Counting the team he never played for? Flimsy at best. Can you point me to that quote where the Rangers actually said that about him, or are you just misinterpreting Tortorella saying he can't eat Girardi's minutes?
The rumor reported was that the pieces added to Del Zotto was a "non-starter." Not that Del Zotto himself was a non-starter.
The team he never played for because they cut him out of training camp. A team that at the time had a horrendous defense. Yeah. That team.
I'm not misinterpreting Torts' quote at all, btw. You can find it earlier in this thread, where he clearly said that they obviously don't want Stralman playing that many minutes. And the rumor reported was that Stepan and Del Zotto were non-starters. Not a package of Del Zotto and whatever the + was--Stepan and Del Zotto, as players, were non-starters.
I've watched plenty of him, thanks. You realize that "generating offense" doesn't necessarily result in points, correct? He makes a great breakout pass and rushes the puck better than Del Zotto wishes he could. In the last 5 games, he's played fewer than 20 minutes one time, but actually had more shifts. Not sure that's evidence that his minutes have been going down in a negative way, especially considering he's taking the same number of shifts.
That player would not be in the NHL on a team with a half-decent defense. He's not a bad player--he has potential, and I could see him maxing out as an average 2nd pairing guy, but he's not in the same stratosphere as Del Zotto. He'll be lucky if he turns out like Tyutin.
I never said it's "easy" to replace him, I'm saying his contributions are overrated. People weren't clamoring for PMD because they wanted more points from the blue line, they wanted someone who could run the PP. Del Zotto hasn't proven capable of doing that thus far.
Sorry, you lost me when you said Miller is a adequate 3rd line center for a contending team.
You think he could be replaced by a rookie on his first cup of coffee in the NHL. So no, you did not literally write out "he would be easy to replace" but you imply it with every post you make. Ten years--one guy managed to do it, and you want to trade that one guy for another lotto ticket. You're like Peter Griffin with the mystery box.
And Miller, while not ideal, is fine for right now. His offense isn't all there, but I've been pleasantly surprised by how composed he is defensively and in the faceoff circle. I'd be nervous if the playoffs started today, but I'm confident that in a couple of months, he would be an acceptable option. Not as good as O'Reilly, to be sure, but Miller and MDZ gives us a better chance to win than Miller and O'Reilly in my view.
Easy to put words in people's mouths I guess.
It's called applying your logic to other situations. You don't seem to believe your own argument when it doesn't suit you. What should that tell you about the validity of that argument?
He fell in the draft because he was a lousy skater at that age. I'm assuming he was voted the 3rd best playmaker in the OHL East that year by the coaches poll because they felt bad for him? Del Zotto fell because he couldn't play a lick of defense. He improved in that regard, so I don't see any reason that ROR continuing to improve his offense is some incredible mountain to climb. Especially when he's proven he can do it.
He fell in the draft because he was a lousy skater (and he's still not great at that part of the game) and because his goal totals went DOWN in his second year in juniors, and because he didn't have a noticeable jump in overall production in his second year in juniors. In short--he fell because of his offense. Why do I question whether he can improve that offense? Easy--I love heart and soul players. There are not many better kinds of player in my mind. That said, heart and soul players with top-shelf talent are better. O'Reilly has never really had that talent offensively. As Kent Wilson (Calgary based hockey writer) noted in his pre-draft analysis of O'Reilly--it's great to hear that a player has intangibles--but when that's ALL you keep hearing about a player, it raises red flags.
Last year he did have Stepan's offense, and hit 50 points at a younger age than Stepan. Where exactly did I said he was better than Richards? Oh, that's right. Nowhere.
At a younger age? They are a few months apart. You're really reaching now. As for where you said he was better than Richards, it was right in your post. You said, and I quote: "ROR steps in today and he's likely in a deadlock with Stepan as our best center." Are you quibbling on the word "likely" or what? You said it. You even bolded "today."
Oh, right. The whole "he rode Landeskog's mojo" thing.
I can't figure out why you guys can't see this one. This is the one point where it looks the same whether you are basing your argument on the stats OR watching the games. Stat-wise: You have a player noted for being offensively limited. Drafted as a defensive specialist. Spends two years in the league as a defensive specialist. Third year in the league, he's suddenly putting up 2nd line production. He doubles his previous career high. How often do you see numbers jump like that?! Answer--you don't. Development is nearly always incremental. What changed? One thing--Landeskog got stapled to his wing.
Now watch the games to see exactly what I'm talking about. Landeskog is a bulldozer on offense. He creates chaos around the crease. The vast majority of O'Reilly's assists to Landeskog are not plays that he "created." O'Reilly would give the puck to Landeskog and Landeskog would create a goal. O'Reilly would fan on a shot, and Landeskog would find a way to put it in on a goal-mouth scrum. It happened over and over again. Landeskog figured into about half of O'Reilly's points. The fact that you refuse to see that is baffling. I hate this HFBoards attack trope, because I think it is used entirely too often, but if you just watch a few of the games from last year it would be easy to see.
