Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART III

[Boud]

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.

It's been like this for years though...

Ever since the team took a major downswing this has been the fallback for many posters. Like you said people are always here to point out how great things are when all is positive, but on the other hand there's just some people who can't handle reality sometimes.

"Sanderson will be amazing look at how well he's doing at the WJC, he'll definitely be a force for us going forward"

Boucher has one of the worst seasons from a top 10 prospect in the 2000s "Let's wait and see, it's way too early we can't assess him right now."

It's kinda hilarious to be honest but you should be used to it at this point. Kind of on you now lol.

 

[PlayOn]

I don’t think anyone is just saying “wait and see” for the fun of it, there are numerous reasons behind why:

- COVID and injuries means he lost a lot of development time, and we don’t yet know how much impact that might have on him specifically. I’d imagine it differs from prospect to prospect
- Boucher himself has been open about his mental health, and there is no stat on a scoresheet that can account for the way that might impact a person’s performance
- Power forwards are slower to develop historically so there was likely a bigger curve for him putting any of the above factors aside
- He seemingly has good tools, from skating to his shot to his on-ice vision but isn’t utilizing them well, which again could speak to just needing more game time, increased confidence etc maybe it’s hockey IQ, but we don’t really know either way
- Boucher, Mann, Dorion, Cameron, everyone associated with the kid has preached development, taking time. While there is no obligation from the org to be honest about how they feel, they have given him pretty large votes of confidence in the past few months stating that we have a special power forward coming, and that he changed the way the 67s play. Historically the Sens aren’t shy about critiquing players when they feel there’s an issue. The flip side to that is perhaps their egos aren’t ready to admit they made a mistake, but there’s no way to discern either way.

It’s easy to look at a stat sheet and say that this pick is disappointing. No one disagrees that he should be producing more, Boucher himself included. That doesn’t mean that taking these factors into consideration is optimism either - it’s just context.

 

[Sweatred]

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..

Where would you have traded down to ensure you got him ? What would that team have given us ?

 

[jake1]

If there was ever a stretch of time where historical comps of performance (x pts in d+1, etc.) may not be predictive, it's the last two years of unprecedented disruption.

 

[PlayersLtd]

If there was ever a stretch of time where historical comps of performance (x pts in d+1, etc.) may not be predictive, it's the last two years of unprecedented disruption.

This shouldn't be overlooked and is possibly true for the organization as a whole.

It's really easy to crap on our performance the last couple years but I've made the case elsewhere that COVID was bound to hit our organization harder than most due to how young of a team we were. It's plausible that Melnyk told Dorion to throw in the towel and prolong the tank considering the financial losses and all the general uncertainty.

That would exonerate a whole laundry list of criticisms if true.

 

[Sweatred]

I think we saw a bit of this when Dadonov’s savings weren’t reinvested. They team bled money with the additional Covid costs, additional callups because of Covid, and league worst gate revenue.

 

[Adrianopolous]

Another bust

 

[Big Muddy]

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.

You make a good point. The push back folks aren't typically advancing a rebuttal based on hockey. It's usually a knock against the posters who are complaining and being negative - the old complain about the complainers scenario.

The only middle ground that folks from both sides can agree on is Boucher is still fairly young so let's give it more time and see what happens. But, if that's all that can be said one way or another, discussion is negligible and there's not much reason to even have a thread on this subject.

 

[guyzeur]

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

So simple to the point. So it comes up to posters not liking the pick at 10.

So take that conversation into Pierre Dorion's thread and everyone will be happy.

 

[guyzeur]

Another bust

Why are you saying that here? Indirectly blaming Dorion? I'm sure you know where you should do it, it's here: Management - GM Pierre Dorion/Front Office Thread - Part IX [Mod Warning in post 1)

First post:
Continued discussion on front office and Pierre Dorion
This thread is for constructive discussion on the current management. Any deviation into toxic or trolling discussions will result in thread bans.
-----------------------------
I wonder why?

 

[PlayersLtd]

You make a good point. The push back folks aren't typically advancing a rebuttal based on hockey. It's usually a knock against the posters who are complaining and being negative - the old complain about the complainers scenario.

Another bust

The naysayers on the other hand are chock full of logic.

 

[Zorf]

Another bust

There's no easier way to discredit yourself than to make stupid claims like this.


I commend you on informing the rest of the board to not take your posts seriously.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

The naysayers on the other hand are chock full of logic.

Anyone with an extreme take on the guy right now is out to lunch. Too early to say anything with much confidence, let alone that much confidence.

 

[JaredCowen4Norris]

Makes you wonder if Columbus fans constantly refer to Chinakhov as a 7th rounder.

I'd imagine Chinakhov scoring 0.5 PPG in his D+1 season while playing in a top-tier Euro men's league helped nip that in the bud...

At the end of the day, picks are going to be evaluated based on their performance. I get all the different factors that played into Bouchers poor performance, but the fact of the matter is he had a very bad D+1 season. He may come out next season and prove everyone wrong (I hope he does), but this is not like everyone is being mean to Boucher personally. You get picked high, people expect you to perform. You don't perform, people will get upset. That's every professional sport, it's not a Sens-specific thing.

I also don't think our scouting Dept. did him any favours with the whole "the fans don't live in reality" comments when they got heat for the pick. That's a very bold claim that will obviously get people both inside and outside the fanbase riled up and waiting to pounce on him the second he underperforms.

 

[JungleBeat]

Another bust

Agreed. It sure is looking that way.

 

[Imnotagoodposter]

Could’ve had Sillinger

 

[Burrowsaurus]

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.

Colorado took Tyson Jost tenth overall not that long ago

Could’ve had Sillinger

Who is Sillinger

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

He's already a star; Amirite? I honestly would give him more than 4% on becoming an NHLer.

 

[Icelevel]

He's already a star; Amirite? I honestly would give him more than 4% on becoming an NHLer.

That’s a joke and 4% proves it’s complete bs and a waste of everyone’s time.
The comments there show how many morons feel their moronic thoughts need to be read by the rest of us.
So many ways to waste your time out there. A good reminder to spend less time on the internet.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

That’s a joke and 4% proves it’s complete bs and a waste of everyone’s time.

Well… he did have a very very bad D+1 year. Historically players like that do not become comsistent NHLers

 

[Golden_Jet]

He's already a star; Amirite? I honestly would give him more than 4% on becoming an NHLer.

Had to google him, see who he was,
Now see he’s written for Eklund and the Leafs.

 

[BondraTime]

Had to google him, see who he was,
Now see he’s written for Eklund and the Leafs.

He never made the graph though, he’s just the joker commenting on it.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

That’s a joke and 4% proves it’s complete bs and a waste of everyone’s time.

My understanding is Its a model driven by points and leagues with the intent to compare prospects across leagues .. I welcome any better explanation.
My guess is Boucher's numbers for NY USNTDP and DY+1 ;BU and the 67's are plugged into the model and this is what pops out.
I am sure there are some statistics on how reliable these things are as a predictor of future success and I am sure they are not 100% but that they are better than 50% .. guessing; otherwise why would they be so commonly used .... I believe the margin for error is significant but I would rather bet on higher numbers if given the choice.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

My understanding is Its a model driven by points and leagues with the intent to compare prospects across leagues .. I welcome any better explanation.
My guess is Boucher's numbers for NY USNTDP and DY+1 ;BU and the 67's are plugged into the model and this is what pops out.
I am sure there are some statistics on how reliable these things are as a predictor of future success and I am sure they are not 100% but that they are better than 50% .. guessing; otherwise why would they be so commonly used .... I believe the margin for error is significant but I would rather bet on higher numbers if given the choice.

Yeah it’s exactly it. It’s legit based on the numbers. And the numbers are bad for a forward playing D+1 on the OHL

 

[Micklebot]

Had to google him, see who he was,
Now see he’s written for Eklund and the Leafs.

Who did you google? Todd Cordell who commented and posted a viz, JFresh who made the viz, or Topdown hockey who made the model referenced in the viz?

If it was the first one, your google search wasn't particularly well used time,