Rangers ftw
Registered User
- May 8, 2007
- 2,389
- 460
Confirmed with Link: Rangers Agree to Terms With Gilroy (Brooks: $650K)
- Thread starter azrok22
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Agreed, Gilroy is ****.
IMO: Stralman, Eminger, Bickel, Gilroy.
In that order of best to worst.
From what I remember hearing about Gilroy he didn't play defense until he was like 18 and playing with the Apple Core. Not sure if that's accurate or not but I remember even at BU people talking about how he was sort of converting positions and was still getting a feel for the game on D. He played a few games at wing for the Rangers and I thought that was a really good move, he could easily step into a 3rd line role if needed I think.
Inferno
Registered User
Agreed. Eminger really should be our #6...he falls in and out of Torts' favor though.
Thirty One
Safe is safe.
- Dec 28, 2003
- 28,981
- 24,357
I actually thought he made the switch after his sophomore season at BU, but I could be wrong.
I'm not sure about the first part regarding when he made the switch, though I know it was around that time. But, that's ridiculous that he could play the 3rd line. I don't believe he is even capable of 4th line forward duty.
I think the bottom line with Gilroy is this: He's a fill-in. Like a Strudwick. He could probably play 5 minutes as a forward if need be, or 10 minutes as a d if need be, but he shouldn't be relied upon. He doesn't hit, he doesn't move the puck well under pressure, his passing and shot are mediocre, he's soft. I mean, there's so many bad things about his game. Possibly all he's good for is his skating.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
He won the Hobey Baker as a defenseman. The issue with Gilroy is the same as it ever was: his best success came as an overaged player playing against kids in college.
He lacks hockey IQ. And that will be the on the wing or on the blueline.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,067
- 40,911
I don't see what all the bad comments regarding Gilroy are about. He is no All-Star defenseman but for 650k he is a good option for the 3rd pairing. He has put up better numbers with the Senators and Bolts, both teams worse than the Rangers team he was playing on before. Bickel is a loose canon and Eminger is injury-prone. Gilroy is as good a back-up defenseman as you can find for this amount of money.
eco's bones
Registered User
At best he's an insurance policy that hopefully we won't ever have to use. He's a -16 for our AHL team--defensively unreliable and one of the softest defensemen I've ever seen playing defense for us and I've been following the Rangers since the 1971-72 season. His offense isn't really even that good--15 points in 34 AHL games equates to about 35 points over a full AHL season.
Here's the other thing from my perspective. Other people might see this differently but when I look at my bottom pair of defensemen I want them to be as sound positionally as possible. I don't so much care whether they put up a bunch of points or not so long as they're not difference makers in negative terms such as blowing coverages etc. The main goal for them is they get their 10 to 15 minutes per game and aren't constantly screwing up. I also want them to have some kind of physical presence. It doesn't necessarily have to be anything extreme but Eminger is a good case in point. He gets in the way. He's in the middle of collisions when he needs to be.
I'll agree that $650 K is not a lot but Gilroy is definitely a subpar NHL d-man as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah it's more of a low risk/low reward. He's a guy that's mediocre on his best days. We signed him because he knows the system and we know what he brings (and doesn't bring).
In addition to those things you say Gilroy brings--it should be added that Tortorella recuited him, tutored him for the two years he was here and has always been willing to have him back. I suspect Tortorella still sees untapped potential and is confidence he can get the best out of Gilroy.
We'll see what Gilroy does with this opportunity.
Yeah. Still would have liked to see us bring in someone with a little more of a resume. Between Eminger, Bickel and Gilroy, we have 3 #7 guys, IMO. Why not use some of that money on a legitimate #6?
NYRKindms
Registered User
- Dec 16, 2009
- 989
- 188
I think it has more to do with depth. Gilroy knows the system. They don't have a teach a new guy the system etc etc
Although I have to say I am surprised by all the hate for Bickel. The guy played his tail off for us last year. Was essentially fine in his role on the team until the playoffs.
He wouldn't be the first rookie to have issues come the playoffs. And he single handedly saved the season with his shot block in the crease to bail hank and the team out.
I for one am pulling for Bickel. he plays with grit, can play wing.
Gilroy can skate. That is about it.
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,067
- 40,911
Fitzy
Very Stable Genius
- Jan 29, 2009
- 36,275
- 23,987
I don't personally believe so but there are others here who might disagree.
Gilroy is mobile, and a decent passer of the puck. Bickel is strong, simple, and is a fast straight-away skater but with limited pivotal mobility. They're totally different animals and we could shift them depending on the physicality of the team we play.
I do think that Eminger outclasses them both, however.
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
Amazing Kreiderman
Registered User
- Apr 11, 2011
- 45,067
- 40,911
Agree on Eminger. If he stays fit, he is definitely our no. 6 defenseman, leaving Bickel and Gilroy as a sub, depending on the opposition we play. With McD-Girardi, Staal-Stralman and Del Zotto-Eminger we have 3 good defensive lines.
I'd argue that he's not necessarily capable of skating a regular shift. Well, I mean, he can skate a regular shift, but he doesn't do a whole lot else.
You're absolutely right, it's why even though I rooted like hell for a local kid I never really thought he was going to live up to the hype that comes with winning a Hobey Baker. His hockey IQ is low, but his biggest issues were always knowing when to pinch..what to do in his own zone...etc. I honestly believe he'd be a suitable forward, and I say 3rd line over 4th because I'd rather have someone with some real scoring ability on the 3rd line than Rupp.
eco's bones
Registered User
I really don't see Gilroy cutting it as a 3rd line forward. The lack of a physical game is his biggest problem. If he had a bit more talent--where he could be a top 6 forward or a pwp quarterback he could get away with it. He doesn't have that much. A 3rd liner needs to have variables as well--ability to forecheck and play physical. Ability to penalty kill. Ability to fight are some of these variables. Not all of them are needed by any one player but the player will have to have at least some of them. And knocking in 10 to 15 goals. Is he capable of that as a forward? I'm not sure but I wouldn't think so. To me he's a less capable forward than Eric Christensen who didn't have many variables either but a lot of Gilroy's similarities but Christensen really is a forward--Gilroy is not really.
