Good to know... I'm curious , which of my comments indicate I do not have a moderate clue about Boucher's skill set?
For one, you didn't think he was going to be able to hit at the NHL level. You had serious doubts the ability of his physicality to translate to the NHL prior to preseason, which his preseason play proved otherwise. I don't know if this was you, but I know a lot of Boucher critics thought he was ECHL bound and had serious doubts that he could even play in the NHL, which again the preseason play clearly demonstrated that he is highly likely to be an NHL player.
But aside from that, it is partly a reactionary comment on my part because what you were saying is quite frankly insulting. You aren't suggesting my take is off, you are outright dismissing every thing I have to say, implying that I am delusional and then mocking me with that absurd trade proposal question.
Sure I am a fan of Boucher and I can certainly get bought up into the hype of what I think he could possibly become. But at the same time I am not sure if anyone has offered a better take on Boucher on here than me.
My most recent assessment was essentially this. Boucher has nice tools, he could be an athletic force and he could have an incredibly powerful shot if developed properly. The tools are really nice but there have been other players who also were an athletic force or had an incredibly powerful shot, and in those examples it didn't translate to high production. Therefore there is a possibility that Boucher ends up like them, where there is always that exciting "what if?" but that may never materialize.
That Boucher's primary constraint is his puck control. He doesn't have elite puck control and it limits his ability to generate offense. That he is more reliant on team structure to utilize his tools and get the most out of them. That he has a soft touch, and good vision below the dots, can make impressive passes and has a dangerous shot. That he tends to make better passes when he is stationary then when he is moving. That the constraints around his puck control require him to make quick decisions, and make simpler dangles or fewer succession of dangles in order to maintain control of the puck and not lose time and space by mishandling it. That he has a very powerful release and good accuracy but that he is more reliant on positional play in order to make that shot effective. That he has good hockey IQ, but lacks deception, which he could potentially improve upon with more experience.
He has some skill constrains and he also has some consistency issues. He can have some really solid moments but they aren't as frequent as they need to be. Improving his consistency would be an important factor in giving him a chance to be a top six forward. His skill set is good and will match well with top six players in a support role. I didn't see him as a play driver but I thought he would get chances to play with top six players and that his production would determine if he could stay in those roles. I argued elsewhere that he will likely need to develop strong chemistry with some high quality players if he is going to produce at a top six level.
My assessment, whole potentially overconfident at times, still seems pretty reasonable. I am acknowledging that he has constraints and that there are things that could keep him out of being a top six player. I acknowledged that while his tools could end up looking really good, that that wouldn't guarantee top six production. But also unlike a lot of Boucher critics, I have also given more serious consideration to both the possibility and the conditions under which he could be a top six player.
My take would likely come across as a lot more reasonable, if wasn't irritated by all the Boucher critics. Hearing all the criticism all the time leads me to take a stronger stance about the possibility of his upside. It leads me to defend a more speculative assessment of something that might happen under some very specific set of conditions and give the impression that it is my expectation that is is going to happen in an absolute sense.
