Where Do You Stand on Tyler Boucher?

[OD99]

Bumping to reset the bar.

9% (11 posters) of 120 respondents say Boucher is a bust - and it is a public poll so you can see exactly who you want to pick your battles with.

Or makeup whatever narrative you want, same difference apparently.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I really feel like Boucher is a guy you appreciate if you actually watch the player, so arguing with the the stat watchers can be frustrating, even though I know I am guilty of this as well.

Watching the guy, I can see why he was reached on at 10, even if it was a reach.

Many of us have watched him play for the USNDP, BU and the 67s on many occasions .. There will be differing opinions on many prospects .. Look at Rossi in 2020 or even Korchinski this year or Kemell.. People see different things and its not stat watchers vs those who watched him play.

 

[Wallet Inspector]

Nothing against him personally but he was a wasted 10th overall.

He has literally never put up big points anywhere, and his D+1 production would be awful even for a 3rd round pick, let alone 10th overall.

 

[Girutzlechuk]

defeat

 

[Sun God Nika]

Bumping to reset the bar.

9% (11 posters) of 120 respondents say Boucher is a bust - and it is a public poll so you can see exactly who you want to pick your battles with.

Or makeup whatever narrative you want, same difference apparently.

I wanna change my answer.

 

[Sweatred]

A pretty poor reach.

Great prospect to have in the system, a total waste of a 10th overall selection. If he was taken 45th there’d be less to be upset about (but would still be reason to be displeased)

Take the draft slot out of the equation, we’ll get a physical player the fans will love.

I think he’ll come close to his true potential, but I think his perceived potential was severely, severely overrated by the Sens.

Well, Mackenzie had him at 29th so I can’t give much credit to you thinking he’s a disappointment at 45…

Bob McKenzie's 2021 final draft rankings - TSN.ca

This year’s NHL draft class is showing signs of major unpredictability, but the Michigan defenceman cemented his status as hockey’s top prospect with a strong performance at the IIHF World Championship, Bob McKenzie writes.

www.tsn.ca

Boucher is an attempt to complete a roster built for the playoffs knowing they may have a hard time acquiring pieces via FA. They drafted for need bypassing secondary scoring.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

I couldn't believe he was a top 10 pick.
I feel like Ottawa could have easily gotten him as a late 1st or early 2nd.
We completed our draft a week or 2 before the 2021 NHL Draft started and he was selected 50th overall

 

[BondraTime]

Well, Mackenzie had him at 29th so I can’t give much credit to you thinking he’s a disappointment at 45…

Bob McKenzie's 2021 final draft rankings - TSN.ca

This year’s NHL draft class is showing signs of major unpredictability, but the Michigan defenceman cemented his status as hockey’s top prospect with a strong performance at the IIHF World Championship, Bob McKenzie writes.

www.tsn.ca

Well yeah, he was expected to go before 45th, very well aware of that, and has absolutely no relevance to the post.

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

It was a hypothetical with how we should expect a 45th overalls season to go and how we’d react. The season he had would still have us disappointed if he were picked at 45th.

The fact we never had a 45th overall should have made this pretty apparent.

 

[sdf]

im not stand on tyler boucher

 

[c_mak]

the Sens management went for it. I think the over reached. I think it will be a Brian Lee type pick - coulda had "insert better players name here". I think about a quote one of my bosses used, he said the year Babe Ruth lead the league in home runs he also led the league in strikeouts.

 

[OD99]

the Sens management went for it. I think the over reached. I think it will be a Brian Lee type pick - coulda had "insert better players name here". I think about a quote one of my bosses used, he said the year Babe Ruth lead the league in home runs he also led the league in strikeouts.

Except Babe Ruth was also a pitcher and those were good strikeouts.

**kidding...he did lead the league in both homeruns and strikeouts but he hit 60 homers and only struck out 89 times - incredible success rate!**

 

[lancepitlick]

I expect a 3rd liner, at best, that still has total bust potential.

I don't think that's the type of player you use a 10th overall pick to obtain. Sens tried to get cute.

Would you pick Chris Neil 10th overall, even if you knew he'd be the player he ended up being. The answer is no IMO.

 

[Sweatred]

I expect a 3rd liner, at best, that still has total bust potential.

I don't think that's the type of player you use a 10th overall pick to obtain. Sens tried to get cute.

Would you pick Chris Neil 10th overall, even if you knew he'd be the player he ended up being. The answer is no IMO.

Chris Neil had a better NHL career than the expected outcome at 10OA.

The Sens project to need more Chris Neil in 2-3 years than secondary scoring.

You say 3rd liner like it’s a bad word. The players who play against the other teams best lines are from unimportant.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

I expect a 3rd liner, at best, that still has total bust potential.

I don't think that's the type of player you use a 10th overall pick to obtain. Sens tried to get cute.

Would you pick Chris Neil 10th overall, even if you knew he'd be the player he ended up being. The answer is no IMO.

To the italicized, in a vacuum I totally agree. Not the kind of player you want to be grabbing at 10th. But overall strength of the draft comes into play as a mitigating factor. Would I want a Neil-esque player 10th overall in, say, 2003? Hard no. But 10th overall in 1999? Sure, I really don't miss out on much there.

I'm doubtful that the pick will stand the test of time one way or the other, but who knows? If he's a Neil in a barren wasteland maybe the pick is viewed more favourably down the line.

 

[lancepitlick]

Chris Neil had a better NHL career than the expected outcome at 10OA.

The Sens project to need more Chris Neil in 2-3 years than secondary scoring.

You say 3rd liner like it’s a bad word. The players who play against the other teams beat lines are from unimportant.

A team will never need more Chris Neil's than Erik Karlsson's, Tomas Chabot's, Drake Batherson, Brady Tkachuck, Mark Stone's etc. If you have an excellent chance to get one, even 1 in15, you roll the dice on that prospect rather than taking a guy that you could trade Neil for + a bunch of other assets. And that is presupposing that you knew Neil would be Neil. If you pick intelligently later on in the draft, develop well, make good signings/trades etc. you can find 3rd line players.

Taking a player with a ceiling as a 3rd liner is a terrible use of the 10th overall pick. Look at the 2003 draft in the first round after the 10th pick: Jeff Carter, Dustin Brown, Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Richards, Boyle, Perry. Yes that's an absolutely ridiculous draft, but if you have even a 1 in 50 chance of getting a HHOF player you take that chance and roll the dice. That's how you end up winning Stanley Cups. You don't win Stanly Cups when you have the attitude that you have enough scoring so I'm going to pass on a chance to draft Ryan Getzlaf as I'd rather acquire Chris Neil.

To the italicized, in a vacuum I totally agree. Not the kind of player you want to be grabbing at 10th. But overall strength of the draft comes into play as a mitigating factor. Would I want a Neil-esque player 10th overall in, say, 2003? Hard no. But 10th overall in 1999? Sure, I really don't miss out on much there.

I'm doubtful that the pick will stand the test of time one way or the other, but who knows? If he's a Neil in a barren wasteland maybe the pick is viewed more favourably down the line.

I think it is hard to every truly know if a draft is going to be a 1999 or a 2003, aside from the absolute studs in the top 5ish. I think you have to always assume there are some potential superstars in every draft and on the balance of probabilities you are more likely to get one the higher the pick. Especially in the Top 20 or so.

 

[aragorn]

I expect a 3rd liner, at best, that still has total bust potential.

I don't think that's the type of player you use a 10th overall pick to obtain. Sens tried to get cute.

Would you pick Chris Neil 10th overall, even if you knew he'd be the player he ended up being. The answer is no IMO.

Given that you have no idea how the players drafted after you are going to turn out, most don't, I would pick Neil knowing how he would turn out. He was great for this organization on & off the ice, played a 1,000 games & was always in on the action & protected our best players including Alfie. He was a great Sens player & a great teammate.

Yakopov was a 1st OA & where is he today? The draft is a crap shoot with 18 yr olds, sometimes it works out & sometimes it doesn't, even with talented kids who knows if it's them that want it or their parents pushing them. How do you gage their drive, their determination & heart? Some kids just want it more than others & are willing to do anything to get it.

 

[BondraTime]

Given that you have no idea how the players drafted after you are going to turn out, most don't, I would pick Neil knowing how he would turn out. He was great for this organization on & off the ice, played a 1,000 games & was always in on the action & protected our best players including Alfie. He was a great Sens player & a great teammate.

But would you take him over, say, Markov, who went the pick directly after Neil at 162. Or Brad Richards who went 64th.

Neil would have been a fine pick at 10th using hindsight not knowing anything else, but using hindsight he shouldn't be the guy you'd take at that spot as there will always be better players than a bottom 6 guy taken after 10. If you're drafting him at 10th because of hindsight, it should be applied to everyone.

Neil is an All-Time Sens great, and one of the best of his kind of player of all time. But those types of guys aren't who you want with 10th overall, barring a draft like 99 like someone else alluded too.

 

[Micklebot]

Given that you have no idea how the players drafted after you are going to turn out, most don't, I would pick Neil knowing how he would turn out. He was great for this organization on & off the ice, played a 1,000 games & was always in on the action & protected our best players including Alfie. He was a great Sens player & a great teammate.

It's kind of an unfair comparison. If Boucher turns into Neil, it will be a solid pick, no doubt, but he's far from guaranteed to turn out as good as Neil, in fact, I'm not convinced the likelihood of Boucher becoming the next Neil is any better than the likelihood Silinger becomes the next Rantanen.

At the time of the draft, we had a bit less info, and I thought based on the uncertainty surrounding that years draft in particular, projections were much tougher. I suspect the team though he was a Dustin Brown type, which would be a fine pick at 10. He's got the tools, so maybe there's still hope, but so far it's not looking promising. Yes, he had lots of setbacks which can be used to explain his struggles, but the reality is these development years are important, and you can't always make up for lost time.

Here's hoping next year he can put the last couple seasons behind him and start living up to the expectations that come with being drafted top 10.

 

[aragorn]

But would you take him over, say, Markov, who went the pick directly after Neil at 162. Or Brad Richards who went 64th.

Neil would have been a fine pick at 10th using hindsight not knowing anything else, but using hindsight he shouldn't be the guy you'd take at that spot as there will always be better players than a bottom 6 guy taken after 10.

Neil is an All-Time Sens great, and one of the best of his kind of player of all time. But those types of guys aren't who you want with 10th overall, barring a draft like 99 like someone else alluded too.

That wasn't the question though was it? Not knowing anything about how the guys picked after him would turn out & knowing how Neil turned out, I would pick Neil, he was my favourite player. Of course if you did know, you would probably have to pick those other guys although I would hate to pass on Neiler.

Let's also not forget, that you & I had this very same arguement about Tom Wilson who I wanted in the first rd, I don't think he has been a disappointment for Washington, at least his cup ring says no. We prefer different kind of players, I think that is fairly obvious & would have very different teams.

It's kind of an unfair comparison. If Boucher turns into Neil, it will be a solid pick, no doubt, but he's far from guaranteed to turn out as good as Neil, in fact, I'm not convinced the likelihood of Boucher becoming the next Neil is any better than the likelihood Silinger becomes the next Rantanen.

At the time of the draft, we had a bit less info, and I thought based on the uncertainty surrounding that years draft in particular, projections were much tougher. I suspect the team though he was a Dustin Brown type, which would be a fine pick at 10. He's got the tools, so maybe there's still hope, but so far it's not looking promising. Yes, he had lots of setbacks which can be used to explain his struggles, but the reality is these development years are important, and you can't always make up for lost time.

Here's hoping next year he can put the last couple seasons behind him and start living up to the expectations that come with being drafted top 10.

I have no idea how he will turn out & doubt he will be anything like Neil. I was simply answering the question & given how Neil turned out he was great IMO.

 

[BondraTime]

That wasn't the question though was it? Not knowing anything about how the guys picked after him would turn out & knowing how Neil turned out, I would pick Neil, he was my favourite player. Of course if you did know, you would probably have to pick those other guys although I would hate to pass on Neiler.

Let's also not forget, that you & I had this very same arguement about Tom Wilson who I wanted in the first rd, I don't think he has been a disappointment for Washington, at least his cup ring says no. We prefer different kind of players, I think that is fairly obvious & would have very different teams.


I have no idea how he will turn out & doubt he will be anything like Neil. I was simply answering the question & given how Neil turned out he was great IMO.

Tom Wilson? I don't think I was even posting much at that time, I never started posting frequently until I graduated from University in 2013.

I probably had 1000 posts, tops, from 2005-2013, and they were all under a different username

 

[aragorn]

Tom Wilson? I don't think I was even posting much at that time, I never started posting frequently until I graduated from University in 2013.

I probably had 1000 posts, tops, from 2005-2013, and they were all under a different username

I thought it was you, I could be wrong, but I did have a similar argue with someone regarding drafting Tom Wilson in the first rd & they thought you don't draft goons in the first rd. I also had that argument with someone about Lucic going back even further. I seem to have that argument a lot on here.

 

[BondraTime]

I thought it was you, I could be wrong, but I did have a similar argue with someone regarding drafting Tom Wilson in the first rd & they thought you don't draft goons in the first rd. I also had that argument with someone about Lucic going back even further. I seem to have that argument a lot on here.

Very well could have been me, I can’t remember it at all, though it wouldn’t surprise me. I definitely wasn’t posting much, and definitely had a different username and picture at the time.

 

[Sweatred]

A team will never need more Chris Neil's than Erik Karlsson's, Tomas Chabot's, Drake Batherson, Brady Tkachuck, Mark Stone's etc. If you have an excellent chance to get one, even 1 in15, you roll the dice on that prospect rather than taking a guy that you could trade Neil for + a bunch of other assets. And that is presupposing that you knew Neil would be Neil. If you pick intelligently later on in the draft, develop well, make good signings/trades etc. you can find 3rd line players.

Taking a player with a ceiling as a 3rd liner is a terrible use of the 10th overall pick. Look at the 2003 draft in the first round after the 10th pick: Jeff Carter, Dustin Brown, Parise, Getzlaf, Burns, Richards, Boyle, Perry. Yes that's an absolutely ridiculous draft, but if you have even a 1 in 50 chance of getting a HHOF player you take that chance and roll the dice. That's how you end up winning Stanley Cups. You don't win Stanly Cups when you have the attitude that you have enough scoring so I'm going to pass on a chance to draft Ryan Getzlaf as I'd rather acquire Chris Neil.



I think it is hard to every truly know if a draft is going to be a 1999 or a 2003, aside from the absolute studs in the top 5ish. I think you have to always assume there are some potential superstars in every draft and on the balance of probabilities you are more likely to get one the higher the pick. Especially in the Top 20 or so.

10OA doesn’t get you EK… it gets you a coin toss between EK and Logan Brown.

The ceiling at 10OA is very attractive but it’s outcome isn’t assured.

Chris Neil is a better forward than Logan brown, Colin white, Shane Bowers and every forward we’ve taken in the first round in 10-15 years outside the top 6.

Good third line player are More valuable than crappy first liners or below average 2ND liners.

 

[ottawah]

Well, Mackenzie had him at 29th so I can’t give much credit to you thinking he’s a disappointment at 45…

Yes, but that also was the highest of any rankings. He was also out of the top 100 in some rankings.

One ranking of rankings had him about 50th, as did a large scout based ranking. Yes Mackenzie uses scouts, but only a very select few and as such one scout being high on someone can really skew the results. His sample size is too small statistically speaking to be considered definitive.



But in any case, I'd prefer this to be a question of management. The issue is far less about what Boucher is and will become versus management spending such a high pick on a player on a player that by rights should have went 40 spots later. And it was not just Boucher, that whole Ottawa draft reeked of this. It was just plain odd. A team like Ottawa needs to be a top drafting team for success, making it hard to go risky against 95+% of scouts opinions with a first round pick, much less top10.

As for Boucher specifically, if I look at him thru the lens of a later second round pick where he was expected to be drafted and looking at scouting reports, it is mildly disappointing, but not terribly bad and certainly not a write off not even close. There were issues for him that the top players in the draft can easily deal with due to their talent level, but obviously will affect players of second round caliber more. I'm quite happy waiting to see how the next few years go. Hopefully management saw something that 99 out of 100 other people missed ......

 

[SpezDispenser]

Ottawa makes a lot of excellent picks. This is not one of them.