Prospect Info: At 10th Overall The Senators Select Tyler Boucher

[RAFI BOMB]

You do realize that most of our scouts haven't played hockey at a high level, right?

The highest level Trent Mann played was CHL hockey, and no not the CHL you're thinking of. Dan Boeser played 1 game in the AHL, after spending most of his pro career in the UHL. Don Boyd didn't make it to the pro level, neither did Bobby Strum Jr, George Fargher, Anders Ostberg, or Todd Stirling. I believe the only one who did play at the NHL level was Bob Janecyk.

Real professionals? These guys didn't graduate from multi year scouting programs with a Masters in watching people play hockey. Most of them got their positions by knowing someone important, not by being the most qualified or having the most experience. For example, previous head scout Pierre Dorion Jr. happened to get his start in scouting after his father Pierre Dorion Sr., the head scout for the Leafs, passed away from a heart attack in 1994.

It's ridiculous to think individuals are somehow unqualified to watch young hockey players and come to conclusions about their potential. There's nothing stopping quote unquote "amateurs" from being able to outperform "professionals", despite never being involved in the sport at a high level. Same way there's nothing stopping amateurs on HFBoards from being able to praise or criticize moves made today by teams around the league.

Aren't you essentially just making a claim about your own superiority? Maybe I am interpreting things incorrectly, but I don't get the impression that you are all that concerned about the hypothetical possibility of an "amateur" competing with a "professional" and whether or not they can have comparable performances. It seems like you are really implying something specific. It kind of seems like you are claiming that you specifically are superior at scouting than Trent Mann. Not only that, that you are also claiming that your scouting abilities are superior to that of the combined scouting abilities of the entire Senators scouting staff. That you alone are more competent than a team of dedicated professionals who have spent years working at their craft. Doesn't that seem a bit grandiose?

 

[brakeyawself]

Aren't you essentially just making a claim about your own superiority? Maybe I am interpreting things incorrectly, but I don't get the impression that you are all that concerned about the hypothetical possibility of an "amateur" competing with a "professional" and whether or not they can have comparable performances. It seems like you are really implying something specific. It kind of seems like you are claiming that you specifically are superior at scouting than Trent Mann. Not only that, that you are also claiming that your scouting abilities are superior to that of the combined scouting abilities of the entire Senators scouting staff. That you alone are more competent than a team of dedicated professionals who have spent years working at their craft. Doesn't that seem a bit grandiose?

Now I realize why we had such a lively but ultimately one sided and non-progressive debate. You make assumptions that . You don't understand what he is actually saying even when it's all spelled out. And no, that doesn't seem like what he's saying, at all. I am not even sure if you actually read what he wrote. If you did, you added a whole lot of ridiculous and tangential hooey to what he did say. Which wasn't anything like what you seem to think he said.

But of course, gatekeepers usually do think themselves superior. And project it on to others.

 

[Sweatred]

So… Boucher look like a top 6 forward on Blue ? Should secure top 12 on USA U20 2022?

 

[Ice-Tray]

Be better Tray!

 

[DJB]

So… Boucher look like a top 6 forward on Blue ? Should secure top 12 on USA U20 2022?

So long as hes on the WJHC team I'll be happy no matter where he is in the lineup. So far from the intrasquad games he looks more than capable of playing top 6 though

 

[Sweatred]

So long as hes on the WJHC team I'll be happy no matter where he is in the lineup. So far from the intrasquad games he looks more than capable of playing top 6 though

Hope so!

 

[Hale The Villain]

Aren't you essentially just making a claim about your own superiority? Maybe I am interpreting things incorrectly, but I don't get the impression that you are all that concerned about the hypothetical possibility of an "amateur" competing with a "professional" and whether or not they can have comparable performances. It seems like you are really implying something specific. It kind of seems like you are claiming that you specifically are superior at scouting than Trent Mann. Not only that, that you are also claiming that your scouting abilities are superior to that of the combined scouting abilities of the entire Senators scouting staff. That you alone are more competent than a team of dedicated professionals who have spent years working at their craft. Doesn't that seem a bit grandiose?

What a laughable interpretation of my post. Embarrassing. Not even worth responding to.

 

[El Diego]

Now I realize why we had such a lively but ultimately one sided and non-progressive debate. You make assumptions that . You don't understand what he is actually saying even when it's all spelled out. And no, that doesn't seem like what he's saying, at all. I am not even sure if you actually read what he wrote. If you did, you added a whole lot of ridiculous and tangential hooey to what he did say. Which wasn't anything like what you seem to think he said.

But of course, gatekeepers usually do think themselves superior. And project it on to others.

I think the other issue is that people like the idea that hockey (or whatever it is they are into) is more complex than it actually is as it makes it more interesting/impressive. Like, if hockey analysis and scouting could be effectively done by 'amateurs' it would somehow invalidate their hobby.

We've seen nerds to a certain extent break baseball, basketball, and now football. People who have never played or really been involved in the game are unencumbered by the traditional views of 'right' and 'wrong' and can often make the biggest break throughs. This is more easily seen in strategy, but can also be true of scouting.

In any event, there is an interesting discussion to be had on this subject, but no one seems to be meaningfully engaging you which is a shame.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Your response to my post amounted to "you think you're superior to Trent Mann? Who do you think you are?"

And you think you're the reasonable one here? Give me a break.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Guys, it's hockey, not quantum physics.

And we're dealing with teenage kids drafted into the NHL. No one knows with 100% certainty how any of them will turn out. Relax.

 

[bert]

You do realize that most of our scouts haven't played hockey at a high level, right?

The highest level Trent Mann played was CHL hockey, and no not the CHL you're thinking of. Dan Boeser played 1 game in the AHL, after spending most of his pro career in the UHL. Don Boyd didn't make it to the pro level, neither did Bobby Strum Jr, George Fargher, Anders Ostberg, or Todd Stirling. I believe the only one who did play at the NHL level was Bob Janecyk.

Real professionals? These guys didn't graduate from multi year scouting programs with a Masters in watching people play hockey. Most of them got their positions by knowing someone important, not by being the most qualified or having the most experience. For example, previous head scout Pierre Dorion Jr. happened to get his start in scouting after his father Pierre Dorion Sr., the head scout for the Leafs, passed away from a heart attack in 1994.

It's ridiculous to think individuals are somehow unqualified to watch young hockey players and come to conclusions about their potential. There's nothing stopping quote unquote "amateurs" from being able to outperform "professionals", despite never being involved in the sport at a high level. Same way there's nothing stopping amateurs on HFBoards from being able to praise or criticize moves made today by teams around the league.

So based on your theory someone who has never played competitive hockey has been exposed to as much as everyone that played but didnt make it to the NHL. Which is incredibly flawed. Playing in the CJHL, the OHL, post secondary, and pro etc still provides massive amounts of exposure to great coaching, systems, experiences like winning losing and competing etc. Being around people that have been around the game is also a very usefull tool and is invaluable information. Some experience is absolutely needed. Its incredibly evident on the boards alone. You can tell who has and who hasnt pretty quickly by reading their content.

Back to Boucher, really liking the pick love what he brings to the table. I think if he wasnt hurt this year and got more exposure this wouldnt be seen as a reach at all.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I think the other issue is that people like the idea that hockey (or whatever it is they are into) is more complex than it actually is as it makes it more interesting/impressive. Like, if hockey analysis and scouting could be effectively done by 'amateurs' it would somehow invalidate their hobby.

We've seen nerds to a certain extent break baseball, basketball, and now football. People who have never played or really been involved in the game are unencumbered by the traditional views of 'right' and 'wrong' and can often make the biggest break throughs. This is more easily seen in strategy, but can also be true of scouting.

In any event, there is an interesting discussion to be had on this subject, but no one seems to be meaningfully engaging you which is a shame.

The inverse is also very true.

In my opinion the truth is smack dab in the middle, as it is with virtually all professions.

It isn’t rocket science, it’s not a terribly complex job that an onlooker can’t understand. This of course is where the confusion lies, because people equate ‘not complex’ with being easy.

There is a massive difference between watching and understanding, and doing/creating the ‘watched’ behaviour.

Sure, scouting looks easy for example; sit there and watch games, talk to a few people, we could ALL physically do that.

The difference is typically the wealth of accumulated knowledge, both internal and that which is passed down by mentors, there is experience, confidence, and in many professions a basic competency threshold that has to be passed to gain employment. There are also some intangibles in many professions, like natural skill or artistry, that come into play that make some people much better at certain things than others.

I think the main issues with this topic is that fans often blur the lines between having fun making mock trades and draft picks, to actually believing in their own skills at these things. It’s easy to see why when folks can mimic some of the actions they see, and argue that they understand the process, all the while missing all of the more tangible and important parts of what make a professional a professional.

I mean we’re all experts on everything from the comfort of the couch, hidden behind a veil of anonymity.

 

[Micklebot]

So based on your theory someone who has never played competitive hockey has been exposed to as much as everyone that played but didnt make it to the NHL

Kyle Dubas stoped playing hockey at 14, which probably explains the leafs... (Only partially joking)

 

[JungleBeat]

Teams are really going to hate us with one of Boucher, Tkachuk, Formenton or Greig on the ice at all times lol

Kleven and Crookshank too lol

And Parker Kelly. I really like the direction the team. Tenacious

Every prospect is not going to pan out. There was a time that this dcore was viewed as going to be elite.

Cowen - Karlsson
Wiercioch - Ceci
Blood - Borowiecki

 

[JimmySpaetzle]

Every prospect is not going to pan out. There was a time that this dcore was viewed as going to be elite.

Cowen - Karlsson
Wiercioch - Ceci
Blood - Borowiecki

Man if all those guys hit their potential that actually woulda been a really good D-Corps. How times have changed lol

 

[STUDtzle]

Kyle Dubas stoped playing hockey at 14, which probably explains the leafs... (Only partially joking)

I'll never forget looking at him nervously walking around the acc before game 7 and me thinking "what a dork"

 

[Agent Zub]

Most of us has watched 1000s of hours of hockey, some of us have played 1000s of hours of hockey.

The idea that scouts and gms are special and by default right is dumb.

 

[El Diego]

The inverse is also very true.

In my opinion the truth is smack dab in the middle, as it is with virtually all professions.

It isn’t rocket science, it’s not a terribly complex job that an onlooker can’t understand. This of course is where the confusion lies, because people equate ‘not complex’ with being easy.

There is a massive difference between watching and understanding, and doing/creating the ‘watched’ behaviour.

Sure, scouting looks easy for example; sit there and watch games, talk to a few people, we could ALL physically do that.

The difference is typically the wealth of accumulated knowledge, both internal and that which is passed down by mentors, there is experience, confidence, and in many professions a basic competency threshold that has to be passed to gain employment. There are also some intangibles in many professions, like natural skill or artistry, that come into play that make some people much better at certain things than others.

I think the main issues with this topic is that fans often blur the lines between having fun making mock trades and draft picks, to actually believing in their own skills at these things. It’s easy to see why when folks can mimic some of the actions they see, and argue that they understand the process, all the while missing all of the more tangible and important parts of what make a professional a professional.

I mean we’re all experts on everything from the comfort of the couch, hidden behind a veil of anonymity.

I agree with much of what your saying (and would wager that breakyawself would as well, actually). One of his main points early on was that the wisdom of the crowd is something you should consider, though it should not be determinative. I don't think anyone could plausibly argue that there is no minimum skill threshold for being a decent scout.

One thing I will say is that I don't for a second buy that professionals at the highest levels of the game are somehow good at their job by virtue of being there, or by being professional. Time and time again I am astounded at the absolutely moronic decisions that high level GMs, coaches, and scouts make, and almost always those bad decisions are made because of an appeal to tradition or to some social more specific to the sport.

Fun little story (at least I think it's fun): I went to a 2008 Canada - Russia series game in Guelph, Ontario between the OHL and Russia select team. There were a bunch of scouts around me, and I could kinda hear them talking. I had broken my leg recently and was on crutches, which I leaned against a pole while I sat in my seat. I overheard two scouts standing behind me talking about Dadonov, and one of the scouts said there was no way he would draft him because "he's the size of those crutches over there".

 

[Dan Patrick]

Every prospect is not going to pan out. There was a time that this dcore was viewed as going to be elite.

Cowen - Karlsson
Wiercioch - Ceci
Blood - Borowiecki

While you're not wrong, I think the Sens development program for young players has improved significantly since this board was hyping those guys. Ceci being such a whipping boy while he was here is likely a casualty of that poor development. Ceci is a serviceable defencemen and has taken steps forward since being properly deployed for his skill. Also while its still absolutely possible that our guys face something similar at least with Cowen's career he was significantly derailed by injuries and lack of hockey sense being able to make up for slowing down.

The bottom two guys on your list were also 4th and 5th round picks and so had significantly less skill then the 4 guys i would rank the closest to breaking into the NHL for the Sens. All that to say I think we'll be in good shape if even half of them get anywhere close to their potential. But I understand the need to temper expectations.

 

[bert]

The inverse is also very true.

In my opinion the truth is smack dab in the middle, as it is with virtually all professions.

It isn’t rocket science, it’s not a terribly complex job that an onlooker can’t understand. This of course is where the confusion lies, because people equate ‘not complex’ with being easy.

There is a massive difference between watching and understanding, and doing/creating the ‘watched’ behaviour.

Sure, scouting looks easy for example; sit there and watch games, talk to a few people, we could ALL physically do that.

The difference is typically the wealth of accumulated knowledge, both internal and that which is passed down by mentors, there is experience, confidence, and in many professions a basic competency threshold that has to be passed to gain employment. There are also some intangibles in many professions, like natural skill or artistry, that come into play that make some people much better at certain things than others.

I think the main issues with this topic is that fans often blur the lines between having fun making mock trades and draft picks, to actually believing in their own skills at these things. It’s easy to see why when folks can mimic some of the actions they see, and argue that they understand the process, all the while missing all of the more tangible and important parts of what make a professional a professional.

I mean we’re all experts on everything from the comfort of the couch, hidden behind a veil of anonymity.

Great post, the bolded especially. We all can watch and form opinions, however are we all watching the same thing? For example, when you see a player make a mistake or a good play do you know why that happened based on what lead up to the player making that decision? Some plays are obvious but some certainly arent. Some are complex because a series of things happened prior to the decision. If you are truly able to break down these complex plays you have to have a pretty good understanding of systems. Most teams play similar systems, but unless you played at a high enough level you wont be exposed to this type information. I think if you had someone explain it to you and watch tape you can eventually understand them. Its not impossible for someone that didnt play at a high enough level to get a healthy grasp on these systems and why some of the decisions are made on the ice but you would need help.

I wanted to use this clip on the Stone overtime goal as an example of compounding mistakes but it doesnt go far enough back unfortunately. However if you can remember there was a massive error made that resulted in the odd man rush and it wasnt just Graves firing into the shin pads twice in a row. Earlier in the play Makar jumped up into the rush and Compher covered. Instead of staying on the point and covering while Makar was pinching and under the impression that Compher was still there Makar stayed in deep. Compher then changed while covering for Makar, Graves made the decision of shooting the second time thinking he had support. This was all done when it was on a long change, Compher should have known better. A horrible error and in my opinion the main reason the goal was scored.

 

[SlapJack]

Most of us has watched 1000s of hours of hockey, some of us have played 1000s of hours of hockey.

The idea that scouts and gms are special and by default right is dumb.

The idea that anyone with all that experience makes them competent at scouting and management is equally dumb. You can read a million books, but that doesn't mean you understood them.

The pros make mistakes as does everyone and of course they can be criticized for those mistakes. But this is a multi million dollar business where people are hired based on their competence to do a task. Those people work their way up the ladder and can come from a wide array of backgrounds. You can be an amazing scout without ever having picked up a hockey stick.

I can look at what the team does as a fan, completely disagree with their decisions, and vent my frustrations with alternate solutions, but to say that they don't know what they're doing is simplistic.

We all have jobs in real life and are good at what we do. Sometimes we make errors in judgement. Other times, people with no experience like to tell us how to do that job better without having the faintest notion of all the details required to do a task. This is no different. We don't have all the info.

The Senators took the guy they wanted and had all kinds of reasons internally why they shouldn't have picked somebody else. Frankly, if you did an analysis over the years of guys who were reaches vs guys who dropped according to consensus rankings, it would probably be proportionately even with hits and misses from both buckets. Most guys fall for a reason but we only point out the ones who didn't bust. And whenever a reach is successful, the narrative years later will be either, "why wasn't he ranked higher?", or completely forgotten about altogether.

 

[JD1]

Most of us has watched 1000s of hours of hockey, some of us have played 1000s of hours of hockey.

The idea that scouts and gms are special and by default right is dumb.

I've watched 1000s of hours of hockey and played 1000s of hours of it as well.

There's no such thing as right or wrong when picking teenagers. Every so often there's a genuine stand out no brainer but after that, it's not easy.

But despite having played and watched 1000s of hours, i don't think that i have the knowledge of people that make a living in the game. Personally I find it presumptuous when internet warriors think their opinions are equally valid with those that make their living in the game - and to clarify i mean employed within the NHL structure, not scribing about the game. Might the internet warrior get something right over a professional opinion now and again? Sure. But on balance the knowledge of the game between these two communities isn't comparable

 

[JaredCowen4Norris]

Kyle Dubas stoped playing hockey at 14, which probably explains the leafs... (Only partially joking)

My one thing with Dubas is that even he had a family connection that got his foot in the door. It's not like he started from nothing and got to where he is now. People tend to use him as proof that people outside the traditional hockey community would struggle, but he's just as steeped in hockey as Dorion. If anything Chayka is probably the true outsider. His tenure in Arizona wasn't great, but I also feel like hiring a 26 year old to immediately step into the GM role is just silly. Even Toronto gave Dubas some guidance by having Lou on their management team for those first few seasons. I wouldn't even say people considered Chayka a complete failure considering the fact that he had many sports orgs interested in bringing him on after things blew up in ARZ.

The same way that posters on here jump to say we don't know the behind-the-scenes with decisions the Sens make, I would say the same is true with Chayka, Dubas etc. For all we know Dubas might have not wanted to sign Tavares but was encouraged to do so by MLSE who knew it would be a great business decision (jersey sales alone would be big $) Maybe Chayka wasn't allowed to enact his full vision because of disagreements with ownership/coaching (ala Moneyball). If we're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to our management because they're "professionals" but not to other GMs who come from non-traditional hockey backgrounds then it just seems like we're being arbitrary. Hence the original posters claim of gatekeeping.

Not pinning that on you though, just thought I'd chime in re: Dubas.

 

[Micklebot]

I've watched 1000s of hours of hockey and played 1000s of hours of it as well.

There's no such thing as right or wrong when picking teenagers. Every so often there's a genuine stand out no brainer but after that, it's not easy.

But despite having played and watched 1000s of hours, i don't think that i have the knowledge of people that make a living in the game. Personally I find it presumptuous when internet warriors think their opinions are equally valid with those that make their living in the game - and to clarify i mean employed within the NHL structure, not scribing about the game. Might the internet warrior get something right over a professional opinion now and again? Sure. But on balance the knowledge of the game between these two communities isn't comparable

To be fair, everyone does it to some degree, who among us didn't question Dubas' decision making bringing in Tavares...

Sorry, just can't pass on a chance to take another shot at Dubas...

 

[Butchy Dakkar]

Came in to check on Tyler Boucher discussion.

Um...