I guess my point is that if you've actually watched him play, he has been every bit as good as his stat line would indicate. He's very reliable defensively and used in all situations, probably considered by most Sens fans as our best defender already.
He's our best guy on the breakout, and he's running a powerplay thats been far more effective than the one Karlsson has been running for the last 3 years.
If your point is that he's just getting lucky touches on the puck, your grasping at straws. In Chabot's case, the eye test is most certainly in line with the results hes had so far. Thats why this thread was created and why most people seem to agree that hes really damn good, and its also no surprise that it took 3 pages for some uniformed person to make a negative point about him.
My point is, that in a thread talking a lot about his point totals, there was no mention that he's been a bit on the lucky side. That should be mentioned. No more and no less. Unless you're arguing he's directly responsible and can maintain the 15% on ice shooting percentage and 66% 2nd assist rate, i'm not sure why you're getting so disgruntled.
Me noting the fact that he's getting a lot of secondary assists isn't even negative, it just is. It's a fact. A fact that that historically has shown to be unsustainable, but the flip side of that is if his primary point percentage was in the normal range he'd still have 8-11 points and on pace for 50+ points. Heaven forbid i disparage him by pointing out he's probably 50+ point D long term and not a 80 point D.
This is the most of thought about Chabot in my life, and it seems like enough for now.
I'll just say, in the future, maybe don't come to the main board with threads if you can't handle people critically thinking about them, instead of just blowing rainbows up their bums.