Zegras & Drysdale or Stützle & Sanderson?

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

I wonder how many people have seen Sanderson play more than one game?

This is a frustrating comment, because most of Sanderson's critics in this thread have actually spent time watching the NTDP.

If you like Sanderson over Drysdale and Seider fair enough, but don't pretend that it's impossible for someone to have seen plenty of both Sanderson and Drysdale and prefer Drysdale.

As a Wings' fan I'd love to have either because I think they're both very good defensemen, but I prefer Drysdale and have for a long time, despite seeing dozens of Sanderson's games.

 

[Fatass]

Seider is so much better, imo, than the other five guys, that pair him with the urn of my granny and he tips the poll.

 

[cudi]

Chose the Sens cuz of Timmy.

On D I can't decide who I like more, Drysdale or Seider. Leaning Drysdale.

 

[Random Comment]

This is a frustrating comment, because most of Sanderson's critics in this thread have actually spent time watching the NTDP.

If you like Sanderson over Drysdale and Seider fair enough, but don't pretend that it's impossible for someone to have seen plenty of both Sanderson and Drysdale and prefer Drysdale.

As a Wings' fan I'd love to have either because I think they're both very good defensemen, but I prefer Drysdale and have for a long time, despite seeing dozens of Sanderson's games.

Honestly I don’t think anybody has a problem with Drysdale being preferred by many over Sanderson - that kind of stuff is bound to happen based on offensive flair alone (go see a Brady Tkachuk vs. Zadina thread and you’ll see what I mean). I really like Drysdales game, and may even give him an edge over Sanderson.

What some are taking issue to are those claiming Drysdale is in another « league » (figuratively of course), or that Sanderson is just a #4 Dman. That is when it becomes clear they haven’t watched much of Sanderson at NoDak, or that they have some kind of nonsensical bias against him. Maybe Geoff lost them a fantasy hockey trophy in the past idk.

 

[NyQuil]

Seider is so much better, imo, than the other five guys, that pair him with the urn of my granny and he tips the poll.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Not getting into whether or not Drysdale or Sanderson is a better prospect, both are great imo, but it seems your issue regarding Sanderson's draft stock is with the average fan becoming more aware of him after the stopage rather than based on the merits of his play.

The reality is the aggregate of posters for the most part will be a trailing indicator, the vast majority simply do not watch every USHL game, instead they relly on highlights, scouting reports and draft lists which become available over time. So Mckenzie drops a list with changes based on the last month of play, fans start looking up profiles, reports and highlights, maybe catch a pre recorded game of the guys that they hadn't considered prior, discussing those players more and slowly but surely the hf fan consensus is higher on a player than they were before.

The thing is, the guys who were watching the games are the ones driving the slow uptake of those who didn't, so why someone would be more concerned with a players draft stock among HF posters en mass rather than something like Mckenzie's list is a bit strange.

Aside from that, the jump wasn't across the board, McKeens had him 10th in Jan and Mckenzie had him 9th in Jan, and both moved him up for their final rankings based on play prior to the stopage.

You have it all wrong. More aware? Why would I care about that?

I think there's a group of people, that includes some scouts and analysts, that talked themselves into this idea that Sanderson had added upside than what he showed pre-shutdown last year? And the justification they might've used was that in a very small sample he did a little better offensively in a small sample in some games during January and February.

Why would I care if people are more aware? I have asked these more-aware-people many times to explain how Sanderson was going to add significant point totals to his game when his skillset indicated he didn't yet have the tools for doing so and their answer was never anything specific. It shows how ridden with holes their argument was. It can happen, like a Slavin or McDonagh, later on, but those guys weren't picked 5th. They were picked without the idea that they had significant offense in their game. They were known for other parts of the game. That the offense came later improved their games. Of course thats not the idea of drafting Sanderson fifth. If it was, he wouldn't go fifth in what was considered by a lot to be a very good draft. Most players like Sanderson don't develop anywhere near what those two did.

The idea to draft Sanderson fifth was that he had current offensive upside. However, it was so ridden with holes, and it could never properly be explained. It seemed like such a hastily thought out idea that was thought up mostly when people were bored, they needed to generate new draft ideas without games, they went back and over-analyzed a small sample of games, and left that season with a recency bias influenced view of the games they had watched of the 2020 draft-eligibles. There was a lot of time to think about this stuff, and people talked themselves into this idea that Sanderson had to raise his draft stock ~10-15 spots for reasons that don't make much sense and they could never tangibly articulate.

NHL types are not the most intelligent bunch. I watched my own team's management try to talk the fan base into the idea that they needed to trade up for Braden Schneider and draft him 19th, a much more appropriate range for Sanderson, because the NHL game had become so tough in the made-up playoff format of the final four teams that players who played tough, with grit, with size, and threw hits had gained more value in such a short period of time in a made-up format during which not even every team has taken the ice. This went completely contrary to what most believe that the game has been trending towards skill and sense with a de-emphasis on size and defensive play. We've seen goals go up for years, but apparently this 3-4 month window changes one's mindset with drafting.

Thats not to say Schneider isn't an okay, albeit boring, player to pick at 19. However, if this homogenous group tried to sell you on the idea behind the enormous value he should take on due to recent trends, you'd laugh at them. They couldn't sell this idea to anyone who had basic knowledge surrounding the idea. Anyone with any semblance of intelligence would see how flawed it was, so forgive me if I don't put such an extra emphasis on scouts, analysts, NHL management. I don't think they inherently are better at analyzing Sanderson's draft position than anyone here. They come up with the same theories like I described above that you couldn't sell to a proper dummy. I'm sure there are many similar examples that we are not privy to that showcases they are not inherently superior with their decisions than fans.

And there's this other idea that some people perpetuate, and I find so flawed, that the minimum you'll get from drafting Sanderson fifth is that he turns into Hampus Lindholm (drafted 6th). In other words, if his offensive game doesn't develop, you'll, at minimum, get one of the best players in the NHL at defending. Sanderson is apparently so good at defending that his defensive floor puts him at one of the best defensive defensemen in the NHL as opposed to one of the best two way defensemen in the NHL. There's apparently no real chance that he ends up anywhere outside ~the top 20 defensemen in the NHL on the defensive side of the game. It's so flawed. It doesn't account for that no one has that of floor in any part of the game, unless they are a generational type of player.

Sanderson might be a safe type of pick, but there's two main reasons defensive defensemen don't get picked high anymore. Defending is considered an easier part of the game to develop later as opposed to skill, skating, sense, size/athleticism. Defending is also inherently lower upside. Compare the value of the OFD in the NHL to the value of the top DFD. The top OFD hold more value.

Now, he didn't really show this 1/2D offensive game at the World Juniors, he hasn't really shown that at the North Dakota. It's a situation where it looks pretty clear that the idea behind drafting him has holes in it. I'm sure you or someone else will push back with the idea that he's a very good player whose a quality defensive player and in transition. That's a straw-man. No one ever argued against that. Thats why you draft him 15-25, if you want a boring, safe DFD. Thats where Guhle and Schneider went. Sanderson went where he did because of a hugely over-weighing of factors that I think get you into trouble with drafting. Thats personally my own opinion. If anything, I think this season has shown I'm more right about that than I was at the draft.

 

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

Honestly I don’t think anybody has a problem with Drysdale being preferred by many over Sanderson - that kind of stuff is bound to happen based on offensive flair alone (go see a Brady Tkachuk vs. Zadina thread and you’ll see what I mean). I really like Drysdales game, and may even give him an edge over Sanderson.

What some are taking issue to are those claiming Drysdale is in another « league » (figuratively of course), or that Sanderson is just a #4 Dman. That is when it becomes clear they haven’t watched much of Sanderson at NoDak, or that they have some kind of nonsensical bias against him. Maybe Geoff lost them a fantasy hockey trophy in the past idk.

I said the same- if you prefer Sanderson or Drysdale, completely fair. It's the implication that Sanderson's critics haven't seen him play that's frustrating.

 

[SensFactor]

ducks pairing.. still can't believe my sens wasted our pick on the useless sanderson ffs.

You are delusional. Useless Sanderson? For the record everyone, this guy doesn't speak for the rest of Sens fans.

 

[SensFactor]

This is a frustrating comment, because most of Sanderson's critics in this thread have actually spent time watching the NTDP.

If you like Sanderson over Drysdale and Seider fair enough, but don't pretend that it's impossible for someone to have seen plenty of both Sanderson and Drysdale and prefer Drysdale.

As a Wings' fan I'd love to have either because I think they're both very good defensemen, but I prefer Drysdale and have for a long time, despite seeing dozens of Sanderson's games.

Depends what you are looking for. Drysdale wins for offensive output, but Sanderson is much better defensively. Only time will tell.

 

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

Depends what you are looking for. Drysdale wins for offensive output, but Sanderson is much better defensively. Only time will tell.

Yeah I just don't agree with this personally, but to each their own.

 

[bsu]

Depends what you are looking for. Drysdale wins for offensive output, but Sanderson is much better defensively. Only time will tell.

Drysdale been the best defensemen on the best AHL team thus far. Not sure how you came up with that conclusion but okay.

 

[SensFactor]

Drysdale been the best defensemen on the best AHL team thus far. Not sure how you came up with that conclusion but okay.

Almost every single scout said this before the draft. Also i've watched both last season (not so much this year) and Sanderson is the more physical stalwart. Drysdale has also played a grand total of 8 games in the AHL. I can say the same thing that Sanderson has been great in North Dakota (leading the division) through his 15 games in college.

 

[Hatter of the Beach]

Edit: Delete. Have too much going on to argue a point on a hockey forum

 

[Micklebot]

You have it all wrong. More aware? Why would I care about that?

I think there's a group of people, that includes some scouts and analysts, that talked themselves into this idea that Sanderson had added upside than what he showed pre-shutdown last year? And the justification they might've used was that in a very small sample he did a little better offensively in a small sample in some games during January and February.

Why would I care if people are more aware? I have asked these more-aware-people many times to explain how Sanderson was going to add significant point totals to his game when his skillset indicated he didn't yet have the tools for doing so and their answer was never anything specific. It shows how ridden with holes their argument was. It can happen, like a Slavin or McDonagh, later on, but those guys weren't picked 5th. They were picked without the idea that they had significant offense in their game. They were known for other parts of the game. That the offense came later improved their games. Of course thats not the idea of drafting Sanderson fifth. If it was, he wouldn't go fifth in what was considered by a lot to be a very good draft. Most players like Sanderson don't develop anywhere near what those two did.

The idea to draft Sanderson fifth was that he had current offensive upside. However, it was so ridden with holes, and it could never properly be explained. It seemed like such a hastily thought out idea that was thought up mostly when people were bored, they needed to generate new draft ideas without games, they went back and over-analyzed a small sample of games, and left that season with a recency bias influenced view of the games they had watched of the 2020 draft-eligibles. There was a lot of time to think about this stuff, and people talked themselves into this idea that Sanderson had to raise his draft stock ~10-15 spots for reasons that don't make much sense and they could never tangibly articulate.

NHL types are not the most intelligent bunch. I watched my own team's management try to talk the fan base into the idea that they needed to trade up for Braden Schneider and draft him 19th, a much more appropriate range for Sanderson, because the NHL game had become so tough in the made-up playoff format of the final four teams that players who played tough, with grit, with size, and threw hits had gained more value in such a short period of time in a made-up format during which not even every team has taken the ice. This went completely contrary to what most believe that the game has been trending towards skill and sense with a de-emphasis on size and defensive play. We've seen goals go up for years, but apparently this 3-4 month window changes one's mindset with drafting.

Thats not to say Schneider isn't an okay, albeit boring, player to pick at 19. However, if this homogenous group tried to sell you on the idea behind the enormous value he should take on due to recent trends, you'd laugh at them. They couldn't sell this idea to anyone who had basic knowledge surrounding the idea. Anyone with any semblance of intelligence would see how flawed it was, so forgive me if I don't put such an extra emphasis on scouts, analysts, NHL management. I don't think they inherently are better at analyzing Sanderson's draft position than anyone here. They come up with the same theories like I described above that you couldn't sell to a proper dummy. I'm sure there are many similar examples that we are not privy to that showcases they are not inherently superior with their decisions than fans.

And there's this other idea that some people perpetuate, and I find so flawed, that the minimum you'll get from drafting Sanderson fifth is that he turns into Hampus Lindholm (drafted 6th). In other words, if his offensive game doesn't develop, you'll, at minimum, get one of the best players in the NHL at defending. Sanderson is apparently so good at defending that his defensive floor puts him at one of the best defensive defensemen in the NHL as opposed to one of the best two way defensemen in the NHL. There's apparently no real chance that he ends up anywhere outside ~the top 20 defensemen in the NHL on the defensive side of the game. It's so flawed. It doesn't account for that no one has that of floor in any part of the game, unless they are a generational type of player.

Sanderson might be a safe type of pick, but there's two main reasons defensive defensemen don't get picked high anymore. Defending is considered an easier part of the game to develop later as opposed to skill, skating, sense, size/athleticism. Defending is also inherently lower upside. Compare the value of the OFD in the NHL to the value of the top DFD. The top OFD hold more value.

Now, he didn't really show this 1/2D offensive game at the World Juniors, he hasn't really shown that at the North Dakota. It's a situation where it looks pretty clear that the idea behind drafting him has holes in it. I'm sure you or someone else will push back with the idea that he's a very good player whose a quality defensive player and in transition. That's a straw-man. No one ever argued against that. Thats why you draft him 15-25, if you want a boring, safe DFD. Thats where Guhle and Schneider went. Sanderson went where he did because of a hugely over-weighing of factors that I think get you into trouble with drafting. Thats personally my own opinion. If anything, I think this season has shown I'm more right about that than I was at the draft.

Ok, so on the one post, you say you don't care about scouts, and instead care about posters opinions. But when I give you a rationale for why peoples opinions on him changed you're shifting the goal posts. I was responding to the idea that perception changed based on nothing when no games were being played. It's a false narrative that I've seen you repeat ad nauseam. Scouting services, bloggers ect adjusted their evaluation based on his play during the period from their previous evaluation, fans on the aggregate followed suit as they reviewed those scouting reports and looked into him more.

You've followed that up by indicating you don't seem to like that those who make a career of evaluating talent shifted their evaluations, saying NHL types are not the brightest, while I'm not hear to appeal to authority, I will say that dismissing it is equally fallacious. You telling me your team made what you consider a mistake does not invalidate the results for example, of a scouting poll by MacKenzie, or any other service that thinks highly of Sanderson, many of which went into great detail as to why the ranked guys where they did.

As for what skills Sanderson brings or brought to improve his production, I can't speak to what others said in the past, but he's an elite skater who makes smart passes that drive possession forward, and can skate the puck up ice on his own. His role was focused on the defensive aspects of the game early on in the season but as the season went on he opened up playing less conservative and he saw his role grow into more offensive situations, the easiest way to see your production rise is to be put into situations and roles that are more conducive to production. He's actually following a similar trajectory to Ryan Suter in terms of his NCAA production, a little better so far actually, though North Dakota is a stronger team than Wisconson was, similar production in his final year in the national dev program, what is it about Sanderson that makes you think he doesn't compare to Suter, a guy taken 7th in possibly the strongest draft all time?

We know this draft was considered to have a cluster in that 4 to 12 spot, so the claim that he was picked 5th OA for offense is a strawman, just about any player in that top 12 could have gone 5th and nobody would blink an eye, he was picked in that range because of his complete game.

As for not showing 1/2D potential in North Dakota, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, he's been trusted in a shut down role as an 18 year old and worked his way into more offensive roles as the season progresses. He's been a standout since day one on that team.

 

[TeamRenzo]

This is a frustrating comment, because most of Sanderson's critics in this thread have actually spent time watching the NTDP.

If you like Sanderson over Drysdale and Seider fair enough, but don't pretend that it's impossible for someone to have seen plenty of both Sanderson and Drysdale and prefer Drysdale.

As a Wings' fan I'd love to have either because I think they're both very good defensemen, but I prefer Drysdale and have for a long time, despite seeing dozens of Sanderson's games.

How is my comment frustrating? It is not out of the realm of possibility that people on HF have uninformed opinions. I wasn't speaking to you directly however the fact that you took it to heart tells me something.

Furthermore, I doubt most of the people here have the ability to actually scout prospects and project their long-term development, I certainly don't. There is a reason why professional scouts exist and I promise you the good ones don't search message boards for intel.

 

[HisNoodliness]

If I had to rank all of the players:
Stutzle
Seider
Zegras
Drysdale
Raymond
Sanderson
which makes these pairings oddly symmetrical.

The first three have all had some great post draft success, and I think each is a good bet to be a first line player. Stutzle having an immediate NHL impact is very vindicating after he was my favorite prospect in this draft (I'd have still take Laf first to be clear, I just am a Stutzle fan). I think he'll be a star and just love his game. Seider is obviously going off in the SHL, best offensive statistics of a U20 D in a while and that's as a more defensively responsible type. I was a skeptic on draft day but he's been so good since that I'm on the hype train now. Zegras has also been great and I think his creativity is going to help him out up big points in the show. If I had to trade Seider for anyone taken after him, it'd be Zegras.

Drysdale was who I wanted in this draft if Stutzle was off the board, but Raymond was next on the list after him. I just love a smooth-skating defenseman that can contribute offensively. I see huge upside there. Raymond hasn't blown the SHL out of the water this year and just got hurt which is too bad. Still in terms of raw tools he's as good as anyone on the list and could be a star if he puts it together. I love his big game impact and silky mitts. I don't want to start a flame war, but I've never been a fan of Sanderson's game. I just don't see the upside. I was terrified the Wings would take him because he fits the Yzerman MO. Still I would have said the same about Seider last year so he certainly can prove me wrong. I have Sanderson further behind everyone else more than I have Stutzle further ahead. I think I like the Anaheim pair's upside the most for potentially being two true stars. It's also the pairing with the most uncertainty IMO but I'm all about upside. Raymond is better than Sanderson by enough to make up the gap between Seider and Stutzle for me.
Anaheim
Detroit
Ottawa

 

[Paul4587]

You have Stützle and Zegras on a different tier? I’ve got Stützle and Zegras a hair apart, me deciding who I think is better depending on which side of the bed I wake up on. (As far as prospects go, I understand Jimmy’s had a good pro campaign so far).

Yeah, I had Stuetzle at the second best player in the draft and really hoped he could somehow fall to the Ducks (way too wishful thinking). they had similar impacts at the WJC but one was an almost 20 year old playing on the tournaments best team and the other was an almost 19 year old playing on one of the tournaments worst.

The biggest thing separating them for me is their skating. Both have elite hands and vision (maybe a slight edge to Z there) but Stuetzle is a step ahead skating wise.

 

[Ed Ned and Leddy]

How is my comment frustrating? It is not out of the realm of possibility that people on HF have uninformed opinions. I wasn't speaking to you directly however the fact that you took it to heart tells me something.

It's frustrating because the pretty clear implication is that Sanderson's critics in this thread don't watch him play, when a) you could say the same for every prospect in this thread, and b) several of Sanderson's critics here are folks who spend time watching the NTDP. I wouldn't exactly say I "took it to heart" I just think it's unfair to imply that folks here have watched less of Sanderson than anyone else.

Furthermore, I doubt most of the people here have the ability to actually scout prospects and project their long-term development, I certainly don't. There is a reason why professional scouts exist and I promise you the good ones don't search message boards for intel.

Sure, but this is a forum to discuss hockey prospects. All we're really doing is voicing our opinions on players we're watching, I don't think anyone here is claiming to be the ultimate authority on anything. Pretty much every critic of Sanderson here is open to the possibility that we may be wrong and that he may develop better than Drysdale for example.

While I'd never claim to be as good a source as pro scouts, I think you're glorifying their work a bit. Pro scouts are able to dedicate a lot of time and resources to their work, and it's often narrowed to a particular set of leagues or regions which helps. They're able to talk to coaches and parents and access more film and all. But if you asked a pro scout their thoughts on Sanderson vs. Drysdale or Rossi vs. Perfetti or whatever, it's not like you're going to get a totally different analysis than you would from Dobber or HockeyProspect.com or here for example.

I don't think the appeal to authority is super helpful here when, as far as we know, there was a pretty good split between teams who preferred Drysdale and teams who preferred Sanderson.

 

[AngelDuck]

Drysdale's best attribute is his smart play in transition and his ability to escape forecheckers with both his passing and skating

Not sure how people have convinced themselves he’s an offensive defenseman only type. It’s a strange revelation

 

[Breakers]

I can confidently say who has, and who hasn’t watched the NCHC this year, after reading this thread.

 

[TeamRenzo]

It's frustrating because the pretty clear implication is that Sanderson's critics in this thread don't watch him play, when a) you could say the same for every prospect in this thread, and b) several of Sanderson's critics here are folks who spend time watching the NTDP. I wouldn't exactly say I "took it to heart" I just think it's unfair to imply that folks here have watched less of Sanderson than anyone else.



Sure, but this is a forum to discuss hockey prospects. All we're really doing is voicing our opinions on players we're watching, I don't think anyone here is claiming to be the ultimate authority on anything. Pretty much every critic of Sanderson here is open to the possibility that we may be wrong and that he may develop better than Drysdale for example.

While I'd never claim to be as good a source as pro scouts, I think you're glorifying their work a bit. Pro scouts are able to dedicate a lot of time and resources to their work, and it's often narrowed to a particular set of leagues or regions which helps. They're able to talk to coaches and parents and access more film and all. But if you asked a pro scout their thoughts on Sanderson vs. Drysdale or Rossi vs. Perfetti or whatever, it's not like you're going to get a totally different analysis than you would from Dobber or HockeyProspect.com or here for example.

I don't think the appeal to authority is super helpful here when, as far as we know, there was a pretty good split between teams who preferred Drysdale and teams who preferred Sanderson.

How can it be frustrating if the question doesn't apply to you? The implication is accurate, there are many people here on this thread that haven't seen him play much - to me that is far more frustrating than what I said.

 

[Mrb1p]

Id take Stutzle alone over any of those, Sanderson is the weak link here but its still Ottawa.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Ok, so on the one post, you say you don't care about scouts, and instead care about posters opinions. But when I give you a rationale for why peoples opinions on him changed you're shifting the goal posts. I was responding to the idea that perception changed based on nothing when no games were being played. It's a false narrative that I've seen you repeat ad nauseam. Scouting services, bloggers ect adjusted their evaluation based on his play during the period from their previous evaluation, fans on the aggregate followed suit as they reviewed those scouting reports and looked into him more.

You've followed that up by indicating you don't seem to like that those who make a career of evaluating talent shifted their evaluations, saying NHL types are not the brightest, while I'm not hear to appeal to authority, I will say that dismissing it is equally fallacious. You telling me your team made what you consider a mistake does not invalidate the results for example, of a scouting poll by MacKenzie, or any other service that thinks highly of Sanderson, many of which went into great detail as to why the ranked guys where they did.

With all due respect, this is incoherent.

You completely misrepresented my viewpoint. I have all along said that with Sanderson there were some scouts, management types, analysts that had him a little higher than the average fan. As I explained, they aren't inherently better than fans at evaluating players. On the fan side of things, outside of the outlier opinion or two, fans did not view him like those who work in the NHL or outside scouting services did at the midpoint of last season and into the shutdown.

At the same time, there were some fans who caught onto this viewpoint of Sanderson eventually, and adapted the NHL/scouting service viewpoint of Sanderson. Making this into one where everyone, except me, including fans, scouts, analysts, management types, viewed Sanderson as a top 5 pick and clear first pair defenseman at the draft is not accurate. There were a number of fans who didn't agree with the initial viewpoint of some within the NHL on him, and then weren't willing to adopt the viewpoint within the NHL for the sake of it, and come up with these highly flawed reasons for such a stark change of opinion.

I'm sorry, but I believe the fans at the draft who thought Sanderson was a top 5 pick and projected safely as a top pair defensemen wanted to be on the consensus side of things within the NHL. They didn't feel comfortable with their own analysis, and thought they better get in line with what drafting teams thought. And the view within the NHL and scouting services for why Sanderson was flawed to begin with, as I explained. If you ask these fans who changed their opinion to actually analyze why they did, they never come up with a good argument for why. It's because they never had a good reason why. They wanted to fit in. They got in line. I don't work in hockey, so I don't know what the response would be to those within the NHL when the flaws with their viewpoint come up, but maybe they'd have a more intelligent response for why they ranked Sanderson so high.

As for what skills Sanderson brings or brought to improve his production, I can't speak to what others said in the past, but he's an elite skater who makes smart passes that drive possession forward, and can skate the puck up ice on his own. His role was focused on the defensive aspects of the game early on in the season but as the season went on he opened up playing less conservative and he saw his role grow into more offensive situations, the easiest way to see your production rise is to be put into situations and roles that are more conducive to production. He's actually following a similar trajectory to Ryan Suter in terms of his NCAA production, a little better so far actually, though North Dakota is a stronger team than Wisconson was, similar production in his final year in the national dev program, what is it about Sanderson that makes you think he doesn't compare to Suter, a guy taken 7th in possibly the strongest draft all time?

This elite skater, smart passes, drives possession, can skate the puck up the ice type stuff could be describing a 4th or 5th defensemen. It doesn't really explain how you are getting 30+ points out of Sanderson's game in the NHL. And let's be up front. The Suter's, McDonagh's, Slavin's that don't have flashy offensive skill but manage to reach 30+ points, let alone 40+, are so few and far between. There are so many players exactly as you described that never bring that level of NHL offense.

It's part of why this argument that his stats are similar to Suter or McDonagh or Slavin at a certain juncture are so flawed. Those guys were outliers. They beat the odds with a skillset no one projected as having definite 30-40+ point offense. And we all know that if you are picking Sanderson 5th, you aren't expecting him to be an outlier. You are expecting that offense out of him.

We know this draft was considered to have a cluster in that 4 to 12 spot, so the claim that he was picked 5th OA for offense is a strawman, just about any player in that top 12 could have gone 5th and nobody would blink an eye, he was picked in that range because of his complete game.

Speak for yourself. I form my own opinions on who should go where. Sanderson was not an option in the top 5, top 10, top 12 for my list. That was too high for what he brought. When taking a defenseman at 5OA though, you expect significant offense. You expect him to project as at least a 30-40 point player, and you project him to be a top pairing defenseman.

Are you correct that the consensus for 4-12 was jumbled? Maybe so, but how is that relevant? If Sanderson doesn't end up anywhere near the outcome some of you project, are you going to reason that 4-12 was a crap shoot? No, why would you? You still expect an impact player at 5OA, regardless of whether or not there was no clear consensus hierarchy.

As for not showing 1/2D potential in North Dakota, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, he's been trusted in a shut down role as an 18 year old and worked his way into more offensive roles as the season progresses. He's been a standout since day one on that team.

Sure, we can agree to disagree. However, he's currently 8th on his own team in PPG, he was 14th in scoring on his own team in PPG at the world juniors, he doesn't have high-end skill, he doesn't have high-end playmaking, he doesn't have a high-end shot.

He's a standout, shutdown role, working his way into an offensive role. All of those things are good. They could easily be the description of a 20th OA pick who probably projects as a 4D with high end 3D-low end 5D being the realistic range of outcomes. That Sanderson was drafted 5th, and we are still at the same place in this discussion is why I think I'm more right than I was at the draft. If Sanderson had made such a big jump at a certain point last season, we should've seen it by now.

 

[Masked]

It's part of why this argument that his stats are similar to Suter or McDonagh or Slavin at a certain juncture are so flawed. Those guys were outliers. They beat the odds with a skillset no one projected as having definite 30-40+ point offense. And we all know that if you are picking Sanderson 5th, you aren't expecting him to be an outlier. You are expecting that offense out of him.

Suter, drafted #7 in an amazing draft, was not projected to have that offence and did so as an outlier but if you're picking someone 2 spots higher in a weaker draft you are expecting that offence out of him?

Your posts are becoming more and more nonsensical.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Suter, drafted #7 in an amazing draft, was not projected to have that offence and did so as an outlier but if you're picking someone 2 spots higher in a weaker draft you are expecting that offence out of him?

Your posts are becoming more and more nonsensical.

I knew someone would say this. I should've already addressed it because of course there would be a disingenuous person who couldn't resist themselves. I guess I had too much confidence that everyone here would argue in good faith.

The Suter comparison is actually pretty bad because he was drafted 17 years ago. What was true then is not true now. Trends in the draft are very different. The 8OA that year was Braydon Coburn. Coburn wouldn't be a top 20 pick now.

My point also encompassing Suter's trajectory into becoming a 1D as opposed to only what was expected on draft day. After he didn't show significant offense or significant offensive skills his first few years after being drafted, hitting 50 points would've been very unlikely. We don't have significant data on Sanderson's career. He's not 36 like Suter. If Sanderson doesn't show significant offense or offensive tools his first 3-4 years, the expectations should be lowered. You shouldn't be expecting what you'd normally expect of a 5OA. If he then much later in his career adds offense, he's an outlier. But most aren't. And the drafts trends are very different now than 17 years ago.