LD Jake Sanderson - Univ. of North Dakota, NCAA (2020, 5th, OTT) Part 2

[Pavels Dog]

And his stats as an 18yr old NCAA freshman put him in an elite category, if you're curious. Off the top of my head Quinn Hughes is the only guy to have a higher PPG, while giving up a ton on the defensive side of things to gain a slight statistical edge in offense over Sanderson.

But is it really valuable to filter out a ton of players because they were playing NCAA hockey one year earlier than Sanderson? And how high should we value PPG when the season was half as long as normal? I mean in a historical context I'd probably put the cut-off point for looking at point-per-game rates in NCAA at minimum 20 games, maybe even 25.
All-in-all he has definitely had a good season but some Sens fans seem to think he should be rated as the best prospect in all of hockey or something, and I don't see it.

 

[topshelf15]

Both are great young players ,just different styles...Dont get why we get into these lengthy arguements,we will never know if Ana takes Sanderson at 5 ,or still takes Drysdale...Or vice versa,as a Sens fans Iam happy with Sanderson,and thats good enough

 

[Korpse]

Where is he getting underrated?

Personally I wasn't hugely impressed with him at the WJC. Thought he was mediocre offensively and steady defensively, but not amazingly so (played for a really good team too).
His NCAA numbers this year seem good, but not amazing? I'm not really invested in the NCAA scene though so I can't speak to all different factors like age, freshman status, team strength, role etc etc.
Then there's the fact that the obvious comparison in Drysdale has put up better numbers in a pro league and already shown good things in the NHL.

There you go underrating him.

 

[57special]

OTT needs to ignore Drysdale and his development, and do what's best for Sanderson. I do think he could jump into the NHL next year, as he is a big strong kid( unlike Makar), but they might do well to allow him to spread his wings offensively at NoDak next year.

I love Drysdale, but am I allowed to also like Sanderson? The hope with the latter is that he is a true two way Dman who plays big minutes in all situations and anchors a top 4 pairing while scoring 30-35 points. He has a bit of an anonymous game- I don't see Hughes or Makar, or Brodin, OTOH, but playing a true two way game is always more difficult.

 

[Masked]

Personally I wasn't hugely impressed with him at the WJC. Thought he was mediocre offensively and steady defensively, but not amazingly so (played for a really good team too).

That says more about you than it does about Sanderson.

 

[Dan Patrick]

But is it really valuable to filter out a ton of players because they were playing NCAA hockey one year earlier than Sanderson? And how high should we value PPG when the season was half as long as normal? I mean in a historical context I'd probably put the cut-off point for looking at point-per-game rates in NCAA at minimum 20 games, maybe even 25.
All-in-all he has definitely had a good season but some Sens fans seem to think he should be rated as the best prospect in all of hockey or something, and I don't see it.

I feel like you might be misconstruing many pages of Sens fans pushback against posters highly undervaluing Sanderson's season and downright trolling, with us thinking he's going to be the next Cale Makar or the best defencemen of all time. Though they have weirdly similar and comparable post draft seasons pretty much every Sens fan will agree that those are some insane aspirations and saying Sanderson were to be the next Makar would be a huge reach. I think most Sens fans are just happy with the year he's had, excited about his next season and development, and are anxiously waiting for the time when he can come help with teams woeful defence. I think he's an exceptional young defencemen and prospect, but would I trade him for Moritz Seider 1 for 1, every day of the damn week and twice on Sundays.

 

[Pavels Dog]

There you go underrating him.

So unless every person in the world hypes him to the moon he is underrated? I haven't watched the NCAA so I can't say if his play there warrants a ton more hype than he gets. But I'm just saying, other guys are doing similar things at higher levels of play, and Sanderson's WJC wasn't something that casual viewers will remember as that year Sanderson dominated.

 

[foggyvisor]

So unless every person in the world hypes him to the moon he is underrated? I haven't watched the NCAA so I can't say if his play there warrants a ton more hype than he gets. But I'm just saying, other guys are doing similar things at higher levels of play, and Sanderson's WJC wasn't something that casual viewers will remember as that year Sanderson dominated.

This is fair. He was a stud in the gold medal game but was at best good in the other games.

However, his game took off in the last chunk of his college season.

He's a great prospect and has shown why he was taken 5th. I don't think anybody is saying he's the best propect in the world.

 

[Korpse]

So unless every person in the world hypes him to the moon he is underrated? I haven't watched the NCAA so I can't say if his play there warrants a ton more hype than he gets. But I'm just saying, other guys are doing similar things at higher levels of play, and Sanderson's WJC wasn't something that casual viewers will remember as that year Sanderson dominated.

Not at all.

But like you said, you haven't watched the NCAA and that was obvious when you asked where he was underrated.

I'm also not commenting on other players at all.

 

[Akrapovince]

As a huge fan of Sanderson, and would take him over Drysdale (even more so for the Sens) - I feel like its inarguable that Sanderson was clearly more raw, and less polished than Drysdale at the time of the draft.

Hes only like 4 weeks older than the famously young/raw/unpolished Quinton Byfield.

I would argue today that he could very well be the superior player, but Drysdale almost reminds me of a smaller version Boumester. Invisible in a lot of ways both good and bad. But a minute cruncher and reliable.

So weird, at the draft I thought Sanderson was more of a “safe” pick, wasn’t that what he was considered?

Usually I associate safe with more polished, and boom and bust as more raw.

 

[NyQuil]

So weird, at the draft I thought Sanderson was more of a “safe” pick, wasn’t that what he was considered?

Usually I associate safe with more polished, and boom and bust as more raw.

I think he was considered to have a high floor but people questioned whether his ceiling was sufficient for the rank he was selected at.

Safe in terms of the likelihood that he becomes an NHL defenceman. Risky in terms of picking him 5th overall.

In general, his play at the NCAA level has supported his draft range I think.

I tend to believe that, had he been drafted around 9th where he was in some of the earlier lists, everyone would be crowing right now about what a steal he was.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Drysdale is more polished? Which facet of Sanderson’s game isn’t refined?

I think Sanderson’s game is very mature and polished, but he does have a lot of untapped potential as well.

Drysdale was unquestionably more polished than Sanderson. That’s why ones in the NHL and the other taking another year in college. Sanderson is a later bloomer skyrocketing due to his progression not his previous play like Drysdale. Sanderson is closing the gap very quickly which is why you probably think this. D-1 and draft year Drysdale was always ahead until couple months before season ended.

I wanted him so badly at 11-15 with NYI pick(before it became low) and he just kept skyrocketing till he was in conversation for 5 and 2 of Bob McKenzie’s 10 NHL scouts ranked him as high as 3.

Drysdale plays a more veteran type of game, more polished in that he doesn't take many risks while influencing possession positively.

Yes he plays more veteran style game but Sanderson is more risk free. That’s why he’s going back to college, team WANTS him to take more risks offensively. Drysdale’s game is more refined and that was very clear when he made team Canada as 17 year old.

 

[Rhaegar Targaryen]

Guys, that Wings fan has been really bitter about all things Ottawa since they lost the Draft Lottery. Just giving y’all a heads up.

I remember thinking we’d end up with Byfield and Drysdale. I am soooo glad I was wrong - the 2020 Draft is going to shape our future the way 2003 did for Anaheim.

 

[NyQuil]

I remember thinking we’d end up with Byfield and Drysdale. I am soooo glad I was wrong - the 2020 Draft is going to shape our future the way 2003 did for Anaheim.

I still wouldn't mind having Drysdale on this team. I don't think I'd be crushed if they exchanged places. I was pretty high on him before the draft.

:shrug:

I think Sanderson has improved his stock very impressively however since the draft IMO, and a few Senators posters out there (you know who you are) who followed him much more closely have done a good job in covering him for the rest of us.

I don't think I'd give up Stutzle though at this point.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Detroit Red Wings' blue chippers, Montreal Canadiens' Cole Caufield headline Top 75 prospects list - TSN.ca

 

[nbducksfan19]

Sanderson getting underrated is really weird, because if anything he should be getting overrated.

I think it's because people don't believe in his offensive game which IMO is going to better than Drysdale's. It's more raw, but I like the instincts better.

I don't doubt that Sanderson's offensive game could develop and be better than Drysdale, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. I think Sanderson had advantage in tools and Drysdale's has the better instincts. That is not to say Sanderson does not have very good instincts, and Drysdale doesn't have good tools, just whose is better in a vacuum.

 

[topshelf15]

Drysdale game was based on his offensive style,Sanderson was first based off his defensive game with an an emerging offensive game...One looks like Letang the other looks more like Suter...Both great but for entirely different reasons

 

[robert ethan]

Big Ears or Bobble Head, the eternal debate.

 

[Breakers]

Damn this kid and the Senators are smart.

props to organization and the kid for not rushing it

 

[Ser Grogu]

Papa Guhle's getting upset!

 

[Baaaaaaaaaaaaah]

Good to see them not rush him. His father is a smart man too...held Jake back once in Calgary minor hockey when he thought he wasn’t mature enough yet for the next level. I am sure Geoff was one of the voices of reason in this decision.

 

[robert ethan]

Papa Guhle's getting upset!

Ducks fans squirming orgasmically over Bobble Head with the blow dried 80s flow tonight, in another loss where he was-2 for the game, God forbid if he actually plays a decent game. Don't know which of you is more delusional.

 

[Samsquanch]

But is it really valuable to filter out a ton of players because they were playing NCAA hockey one year earlier than Sanderson? And how high should we value PPG when the season was half as long as normal? I mean in a historical context I'd probably put the cut-off point for looking at point-per-game rates in NCAA at minimum 20 games, maybe even 25.
All-in-all he has definitely had a good season but some Sens fans seem to think he should be rated as the best prospect in all of hockey or something, and I don't see it.

If for nothing else, I will give you credit for grip strength - your somehow still clinging to this greasy, shit covered rope of an opinion that Sanderson was not worth the spot he was taken at. And you dont sound completely moronic while doing it. Good for you I guess, in a strange way...

But the answer to your question is yes - yes we can use Sandersons freshman NCAA as a tool to gauge him with. What kind of silly question is that?

Do we exclude Laffreniere from comparisons in the CHL because hes older than most? Or do we take Byfield out of all comparisons because hes late born? What are we evcn talking about man lol? The line has to get drawn somewhere.....

Looking at freshman NCAA seasons (I hope I havent lost you yet) - ie the only fair way to compare freshman NCAA players - Sanderson has placed himself in some elite company thus far. Fact. Not debateable. He had no control over the length of the current season, he was healthy and not injured, and he played in the games that were available to for him to be tracked in.

His coaches, trainers, handlers, ect at ALL levels of hockey are over the moon with him, and they will put him in the conversation for best prospect ever they have worked with. Also a verifiable fact with public quotes to back this point up fully.

And to be an 18yr old freshman Dman and have your coaches call you the best player on a powerhouse NCAA team by seasons end - it has to mean your doing a few things right. Like really right.

Again if you have a problem with Jake Sanderson as of April 3rd 2021 - it says more about you than it does him at this point. Seriously.

 

[NHL Dude 120]

Rewatched a draft vid and saw Ryan Suter as a comparison what do you folks think?

 

[Pavels Dog]

If for nothing else, I will give you credit for grip strength - your somehow still clinging to this greasy, shit covered rope of an opinion that Sanderson was not worth the spot he was taken at.

Oh come on. Don't throw out generalizations like that. Sanderson was one of my top choices for the Wings at #4 and I would be happy to have him in that spot still.

Looking at freshman NCAA seasons (I hope I havent lost you yet) - ie the only fair way to compare freshman NCAA players - Sanderson has placed himself in some elite company thus far.

It probably is. I'm just not seeing the same elite company. I see guys like Fox, Miller, Trouba, Faulk, Werenski etc. with better numbers. Sanderson isn't too far behind but he is behind. Ahead of some guys (McAvoy, Hanifin etc.) for sure but I don't know that it's the type of numbers that dispel any concerns about offensive upside. Especially considering he only scored 2 goals. Comparing to Werenski for example who scored 9 goals as a freshman and 11 in his sophomore season.

His coaches, trainers, handlers, ect at ALL levels of hockey are over the moon with him, and they will put him in the conversation for best prospect ever they have worked with. Also a verifiable fact with public quotes to back this point up fully.

Opionons are not verifiable facts though, I mean those things help build the case that Sanderson is a high-end prospect but no one is disputing that. He was drafted 5th so if he WASN'T drawing comparisons to other top draft picks in the past it would be concerning.
I'm not sure anything like that should be used as a shield as any sort of debate or discussion on a prospect. Albert Johansson's coaches in the SHL are comparing him to Nick Lidström. All that kind of stuff should usually be taken with a grain of salt.