the pick immediately after we made it. bad pick.
what he becomes doesnt change my decision. irrelevant.
a bad pick is a bad pick. then and today.
.
Fowler is a good player for the Ducks. Very skilled. It doesn't hurt that he's playing with offensive minded players like Perry, Getzlaf, Selanne. IMO our best offensive forward Nash is not quite on the level with Perry or Getzlaf. Fowler is not that great defensively and he's kind of soft as well. Really to me he's a completely different kind of defenseman than McIlrath.
Really I think the Rangers were counting on Del Zotto to develop more than he has. McIlrath works well with the idea of grinding out games against the Bruins, Penguins, Flyers, Devils--playing against physical teams and with the Rangers concept of their defenders taking care of their own end first. Del Zotto hasn't developed as much as expected and so Fowler probably seems more like he would have been the better bet to some. It takes a lot of different elements to make a good defense corps. The Rangers are still missing a real offensive threat from the blueline.
McIlrath's decision making comfort level with the puck might be the one thing holding him back from the NHL a bit. Skating/positioning is another thing. Big D always have to be working on these things. I think he's close and for all of ODC's *****ing about DZ and McIlrath it may be that DZ's moving on to elsewhere will be the door opening welcoming McIlrath into the NHL.
So if McIlrath becomes a top pairing D-man or a meaner version of Beuk you'd still think it's a bad pick?
IF that happens, we can talk about it.
But at this point there is probably a better chance McIlrath will never be a good NHL player than he will be a top pairing NHL defenseman. And if he never does become an NHL regular, it would be a ridiculous swing and a miss for Sather.
God forbid he doesnt become an NHL player, it will be Jessiman all over again
God forbid he doesnt become an NHL player, it will be Jessiman all over again
Anyway we heard all this next Jessiman **** the moment we drafted Kreider. Jessiman is Jessiman and Kreider is Kreider. McIlrath is McIlrath.
At the time Kreider was drafted I do not remember anyone proclaiming Kreider to be the next Jessiman. People seemed pretty happy with Kreider's potential.
On the other hand there was consternation about the McIlrath pick the moment it was made.
You're going to see consternation whenever two things happen:
1) The Rangers pick a "riser", someone who jumps up the rankings and doesn't fit neatly into the mock drafts they've been reading for months
and
2) The Rangers pick someone who the "experts" on this board dislike.
Lets just say what everyone here is thinking... the overwhelming majority of our posters see far too little, if any, of these prospects to have a valid opinion, let alone hold others in contempt for theirs.
Even after missing the first half of his first pro season with a serious kneecap injury McIlrath did not struggle at the AHL level the way Jessiman struggled. Jessiman even wound up in the ECHL at least once if not twice. McIlrath's transition from the CHL to the pros has not been bad--keeping in mind the injury and keeping in mind that defensemen usually take longer to make it to the NHL than forwards.
Anyway we heard all this next Jessiman **** the moment we drafted Kreider. Jessiman is Jessiman and Kreider is Kreider. McIlrath is McIlrath. Barring career ending injury McIlrath will play in the NHL--at the worst he will be a better skating Matt Carkner. A d-man that big and mean and tough and who can skate is going to play for someone. The same was going to happen to Kreider at his lowest level of potential--he would play for someone in some capacity because he has the gifts of great size and great speed and there is a use for that even if the rest of his game never came around.
My point was that when Kreider was selected he was not called 'the next Jessiman' at the time, as the other poster stated. Taking a look at the link I provided validates that statement.
The loudest people on this board seem to base their opinions on what they read and see in mock drafts. Sauer and Anisimov could have been 1st rounders! What steals! Sanguinetti and Cherepanov fell into our laps! Steals! Who is Stepan? Why not Petrov or Jared Staal? Bad pick! McIlrath was slated to go in the 20's! Bust!
At the time Kreider was drafted I do not remember anyone proclaiming Kreider to be the next Jessiman. People seemed pretty happy with Kreider's potential.
Read for yourself:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=655286&highlight=kreider
On the other hand there was consternation about the McIlrath pick the moment it was made.
Not everybody liked the Kreider pick Lots of people including Rangers HF posters were saying he was going to be the next Jessiman. He was a junior at Phillips Andover. When he switched to the prep school he had to go back a grade. A lot of people were worried about the pick for a number of reasons. The level of competition that Kreider had faced was poor by the standards of most other draftees. The fear that Kreider would have to remain at Phillips Andover for his senior year would mean another season against the same substandard competition basically Pejorative Sluring his development even further. Jessiman had come out of New England prep school hockey himself and had played for Ivy league Dartmouth team. He was a big player who had played against the same inferior kind of competition. It was easy to draw comparisons.
Not everybody liked the Kreider pick Lots of people including Rangers HF posters were saying he was going to be the next Jessiman. He was a junior at Phillips Andover. When he switched to the prep school he had to go back a grade. A lot of people were worried about the pick for a number of reasons. The level of competition that Kreider had faced was poor by the standards of most other draftees. The fear that Kreider would have to remain at Phillips Andover for his senior year would mean another season against the same substandard competition basically Pejorative Sluring his development even further. Jessiman had come out of New England prep school hockey himself and had played for Ivy league Dartmouth team. He was a big player who had played against the same inferior kind of competition. It was easy to draw comparisons.
The McIlrath pick is in question right now because of how he is progressing (or not progressing), not because he was slated to go in the 20's.
And my problem the minute they made the McIlrath selection - and you can look it up right here on this website - was not based on mock drafts or scouting ratings, it was based on the fact that the Rangers were drafting at #10 overall out of need, when the player you drafted was quite possibly five years away from being a productive full time NHL player...and you did not know what your needs would be five years down the road.
I don't think Hank getting run or Gaborik getting pummeled had as much to do with the pick as people think. I would argue that large and mobile right handed defensemen are almost always a need. The real truth might be somewhere in the middle.
My issue with the pick, aside from the fact that it was not for a forward, was that I've never been a fan of drafting people based on their physical gifts. This isn't the NFL. I disliked the Malhotra and the Jessiman pick. Kreider was a similar case. McIlrath is a similar case.
The biggest concern with the Kreider and Jessiman picks was they were dominating in lousy leagues/conferences.