Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (RW/LW) - Don`t sleep on Tyler Boucher

[cudi]

I don’t get the concern about people eating crow. This is a message board, if people never have to eat crow the discussions will be completely lame and essentially limited to “oh we drafted this guy, I guess we’ll wait and see”, “oh this is the D we’re running, let’s wait and see”.

Hot takes and debates are fun.

i love eating crow. usually means things have gone in a better direction than I expected it to. being wrong leads to the opportunity to learn. I know theres some people on here who are never ever ever wrong, but thats not the mindset everyone has.

 

[Xspyrit]

lol just because people give their honest evaluation doesn't make them 'haters'. Such a weird thing these days.

lol yeah criticism ≠ hate

The criticism is towards Sens management, not Boucher. Sens could have drafted Niko Huuhtanen with that pick and nobody would be "hating" on him

I’m talking about the posters who seem to want him to fail. Or are putting an unreasonably low ceiling on him before he gets a chance.

Is there anybody who really wants him to fail? If there is, there must not be a lot.

I am among his biggest critics and I don't want him to fail. I am just observing the failure.

He still has time to figure it out but it didn't take me much time to see Johnny Tychonick and Ben Roger as future busts either. Sometimes I'm wrong though because I was starting to write off Filip Gustavsson and Lassi Thomson at some point and it seems that they have a NHL future (but not 100% garanteed)

I WANT to be wrong on Boucher and that he ends up in more than a 4th line grinder (Lazar type?)

It's tough when the team has a shitty season and you're getting hyped about potentially adding a McTavish, Beniers, Clarke, Eklund etc but you end up with Boucher.

It's the problem, the spot he was picked means we were not that close to being a playoffs team. Fans rightfully want a nice consolation prize after another shitty season, particularly when it's the 4th-5th season in a row.

Tyler Boucher looks more like a guy you took a chance on with your second 2nd round pick in a draft or even your 3rd round pick, or worst worse case scenario, late in the first round in a weak draft. So far, he isn't living up to any of that. He has been outplayed and/or outproduced by random late round picks, even including 6th/7th round D-men... let that sink in.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Tyler Boucher is quite the thing on these boards

You'd think over time people would learn. There are countless situations over the past 5 years where people are rabid in their belief that the team f***ed up with something it did, be it a draft pick or trade return only to be left anonymously eating crow and firm in their belief that they know better.

Tyler Boucher is the latest lightening rod. If he pans out as a player, few will ever say on these boards that they were wrong. And the cycle will continue on to next year's draft or TDL where the team should have done something, literally anything, other than what it did.

There actually are not countless situations in which a player with bouchers profile and production pre draft and now post draft become productive nhl players. Especially firdt rounders /top 6ers.

The doubters on this board ALWAYS admit when they’re wrong. It’s the one that’s will never say anything against the team that never say “oh yeah that player did suck “. We still have people here that talk about how “cowen was actually not bad”


All that being said, I don’t mind Boucher. Think he will be a fine 3 line guy in the future. But cuz I’m a sens fan and I want that to happen. The numbers don’t. Necessarily say that it will happen

 

[Joeyjoejoe]

I think majority of people want the kid to succeed and hoping he succeeds as that would only benefit the team at the end. The criticism goes mostly towards the team for reaching in the draft and not taking what was the consensus in the scouting community. It’s a big swing that has yet shown to pay off and they deserve some criticism for it. It doesn’t mean that people are actively cheering against the guy to fail, it’s just that people can still be fans while offering some constructive criticism and not be a complete homers about the team that always have to justify what the team does as a positive in the name of not being too negative.

I thought it was a crappy pick then, it still looks like it is now especially considering who went after him, and I hope I am proven wrong.

 

[ottawah]

There actually are not countless situations in which a player with bouchers profile and production pre draft and now post draft become productive nhl players. Especially firdt rounders /top 6ers.

I hope I am wrong, but I see precious few players with Bouchers profile and that production level (post draft) that make the NHL.

USNDP forward who averaged (post draft year) .17 PPG year college or .63 PPG CHL.

Mike McCarron (who would not have seen an NHL game if not 6'6 235).
Jared Feigel.
Joe Wergwerth (in a manner as he stayed USHL and went to college a few years later and still was lower ppg).
Nick Pastujov

That was a quick search over 4 years (2013-2016 started in 2013 because I suspected McCarron). I found 4, only one of which made the NHL and was an entirely ineffective player.


Its unlikely to find USNDP player who have not produced highly at the next level right off the bat due to the fact they are virtually 100% early bloomers, identified as one of the absolute best (top 10-15 forwards in the second best hockey producing country).

 

[GCK]

Yes because a lot of the Brannstrom hate is based solely on his size. His every mistake is highlighted on here and his excellent play downplayed.

Keep getting your little sarcastic jabs in though if that's how you get your kicks lol.

Honest question. Do you really think people dislike Brannstrom due to his size ? I mean, that’s nuts. I can’t imagine any Sens fan wanting Brannstrom to bust, it doesn’t make sense.

 

[ottawah]

Honest question. Do you really think people dislike Brannstrom due to his size ? I mean, that’s nuts. I can’t imagine any Sens fan wanting Brannstrom to bust, it doesn’t make sense.

Dislike is probably a strong word, but it really is a combination of three things. 1 size, 2 mediocre skating, 3 being traded for Stone.

The third is hardly his fault, same with Boucher and the spot he was drafted at.

I like Brannstrom overall, just do not think he is going to make a good Senator. Noy his fault, he has looked good when subbing for Chabot, but the fact is we have 3 LHD who are all looking at needing sheltered minutes. Brannstrom will be the odd man out, whether i like him or not. Its much the same reason I preferred Drysdale over Sanderson, its not about like or dislike, but Sanderson is at best a second pairing D man in Ottawa. Thats not dislike, thats reality.

 

[Butchy Dakkar]

Dislike is probably a strong word, but it really is a combination of three things. 1 size, 2 mediocre skating, 3 being traded for Stone.

The third is hardly his fault, same with Boucher and the spot he was drafted at.

I like Brannstrom overall, just do not think he is going to make a good Senator. Noy his fault, he has looked good when subbing for Chabot, but the fact is we have 3 LHD who are all looking at needing sheltered minutes. Brannstrom will be the odd man out, whether i like him or not. Its much the same reason I preferred Drysdale over Sanderson, its not about like or dislike, but Sanderson is at best a second pairing D man in Ottawa. Thats not dislike, thats reality.

We will have two number 1 D on the left soon enough. My prediction anyways.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

I honestly see zero similarities in any of the players mentioned other than size and being a power forward.

As a whole they are pretty distinct but I see some fragments of their games that overlap from what I've seen from Boucher. In addition, I see some similar raw tools but those other players have found a better way to implement and utilize them. For Boucher to get more out of his tools I believe he will begin to emulate some of those players and the comparisons between them will become more apparent.

Fundamentally, I made that post to establish a clear criteria to evaluate Boucher against. Kreider, Landeskog, Miller, Wilson, Horvat, Tuch, Crouse, Norris and Tkachuk are all power forwards that were taken within the top 20 picks and have all become fairly successful. In my opinion they represent a tier of players where their production and overall impact to their team is relatively close, or at least close enough to be encompassed within a singular tier. Therefore is a power forward that was drafted within that same range, ends up being appropriately classified within that tier at the peak of their career, then to me it is an indication that they have justified the high draft selection.

An alternative way of looking at it, is to include a player within that tier and then determine whether they fit or stand out as an anomaly. For example, Zack Kassian and Nick Ritchie were also taken fairly high in their respective drafts but I don't believe that they have demonstrated that the fit in that other tier of players. It becomes a way of establishing a clear and reasonable criteria for making such evaluations on whether a player was worthy of their draft selection.

If at the peak of his career Boucher has similar production and a similar impact to this team as that of Kreider, Landeskog, Miller, Wilson, Horvat, Tuch, Crouse, Norris and Tkachuk, it is my belief that that demonstrates the high pick was justified. If his production and impact are meaningfully less then I believe there is merit behind scrutinizing the pick.

Many of those players were similarly doubted early on; there was criticism of them being selected that high and in some cases people claimed they were bad picks. In many cases those players took multiple seasons to reach their peak potential and the criticisms continued until that point. If Boucher ends up justifying his draft selection he will likely follow a similar development path to those other players and take some substantial leaps in development later on.

 

[BondraTime]

As a whole they are pretty distinct but I see some fragments of their games that overlap from what I've seen from Boucher. In addition, I see some similar raw tools but those other players have found a better way to implement and utilize them. For Boucher to get more out of his tools I believe he will begin to emulate some of those players and the comparisons between them will become more apparent.

Fundamentally, I made that post to establish a clear criteria to evaluate Boucher against. Kreider, Landeskog, Miller, Wilson, Horvat, Tuch, Crouse, Norris and Tkachuk are all power forwards that were taken within the top 20 picks and have all become fairly successful. In my opinion they represent a tier of players where their production and overall impact to their team is relatively close, or at least close enough to be encompassed within a singular tier. Therefore is a power forward that was drafted within that same range, ends up being appropriately classified within that tier at the peak of their career, then to me it is an indication that they have justified the high draft selection.

An alternative way of looking at it, is to include a player within that tier and then determine whether they fit or stand out as an anomaly. For example, Zack Kassian and Nick Ritchie were also taken fairly high in their respective drafts but I don't believe that they have demonstrated that the fit in that other tier of players. It becomes a way of establishing a clear and reasonable criteria for making such evaluations on whether a player was worthy of their draft selection.

If at the peak of his career Boucher has similar production and a similar impact to this team as that of Kreider, Landeskog, Miller, Wilson, Horvat, Tuch, Crouse, Norris and Tkachuk, it is my belief that that demonstrates the high pick was justified. If his production and impact are meaningfully less then I believe there is merit behind scrutinizing the pick.

Many of those players were similarly doubted early on; there was criticism of them being selected that high and in some cases people claimed they were bad picks. In many cases those players took multiple seasons to reach their peak potential and the criticisms continued until that point. If Boucher ends up justifying his draft selection he will likely follow a similar development path to those other players and take some substantial leaps in development later on.

Disagree on most fronts regarding your evaluations and comparisons on Boucher, hopefully you’re spot on.

 

[ijif]

As a whole they are pretty distinct but I see some fragments of their games that overlap from what I've seen from Boucher. In addition, I see some similar raw tools but those other players have found a better way to implement and utilize them. For Boucher to get more out of his tools I believe he will begin to emulate some of those players and the comparisons between them will become more apparent.

Fundamentally, I made that post to establish a clear criteria to evaluate Boucher against. Kreider, Landeskog, Miller, Wilson, Horvat, Tuch, Crouse, Norris and Tkachuk are all power forwards that were taken within the top 20 picks and have all become fairly successful. In my opinion they represent a tier of players where their production and overall impact to their team is relatively close, or at least close enough to be encompassed within a singular tier. Therefore is a power forward that was drafted within that same range, ends up being appropriately classified within that tier at the peak of their career, then to me it is an indication that they have justified the high draft selection.

An alternative way of looking at it, is to include a player within that tier and then determine whether they fit or stand out as an anomaly. For example, Zack Kassian and Nick Ritchie were also taken fairly high in their respective drafts but I don't believe that they have demonstrated that the fit in that other tier of players. It becomes a way of establishing a clear and reasonable criteria for making such evaluations on whether a player was worthy of their draft selection.

If at the peak of his career Boucher has similar production and a similar impact to this team as that of Kreider, Landeskog, Miller, Wilson, Horvat, Tuch, Crouse, Norris and Tkachuk, it is my belief that that demonstrates the high pick was justified. If his production and impact are meaningfully less then I believe there is merit behind scrutinizing the pick.

Many of those players were similarly doubted early on; there was criticism of them being selected that high and in some cases people claimed they were bad picks. In many cases those players took multiple seasons to reach their peak potential and the criticisms continued until that point. If Boucher ends up justifying his draft selection he will likely follow a similar development path to those other players and take some substantial leaps in development later on.

For multiple reasons, your criteria is not clear.

First, when you are comparing these players, are you using peak, prime, or career?

Second, you are excluding players for no identifiable reason. Looking at WAR numbers, nothing really separates Kassian and Ritchie from Crouse. You can disagree with WAR, but you have not provided an objective way for anyone to understand your thought process.

Third, depending on how you answer the first problem, players in your grouping will not be the same level of player. This is a problem because the difference will be so large that it renders the group comparison nearly meaningless.


Anyway, to me, none of this matters, and it is pretty simple. Either Ottawa was justified in selecting Boucher based on evidence at the time of the draft, or Ottawa was not justified in selecting Boucher based on evidence at the time of the draft.

 

[JD1]

Dislike is probably a strong word, but it really is a combination of three things. 1 size, 2 mediocre skating, 3 being traded for Stone.

The third is hardly his fault, same with Boucher and the spot he was drafted at.

I like Brannstrom overall, just do not think he is going to make a good Senator. Noy his fault, he has looked good when subbing for Chabot, but the fact is we have 3 LHD who are all looking at needing sheltered minutes. Brannstrom will be the odd man out, whether i like him or not. Its much the same reason I preferred Drysdale over Sanderson, its not about like or dislike, but Sanderson is at best a second pairing D man in Ottawa. Thats not dislike, thats reality.

Sanderson may well be our best d man by Christmas 2023. To say he's at best a 2nd pair d man, idk, i don't see "reality" in that statement. I'll go further and say that if he doesn't develop into a stronger defensive player than chabot then we're screwed.

I agree that Brannstrom is disliked because of Stone. I don't agree he's a mediocre skater. It gets said a lot, i don't think that's a very accurate assessment. I've seen things in the last two games that are anything but mediocre.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Sanderson may well be our best d man by Christmas 2023. To say he's at best a 2nd pair d man, idk, i don't see "reality" in that statement. I'll go further and say that if he doesn't develop into a stronger defensive player than chabot then we're screwed.

I agree that Brannstrom is disliked because of Stone. I don't agree he's a mediocre skater. It gets said a lot, i don't think that's a very accurate assessment. I've seen things in the last two games that are anything but mediocre.

He’s not a good fast skater at all, he’s a shifty skater.
Ya and that was a bad take on Sandy.

 

[jake1]

Sanderson may well be our best d man by Christmas 2023. To say he's at best a 2nd pair d man, idk, i don't see "reality" in that statement. I'll go further and say that if he doesn't develop into a stronger defensive player than chabot then we're screwed.

I agree that Brannstrom is disliked because of Stone. I don't agree he's a mediocre skater. It gets said a lot, i don't think that's a very accurate assessment. I've seen things in the last two games that are anything but mediocre.

I can see a future where Sanderson does not blow up offensively, but plays 25-30 minutes a night in the playoffs, impacting possession consistently, and Sens fans are in never-ending disputes on the main board about his value. And every coach and GM in the league would kill to have him on their team.

 

[JD1]

He’s not a good fast skater at all, he’s a shifty skater.
Ya and that was a bad take on Sandy.

Shifty is a good word. So is elusive. When he has the puck his ability to see the ice and shift direction is very good. He doesn’t get caught with the puck very often.

Last night he came around our net with a hab right on his tail. He carried the puck thru traffic to the hab blueline with the same hab on his tail the entire way. That's not mediocre. It's not average. There aren't a lot of guys that can do that. He had the puck for about 200 feet. Some of it thru traffic. Chased the entire time. Wasn't caught.

I can see a future where Sanderson does not blow up offensively, but plays 25-30 minutes a night in the playoffs, impacting possession consistently, and Sens fans are in never-ending disputes on the main board about his value. And every coach and GM in the league would kill to have him on their team.

I see that as the only way there is a future. Him playing 25 to 30 a night in the shutdown role, impacting possession

 

[Pinto Bean]

When people talk about Kleven, they can see a pretty clear path on how he can be successful in the NHL. He is built like a monster, can skate well, and it looks like he can carve out a nice role as a physical, crease-clearing presence in the NHL on a third pairing.

When people talk about Lassi Thomson on the other hand, that path is a little less clear even though he is probably the better player at this point. Lassi can put up some points, he can skate decently, and has a few other things going for him but it's kind of hard to see where he'll carve out a defined role in the NHL due to a mixed bag of skills & inconsistencies. Bottom pairing guy? Maybe? Top 4? Also maybe? But what is his niche ability that will for sure get him to the league? I'm unsure.

Bringing all of this back to Boucher, despite his immense struggles which have been discussed quite a bit, the benefit to a guy like him is that he can arguably be a similar prospect to Kleven in the sense that with a few improvements in his game, you can see why he has a pretty clear path to one day being an effective 4th liner in the NHL.

He has the strength, he has the size, he has the speed and a decent enough shot where if he can put these things together and use these abilities effectively you could totally see a clear and obvious path to being a staple on the Sens 4th line in the future.

That's probably the one thing he's got going for him compared to a few other guys in the system where the path seems a little less clear for future spots in the lineup

 

[bicboi64]

When people talk about Kleven, they can see a pretty clear path on how he can be successful in the NHL. He is built like a monster, can skate well, and it looks like he can carve out a nice role as a physical, crease-clearing presence in the NHL on a third pairing.

When people talk about Lassi Thomson on the other hand, that path is a little less clear even though he is probably the better player at this point. Lassi can put up some points, he can skate decently, and has a few other things going for him but it's kind of hard to see where he'll carve out a defined role in the NHL due to a mixed bag of skills & inconsistencies. Bottom pairing guy? Maybe? Top 4? Also maybe? But what is his niche ability that will for sure get him to the league? I'm unsure.

Bringing all of this back to Boucher, despite his immense struggles which have been discussed quite a bit, the benefit to a guy like him is that he can arguably be a similar prospect to Kleven in the sense that with a few improvements in his game, you can see why he has a pretty clear path to one day being an effective 4th liner in the NHL.

He has the strength, he has the size, he has the speeding and a decent enough shot where if he can put these things together and use these assets effectively you could totally see a clear and obvious path to be a staple on the Sens 4th line in the future.

That's probably the one thing he's got going for him compared to a few other guys in the system where the path seems a little less clear for future spots in the lineup

I agree with everything you wrote.

Boucher may not be a strong physical presence that is a regular in the top 6, but I think with his peculiar skill set, he can be a regular in our bottom 6. By the time he's done cooking and ready for games with the Sens, we might have some contracts coming off the books and he can be a cheap and effective option in the bottom 6 with some potential for scoring if he works on it.

I hope for the sake of the team's success he hits that and can carve out a long career with the Sens. No point in being critical of his draft selection, that was on Dorion, can only hope for the best while observing what he does

 

[ottawah]

Sanderson may well be our best d man by Christmas 2023. To say he's at best a 2nd pair d man, idk, i don't see "reality" in that statement. I'll go further and say that if he doesn't develop into a stronger defensive player than chabot then we're screwed.

I agree that Brannstrom is disliked because of Stone. I don't agree he's a mediocre skater. It gets said a lot, i don't think that's a very accurate assessment. I've seen things in the last two games that are anything but mediocre.

From my end, I have little evidence to decide if Chabot is a good or weak defensive defensman. He plays very sheltered minutes, and that could be because he is not great defensively, or (and my belief), that he is too valuable offensively to even try out in that role. McDavid could be the best defensive forward in the league, but you would be foolish to have him killing penalties as opposed to playing offense.

And maybe Sanderson does turn into our best D man in 14 months. I'd applaud it, puts us in a good position. But its a big stretch to expect him to be above Chabot level in 14 months. Or even at all in his career. Chabot is a top 25 D in this league (IMO), thats a very hard level to obtain. So yes unless he surpsasses Chabot, he is a 2nd pairing D on this team. and if he does it means we are paying 8M a year for a second pairing D .....

And for the last two games? Pre season when playing against far inferior players and effort versus regular season is not an accurate gauge at all for rating a player, otherwise buddy Robinson would be potting 50 goals a season for us these days.

 

[Xspyrit]

I can see a future where Sanderson does not blow up offensively, but plays 25-30 minutes a night in the playoffs, impacting possession consistently, and Sens fans are in never-ending disputes on the main board about his value. And every coach and GM in the league would kill to have him on their team.

Jaccob Slavin 2.0

 

[bicboi64]

Jaccob Slavin 2.0

If Sanderson turns into a Slavin I'll be ecstatic. Even more ecstatic if he signs a 7 year deal that pays him less than $5.5 million per year lol

 

[Mark Stones Spleen]

Jaccob Slavin 2.0

Slavin still managed 42 points last year, only 7 of them on the PP.

 

[JD1]

From my end, I have little evidence to decide if Chabot is a good or weak defensive defensman. He plays very sheltered minutes, and that could be because he is not great defensively, or (and my belief), that he is too valuable offensively to even try out in that role. McDavid could be the best defensive forward in the league, but you would be foolish to have him killing penalties as opposed to playing offense.

And maybe Sanderson does turn into our best D man in 14 months. I'd applaud it, puts us in a good position. But its a big stretch to expect him to be above Chabot level in 14 months. Or even at all in his career. Chabot is a top 25 D in this league (IMO), thats a very hard level to obtain. So yes unless he surpsasses Chabot, he is a 2nd pairing D on this team. and if he does it means we are paying 8M a year for a second pairing D .....

And for the last two games? Pre season when playing against far inferior players and effort versus regular season is not an accurate gauge at all for rating a player, otherwise buddy Robinson would be potting 50 goals a season for us these days.

I don't disagree that Chabot is a top D man in the league. I just don't think he's good enough defensively for us to be a true contender. We need someone better than him defensively to move in to the upper echelon of teams.

Last two games was in reference to Brannstrom? I'm pretty sure it was the habs that dressed the near NHL lineup not us. And Brannstrom played his offside on the top pair with a rookie on the other side. They both looked good doing it too. There's a lot of skepticism about Brannstrom here. A lot of guys thinking / hoping he develops in to an NHL player. He already is an NHL player. I'm thinking the team hopes he develops into a better NHL player. Given his age and the number of games under his belt, there's more reason than not to believe he'll continue to improve

 

[ottawah]

A lot of guys thinking / hoping he develops in to an NHL player. He already is an NHL player. I'm thinking the team hopes he develops into a better NHL player. Given his age and the number of games under his belt, there's more reason than not to believe he'll continue to improve

Call me in the camp of his already being an NHL player.

But the issue for me is what type of player and is he a fit on the team? Take Tage Thompson, a guy people felt was either a first line center or bust, and he looked like a bust. But then Eichel left and Thompsons numbers surged. I see the same with Brannstrom. He looks like a good NHL player anytime Chabot is not there. Thats because its those minutes he excels in. But he is not getting those minutes here.

 

[JD1]

Call me in the camp of his already being an NHL player.

But the issue for me is what type of player and is he a fit on the team? Take Tage Thompson, a guy people felt was either a first line center or bust, and he looked like a bust. But then Eichel left and Thompsons numbers surged. I see the same with Brannstrom. He looks like a good NHL player anytime Chabot is not there. Thats because its those minutes he excels in. But he is not getting those minutes here.

You know, I've thought about that. He does look good with Chabot's minutes and particularly with the PP time.

If Sanderson rapidly develops ala Seider (who the Score just placed higher on their top 100 than Chabot), I'll get crucified for suggesting it but moving Chabot after this season results in a Sanderson Brannstrom top 2 left side, a whale of a return, and it solves a cap crunch issue. There's IFs obviously, those being Sanderson's rapid ascension and Brannstrom's continued improvement, but it solves issues we have.

 

[Big Muddy]

It looks like the development path for Boucher is minimally another year on the 67s, and a year in the AHL. So, that's about three years out from now. Given this, I'm not going to get too worked up about what Boucher is or is not at this stage. There's plenty of other things to focus on.

Brannstrom has his detractors its seems. His size, and because he was the big piece coming back in the Stone trade are probably reasons why. I just think the criticism of him from some is unusually harsh.

As far as Brannstrom, Thomson & JBD goes, I'm hoping all of them do well. If that can't happen, then 2 of 3 won't be bad, or even 1 of those stepping up I suppose. It would be good to have some ELCs filling some spots on next year's roster to relieve some cap pressure.