Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III

[Burrowsaurus]

In the Lazar year Burakowsky was another one who was high risk-high reward at the time.
Another example was Bowers over Robertson.

Was Robertson considered high risk?

 

[Senator Stanley]

Was Robertson considered high risk?

He fell to the 2nd because his skating was a big question mark. I don't know if that fits the definition of "high risk" or not. In the top 15, you might call that high risk. In the 2nd, it wasn't really.

 

[OD99]

A little birdie (with decent intel) told me: 2021 draft was considered a weak one. Likely would have had a different pick at #8 or #9. All players drafted around there (Dylan Guenther, Cole Sillinger, Isak Rosen, and even Chaz Lucious) have warts in their game and questions as to whether they will be more than 2nd line players. So they went with some who has a potential top end skill, that being physicality, certainly the top on his draft class in that area. With shortened seasons due to COVID, they saw this as a safer choice, in that his skill set is undeniable, physicality. And some of the other picks around that area, have no guarantees to develop any better thank some of Ottawa's later picks in previous drafts (ie. Greig, Pinto, etc..) So they choice Boucher, instead of someone who has to work on his skating to become at Top 6 forward. LA drafts Brandt Clarke at #8 and he didn't even get invited to the World Junior tryout. Yet, just about all scouts still believe he's going to be a good player for the Kings. GIve him time boys.

Didn't need a birdie to say the depth in 2021 was seen as weak.

As for the other comments...seems like a bunch of excuses.

Plus, nobody is writing him off and everyone is saying give him time.

 

[Sweatred]

A little birdie (with decent intel) told me: 2021 draft was considered a weak one. Likely would have had a different pick at #8 or #9. All players drafted around there (Dylan Guenther, Cole Sillinger, Isak Rosen, and even Chaz Lucious) have warts in their game and questions as to whether they will be more than 2nd line players. So they went with some who has a potential top end skill, that being physicality, certainly the top on his draft class in that area. With shortened seasons due to COVID, they saw this as a safer choice, in that his skill set is undeniable, physicality. And some of the other picks around that area, have no guarantees to develop any better thank some of Ottawa's later picks in previous drafts (ie. Greig, Pinto, etc..) So they choice Boucher, instead of someone who has to work on his skating to become at Top 6 forward. LA drafts Brandt Clarke at #8 and he didn't even get invited to the World Junior tryout. Yet, just about all scouts still believe he's going to be a good player for the Kings. GIve him time boys.

Well said … the Sens aren’t looking for future second line scoring wingers that can’t PK or defend a lead who get scraps of PP2 time. A few of those guys will work out but a bunch won’t and the Sens gambled they will get more from a light scoring 2-3 line winger who can PP2, PK, defend, deter, etc.

Time will tell. They haven’t hit on a light (soft compete) scoring forward outside the top 6 in the first round in nearly two decades so I’m fine to try something different.

20-20 soft scoring wingers are the easiest top 9 player to acquire.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

A little birdie (with decent intel) told me: 2021 draft was considered a weak one. Likely would have had a different pick at #8 or #9. All players drafted around there (Dylan Guenther, Cole Sillinger, Isak Rosen, and even Chaz Lucious) have warts in their game and questions as to whether they will be more than 2nd line players. So they went with some who has a potential top end skill, that being physicality, certainly the top on his draft class in that area. With shortened seasons due to COVID, they saw this as a safer choice, in that his skill set is undeniable, physicality. And some of the other picks around that area, have no guarantees to develop any better thank some of Ottawa's later picks in previous drafts (ie. Greig, Pinto, etc..) So they choice Boucher, instead of someone who has to work on his skating to become at Top 6 forward. LA drafts Brandt Clarke at #8 and he didn't even get invited to the World Junior tryout. Yet, just about all scouts still believe he's going to be a good player for the Kings. GIve him time boys.

No birdie needed as we all know that's how they draft lol.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Here are a couple of factors that I believe contributed to his lack of production this year. First, he wants to play the game too quick; it is all quick touches, quick passes, quick shots. He needs to have more patience with the puck; take a bit more time to set up the shooting angle or to get a goalie to bite on a fake/deke, to hold onto the puck longer when in possession of it and allow more of his teammates to get set up in the offensive zone and for more play options to unfold.

The problem with trying to play so quick is that it requires two things to be successful. The first, is a whole lot of team structure; players need to be set up in the right spots in the offensive zone and they need to be finding openings through their movement to set up passing and shooting opportunities and to be able to maintain puck possession. Both BU and the 67's were weak at this, this season. They didn't cover the boards and the points well, they didn't get much of a cycle game going, they didn't have much sustained offensive zone pressure and often turned the puck over.

The lack of sustained offensive zone possession was detrimental to Boucher's production. When his line mates would have possession, he would look to find an opening to get himself in a shooting position but most often his line mates either couldn't get him the puck or got him the puck before he got himself in a great scoring position where he would have a great angle on the goalie and was fairly uncovered. When he had the puck he would often look to make quick passes, they tended to be high quality passes that set his team-mates up for solid scoring chances. Part of the issues was that his teammates weren't that great at converting on his passes but the more important issue was that the rest of his team that was on the ice hadn't gotten themselves in quality positions to regain and sustain possession if the goalie made the save.

The second variable that is required in order to be successful with quick play is high end skill. Neither BU nor the 67's had a high end playmaking passer nor a high end shooter. Boucher would kind of juggle between trying to be the playmaking passer or the shooter on his line. He could make the passes but he didn't have a high end shooter to play with. He has a quick and powerful release and can sneak his way through the defense to get himself in a high quality shooting position but he didn't have a high end playmaking passer to play with. The way Boucher plays is set up in a way to be a support role of one of those two. He has a skillset that complements both shooters and playmaking passers. He is not going to be an elite shooter nor is he going to be an elite playmaking passer but he can really complement the skillsets of such players. I think without having such a player to play with it was challenging for him to figure out what kind of role he should play.

Moving forwards, the thing he has control over is his one ice contributions. If he doesn't have the luxury of playing with high end playmaking passers then he is probably better suited taking on that role then trying to be the shooter on his line, unless he is playing on a team with a lot of structure and the capacity to sustain offensive zone possession. If he doesn't have the high end shooter nor playmaking passer and the team lacks the capacity to sustain offensive zone possession then he needs to become less reliant on quick plays. He is better off looking to maintain possession in the offensive zone and allow more of his teammates to set themselves up in shooting positions and others to be in positions to regain possession if the goalie makes the save.

 

[Ice-Tray]

A little birdie (with decent intel) told me: 2021 draft was considered a weak one. Likely would have had a different pick at #8 or #9. All players drafted around there (Dylan Guenther, Cole Sillinger, Isak Rosen, and even Chaz Lucious) have warts in their game and questions as to whether they will be more than 2nd line players. So they went with some who has a potential top end skill, that being physicality, certainly the top on his draft class in that area. With shortened seasons due to COVID, they saw this as a safer choice, in that his skill set is undeniable, physicality. And some of the other picks around that area, have no guarantees to develop any better thank some of Ottawa's later picks in previous drafts (ie. Greig, Pinto, etc..) So they choice Boucher, instead of someone who has to work on his skating to become at Top 6 forward. LA drafts Brandt Clarke at #8 and he didn't even get invited to the World Junior tryout. Yet, just about all scouts still believe he's going to be a good player for the Kings. GIve him time boys.

Makes a ton of sense, thanks for sharing.

Time will tell, as it always does. It’s way too early to draw final conclusion on a pick that was always going to take time to develop.

We’ve heard this same song and dance after guys like Pinto, Kleven, even Brady to a lesser extent, were drafted, and the list goes on and on. It’s the seeming hypocrisy of having a well known good drafting team, while simultaneously questioning every draft decision that doesn’t match pro armchair lists.

Some folks want immediate gratification, some folks want to wait and see. We have lots of both in here, but we’re all presumably hoping that Boucher lives up to what the scouts saw!

 

[PlayersLtd]

Makes a ton of sense, thanks for sharing.

Time will tell, as it always does. It’s way too early to draw final conclusion on a pick that was always going to take time to develop.

We’ve heard this same song and dance after guys like Pinto, Kleven, even Brady to a lesser extent, were drafted, and the list goes on and on. It’s the seeming hypocrisy of having a well known good drafting team, while simultaneously questioning every draft decision that doesn’t match pro armchair lists.

Some folks want immediate gratification, some folks want to wait and see. We have lots of both in here, but we’re all presumably hoping that Boucher lives up to what the scouts saw!

It's a glaring weakness from many posters if you ask me. I know we're here to talk hockey and what fun would it be if every discussion ended with a "wait and see" conclusion but honestly, we have a team that is very draft savvy, yet the majority of posters here lack the patience or reason to let things play out before drawing their conclusions.

It's exactly the opposite of how a scout or GM would treat it. They're in no rush and are happy to play the long game, or take on a project. Not so for the armchairs. It's more engaging on the forums to be assertive and draw your conclusions early, to either look clever or use it as a debate technique. I get that and I don't necessarily fault people for it but we should all acknowledge that it is completely unprofessional to write off a prospect early, or vehemently criticize a pick, before it plays out. At the end of the day every GM, scout or the player himself has the luxury of time, it isn't a race, critics need to understand this better, imo.

 

[OD99]

Here are a couple of factors that I believe contributed to his lack of production this year. First, he wants to play the game too quick; it is all quick touches, quick passes, quick shots. He needs to have more patience with the puck; take a bit more time to set up the shooting angle or to get a goalie to bite on a fake/deke, to hold onto the puck longer when in possession of it and allow more of his teammates to get set up in the offensive zone and for more play options to unfold.

The problem with trying to play so quick is that it requires two things to be successful. The first, is a whole lot of team structure; players need to be set up in the right spots in the offensive zone and they need to be finding openings through their movement to set up passing and shooting opportunities and to be able to maintain puck possession. Both BU and the 67's were weak at this, this season. They didn't cover the boards and the points well, they didn't get much of a cycle game going, they didn't have much sustained offensive zone pressure and often turned the puck over.

The lack of sustained offensive zone possession was detrimental to Boucher's production. When his line mates would have possession, he would look to find an opening to get himself in a shooting position but most often his line mates either couldn't get him the puck or got him the puck before he got himself in a great scoring position where he would have a great angle on the goalie and was fairly uncovered. When he had the puck he would often look to make quick passes, they tended to be high quality passes that set his team-mates up for solid scoring chances. Part of the issues was that his teammates weren't that great at converting on his passes but the more important issue was that the rest of his team that was on the ice hadn't gotten themselves in quality positions to regain and sustain possession if the goalie made the save.

The second variable that is required in order to be successful with quick play is high end skill. Neither BU nor the 67's had a high end playmaking passer nor a high end shooter. Boucher would kind of juggle between trying to be the playmaking passer or the shooter on his line. He could make the passes but he didn't have a high end shooter to play with. He has a quick and powerful release and can sneak his way through the defense to get himself in a high quality shooting position but he didn't have a high end playmaking passer to play with. The way Boucher plays is set up in a way to be a support role of one of those two. He has a skillset that complements both shooters and playmaking passers. He is not going to be an elite shooter nor is he going to be an elite playmaking passer but he can really complement the skillsets of such players. I think without having such a player to play with it was challenging for him to figure out what kind of role he should play.

Moving forwards, the thing he has control over is his one ice contributions. If he doesn't have the luxury of playing with high end playmaking passers then he is probably better suited taking on that role then trying to be the shooter on his line, unless he is playing on a team with a lot of structure and the capacity to sustain offensive zone possession. If he doesn't have the high end shooter nor playmaking passer and the team lacks the capacity to sustain offensive zone possession then he needs to become less reliant on quick plays. He is better off looking to maintain possession in the offensive zone and allow more of his teammates to set themselves up in shooting positions and others to be in positions to regain possession if the goalie makes the save.

Not trying to be a prick because I know you put a lot of thought in to your posts and you take time to deeply evaluate players.

It seems peculiar to blame the 2 teams he played on though? He needs perfect, high skill linemates to produce?

What about the players on each team that were able to produce? What sort of scouting would look for a player that needs far better players around them to be effective?

The entire premise seems off for a variety of reasons.

1. He is admittedly bigger and stronger than most of his peers yet hasn't been able to bully his way to the net.

2. He has an NHL shot yet can't beat teenagers with it.

3. His strong skating and fast play hasn't allowed him to get openings for good scoring opportunities.

He needs to figure things out on his own this offseason and take full ownership of his game and figure out how to be an effective player.

 

[OD99]

It's a glaring weakness from many posters if you ask me. I know we're here to talk hockey and what fun would it be if every discussion ended with a "wait and see" conclusion but honestly, we have a team that is very draft savvy, yet the majority of posters here lack the patience or reason to let things play out before drawing their conclusions.

It's exactly the opposite of how a scout or GM would treat it. They're in no rush and are happy to play the long game, or take on a project. Not so for the armchairs. It's more engaging on the forums to be assertive and draw your conclusions early, to either look clever or use it as a debate technique. I get that and I don't necessarily fault people for it but we should all acknowledge that it is completely unprofessional to write off a prospect early, or vehemently criticize a pick, before it plays out. At the end of the day every GM, scout or the player himself has the luxury of time, it isn't a race, critics need to understand this better, imo.

The classic appeal to authority.

If anyone in the Senators organization says they aren't disappointed and surprised by his utter lack of offensive abilities they are a bold faced liar. Of course they would never say that publicly.

Sticking your head in the sand and pretending this is all part of the plan is worse than accepting what you see and hoping he turns it around.

I have seen lots of hockey players and my opinion is he isn't looking like an impact player at the NHL level. Hope I am wrong.

 

[Tuna99]

well they played themselves cuz the draft is looking pretty solid so far, and we have no where near the skill level that we can sacrifice top 10 picks for physicality.

Bourgault
Bolduc
Othman
Coronato
Wallstedt
Johnston
Knies

and many more all had monster years.

Maybe Boucher is more safe than most of these players because he is better physical package. But what does it say that he clearly has such nice tools and still struggles to produce at a level like the OHL ?

Remember Lazar? He could bully the kids at the CHL level but his hockey iq was exposed at the NHL level. So I don't agree that Boucher is some super safe middle six guy. Rooting for the guy though.

The OHL didn’t even play and some players like 20 games and some played in beer leagues on Slovakia.

We got an NHL player who’s huge and mean and will be Sen for a long time.

Boucher was a safe pick that ticked all their scouting needs (coachable, big, rugged, solid skater, team player/coaches dream, high ceiling)

 

[Alf Silfversson]

The OHL didn’t even play and some players like 20 games and some played in beer leagues on Slovakia.

We got an NHL player who’s huge and mean and will be Sen for a long time.

Boucher was a safe pick that ticked all their scouting needs (coachable, big, rugged, solid skater, team player/coaches dream, high ceiling)

Tyler Boucher may be very strong but he's basically the size of an average NHLer.

 

[Boud]

The OHL didn’t even play and some players like 20 games and some played in beer leagues on Slovakia.

We got an NHL player who’s huge and mean and will be Sen for a long time.

Boucher was a safe pick that ticked all their scouting needs (coachable, big, rugged, solid skater, team player/coaches dream, high ceiling)

The guy that was picked right after is the same size (an inch taller - 2 pounds less) and had more points in the NHL than Boucher did at the CHL/NCAA level this year.

That pick will always be a head scratcher. Sillinger will be an amazing NHLer for years to come. He was the easiest pick you could've made there.

Compared to that Boucher is in no way a safe pick. Maybe safe in that he should be able to be a bottom 6 guy at least, but certainly Sillinger was a much safer and smarter pick. Way better all around player, better offensive skill, better defensively, plays the more important position. That's what I would call a safe pick.

Mann tried to go for the fences with this one. I doubt it ever pays off but I sure do hope so.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The classic appeal to authority.

If anyone in the Senators organization says they aren't disappointed and surprised by his utter lack of offensive abilities they are a bold faced liar. Of course they would never say that publicly.

Sticking your head in the sand and pretending this is all part of the plan is worse than accepting what you see and hoping he turns it around.

I have seen lots of hockey players and my opinion is he isn't looking like an impact player at the NHL level. Hope I am wrong.

As I have mentioned before, “appeal to authority” is a heavily challenged logical fallacy. It isn’t universally accepted like many others.

It isn’t the end of a debate, but rather the beginning. It is easy to shred an appeal to authority argument because it fundamentally denies the value of experience, education, skill, and time put into decisions.

What’s more likely is that some people online like to make hot takes, double and triple down on them, and under the cloak of anonymity reinforce their own delusions or grandeur, and sense of self importance.

They don’t understand that it doesn’t actually make them look smart, rather the opposite. Disregarding opinion by professionals off hand in favour of their personal and wholly amateur opinions make folks look ridiculous.

Patience is a virtue, haste makes fools.

But it’s a hockey forum, so us fans are going fan.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The guy that was picked right after is the same size (an inch taller - 2 pounds less) and had more points in the NHL than Boucher did at the CHL/NCAA level this year.

That pick will always be a head scratcher. Sillinger will be an amazing NHLer for years to come. He was the easiest pick you could've made there.

Compared to that Boucher is in no way a safe pick. Maybe safe in that he should be able to be a bottom 6 guy at least, but certainly Sillinger was a much safer and smarter pick. Way better all around player, better offensive skill, better defensively, plays the more important position. That's what I would call a safe pick.

Mann tried to go for the fences with this one. I doubt it ever pays off but I sure do hope so.

Safer yes, the rest obviously remains to be seen. Simple as that really.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

It's a glaring weakness from many posters if you ask me. I know we're here to talk hockey and what fun would it be if every discussion ended with a "wait and see" conclusion but honestly, we have a team that is very draft savvy, yet the majority of posters here lack the patience or reason to let things play out before drawing their conclusions.

It's exactly the opposite of how a scout or GM would treat it. They're in no rush and are happy to play the long game, or take on a project. Not so for the armchairs. It's more engaging on the forums to be assertive and draw your conclusions early, to either look clever or use it as a debate technique. I get that and I don't necessarily fault people for it but we should all acknowledge that it is completely unprofessional to write off a prospect early, or vehemently criticize a pick, before it plays out. At the end of the day every GM, scout or the player himself has the luxury of time, it isn't a race, critics need to understand this better, imo.

I've given it time and I am going Kopitar over Lee. Its pretty well played out.
Oh well that's hindsight now isn't it; I suppose waiting and seeing and then making up your mind has a bit of hindsight in it ...
People follow prospects and have opinions and give them right or wrong and lots turn out wrong.. Some turn out right... and the timing of the opinion is pertinent to a draft; and pertinent to what we see early. We can say well let's see how it plays out and give the benefit of the doubt which many of us do on many picks.. Some stand out as being reaches and people will say so and voice their opinion. Not one of us thinks they know more than Mann and his amateur scouting staff about any prospect. And that team of savy pros is going to make mistakes too. Its part of drafting young players in varying degrees of development which is no where close to linear. Every team makes mistakes and they do it for a living day in day out. We, people tend to get attached to prospects pre and post draft just look at all the emo in the GDTs and player threads. I think its part of hockey and part of being a fan. Sens have made a lot of really good picks and there are many they passed over in favor of others that did not... it just goes with the territory.. and fans familiar with players passed over are going to voice opinions before, when, and after it happens. Its not just wait and see though.. some just never turn out.. some can look great to a point and fizzle.. all kinds of things can happen.

No right or wrong way to be a fan.

 

[Tuna99]

The guy that was picked right after is the same size (an inch taller - 2 pounds less) and had more points in the NHL than Boucher did at the CHL/NCAA level this year.

That pick will always be a head scratcher. Sillinger will be an amazing NHLer for years to come. He was the easiest pick you could've made there.

Compared to that Boucher is in no way a safe pick. Maybe safe in that he should be able to be a bottom 6 guy at least, but certainly Sillinger was a much safer and smarter pick. Way better all around player, better offensive skill, better defensively, plays the more important position. That's what I would call a safe pick.

Mann tried to go for the fences with this one. I doubt it ever pays off but I sure do hope so.

I also think they pick players based on how good they’ll be in their roll. Sillinger to me will be an NHLer but not an impact one at his position, just average and an average 2nd liner doesn’t advance the program. Boucher might be a tweener 2nd/3rd line wing (start as a 3rd line wing and after 3 years go up to 2nd line kinda like Connor Brown) but he’ll be an impact player, like Connor Brown.

Boucher will do more in his nightly 15-18 minutes then Sillinger will do in his 17-20 minutes type of thing.

In a video game Sillinger would be rated a 70 as a 2nd line C whereas Boucher will be ranked an 85 as a 3rd line wing if that makes sense

 

[Tuna99]

Also like the Boucher pick because if you don’t think you have a 2nd line impact player available, take a 3rd line impact player. It’s not the Cheifs Scouts job to fill holes in the lineup that’s the GM’s job, Chief Scout is to find impact players even as 4th liners or bottom pairing guys and the GM job is fills in the holes on the roster which Dorion HAS NOT been good at (hence the Kevin Fiala rumours)

 

[BondraTime]

As I have mentioned before, “appeal to authority” is a heavily challenged logical fallacy. It isn’t universally accepted like many others.

It isn’t the end of a debate, but rather the beginning. It is easy to shred an appeal to authority argument because it fundamentally denies the value of experience, education, skill, and time put into decisions.

What’s more likely is that some people online like to make hot takes, double and triple down on them, and under the cloak of anonymity reinforce their own delusions or grandeur, and sense of self importance.

They don’t understand that it doesn’t actually make them look smart, rather the opposite. Disregarding opinion by professionals off hand in favour of their personal and wholly amateur opinions make folks look ridiculous.

Patience is a virtue, haste makes fools.

But it’s a hockey forum, so us fans are going fan.

The general professional consensus was that Boucher was a guy ~30th+. Ottawa’s professionals disagreed with a majority of the other 31 professionals. The majority look to be more accurate this far.

Perfectly fine to agree with the pick, perfectly fine to be skeptical, perfectly fine to vehemently disagree with it. I was skeptical but curious and open to see what the Sens saw after being drafted, right now after viewings I’m definitely veering towards vehemently disagreeing with it

 

[Sweatred]

The general professional consensus was that Boucher was a guy ~30th+. Ottawa’s professionals disagreed with a majority of the other 31 professionals. The majority look to be more accurate this far.

Perfectly fine to agree with the pick, perfectly fine to be skeptical, perfectly fine to vehemently disagree with it. I was skeptical but curious and open to see what the Sens saw after being drafted, right now after viewings I’m definitely veering towards vehemently disagreeing with it

I think they wanted the skill set (they desperately need skilled physicality)… they probably wish they had a 17-24 OA pick but they didn’t and he probably wouldn’t have been there at OTT 2RD… the org needs his skills set more than a PP2 winger and they drafted for need. We will see how it plays out.

 

[SensFactor]

Boucher will be a menace against opposing teams. Will be interesting to see how he develops next year. The talent is there in flashes but he needs to be more consistent.

 

[OD99]

As I have mentioned before, “appeal to authority” is a heavily challenged logical fallacy. It isn’t universally accepted like many others.

It isn’t the end of a debate, but rather the beginning. It is easy to shred an appeal to authority argument because it fundamentally denies the value of experience, education, skill, and time put into decisions.

What’s more likely is that some people online like to make hot takes, double and triple down on them, and under the cloak of anonymity reinforce their own delusions or grandeur, and sense of self importance.

They don’t understand that it doesn’t actually make them look smart, rather the opposite. Disregarding opinion by professionals off hand in favour of their personal and wholly amateur opinions make folks look ridiculous.

Patience is a virtue, haste makes fools.

But it’s a hockey forum, so us fans are going fan.

Good Lord.

I have eyes and have played and watched hockey for 40+ years. No, I don't get paid so I am not a pro but I have certainly learned a few things and a pretty basic one is if a big, strong, fast player with a great release cant figure out how to score in the OHL after his draft year then scoring in the NHL is going to be pretty hard.

Hot take I know.

The rest of your stuff is the standard BS you spout when trying to sound smarter and more enlightened than anyone possibly could be - I dont give a flying F if anyone on this board thinks I am smart. It is my opinion and that's it.

I am not going to change it because someone reminds me that, uh, a guy who is paid to make these choices made the pick. Terrible picks are made in every sport, every draft. Even guys that the entire world agreed were going to be stars fizzled after being picked #1.

 

[Sens in Process]

Here are a couple of factors that I believe contributed to his lack of production this year. First, he wants to play the game too quick; it is all quick touches, quick passes, quick shots. He needs to have more patience with the puck; take a bit more time to set up the shooting angle or to get a goalie to bite on a fake/deke, to hold onto the puck longer when in possession of it and allow more of his teammates to get set up in the offensive zone and for more play options to unfold.

The problem with trying to play so quick is that it requires two things to be successful. The first, is a whole lot of team structure; players need to be set up in the right spots in the offensive zone and they need to be finding openings through their movement to set up passing and shooting opportunities and to be able to maintain puck possession. Both BU and the 67's were weak at this, this season. They didn't cover the boards and the points well, they didn't get much of a cycle game going, they didn't have much sustained offensive zone pressure and often turned the puck over.

The lack of sustained offensive zone possession was detrimental to Boucher's production. When his line mates would have possession, he would look to find an opening to get himself in a shooting position but most often his line mates either couldn't get him the puck or got him the puck before he got himself in a great scoring position where he would have a great angle on the goalie and was fairly uncovered. When he had the puck he would often look to make quick passes, they tended to be high quality passes that set his team-mates up for solid scoring chances. Part of the issues was that his teammates weren't that great at converting on his passes but the more important issue was that the rest of his team that was on the ice hadn't gotten themselves in quality positions to regain and sustain possession if the goalie made the save.

The second variable that is required in order to be successful with quick play is high end skill. Neither BU nor the 67's had a high end playmaking passer nor a high end shooter. Boucher would kind of juggle between trying to be the playmaking passer or the shooter on his line. He could make the passes but he didn't have a high end shooter to play with. He has a quick and powerful release and can sneak his way through the defense to get himself in a high quality shooting position but he didn't have a high end playmaking passer to play with. The way Boucher plays is set up in a way to be a support role of one of those two. He has a skillset that complements both shooters and playmaking passers. He is not going to be an elite shooter nor is he going to be an elite playmaking passer but he can really complement the skillsets of such players. I think without having such a player to play with it was challenging for him to figure out what kind of role he should play.

Moving forwards, the thing he has control over is his one ice contributions. If he doesn't have the luxury of playing with high end playmaking passers then he is probably better suited taking on that role then trying to be the shooter on his line, unless he is playing on a team with a lot of structure and the capacity to sustain offensive zone possession. If he doesn't have the high end shooter nor playmaking passer and the team lacks the capacity to sustain offensive zone possession then he needs to become less reliant on quick plays. He is better off looking to maintain possession in the offensive zone and allow more of his teammates to set themselves up in shooting positions and others to be in positions to regain possession if the goalie makes the save.

Having watched most of his games with the Ottawa 67's, I couldn't agree more about him playing the game too quick. I was always like, "slow it down" or "you had more time to make a play." He has an impressive skillset, but he has to be a little more patient in letting opportunities develop.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The general professional consensus was that Boucher was a guy ~30th+. Ottawa’s professionals disagreed with a majority of the other 31 professionals. The majority look to be more accurate this far.

Perfectly fine to agree with the pick, perfectly fine to be skeptical, perfectly fine to vehemently disagree with it. I was skeptical but curious and open to see what the Sens saw after being drafted, right now after viewings I’m definitely veering towards vehemently disagreeing with it

I agree with this, but we should also allow that players routinely outplay their ‘consensus’ spot based on other teams’ scouting. underperform as well. This means that it’s not that abnormal for teams to have their own lists that vary, and of course it isn’t an exact science. You basically have your rep to keep you employed.

Boucher has definitely been the only player I can think of that has drawn such strong opinions from you, it’s interesting. In such a strange draft year I would have expected more leeway and patience from folks especially drafting at 10 where it has never been likely to draft a top line player.

Either way it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Good Lord.

I have eyes and have played and watched hockey for 40+ years. No, I don't get paid so I am not a pro but I have certainly learned a few things and a pretty basic one is if a big, strong, fast player with a great release cant figure out how to score in the OHL after his draft year then scoring in the NHL is going to be pretty hard.

Hot take I know.

The rest of your stuff is the standard BS you spout when trying to sound smarter and more enlightened than anyone possibly could be - I dont give a flying F if anyone on this board thinks I am smart. It is my opinion and that's it.

I am not going to change it because someone reminds me that, uh, a guy who is paid to make these choices made the pick. Terrible picks are made in every sport, every draft. Even guys that the entire world agreed were going to be stars fizzled after being picked #1.

Deleted original message, life is too short for this bullshit.

I often give zero shits, same as you. I disagree with you on this topic but I don’t take any of the banter personally. I hope you don’t take my posts personally whether you like me or not, as I’m posting at a text block, not a person, and it’s easy for me to lose civility at times.

Cheers and have a good summer.