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

[GCK]

Thats hardly unusual today. In his draft Power has 100 games, Berniers 90. About 100 for MacTavish. 90 for Edvisson. 110 for MacTavish. 90 for Hughes. 80 for Edvisson.

70 is lower, but it not far off what many of the players in his draft year have done.

Pretty much proves what I was intending to say.

Most of the draft is behind the normal development curve.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Last season: Boucher better have a good start to the year this year…

This season: His good start to the season isn’t good because empty net goals and other guys are scoring goals too…

*massive eye roll

It’s an HFSens classic, doubling down on past opinions is more important than watching a kid develop and acknowledging it.

He’s having a good start, it’s what is best for the Sens, it’s what we all want to to see (right??), and it’s great for the kid to start feeling comfortable and becoming an impact player.

 

[ToasterStutzle]

I get the draft hype, but why do people hate this kid so much?

He was drafted to be a middle 6 winger that is physical, he's still projecting to be that and is 19. Likely will replace a guy like Motte or Joesph or Watson eventually when we need to spend their $ elsewhere.

I get he's not Brady but like....... the hate seems silly.

 

[IranCondraAffair]

I get the draft hype, but why do people hate this kid so much?

He was drafted to be a middle 6 winger that is physical, he's still projecting to be that and is 19. Likely will replace a guy like Motte or Joesph or Watson eventually when we need to spend their $ elsewhere.

I get he's not Brady but like....... the hate seems silly.

The hate is for Dorion, not the kid, or at least it shouldn't be. Not his fault where he was drafted.

The problem is that he is really unlikely to ever be worth the slot where he was selected. Puts unnecessary pressure on him too. Again, not his fault, Dorion's

 

[Korpse]

The hate is for Dorion, not the kid, or at least it shouldn't be. Not his fault where he was drafted.

The problem is that he is really unlikely to ever be worth the slot where he was selected. Puts unnecessary pressure on him too. Again, not his fault, Dorion's

Thoughts on Trent Mann?

 

[IranCondraAffair]

Thoughts on Trent Mann?

Seems like a decent enough scout.

 

[Korpse]

Seems like a decent enough scout.

Interesting. Head scouts take the lead on draft day. Feel like your hate is misplaced.

 

[IranCondraAffair]

Interesting. Head scouts take the lead on draft day. Feel like your hate is misplaced.

Dorion still makes the final call and is the one who decides if they want to trade down or not.

 

[Korpse]

Dorion still makes the final call and is the one who decides if they want to trade down or not.

With a lot of influence from the scouting staff. GM’s find the trade but it’s the scouting staff who have the feel for how the draft will go. Just feels like hate for the sake of hating. No real reason. Not surprising of course this happens with at least one prospect every draft.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Go back and look at 10oa picks. He has lots of runway left to still be a good pick at that spot.

 

[Micklebot]

Go back and look at 10oa picks. He has lots of runway left to still be a good pick at that spot.

Just because other teams made poor choices at 10oa doesn't make it a good pick if he turns out better.

A good pick is good because of how it turns out relative to the alternative options, Chris Phillips looks terrible relative to other 1st OA picks but was the best pick relative to his draft year.

If Boucher turns out to be a better player than Ritchie, McIlrath, Hodgson, Jost and Tippitt it means squat if guys like Sillinger, Othmann, Bolduc and Rosen turn into studs.

I don't disagree that there's lots of time left and he can certainly become a player, but looking at 10 OA and being satisfied with a decent player comes off a little missleading when at 12 OA you have guys like Lundell, Boldy, Dobson, and Necas ast the previous 4 picks. Looking at a pick number in a vacuum is a pointless endeavour.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Just because other teams made poor choices at 10oa doesn't make it a good pick if he turns out better.

A good pick is good because of how it turns out relative to the alternative options, Chris Phillips looks terrible relative to other 1st OA picks but was the best pick relative to his draft year.

If Boucher turns out to be a better player than Ritchie, McIlrath, Hodgson, Jost and Tippitt it means squat if guys like Sillinger, Othmann, Bolduc and Rosen turn into studs.

I don't disagree that there's lots of time left and he can certainly become a player, but looking at 10 OA and being satisfied with a decent player comes off a little missleading when at 12 OA you have guys like Lundell, Boldy, Dobson, and Necas ast the previous 4 picks. Looking at a pick number in a vacuum is a pointless endeavour.

Pointless for you maybe, but the fact remains that 10oa for our team and everyone’s team is usually a mid first round crap shoot no matter how glowing the last four years at 12 may have been (also completely cherry picked time frame and irrelevant).

Pretending that 10oa should usually be an impact too 6 player is just fooling yourself. Same goes for 12oa regardless of a nice run of 4 years.

Managing expectations of what picks at 10oa turn into based on historical picks is absolutely relevant in my opinion. You do you though.

 

[BondraTime]

Drafts aren’t equal to past drafts.

Judge whether a pick was successful (however you want to determine that) with the cohorts from the same draft.

Where guys go in previous drafts has no relevance to where guys go in other drafts.

Some drafts are garbage, some are unbelievable, some are average, some are 20 deep.

The fact that 10th overall got Rantanen in 2015 and Ritchie in 2014 has no relevance to whether Boucher was a fine/good/great/awful pick in 2021.

Boucher will be a good/great/fine/awful pick based on how he, and his draft cohorts preform.

Seteguci, Meuller, Burmistrov, Hamill, Boedker, Couturier, Pouliot, Nylander, Nylander, Risto, Werenski, Middstadt.

From 2005-2017, only 3 top 6/4 guys were chosen at 8th overall out of 13. That doesn’t mean you should not expect a top 6/4 player at 8th, that means during those drafts, the team selecting made a bad choice relative to the options available, as immediately following these picks there were a dozen+ guys selected that become top 6/4 guys.

Boucher will be fine, he’s going to be a player for us. If we want to call it a good or bad choice, we should be comparing him to the guys whom were available along with Boucher.

 

[Micklebot]

Pointless for you maybe, but the fact remains that 10oa for our team and everyone’s team is usually a mid first round crap shoot no matter how glowing the last four years at 12 may have been (also completely cherry picked time frame and irrelevant).

Pretending that 10oa should usually be an impact too 6 player is just fooling yourself. Same goes for 12oa regardless of a nice run of 4 years.

Managing expectations of what picks at 10oa turn into based on historical picks is absolutely relevant in my opinion. You do you though.

Im not the one pretending here. All the guys historically taken at 10 were not available to us when we selected Boucher so they simply aren't relevant in determining whether we made a good choice or not. What is relevant is who we could have taken instead, that's all that matters in the end.

Managing expectations is fine, but your means are flawed. By your logic, we'd have been better off trading back to 12 because historically that specific spot has turned out better. Even if we ignore that, your still left completely ignoring the relative quality of cohorts, should we have expected more out of Phillips because he was drafted at the same slot as Crosby, Matthews, McDavid, ect? Of course not.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Im not the one pretending here. All the guys historically taken at 10 were not available to us when we selected Boucher so they simply aren't relevant in determining whether we made a good choice or not. What is relevant is who we could have taken instead, that's all that matters in the end.

Managing expectations is fine, but your means are flawed. By your logic, we'd have been better off trading back to 12 because historically that specific spot has turned out better. Even if we ignore that, your still left completely ignoring the relative quality of cohorts, should we have expected more out of Phillips because he was drafted at the same slot as Crosby, Matthews, McDavid, ect? Of course not.

You’re getting bogged down on your own point again. I’m not surprised that you’re confused at this point given that we’re not talking about the same thing. Who in the world is talking about whether it was a ‘good’ pick or not? Not me, but obviously it’s too early to determine that regardless.

You’re not actually debating the point I’m making at all, which is fine except you keep responding to my posts. I’m not even remotely talking about comparing players with other players in their draft class, I’m not talking about who is better taken at what point in the round at all, nor am I specifically comparing Boucher to any other specific player picked at 10oa in the past.

I’ll try and explain it again, my point is that while we can lament not picking other players in the round that may end up being better, especially home run picks, our expectations on what a guy picked in the 10oa slot, in any draft, should be tied to how those players typically pan out historically. Guys picked in that range don’t usually end up as top six players, especially top line players. It sucks that we may not have hit a home run, but those are unusual.

We can be bummed that we didn’t pick a star who was picked one spot later, and we can blame whomever we choose, but if the guy we pick still ends up being an impact player in the bottom six, that’s good value at that draft slot regardless of what else has happened around him. To that end, I made the simple point that Boucher has lots of runway left to show that he can be an impact bottom six forward on our team, or in other words, good value traditionally for a 10oa pick.

As for your point about trading down to 12, it’s seems moot since, again, it has no bearing on the point I was making at all. We didn’t pick 12, we picked 10. The numbers aren’t that different in terms of expectations over time anyways.

Unrelated to my point, you make a good point in this specific draft that if they had identified that the 12 picking team wanted Sillinger or something and were willing to give up an asset to get him, we could potentially have gained an asset and picked Boucher.

Your Phillips analogy actually serves to prove my point. No one expected Phillips to be Crosby or Mathews, but also no one is saying that. He was absolutely a disappointing 1oa pick given the reasonable expectations for that pick, in general, no matter what the specific cohort looked like. The difference is between comparing the pick to his draft year, rather than comparing the pick to all draft years.

 

[Micklebot]

You’re getting bogged down on your own point again. I’m not surprised that you’re confused at this point given that we’re not talking about the same thing. Who in the world is talking about whether it was a ‘good’ pick or not? Not me, but obviously it’s too early to determine that regardless.

You’re not actually debating the point I’m making at all, which is fine except you keep responding to my posts. I’m not even remotely talking about comparing players with other players in their draft class, I’m not talking about who is better taken at what point in the round at all, nor am I specifically comparing Boucher to any other specific player picked at 10oa in the past.

I’ll try and explain it again, my point is that while we can lament not pick other players in the round that may end up being better, especially home run picks, our expectations on what a guy picked in the 10oa slot, in any draft, should be tied to how those players typically pan out historically. Guys picked in that range don’t usually end up as top six players, especially top line players.

We can be bummed that we didn’t pick a star who was picked one spot later, and we can blame whomever we choose, but if the guy we pick still ends up being an impact player in the bottom six, that’s good value at that draft slot regardless of what else has happened around him. To that end, I made the simple point that Boucher has lots of runway left to show that he can be an impact bottom six forward on our team.

As for your point about trading down to 12, it’s seems moot since, again, it has be bearing on the point I was making at all. We didn’t pick 12, we picked 10. The numbers aren’t that different in terms of expectations over time anyways.

Unrelated to my point, you make a good point in this specific draft thy if they had identified that the 12 picking team wanted Sillinger or something and were willing to give up an asset to get him, we could potentially have gained an asset and picked Boucher.

Your point is dumb because your using a single data point in a given draft year to determine what to expect at that same spot, the problem is expected results follow a curve, but using one data point is prone to anomolies. If you want to get an idea of what to expect with a pick, looking at 10th OA only from the last 10 years is less predictive of what to expect from 10 OA than looking at a range of guys in say 9-12, because of this. It's like flipping a coin 10 times and expecting all future flips to be 70% tails because you got 7 tails and 3 heads. The sample is so small your conclusion won't have a high degree of confidence so you shouldn't be banking on it.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I'd say based on this response you actually have no clue about player development. Different types of players develop at different rates. You're in denial if you think that moving teams cities systems doesn't effect a player. You're shitting on 6 goals in 7 games. No need to continue this discussion.


Well you also think teams should never ever miss on draft picks. Maybe you should be employed by an NHL team as you'd clearly do so much better.

Keep on going with your bitching and complaining. You're stuck with the player. Maybe go be a fan of another team I dunno...

You refuse to acknowledge the type of player this is. It's unbelievable.

Well I think everyone has acknowledged the type of player he is. The question is, was it right to take that player at 10.

But I agree he is ours. And any encouraging news or sign of development is good. And his lack of games in his last 2 years + his hot start this year is encouraging.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Your point is dumb because your using a single data point in a given draft year to determine what to expect at that same spot, the problem is expected results follow a curve, but using one data point is prone to anomolies. If you want to get an idea of what to expect with a pick, looking at 10th OA only from the last 10 years is less predictive of what to expect from 10 OA than looking at a range of guys in say 9-12, because of this. It's like flipping a coin 10 times and expecting all future flips to be 70% tails because you got 7 tails and 3 heads. The sample is so small your conclusion won't have a high degree of confidence so you shouldn't be banking on it.

Ah…. My point is dumb.

Pretty disrespectful, especially from a mod who chose to respond to me, I’m not surprised really though, it’s what you do.

I’m really not sure what the issue is here. I used 10 because Boucher was picked 10, but the range around the player is basically the same. The data in the range says the same thing I’m saying. Once again you’re choosing to attack on a tangent. You’re insulting me for saying ‘10’, when ‘9-12’ says the same thing. I’m pretty sure you weren’t confused by that either.

We can be bummed that he’s not looking to be trending to be a top 6 forward at the moment, but players picked ‘in the range around 10’ usually don’t, but often have long careers. He may not be a home run, but he has a long way to fall yet to be a bust.

Anyways, I’m done with your bullshit tangent arguments. You should learn to be less of a dick about things.

 

[bert]

Well I think everyone has acknowledged the type of player he is. The question is, was it right to take that player at 10.

But I agree he is ours. And any encouraging news or sign of development is good. And his lack of games in his last 2 years + his hot start this year is encouraging.

We know it wasnt the right pick. That doesnt mean people have to lose their minds about the player. He is here... Deal with it. Boucher scores 6 goals in 7 games and people are ripping on him.... If he had 7, 5 or 8 it wouldnt matter to some posters. He is a power winger, he isnt a set up guy. His job is to be physical and score goals and he's is doing it... But its still not enough. He also fits into the identity this team is building. Relentless, physical, hard on the forcheck and hard to play against. There were definitely better players but he will contribute here at some point.

I am glad that you can see the development. Hopefully he continues to build on it.

 

[Tragedy]

Ah…. My point is dumb.

Pretty disrespectful, especially from a mod who chose to respond to me, I’m not surprised really though, it’s what you do.

I’m really not sure what the issue is here. I used 10 because Boucher was picked 10, but the range around the player is basically the same. The data in the range says the same thing I’m saying. Once again you’re choosing to attack on a tangent. You’re insulting me for saying ‘10’, when ‘9-12’ says the same thing. I’m pretty sure you weren’t confused by that either.

We can be bummed that he’s not looking to be trending to be a top 6 forward at the moment, but players picked ‘in the range around 10’ usually don’t, but often have long careers. He may not be a home run, but he has a long way to fall yet to be a bust.

Anyways, I’m done with your bullshit tangent arguments. You should learn to be less of a dick about things.

I mean...he wasn't being a dick. I read the whole exchange and agree with both Micklebot and Bondratime and neither were being assholes with their points. Your point just makes little sense and it seems like you're getting offended and taking it personally. Saying "The average 10th overall can be expected to give us this" is irrelevant. The question is, did we make the best use possible of the 10th overall pick in relation to the players available to us.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I mean...he wasn't being a dick. I read the whole exchange and agree with both Micklebot and Bondratime and neither were being assholes with their points. Your point just makes little sense and it seems like you're getting offended and taking it personally. Saying "The average 10th overall can be expected to give us this" is irrelevant. The question is, did we make the best use possible of the 10th overall pick in relation to the players available to us.

Excuse me. He was being a dick by calling my point dumb. It was uncalled for. I’m not bent out of shape, I responded. It has nothing to do with his ‘point’, any more than his point has anything to do with my point.

Why exactly is what can we reasonably expect from a 10oa irrelevant? I was never addressing ‘the question’ you think is the only important one, nor was I arguing a specific point with either of those two posters. I made a one off post of my own and Mick responded to me.

Whether we made the best possible use of the puck at 10oa is a question that we can use to evaluate Mann and Dorion, and we can use all kinds of picks chosen before and after to make points to the topic. That’s great, but not what I was talking about at all.

The single point I made has absolutely zero to do with that. It doesn’t matter at all in terms of what Boucher becomes, if Dorion could have chosen a better player instead. It’s valid for other discussions for sure though.

I was looking at Boucher as a player picked in that spot. I suggest that if he is able to be an impact player in the bottom six that he will have been a solid pick in that spot based on what is usually picked at that spot, or to assuage Mick, that range of picks, and all afterwards. That’s doesn’t mean that a better player could have or should have been picked, that’s on management.

My point is now that we have him, our expectations should be measured by what is a reasonable expectation for a player picked in that range, not based on how other players around him are drafted, or how the home runs around him are doing. Rather what do players usually do picked in that range.

I surmised that he still has plenty of runway to show he can be a reasonable pick for that range given historical comparison, though he doesn’t look like he’ll be a home run, or outlier, so we should probably not be hoping for that anymore. Runway means that he has time to prove otherwise, though up until this season things haven’t looked good.

 

[Sensinitis]

I like the idea of a 4th line of Kelly/Motte-Kastelic-Boucher

 

[JD1]

Here's the thing for me about Boucher

It's like there's a cohort that want there "aha" moment where they can say they're better than the pro scouts or the GM.

Like give it up. 10 oa. Busts happen. Every single redraft 5 years later has players, multiple players, better than guys chosen in the top 10.

All you can do is win more than you lose

Boucher looks like he's going to be an NHL player. And there's not a single guy posting here about that pick and how they were right about taking someone else where I can't go back and find some pretty f***ing embarrassing takes about players we drafted. Starting with Tkachuk. Moving into Pinto.

Let it rest boys. Hopefully he becomes a decent player for us..

 

[Xspyrit]

7 points in 6 games as a 19 year old is not impressive. That said, at least it isn't a disaster.

People also have to keep in mind he turns 20 in January

He should destroy the OHL right now, nothing less

Recent 2nd round pick in 2022 Owen Beck has 12 pts in 7 games in the OHL

Late 1st Filip Mesar has 6 pts in 2 games

Both are 18 y/o

 

[Golden_Jet]

Thats hardly unusual today. In his draft Power has 100 games, Berniers 90. About 100 for MacTavish. 90 for Edvisson. 110 for MacTavish. 90 for Hughes. 80 for Edvisson.

70 is lower, but it not far off what many of the players in his draft year have done.

70 includes D+1 year, your examples don’t. Assuming your numbers are right.