View Single Post
Old
02-21-2013, 02:29 PM
  #398
haveandare
Registered User
 
haveandare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 6,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoneil View Post
So now the number of people saying things that aren't true makes it more valid? Boom Boom, this board, particularly over the last couple of years, has become such a "mob-mentality" that I usually just roll my eyes at group-think posts and decide not to bother. I doubt I'm the only one.

This board LOVES to pick one player, informally decide on a "meme" for that player, and then repeat it until it suddenly becomes the "truth." Last year, it was Dubinsky, with the combo of "he's a dumb player" and "he doesn't know what kind of player he is." Neither label was true, but one or two guys started saying it, and the crowd that got pissed off by his holdout combined with the crowd that was in love with Nash started repeating it all the time.

Now, it's Del Zotto's turn. It's another perfect storm. There are some guys who have never liked the kid for some reason (no idea why, but like Dubinsky, there's a crowd of posters here who have been in favor of trading Del Zotto since mid-way through his rookie year). Once again, we see the meme building--just look through this thread. Suddenly, he's "not a real puck mover" and he's "inconsistent." One guy said it a few times, and then others latched on. It's absurd.

I have seen O'Reilly play. He's VERY good defensively (though not as good as Callahan, IMO--in fairness, he's much younger and playing the tougher position, but Cally is more decisive/instinctive in his defensive play--RO'R has a tendency to over-think things from time to time, which worries me at playoff time). Offensively? He's capable, but he's nothing special. On the offensive side of the puck, he reminds me a lot of Dom Moore (the Toronto/Tampa Bay version--not when he was with us). He's a decent passer, but doesn't really have a shooter's instincts. Last season, I saw a player who benefitted from having a phenomenal player on his wing. Landeskog made all kinds of space for O'Reilly last season, driving to the net, drawing multiple defenders and then dishing the puck to O'Reilly for the easy tap in. Alternately, O'Reilly would frequently give the puck to Landeskog, who would make a goal happen (resulting in an "assist" for O'Reilly, even though the pass rarely had much to do with the goal).

That doesn't make O'Reilly trash. He's still a good player and I would still love to have him on the Rangers third line. But he's NOT a #1 center and he never will be. He doesn't have the offensive skill to fill that role, and he's never shown that level of skill at any level.



You just did what Kwayry pointed out earlier, btw. You characterize MDZ by what he is right now, while valuing O'Reilly by what you think he could be. Frankly, the fact that you think O'Reilly can put up 60+ points "without question" and that he has "offensive swagger" (swagger is the last word I would use to describe O'Reilly's offense) makes me seriously question your take on the player.

I said it earlier--a 40+ point defenseman is MUCH rarer than a 50+ point forward. Last year, there were only 19 of the former and nearly 100 of the latter. The only way that you can argue that RO'R has more value than MDZ is to play prognosticator and assume that you know that Del Zotto will never progress and the O'Reilly will hit a ceiling that he has never been projected to have. Frankly, THAT, to me, sounds like the "fairytale, delusional world"--regardless of how many people are saying it.
Hit the nail on the head in terms of board groupthink and why the ROR trade might not be such a great idea.

haveandare is offline