I've replied in this thread because it's more relevant than the transfer one.
I know there were doubts about Kane, but they were about his physical attributes not his ability. That's the point I've been trying to make, the comparison between Kane and DCL is pointless because they're the exact opposites of eachother - one has all the physical attributes but doesn't seem a natural striker, the other is a born goalscorer but there were concerns that he was too slow/slight for the top level. Saying 'what were Kane's figures like?' does not help, because they were good, far better than DCL's. Somebody's just posted a video of DCL scoring at the park and tried to compare it to Kane banging them in in the Championship at the same age, it's ridiculous.
I read an article about Kane's loans in which every single person interviewed talks about what a natural goalscorer he was, and how you always knew he would score if you gave him chances and he would always make sure he got a shot away. This is something DCL quite clearly lacks, he doesn't have that instinct to just shoot when the ball falls to him, or that picture in his head of where the goal is so he can just turn and hit one. He can work on that, and can improve his entire game and add more goals undoubtedly, but my opinion is that he'll never be a prolific scorer. For that reason, I believe the Kane (or Shearer or whoever) comparison is absolutely pointless and just piles more pressure on him.
If people were coming on saying 'you don't need to be prolific to be good, look at Heskey, Welbeck, Firmino etc' that would be a much better discussion I think, with a lot of merit.
*Edit* Just found the article I was on about on the off chance you were interested, it also suggests Sherwood's claims were false as it says everyone at Milwall knew he'd play for England but didn't think Ryan Mason would be a PL player.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...pells-of-harry-kane-from-those-who-were-there