Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III

[Sun God Nika]

Can Boucher play for the 67s again next year?

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Can Boucher play for the 67s again next year?

yes

 

[TheDebater]

Although I appreciate the projections going on here and defending a young player who has still room to grow, it is still reasonable to look at him right now and come to the conclusion that the Senators made a mistake at the draft table. It is not uncommon, every team in the league makes bad picks in the 1st round once in a while.

Now does that mean that all hope is lost and Boucher is a guaranteed bust? Absolutely not, and literally anything can still happen. Just like many players who dominate junior and never make an NHL career, there is a chance Boucher can improve his CHL career next year and beyond and somehow carve out a decent NHL career...who knows for sure, nobody.

But at this point none of us should die on any hill just for the sake of taking a side, it is definitely acceptable to be on the fence on this topic and accept it both ways.

 

[OD99]

Can Boucher play for the 67s again next year?

Close to guaranteed he will be with them again.

 

[Sun God Nika]

Close to guaranteed he will be with them again.

thats good imo. at this point the best thing for the guy is just to build confidence. The AHL would break him offensively.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Although I appreciate the projections going on here and defending a young player who has still room to grow, it is still reasonable to look at him right now and come to the conclusion that the Senators made a mistake at the draft table. It is not uncommon, every team in the league makes bad picks in the 1st round once in a while.

Now does that mean that all hope is lost and Boucher is a guaranteed bust? Absolutely not, and literally anything can still happen. Just like many players who dominate junior and never make an NHL career, there is a chance Boucher can improve his CHL career next year and beyond and somehow carve out a decent NHL career...who knows for sure, nobody.

But at this point none of us should die on any hill just for the sake of taking a side, it is definitely acceptable to be on the fence on this topic and accept it both ways.

We are all just speculating here so we will all be off in our assessments one way or another. Personally, I think there is merit behind both sides of this argument. I think there is a strong and compelling case that Boucher was drafted higher than he should have gone but I also think there is merit behind the belief that there is ample justification to take him that high and that he was a good pick. I don't think there will be much consensus on how this pick should be evaluated and I think where we get into problems on here is when anyone demands a consensus opinion in any absolute sense.

It is perfectly understandable that some on here were skeptical of the pick at the time and the evidence since then has only furthered their skepticism. Some of them present valid criticisms and compelling arguments that demand serious reflection. I just believe there is room for some other interpretations and that they shouldn't be so quickly dismissed.

Personally, I think the end result will prove whether the pick was good or not. What Boucher eventually becomes after he has completed his development will give us a clearer picture of how to properly evaluate this pick. If he becomes a 50+ point dominant powerforward then it will be difficult to criticize the pick, if he doesn''t then it will be easy to criticize the pick.

Boucher has some intriguing abilities to his game but he is pretty raw. I believe there is justification for drafting such a player so high as long as there is a high degree of confidence in what the upside could eventually be and that they have the capacity to develop it. As a consequence, I am less scrutinizing of his performance early in his development as I put more priority of the evaluation to the later stage of his development. With that stated, I think there is quite a compelling debate around where raw players should be appropriately ranked when it comes to drafting them. Given how raw Boucher is, even if he does have much higher upside than some are giving him credit for, it does make it difficult to justify such a high selection. Ideally, I think it is generally a better approach to take less raw players in that range because it is less of a risk on what they might eventually become.

I also think there is a scarcity component that comes into where a prospect like Boucher should be appropriately ranked. For simplicity sake let's just categorize this as a "Tom Wilson player". There aren't many Tom Wilson types around the league, they aren't available every draft, in the draft's they are available there aren't many of them, and this type of player is highly sought of around the league. That scarcity drives up the value which creates the incentive to draft such players fairly high. If a team can manage to find one and they truly feel that the prospect will become a Tom Wilson equivalent as a pro then there is a strong reason to draft them high.

Building on this idea, this is where complications arise. The motivation to find a Tom Wilson type is so strong that teams risk overvaluing a prospect and drafting them much higher than where they should go. That is fundamentally the concern of a lot of people on here with regards to the Boucher pick. They are concerned that the Sens made a poor evaluation and miscalculated Boucher's upside. But this goes back to what I stated before about the end result of his development being key to his evaluation. If Boucher does end up becoming a Tom Wilson comparable then the Sens made a good call, if he doesn't then they likely made a bad call. Now to be clear I am using Tom Wilson to simplify the template of a dominant powerforward that is very physically intimidating so the player doesn't need to be an exact match of Wilson to be a success.

Overall there will be plenty of debates about this pick over the course of Boucher's development. We will all be wrong in various ways about our assessments but it looks like the two primary camps are the Boucher advocates and the Boucher skeptics. One of those sides will likely look foolish in their assessments in the long run so for those of us that decide to pick a side we have to accept the risk of being very wrong.

 

[TheDebater]

We are all just speculating here so we will all be off in our assessments one way or another. Personally, I think there is merit behind both sides of this argument. I think there is a strong and compelling case that Boucher was drafted higher than he should have gone but I also think there is merit behind the belief that there is ample justification to take him that high and that he was a good pick. I don't think there will be much consensus on how this pick should be evaluated and I think where we get into problems on here is when anyone demands a consensus opinion in any absolute sense.

It is perfectly understandable that some on here were skeptical of the pick at the time and the evidence since then has only furthered their skepticism. Some of them present valid criticisms and compelling arguments that demand serious reflection. I just believe there is room for some other interpretations and that they shouldn't be so quickly dismissed.

Personally, I think the end result will prove whether the pick was good or not. What Boucher eventually becomes after he has completed his development will give us a clearer picture of how to properly evaluate this pick. If he becomes a 50+ point dominant powerforward then it will be difficult to criticize the pick, if he doesn''t then it will be easy to criticize the pick.

Boucher has some intriguing abilities to his game but he is pretty raw. I believe there is justification for drafting such a player so high as long as there is a high degree of confidence in what the upside could eventually be and that they have the capacity to develop it. As a consequence, I am less scrutinizing of his performance early in his development as I put more priority of the evaluation to the later stage of his development. With that stated, I think there is quite a compelling debate around where raw players should be appropriately ranked when it comes to drafting them. Given how raw Boucher is, even if he does have much higher upside than some are giving him credit for, it does make it difficult to justify such a high selection. Ideally, I think it is generally a better approach to take less raw players in that range because it is less of a risk on what they might eventually become.

I also think there is a scarcity component that comes into where a prospect like Boucher should be appropriately ranked. For simplicity sake let's just categorize this as a "Tom Wilson player". There aren't many Tom Wilson types around the league, they aren't available every draft, in the draft's they are available there aren't many of them, and this type of player is highly sought of around the league. That scarcity drives up the value which creates the incentive to draft such players fairly high. If a team can manage to find one and they truly feel that the prospect will become a Tom Wilson equivalent as a pro then there is a strong reason to draft them high.

Building on this idea, this is where complications arise. The motivation to find a Tom Wilson type is so strong that teams risk overvaluing a prospect and drafting them much higher than where they should go. That is fundamentally the concern of a lot of people on here with regards to the Boucher pick. They are concerned that the Sens made a poor evaluation and miscalculated Boucher's upside. But this goes back to what I stated before about the end result of his development being key to his evaluation. If Boucher does end up becoming a Tom Wilson comparable then the Sens made a good call, if he doesn't then they likely made a bad call. Now to be clear I am using Tom Wilson to simplify the template of a dominant powerforward that is very physically intimidating so the player doesn't need to be an exact match of Wilson to be a success.

Overall there will be plenty of debates about this pick over the course of Boucher's development. We will all be wrong in various ways about our assessments but it looks like the two primary camps are the Boucher advocates and the Boucher skeptics. One of those sides will likely look foolish in their assessments in the long run so for those of us that decide to pick a side we have to accept the risk of being very wrong.

And I think this where most of us felt it was an unnecessary reach (trying to find a hidden gem with a top 10-20 pick) by selecting such a risky player.

Even if Boucher ends up exceeding expectations, the pick was still too risky to make and unnecessary at that. When you have a high pick, especially a top 10 pick, nobody will fault you for going with a safer, higher ranked player (based on the consensus) that was expected to be picked in that spot. Even if said player ends up being a bust down the road (ex. Logan Brown), it will be looked back on as the "right pick" that simply did not work out.

However when a team decides to outsmart itself and ev3yone else, then that team is taking on unnecessary risk by banking on that player to meet expectations or exceed them. By going off the wall for a lower ranked prospect, you better pray that it works out because management will be blamed if it does not work out (see: Lee over Kopitar).

My point being is sometimes, a team needs to know when to go big, and when to just play it safe. The second round of a draft and beyond in my opinion is the time to take acceptable risks and try to grab a player that you think will be a steal. For example I have no issue with the team going for Pinto, Jarventie, Ostapchuk, Kleven, Soogard etc. in round 2 because they felt those were the right players to target regardless of consensus.

The top 10 of a draft is just simply not the right place to implement that strategy.

 

[saskriders]

And I think this where most of us felt it was an unnecessary reach (trying to find a hidden gem with a top 10-20 pick) by selecting such a risky player.

Even if Boucher ends up exceeding expectations, the pick was still too risky to make and unnecessary at that. When you have a high pick, especially a top 10 pick, nobody will fault you for going with a safer, higher ranked player (based on the consensus) that was expected to be picked in that spot. Even if said player ends up being a bust down the road (ex. Logan Brown), it will be looked back on as the "right pick" that simply did not work out.

However when a team decides to outsmart itself and ev3yone else, then that team is taking on unnecessary risk by banking on that player to meet expectations or exceed them. By going off the wall for a lower ranked prospect, you better pray that it works out because management will be blamed if it does not work out (see: Lee over Kopitar).

My point being is sometimes, a team needs to know when to go big, and when to just play it safe. The second round of a draft and beyond in my opinion is the time to take acceptable risks and try to grab a player that you think will be a steal. For example I have no issue with the team going for Pinto, Jarventie, Ostapchuk, Kleven, Soogard etc. in round 2 because they felt those were the right players to target regardless of consensus.

The top 10 of a draft is just simply not the right place to implement that strategy.

Reminds me of Mark Jankowski. He is/was a legitimate NHL player too, not a complete bust. He isn't 30 and isn't that far off the average games played/goals for a player of his draft position. But where he was ranked it didn't made sense to draft him.

Even if Boucher really was the Sens guy why not trade down to like 15 or something and then pick him up? Maybe they knew something about someone wanting him, but we will never know that. Regardless if you trade down you either get your guy and an extra pick, or you get an extra pick anyways.

 

[JD1]

It is perfectly understandable that some on here were skeptical of the pick at the time

This

It's a message board. Guys discuss and debate. There's no model that definitely tells you who is going to be the best pro. Even clear cut 1oa picks often prove not to be the best player from the draft. Lafreniere anyone? Not looking good so far.

Let's all hope that Boucher turns out to be a valuable player for us.

Personally I can't help but think there's a group of guys here waiting for their "a ha" moment where they can proudly stand up and say "see, I was right"

 

[OD99]

This

It's a message board. Guys discuss and debate. There's no model that definitely tells you who is going to be the best pro. Even clear cut 1oa picks often prove not to be the best player from the draft. Lafreniere anyone? Not looking good so far.

Let's all hope that Boucher turns out to be a valuable player for us.

Personally I can't help but think there's a group of guys here waiting for their "a ha" moment where they can proudly stand up and say "see, I was right"

If you are talking about the skeptics I would say there is a small % who would be happy to be right.

Personally I hope I am dead wrong and can say, "Wow! Those guys were right - that kid is great!"

 

[RAFI BOMB]

 

[Larionov]

Cole Sillinger.

Im still saddened we passed on him

No kidding - if we were determined to do the, "son of a former NHLer" thing, he qualified just fine...

 

[Killerjas]

People shouting "bust!", but the real criminals are Ottawa's scouting department reaching for a 2nd round kinda guy who had a good (but short) draft season. I see him as a bottom-pair, grinder type guy who chips in offensively and is psychical. Someone you want on your team, but with a 10th overall it is just very, very lackluster.

Puzzling pick, hope the best for him but if he becomes nothing special, it will be Ottawa's fault for picking him so high and trying to convince their supporters that he will be elite.

 

[Larionov]

The 67's have their work cut out for them playing against North Bay. Given where the 67's are on their development curve, even taking two games in this series would be considered a heck of an accomplishment. Let's see how Boucher does at playoff time - if he gets a few goals in this series and is one of the 67's leaders, that will be a good sign. I'm going to Game 3 a week tonight at TD Place - I'd be more than happy to come back with a glowing scouting report...

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Cameron: Tyler Boucher has been an impact player for us, and that's what we expect from him

67s head coach Dave Cameron joins The Drive to talk about his preparations for Ottawa's opening round playoff series against North Bay

www.tsn.ca

 

[SENATOR]

I am following hockey all my life and I can tell you, how scouts meetings take place. Meetings are done all the time during the year with a head scout to present their findings, but most important is the meeting before the day draft with a general manager and an owner. You are about to invest millions of dollars in the future part of your team. Making a mistake is not acceptable for the owner in the first round. That meeting could go for hours. Some rich teams like Leafs even order video presentations on their players, actually for all the rounds. I do not believe Sens even do a video for the first round, but they do more simple presentation from every scout on a payroll for first round players in the team's reach. And it is the most crucial presentation of the year. Team are having a list with check boxes and the percentage on those lines. For me it would be Matty Beniers who would check all the boxes with excellent percentage in skating, stick-handling, zones and so on. From Beniers who will be a star to Boucher. lol You can not just draft a player on a hunch, it does not work this way.
There is a process you have to follow and it is always for the best organisation is the best player available. You just go through your list and checking it twice. And that list is almost identical in the first round top 15 for all the teams. In what boxes Boucher scored high to warrant a 10th round pick?

 

[RAFI BOMB]

This

It's a message board. Guys discuss and debate. There's no model that definitely tells you who is going to be the best pro. Even clear cut 1oa picks often prove not to be the best player from the draft. Lafreniere anyone? Not looking good so far.

Let's all hope that Boucher turns out to be a valuable player for us.

Personally I can't help but think there's a group of guys here waiting for their "a ha" moment where they can proudly stand up and say "see, I was right"

There might be some on here that have a pessimistic perspective of Boucher's potential and are hoping to feel vindicated in their pessimism. If they truly want him to fail just to be proven right then that is unfortunate. I am not sure how many fall into that camp though. I think there is a large chunk of people attempting to make an honest assessment of Boucher's upside and just so happen to feel pretty skeptical and pessimistic based on their assessments. They are likely hopeful that Boucher ends up being a big success and are likely open to reevaluating their assessment but thus far the evidence from their viewings and analysis hasn't been enough to sway them towards a more optimistic outlook.

I think that because some of those individuals can't see the reasons to be optimistic about this pick, or don't find the arguments for being optimistic sufficiently compelling at this point are understandably anxious and frustrated. For them, they believe the pessimistic outlook is the stronger stance to take and the one that there is more justification in believing. Given their frustrations and anxieties they are openly critical of the pick, and of whatever justification and rationale the Sens scouting staff used to make the pick.

The pick attracts polarizing perspectives; the optimists and pessimists find their side to be the most compelling and having the strongest justification for believing and struggle to see what the other side sees or why they should be persuaded to believe it. We can't know which side is right until we know what Boucher eventually becomes. People on here will likely hold the same stance and express the same opinions until some piece of evidence comes along that they deem sufficiently compelling to sway their perspective.

 

[BondraTime]

Of course the vast majority of people are pessimistic about the pick.

He was a reach by a significant amount, which brings pessimism or at best caution.

He isn’t a skilled player, or a type of player that too picks are used on, and the type of player is usually one that is taken much later. Again, would bring more caution or pessimism.

His season and development was going so bad that he moved out of the NCAA to the CHL midseason, will certainly bring pessimism.

Has had a terrible start through 25 games in the OHL, which again would bring more pessimism.

The only optimistic things I can see, unfortunately, are that with the game he plays he will be an NHLer. If all I have to point to for optimism is that there are good tools that we hope he can put together, that’s really, really not good.

People can be optimistic of course, but shouldn’t be surprised that it’s brushed off, as there has been evidenced reason to be pessimistic at every turn from the time the pick was made (huge reach at a very high pick) to every single thing that’s happened this season since.

The only forward we have drafted that played in the CHL since 2000 who produced as poor as Boucher has in their D+1 was Culek.

Reaches that high like that rarely work out favourably, it’s not very surprising that the pick doesn’t look good.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

There might be some on here that have a pessimistic perspective of Boucher's potential and are hoping to feel vindicated in their pessimism. If they truly want him to fail just to be proven right then that is unfortunate. I am not sure how many fall into that camp though. I think there is a large chunk of people attempting to make an honest assessment of Boucher's upside and just so happen to feel pretty skeptical and pessimistic based on their assessments. They are likely hopeful that Boucher ends up being a big success and are likely open to reevaluating their assessment but thus far the evidence from their viewings and analysis hasn't been enough to sway them towards a more optimistic outlook.

I think that because some of those individuals can't see the reasons to be optimistic about this pick, or don't find the arguments for being optimistic sufficiently compelling at this point are understandably anxious and frustrated. For them, they believe the pessimistic outlook is the stronger stance to take and the one that there is more justification in believing. Given their frustrations and anxieties they are openly critical of the pick, and of whatever justification and rationale the Sens scouting staff used to make the pick.

The pick attracts polarizing perspectives; the optimists and pessimists find their side to be the most compelling and having the strongest justification for believing and struggle to see what the other side sees or why they should be persuaded to believe it. We can't know which side is right until we know what Boucher eventually becomes. People on here will likely hold the same stance and express the same opinions until some piece of evidence comes along that they deem sufficiently compelling to sway their perspective.

Unlike the opinion of this post and at least one other on here it has nothing to do with being vindicated or right .. Some people think like that and its very clear by their posts on several topics including Brannstrom , Mete, Wolanin and others .. on the see I was right and you other posters were wrong type. I don't care to be right on Boucher... I just give my opinion of what I see now .. I don't hope I'm right or wrong. If the pick works out great .. if he really pops next year great .. I am not trying to be right in anyone's eyes .. I am just saying what I see. I think it would be better to assume that people like to offer that kind of opinion rather trying to be right and vindicated in what they say. I could care less about that one way or another.

Its ok that there is disagreement when it comes to prospects .. In fact its a natural part of it. I guarantee you that there is disagreement in scouting meetings at every level on what one person sees vs what another person sees. Those people may have the measurement of being right more closely attached to them. We don't .. who cares what we think . Its varying degrees of educated opinion that has no bearing on anything.
You stand up loud for Boucher.. Is it because you want to be right or you just like the player and are saying so.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Unlike the opinion of this post and at least one other on here it has nothing to do with being vindicated or right .. Some people think like that and its very clear by their posts on several topics including Brannstrom , Mete, Wolanin and others .. on the see I was right and you other posters were wrong type. I don't care to be right on Boucher... I just give my opinion of what I see now .. I don't hope I'm right or wrong. If the pick works out great .. if he really pops next year great .. I am not trying to be right in anyone's eyes .. I am just saying what I see. I think it would be better to assume that people like to offer that kind of opinion rather trying to be right and vindicated in what they say. I could care less about that one way or another.

I'm confused by your post. You responded directly to me and I get a sense of defensiveness in what you have written here and that you are making some negative insinuations about me and I am unclear why you would react that way.

I felt I wrote a fairly balanced post. I pointed out that while it is possible that some small group wants Boucher to fail to feel vindicated in their perspective, that that isn't representative of most people. That the majority of people are expressing their honest opinions and that a large chunk of them feel the most compelling stance and the one with the strongest justification in believing in is a skeptical and pessimistic one. I was acknowledging the merit in their belief and that they aren't being driven by any egotistical motivations. I was pointing out the divide in viewpoints from the optimists and pessimists and how they are evaluating information differently, have different justification for believing what they believe and will likely hold the same stance until some new, more subjectively compelling piece of evidence comes along that they deem sufficient to sway their perspectives.

I decided to point that out because I am seeing not only a futility in people demanding a consensus but also a more destructive in fighting where people are lashing out at others for holding a different perspective. I have likely contributed to this issue in the past and as a result I felt more compelled to take action to remedy it so people can have more productive and less contentious discussions on this topic.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I'm confused by your post. You responded directly to me and I get a sense of defensiveness in what you have written here and that you are making some negative insinuations about me and I am unclear why you would react that way.

I felt I wrote a fairly balanced post. I pointed out that while it is possible that some small group wants Boucher to fail to feel vindicated in their perspective, that that isn't representative of most people. That the majority of people are expressing their honest opinions and that a large chunk of them feel the most compelling stance and the one with the strongest justification in believing in is a skeptical and pessimistic one. I was acknowledging the merit in their belief and that they aren't being driven by any egotistical motivations. I was pointing out the divide in viewpoints from the optimists and pessimists and how they are evaluating information differently, have different justification for believing what they believe and will likely hold the same stance until some new, more subjectively compelling piece of evidence comes along that they deem sufficient to sway their perspectives.

I decided to point that out because I am seeing not only a futility in people demanding a consensus but also a more destructive in fighting where people are lashing out at others for holding a different perspective. I have likely contributed to this issue in the past and as a result I felt more compelled to take action to remedy it so people can have more productive and less contentious discussions on this topic.

I am only commenting on what I bolded in your post.. about people wanting vindication. I thought that was clear.
I also said its the second comment like that I read in this thread. I think my post was clear on that. Why presume anyone wants to feel vindicated? Look I would just rather leave it to .. You like Boucher and this is why... vs Someone else doesn't like him as much and this is why; Vs guessing and discussing what possible other motives there may or may not be and discussing that.

 

[Larionov]

Few will remember, but the NHL had a serious discussion about postponing the 2021 draft until this summer and then running two consecutive drafts - the 2021 version, and then the 2022 one a few days later. The GMs ultimately chose not to go that route, but I wish they had.

Scouts all around the league had such incredibly limited data and player views to make their decisions. Junior leagues in Canada either played greatly shortened seasons or, in the case of the OHL, didn't play at all. No one could travel to see games, and no one could get across the border. European scouts would have seen a limited number of in person games, and some U.S. scouts would have seen a very limited number of in person games, but that's it. If you've ever tried to watch a game via a crappy feed on YouTube, you'll feel the pain that these scouts felt in 2020-21.

So, armed with this incredibly small sample size on available players, and the fact that the 2021 draft was generally considered a weak one, scouts had two choices - do you go by what limited tape you did see, or do you try to make some projections about where kids might be heading, and maybe make a couple of steals in the process? The Sens did the latter, deciding to roll the dice instead of making a "safe" pick that no one in the room was very excited about. The result? We appear to have rolled snake eyes on pretty much our entire 2021 draft...

 

[DJB]

No kidding - if we were determined to do the, "son of a former NHLer" thing, he qualified just fine...

I know our scouts loved him. When he was there i thought it was a slam dunk

 

[Micklebot]

I know our scouts loved him. When he was there i thought it was a slam dunk

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Of course the vast majority of people are pessimistic about the pick.

He was a reach by a significant amount, which brings pessimism or at best caution.

He isn’t a skilled player, or a type of player that too picks are used on, and the type of player is usually one that is taken much later. Again, would bring more caution or pessimism.

His season and development was going so bad that he moved out of the NCAA to the CHL midseason, will certainly bring pessimism.

Has had a terrible start through 25 games in the OHL, which again would bring more pessimism.

The only optimistic things I can see, unfortunately, are that with the game he plays he will be an NHLer. If all I have to point to for optimism is that there are good tools that we hope he can put together, that’s really, really not good.

People can be optimistic of course, but shouldn’t be surprised that it’s brushed off, as there has been evidenced reason to be pessimistic at every turn from the time the pick was made (huge reach at a very high pick) to every single thing that’s happened this season since.

The only forward we have drafted that played in the CHL since 2000 who produced as poor as Boucher has in their D+1 was Culek.

Reaches that high like that rarely work out favourably, it’s not very surprising that the pick doesn’t look good.

I was oversimplifying it to two broad categories of optimists and pessimists. I probably should have stated it differently to avoid any confusion. What I was referring to specifically when referencing "pessimists" was the group of people who have taken a strong negative stance on what Boucher will eventually become. That have in some ways written off the possibility of future spikes in growth and have imposed a low cap on what he will eventually become when he has completed his development. I was not looking to diminish or dismiss how his current production and other information surrounding his draft rankings have created justification for a more doubtful outlook.

I think people on here are making reasonable arguments to hold a high degree of skepticism and to be concerned about the meaning and implication of some of the information being presented. I just don't think such a definitive dismissal of what he could eventually become is warranted. It is my subjective take but I think there is a lot of contextual elements to evaluating such information and there are a lot of ambiguities over what reasonable conclusions should be arrived at and how to properly weight some of the information and determine how it has influenced this exact outcome and what impact it might have on future outcomes. I use the category of "optimists" to refer to this. Not to disregard the information suggesting a more pessimistic or cautionary outlook but instead to scrutinize it and be more hesitant about making such definitive conclusions.

Subjectively, I watch Boucher's play, I can envision how he could be successful and I analyze whether it is within his control and his capacity to make such adjustments. I believe it is and that has lead me to hold onto a more optimistic outlook. Whether what I envision for him is something he ends up being able to achieve is a big question mark. I think that is a big challenge when it comes to evaluating prospects and players. Is that vision of what they can eventually become a realistic and attainable outcome or merely a wishful fantasy? Without any control or influence over their development it ends up being pure speculation and one that only time will tell whether it was based on any real insight or not.