HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Winnipeg Jets
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Dylan McIlrath

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-04-2012, 09:39 PM
  #1
viper0220
Go Jets Go
 
viper0220's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 50
Dylan McIlrath

What do you guys think about McIlrath, kid is from Winnipeg, why not give a chance. If Enstrom gets traded, he might be good to have around and Chevy said he likes a big team. And he might not be hard to get from Sather, you guys think Chevy goes for him?

viper0220 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 09:50 PM
  #2
Sweech
COYS!
 
Sweech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,859
vCash: 50
Not a huge fan of his.

Plus we already have Cody Sol in the system who fills a similar role.

Sweech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 09:55 PM
  #3
bigplay41
BIG MEECH
 
bigplay41's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,331
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to bigplay41
Yeah I wouldn't offer up much to get him

bigplay41 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 09:59 PM
  #4
Zhamnov10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JetNation View Post
Yeah I wouldn't offer up much to get him
wasn't he like 10th overall I remember it being a reach when they picked him but did he lose that much value.I think with time he should be able to develop we could sure use his size and mean streak.I don't think Sol is a good comparison Dylan is a better skater.

Zhamnov10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 10:25 PM
  #5
untouchable21
You've been TROUBA'D
 
untouchable21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Outer Limits.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,873
vCash: 500
Rangers passed on both Fowler and Gormley to select him. Can't imagine that they'd get great value for him so depending on the asking price, I might be interested. If the price is too steep, I wouldn't lose sleep over it. Can easily find a similar player elsewhere.

untouchable21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 11:09 PM
  #6
WJG
Running and Rioting
 
WJG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Country: Ireland
Posts: 12,744
vCash: 500
It is insane the number of quality players the Rangers passed on in order to draft McIlrath.

Fowler, Gormley, Schwartz, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, Etem, Coyle, etc.

WJG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 09:02 AM
  #7
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WJG View Post
It is insane the number of quality players the Rangers passed on in order to draft McIlrath.

Fowler, Gormley, Schwartz, Tarasenko, Kuznetsov, Etem, Coyle, etc.
yep a friend of mines a rangers fan...he was prettty "suprised"...

Grind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 10:10 AM
  #8
Becel
I Hate Jamie Macoun
 
Becel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 345
vCash: 500
The pick somewhat reminded me of when the Avalanche took Scott Parker in the first round about ten years ago (yikes just checked wikipedia - 1998 - 14 years ago - one of the worst drafts in history). Both teams wanted to add some young toughness and definitely made a pick based on need or want rather than "best player available." Parker had over 700 penalty minutes in 3 years and was drafted 20th overall. Granted the Avs could take a risk or 2 that year as they had 5 of the top 28 picks, but it just goes to show the draft will never be an exact science and every team values players differently.

Becel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 10:23 AM
  #9
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,325
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reims View Post
The pick somewhat reminded me of when the Avalanche took Scott Parker in the first round about ten years ago (yikes just checked wikipedia - 1998 - 14 years ago - one of the worst drafts in history). Both teams wanted to add some young toughness and definitely made a pick based on need or want rather than "best player available." Parker had over 700 penalty minutes in 3 years and was drafted 20th overall. Granted the Avs could take a risk or 2 that year as they had 5 of the top 28 picks, but it just goes to show the draft will never be an exact science and every team values players differently.
Stories like this, and McIlrath (although it is early), are why I cringe when people look solely at size in our drafting.

For me it should be one thing of many, and not the be all and end all trait.

Huffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 10:38 AM
  #10
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,307
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
Stories like this, and McIlrath (although it is early), are why I cringe when people look solely at size in our drafting.

For me it should be one thing of many, and not the be all and end all trait.
Completely agree, Huffer.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing, but let's put McIlrath and Fowler in this years draft. We're up on the podium ready to make our selection, do we go with the soft yet offensively gifted Fowler or the physical in your face, chippy, McIlrath?

Answer is simple for me. Fowler, and I wouldn't think twice.

We could also look at the 2008 draft, Colten Teubert (drafted 13th) or Michael Del Zotto (drafted 20th) ?

Do you go with the physical, overpowering, chippy, aggressive player/prospect? or the smooth skating, offensively gifted, much more naturally talented prospect?

Of course there would be examples to prove the opposite, such as taking the physical player over the smart/skilled player and the smart/skilled player not turning out as well, it happens both ways and there are certainly examples to prove both.

I think at the end of the day though, I still say take the talent. Talent is much harder to come by and obtain than finding a physical player. All in all, I'd go for a mix of talent/potential, heart/passion and size. That would be best case scenario, I think. Case in point for us, Scheifele fits the bill here nicely.

__________________
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=43225&dateline=141082  3903
"The ‘now’ is very good in Chicago. The ‘now’ back in the days when they were drafting first, second and third? It wasn’t very good. But the core of fans that stuck with them, if you asked them now, I betcha they’d say it was worth it.” - Kevin Cheveldayoff

Last edited by Guerzy: 06-05-2012 at 10:49 AM.
Guerzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 10:44 AM
  #11
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
Stories like this, and McIlrath (although it is early), are why I cringe when people look solely at size in our drafting.

For me it should be one thing of many, and not the be all and end all trait.
He was a top 17/18 prospect that year on many of the mock drafts. Taking him at 10 was a surprise - not much different than Scheifele last year. Solid mid-round pick, taken earlier.

I see size maybe a bit differently. I see size as Anze Kopitar. Big body, hard to knock off the puck, imposing his will on smaller players. McIlrath has size but he's one tough, SOB and was the dominant 'tough guy' in the WHL when he was drafted. Rangers looked at him as an enforcer or someone that intimiates the opposition one day.

And, i will admit, i prefer size come draft day. But I prefer Kopitar size - a guy that can play lots of minutes and produces points using his size - to someone like McIlrath, physical player/fighter with far less skill and ability. I'd like a McIlrath, too, but wouldn't take him 10th overall.

Bob E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 10:50 AM
  #12
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,307
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
And, i will admit, i prefer size come draft day. But I prefer Kopitar size - a guy that can play lots of minutes and produces points using his size - to someone like McIlrath, physical player/fighter with far less skill and ability. I'd like a McIlrath, too, but wouldn't take him 10th overall.
I think you summed it up there perfectly, Bob.

Guerzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 11:15 AM
  #13
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerzy View Post
I think you summed it up there perfectly, Bob.
That's why I'd love to see the Jets take Faksa in the draft, but worried he'll be gone by #9.

Bob E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 11:22 AM
  #14
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,307
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
That's why I'd love to see the Jets take Faksa in the draft, but worried he'll be gone by #9.
When I was reading what you wrote there, I was admittedly thinking Faksa. Well said, again.

I'm excited, I think we can get our hands on a nice player at the no. 9 spot. We've certainly got options in terms of going forward or defence.

Guerzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 11:28 AM
  #15
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,325
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
He was a top 17/18 prospect that year on many of the mock drafts. Taking him at 10 was a surprise - not much different than Scheifele last year. Solid mid-round pick, taken earlier.

I see size maybe a bit differently. I see size as Anze Kopitar. Big body, hard to knock off the puck, imposing his will on smaller players. McIlrath has size but he's one tough, SOB and was the dominant 'tough guy' in the WHL when he was drafted. Rangers looked at him as an enforcer or someone that intimiates the opposition one day.

And, i will admit, i prefer size come draft day. But I prefer Kopitar size - a guy that can play lots of minutes and produces points using his size - to someone like McIlrath, physical player/fighter with far less skill and ability. I'd like a McIlrath, too, but wouldn't take him 10th overall.
I agree with you in the above, because you are not solely looking at size, but also looking at what that player does with it. You are looking at the size, but want the "skill" to go along with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
That's why I'd love to see the Jets take Faksa in the draft, but worried he'll be gone by #9.
If the scouts think that he can produce offensively in the NHL he would be a great pick.

I'm just saying that if the scouts didn't think his offensive game would necessarily translate to the NHL, that I wouldn't want to solely look at his size and take him at 9.

Huffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 12:57 PM
  #16
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huffer View Post
I agree with you in the above, because you are not solely looking at size, but also looking at what that player does with it. You are looking at the size, but want the "skill" to go along with it.



If the scouts think that he can produce offensively in the NHL he would be a great pick.

I'm just saying that if the scouts didn't think his offensive game would necessarily translate to the NHL, that I wouldn't want to solely look at his size and take him at 9.
True. His value, at 9, is he would develop into an excellent 2-way center - with size.

He wouldn't have to put up Malkin numbers, but a 65+ pt guy, with size, skill would be fantastic. A mini-Kopitar works quite well.

Did you see Doug MacLean on Sportsnet Hockey Central last night? He said, going into the 2005 draft, he and his head scout (i believe) were debating Brule and Kopitar at #6 - back and forth. Then he said Pierre Maguire was very critical at the Habs taking Price at 5, and not Brule. Then when MacLean took Brule at 6, Maguire was singing his praise. Kopitar meanwhile slipped all the way to the Kings at 11. Dave Taylor couldn't believe his good forturne. Guys like Skille, Setoguchi, Lee went before Kopitar. Crazy. Faksa seems to have that same 'feel'. I think if the Jets took him at #9, there will be a few teams shaking their heads in a few years.

Bob E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 01:19 PM
  #17
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,307
vCash: 50
Nice post, Bob. All interesting information there. Interesting how things turn out.

I am excited for this draft. Just 2 more weeks!

Guerzy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 04:42 PM
  #18
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
True. His value, at 9, is he would develop into an excellent 2-way center - with size.

He wouldn't have to put up Malkin numbers, but a 65+ pt guy, with size, skill would be fantastic. A mini-Kopitar works quite well.

Did you see Doug MacLean on Sportsnet Hockey Central last night? He said, going into the 2005 draft, he and his head scout (i believe) were debating Brule and Kopitar at #6 - back and forth. Then he said Pierre Maguire was very critical at the Habs taking Price at 5, and not Brule. Then when MacLean took Brule at 6, Maguire was singing his praise. Kopitar meanwhile slipped all the way to the Kings at 11. Dave Taylor couldn't believe his good forturne. Guys like Skille, Setoguchi, Lee went before Kopitar. Crazy. Faksa seems to have that same 'feel'. I think if the Jets took him at #9, there will be a few teams shaking their heads in a few years.
I still believe that Brule could have been a darn good player if Columbus actually had a clue what they were doing with regards to developing their youth. Instead they wrecked his confidence and stalled his development. Drafting is only half the battle, how an organization developes that talent is also really key. But with regards to the draft give me Reiheart or Faska unless we can move up and nab Murray.

surixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 08:31 AM
  #19
Huffer
Registered User
 
Huffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,325
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
True. His value, at 9, is he would develop into an excellent 2-way center - with size.

He wouldn't have to put up Malkin numbers, but a 65+ pt guy, with size, skill would be fantastic. A mini-Kopitar works quite well.

Did you see Doug MacLean on Sportsnet Hockey Central last night? He said, going into the 2005 draft, he and his head scout (i believe) were debating Brule and Kopitar at #6 - back and forth. Then he said Pierre Maguire was very critical at the Habs taking Price at 5, and not Brule. Then when MacLean took Brule at 6, Maguire was singing his praise. Kopitar meanwhile slipped all the way to the Kings at 11. Dave Taylor couldn't believe his good forturne. Guys like Skille, Setoguchi, Lee went before Kopitar. Crazy. Faksa seems to have that same 'feel'. I think if the Jets took him at #9, there will be a few teams shaking their heads in a few years.
Regarding Kopitar, Bob McKenzie made the point that the year Kopitar was drafted, the NHL was just coming out of the lockout. So many teams had slashed their scouting budgets, and that meant that Kopitar wasn't seen as much as he would have in a normal year.

Huffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 10:05 AM
  #20
Rheged
JMFT
 
Rheged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,103
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grind View Post
yep a friend of mines a rangers fan...he was prettty "suprised"...
"Surprised" is a mild way of putting things.

That said there was some reasonable rationale for taking him where they did at the time, but really, they basically admitted that they drafted for need with that pick which I'm sure all would agree is kind of silly. (Tarasenko coming over now makes it all the worse )

All that aside I believe the Rangers are still pretty high on McIlrath, for as good as their top 4 are their depth in NHL defensemen was pretty bad this year, and with Sauer's concussion/injury history potentially career threatening McIlrath is probably first in line to take over that sort of bruising crease-clearing role.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
True. His value, at 9, is he would develop into an excellent 2-way center - with size.

He wouldn't have to put up Malkin numbers, but a 65+ pt guy, with size, skill would be fantastic. A mini-Kopitar works quite well.

Did you see Doug MacLean on Sportsnet Hockey Central last night? He said, going into the 2005 draft, he and his head scout (i believe) were debating Brule and Kopitar at #6 - back and forth. Then he said Pierre Maguire was very critical at the Habs taking Price at 5, and not Brule. Then when MacLean took Brule at 6, Maguire was singing his praise. Kopitar meanwhile slipped all the way to the Kings at 11. Dave Taylor couldn't believe his good forturne. Guys like Skille, Setoguchi, Lee went before Kopitar. Crazy. Faksa seems to have that same 'feel'. I think if the Jets took him at #9, there will be a few teams shaking their heads in a few years.
I feel the same way about Girgensons honestly, I'm probably out to lunch but he seems really understated/undervalued to me right now, just get the feeling that he'll go mid first round and end up being one of the best forwards taken down the line.

Rheged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 01:45 PM
  #21
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
I still believe that Brule could have been a darn good player if Columbus actually had a clue what they were doing with regards to developing their youth. Instead they wrecked his confidence and stalled his development. Drafting is only half the battle, how an organization developes that talent is also really key. But with regards to the draft give me Reiheart or Faska unless we can move up and nab Murray.
I remember that draft year a bit. Brule was mentioned in the same breath as Crosby, not as dominant offensively, obviously, but added a physical element that Crosby, and others didn't.

But Brule's game didn't translate to the pro or NHL level. A concussion early in his career (first year, I believe) seemed to derail his game. Very much like what Holden mentions with Dumba and Thrower. So its hard to disagree with him on that one.

Bob E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 11:31 PM
  #22
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
I remember that draft year a bit. Brule was mentioned in the same breath as Crosby, not as dominant offensively, obviously, but added a physical element that Crosby, and others didn't.

But Brule's game didn't translate to the pro or NHL level. A concussion early in his career (first year, I believe) seemed to derail his game. Very much like what Holden mentions with Dumba and Thrower. So its hard to disagree with him on that one.
He was rushed into the league right after being drafted when it was clear as day that he wasn't physically ready for it. He suffered a broken sternum on a crushing hit in his second game and then broke his leg in a freak play 5 games after coming back. But his development didn't go off the rails until the next year as he came back from those injuries and tore up the dub carrying the giants to their first WHl championships and Memorial Cup berth. He led the Dub in playoff scoring by something like 10 points capturing the playoffs mvp. He also led the memorial cup in scoring by scoring 12 points in the 6 games.

The problem was Columbus jerked him around the next year, he was scratched and benched continuously at the start of the year for making some mistakes and it destroyed his confidence and set him way back. If he wasn't ready then the blue jackets should of sent him back then play around with his confidence. I am really glad to see that this type of development won't fly hear.

surixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 11:48 PM
  #23
Bob E
Registered User
 
Bob E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Winnerpeg
Posts: 3,368
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by surixon View Post
He was rushed into the league right after being drafted when it was clear as day that he wasn't physically ready for it. He suffered a broken sternum on a crushing hit in his second game and then broke his leg in a freak play 5 games after coming back. But his development didn't go off the rails until the next year as he came back from those injuries and tore up the dub carrying the giants to their first WHl championships and Memorial Cup berth. He led the Dub in playoff scoring by something like 10 points capturing the playoffs mvp. He also led the memorial cup in scoring by scoring 12 points in the 6 games.

The problem was Columbus jerked him around the next year, he was scratched and benched continuously at the start of the year for making some mistakes and it destroyed his confidence and set him way back. If he wasn't ready then the blue jackets should of sent him back then play around with his confidence. I am really glad to see that this type of development won't fly hear.
That does ring a bell now that you mention it - had the injuries and then played sporatically. Didn't score much and then was moved to Edmonton, i believe.

Now he's caught between being too good for the AHL and not good enough to be a NHL regular contributor. Maybe Phoenix, if he resigns, will give him the support and opportunity he needs.

Bob E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2012, 12:49 AM
  #24
untouchable21
You've been TROUBA'D
 
untouchable21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Outer Limits.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheged View Post
"Surprised" is a mild way of putting things.

That said there was some reasonable rationale for taking him where they did at the time, but really, they basically admitted that they drafted for need with that pick which I'm sure all would agree is kind of silly. (Tarasenko coming over now makes it all the worse )

All that aside I believe the Rangers are still pretty high on McIlrath, for as good as their top 4 are their depth in NHL defensemen was pretty bad this year, and with Sauer's concussion/injury history potentially career threatening McIlrath is probably first in line to take over that sort of bruising crease-clearing role.



I feel the same way about Girgensons honestly, I'm probably out to lunch but he seems really understated/undervalued to me right now, just get the feeling that he'll go mid first round and end up being one of the best forwards taken down the line.
I'm with you on this one. Girgensons is going to be a gem of a player when all is said and done. Would not be disappointed at all if he was our guy. He along with Faksa are the two forwards I want most.


In regards to McIlrath, I see him being a tough bottom pairing guy with the upside of a Douglas Murray type defenseman. Too risky to pass on the type of skill the Rangers passed on for him at #10 though.

untouchable21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2012, 04:49 PM
  #25
surixon
Registered User
 
surixon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob E View Post
That does ring a bell now that you mention it - had the injuries and then played sporatically. Didn't score much and then was moved to Edmonton, i believe.

Now he's caught between being too good for the AHL and not good enough to be a NHL regular contributor. Maybe Phoenix, if he resigns, will give him the support and opportunity he needs.
Yup, its the case of a player not getting the proper development early in his career which is too bad because he was a phenominal junior player. He has shown flashes with Phoneix and had one really good year with Edmonton so there is still a chance he can salvage a decent career. He plays for a great coach who will flush out his game in Tippet.

surixon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.