I see the Beuk comparison, not sure I see the Sarge comparison. I'd argue that top upside for McI is Pronger and top upside for Miller is Mike Richards - although the point about relative value still stands. Having said that, I'd also argue that odds are much higher of Miller reaching his top potential than McIlrath.
What makes you think McIlrath's upside is Pronger?
Pronger was a ppg player in his only two years in junior and is going to be a hall of famer. That is unrealistic expectations for McIlrath and he hasn't shown anything that to point to a similar sort of progression as Pronger had. It's probably a stretch to say that McIlrath has #1 defensemen upside.
I'm not downplaying McIlrath as a prospect, but that is unrealistic expectations given that Pronger is one of the best defenders of his generation and there are many prospects showing more promise than McIlrath and there the chances are that none of them can achieve what Pronger did in his career. You could even argue that Weber, one of the top defenders in the league, isn't at Pronger's level, so I don't how McIlrath has done anything to make you think his upside is that of one of the premier defenders in the league.
Last edited by The Sweetness: 03-07-2013 at 02:59 AM.
The WHL is not really a high scoring league. Traditionally, the WHL was the lowest scoring league and the QMJHL the highest scoring league, though the gap significantly narrowed in the last 20 years when the same player would have 25% more points in the Q than in the W.
The best way to gauge players is by looking at where they stand compared to similar players in the same league. He's now #7 in scoring in the WHL with 87 points (tied for 6th in points, but has more games played, so really he's #7).
The next thing I like to look at are his teammates to see if he's only feeding off of their skill (e.g., Bob Maudie getting 101 points by being Iginla's WHL center). This isn't the case here. He is 6 points above his team's #2 guy and 10 points above his team's #3 guy.
Then I look for consistency so that we don't simply have ballooned stats from a few games where he ran up 5-6 points per game against weak opponents. That's not the case. While he's been hot this week, he's scored consistently this whole year. And last year he had 105 points. Even when he's cold, he still scores a point per game. When he's hot, he's just dominant, totally unstoppable by junior defenders.
Finally, I want to see how he performs in the playoffs because that's more NHL style hockey: tighter defense and stronger hitting. Last year, he did not perform particularly well. He wasn't terrible, but he got only a point per game. However, his team was young and inexperienced. This year, they have more age and experience, so it's time for St. Croix to show what he's got.
Thanks. I look at his stats and they were better last year, any reason for that?
What makes you think McIlrath's upside is Pronger?
Pronger was a ppg player in his only two years in junior and is going to be a hall of famer. That is unrealistic expectations for McIlrath and he hasn't shown anything that to point to a similar sort of progression as Pronger had. It's probably a stretch to say that McIlrath has #1 defensemen upside.
I'm not downplaying McIlrath as a prospect, but that is unrealistic expectations given that Pronger is one of the best defenders of his generation and there are many prospects showing more promise than McIlrath and there the chances are that none of them can achieve what Pronger did in his career. You could even argue that Weber, one of the top defenders in the league, isn't at Pronger's level, so I don't how McIlrath has done anything to make you think his upside is that of one of the premier defenders in the league.
The argument (from the Rangers) in drafting him as high as they did was that he was a very late bloomer who only came into his own in the months leading up to the draft and was on a sharp development curve and that the offense would come. That curve has since been significantly slowed by injuries.
Having said that, please understand: I didn't like the pick then and I still don't now. I was stunned and dismayed they didn't take Tarasenko, precisely because I think it is incredibly unlikely that McI reaches the potential the Rangers claimed he has.
The argument (from the Rangers) in drafting him as high as they did was that he was a very late bloomer who only came into his own in the months leading up to the draft and was on a sharp development curve and that the offense would come. That curve has since been significantly slowed by injuries.
Having said that, please understand: I didn't like the pick then and I still don't now. I was stunned and dismayed they didn't take Tarasenko, precisely because I think it is incredibly unlikely that McI reaches the potential the Rangers claimed he has.
I hope I'm wrong.
They based the pick on his final 3 months of the season, and his 7 game playoff loss to the Calgary Hitmen, where Moose Jaw was up in the series 3-1. That Calgary team was small upfront, McIlrath must have looked like a giant in comparison.
The argument (from the Rangers) in drafting him as high as they did was that he was a very late bloomer who only came into his own in the months leading up to the draft and was on a sharp development curve and that the offense would come. That curve has since been significantly slowed by injuries.
Having said that, please understand: I didn't like the pick then and I still don't now. I was stunned and dismayed they didn't take Tarasenko, precisely because I think it is incredibly unlikely that McI reaches the potential the Rangers claimed he has.
I hope I'm wrong.
I agree with you. Look, we desperately need a big, physical, tough crease clearing defenseman but it is difficult under any circumstances to justify spending a 10th overall pick on a big, raw physical defenseman who was and may still be a project.
The argument (from the Rangers) in drafting him as high as they did was that he was a very late bloomer who only came into his own in the months leading up to the draft and was on a sharp development curve and that the offense would come. That curve has since been significantly slowed by injuries.
Having said that, please understand: I didn't like the pick then and I still don't now. I was stunned and dismayed they didn't take Tarasenko, precisely because I think it is incredibly unlikely that McI reaches the potential the Rangers claimed he has.
I hope I'm wrong.
Oh, I'm aware McIlrath took large strides in his draft year and was viewed as very raw with a big upside partly due to him picking up the sport so late and partly due to his physical abilities. But players of Pronger's ability come around extremely rarely and McIlrath is shown nothing (despite scouts or fans feeling he can evolve his offensive game) to compare his upside to Pronger.
I do remember a lot of fans wishing we'd have taken Fowler or Tarasenko. Having Tarasenko sure would be nice... But I suppose we can't do well every pick and can take solace in the fact that we've done very well in our drafting recently and that McIlrath still may develop into a very useful player for us even if we'd probably like to go back and pick the Russian.
I know this is a message board where every one gets to share an opinion, but there is something that bears repeating....and I know you have all heard this alot, but here goes:
The guys that picked McIlrath know what they are doing.
I know this is a message board where every one gets to share an opinion, but there is something that bears repeating....and I know you have all heard this alot, but here goes:
The guys that picked McIlrath know what they are doing.
I know this is a message board where every one gets to share an opinion, but there is something that bears repeating....and I know you have all heard this alot, but here goes:
The guys that picked McIlrath know what they are doing.
That's it. Continue.
You should go take a look at what Joel Armia, picked right after JT Miller, is doing in Finland at 19 yrs old. It's gonna be Tarasenko allover again, you've been warned
You should go take a look at what Joel Armia, picked right after JT Miller, is doing in Finland at 19 yrs old. It's gonna be Tarasenko allover again, you've been warned
That's impressive though huh? 100 points in 150 Top Finnish league games at 19 yrs old?
Armia is going to be a good player. I'm happy with Miller. Hindsight is always 20/20. Have to be happy getting a NHL player @ 19 years old where the Rangers selected.
You should go take a look at what Joel Armia, picked right after JT Miller, is doing in Finland at 19 yrs old. It's gonna be Tarasenko allover again, you've been warned
I get what you are saying Blue. I really do. Look, this will be painful sometimes. The guys who are making these decisions know full well that it will be swing and a miss on some of them. You will miss out on some good picks. But the word I get (not that it's anything more informed than anyone else) was that those discussions about the pick were intense. Very strong opinions around that table. Ultimately they chose Dylan McIlrath. I think it will take time, but this could be a very special player. We'll see.
Once again, the Rangers are NOT trying to draft the guy who'll wind up being the best player available. I know it sounds wrong if you don't understand the basics of drafting, but let me repeat this one for you: the Rangers are NOT trying to draft the guy who'll wind up being the best player available.
They are trying to draft a guaranteed NHLer. And safety naturally goes against upside. If you pick for a guarantee of making it, you are going to have to surrender some upside. This applies to both Miller and McIlrath.
McIlrath has some offensive ability due to his superior ability to see the ice. The same reason his defensive passing doesn't go into an empty real estate or to an opponent is the reason he can skate up the puck. He doesn't have the hands to stickhandle around a defenseman, but he has enough speed and vision to quickly move with the puck into some empty real estate from which he can shoot.
He's not going to be Pronger, but he has a higher offensive upside than Beukeboom. His offensive upside is that of Ulf Samuelsson, about 25-30 points per season. If he can have the best qualities of Ulf and Beuk, that's a hell of a player and definitely worth a #10 selection.
Once again, the Rangers are NOT trying to draft the guy who'll wind up being the best player available. I know it sounds wrong if you don't understand the basics of drafting, but let me repeat this one for you: the Rangers are NOT trying to draft the guy who'll wind up being the best player available.
They are trying to draft a guaranteed NHLer. And safety naturally goes against upside. If you pick for a guarantee of making it, you are going to have to surrender some upside. This applies to both Miller and McIlrath.
How's that workin out? Look at all the Championships, piling up so high....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beacon
McIlrath has some offensive ability due to his superior ability to see the ice. The same reason his defensive passing doesn't go into an empty real estate or to an opponent is the reason he can skate up the puck. He doesn't have the hands to stickhandle around a defenseman, but he has enough speed and vision to quickly move with the puck into some empty real estate from which he can shoot.
He's not going to be Pronger, but he has a higher offensive upside than Beukeboom. His offensive upside is that of Ulf Samuelsson, about 25-30 points per season. If he can have the best qualities of Ulf and Beuk, that's a hell of a player and definitely worth a #10 selection.
That's impressive though huh? 100 points in 150 Top Finnish league games at 19 yrs old?
It is impressive for sure. I was worried about his compete level during his draft year. Took too many games off for my liking, but the talent is undeniable. Could certainly us a right-handed shooter who can play the off-wing right about now.
McIlrath has some offensive ability due to his superior ability to see the ice. The same reason his defensive passing doesn't go into an empty real estate or to an opponent is the reason he can skate up the puck. He doesn't have the hands to stickhandle around a defenseman, but he has enough speed and vision to quickly move with the puck into some empty real estate from which he can shoot.
He's not going to be Pronger, but he has a higher offensive upside than Beukeboom. His offensive upside is that of Ulf Samuelsson, about 25-30 points per season. If he can have the best qualities of Ulf and Beuk, that's a hell of a player and definitely worth a #10 selection.
