GDT: Rangers @ Islanders - "Who Wants To Lose More?" Edition - 4/5/18 - 7pm ET

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.
They've had 5 by my count (Brendl, Lundmark, Malhotra, Montoya, McIlrath.)

They reached with 2, and neither were crazy reaches. One of them just stings because of who they passed on.

And Andersson was undoubtedly a reach as well.

I just quickly went back and looked at 12 sets of reputable final rankings for last year's draft and where Andersson was ranked:

Range: 11th-26th
Mean: 16.5
Median: 16th

I love the kid, but it's difficult to say that we never took him much earlier than was expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HatTrick Swayze
They reached for Andersson. Nobody wants to admit it.
giphy.gif
 
It's not even reaching, either. It's doing it for the wrong reasons.

If we took a huge risk because the kid was hurt, or a late bloomer, or in a bad situation, but we believed he had the talent to score 50 goals, that's one thing.

We reached for McIlrath because he fights. We reached for Andersson because he's a muh competitive warrior who does things #therightway and will throw medals if we lose.
 
It's not even reaching, either. It's doing it for the wrong reasons.

If we took a huge risk because the kid was hurt, or a late bloomer, or in a bad situation, but we believed he had the talent to score 50 goals, that's one thing.

We reached for McIlrath because he fights. We reached for Andersson because he's a muh competitive warrior who does things #therightway and will throw medals if we lose.


I don't think this is accurate at all.

They reached on McIlrath because they felt that there was a ton of upward development left for him and that he could potentially be a 2 way monster. Fighting was part of it but yeah, that was a bad pick.

I still fail to see why people rip on the Andersson pick, considering that he's already playing in the NHL and has excelled the entire season while playing in pro hockey. Who would you have rather had the Rangers pick? The savior in Buffalo hasn't exactly lit it up either.
 
It's not even reaching, either. It's doing it for the wrong reasons.

If we took a huge risk because the kid was hurt, or a late bloomer, or in a bad situation, but we believed he had the talent to score 50 goals, that's one thing.

We reached for McIlrath because he fights. We reached for Andersson because he's a muh competitive warrior who does things #therightway and will throw medals if we lose.
But let's leave out that Andersson is highly skilled and has high level IQ.

Come on. You absolutely cannot put McIlrath and Andersson in the same line of thought here.

It was a bit of a reach, yes. But a far cry from 2010. Andersson is legitimately good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGortonConspiracy
I don't think this is accurate at all.

They reached on McIlrath because they felt that there was a ton of upward development left for him and that he could potentially be a 2 way monster. Fighting was part of it but yeah, that was a bad pick.

I still fail to see why people rip on the Andersson pick, considering that he's already playing in the NHL and has excelled the entire season while playing in pro hockey. Who would you have rather had the Rangers pick? The savior in Buffalo hasn't exactly lit it up either.

But let's leave out that Andersson is highly skilled and has high level IQ.

Come on. You absolutely cannot put McIlrath and Andersson in the same line of thought here.

It was a bit of a reach, yes. But a far cry from 2010. Andersson is legitimately good.

He is good. But how good?

He doesn't have a high ceiling, and that's why people criticize the pick.
 
He is good. But how good?

He doesn't have a high ceiling, and that's why people criticize the pick.
Disagree. I think he has a high ceiling, just not as relatively high as say...Middelstadt or Vilardi.

But that's assuming any, if not all, reach their ceilings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad