Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III

[Sens of Anarchy]

Well one explanation would be the quality of players he was playing with. His teams included Jack Eichel, Alex Tuch, Dylan Larkin, Auston Matthews, Matthew Tkachuk, Noah Hanfinin, Zach Werenski and Charlie McAvoy among others.

WHC-17 team scoring

 

[SENATOR]

You get what you paid for. Mann and the bunch are absolutely worse in NHL. Bottom!! Spooked by NY. What are you a teenager? Every draft out of top 5 is a head scratcher.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

WHC-17 team scoring
View attachment 530520

Well that is an interesting finding. It is also interesting that the 2nd highest point producer on that list, Luke Kirwan never got drafted and never ended up playing any pro hockey.

If I was part of the Sens scouting staff I would want to investigate this further. I would want to see what White's play was like during this season and carefully analyze his point production. I would want to look for any indication that he was going to struggle to produce at the higher levels. I would want to have a pretty clear understanding if his play at that time could have predicted what he has eventually become or whether the issue was something to do with development. If it was development related, I would want to know exactly why his development got stunted.

Fundamentally I would want to gather as much information as possible to the point that it becomes blatantly obvious that the player he has eventually become was perfectly predictable. That the indicators either in his play prior to being drafted or over the course of his development clearly suggested this potential outcome. I would then want to extrapolate those indicators into some fundamental variables to analyze prospects play and their development paths in the future.

I would assume the scouts already do something like this. Knowing what those players have become, they should be able to go back and watch those 6 games, and offer clear and detailed explanations as to why their play in this tournament clearly predicted the players they would eventually become.

 

[SlapJack]

Well that is an interesting finding. It is also interesting that the 2nd highest point producer on that list, Luke Kirwan never got drafted and never ended up playing any pro hockey.

If I was part of the Sens scouting staff I would want to investigate this further. I would want to see what White's play was like during this season and carefully analyze his point production. I would want to look for any indication that he was going to struggle to produce at the higher levels. I would want to have a pretty clear understanding if his play at that time could have predicted what he has eventually become or whether the issue was something to do with development. If it was development related, I would want to know exactly why his development got stunted.

Fundamentally I would want to gather as much information as possible to the point that it becomes blatantly obvious that the player he has eventually become was perfectly predictable. That the indicators either in his play prior to being drafted or over the course of his development clearly suggested this potential outcome. I would then want to extrapolate those indicators into some fundamental variables to analyze prospects play and their development paths in the future.

I would assume the scouts already do something like this. Knowing what those players have become, they should be able to go back and watch those 6 games, and offer clear and detailed explanations as to why their play in this tournament clearly predicted the players they would eventually become.

They don't need to go back in time when they've monitored this guy's progress over the last 5 years as part of their organization. He has been injured a lot and I think I recall comments last year about him not being in tip top shape.

There's no metric for dedication unfortunately.

 

[Micklebot]

There's no metric for dedication unfortunately.

the guy known to be a rink rat and as very coachable now lacks dedication?

 

[BondraTime]

Well that is an interesting finding. It is also interesting that the 2nd highest point producer on that list, Luke Kirwan never got drafted and never ended up playing any pro hockey.

If I was part of the Sens scouting staff I would want to investigate this further. I would want to see what White's play was like during this season and carefully analyze his point production. I would want to look for any indication that he was going to struggle to produce at the higher levels. I would want to have a pretty clear understanding if his play at that time could have predicted what he has eventually become or whether the issue was something to do with development. If it was development related, I would want to know exactly why his development got stunted.

Fundamentally I would want to gather as much information as possible to the point that it becomes blatantly obvious that the player he has eventually become was perfectly predictable. That the indicators either in his play prior to being drafted or over the course of his development clearly suggested this potential outcome. I would then want to extrapolate those indicators into some fundamental variables to analyze prospects play and their development paths in the future.

I would assume the scouts already do something like this. Knowing what those players have become, they should be able to go back and watch those 6 games, and offer clear and detailed explanations as to why their play in this tournament clearly predicted the players they would eventually become.

Things don’t work like that unfortunately.

A players season at 16 has very, very little value in evaluating, or extrapolating a players potential as he gets older.

An 18+ year old drafted player will be evaluated as he is playing, not what happens when they were 16.

Guys like Norris and Brady as you mentioned had strong 18 year old season’s in the NCAA and strong World Junior Championships at the same age. Then they both had even stronger 19 year old seasons. Norris especially had his expectations raised based on his play at 18 and 19. Even when he came to the Sens Mann said Norris was a 3rd line guy. He exceeded those expectations by a gigantic, gigantic margin.

Their U-17 stats being similar has extremely little relevance to the guys we saw and now see with Boucher, and offer almost no predictability on what they will become.

They don’t need to go back in time when they have been watching a guy for years at a much more relevant period when their play offers much more predictable information.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Well that is an interesting finding. It is also interesting that the 2nd highest point producer on that list, Luke Kirwan never got drafted and never ended up playing any pro hockey.

If I was part of the Sens scouting staff I would want to investigate this further. I would want to see what White's play was like during this season and carefully analyze his point production. I would want to look for any indication that he was going to struggle to produce at the higher levels. I would want to have a pretty clear understanding if his play at that time could have predicted what he has eventually become or whether the issue was something to do with development. If it was development related, I would want to know exactly why his development got stunted.

Fundamentally I would want to gather as much information as possible to the point that it becomes blatantly obvious that the player he has eventually become was perfectly predictable. That the indicators either in his play prior to being drafted or over the course of his development clearly suggested this potential outcome. I would then want to extrapolate those indicators into some fundamental variables to analyze prospects play and their development paths in the future.

I would assume the scouts already do something like this. Knowing what those players have become, they should be able to go back and watch those 6 games, and offer clear and detailed explanations as to why their play in this tournament clearly predicted the players they would eventually become.

I think you have to be careful drawing conclusions from U17 stats. I don't think they would go back for indicators.

 

[Big Muddy]

WHC-17 team scoring
View attachment 530520

Man, seeing Bracco's name is interesting & brings back memories. Jeremy was a standard throw in for hundreds of Leaf fans trade proposals. LOL.

 

[SlapJack]

the guy known to be a rink rat and as very coachable now lacks dedication?

Post I quoted was talking about Colin White, not Boucher

 

[R2010]

The Colin White discussion in here is kinda interesting but the truth is that sometimes prospects don't work out. We can rip the Colin White pick if we want but he looked good in NCAA. Looked good at WJC. He wasn't like a Lazar out there - he individually looked good. Sometimes it doesn't work out. He was a promising prospect - go rewatch the WJC. Tyler Boucher has not showed anything near what Colin White had at this point. He could work out better who knows.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think the fitness comment about Boucher has to do with getting COVID twice, including a bad one with Delta, and being out with injury several times, kept him from really getting into game shape this season.

Here’s hoping for next year.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Things don’t work like that unfortunately.

A players season at 16 has very, very little value in evaluating, or extrapolating a players potential as he gets older.

An 18+ year old drafted player will be evaluated as he is playing, not what happens when they were 16.

Guys like Norris and Brady as you mentioned had strong 18 year old season’s in the NCAA and strong World Junior Championships at the same age. Then they both had even stronger 19 year old seasons. Norris especially had his expectations raised based on his play at 18 and 19. Even when he came to the Sens Mann said Norris was a 3rd line guy. He exceeded those expectations by a gigantic, gigantic margin.

Their U-17 stats being similar has extremely little relevance to the guys we saw and now see with Boucher, and offer almost no predictability on what they will become.

They don’t need to go back in time when they have been watching a guy for years at a much more relevant period when their play offers much more predictable information.

I would think it has some impact. Scouts only have pre draft information to make their predictions about a prospects NHL upside. That means that the draft season and the draft minus one season, as well as international tournaments are the primary sources of evaluating their play.

What I stated in my previous post was a methodology about improving the drafting process. By tracking a prospects development and performance in the AHL/NHL and then going back to their pre draft footage there might be the ability to identify a causal relationship. That you can separate the issues out as either something that was not predictable and clearly development related and alternatively where there were signs in pre draft play that might have been overlooked. That those signs, if more carefully scrutinized, could have helped to predict the eventual outcome.

Troy Mann had mentioned in one of his interviews that he requires his scouts to watch some of Belleville's games. He wants the scouts to see how the prospects they drafted are performing so they can be more informed in future drafting decisions. To me, this makes a lot of sense. I would imagine that their have been organizations that have separated the two roles, that scouts watch junior hockey and the development staff and pro staff watch the pro players. In a scenario like that, it stands to reason that scouts would miss some vital information that they might get by closely watching the prospects they recommended in the AHL/NHL.

Fundamentally it is about improving the scouting process. By looking at successes and failures and tracking the history, there is the possibility of uncovering knew insights. If I remember correctly, when Mann was discussing Norris he mentioned that he had some homework to do; that he intended to go back and review pre-draft footage of Norris to see what he missed and why he wasn't able to anticipate this outcome and why he assumed Norris had more limited upside. It seems like a worthwhile endeavor because if he was able to uncover some key indicators as to why Norris was going to be this successful, he could use that information to make better draft selections.

I think with Boucher, his comparable production to both Norris and Tkachuk in the same leagues and same tournaments at the same age is a reason to be cautiously optimistic. Maybe it will prove to be inconsequential but given how Tkachuk and Norris have largely exceeded expectations and how there was a stronger consensus that they have more limited upside and their play has challenged that assumption it is possible that Boucher could follow a similar trajectory. It would certainly be beneficial to the Sens if that ends up being the case. Maybe it is just being hopeful and a kind of naïve optimism but I question whether it makes sense to dismiss this possibility absolutely.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I too hope that Trent has isolated some slow growth indicator of star play that allows us to pick gems in all rounds that other teams never get a chance to luck out on.

Our drafting would look terrible off the hop, but after a couple years the late bloomers would reflect drafting brilliance!

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I'm not sure if this was already posted on here. I think I posted it before but that is when HFboards changed its format and didn't seem to update some of the recent posts. It is unfortunate Boucher didn't score on this play as it would have made for a pretty damn entertaining game winning OT goal. Impressive power move nonetheless.

 

[BondraTime]

I would think it has some impact. Scouts only have pre draft information to make their predictions about a prospects NHL upside. That means that the draft season and the draft minus one season, as well as international tournaments are the primary sources of evaluating their play.

What I stated in my previous post was a methodology about improving the drafting process. By tracking a prospects development and performance in the AHL/NHL and then going back to their pre draft footage there might be the ability to identify a causal relationship. That you can separate the issues out as either something that was not predictable and clearly development related and alternatively where there were signs in pre draft play that might have been overlooked. That those signs, if more carefully scrutinized, could have helped to predict the eventual outcome.

Troy Mann had mentioned in one of his interviews that he requires his scouts to watch some of Belleville's games. He wants the scouts to see how the prospects they drafted are performing so they can be more informed in future drafting decisions. To me, this makes a lot of sense. I would imagine that their have been organizations that have separated the two roles, that scouts watch junior hockey and the development staff and pro staff watch the pro players. In a scenario like that, it stands to reason that scouts would miss some vital information that they might get by closely watching the prospects they recommended in the AHL/NHL.

Fundamentally it is about improving the scouting process. By looking at successes and failures and tracking the history, there is the possibility of uncovering knew insights. If I remember correctly, when Mann was discussing Norris he mentioned that he had some homework to do; that he intended to go back and review pre-draft footage of Norris to see what he missed and why he wasn't able to anticipate this outcome and why he assumed Norris had more limited upside. It seems like a worthwhile endeavor because if he was able to uncover some key indicators as to why Norris was going to be this successful, he could use that information to make better draft selections.

I think with Boucher, his comparable production to both Norris and Tkachuk in the same leagues and same tournaments at the same age is a reason to be cautiously optimistic. Maybe it will prove to be inconsequential but given how Tkachuk and Norris have largely exceeded expectations and how there was a stronger consensus that they have more limited upside and their play has challenged that assumption it is possible that Boucher could follow a similar trajectory. It would certainly be beneficial to the Sens if that ends up being the case. Maybe it is just being hopeful and a kind of naïve optimism but I question whether it makes sense to dismiss this possibility absolutely.

The problem there is that there are guys every year who put up the same/better numbers at 16/17 at the USNTDP/CHL/etc. who do nothing, and some who go on to become stars. The production they have at 16 compared to guys who have become great NHLers isn’t a viable method of scouting or predictability at all.

Of course scouts watch the players after they are drafted well into the time they make the NHL, that’s one of the main focuses of a scout, monitoring what a player is doing in the now and seeing how they can make adjustments as needed. We saw that with Boucher already, Sens weren’t pleased with how he was developing in the NCAA and they made a pitch to get him to the OHL.

There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of guys who put up the same/better numbers as Boucher over the past 20 years, Evan Barrett, Scott Reedy, Grant Mishmash and and Jacob Tortora being 4 on the same team as Norris and Tkachuk, singling out 2 guys doesn’t do anything to help predict an outcome when so many are left out that never made it.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

The problem there is that there are guys every year who put up the same/better numbers at 16 at the USNTDP who do nothing, and some who go on to become stars. The production they have at 16 isn’t an indicator of why they’re going to do at 18-26 at all.

Of course scouts watch the players after they are drafted well into the time they make the NHL, that’s one of the main focuses of a scout, monitoring what a player is doing in the now and seeing how they can make adjustments as needed. We saw that with Boucher already, Sens weren’t pleased with how he was developing in the NCAA and they made a pitch to get him to the OHlL.

You make a valid point. Kind of like I mentioned to Sens of Anarchy about Luke Kirwan.

How do teams evaluate project picks then? Some prospects have raw athletic potential and raw skill so it can be more difficult to evaluate their true upside based on pre draft (and sometimes even immediate post draft) play. They can sometimes go through a longer development path and become late bloomers. What kind of time frame would they look at for making definitive assessments of those prospects? Would they want to quickly get them to the AHL to work with their development staff more directly? Is it more about controlling the development process or simply a gamble on a raw player and hope they figure it out?

 

[BondraTime]

You make a valid point. Kind of like I mentioned to Sens of Anarchy about Luke Kirwan.

How do teams evaluate project picks then? Some prospects have raw athletic potential and raw skill so it can be more difficult to evaluate their true upside based on pre draft (and sometimes even immediate post draft) play. They can sometimes go through a longer development path and become late bloomers. What kind of time frame would they look at for making definitive assessments of those prospects? Would they want to quickly get them to the AHL to work with their development staff more directly? Is it more about controlling the development process or simply a gamble on a raw player and hope they figure it out?

I’d imagine that they did view Boucher as a project, but also that they were expecting a gigantic amount more than he’s shown this far. I’d think they had wanted him to go for 2/3 years at BU, and then jump in and play games at the end of whatever season he left school, but that went out the window early on.

With the development path he’s on now, I’d imagine he’ll be in Ottawa next season, and then probably 2ish years in Belleville, then spot duty in the bottom 6 somewhere aka Kelly/Kastelic.

They’ll have more patience than many here do for sure, and they’ll continue to evaluate him moving forward. They obviously fell in love with his play style, which I fear was a detriment to the scouting process.

 

[aragorn]

I'm not sure if this was already posted on here. I think I posted it before but that is when HFboards changed its format and didn't seem to update some of the recent posts. It is unfortunate Boucher didn't score on this play as it would have made for a pretty damn entertaining game winning OT goal. Impressive power move nonetheless.

That clip shows a couple of things, one he is a decent skater as he puts some distance on the guy behind him & how strong he is on his skates as he fights off the guy who is on him to get his shot off before he tumbles into the boards.

 

[ottawah]

to reply to a bunch, i always go by these two rules for pre NHL production:

1) It is extremely rare for a player to make the NHL if they were not a dominant scorer at the lower levels.
2) Being a dominant scorer at the lower levels does not mean it will translate to NHL success.

and this is true for D men as well. Grabbing hulking players such as Griffin Reinhart or Samuel morin just often does not work out.


And as for trying to scout who of that dominant group can make it, scouts have to determine how they are doing it and how well it translates. For example, a 6'1 210 pound forward can dominate physically in juniors in front of the net, and if his points come that way, then its not likely to translate to the pro level where the size/strength in front of the net is significantly more. Speed is certainly a factor, you can have great hands in junior and just by keeping up to the play score a lot. But you will never keep up in the NHL to get those chances.

And even thats not enough. At times players can be so dominant in one area it does not allow scouts to see the weaknesses that may exist in their game. Daigle is a perfect example, he was two steps faster than the rest of the Q his draft year. He could put his head down and skate past anyone. Once he got to the NHL and was only 1/2 step faster, he had to rely on puck control, which was an area of weakness that was not exploited at the junior level. Looking back Yakapov feasted on weak players and team structured D at the OHL due to his strength and agility. But once he had to face players stronger than him, more agile with a team oriented D that did not allow him to get by one player and have a scoring chance, his weaknesses showed.

 

[JD1]

I’d imagine that they did view Boucher as a project, but also that they were expecting a gigantic amount more than he’s shown this far. I’d think they had wanted him to go for 2/3 years at BU, and then jump in and play games at the end of whatever season he left school, but that went out the window early on.

With the development path he’s on now, I’d imagine he’ll be in Ottawa next season, and then probably 2ish years in Belleville, then spot duty in the bottom 6 somewhere aka Kelly/Kastelic.

They’ll have more patience than many here do for sure, and they’ll continue to evaluate him moving forward. They obviously fell in love with his play style, which I fear was a detriment to the scouting process.

What scouting process? There really wasn't much of a process in his draft year. COVID made a mess of things and the kid hardly played.

I've hardly seen him, but from what I've read, he has
NHL calibre skating
An NHL calibre shot and release
He has NHL size to play a physical game

Those are really critical building blocks. You compared him to Kelly and Kastelic. Do you think either of those players had an equivalent group of building blocks at 18? I think the answer to that is clearly no.

It hasn't gone well for him. That's clear. But he's also not someone that needs to learn how to skate at an NHL level like a Kastelic or a Sokolov. He needs to be healthy, fit, and playing and he really hasn't had that since he was drafted.

The kid might bust. But he's got the building blocks, he needs to piece it together

 

[BondraTime]

What scouting process? There really wasn't much of a process in his draft year. COVID made a mess of things and the kid hardly played.

I've hardly seen him, but from what I've read, he has
NHL calibre skating
An NHL calibre shot and release
He has NHL size to play a physical game

Those are really critical building blocks. You compared him to Kelly and Kastelic. Do you think either of those players had an equivalent group of building blocks at 18? I think the answer to that is clearly no.

It hasn't gone well for him. That's clear. But he's also not someone that needs to learn how to skate at an NHL level like a Kastelic or a Sokolov. He needs to be healthy, fit, and playing and he really hasn't had that since he was drafted.

The kid might bust. But he's got the building blocks, he needs to piece it together

The scouting process of creating their ranking of ~90 guys for the 2021 draft, of which Boucher was placed as a guy to take at 10th. Boucher’s play style and similarity to what the Sens are building made him more appealing to the Sens than he should have been. Every other team had the same draft parameters, and all had a much better draft process for 2021. Loads of guys played 50 game seasons, like Sillinger for example, and we still choose Boucher over him. There had to be a draft process in place to have him ranked higher, despite only seeing him play for 10 games and produce modestly. They had to have seen things they valued, and I believe that it was his play style and truculence, which I think would be an awful fault in the scouting process, a hope he can develop the offensive part of his game to go with his play style.

I think he’ll need to jump into a role similar to those guys entering the NHL, energy bottom 6 guys.

He can skate, but his skating isnt a + asset, it’s just that he’s a good skater.

He’s got NHL size, but he’s by no means big.

He can shoot the puck, but he’s not going to be scoring from distance at the NHL, he can’t even do that in the CHL yet. Stat watching is a terrible, terrible way to evaluate players, but guys who cannot produce in the CHL post draft almost universally never learn to produce at the NHL level.

I keep reading that he has all these great tools, but I’ve yet to see any of them in use other than his hitting in the 10ish games I’ve watched of his this year. He’s going to be a bull in a China shop, we know that he brings and will bring that.

I don’t think the difference between Kelly and Boucher at 18 is very different, and that’s part of the gigantic problem with one guy being a 10th overall and the other an undrafted free agent. Kelly was great defensively and put up 30g-30a at 18, Boucher is more physical, and is more of a project that we hope can develop skills he’s yet to have shown.

Boucher has nowhere to go but up, hopefully it starts in a week or two for the 67’s in the playoffs.

 

[Icelevel]

Will see him tonight against Ben Roger. Hopefully some merilainen too

 

[OD99]

He can skate, but his skating isn't a + asset, it’s just that he’s a good skater.

He’s got NHL size, but he’s by no means big.

He can shoot the puck, but he’s not going to be scoring from distance at the NHL, he can’t even do that in the CHL yet.

I keep reading that he has all these great tools, but I’ve yet to see any of them in use other than his hitting in the 10ish games I’ve watched of his this year.

Boucher has nowhere to go but up, hopefully it starts in a week or two for the 67’s in the playoffs.

Not looking to pile on but it is all of these that many of us have pointed to as to why we are a little dubious of Boucher turning in to an impact players for the Senators.

Again, let's hope he can really turn it around and find a way to score consistently next season (or even better in the playoffs).

 

[Icelevel]

Warm up.
Boucher looks solid and powerful.
Roger is big.
Merilainen is here (hope he’s starting. Assuming yes)

Also, Dorion sighting. I would have high fived him but he was in a conversation.

 

[cudi]

Warm up.
Boucher looks solid and powerful.
Roger is big.
Merilainen is here (hope he’s starting. Assuming yes)

Also, Dorion sighting. I would have high fived him but he was in a conversation.

shoulda hugged him and thanked him for the Burrows trade