Word. @Mike Farkas put into words what I didn't even know I was thinking. The skating concerns always seemed silly to me. What put me off was his defensive game. The first few games I watched of him were pretty good: good enough for me to buy the lethargy argument. Then I saw another game in which there were some real WTF moments. Little by little you start noticing things in his game that just aren't right. But the extent of it that Mike lays out is pretty severe, and he deserves some serious credit for putting into words what I think a lot of people were thinking, but perhaps didn't fully understand. That play where he manages to lose both Soo Greyhounds on a nothing 2 on 2 was pretty eye opening.
D Evan Bouchard - London Knights, OHL (2018, 10th, EDM)
- Thread starter leaflover
- Start date
- Status
Word. @Mike Farkas put into words what I didn't even know I was thinking. The skating concerns always seemed silly to me. What put me off was his defensive game. The first few games I watched of him were pretty good: good enough for me to buy the lethargy argument. Then I saw another game in which there were some real WTF moments. Little by little you start noticing things in his game that just aren't right. But the extent of it that Mike lays out is pretty severe, and he deserves some serious credit for putting into words what I think a lot of people were thinking, but perhaps didn't fully understand. That play where he manages to lose both Soo Greyhounds on a nothing 2 on 2 was pretty eye opening.
DJB
Registered User
Oh yiu mean the argument that Lemieux, Gretzky did know how to play defense just chose not too? That's hogwash.
Marks original argument that Bouchard lacks hockey sense because he isn't proficient defensively has had many holes blasted through it.
I initially argued that players can learn and become more proficient defensively which i believe Bouchard is capable of. I also argued using Marks own argument that guys like Gretzky must lack hockey sense as well because he wasn't proficient defensively.
Its like someone is arguing that only doctors and lawyers are intelligent but auto mechanics are not. Its ridiculous.
Mark's argument is that he believes Gretzky (or smart one way players in general) are actually smart at both ends of the ice. The problems are that theyre either too lazy to display it in the other end, lack the technical skills required to play in the other end or a combination of both. From your first sentence, it seems that you actually understand what hes saying and you dont agree with him on these points, and thats totally fine.
But then your counter arguments to his points in your third paragraph are kind of a head scratcher, to me at least. Your comment about Gretzky is the complete opposite of what hes trying to say. He didnt say Gretzky lacks hockey IQ because he sucks defensively, he said Gretzky's terrible defense is due to him being lazy defensively. You actually correctly represented Mike's stance in your first sentence, but then somehow completely misinterpreted it in your third paragraph?
And then the comment about Bouchard being able to learn defense. I dont think Mike wrote anything against players being unable to learn. And unless im missing something, i dont see how this has anything to do with a player having hockey IQ or not. Are you trying to say hockey IQ can be taught?
And then your comment about doctors and mechanics, i actually have no idea what this analogy is trying to represent. Are doctors supposed to be two way players and mechs the one way players?
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Sigh, last try...it was a good run of discussion regardless though, boys, thanks.
I'll just try to go in order as to not confuse the issue.
- Lemieux and Gretzky both have shown excellent defensive efforts with their mental game at times where it was needed. Lemieux in the 1992 Patrick Division Semifinal is a great example of this. Why would these players "waste" (ugh, that's not great wording) their energy in the defensive zone when they were so proficient in the offensive zone? That wasn't the style at the time, and they had other guys handling their F1 duties defensively. For a lot of their time together, Jari Kurri handled Gretzky's F1 duties (typical center duties) defensively so that Gretzky pick things at the point and push the defense back/fly the zone when the opportunity arose. His shorthanded OT winner vs Calgary in 1988 Smythe Division Final is one of many fine examples of this. They were so skilled offensively that coaches felt the need to have other players grind it out for them defensively.
Even under Dan Bylsma, Sidney Crosby got this luxury from Pascal Dupuis. But, because Crosby's incredibly smart and would be great defensively if that was his role, in the playoffs, Crosby is gold defensively and goes end line to end line all the time. That's what it takes to win a 7-game series. Another example off-hand is Joe Thornton's NHL game vs his international game. There's a ton of examples of this, both historical and contemporary. I'm not sure why it sounds like this is the first ever mention of it, it's been a pretty plain thing for some time. Henri Richard's role in Montreal compared to what Stan Mikita was allowed to do in Chicago. There's many examples abound.
- My argument is not that he lacks hockey sense because he isn't proficient defensively. That's not at all true. He lacks hockey sense and therefore he isn't proficient defensively. I feel like the posts you are responding to were not read closely enough. The lack of hockey sense is mentioned both in his defensive game and his offensive game and it's laid out via word and video. Now, if you choose to disagree with that, that's perfectly fine. I just ask that my point not be mischaracterized by your inability or unwillingness to understand it. I think that's a fair ask.
- Yes, we know, all players are capable of getting better. That's the old standby. And then in five years and everyone sits around scratching their [heads] and going "how come that guy didn't pan out? He did this and this...and he had that and that...what the hell happened *scratch*" - I'm giving that reason now. You have not demonstrated that you have grasped my points yet, much less tried to turn them around on me. I'm still trying to get you to the base line, you're already trying to make conclusions.
I'll just try to go in order as to not confuse the issue.
- Lemieux and Gretzky both have shown excellent defensive efforts with their mental game at times where it was needed. Lemieux in the 1992 Patrick Division Semifinal is a great example of this. Why would these players "waste" (ugh, that's not great wording) their energy in the defensive zone when they were so proficient in the offensive zone? That wasn't the style at the time, and they had other guys handling their F1 duties defensively. For a lot of their time together, Jari Kurri handled Gretzky's F1 duties (typical center duties) defensively so that Gretzky pick things at the point and push the defense back/fly the zone when the opportunity arose. His shorthanded OT winner vs Calgary in 1988 Smythe Division Final is one of many fine examples of this. They were so skilled offensively that coaches felt the need to have other players grind it out for them defensively.
Even under Dan Bylsma, Sidney Crosby got this luxury from Pascal Dupuis. But, because Crosby's incredibly smart and would be great defensively if that was his role, in the playoffs, Crosby is gold defensively and goes end line to end line all the time. That's what it takes to win a 7-game series. Another example off-hand is Joe Thornton's NHL game vs his international game. There's a ton of examples of this, both historical and contemporary. I'm not sure why it sounds like this is the first ever mention of it, it's been a pretty plain thing for some time. Henri Richard's role in Montreal compared to what Stan Mikita was allowed to do in Chicago. There's many examples abound.
- My argument is not that he lacks hockey sense because he isn't proficient defensively. That's not at all true. He lacks hockey sense and therefore he isn't proficient defensively. I feel like the posts you are responding to were not read closely enough. The lack of hockey sense is mentioned both in his defensive game and his offensive game and it's laid out via word and video. Now, if you choose to disagree with that, that's perfectly fine. I just ask that my point not be mischaracterized by your inability or unwillingness to understand it. I think that's a fair ask.
- Yes, we know, all players are capable of getting better. That's the old standby. And then in five years and everyone sits around scratching their [heads] and going "how come that guy didn't pan out? He did this and this...and he had that and that...what the hell happened *scratch*" - I'm giving that reason now. You have not demonstrated that you have grasped my points yet, much less tried to turn them around on me. I'm still trying to get you to the base line, you're already trying to make conclusions.
DJB
Registered User
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
If it makes you feel any better, you never started haha
Madic
Registered User
- May 21, 2008
- 2,651
- 63
I dug the video in part because it WAS so strongly opinionated. Luke-warm opinions about highly regarded things (of any nature) are boring and often gutless. Take a stance.
I have no idea if Bouchard plays like that all the time, but it's hard to watch that video and not agree that Bouchard was lazy and dopey around his net.
I have no idea if Bouchard plays like that all the time, but it's hard to watch that video and not agree that Bouchard was lazy and dopey around his net.
You're exhausting to read. You can disagree with someone's opinion, but his reasoning is sound and you won't accept it and get petty.
Great video and analysis. You seem personally offended by Bouchard's existence lol. But if these are his "lowlights" then I'm not worried about the kid at all. Some trying to do too much there, for sure, but I loved his 1-on-1 game which I've seen a little criticism about. Skating looks solid, positioning looked fine to me but not without communication which you pointed out as being an issue that I absolutely agree with for all defensemen. I think you making it a point to knock his hockey sense is interesting (and not invalid according to your commentary), but I perceive those hockey sense "mistakes" as just kind of seeing things differently. I think he reads players well more than he reads plays well. Obviously that's completely my own point of view and jumping to a certain conclusion, but watching his actual defensive zone play, it looked like he attacked specific guys more than he attacked specific situations--a very weird (but i don't think bad) mix of aggressive and passive play. Might not work in the NHL but he also won't be asked to do half of what was expected of him on his junior team. Could definitely be a difficult adjustment on multiple levels, but I'd take my chances on his upside. Again, good watch, appreciate the perspective, made me think a bit lol
Castle8130
Registered User
- May 9, 2017
- 2,741
- 2,018
I thought the guy in the video was trying to really downplay bouchards talent. That is probably the worst of bouchard and he was acting like that was just the start of many more problems to come. He has phenomenal breakout passes and is a monster in the offensive zone.
Many teams will regret passing Bouchard in 3 years. He’s not perfect, but he’s still a fantastic prospect with the highest ceiling of any defender not named a Dahlin in this draft. The kid is going to be good.
IslandersFan17
Registered User
Critical13
Fear is the mind-killer.
I definitely do not agree with @Mike Farkas but I respect how much effort he put into his argument.
Yeah whenever I've watched what he's capable of offensively, I can't be convinced that he doesn't think the game at a high level.
The appeal with Dobson isn’t his ceiling IMO. I want my Canucks to draft Dobson, but Bouchard definetly has a higher ceiling. Anyways back on topic, the appeal to Dobson is his relatively high ceiling and how safe of a pick he is. I have my doubts he’s going to be a #1 Norris winning defenseman, and I could be wrong. To me he’s more of a high end #2, but he’s a safe bet to become a solid#2. Bouchard has the chance to be a game breaking #1 defenseman. He’s less likely to get there, but there’s a chance. Bouchard would benefit going to a team that knows how to develop young players, which is why I’m more inclined to choosing Dobson, but the pay off drafting Bouchard could be huge, he just has that potential factor where he can put a team on his back, and carry them to victory.
Agreed. I've seen a lot of Bouchard this year and that was definitely the worst game I've seen him play.
He's always been somewhat pedestrian in the defensive zone, but that game was something else entirely. Kid was sleepwalking out there.
I gotta say I really enjoyed reading @Mike Farkas analysis in this thread, and his youtube breakdown of Bouchards shifts was an eye opener. I have not followed Bouchard but some of the mistakes he was making are inexcusable. We have youth players who dont make those mistakes.
Love
Registered User
- Feb 29, 2012
- 15,046
- 12,321
I respect how much time you put into all this but you seem to have an agenda. And when you gave his vision a C grade, I felt that you lost a lot of credibility unless you care to explain.
Brock Otten, who’s OHL opinion is greatly respected by myself and many others, wrote this about Bouchard: “His ability to start the breakout is his best asset, with his vision off the rush and his booming point shot a close 2nd and 3rd. Bouchard just has unreal vision from the defensive end and pinpoint accuracy with his stretch passes. When he's on the ice, the Knights can go from being under attack in the defensive end to a 3 on 1 within a matter of seconds thanks to Bouchard's ability to get the puck out.”
Snippit
Registered User
- Dec 5, 2012
- 16,628
- 9,959
I also disagree with the idea that he has low hockey IQ...Mike went on later to say that his offensive point totals are not a result of his hockey intelligence but rather "a willingness to shoot from anywhere and his puck rushing ability" @Mike Farkas
Bouchard isn't even much of a puck rusher. He creates odd man rushes by recognizing developing situations and getting the puck up to the open forwards.
Brock's description of Bouchard more closely matches what I saw this year.
You're talking about a guy who has Bouchard ranked in the 2nd round, and has undrafted overager Joey Keane as his #1 OHL draft-eligible D.
Dude took two parts of Bouchard's worst games of the year, overanalyzed them and pretended that he played that way all the time. Saying he has an agenda is putting it mildly.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Just a couple of points in random order if I may...
- Did I have an agenda? Oh absolutely. I stated that in the beginning that I question his hockey sense and there isn't a great way to demonstrate that via text. Even with video, if you don't have hockey sense yourself, it won't really do much...but the "agenda", as it were, is in the title...I can't imagine me ever making a highlight video, so many people could do it better plus, I hate those things haha (apparently, I took the worst game of his life out here...which is possible, except that it is two games that are months apart and it's just shift over shift where he's on the screen...I'm not looking for flaws, I'm just not looking for highlights either...moreover, there's two more games that were left on the cutting room floor because they were redundant...as the exact same issues were prevalent and also the video was running long...watching a player more than four times is unnecessary and will probably result in over-scouting)
- Yeah, I don't like to p***yfoot around with "this guy has solid this" or "decent that"...if you're using "solid" more than once every like 50 player reports or something like that, now that's something I'd call a credibility coster (or whatever the term is for that)...in my world, "solid" (probably) equals "don't know"...
- I think some teams actually will regret passing on Bouchard in three years. I'd expect him to look like probably the 2nd best defenseman from this draft in three years...in 5, 6, 7, 8 years...I'd predict he'd fall to around 8 or 10th or so...at least in terms of asset value and then that will gradually turn into career value as longevity factors in...he's gonna play in the league, that's not a question in my mind. And his value is probably going to be very high throughout his entry-level deal and this thread will look ridiculous (well, just me really) and then when we look back from a higher view, I think we'll see a different view...
- Brock and I have talked about prospects for many years now, he's just an awesome resource and I love reading his material. I have for a long, long time now. And in this particular case we disagree, which is perfectly fine. Brock even re-tweeted my video I think haha. I think Bouchard's vision for things in front of his face are fine (thus, him grading out average), but I don't think it's next level and he really fails to catalog things that have passed the plane of his vision. Vision doesn't just equal passing. I think I touched on this earlier in the thread in more detail.
My rankings rarely match up to anything that's out there...I think in 2013, I was Ristolainen, Theodore, Jones, and then I think either Morrissey or Santini...2015 was Provorov, Werenski, Hanifin/Chabot, Saarijarvi...somewhere in the next tier I had Nutivaara but then also Pilon, Simon Bourque and Matthew Spencer over guys like Rasmus Andersson and Oliver Kylington...so that's not looking so hot...
So this year (OHL d-men only), I have two guys in a tier on their own that I believe were passed over last year...Joey Keane and Mac Hollowell. Not that the Central Scouting rankings are very relevant, but Keane was unranked at the mid-terms, now is at 111. I see Hollowell has moved up to right behind him too. Those guys are the top of the OHL defense crop for me. We'll see how it goes...
- Did I have an agenda? Oh absolutely. I stated that in the beginning that I question his hockey sense and there isn't a great way to demonstrate that via text. Even with video, if you don't have hockey sense yourself, it won't really do much...but the "agenda", as it were, is in the title...I can't imagine me ever making a highlight video, so many people could do it better plus, I hate those things haha (apparently, I took the worst game of his life out here...which is possible, except that it is two games that are months apart and it's just shift over shift where he's on the screen...I'm not looking for flaws, I'm just not looking for highlights either...moreover, there's two more games that were left on the cutting room floor because they were redundant...as the exact same issues were prevalent and also the video was running long...watching a player more than four times is unnecessary and will probably result in over-scouting)
- Yeah, I don't like to p***yfoot around with "this guy has solid this" or "decent that"...if you're using "solid" more than once every like 50 player reports or something like that, now that's something I'd call a credibility coster (or whatever the term is for that)...in my world, "solid" (probably) equals "don't know"...
- I think some teams actually will regret passing on Bouchard in three years. I'd expect him to look like probably the 2nd best defenseman from this draft in three years...in 5, 6, 7, 8 years...I'd predict he'd fall to around 8 or 10th or so...at least in terms of asset value and then that will gradually turn into career value as longevity factors in...he's gonna play in the league, that's not a question in my mind. And his value is probably going to be very high throughout his entry-level deal and this thread will look ridiculous (well, just me really) and then when we look back from a higher view, I think we'll see a different view...
- Brock and I have talked about prospects for many years now, he's just an awesome resource and I love reading his material. I have for a long, long time now. And in this particular case we disagree, which is perfectly fine. Brock even re-tweeted my video I think haha. I think Bouchard's vision for things in front of his face are fine (thus, him grading out average), but I don't think it's next level and he really fails to catalog things that have passed the plane of his vision. Vision doesn't just equal passing. I think I touched on this earlier in the thread in more detail.
My rankings rarely match up to anything that's out there...I think in 2013, I was Ristolainen, Theodore, Jones, and then I think either Morrissey or Santini...2015 was Provorov, Werenski, Hanifin/Chabot, Saarijarvi...somewhere in the next tier I had Nutivaara but then also Pilon, Simon Bourque and Matthew Spencer over guys like Rasmus Andersson and Oliver Kylington...so that's not looking so hot...
So this year (OHL d-men only), I have two guys in a tier on their own that I believe were passed over last year...Joey Keane and Mac Hollowell. Not that the Central Scouting rankings are very relevant, but Keane was unranked at the mid-terms, now is at 111. I see Hollowell has moved up to right behind him too. Those guys are the top of the OHL defense crop for me. We'll see how it goes...
Last edited:
So let me get this straight: Bouchard is your 5th ranked draft eligible OHL defenseman prospect. OK.
I have to say I admire you. Apparently this entire board is now convinced that Bouchard has a lot of defensive issues and bad hockey sense because of that one video. You should write stock market reports for stocks that you want to buy cheap.
I have to say I admire you. Apparently this entire board is now convinced that Bouchard has a lot of defensive issues and bad hockey sense because of that one video. You should write stock market reports for stocks that you want to buy cheap.
Breakers
Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
Maybe the most creative D-man in the offensive zone for using a variety of tools.
But ohh my do his neutral zone stats, and gap control suck.
But ohh my do his neutral zone stats, and gap control suck.
Castle8130
Registered User
- May 9, 2017
- 2,741
- 2,018
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
GAME 6 - Saskatoon Blades @ Moose Jaw Warriors - Saskatoon Blades leads series 3-2Wagers: 3Staked: $1,525.00Event closes- Updated:
-
