And then there's some of us who are content to sit back and wait and see if he develops. He was drafted, he will play for the Sens, where he was drafted is irrelevant at this point.
Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III
- Thread starter senswon
- Start date
-
It's Back - NHL Survivor 2024 is now open Click here to join.
- Status
cudi
Mojo So Dope
- Feb 2, 2020
- 8,023
- 12,055
thats basically what i mean when i say some of us hope for the best and that he can have a bounce back season..
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 55,958
- 33,596
29 to 10 is a pretty massive reach, like, there aren't too many bigger reaches over the years, it happens but it's a really big reach. I mean, when's the last time Bob's list was that far off for a top 10 pick?
BondraTime
Registered User
Since 2005 it’s Seider and Koekkoek at 16th, Derrick Pouliot at 17th, Brian Lee at 19th, Thomas Hickey at 23rd I believe, and then Boucher at 29th. 2004 though, Wheeler was in the 30’s. He’s the golden standard for reaching and succeeding, even if the Yotes only got a compensatory 2nd for him 5 years after being drafted.
Since 2010 the lowest ranked guy taken in the top 10 are:
2010 - McIlrath at 15th
2011 - Schefiele at 12th
2012 - Pouliot at 17th
2013 - Horvat at 13th
2014 - Ehlers at 10th
2015 - Meier at 12th
2016 - Jost at 11th
2017 - Anderson at 13th
2018 - Kravtsov at 12th
2019 - Seider at 16th
2020 - Quinn at 10th
2021 - Boucher at 29th
It was definitely a very big jump compared to most years. It was a very different draft year to be fair.
Boucher was a reach for sure, but he can still become a very impactful player for the Sens.
Last edited:
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 55,958
- 33,596
I have no issues with people wanting to be patient with him, He's got some good tools, and like you said it was a weird year compounded some injuries since. But I draw the line at people wanting to pretend he wasn't all that big of a reach based on the available info,
bert
Registered User
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 55,958
- 33,596
TheDebater
Peace be upon you
Massive reach and Ottawa really wanted him so they took him.
However with that said I feel the debate has shifted from "should not have been picked 10th" to now some members picking apart his stats and comparing him to undrafted players as if to make a claim he is not worthy of even being drafted. See the past 2-3 pages for proof on that incase anyone is doubting my claim.
Has Boucher disappointed? Big time, usually when a team reaches in a draft everyone figuratively holds their breath in anticipation the player lives up to that draft position so when Boucher comes out and has a year like he did post draft, then it is only natural to be concerned.
DJB
Registered User
Ive moved on beyond the arguing whether he was the right choice or overdrafted for the 10th pick. It doesnt matter anymore. It is what it is.
Time to just follow the player and see how he develops.
Time to just follow the player and see how he develops.
Last edited:
Micklebot
Moderator
- Apr 27, 2010
- 55,958
- 33,596
I don't think anyone thinks he shouldn't have been drafted, you can't draft guys based on their D+1 production and that's where he's been compared. People are trying to put how disappointing this season has been into context, albeit perhaps unfairly.
It would be interesting to see how many 1st and 2nd round picks end up making it after stalling the way he has, he looked better in my limited viewings when he got to the 67s but even then it's not great. I mean, Lazar scored goals at a higher rate than Boucher scored points and his offense did not translate at all. I can think of a more disappointing D+1by a sens first round pick pretty much ever. Maybe Klepis?
Fair enough, but this wasn’t exactly a normal draft year to compare to other years in any manner really.
Drafted 20 spots up from Bob, and 6 spots up from the rumoured Rangers pick doesn’t exactly scream maaassssive reach, especially in an underscouted year.
Maybe it’s just regular board exaggeration that I’m balking at. I’m not saying it wasn’t a reach….
Anyhoo….
Alf Silfversson
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2011
- 6,036
- 5,187
Fair enough, but this wasn’t exactly a normal draft year to compare to other years in any manner really.
Drafted 20 spots up from Bob, and 6 spots up from the rumoured Rangers pick doesn’t exactly scream maaassssive reach, especially in an underscouted year.
Maybe it’s just regular board exaggeration that I’m balking at. I’m not saying it wasn’t a reach….
Anyhoo….
These are all valid points, except the Rangers theory:
1) I highly doubt Dorion and company knew for sure who the Rangers were picking. How could they unless the Rangers brass were totally incompetent? This is just speculation based on the Rangers possibly scouting the guy. For all we know they could have been scouting him for their 2nd pick.
2) Even if they KNEW 100% that the Rangers were going to take Boucher, who gives a shit? Unless you're picking 15th and 17th with the Rangers in between this should be given zero consideration. You pick the best player. Period.
The Sens just reached and nothing more because they thought Boucher was the best player. Not many out there in the hockey world (appeal to authority
) or the journalism world or the "internet fan" world agreed with this assessment. We'll see who ends up being right. At this point it doesn't look good but there is loads of time for everything to change.I agree in that I don’t think they picked him because of the Rangers, I think it was just some rumours from some legit sources that said that Boucher was their guy at that spot.These are all valid points, except the Rangers theory:
1) I highly doubt Dorion and company knew for sure who the Rangers were picking. How could they unless the Rangers brass were totally incompetent? This is just speculation based on the Rangers possibly scouting the guy. For all we know they could have been scouting him for their 2nd pick.
2) Even if they KNEW 100% that the Rangers were going to take Boucher, who gives a shit? Unless you're picking 15th and 17th with the Rangers in between this should be given zero consideration. You pick the best player. Period.
The Sens just reached and nothing more because they thought Boucher was the best player. Not many out there in the hockey world (appeal to authority
But you’re right, who knows who cares. He’s our pick now and that’s how our scouts wanted it for good or bad.
Could be so good for us if he can put it all together.
Fair enough, but this wasn’t exactly a normal draft year to compare to other years in any manner really.
Drafted 20 spots up from Bob, and 6 spots up from the rumoured Rangers pick doesn’t exactly scream maaassssive reach, especially in an underscouted year.
Maybe it’s just regular board exaggeration that I’m balking at. I’m not saying it wasn’t a reach….
Anyhoo….
Well, the 29th ranking was the highest ranking of any major legitimate service, and the one highlighted here. While I tend to like MacKenzie, he uses a small sample size of scouts so one scout can skew it. It a ranking of rankings with limited inputs.
For example, dobber which uses a number of scouts rankings, had him outside the top 100. Hockey news at 36. EOTP which uses high quality sources was 49th. Hockey writers had him at 91. Central scouting had him 25 in NA skaters. Button had him at 49.
He certainly had a high variance, more so than other prospects, but all that could take is a couple of scouts out of 100's to cause that given a few of the sources rely on a relatively low number of scouts. Sure, it was an odd draft year, but its not like he was a dark horse, as a USNDP he would have gotten far more views, albeit a few years earlier, than most prospects.
I don’t personally put much value in any of those scouting services, though I appreciate the write ups. I like Mac because he talks to actual NHL scouts so his list is often pretty close to some actual NHL draft lists, which what I care about for the most part (other peoples like different aspects for certain). Regardless it was a reach compared to the lists we have seen.
He is absolutely a dark horse, and the hope is for a late riser with a unique skill set. The fact that he played such a limited amount of games pre draft rendered him under-scouted compared to many other guys, which I think the scouts are hoping let him fly under the radar a bit.
He has NHL skills in some areas, and some hints at NHL level skills in others. They like what they see in his character, and feel like he has the ability to realize that potential and be an impact player.
We’ll have to wait and see since he is definitely a project in need of further development. I am hopeful but understand the hesitancy and disappointment
RAFI BOMB
Registered User
- May 11, 2016
- 7,633
- 8,090
His production this season looks more like an anomaly than something representative of his actual upside. In his D -1 season his production in the USDP, USHL and WHC-17 was pretty comparable to that of Brady Tkachuk and Josh Norris.
In his draft year his stats were the following:
U.S. National U17 Team USDP 2 GP 3 G 0 A 3 PTS
U.S. National U18 Team USDP 14 GP 9 G 5 A 14 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 5 GP 3 G 2 A 5 PTS
It is a smaller sample size but his goals per game production in the USDP using only his U18 stats puts him near the top of all players throughout the history of the USDP program. Projected out over a similar number of games his goal production would have been right up there with the likes of Matthew Tkachuk, Clayton Keller, Matt Boldy, Dylan Larkin, Alex Tuch and just shy of that of Jack Hughes and Jake Eichel.
Even from a point production standpoint, his point per game production compares well with Josh Norris. These were Norris's stats in his draft season:
U.S. National U18 Team USDP 61 GP 27 G 34 A 61 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 25 GP 12 G 14 A 26 PTS
If we project out Boucher's production over the same games played it would look like this:
(Projection) U.S. National U18 Team USDP 61 GP 39 G 22 A 61 PTS
(Projection) USNTDP Juniors 25 GP 15 G 10 A 25 PTS
We will have a better read next season whether my hypothesis is correct or not. If this season was somehow an anomaly in production then we will see a substantial leap in production next season. If that doesn't occur then we can conclude that last season wasn't an anomaly. If Boucher somehow ends up being a better goal scorer than Josh Norris at the NHL level then this will turn out to be a damn good pick.
In his draft year his stats were the following:
U.S. National U17 Team USDP 2 GP 3 G 0 A 3 PTS
U.S. National U18 Team USDP 14 GP 9 G 5 A 14 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 5 GP 3 G 2 A 5 PTS
It is a smaller sample size but his goals per game production in the USDP using only his U18 stats puts him near the top of all players throughout the history of the USDP program. Projected out over a similar number of games his goal production would have been right up there with the likes of Matthew Tkachuk, Clayton Keller, Matt Boldy, Dylan Larkin, Alex Tuch and just shy of that of Jack Hughes and Jake Eichel.
Even from a point production standpoint, his point per game production compares well with Josh Norris. These were Norris's stats in his draft season:
U.S. National U18 Team USDP 61 GP 27 G 34 A 61 PTS
USNTDP Juniors USHL 25 GP 12 G 14 A 26 PTS
If we project out Boucher's production over the same games played it would look like this:
(Projection) U.S. National U18 Team USDP 61 GP 39 G 22 A 61 PTS
(Projection) USNTDP Juniors 25 GP 15 G 10 A 25 PTS
We will have a better read next season whether my hypothesis is correct or not. If this season was somehow an anomaly in production then we will see a substantial leap in production next season. If that doesn't occur then we can conclude that last season wasn't an anomaly. If Boucher somehow ends up being a better goal scorer than Josh Norris at the NHL level then this will turn out to be a damn good pick.
You're falling into the same trap that the Sens staff did - reading too much into a small sample size.
He was 9th in forward PPG on the U17 team the year before his draft behind Lucius, Pastujov, Duke, Devine, Hughes, Janicke, Wilmer and Savage - that was a 43 game sample size.
He's never been a big scorer at any level besides a dozen games last year before he got injured. It's likely over a full season his production would have fallen off, given his history pre-draft and post-draft.
He was 9th in forward PPG on the U17 team the year before his draft behind Lucius, Pastujov, Duke, Devine, Hughes, Janicke, Wilmer and Savage - that was a 43 game sample size.
He's never been a big scorer at any level besides a dozen games last year before he got injured. It's likely over a full season his production would have fallen off, given his history pre-draft and post-draft.
You can all forget about Boucher. He will never play in NHL. Just no skills for it to be top 6 or a sold third liner. To use him as a fourth liner will be absolutely embarrassing for the organisation. He will be traded in 4-5 years as Logan Brown before him. They drafted a bunch of kids like this before in the first round. This "identity" crap kills this team, going for the size. They never learn. You have to draft always BPA. I predict they will go for the size again in this draft. No uber skills are coming. Just pathetic.
BondraTime
Registered User
He only played 14 games total, between U-18 and U-17
12 with the U-18 - 6g 5a (5g 3a of which came in games against NAHL/NCAA Div 3)
2 with the U-17 - 3g
The problem with looking at those stats is missing the context of the teams played. Every year the USNTDP plays ~8 games in their ~70 game season against NAHL and NCAA Div 3 teams. That’s akin to a CHL team going down the road to play the local Junior B/A team. Boucher played half his games against those teams, and put up a majority of his points.
Adrian College 2 games 2 points - NCAA Div 3
Concordia University 1 game 1 point - NCAA Div 3
St. Cloud Norseman 2 games 3 points -NAHL
Austin Bruins 1 game 2 points - NAHL
With the U-18 team he played 6 games against USHL competition and put up 1g 2a
Looking to those 12 games as a means of extrapolating isn’t going to work. Half the games were against USHL teams, half were against Junior B type competition. It’s too few games, against too big a contrast of competition. He never even got to play any international games against the other countries U-18 teams.
The 2 games with the U-17 team he played where he score 3 goals the team scored 14 goals combined. Was a great conditioning stint, but context is needed.
He will be fine and will have a great season next year, but looking at his U-18 season and trying to extrapolate as a scorer and using former players as a comparison is asking for disaster.
Last edited:
Even if he improves he is not going to be close to the goal scorer Norris is. A small percentage of the entire NHL will be close to Norris.
If he can score half as many points as Norris I will consider it a huge win and a very good draft pick at this stage.
RAFI BOMB
Registered User
- May 11, 2016
- 7,633
- 8,090
Fair points. I was just looking to balance out some of the takes on here. There are a fair amount of posts writing him off as a complete bust who won't play in the NHL or that his upside is that of a 4th liner and I think that is too dismissive of his upside. I also find that some of those posts are relying heavily on his production this year to make such judgments and I think it can be subject to its own contextual criticisms. For one Albie O'Connell, BU's coach, got fired at the end of the season and during his time as a head coach BU players have had pretty underwhelming production. Then with the 67's when I pointed out the quality of players on the team and how that impacted Boucher's production others dismissed it as inconsequential.
I think at this point there is a lot of uncertainty about what Boucher's actual upside is, and what reasonable inferences we can make based on his pre and post draft production about what that says about his potential upside. I can certainly see that argument where a more conservative projection is the more practical approach. It might be better to project a lower upside and be pleasantly surprised if proven wrong than to project a higher upside and be disappointed if he doesn't achieve it.
We know that if Boucher is a success then we are probably looking at a 40 to 60 point player. 60 points would be phenomenal with all his other attributes but I can certainly see why people are skeptical of him attaining such a projection. But now that he has been drafted, the question is how can he be developed to maximize his abilities.
From my subjective take in having watched a fair amount of his play, I have a few opinions. Let's look at a couple of his attributes.
First, let's look at his shot. He has a powerful and quick, NHL caliber release. Given his athleticism he will likely have a very powerful shot at the NHL level and quite likely one of the more powerful ones on the team. The accuracy of his shot is lacking. From what I have seen it looks like he attempts to rely on positional play to set up dangerous shots rather than trying to remain stationary and look to pick corners. I don't think BU or the 67's allowed him to play to his strengths. Neither team could sustain possession in the offensive zone and both team struggled to get him the puck when he was in an ideal position to get a dangerous shot attempt off. This negatively impacted his production as he was forced to rely on being in less ideal positions, being stationary and trying to pick corners.
I believe his positional play as a shooter will lead to a fair amount of goals at the NHL level. I am confident in his ability to sneak through the opposition and find spots where he isn't well covered. I also think he will get angle on the goalie where his quick and powerful release will lead to goals. At this level however, if he can't rely on his teammates to allow him to get into ideal shooting positions or they can't get him the puck when he does, then he needs to display more patience with his shot. He has done it a few times where he is right on the goalie but from a distance he is making it a bit easy on the goalie by not looking to fake a shot or use the movement of other players to obstruct the goalie's vision.
On a slightly related note, I would like to see an improvement in his ability to deflect the puck. On the powerplay he is sometimes posted up in front of the goalie and I think if he could refine his skill set of deflecting the puck that it would get him some more goals. He could also improve his ability around the net as there is certainly room to score some garbage goals that would up his overall production. At the NHL level I think he will need to rely on deflections and net presence garbage goals to go along with his smart positional play shots. While he could score more goals by being patient with the puck at a distance while in a stationary position, I am not sure if that is where he will generate the most of his offensive at the NHL level so I don't know if it would be best for him to prioritize that.
Secondly, I am going to lump together his puck handling, passing and playmaking. I could separate out this categories but it will take less space to address them all together. He has very underrated passing and playmaking abilities but I would say they are more limited to deep in the offensive zone. Once he gets below the dots, that is where he consistently generates the majority of his high quality passes. In this zone of the ice, he reads the defense well and is great at exploiting opportunities to get the puck to open teammates and setting them up for dangerous shot attempts. From my viewings both the BU and 67's players struggled to convert on these chances. At the NHL level there are more talented players and I believe that it will become more evident how effective he actually is in this part of the ice.
He does a decent job of carrying the puck and skating it through the zones, but he isn't as effective at carrying it through traffic. Where he runs into challenges is when he tries to pick up loose pucks along the boards and his over reliance on dangles. Along the boards when pursuing loose pucks he isn't always hard enough on his stick so this can lead to him over skating the puck. He also likes to make quick pivots, curlbacks and turns along the boards and sometimes his rapid change of movement leads to a loss of the puck. I do think this is an improvable attribute however. As he develops he will find ways to control pucks better in those kinds of situations. The other issue he has is that he relies too heavily on quick dangles. He is capable of dangling the puck but it almost seems like his skill set is better suited for the quick dangle to a quick pass or a quick shot than actually trying to dangle his way through players. I think when that is combined with his skating, that he can create rapid changes in direction with both his feet and the puck to create passing and shooting lanes rather than to maneuver his way through and around opponents.
I think he relies on playing a skilled game when he should play more of a power game. If he shields the puck better then he can rely on the quick pivots and quick dekes to better set up the passes and shot attempts. When he doesn't deploy enough of a power game, his dangles can lead to a loss of possession or at the least an interruption of possession where he is forced to regain it. Those interruptions close the window on the quick pass and shot attempts that could lead to more offense. Instead those situations lead to the goalie making the right adjustments, reading the play better to prevent a pass attempt from leading to a more dangerous shot and for similar adjustments to be made by the opposition defense. I also think that by playing more of a power game he could control the puck along the boards longer and allow more of his teammates to set themselves up in ideal positions and to fatigue the opposition from more of a cycle game. It may also allow him to win more battles around the net where he can score some garbage goals and set up some quality passes around the net.
He can make quality passes in other zones of the ice but his bread and butter will be deep in the zone. That is where we should look to get the most offense out of him.
I could comment on his skating but I think it can be summarized as near the upper echelon. There will always be room for improvement but his acceleration and edge work are high end. He will never have problems getting around the ice and will likely get to positions and create openings that many others players won't be able to. His challenge his to combine that skating with the rest of his game; to shield and protect the puck, and to combine it with his stickhandling, dekes, passes and shot attempts. Finding a way to combine these things will lead to him maximizing his offensive abilities.
That is my summary at this point but I would be happy to discuss this in further detail if you have some opinions and feel it would be beneficial to elaborate on this matter.
Sensinitis
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2012
- 15,960
- 5,557
I can see him replacing Watson at #4 RW sooner rather than later but the question will be how much higher can he climb the lineup if at all imo
What difference does it make whether or not the Rangers were planning on picking him? Does it make it any less of a squandered pick at 10 if the Rangers were going to pick him a few picks later? We're really grasping at straws if a rumour that another team was interested in him is providing justification for the pick. What a yikes selection.
Sting
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2004
- 8,033
- 3,201
I think the club thought they were being smart by drafting a guy who a lot of people probably didn't get to see play much. They likely knew it was a risk but thought they were good enough talent evaluators to make the pick. They were wrong. Dorion is trying to save his job by suggesting "we've got a good one on the way".
- Status
