Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III

[Micklebot]

I've withheld my opinion on Boucher for a while because it is apparently unpopular, but I like Tyler Boucher and am excited for him as a prospect.

Was he a bit of a reach at 10? You can make that case, but he was gonna go in the first round, its not like we picked him 60 picks too early like some imply.

He had a tough D+1 season, yes. But he also had alot of setbacks this year. Including making the realization the OHL was a better development path for him and getting injured.

He has an exciting skillset that if he can put it all together, he will be a very valuable asset for us.

I am excited for him with the 67s next year, he will have a bit of stability for the first time since he was drafted.

You can like the prospect and hate the pick. I'd hate it if we took Sokolov, Kleven and Greig at 28th, 5th and 3rd respectively, but I like all three prospects quite a bit and would still like them as prospects even if we did massively reach on all of them. .

I think it's fine to say, what's done is done and move on from where Boucher was picked, to how he's doing as a prospect, unfortunately, he's not had the best post draft season so you'll still get some negative perception around him.

The issue I have with the criticism of the pick is the hyperbole. Every time someone suggests he was a 3rd rounder I shake my head... He was a mid to late first round, very early 2nd round talent that hasn't panned out so far. Sucks that we reached a bit on him imo, but I still hope he can be a middle six bruising forward, maybe a Josh Anderson type.

 

[R We A Team]

From the number of posters pushing back on the negativity surrounding Boucher, don't you die hard OMG he was picked 10 spots too early guys think that maybe not everyone is going to agree with you this time?

Everyone agrees his year was not what we hoped for... but some of us realize outside circumstances greatly influenced his season and as a result would like to see what the young man can achieve under better circumstances before relegating him to the scrap pile.

No need to pile on when you can encourage instead. You say there is nothing wrong with criticizing, so I say there is nothing wrong with being positive or dare I say, even hopeful for the future of this young man.

and.... this is where the difference comes in. There is 1398 posts in this thread, guess how many are from people being supportive? Its those who are down on the pick who are driving this, and I believe it's reached the point some of us are starting to say enough is enough.

The team is starting to look like a team I want to cheer for, fast, hard hitting, in your face hockey and Boucher if he works out as hoped for will fit in just fine with that type of team. Can't wait to find out!!!

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

From the number of posters pushing back on the negativity surrounding Boucher, don't you die hard OMG he was picked 10 spots too early guys think that maybe not everyone is going to agree with you this time?

Everyone agrees his year was not what we hoped for... but some of us realize outside circumstances greatly influenced his season and as a result would like to see what the young man can achieve under better circumstances before relegating him to the scrap pile.

No need to pile on when you can encourage instead. You say there is nothing wrong with criticizing, so I say there is nothing wrong with being positive or dare I say, even hopeful for the future of this young man.

and.... this is where the difference comes in. There is 1398 posts in this thread, guess how many are from people being supportive? Its those who are down on the pick who are driving this, and I believe it's reached the point some of us are starting to say enough is enough.

The team is starting to look like a team I want to cheer for, fast, hard hitting, in your face hockey and Boucher if he works out as hoped for will fit in just fine with that type of team. Can't wait to find out!!!

The problem with the pushback is it's not based on Boucher as a player, but rather "you're all so negative." I haven't seen any hockey reasons offered to be excited about Boucher other than "wait and see" and blind optimism. I think BondraTime hit the nail on the head a few pages back with his scouting report — there's nothing to suggest Boucher's offence is on the right track to make him that power forward we're all hoping to be. Maybe he turns it around!

But right now, he's underwhelming for a 10th overall pick. I don't see why that's such a contentious issue to point out.

 

[ChickenDinner]

56 pages of people going in circles can be summed up into this:

Asset management of turning 10th overall into this a year later just flat out looks terrible.

It was a massive reach at 10. Looked bad then
He had a rough D+1. Looks bad now.

There's obviously still time to prove himself and become a winner winner (and we desperately need it) but if he was moved at the draft 2022 you'd be lucky to get a 2nd rounder back.

 

[BondraTime]

The problem with the pushback is it's not based on Boucher as a player, but rather "you're all so negative." I haven't seen any hockey reasons offered to be excited about Boucher other than "wait and see" and blind optimism. I think BondraTime hit the nail on the head a few pages back with his scouting report — there's nothing to suggest Boucher's offence is on the right track to make him that power forward we're all hoping to be. Maybe he turns it around!

But right now, he's underwhelming for a 10th overall pick. I don't see why that's such a contentious issue to point out.

Yeah, I’m all for hearing points and things about his game from a positive side, but the only thing being argued is that people are negative. It’s bizarre

Nobody was overtly negative in the Grieg, Stutzle, Sanderson or Kleven threads throughout last season, the opposite actually, the negativity or positivity is based on circumstances. The circumstances here are not good to put it lightly, hence the negative outlook.

 

[bashbros32]

So just for fun I took a look at the history of the draft, cause I'm bored and why not. Here are every 10th overall *forward* selection from the beginning of the "entry" draft. (1979)

my 100% made up criteria for what constitutes a "top 6" forward is at least 300 GP, and a .5 p/gp or higher.

1979 Tom McCarthy (Minnesota) 460 games, 178 goals, 399 points. Top 6
1980 Jim Fox (Los Angeles) 578 games, 186 goals, 479 points. Top 6
1982 Rich Sutter (Pittsburgh) 874 games, 149 goals, 315 points. NOT top 6
1983 Normand Lacombe (Buffalo) 319 games, 53 goals, 115 points. NOT top 6
1985 Dan Gratton (Los Angeles) 7 games, 1 goal. BUST
1986 Jocelyn Lemieux (St. Louis) 598 games, 80 goals, 164 points. NOT top 6
1988 Teemu Selanne (Winnipeg) 1451 games, 684 goals, 1457 points. FRANCHISE
1989 Bobby Holik (Hartford) 1314 games, 326 goals, 747 points. Top 6
1991 Martin Lapointe (Detroit) 991 games, 181 goals, 381 points. NOT top 6
1992 Andrei Nazarov (San Jose) 571 games, 53 goals, 124 points. NOT top 6
1995 Radek Dvorak (Florida) 1260 games, 227 goals, 590 points. Upper Middle 6. (LOL)
1998 Nikolai Antropov (Toronto) 788 games. 193 goals, 465 points. Top 6
2000 Mikhail Yakubov (Chicago) 53 games, 12 points. BUST
2002 Eric Nystrom (Calgary) 593 games, 75 goals, 123 points. NOT top 6
2003 Andrei Kostitsyn (Montreal) 398 games, 103 goals, 222 points. Top 6
2006 Michael Frolik (Florida) 858 games, 159 goals, 384 points. NOT top 6
2008 Cody Hodgson (Vancouver) 328 games, 64 goals, 142 points. NOT top 6
2009 Magnus Paajarvi (Edmonton) 467 games, 62 goals, 124 points. NOT top 6
2013 Valeri Nichushkin (Dallas) 405 games, 71 goals, 174 points. NOT top 6 (although he may have broke out this year)
2014 Nick Ritchie (Anaheim) 407 games, 71 goals, 160 points. NOT top 6
2015 Mikko Rantanen (Colorado) 408 games, 165 goals, 408 points. Top 6
2016 Tyson Jost (Colorado) 342 games, 47 goals, 109 points. NOT top 6

nobody else has played my minimum required games.

so of these illustrious 22 gentlemen, we have:

7 top 6 players ~32% (Tom McCarthy, Jim Fox, Teemu Selanne, Bobby Holik, Nik Antropov, Andrei Kostitsyn and Mikko Rantanen. *Maybe Radek Dvorak, so we will say 7.5, or 34%)

of those 7(.5) only 2 were/are above 1.0 p/gp. (Selanne and Rantanen) thats good for 9%.

Looking at the previous 15 years of 10th overall forwards? (2001-2016)

there are 9 forwards. 2 top 6. Andrei Kostitsyn and Mikko Rantanen.

if we happen to strike gold and land ourselves a Lucic, Simmonds or Wilson clone, that would be ultra beneficial... but we really need to temper our expectations with regards to the 10th overall.

in addition, I thought I'd do one for 7th overall! just for fun, maybe get a glimpse of what we can expect! (Lol)

1981 Mark Hunter (Montreal) 628 games, 213 goals, 384 points. Top 6
1982 Ken Yaremchuk (Chicago) 235 games, 36 goals, 92 points. NOT Top 6
1983 Russ Courtnall (Toronto) 1029 games, 297 goals, 774 points. Top 6
1984 Sean Burr (Detroit) 878 games, 181 goals, 440 points. Top 6
1985 Ulf Dahlen (NY Rangers) 966 games, 301 goals, 665 points. Top 6
1986 Dan Woodley (Vancouver) 5 games, 2 goals. BUST.
1988 Martin Gelinas (Los Angeles) 1273 games, 309 goals, 660 points. Top 6
1991 Alek Stojanov (Vancouver) 107 games, 2 goals, 7 points. BUST
1992 Ryan Sittler (Philadelphia) 0 NHL games. BUST
1993 Jason Arnott (Edmonton) 1244 games, 417 goals, 938 points. Top 6
1995 Shane Doan (Winnipeg) 1540 games, 402 goals, 972 points. Top 6
1996 Erik Rasmussen (Buffalo) 545 games, 52 goals, 128 points. NOT top 6
1998 Manny Malhotra (NY Rangers) 991 games, 116 goals, 295 points. NOT top 6
1999 Kris Beech (Washington) 198 games, 25 goals, 67 points. NOT top 6
2002 Joffrey Lupul (Anaheim) 701 games, 205 goals, 420 points. Top 6
2004 Rostislav Olesz (Florida) 364 games, 57 goals, 134 points. NOT top 6
2005 Jack Skille (Chicago) 368 games, 43 goals, 84 points. NOT top 6
2006 Kyle Okposo (NY Islanders) 909 games, 219 goals, 564 points. Top 6
2007 Jakub Voracek (Columbus) 1047 games, 222 goals, 800 points. Top 6
2008 Colin Wilson (Nashville) 632 games, 113 goals, 286 points. NOT top 6
2009 Nazem Kadri (Toronto) 739 games, 219 goals, 512 points. Top 6
2010 Jeff Skinner (Carolina) 853 games, 298 goals, 542 points. Top 6
2011 Mark Scheifele (Winnipeg) 642 games, 230 goals, 577 points. Top 6
2016 Clayton Keller (Arizona) 360 games, 96 goals, 256 points. Top 6


24 forwards from this spot. 14 of which became top 6 (58%). (Mark Hunter, Russ Courtnall, Sean Burr, Ulf Dahlen, Martin Gelinas, Jason Arnott, Shane Doan, Joffrey Lupul, Kyle Okposo, Jakub Voracek, Nazem Kadri, Jeff Skinner, Mark Sheifele, Clayton Keller)

and in the previous 15 years? their are 10 forwards, 7 top 6. 70%

if we are only basing our draft picks on these metrics? We would do well to keep our 7th.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Critical thought might have you compare the success rate of similar prospects to Bother developing into successful NHL players to the success rate of comparible alternative options at 10. Taking a wait and see approach isn't exercizing critical thought evaluating a pick it's opting out of the process.

It's fine if you'd rather not get down on a pick when there's still time to turn things around or for alternative option that look good now to bust over the long haul. It's fine if you think that because 10 but to suggest others who are willing to take an opinion on the matter aren't exercizing critical thought is a wee bit too condescending for my liking.

No it really isn’t. It’s looking at information and coming to the conclusion that we won’t be able to accurately predict the outcome.

The process as you call it always ends at the same conclusion whether you like a prospect or not. You can’t make a meaningful conparison with other players around the pick until far down the road, obviously. The only value is that you can identify that different players or in different development paths, but you still have Jon idea of the outcome, especially this early.

It’s not an exercise in futility per se, but it’s nothing to be taking yourself seriously over because you simply don’t know, and won’t know, until things play out a while longer.

As for critical thought and your liking, I’m not concerned. As I said, it’s nice to look at comparisons and try and crunch data as many like doing in here, but in the end there are few meaningful conclusions to be drawn at the moment beyond the the need to wait and see how things unfold.

When a player picked at a location is already not historically likely to end up being an impact top 6 player, trying to apply ‘critical thought’ to produce immediate evidence to support that, isn’t exactly very critical. Whether this player can end up being that remains to be seen, no matter how clever anyone tries to be.

Again, the discussion is enjoyable in and of itself, but in my opinion no one should be trying to take a firm stance on his development and claim ‘reality’ and ‘critical thought’ as their backing.

You don’t have to like my point of view Mick, its not required

 

[OD99]

From the number of posters pushing back on the negativity surrounding Boucher, don't you die hard OMG he was picked 10 spots too early guys think that maybe not everyone is going to agree with you this time?

Who is asking everyone to agree?! One side is upset that people have differing views - one side.

but some of us realize outside circumstances greatly influenced his season and as a result would like to see what the young man can achieve under better circumstances before relegating him to the scrap pile.

Actually almost all of us realized this.

Maybe 2 or 3 people have decided he is a bust - almost unanimously posters are saying he had a poor D+1 but given his skills may make the NHL.

No need to pile on when you can encourage instead. You say there is nothing wrong with criticizing, so I say there is nothing wrong with being positive or dare I say, even hopeful for the future of this young man.

Who is piling on if they are, who exactly are they piling on? Do you know Boucher's handle in here?

Nobody is criticizing anyone for being positive. Lots the other way though.

This is where the difference comes in. There is 1398 posts in this thread, guess how many are from people being supportive? Its those who are down on the pick who are driving this, and I believe it's reached the point some of us are starting to say enough is enough.

Feel whatever the heck you want, just don't come and tell those with differing opinions how hateful, spiteful, ignorant, toxic, etc...they are.

I haven't gone through the thread but I would bet there is less than 3 post of anyone, "attacking" a positive poster for looking at the bright side - at least not unless they were set upon for having a negative view so far.

However there will be loads of posts from positive vibes about how bad the negative posters are.

 

[Micklebot]

Looking at the previous 15 years of 10th overall forwards? (2001-2016)

there are 9 forwards. 2 top 6. Andrei Kostitsyn and Mikko Rantanen.

if we happen to strike gold and land ourselves a Lucic, Simmonds or Wilson clone, that would be ultra beneficial... but we really need to temper our expectations with regards to the 10th overall.

It's worth pointing out 10 OA has been a bit of a statistical anomaly in the the draft; Scott Cullen did a similar exercise to yours about 5 years ago, and came up with this table:

Of note, 10 OA has worse odds of a top 6 F or top 4 D than does 30th OA, and about a 1/3 of the odds of picks surrounding it. 15th also has oddly bad odds. Best not to look at an individual spot, and look instead at ranges.

 

[Ice-Tray]

The problem with the pushback is it's not based on Boucher as a player, but rather "you're all so negative." I haven't seen any hockey reasons offered to be excited about Boucher other than "wait and see" and blind optimism. I think BondraTime hit the nail on the head a few pages back with his scouting report — there's nothing to suggest Boucher's offence is on the right track to make him that power forward we're all hoping to be. Maybe he turns it around!

But right now, he's underwhelming for a 10th overall pick. I don't see why that's such a contentious issue to point out.

Pretty lame post from you to be honest, was unexpected.

Several people throughout this thread have watched him play and commented on what they have seen and what they like. A lot of posters took particular interest in his games with the 67’s and shared their opinions at the time and after.

People have given a run down of his last season in terms of adversity and explained why they think that impacted his season and why they think he will be better going forward.

You seem to simply have ignored those posts and continue to repeat your opinion over and over again. You have started dismissing opinions as wide-eyed optimism, while you’re ‘realistic’. Consider that those people who have taken the time to share what they think can’t be bothered to repeat it over and over again to people who seem to not even read the posts or know they exists, worse still dismiss them out of hand.

I’m not surprised that your summation is to pick Bondra who has a position you agree with, while confidently proclaiming that no one else has offered hockey based opinions to the contrary.

This is why discussions can really suck in here. What’s the point if one ‘side’ doesn’t even take the time to read/remember any of the opposing opinions, choosing to lump everyone into a throw away label of the ‘you’re so negative crowd’.

I know I’m not going to waste my time with you on the subject any longer.

It's worth pointing out 10 OA has been a bit of a statistical anomaly in the the draft; Scott Cullen did a similar exercise to yours about 5 years ago, and came up with this table:
View attachment 558677

Of note, 10 OA has worse odds of a top 6 F or top 4 D than does 30th OA, and about a 1/3 of the odds of picks surrounding it. 15th also has oddly bad odds. Best not to look at an individual spot, and look instead at ranges.

Best not to look at it because it doesn’t fit lol!

 

[Ice-Tray]

Who is asking everyone to agree?! One side is upset that people have differing views - one side.

Actually almost all of us realized this.

Maybe 2 or 3 people have decided he is a bust - almost unanimously posters are saying he had a poor D+1 but given his skills may make the NHL.

Who is piling on if they are, who exactly are they piling on? Do you know Boucher's handle in here?

Nobody is criticizing anyone for being positive. Lots the other way though.


Feel whatever the heck you want, just don't come and tell those with differing opinions how hateful, spiteful, ignorant, toxic, etc...they are.

I haven't gone through the thread but I would bet there is less than 3 post of anyone, "attacking" a positive poster for looking at the bright side - at least not unless they were set upon for having a negative view so far.

However there will be loads of posts from positive vibes about how bad the negative posters are.

As I’ve mentioned before, you’re kind of defending a ‘side’ where you are a more moderate poster on the subject. Most folks are annoyed by the folks proclaiming he’s a bust, projected to be bottom six, lacks skill, terrible reach, 3rd rounder at best, etc…

You can’t exactly be arguing from the middle of the spectrum with people who are closer in opinion with you than even you are with the people actually being referenced.

You’re championing a cause that you don’t really represent in this case I believe.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

As I’ve mentioned before, you’re kind of defending a ‘side’ where you are a more moderate poster on the subject. Most folks are annoyed by the folks proclaiming he’s a bust, projected to be bottom six, lacks skill, terrible reach, 3rd rounder at best, etc…

You can’t exactly be arguing from the middle of the spectrum with people who are closer in opinion with you than even you are with the people actually being referenced.

You’re championing a cause that you don’t really represent in this case I believe.

like 3 people are saying he's a complete bust.

he is projected to be bottom six.

he does lack skill from what you would expect at 10-20

he was a reach, probably a mid/late 1st rounder at best to a team that has so much skill that they can justify taking physicality.

how are any of these things annoying to you? its reality.

 

[Micklebot]

Best not to look at it because it doesn’t fit lol!

lol, I guess we should always trade 10 OA for 14th OA, since from 1990-2013 it's performed better, right? Use some, dare I say it, Critical thought, we're dealing with a small sample of 23 instances of a pick at a specific slot in the draft, bucketing draft positions will smooth out the anomolies and give better predictive value. But, I guess you have no interest in predictive value since you think the only rational thing to do is wait and see.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

Pretty lame post from you to be honest, was unexpected.

Several people throughout this thread have watched him play and commented on what they have seen and what they like. A lot of posters took particular interest in his games with the 67’s and shared their opinions at the time and after.

People have given a run down of his last season in terms of adversity and explained why they think that impacted his season and why they think he will be better going forward.

You seem to simply have ignored those posts and continue to repeat your opinion over and over again. You have started dismissing opinions as wide-eyed optimism, while you’re ‘realistic’. Consider that those people who have taken the time to share what they think can’t be bothered to repeat it over and over again to people who seem to not even read the posts or know they exists, worse still dismiss them out of hand.

I’m not surprised that your summation is to pick Bondra who has a position you agree with, while confidently proclaiming that no one else has offered hockey based opinions to the contrary.

This is why discussions can really suck in here. What’s the point if one ‘side’ doesn’t even take the time to read/remember any of the opposing opinions, choosing to lump everyone into a throw away label of the ‘you’re so negative crowd’.

I know I’m not going to waste my time with you on the subject any longer.


Best not to look at it because it doesn’t fit lol!

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about my position here, I-T. All I'm saying is that the knock against Boucher — and the reason I think many of us are down on his outlook — is his offence. Folks have watched him play and been happy with his physical tools — great! I think he's got potential as a bruiser too. I'm not ignoring anyone's take, just pointing out that I haven't seen anyone bring reasons to be excited about his NHL future beyond his size. His offence isn't where we'd like it to be. Some are preaching patience, others are less bullish on his prospects. Most are of the opinion that he was picked too high at 10th overall.

But I don't see those of us who aren't high on his potential as an impact player telling those of you who are to rein in your opinions. Why the inverse? I really don't see why this can't be a live-and-let-live situation.

 

[bashbros32]

Folks have watched him play and been happy with his physical tools — great! I think he's got potential as a bruiser too.

I'm gonna add to the "negativity" for a sec.

It's gonna suck making a top 10 selection and predicting a Lucic/Wilson/Simmonds type player and ending up with a Hugh Jessiman or Dylan McIlrath type.

but on the "optimist" side, I'm hoping that I predict a Hugh Jessiman or Dylan McIlrath type, and he ends up even 60% of the players Lucic/Wilson/Simmonds are! that would be a huge boon for the franchise!

 

[Ice-Tray]

lol, I guess we should always trade 10 OA for 14th OA, since from 1990-2013 it's performed better, right? Use some, dare I say it, Critical thought, we're dealing with a small sample of 23 instances of a pick at a specific slot in the draft, bucketing draft positions will smooth out the anomolies and give better predictive value. But, I guess you have no interest in predictive value since you think the only rational thing to do is wait and see.

We don’t have to toss them as you suggested. In fact the whole range suggests tempering expectations.

You got it! Given the stats for drafts going back forever the numbers pretty much indicate that the draft is a crapshoot, filled with hits and misses based off the subjective potential of 18 year old boys.

You keep crunching those numbers though and trying to nail it all down, I’ll see you at the finish line as usual.

 

[Ice-Tray]

You're making an awful lot of assumptions about my position here, I-T. All I'm saying is that the knock against Boucher — and the reason I think many of us are down on his outlook — is his offence. Folks have watched him play and been happy with his physical tools — great! I think he's got potential as a bruiser too. I'm not ignoring anyone's take, just pointing out that I haven't seen anyone bring reasons to be excited about his NHL future beyond his size. His offence isn't where we'd like it to be. Some are preaching patience, others are less bullish on his prospects. Most are of the opinion that he was picked too high at 10th overall.

But I don't see those of us who aren't high on his potential as an impact player telling those of you who are to rein in your opinions. Why the inverse? I really don't see why this can't be a live-and-let-live situation.

Honestly man I took it at face value when you said that no one who was making optimistic posts was coming from actually analyzing his play. That’s we are all coming from a position backed simply by ‘you guys are too negative’.

I mean @Icelevel has mentioned in his last few posts that he watched Boucher play several times and explained what he liked, while @PlayersLtd wrote a post outlining Boucher’s season, including adversity thy he chose to share with the media, as perhaps some mitigating reasons for his down season.

These are two example recently of people who chose to put thought into their reasoning. I don’t see that as any less valuable than looking at his stats, comparing it to other players around him, and making a judgment.

It just irks me when folks have well presented arguments dismissed out of hand, or completely ignored when folks generalize ‘us’ and ‘them’.

I personally don’t put in the effort, by my stance is wait and see, others however have put in the time to watch him play and make assessments.

The rein in has absolutely happened, many times, along with hot takes about 3rd rounder etc… let’s not pretend it’s not a thing just because you and OD99 are pleasant to deal with in terms of discusssion. Neither of you are representative of those who are the most down on the kids to be honest.

I just wanted to take a moment and defend the effort that some posters have put into this discussion.

 

[Micklebot]

We don’t have to toss them as you suggested. In fact the whole range suggests tempering expectations.

You got it! Given the stats for drafts going back forever the numbers pretty much indicate that the draft is a crapshoot, filled with hits and misses based off the subjective potential of 18 year old boys.

You keep crunching those numbers though and trying to nail it all down, I’ll see you at the finish line as usual.

So I never suggested tossing them, I said bucket all picks into ranges rather than look at individual spots. You'll get better predictive value that way.

I also disagree that 30-40% is a crapshoot, and given that we have a full year of additional data on the players now the ability to predict the outcome going forward has increased hence why many here continue to be disappointed with the pick.

It's fine, you want to cheerlead the pick. Have fun with it, we fundamentally disagree though, and you've made a number of statements here that make it clear to me we aren't going to bridge any gaps in our opinions.

 

[Sweatred]

It's worth pointing out 10 OA has been a bit of a statistical anomaly in the the draft; Scott Cullen did a similar exercise to yours about 5 years ago, and came up with this table:
View attachment 558677

Of note, 10 OA has worse odds of a top 6 F or top 4 D than does 30th OA, and about a 1/3 of the odds of picks surrounding it. 15th also has oddly bad odds. Best not to look at an individual spot, and look instead at ranges.

Perhaps because GM’s (and fans) reach for 1st line high end skill at 10OA that isn’t reliably available instead of embracing the reality that Chris Neil is more valuable than Logan Brown.

I like the idea of drafting an elite skillset vs the 10th best offensive skill set.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

Honestly man I took it at face value when you said that no one who was making optimistic posts was coming from actually analyzing his play. That’s we are all coming from a position backed simply by ‘you guys are too negative’.

I mean @Icelevel has mentioned in his last few posts that he watched Boucher play several times and explained what he liked, while @PlayersLtd wrote a post outlining Boucher’s season, including adversity thy he chose to share with the media, as perhaps some mitigating reasons for his down season.

These are two example recently of people who chose to put thought into their reasoning. I don’t see that as any less valuable than looking at his stats, comparing it to other players around him, and making a judgment.

It just irks me when folks have well presented arguments dismissed out of hand, or completely ignored when folks generalize ‘us’ and ‘them’.

I personally don’t put in the effort, by my stance is wait and see, others however have put in the time to watch him play and make assessments.

The rein in has absolutely happened, many times, along with hot takes about 3rd rounder etc… let’s not pretend it’s not a thing just because you and OD99 are pleasant to deal with in terms of discusssion. Neither of you are representative of those who are the most down on the kids to be honest.

I just wanted to take a moment and defend the effort that some posters have put into this discussion.

Point taken RE: how my wording may have come across dismissively. I know that's a flaw in my style — appreciate you keeping me in check there.

If I were to reword it to better capture my angle, it'd be this: the optimistic posts don't address the concerns raised about his game. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that he plays physically and has a good compete level. But where the disconnect lies is in the potential for offense — there are valid concerns that have been raised about how his offensive game hasn't been developing. Those concerns are more often than not met with cries of pessimism and negativity and toxicity, but I don't see any in the optimism camp offering any reason to believe it'll turn around.

Like, it's fine if we think he'll develop to be a third-or-fourth-line grinder type. But the conversation has been taking on a tone of "stop complaining and just let us be positive!" and I don't think that's especially conducive to meaningful discussion on a discussion board.

I hope that provides a bit more context for my position. Definitely didn't intend any dismissiveness, my apologies for the miscommunication.

 

[Leafshater67]

he's literally a 1st round player now. Nothing you say is going to ever change that.

Only because they made a major (and well criticized) reach for him.

He was ranked consistently late second round and they picked him in the top 10.

You can’t burn top 10 picks on (maybe) third liners and expect to build anything.

 

[Sweatred]

Point taken RE: how my wording may have come across dismissively. I know that's a flaw in my style — appreciate you keeping me in check there.

If I were to reword it to better capture my angle, it'd be this: the optimistic posts don't address the concerns raised about his game. I don't think anyone is disagreeing that he plays physically and has a good compete level. But where the disconnect lies is in the potential for offense — there are valid concerns that have been raised about how his offensive game hasn't been developing. Those concerns are more often than not met with cries of pessimism and negativity and toxicity, but I don't see any in the optimism camp offering any reason to believe it'll turn around.

Like, it's fine if we think he'll develop to be a third-or-fourth-line grinder type. But the conversation has been taking on a tone of "stop complaining and just let us be positive!" and I don't think that's especially conducive to meaningful discussion on a discussion board.

I hope that provides a bit more context for my position. Definitely didn't intend any dismissiveness, my apologies for the miscommunication.

I’m not sure … I read here that people think the team is tough and physical because they lead the league in hits. Our need for some power in the top 9 from our forward group is underestimated.

The Silinger projection does nothing on this team other than L2 and :22 seconds on PP2.

That’s video games roster stuff not playoff roster stuff.

 

[BondraTime]

Only because they made a major (and well criticized) reach for him.

He was ranked consistently late second round and they picked him in the top 10.

You can’t burn top 10 picks on (maybe) third liners and expect to build anything.

He was ranked 29th by NHL scouts, he was always going to be picked in the 1st somewhere in the 20’s.

 

[Micklebot]

Perhaps because GM’s (and fans) reach for 1st line high end skill instead of embracing the reality that Chris Neil is more valuable than Logan Brown.

I like the idea of drafting an elite skillset vs the 10th best offensive skill set.

Looking at the last 20 years, the biggest misses have been

Valibik a 6'7 monster d,
Bourdon RIP,
McIlrath, another hulking Dman drafted for his size and physicality
Dan Blackburn, a promising goalie whose career was derailed by injuries
And Mikail Yakubov, a above avg size center who was seen as an all round player.

Idk why it is that teams have historically done worse at 10 than 11+, I don't see a lot of super high skill but risky picks that busted, maybe Hodgeson.

 

[Leafshater67]

He was ranked 29th by NHL scouts, he was always going to be picked in the 1st somewhere in the 20’s.

Dumb as hell on them for not trading down if that was their guy. This is a poor management decision that will come back to haunt them sooner than later.

I don’t hate the Boucher pick at the end of the first but at 10th, I absolutely hate it. Especially when two blue chip goalie prospects were picked after..