Zegras & Drysdale or Stützle & Sanderson?

Which pair of prospects?


  • Total voters
    497

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,113
30,328
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.

What exactly do you mean they aren't inherently better at evaluating players? Do you mean given the same exposure to viewings they would do just as well at identifying talent or projecting future performance? I think you're probably making a false assumption here, as many fans rely on these scouting services to help mold their opinions by reading various sources and watching games. The reality though the vast majority of fans simply do not see enough of these players to effectively evaluate them. It probably feels nice to think you could do just as good of a job as the guys who work exclusively doing it 37 hours a week and put in the time talking to coaches and viewing live games, and maybe you could given the resources, but I doubt the vast majority here have that kind of time on their hands.

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.

This is another strawman, I never said everyone except you viewed him as a top 5 prospect, what I said was the reason some peoples view shifted.

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.
this just reads like those that don't share your opinion are just mindless zombies... adapted NHL scouting service viewpoints??? come on man, you're basically saying anyone who doesn't agree with you can't formulate their own opinions. Total ad Hominem attack.


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.

Why exactly was it flawed, because you don't agree with them? So all of central scouting (11 to 4th), Bob McKenzie's scout poll (9 to 8th), McKeen's (18th to 5th), Future Considerations (25th to 17th), Dobbers (30th to 8th) were all just engaged in group think and had no valid reason to move him up their rankings?

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.

Sure, it could describe a 4th or 5th d, but great hands, heavy shots and speed to burn could describe a 4th line forward, pretty much any description could describe a guy at any spot in the lineup, it's a matter of the degree. Sanderson is elite at breaking up plays and transitioning them to offense, by doing that he drives possession in a big way.

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.
Well, when you watched suter, it was clear he was going to be great, hence why he got chosen 7th in an incredibly deep draft and was so highly regarded. The same applies to Sanderson, he's among the younger kids in the draft class, and already gets leaned on to be the guy defensively, he isn't flashy by consistently make the right play, has the ability to skate himself out of danger or take the puck up ice, but is just as effective at finding the forward for a break. He reminds me of Redden in that regard, though a much better skater. Guys don't need to be flashy to contribute offensively, they just need a high hockey IQ which Sanderson has in spades.

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.

I never said you thought he should go there, I said the consensus was 4-12 was tight. It's clear you aren't sharing the opinion of the consensus, though it is funny to see you take offense to me speaking on your behalf when you literally accused people who liked Sanderson as some sort of hive mind adopting a position just to be in line with the NHL scouts.

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.

I think all the top 12 guys will be impact players, obviously I'll be wrong on some as there are always some guys that don't live up to expectations. Sanderson is no different, though he's going to contribute at both ends, so it's not his offense that gets him in that group it's the package.

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.

A lot of people were down on Tkachuk because his offensive numbers didn't seem to show top 6 player, I watched him and knew he'd translate and be well worth 4th OA, the same holds true to Sanderson, he does all the things you want a guy to do, he's making the right play all the time, and he's got ice in his veins doing it. I'm not at all worried about his production, because like Tkachuk I see all the plays he's making that don't register on the scoresheet and see a guy who will translate to the next level.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. But I can assure you I'm not just altering my perception of him to be in line with NHL scouts, I like what I see in him, and what I see is a guy that isn't flashy and that results is him getting underrated by a lot of folks.
 

bert

Registered User
Nov 11, 2002
35,964
21,894
Visit site
What exactly do you mean they aren't inherently better at evaluating players? Do you mean given the same exposure to viewings they would do just as well at identifying talent or projecting future performance? I think you're probably making a false assumption here, as many fans rely on these scouting services to help mold their opinions by reading various sources and watching games. The reality though the vast majority of fans simply do not see enough of these players to effectively evaluate them. It probably feels nice to think you could do just as good of a job as the guys who work exclusively doing it 37 hours a week and put in the time talking to coaches and viewing live games, and maybe you could given the resources, but I doubt the vast majority here have that kind of time on their hands.



This is another strawman, I never said everyone except you viewed him as a top 5 prospect, what I said was the reason some peoples view shifted.


this just reads like those that don't share your opinion are just mindless zombies... adapted NHL scouting service viewpoints??? come on man, you're basically saying anyone who doesn't agree with you can't formulate their own opinions. Total ad Hominem attack.




Why exactly was it flawed, because you don't agree with them? So all of central scouting (11 to 4th), Bob McKenzie's scout poll (9 to 8th), McKeen's (18th to 5th), Future Considerations (25th to 17th), Dobbers (30th to 8th) were all just engaged in group think and had no valid reason to move him up their rankings?



Sure, it could describe a 4th or 5th d, but great hands, heavy shots and speed to burn could describe a 4th line forward, pretty much any description could describe a guy at any spot in the lineup, it's a matter of the degree. Sanderson is elite at breaking up plays and transitioning them to offense, by doing that he drives possession in a big way.


Well, when you watched suter, it was clear he was going to be great, hence why he got chosen 7th in an incredibly deep draft and was so highly regarded. The same applies to Sanderson, he's among the younger kids in the draft class, and already gets leaned on to be the guy defensively, he isn't flashy by consistently make the right play, has the ability to skate himself out of danger or take the puck up ice, but is just as effective at finding the forward for a break. He reminds me of Redden in that regard, though a much better skater. Guys don't need to be flashy to contribute offensively, they just need a high hockey IQ which Sanderson has in spades.



I never said you thought he should go there, I said the consensus was 4-12 was tight. It's clear you aren't sharing the opinion of the consensus, though it is funny to see you take offense to me speaking on your behalf when you literally accused people who liked Sanderson as some sort of hive mind adopting a position just to be in line with the NHL scouts.



I think all the top 12 guys will be impact players, obviously I'll be wrong on some as there are always some guys that don't live up to expectations. Sanderson is no different, though he's going to contribute at both ends, so it's not his offense that gets him in that group it's the package.



A lot of people were down on Tkachuk because his offensive numbers didn't seem to show top 6 player, I watched him and knew he'd translate and be well worth 4th OA, the same holds true to Sanderson, he does all the things you want a guy to do, he's making the right play all the time, and he's got ice in his veins doing it. I'm not at all worried about his production, because like Tkachuk I see all the plays he's making that don't register on the scoresheet and see a guy who will translate to the next level.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. But I can assure you I'm not just altering my perception of him to be in line with NHL scouts, I like what I see in him, and what I see is a guy that isn't flashy and that results is him getting underrated by a lot of folks.
Relative to the person you are discussing with your ability to evaluate hockey, and give well thought detailed un biased opinions is on a completely different level. This entire thread shows that, well done.
 

Agent Zub

Registered User
Jan 2, 2015
14,421
11,712
Relative to the person you are discussing with your ability to evaluate hockey, and give well thought detailed un biased opinions is on a completely different level. This entire thread shows that, well done.

I don't even know why he bothered. I skip right past that users posts. I don't do that for anyone else on this site.
 

Random Comment

Registered User
Mar 5, 2018
815
1,205
A lot of people were down on Tkachuk because his offensive numbers didn't seem to show top 6 player, I watched him and knew he'd translate and be well worth 4th OA, the same holds true to Sanderson, he does all the things you want a guy to do, he's making the right play all the time, and he's got ice in his veins doing it. I'm not at all worried about his production, because like Tkachuk I see all the plays he's making that don't register on the scoresheet and see a guy who will translate to the next level.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not. But I can assure you I'm not just altering my perception of him to be in line with NHL scouts, I like what I see in him, and what I see is a guy that isn't flashy and that results is him getting underrated by a lot of folks.
Ironically, he evaluated Brady Tkachuk as a mid-round talent.
 
Oct 18, 2011
44,064
9,673
Depends what you are looking for. Drysdale wins for offensive output, but Sanderson is much better defensively. Only time will tell.

Not true. Drysdale is outstanding defensively if you want to say Sanderson has the edge go for it but the idea that he's much better at this stage just of their development just isn't the case
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeffrey Pedler
Oct 18, 2011
44,064
9,673
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.
Then you are aware that Drysdale was rated consistently as the number 1 dman in the draft for most of the season
 

Pavel Buchnevich

Drury and Laviolette Must Go
Dec 8, 2013
57,224
23,097
New York
Ironically, he evaluated Brady Tkachuk as a mid-round talent.

This is true. I was wrong about Tkachuk. Not the first time, and won't the last. I get some things wrong, and get others right. No different than anyone else.

What's your point exactly? I'm not allowed an opinion. Do you want to review my track record or you're only interested in trying to discredit me with one isolated example of a player I was wrong about?

and said Cale Makar and Quinn Hughes seasons last year weren't anything special

This I did not say. Certainly not with the context you cite.

It's sad when you have to lie about what strangers on the internet said because they are living rent free. Believe me, I don't aggregate your opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Realgud

Random Comment

Registered User
Mar 5, 2018
815
1,205
This is true. I was wrong about Tkachuk. Not the first time, and won't the last. I get some things wrong, and get others right. No different than anyone else.

What's your point exactly? I'm not allowed an opinion. Do you want to review my track record or you're only interested in trying to discredit me with one isolated example of a player I was wrong about?



This I did not say. Certainly not with the context you cite.

It's sad when you have to lie about what strangers on the internet said because they are living rent free. Believe me, I don't aggregate your opinions.
No, of course you’re allowed to have a different opinion - that’s what makes this all fun. I happen to think you’re wrong on Sanderson. Time will tell - we should have a good idea of the player he will be in the next couple of years. My prediction is a nightmare to play against. The kind of player that wins you a championship. Saw flashes of it in the WJC gold medal game. Cozens line couldn’t get anything going with him out there. Small sample size, but that’s why I say flashes.
 
Last edited:

Sensinitis

Registered User
Aug 5, 2012
15,934
5,526
Sanderson is the most underrated of the list imo, even after a very impressive WJC in which he completely shut down Cozens and Canada’s offence en route to a Gold Medal.
 

bsu

"I have no idea what I am doing" -Pat VerBleak
Sep 27, 2017
28,539
29,290
Sanderson is the most underrated of the list imo, even after a very impressive WJC in which he completely shut down Cozens and Canada’s offence en route to a Gold Medal.
Yes he was definitely the one that shut down an entire team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KaseMeOutside

Akrapovince

Registered User
May 19, 2017
3,616
3,855
This is true. I was wrong about Tkachuk. Not the first time, and won't the last. I get some things wrong, and get others right. No different than anyone else.

What's your point exactly? I'm not allowed an opinion. Do you want to review my track record or you're only interested in trying to discredit me with one isolated example of a player I was wrong about?



This I did not say. Certainly not with the context you cite.

It's sad when you have to lie about what strangers on the internet said because they are living rent free. Believe me, I don't aggregate your opinions.

You can’t be wrong on an opinion if you cite and provide evidence. I too didn’t think Brady had the offensive ability to become a first line impact forward.

From my viewings pre draft there still isn’t anything that showed he had the ability to be that. (to me anyways, and I’m obviously not a scout)I’m happily wrong that he’s emerged as the player he has.

People confuse projection with what actually happened in hindsight. Sure, a projected third rounder can become a 90 point player. But that’s not what I project him at, and this is the case with Tkachuk for me.
 

Pavel Buchnevich

Drury and Laviolette Must Go
Dec 8, 2013
57,224
23,097
New York
You can’t be wrong on an opinion if you cite and provide evidence. I too didn’t think Brady had the offensive ability to become a first line impact forward.

From my viewings pre draft there still isn’t anything that showed he had the ability to be that. (to me anyways, and I’m obviously not a scout)I’m happily wrong that he’s emerged as the player he has.

People confuse projection with what actually happened in hindsight. Sure, a projected third rounder can become a 90 point player. But that’s not what I project him at, and this is the case with Tkachuk for me.

Another player I would suggest I was wrong about was K’Andre Miller. I absolutely didn’t think he’d turn into as good of a player as he already is. I’m glad I was wrong. However, I watched him play so many times over the course of four seasons, and I never once say a player who had anything better than well below average sense. He shows up this year in the NHL after the offseason and he has average or better hockey sense. Some players you end up wrong about their projections, but it’s not for anything foreseeable. Prospects are unpredictable. They improve at different rates and some regress unexpectedly. Any of these six players could be the best and any could be the worst. We are all giving our own guesses.
 

Pavel Buchnevich

Drury and Laviolette Must Go
Dec 8, 2013
57,224
23,097
New York
The best part was you said you would delete your account if wrong, and you still didn't do even that.

Thats how sure I was that I didn't say you claim, and you or the other person who claimed it couldn't show it was true.

Like I said, that you care so much to lie about this is pathetic. Your issue, not mine.
 

Sting

Registered User
Feb 8, 2004
7,901
2,894
I've said this before and I'll say it again: who did the USA coach trust with defending the lead in the final minute of the gold medal game? An 18-year old Jake Sanderson. USA loves their 19 year olds, so this was telling.

HF loves its offensive d-men. Heck, Quinn Hughes regularly features in top 10 lists but defends worse than Karlsson on one leg.

I don't think there's much separation between Drysdale or Sanderson 4 months post draft. I do think Stutzle is a better player than Zegras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samsquanch

Critical13

Fear is the mind-killer.
Feb 25, 2017
12,617
9,435
Sitting at a desk.
This one is easily Zegras and Drysdale for me.

I already regret typing this as 4 years from now, someone will quote this post to bump the thread and I'm going to look dumb again.
 

Akrapovince

Registered User
May 19, 2017
3,616
3,855
This one is easily Zegras and Drysdale for me.

I already regret typing this as 4 years from now, someone will quote this post to bump the thread and I'm going to look dumb again.

I don’t understand this logic, from what you know now, given the information we have- you prefer Drysdale & Zegras. If the other pairs become better for whatever reason, you do not look dumb.

If I say Laf & Byfield will be better than any 7th round pick, and in 4 years there’s 7th round picks that are better, that doesn’t make me dumb. Just wrong.
 

Random Comment

Registered User
Mar 5, 2018
815
1,205
I don’t understand this logic, from what you know now, given the information we have- you prefer Drysdale & Zegras. If the other pairs become better for whatever reason, you do not look dumb.

If I say Laf & Byfield will be better than any 7th round pick, and in 4 years there’s 7th round picks that are better, that doesn’t make me dumb. Just wrong.

When you say « easily better » you are opening yourself up to being dumb. That’s when people bring up old threads. Is Z and D better ? Maybe ? Are they easily better right now ? Hell no.
 

Samsquanch

Raging Bull Squatch
Nov 28, 2008
8,224
4,965
Sudbury
This one is easily Zegras and Drysdale for me.

I already regret typing this as 4 years from now, someone will quote this post to bump the thread and I'm going to look dumb again.

I wont call you dumb and everyone gets to have an opinion.

But statements like that will take you down a path where no one cares or takes your opinion seriously anymore....

Nothing should be easy about passing on Stuetzle, and the public poll results should give you pause for thought that maybe your not seeing clearly what the rest of the planet is.

And fwiw its fine to go with the homer pick, just cause. But it would be nice to see a little bit of transparency with that part in mind....
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->