Prospect Info: 2020-2021 Senators Prospect Watch
- Thread starter AchtzehnBaby
- Start date
- Status
Frank8
Registered User
- Sep 19, 2013
- 700
- 310
You're right, Jake Sanderson is the Malkin of second line D, his transition game and gap control are just that good.
Sens of Anarchy
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 67,224
- 52,970
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
I like that Draft Dynasty guy because he's not scared to have different opinions but will justify them and he knows that it's still his opinions in the end
I really liked his comparison of Sanderson with prime Vlasic, but he said he would be even more physical and better offensively. He's a pretty big Sanderson believer
Good point, they obviously cater to their audience. Sens fanbase is so small in comparison and even if it's good or bad, talking about it brings in clicks. You're right about that.
Personally, it doesn't "offend" me in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying that if I was him, I'd try to be more "politically correct" and choose my words more carefully. I personally think trying to pass your opinion as a fact makes you lose a lot of credibility. He can still do whatever he wants, in the end I don't really care.
What I found a bit non-sensical with this article, is the way it starts :
"With three first-round picks, along with four second-rounders and 12 total picks over the two-day event, The Ottawa Senators had a chance to alter the path of the franchise for years to come.."
But then implied that they must have missed the boat completely. Which is ok, it's "HIS" opinion. But the problem is in the justification, there's actually a lot of praise and good things said about the first 4 picks... then acknowledged we used a 2nd round pick to acquire Matt Murray.
I didn't read beyond that so where is the problem exactly? Outside of Lafreniere (pure loto win), Sens could easily have the best draft in the whole league with just their 4 first picks... Was the problem with the late round picks? Even if they all bust, who cares? As long as there's still a level of success within the first 2 rounds...
The whole premise just didn't make much sense to me.
Conclusion also was ridiculous
The 2020 NHL Draft could have been a game-changer. It could have put the Ottawa Senators on a path to dominance and Stanley Cup contention in three to five years. They had the chance to go from having a very good, likely top-10, prospect system in the league to challenging the Los Angeles Kings for the best system in the NHL. The 2020 NHL Draft was supposed to put fear in the eyes of everyone in the Atlantic Division as the Tampa’s and Toronto’s of the world watched the Senators stocked full of picks with two top-five picks and seven in the top-62.
Instead, after the first pick or two, they opted for safety. They opted for overager after overager. They opted for size over skill. They decided that they were going to get their guy. They chose to allow the best players available consistently to pass them by in order to get the guy they felt could be making an impact early on and on their ELCs. It almost felt like they were worried about what they will have to pay a Marco Rossi (an option at five) or Mavrik Bourque (an option at 28) on their next deal before worrying about grabbing the best player available.
Does he understand that it is his "humble opinion" and not based on anything else? Who is he to know who the best players available were?
It just factually didn't make much sense...
Example : They opted for overager after overager
Stuetzle, Sanderson, Greig, Jarventie, Kleven? Who are the overagers here? Matt Murray?
It's proven that overagers are more succesful in general starting from round 3. Sokolov was 61st OA, so basically round 3. He had a 19 y/o season very similar to Abramov and Veleno (same PPG but better GPG). Personally, really don't mind taking a fly on a guy like that at that spot. It's not a "safe pick" whatsoever.
Who else was a safe pick? The Finnish goalie? Jarventie? Uh no, they are swinging for the fences with them
Stuetzle? Sanderson? Uh no, both were considered top picks by most in a stacked ~top-12, both have extremely high potential. If someone thinks Sanderson is a finished product, maybe he shouldn't be listened to in the first place
Greig might be the only "safe pick" in the whole Sens draft but he has elements to his game and a certain skill level that might make you really satisfied getting from the 28th OA spot.
Kleven? Not a "safe" pick whatsoever, at least not according to the coaching staff he had so far. He sounds very raw.
I don't know this guy seems very presumptuous and that he knows better than McKenzie for example, who surveys NHL scouts. McKenzie ranking showed that the Sens picked players that they were ranked higher than Ferrari's "best players available"
I really liked his comparison of Sanderson with prime Vlasic, but he said he would be even more physical and better offensively. He's a pretty big Sanderson believer
Good point, they obviously cater to their audience. Sens fanbase is so small in comparison and even if it's good or bad, talking about it brings in clicks. You're right about that.
Personally, it doesn't "offend" me in any way, shape or form. I'm just saying that if I was him, I'd try to be more "politically correct" and choose my words more carefully. I personally think trying to pass your opinion as a fact makes you lose a lot of credibility. He can still do whatever he wants, in the end I don't really care.
What I found a bit non-sensical with this article, is the way it starts :
"With three first-round picks, along with four second-rounders and 12 total picks over the two-day event, The Ottawa Senators had a chance to alter the path of the franchise for years to come.."
But then implied that they must have missed the boat completely. Which is ok, it's "HIS" opinion. But the problem is in the justification, there's actually a lot of praise and good things said about the first 4 picks... then acknowledged we used a 2nd round pick to acquire Matt Murray.
I didn't read beyond that so where is the problem exactly? Outside of Lafreniere (pure loto win), Sens could easily have the best draft in the whole league with just their 4 first picks... Was the problem with the late round picks? Even if they all bust, who cares? As long as there's still a level of success within the first 2 rounds...
The whole premise just didn't make much sense to me.
Conclusion also was ridiculous
The 2020 NHL Draft could have been a game-changer. It could have put the Ottawa Senators on a path to dominance and Stanley Cup contention in three to five years. They had the chance to go from having a very good, likely top-10, prospect system in the league to challenging the Los Angeles Kings for the best system in the NHL. The 2020 NHL Draft was supposed to put fear in the eyes of everyone in the Atlantic Division as the Tampa’s and Toronto’s of the world watched the Senators stocked full of picks with two top-five picks and seven in the top-62.
Instead, after the first pick or two, they opted for safety. They opted for overager after overager. They opted for size over skill. They decided that they were going to get their guy. They chose to allow the best players available consistently to pass them by in order to get the guy they felt could be making an impact early on and on their ELCs. It almost felt like they were worried about what they will have to pay a Marco Rossi (an option at five) or Mavrik Bourque (an option at 28) on their next deal before worrying about grabbing the best player available.
Does he understand that it is his "humble opinion" and not based on anything else? Who is he to know who the best players available were?
It just factually didn't make much sense...
Example : They opted for overager after overager
Stuetzle, Sanderson, Greig, Jarventie, Kleven? Who are the overagers here? Matt Murray?
It's proven that overagers are more succesful in general starting from round 3. Sokolov was 61st OA, so basically round 3. He had a 19 y/o season very similar to Abramov and Veleno (same PPG but better GPG). Personally, really don't mind taking a fly on a guy like that at that spot. It's not a "safe pick" whatsoever.
Who else was a safe pick? The Finnish goalie? Jarventie? Uh no, they are swinging for the fences with them
Stuetzle? Sanderson? Uh no, both were considered top picks by most in a stacked ~top-12, both have extremely high potential. If someone thinks Sanderson is a finished product, maybe he shouldn't be listened to in the first place
Greig might be the only "safe pick" in the whole Sens draft but he has elements to his game and a certain skill level that might make you really satisfied getting from the 28th OA spot.
Kleven? Not a "safe" pick whatsoever, at least not according to the coaching staff he had so far. He sounds very raw.
I don't know this guy seems very presumptuous and that he knows better than McKenzie for example, who surveys NHL scouts. McKenzie ranking showed that the Sens picked players that they were ranked higher than Ferrari's "best players available"
Last edited:
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
It's totally ok if it's presented as reviews on players. What can be wrong though is the conclusions some might be trying to make. It might just lack logic and common sense. I have tried to explain that in post #1031
Ex Ferrari said " They opted for overager after overager"
Who is he talking about? None of our first 5 picks were overagers. If anything, some are even young for the draft class. The later picks? And what is wrong with that? @BondraTime demonstrated that overager picks have actually a better success rate starting from round 3
It shows you right there that you shouldn't put too much stock in Ferrari's takes. But instead go buy one of their cars, it's pretty good.
By the way, have you seen that before? So we might not have anything close to a NHL scouts concensus (McKenzie being the closest) but it seems there's a "concensus" or at least an average of these internet sources pre-draft rankings :
We looked at 12 sources to come up with EOTP’s Consensus NHL Draft Rankings
We had a pretty bad draft! lol
(3) Stuetzle : 3
(5) Sanderson : 10
(28) Greig : 36
(33) Jarventie : 54
(44) Kleven : 67
(61) Sokolov : 92
(71) Merilainen : N/A
(155) Engstrand : N/A
(158) Daoust : N/A
(181) Reinhardt : N/A
But look at this, for 2017 (added Brannstrom and Norris)
(28) Bowers : 29
(47) Formenton : 49
(121) Batherson : N/A
(183) Hollett : N/A
(15) Brannstrom : 21
(19) Norris : 33
2018
(3) Tkachuk : 5
(26) Bernard-Docker : 48
(48) Tychonick : 33
(95) Gruden : 67
(126) Crookshank : N/A
(157) Mandolese : 119
(188) Novak : N/A
(194) Loheit : N/A
It seems like the Sens like to target underrated guys that not everyone saw coming! And when they go with "concensus", they might end up regretting it and/or trade them away? Tychonick, Gruden, Bowers,
We "REACH" almost every single time... and we even trade FOR guys that other tams reached on! (Brannstrom and Norris)
Last edited:
yeah i dont agree with his whole "paying less for sanderson down the road" stuff.. but no, none of that means i should put less stock into his takes on players. he watches a lot more than me, us. he puts int the time to write, speak on these guys, he doesnt seem like an asshole, so ill read him.
if these guys end being wrong over and over then i put less stock. i really only started reading these guys past couple years.. so for me, theres still some time to see their choices out.
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
I edited and added a lot of info to that post. Nice food for thought IMO
What do you think about his take " They opted for overager after overager" now after the facts that have been presented?
IMO it's not really about them being "right" or "wrong", there's nothing wrong with everyone having different views/opinions/preferences. But the justifications have to make sense. I didn't think his article made a lot of sense in that regard, which undermines his credibility to me.
facts? We did opt for some overagers. We went Sokolov engagrand daoust reinhardt. I recognize we have some young picks as well. Maybe he had other players he liked more at those spots. Which to him it’s rational to say “why go with these overagers and double overagers when there’s younger better players available. Which is a fine question. You say “oh historically taking older players works out more often” that’s not his argument. His argument seems to be “why take these guys over players I think are better”. Which is a totally fair argument. Just like “well we took Sokolov reinhardt daoust and engstrand because we thought those were the best players available”.
I think they offered some good explanations as to why they would pick player x over player y. He spoke at length on a podcast why he doesn’t have stutzle ahead of raymond. I think it’s interesting. He could be way off. Or he could be bang on. I think it will be very interesting to go back and read player reports if stutzle ends up being very clearly NOT the third best player in this draft
as for the added info on our previous drafts. Maybe they weren’t underrated to us? We picked them where we thought appropriate. Time will tell
If they were good picks.
FormentonTheFuture
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 7,761
- 3,732
I'll agree with that, this Tony guy does not come across as an asshole or rude. There are many others in the community who do, though, and way too many who can never admit to being wrong. Anything they or their model says is gospel.
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
Facts were in post #1034 that you quoted... Did you read at least? I said :
None of our first 5 picks were overagers. If anything, some are even young for the draft class. The later picks? And what is wrong with that? @BondraTime demonstrated that overager picks have actually a better success rate starting from round 3
Look at his article again. He's stating that we had an incredible opportunity to build a great prospect pool and that we might have completely missed the boat. One of his "arguments" was drafting too many overagers... but none of the picks that mattered were overagers, au contraire. And yes FACTS prove that it actually might be a good bet to draft overagers after round 3, which is what we did (Sokolov was round 2 if you want to nitpick)
Saying there was better players available is a completely different argument, and he doesn't seem to realize that it is entirely subjective. Yes, he has the right to do that, but don't try it pass it as a fact lol. He's not the one and only reference in the matter of the NHL draft.
Like I said before, it's not that he prefers Raymond over Stuetzle, it's the logical fallacies that make him not very credible. I have explained this in post #1031
Also did you read his takes on the Sens first 2 rounds? He seems to praise them enough and find them enough qualities to make them look like pretty good picks.
So even if he would have prefered player x/y/z over player n, he's basically contradicting himself. If you go with the opening statements he did, you actually have to demonstrate it through your argumenation, not the oppostite lol! That's what we learn in school. What is even more contradicting is the conclusion. If you read the introduction and conclusion, you could expect a pure bashing of the picks that were made... But when you read, it just doesn't compute.
To summarize, doesn't have any valid argument for his introduction and conclusion.
BondraTime
Registered User
Daoust wasn't an overager, for one.
Look at the guys taken just before, and just after Sokolov at 61. There were 3 overagers taken from picks 58-62. It's not strange to take overagers there, whatsoever.
Lots of overagers taken around Engstrand (155) and Daoust (158) with 4 overage guys taken from picks 150-164.
Reinhardt as well, taken at (181) with 6 overage guys going from picks 176-189
Last edited:
my original question a few days back almost week now, was simply why. why these guys who werent really that talked about now that could just be cuz we dont hear much of later round guys. if the sole reason is " we think these guys were the absolute bpa there," then fine that is a completely satisfactory reason. ts the best reason.
I thought this was daoust second time through the draft my bad.
couldnt agree more with the bolded lol....
okay.. he seems to like the first two rounds... maybe not as much as he WOULD have liked them. example... he didnt have stutzle at 3, sanderson at 5 or greig at 28.
its not a contradiction to say "i dont love tis draft" and also say " i like the first two rounds" is he in love with our first two rounds maybe not, but he doesnt hate them and thinks they could have been better... time will tell.
no when i read the intro i did not expect a pure bashing of the picks. i expected him to like some of our picks and not like others which is what happened. he likes Stutzle and sanderson.. he acknowledges that they are both good/great prospects. are they the two he would have picked in those spots in that order? maybe not. and thats fair.
BondraTime
Registered User
Frank8
Registered User
- Sep 19, 2013
- 700
- 310
I like Sanderson, I just don't like him at 5. Tony refers to him as a safe pick because his floor is higher than some of the higher ceiling guys we could have taken. I'm not sure why that's controversial.
FormentonTheFuture
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 7,761
- 3,732
Frank8
Registered User
- Sep 19, 2013
- 700
- 310
You make a very persuasive argument as always.
ReginKarlssonLehner
Let's Win It All
Everyone had Sanderson high. 3 of the top 10 head scouts interviewed by Bob Mackenzie had him 3rd. Probably not us since we had Laf/Stutz/By
Sanderson as overall ranked 8th on his list. How is that a stretch to call him a safe pick?
Perfetti, a gamebreaker, went 10th.
Sanderson as overall ranked 8th on his list. How is that a stretch to call him a safe pick?
Perfetti, a gamebreaker, went 10th.
BondraTime
Registered User
Some think that good defensive players are automatically inept at the other facets of the game, for some reason.
It’s also no secret that flashy, offensive guys are the highest valued commodity by the online community, and guys like Sanderson are towards the lowest valued.
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 57,026
- 34,795
I think part of that comes from the reality that most people just watch highlight packages for the majority of prospects, and sound defensive play and smart but not flashy plays to exit the zone don't make those reels very often. You can read up about how well a kid defends from someone that did get to watch games in full but it's hard to evoke the same emotional response describing someones excellent positioning and ability to break up plays when compared to breaking defenders ankles with thier dirty dangles...
- Status
