Toggle sidebar

Prospect Info: Senators in WJC - Part Zwei

Status
Not open for further replies.

Burrowsaurus

Registered User
Mar 20, 2013
42,406
16,040
TheDebater said:
I actually wanted Peterka too, but I can definitely see why Dorion and the scouts passed on him for Jarventie. In fact I would wager that it was probably a close debate between Dorion, Mann and the scouts deliberating between Peterka and Jarventie, and who knows if Dorion got his guy or put his faith in the scouts (or vice versa)?

In my opinion I thought we would go Peterka at 28, meaning we could still have had Jarventie at 33, so the real debate is going to be the one that takes place once we have a good read on the type of player Greig is.
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen either play in their respective leagues. I’ve only seen their wjc play. So I can’t see why they would pick jarventie over peterka. But again I acknowledge that’s my limited viewings.

I don’t put much stock into letting off one timers on big ice. Which is all I’ve seen of jarventie from Sweden. Don’t know what else he’s done in those games
 
Sweatred

Sweatred

Erase me
Jan 28, 2019
13,408
3,324
How could anyone think Rossi,
perf, or Quinn was better than Lundell? Kids a stud, just pick pocketed Sanderson.
 
ijif

ijif

Registered User
Dec 20, 2018
747
733
SadEugeneOregonDonor said:
That has nothing much to do with their argument. Their argument is not that Dorion & Co are right, but that we have no reason to believe that performance at the WJC, (e.x) Scouching, Wheeler, or the scouts of Bob McKenzie have particularly strong predictive power - especially in these strange times. More succinctly, their point would be that judging who will have the best draft on who has the best players 1 day or 6 months out is not an effective strategy, unless your goal is instant gratification.
Click to expand...

The original poster made a claim that some people seek instant gratification of popular names instead of trusting the scouts. The tone of the sentence implied that trusting the scouts was the superior option. I am curious if someone can actually explain why? Is there an old data set I can look at from prior years that shows that our picks are better than the instant gratification popular names? More generally, why should I trust the scouts at all? You just claimed that I have no reason to believe Bob McKenzie's scouts have strong predictive power, and his scouts are NHL scouts, so they belong to the same subset of scouts as our scouts.

I do not care about WJC performance. With that being said, on this board, I do see a lot of people saying "trust the scouts" or some variant, and I am wondering why I should do that? What is the evidence?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sens of Anarchy
The Devilish Buffoon

The Devilish Buffoon

🇵🇸 viva 🇵🇸 free 🇵🇸
Dec 24, 2018
12,091
10,911
theanalytic said:
The original poster made a claim that some people seek instant gratification of popular names instead of trusting the scouts. The tone of the sentence implied that trusting the scouts was the superior option. I am curious if someone can actually explain why? Is there an old data set I can look at from prior years that shows that our picks are better than the instant gratification popular names? More generally, why should I trust the scouts at all? You just claimed that I have no reason to believe Bob McKenzie's scouts have strong predictive power, and his scouts are NHL scouts, so they belong to the same subset of scouts as our scouts.

I do not care about WJC performance. With that being said, on this board, I do see a lot of people saying "trust the scouts" or some variant, and I am wondering why I should do that? What is the evidence?
Click to expand...

You will have to find someone making that argument if you want an answer
 
Xspyrit

Xspyrit

DJ Dorion
Jun 29, 2008
30,847
9,784
Montreal, Canada
Is it just me or it's going to be the easiest Gold medal for Canada at the WJC in a while?

theanalytic said:
The original poster made a claim that some people seek instant gratification of popular names instead of trusting the scouts. The tone of the sentence implied that trusting the scouts was the superior option. I am curious if someone can actually explain why? Is there an old data set I can look at from prior years that shows that our picks are better than the instant gratification popular names? More generally, why should I trust the scouts at all? You just claimed that I have no reason to believe Bob McKenzie's scouts have strong predictive power, and his scouts are NHL scouts, so they belong to the same subset of scouts as our scouts.

I do not care about WJC performance. With that being said, on this board, I do see a lot of people saying "trust the scouts" or some variant, and I am wondering why I should do that? What is the evidence?
Click to expand...

It's not about "trusting the scouts". It's about in reality, in the real world, they are the ones who have the job and make their recommandations to the GM who is the one who calls the shots at the draft table with his scouting director. So that you "trust" the scouts or not, all you can do is agree or complain.

It's ok if anyone gives their opinion on what they would have preferred. Repeating it non-stop is what is ridiculous though. It becomes annoying fast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adele Dazeem
Dan Patrick

Dan Patrick

Registered User
Mar 11, 2020
1,961
1,959
saskytaxi said:
It is hard to get a feel for Sanderson. Has a ways to go offensively/hands. Obviously skating is impressive.
Click to expand...

I still think he goes back to UND next year. Lead and maybe even captain that team along with the US team next year as well. After that I think we see him coming into the 2022-2023 season and gives us one of the best 2nd/3rd pairings in the league.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saskytaxi
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom