Not really through.
Andersson was more of an energy guy who went into the hard areas, scored from weird angles, never gave up on the play and jumpstarted his linemates --- including one Elias Pettersson. His game was based around reaction, and effort, and a bit of grittiness.
Lundell is more cerebral. He's more of a playmaker, he's more comfortable passing than shooting at this point, he's bigger and has a larger frame than Andersson at this stage, and he's more efficient of a player on the ice.
Truthfully, he's more similar to Pettersson at the same age than Andersson. Not saying he's going to become Pettersson, but no one is mentioning names like ROR or Horvat when they talk about Lundell.
There are two main challenges we face.
The first is that we get a certain vision in our head and everyone is suddenly compared to that player. Just look at how often Derek Stepan is cited as an example for almost every type of forward who isn't a speed demon.
It's like like wine tasting. When people start they compare wines to discripters they are comfortable with - it tastes sour, it tastes sweet, it tastes acidic, etc. As they experience more, you start hearing notes about plums, or vanilla, or dark berries, or stone, or spice, etc.
The second challenge is that many of the scouting reports out there are as generic as can be. If you read half the stuff out there, you'd think everyone is a good skater, with a good shot, decent size, and good hockey sense. Literally they are copy and paste reports with little to no differential. I won't get into why that is, but we all know it's true.
One of the benefits we have on here, is that people can go a little deeper. We have people who can talk about the nuances, or how someone skates, or what they don't do. And sometimes that's not popular. People pick favorite prospects based on stat lines, or leagues, or a highlight video. And those things, while useful, can be misleading as well. But people form strong opinions from that, and sometimes moving that needle can be very difficult.
