Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III

[OD99]

It's the same arguement as Tkachuk I think, he isn't going to score goals like Stutzle or Batherson, he is going to score goals like Tkachuk, in front of the net when there is a melee going on. He's big & strong & will create havoc in front of the net as Tkachuk does & try to make plays around the net.

He's got good vision & can make some nice passes, but I expect most of his goals will likely come around the net off rebounds & tips & fighting guys for loose pucks IMO. He's not going to get pretty goals, He's another guy who is going to get mostly ugly hard fought goals.

I think this argument actually works against the intended point.

He wasn't outmuscling kids in the OHL and winning puck battles for rebounds, etc...how is expected to do it against grown men who know how to box out and tie up sticks?

He may be playing an old style that worked for him previously but isn't now. Perhaps he needs to redefine who he will be as a pro and work towards finding that niche.

 

[bert]

I know points isn't everything but it's exceptionally rare for a D+1 future NHLer to not produce at least decently (close to point per game) in the CHL. Meaning any guy who played in the NHL at all, even just a few games, not just the top 6/impact players.

If he put up ~80pts in 68 games next season he would be on a similar trajectory to Kyle Platzer.

Hope I'm wrong but it's hard to have faith when there's just no other examples of anyone doing it. Would be a great story if he did make it after all the doubt.

I think anyone strictly looking at his overall point total in 24 games of hockey when he transition to a new team, new system, new league, new country probably isnt being very objective. If he only averaged .65 ppg over a full season id be troubled. On top of that they suck they were one of the lowest scoring teams in the league its not like he had much help. Definitely one of those situations where you do actually have to watch the player. If his production is poor next year then you can be worried. Kyle Platzer is 5'11 176 what on earth does he have to do with Boucher who is going to be a physical presence at the next level. This type of thinking makes no sense and there is no actual context. Players develop at different rates and have different roles at the next level. Boucher is a physical player that has NHL attributes.

Boucher isn't that big a guy. 6'1, 205 lbs. Probably tops out at 210. It's one thing to run through junior players at that size, another to do it in the NHL.

He doesn't have the frame to be a physically dominant, and durable, top 6 player like a Tom Wilson or Brady Tkachuk.

The hope is that he's able to become a bottom 6 energy player, like Cal Clutterbuck or Raffi Torres. Or learns to fight and becomes a Chris Neil.

The concerning part is that even those guys put up much better numbers in junior in their post-draft year seasons. Torres had 33 goals and 70 points in 55 games. Clutterbuck scored 35 goals and 89 points in 65 games. Neil put up 26 goals and 72 points in 66 games.

Hell, Parker Kelly was above a PPG at age 19 in the WHL.

Boucher scored at a pace that you'd expect from an undrafted forward bound for OUA.

Dustin Brown is 6'0 205 pounds and he trucks guys in a bigger more physical era. If you can skate and you are 6'1 210 thats a very heavy player if they know how to use it. Boucher is 18 eh, not 19. As per his production use some context. You really arent doing it.

 

[Tap on the Ankle]

But the physical forwards in the NHL right now who came from the OHL all produced pretty well in the OHL. Crouse and Wilson specifically, they were both well over ppg in their D+1 seasons. As has been mentioned before the closest current NHLer comparison for Boucher's trajectory is Nicolas Deslauriers.

I'm not saying he has no chance or whatever but I'm definitely saying that a player struggling to produce at the NCAA and OHL level in his D+1 year and then turning into a decent impact NHLer (so better than Deslauriers) appears to be unprecedented. The guys in the past who don't get ppg in the CHL until their final season and then make the NHL tended to be fighters rather than players.

 

[DaveMatthew]

I think anyone strictly looking at his overall point total in 24 games of hockey when he transition to a new team, new system, new league, new country probably isnt being very objective. If he only averaged .65 ppg over a full season id be troubled. On top of that they suck they were one of the lowest scoring teams in the league its not like he had much help. Definitely one of those situations where you do actually have to watch the player. If his production is poor next year then you can be worried. Kyle Platzer is 5'11 176 what on earth does he have to do with Boucher who is going to be a physical presence at the next level. This type of thinking makes no sense and there is no actual context. Players develop at different rates and have different roles at the next level. Boucher is a physical player that has NHL attributes.


Dustin Brown is 6'0 205 pounds and he trucks guys in a bigger more physical era. If you can skate and you are 6'1 210 thats a very heavy player if they know how to use it. Boucher is 18 eh, not 19. As per his production use some context. You really arent doing it.

Boucher has all sorts of excuses, many of them valid. But so does every other player his age. COVID has made development a challenge for everyone. He's still behind his prospect class and had a very, very disappointing year. He had bad production in the OHL, and even worse in the NCAA. 9 goals and 17 points in 41 games across both leagues.

Dustin Brown had significantly more offensive ability than Boucher, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Brown was ranked in the top 15 of an absolutely stacked class. Boucher was ranked much later in a much worse year.

And you're right, we should use context when judging him. We should just forget that he was the 10th overall pick. That draft slot puts unfair expectations on his shoulders, and he never should have had that pressure. He's not a top 10 calibre prospect, and never was. He shouldn't be compared to Sillinger, Othmann, Bolduc, Coronato, etc.

I'll be happy if he turns into a 12-15 minute a night energy player on the 3rd/4th line who can hit and drop the gloves. Which, if he was taken where he should have been (late 1st or early 2nd), would be a fine result.

And Boucher turned 19 in January. He wasn't young in his draft class, if that's what you're saying.

 

[bert]

Boucher has all sorts of excuses, many of them valid. But so does every other player his age. COVID has made development a challenge for everyone. He's still behind his prospect class and had a very, very disappointing year. He had bad production in the OHL, and even worse in the NCAA. 9 goals and 17 points in 41 games across both leagues.

Dustin Brown had significantly more offensive ability than Boucher, so I don't think that's a fair comparison. Brown was ranked in the top 15 of an absolutely stacked class. Boucher was ranked much later in a much worse year.

And you're right, we should use context when judging him. We should just forget that he was the 10th overall pick. That draft slot puts unfair expectations on his shoulders, and he never should have had that pressure. He's not a top 10 calibre prospect, and never was. He shouldn't be compared to Sillinger, Othmann, Bolduc, Coronato, etc.

I'll be happy if he turns into a 12-15 minute a night energy player on the 3rd/4th line who can hit and drop the gloves. Which, if he was taken where he should have been (late 1st or early 2nd), would be a fine result.

And Boucher turned 19 in January. He wasn't young in his draft class, if that's what you're saying.

What happened to him hasnt happened to everyone making it sound like moving like he did is normal is just not being objective. If you have never been traded or understand what its like to move billets/systems/leagues as a teenager then dont discount it. Its Bouchers 18 year old season, Parker Kelly didnt even score at a ppg in his 19 year old year. He actually scored at a very similar pace to boucher in their 18 year old seasons. You are moving the goal posts. I dont really get why either, I guess just to help justify your own opinion? You said he doesnt have the build to be physically imposing which is yet again wrong. Thats why I used Dustin Brown did you not understand that? I dont get why people arent willing to give a player a larger sample size considering the movement but I guess people just like to be negative. If Boucher scores 76 points in 58 games next year like Brown did in his 19 year old year will you consider him to have some ok potential? I also have to ask did you go to a 67's game this year? All the people that comment in this thread that complain about his production all didnt go to the games. Frankly I find it exhausting when people decide they know a player better when they never even watched him.

 

[DaveMatthew]

What happened to him hasnt happened to everyone making it sound like moving like he did is normal is just not being objective. If you have never been traded or understand what its like to move billets/systems/leagues as a teenager then dont discount it. Its Bouchers 18 year old season, Parker Kelly did that in his 19 year old year. You are moving the goal posts. I dont really get why either, I guess just to help justify your own opinion? You said he doesnt have the build to be physically imposing which is yet again wrong. Thats why I used Dustin Brown did you not understand that? I dont get why people arent willing to give a player a larger sample size considering the movement but I guess people just like to be negative.

This whole "people love to be negative" trope needs to end.

When a prospect has an outstanding season (like Pinto, Batherson, Greig and Formenton did after they were drafted), everyone is more than happy to jump on the bandwagon, salute Mann, and pencil them into the future core. And rightfully so. Hell, people have come around on Kleven pretty fast. Because he's played well.

So when a prospect disappoints, the inverse can and should be okay. Moving away from home, changing teams, literally every prospect deals with this. Look at the season Mason McTavish just had. Is it tough? Sure. Is it unique? No.

Boucher was unanimously looked at as a big reach when we took him at 10. He was ranked 29th on McKenzie's final list. He followed that up with a very poor season. Of course people are going to question the pick even more now.

Boucher has decent size, skating and plays a reckless game. He has little offensive touch and doesn't think the game very well. I think he can turn into a good 3rd/4th line energy player. He can carve out a career and still be a bad pick at #10. That's not being negative. It's being realistic.

And on the Kelly comparison - okay. Let's use Kelly's 17-18 season. 29 goals and 59 points in 69 games. Still much better than Boucher. Neither of them will ever be in a team's top 6, nor should they be, IMO.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

 

[BondraTime]

What happened to him hasnt happened to everyone making it sound like moving like he did is normal is just not being objective. If you have never been traded or understand what its like to move billets/systems/leagues as a teenager then dont discount it. Its Bouchers 18 year old season, Parker Kelly didnt even score at a ppg in his 19 year old year. He actually scored at a very similar pace to boucher in their 18 year old seasons. You are moving the goal posts. I dont really get why either, I guess just to help justify your own opinion? You said he doesnt have the build to be physically imposing which is yet again wrong. Thats why I used Dustin Brown did you not understand that? I dont get why people arent willing to give a player a larger sample size considering the movement but I guess people just like to be negative. If Boucher scores 76 points in 58 games next year like Brown did in his 19 year old year will you consider him to have some ok potential? I also have to ask did you go to a 67's game this year? All the people that comment in this thread that complain about his production all didnt go to the games. Frankly I find it exhausting when people decide they know a player better when they never even watched him.

Kelly scored 59 in 69 at 18 and 67 in 64 at 19.

His 17 year old season was similar to this one for Boucher.

Brown was in the NHL in his 19 year old season, had 76 in 58 in his draft year.

Boucher will be fine, he’s a very close to sure thing NHLer, he’ll be a valuable physical player, he’ll be a point per game guy next season, but this was a completely wasted year developmental wise.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Kelly scored 59 in 69 at 18 and 67 in 64 at 19.

His 17 year old season was similar to this one for Boucher.

Brown was in the NHL in his 19 year old season, had 76 in 58 in his draft year.

Hell, Dustin Brown was more productive in the OHL as a 16/17 year old than Boucher was as a 18/19 year old.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

If we have Dustin Brown in Tyler Boucher it would be amazing. Not impossible but I would not bet on it happening

 

[bert]

Kelly scored 59 in 69 at 18 and 67 in 64 at 19.

His 17 year old season was similar to this one for Boucher.

Brown was in the NHL in his 19 year old season, had 76 in 58 in his draft year.

Boucher will be fine, he’s a very close to sure thing NHLer, he’ll be a valuable physical player, he’ll be a point per game guy next season, but this was a completely wasted year developmental wise.

Those were his 19 and 20 year old years. I got the year mixed up with Brown.

Post automatically merged: May 3, 2022

This whole "people love to be negative" trope needs to end.

When a prospect has an outstanding season (like Pinto, Batherson, Greig and Formenton did after they were drafted), everyone is more than happy to jump on the bandwagon, salute Mann, and pencil them into the future core. And rightfully so. Hell, people have come around on Kleven pretty fast. Because he's played well.

So when a prospect disappoints, the inverse can and should be okay. Moving away from home, changing teams, literally every prospect deals with this. Look at the season Mason McTavish just had. Is it tough? Sure. Is it unique? No.

Boucher was unanimously looked at as a big reach when we took him at 10. He was ranked 29th on McKenzie's final list. He followed that up with a very poor season. Of course people are going to question the pick even more now.

Boucher has decent size, skating and plays a reckless game. He has little offensive touch and doesn't think the game very well. I think he can turn into a good 3rd/4th line energy player. He can carve out a career and still be a bad pick at #10. That's not being negative. It's being realistic.

And on the Kelly comparison - okay. Let's use Kelly's 17-18 season. 29 goals and 59 points in 69 games. Still much better than Boucher. Neither of them will ever be in a team's top 6, nor should they be, IMO.

That was Kellys 19 year old season.... That would be next year for Boucher. I never said he wasnt a reach I just think this context of only looking at his production when you havent watched a single game is garbage. you also never addressed your swing and a miss saying someone with his build cant impose his game physically.

Sweet compare him to one of the best prospects in the world in Mctavish. One post you say he shouldnt be compared to players around where he is drafted then compare him to 3rd overall.

 

[BondraTime]

Those were his 19 and 20 year old years. I got the year mixed up with Brown.

No they weren’t, he was in Belleville in his 20 year old season. He spent his 16-19 year old seasons in the WHL and moved onto the AHL.

 

[bert]

If we have Dustin Brown in Tyler Boucher it would be amazing. Not impossible but I would not bet on it happening

I didnt say that I just said he is bigger than him and could impose his will physically in a similar way.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Those were his 19 and 20 year old years. I got the year mixed up with Brown.

Post automatically merged: May 3, 2022

That was Kellys 19 year old season.... That would be next year for Boucher. I never said he wasnt a reach I just think this context of only looking at his production when you havent watched a single game is garbage. you also never addressed your swing and a miss saying someone with his build cant impose his game physically.

Sweet compare him to one of the best prospects in the world in Mctavish. One post you say he shouldnt be compared to players around where he is drafted then compare him to 3rd overall.

You have to check your math on your birthdays and seasons. They’re off.

And I wasn’t comparing him to McTavish on ice. I was comparing what he went through to what so many junior players go through. Playing away from home, switching teams, dealing with COVID. None of that was unique for Boucher. It doesn’t explain away his lack of production.

At the end of the day, we’ll see what he turns into. I watched every home game he played with the 67s and I see a 3rd, but more likely a 4th, line player who’s a ways away from the NHL. Not a bad player, but not a great pick at 10.

Maybe he’ll prove me wrong. Hopefully we’re a top team when he makes it and he can play the same type of role that Kyle Clifford played on the Kings. 4th line energy and agitation.

And on the build comment, no, he won’t be able to impose his will like Tom Wilson can. He’s not big enough. You’re right that he’s similar in stature to Brown and Clutterbuck. They hit like madmen, but they weren’t as imposing as Wilson is either. Brown was feared because he could hit and beat you on the scoresheet. Much more similar to Tkachuk.

 

[OD99]

I think anyone strictly looking at his overall point total in 24 games of hockey when he transition to a new team, new system, new league, new country probably isnt being very objective. If he only averaged .65 ppg over a full season id be troubled. On top of that they suck they were one of the lowest scoring teams in the league its not like he had much help. Definitely one of those situations where you do actually have to watch the player. If his production is poor next year then you can be worried. Kyle Platzer is 5'11 176 what on earth does he have to do with Boucher who is going to be a physical presence at the next level. This type of thinking makes no sense and there is no actual context. Players develop at different rates and have different roles at the next level. Boucher is a physical player that has NHL attributes.


Dustin Brown is 6'0 205 pounds and he trucks guys in a bigger more physical era. If you can skate and you are 6'1 210 thats a very heavy player if they know how to use it. Boucher is 18 eh, not 19. As per his production use some context. You really arent doing it.

*EDIT - Clearly missed the entire next page of this discussion but what the heck, these are my thoughts*

Boucher is 19 - Jan 13 Bday.

Dustin Brown went almost PPG as a 16 year old in the OHL and was well over that mark the following 2 seasons. Also went PPG in the AHL regular season and playoffs.

And moving to a different country? Really?

Going back to the U17 (24 games - 4 goals/7 assists) and USDP (5 games and 5 points) Boucher has played 70 games for a total of 16 goals and 17 assists.

There has been Covid and he has had other injuries but over 4 different development leagues there is no production to speak of.

If he can sort it out that is great but as each year goes by it seems less and less likely he will simply find a scoring touch.

 

[Icelevel]

What are we even doing here?
Like what is the point to this?
What conclusion are we trying to get at?
Boucher is a senator. He should be a good one. Gonna be buddies with batherson, Norris, chabot, tkachuk, stutzle. And..he’ll have one of the best physical forwards as his captain to learn from. Really looking forward to his play from now on.

If he’s reading any of this I hope he knows it’s only a handful who are doubting him or are diss appointed with the pick. And we went through a similar thing with tkachuk. It will all work out in the end.

 

[HSF]

What are we even doing here?
Like what is the point to this?
What conclusion are we trying to get at?
Boucher is a senator. He should be a good one. Gonna be buddies with batherson, Norris, chabot, tkachuk, stutzle. And..he’ll have one of the best physical forwards as his captain to learn from. Really looking forward to his play from now on.

If he’s reading any of this I hope he knows it’s only a handful who are doubting him or are diss appointed with the pick. And we went through a similar thing with tkachuk. It will all work out in the end.

tkachuk is in no way similar to boucher

they dont even play the same game lmao

 

[playasRus]

Player Name	Pos.	GP	G	A	Pts	Age

Parker Kelly

L

72

21

22

43

17

Tyler Boucher

R

24

7

7

14

18

Parker Kelly

L

69

29

30

59

18

Boucher at 18 years old produced at a Kelly 17 years old pace (in a medium sample size)*
I don't see him becoming a PPG CHL player next year but we will see. I definitely see where the pessimism comes from though.

Can't use the "his teammates are trash" excuse either when 17 year old Parker Kelly was second to lead in team scoring ahead of two 20 year olds.

 

[Boud]

Player Name	Pos.	GP	G	A	Pts	Age

Parker Kelly

L

72

21

22

43

17

Tyler Boucher

R

24

7

7

14

18

Parker Kelly

L

69

29

30

59

18

Boucher at 18 years old produced at a Kelly 17 years old pace (in a medium sample size)*
I don't see him becoming a PPG CHL player next year but we will see. I definitely see where the pessimism comes from though.

Can't use the "his teammates are trash" excuse either when 17 year old Parker Kelly was second to lead in team scoring ahead of two 20 year olds.

More importantly Kelly wasn't even drafted and Boucher went 10th overall.

 

[TheDebater]

I am not a big fan of the Boucher pick myself but I am a worse fan of bad takes and people making very uninformed absolute opinions and running with it like they are facts.

It is very likely possible that this was just a bad and off year in Boucher's development. The guy was ranked 29th on Bob's list, not 60th or 100th or worse, yet the go to argument has now become that Boucher is an automatic failure of a pick because his "D+1 season" is apparently worse than some undrafted players and that somehow justifies him being a bad pick at #10.

No, that would not only mean he was a bad pick at #10 but a bad pick, period. Should have been undrafted....yet Mackenzie who is usually pretty good with his rankings had Boucher going 1st round. So what does that tell us? It tells me that odds are his terrible D+1 season is more of an anomaly as opposed to an indicator of things to come.

His season is so statistically bad relative to even below average NHL players that it makes no sense logically to be the norm and not the exception to his junior career, we will see I guess.

 

[Boud]

If he’s reading any of this I hope he knows it’s only a handful who are doubting him or are diss appointed with the pick. And we went through a similar thing with tkachuk. It will all work out in the end

Uh Really?

Other than the usual handful of fans who never doubt anything this team does (and you this time) who is not doubting this pick?

Look at the post-draft analysis from pretty much anyone around the league - Almost everyone was absolutely shocked to see Boucher go at 10, pretty much everyone here included. Then he did nothing this season to prove he was worth taking at that spot. Everyone here is doubting Tyler Boucher. If you're reading this Tyler, absolutely everybody is doubting you. Please prove us wrong.

 

[Boud]

I am not a big fan of the Boucher pick myself but I am a worse fan of bad takes and people making very uninformed absolute opinions and running with it like they are facts.

It is very likely possible that this was just a bad and off year in Boucher's development. The guy was ranked 29th on Bob's list, not 60th or 100th or worse, yet the go to argument has now become that Boucher is an automatic failure of a pick because his "D+1 season" is apparently worse than some undrafted players and that somehow justifies him being a bad pick at #10.

No, that would not only mean he was a bad pick at #10 but a bad pick, period. Should have been undrafted....yet Mackenzie who is usually pretty good with his rankings had Boucher going 1st round. So what does that tell us? It tells me that odds are his terrible D+1 season is more of an anomaly as opposed to an indicator of things to come.

His season is so statistically bad relative to even below average NHL players that it makes no sense logically to be the norm and not the exception to his junior career, we will see I guess.

You're not necessarily correct in assuming that this statistical season was an anomaly. Do you know the percentage of players drafted in the 25-35 range that turn into NHLers? It's way lower than you probably think. Maybe 30% of players taken in that range ever play over 200 NHL games, so 2/3rd of players never establishing themselves as NHLers selected in that range and never turn out to be more than journeyman NHLers. There's a huge difference between a guy ranked 30th overall and a guy ranked 10th overall (if we're talking about Mackenzie standards especially) in terms of projectability. There's a much bigger difference between 10th overall and 30th than there is between 30th and 60th.

Besides you need to look at the context of why Boucher was selected where he was as well. The reason being that he was playing well for a relatively small sample size (20 game or so) and then got injured so he missed out the rest of the season. He didn't play much so his projectability was way skewed but the team felt he would keep up that level of production he had for 20 or so games over to the following seasons. If a guy plays well for 20 games then teams kind of had to base their rankings on the limited viewings of Boucher and that's what Ottawa did and that made the pick very risky compared to guys you usually pick in that range. They thought we have a guy here who was very good for 14 games at the U18, and for 5 games for USNDTP, he plays hard and has good speed and so they took a chance to grab him but it was definitely a risk given the limited games he had played until then (and also because he had a fairly big injury). That draft will likely have many surprises in the later rounds just because of how things played out with COVID but it remains to be seen if that 20 game stretch from Boucher was the anomaly here. Sens like to take chances on guys that were injured, they did that with Maidens some years back, with Colin White, and I'm sure there's others I can't recall.

To be clear, I'm not saying Boucher will definitely bust but the fact that he was ranked 28th by Mackenzie really doesn't mean that this season was an anomaly. Mackenzie's list was based on the same thing that the Sens based themselves on, a 20 game stretch, that's it. There's definitely chances Boucher had a hot stretch of games at the good time. It's also possible he takes off next season but again Mackenzie having him 28th doesn't mean anything.

 

[Icelevel]

Uh Really?

Other than the usual handful of fans who never doubt anything this team does (and you this time) who is not doubting this pick?

Look at the post-draft analysis from pretty much anyone around the league - Almost everyone was absolutely shocked to see Boucher go at 10, pretty much everyone here included. Then he did nothing this season to prove he was worth taking at that spot. Everyone here is doubting Tyler Boucher. If you're reading this Tyler, absolutely everybody is doubting you. Please prove us wrong.

So you’re saying you and everyone doubts he will become a good player for us?
I would take that bet and all your money if you like.

 

[Tuna99]

You're not necessarily correct in assuming that this statistical season was an anomaly. Do you know the percentage of players drafted in the 25-35 range that turn into NHLers? It's way lower than you probably think. Maybe 30% of players taken in that range ever play over 200 NHL games, so 2/3rd of players never establishing themselves as NHLers selected in that range and never turn out to be more than journeyman NHLers. There's a huge difference between a guy ranked 30th overall and a guy ranked 10th overall (if we're talking about Mackenzie standards especially) in terms of projectability. There's a much bigger difference between 10th overall and 30th than there is between 30th and 60th.

Besides you need to look at the context of why Boucher was selected where he was as well. The reason being that he was playing well for a relatively small sample size (20 game or so) and then got injured so he missed out the rest of the season. He didn't play much so his projectability was way skewed but the team felt he would keep up that level of production he had for 20 or so games over to the following seasons. If a guy plays well for 20 games then teams kind of had to base their rankings on the limited viewings of Boucher and that's what Ottawa did and that made the pick very risky compared to guys you usually pick in that range. They thought we have a guy here who was very good for 14 games at the U18, and for 5 games for USNDTP, he plays hard and has good speed and so they took a chance to grab him but it was definitely a risk given the limited games he had played until then (and also because he had a fairly big injury). That draft will likely have many surprises in the later rounds just because of how things played out with COVID but it remains to be seen if that 20 game stretch from Boucher was the anomaly here. Sens like to take chances on guys that were injured, they did that with Maidens some years back, with Colin White, and I'm sure there's others I can't recall.

To be clear, I'm not saying Boucher will definitely bust but the fact that he was ranked 28th by Mackenzie really doesn't mean that this season was an anomaly. Mackenzie's list was based on the same thing that the Sens based themselves on, a 20 game stretch, that's it. There's definitely chances Boucher had a hot stretch of games at the good time. It's also possible he takes off next season but again Mackenzie having him 28th doesn't mean anything.

The biggest think for Boucher is if he can get onto an NHL Power Play he’ll be considered a good pick, if he can’t the fans will feel something was left on the table.

His 5 on 5 game will be fine, but he needs the PP time to get his stats up. Almost like a Connor Brown who had 9 PP points this year to take him from 30 to 40 points

 

[TheDebater]

You're not necessarily correct in assuming that this statistical season was an anomaly. Do you know the percentage of players drafted in the 25-35 range that turn into NHLers? It's way lower than you probably think. Maybe 30% of players taken in that range ever play over 200 NHL games, so 2/3rd of players never establishing themselves as NHLers selected in that range and never turn out to be more than journeyman NHLers. There's a huge difference between a guy ranked 30th overall and a guy ranked 10th overall (if we're talking about Mackenzie standards especially) in terms of projectability. There's a much bigger difference between 10th overall and 30th than there is between 30th and 60th.

Besides you need to look at the context of why Boucher was selected where he was as well. The reason being that he was playing well for a relatively small sample size (20 game or so) and then got injured so he missed out the rest of the season. He didn't play much so his projectability was way skewed but the team felt he would keep up that level of production he had for 20 or so games over to the following seasons. If a guy plays well for 20 games then teams kind of had to base their rankings on the limited viewings of Boucher and that's what Ottawa did and that made the pick very risky compared to guys you usually pick in that range. They thought we have a guy here who was very good for 14 games at the U18, and for 5 games for USNDTP, he plays hard and has good speed and so they took a chance to grab him but it was definitely a risk given the limited games he had played until then (and also because he had a fairly big injury). That draft will likely have many surprises in the later rounds just because of how things played out with COVID but it remains to be seen if that 20 game stretch from Boucher was the anomaly here. Sens like to take chances on guys that were injured, they did that with Maidens some years back, with Colin White, and I'm sure there's others I can't recall.

To be clear, I'm not saying Boucher will definitely bust but the fact that he was ranked 28th by Mackenzie really doesn't mean that this season was an anomaly. Mackenzie's list was based on the same thing that the Sens based themselves on, a 20 game stretch, that's it. There's definitely chances Boucher had a hot stretch of games at the good time. It's also possible he takes off next season but again Mackenzie having him 28th doesn't mean anything.

The point being is you are using his 20 or so "good games" which earned him a top 30 ranking against him as a potential mere hot streak yet the major against him right now is he had one of the worst D+1 seasons which again happened to be a small sample size.

All I am doing is making counter arguments to what has become a very one sided perspective on things, and simply using historical statistics without context can skew things.

As others have stated, the eye test gives a different indication of Boucher's potential, his numbers simply do not properly reflect the type of player he is.