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.
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.