Sorry, I should have clarified that part re; other OHL defenseman prospects. I was more so referring to..
As for him playing in the mens league in Sweden prior to coming to the OHL, I'll try and clarify what I meant. I didn't intend for it to come across as a knock on him, directly, I just have some caution with it. In my years watching the OHL, you can have a more experienced player for example, who you can tell is never going to make it in the NHL but his production is great in the OHL and his game looks fairly dominant relative to his peers and competition, if that makes sense. For a lot of guys the experience on top of getting the icetime/usage, and playing in a good situation gets them their offensive production. You see guys score at good rates in the OHL then when they graduate and advance to the AHL or NHL they hit the wall. Were they really as good as their production? or was it more experience + icetime/usage + situation? They're really not as good as those numbers indicated. This is where I was drawing to in regards to Andersson coming to the OHL at what I consider more polished and experienced in terms of playing against men for two years and then coming to play against teenagers. Yes he had some adjustments to make but I do believe playing against men in Sweden made the transition relatively easy(er) for him. I couple that experience factor with his icetime/usage (really the only offensive defenseman on Barrie) + situation (highly offensive team), and I think his point-per-game season has more to do with these factors combined than it does with Andersson himself being a top talent.
I see a defenseman who was the one man show and only real offensive defenseman on Barrie's blueline, thus he got (and earned, of course... i'm not trying to discredit him here) the minutes/ice time/usage, to having three 100+ point forwards (on one team, which in the OHL is near unheard of). I just believe Andersson's "situation" benefited him greatly statistically speaking and I don't believe his offensive numbers and stats are as good and pure of the player he is given his skillset, pros and cons to his game, etc. So to draw from his offensive numbers I just don't completely buy it. Not when you have a defenseman who is on the smaller side + doesn't possess great mobility/skating ability + on the poorer side defensively in his reads and awareness. I'm just not buying what's being sold here. I believe he would have fallen in the 30-35, maybe 40 point range and given the collective pros and cons to his game at this point, I personally doubt many are talking about him too much, certainly not as a late 1st round talent. And we wouldn't be seeing these number comparisons to the likes of Ekblad, Subban, others, etc. I believe his production stems from more of a product of his situation than his natural skillset, tools, overall package as a defenseman.
At the end of the day perhaps we are closer to agreement on Andersson than farther away, but we'll agree to disagree on whether he is a 1st round talent/pick. Given you say "Not Hanafin, Werenski, Provorov, Kylington good. But I still put him in the next tier with guys like Roy et al.".. I can't really argue with that since there are a crop of defenseman (from the OHL, where I am familiar with) such as Vande Sompel, Dunn, Andersson, Bouramman, Dermott, Capobianco, Spencer, etc, which, as I said, I personally don't believe many, if any, of those defenseman become top 4 defenders in the NHL.
In short, I question and have cautions with his skating/mobility, lack of size/reach, defensive awareness/IQ, doesn't possess a booming hard shot, albeit like I said in my report, he seems to be a natural at keeping the puck on the ice and getting it on net.
)
