Prospect Info: Tyler Boucher (F) - PART II

[Micklebot]

This pick be be a total bust if he didn’t have more skill than an undrafted bottom six player like Barclay Goodrow.

He didn't say that though, and being undrafted is completely irrelevant.

Teams value hardworking physical players, Coleman just got a deal that was significantly bigger than consistent 25-30 goal scorer Hoffman. There's a reason for that, physical play provides a lot of value.

 

[JungleBeat]

He didn't say that though, and being undrafted is completely irrelevant.

Teams value hardworking physical players, Coleman just got a deal that was significantly bigger than consistent 25-30 goal scorer Hoffman. There's a reason for that, physical play provides a lot of value.

You think that deal is only because Coleman is physical? He provides elite defence and even strength play. Is Boucher projected to be an elite two - way forward?

 

[Hale The Villain]

A Coleman, Clutterbuck or Goodrow is a valuable player, as their contracts in the 3-5M range prove, but it's not what you want from a top 10 pick.

Most of the value in draft picks is their lottery ticket nature - getting a potential star on a 3YR ELC that saves the team 10M-20M over the life of the deal relative to what it would have cost to pay an equivalent free agent or trade target.

Boucher doesn't have that kind of potential. Maybe he's a 20-20-40 guy that brings as much value as 50-60P guys because of his physical play and impact away from the puck (even though he's not very good defensively, at least right now), but that chances of him ending up a star is almost non-existent.

Players like Sillinger and Lucius with high-end IQ, hands and scoring ability have that kind of potential, even if it's by no means a guarantee, and we shouldn't have passed them on.

 

[TheDebater]

I'm not convinced he has a lot more offense in him. Expecting him to stagnate around 60P a year.

If Brady continues to be a 200+ hit per season and becomes a consistent 60 point player...then we have a gem on our hands. You are underestimating the difficulty of playing a physical game and putting up 60 points at the same time.

I went back and checked, the only players since 2009-2010 to score 60 points or more in a season and have 200 or more hits are Andrew Ladd (1x in 2015), Milan Lucic (1x in 2012), David Backes (1x in 2011) and finally, the one player who has done it almost every year since he came in the league? Alex Ovechkin.

That is only four players in a span of a decade, three of them did it once, and one of them is a future Hall of famer, former 1st overall pick and arguably a top 5 all-time player in history.

Edit: I realize it is veering slightly off topic, but if Boucher is going to be compared to guys like Tkachuk, then it is only fair to use stats to give a more clear image. It seems expectations for Boucher are sky-high simply because he is a #10 overall pick.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Players like Sillinger and Lucius with high-end IQ, hands and scoring ability have that kind of potential, even if it's by no means a guarantee, and we shouldn't have passed them on.

Yea, love Boucher but I have hard time justifying drafting him over Sillinger.

Boucher's numbers are on par with Tkachuks(and even better) with similar style of play--though I don't see the same creativty and playmaking ability--so maybe he becomes closer to Tkachuk than Goodrow.. which is def worthy of top 10.

 

[SensontheRush]

A Coleman, Clutterbuck or Goodrow is a valuable player, as their contracts in the 3-5M range prove, but it's not what you want from a top 10 pick.

Most of the value in draft picks is their lottery ticket nature - getting a potential star on a 3YR ELC that saves the team 10M-20M over the life of the deal relative to what it would have cost to pay an equivalent free agent or trade target.

Boucher doesn't have that kind of potential. Maybe he's a 20-20-40 guy that brings as much value as 50-60P guys because of his physical play and impact away from the puck (even though he's not very good defensively, at least right now), but that chances of him ending up a star is almost non-existent.

Players like Sillinger and Lucius with high-end IQ, hands and scoring ability have that kind of potential, even if it's by no means a guarantee, and we shouldn't have passed them on.

I'd rank Sillinger and Boucher as similar prospects. Lucius is a bit better than the both of them imo, when it comes to skill.

Sillinger definitely does not have this elite IQ, hands, package that you think Boucher is lacking.

 

[Dan Patrick]

A Coleman, Clutterbuck or Goodrow is a valuable player, as their contracts in the 3-5M range prove, but it's not what you want from a top 10 pick.

Most of the value in draft picks is their lottery ticket nature - getting a potential star on a 3YR ELC that saves the team 10M-20M over the life of the deal relative to what it would have cost to pay an equivalent free agent or trade target.

Boucher doesn't have that kind of potential. Maybe he's a 20-20-40 guy that brings as much value as 50-60P guys because of his physical play and impact away from the puck (even though he's not very good defensively, at least right now), but that chances of him ending up a star is almost non-existent.

Players like Sillinger and Lucius with high-end IQ, hands and scoring ability have that kind of potential, even if it's by no means a guarantee, and we shouldn't have passed them on.

Just to remind everyone what kind of players we should expect to get at 10th overall.

NHL Players selected at the 10th draft position at hockeydb.com

I wouldn't have taken Boucher at 10 but it seams to be quite the crapshoot starting at the 10 spot. If he can be a 40 point player who plays for more than 320 games then we did significantly better than the average. I think I'd be happy with that. People obsess too much about making the absolute best pick with your draft position and dont consider how important just getting a contributing NHL player can be.

 

[Micklebot]

You think that deal is only because Coleman is physical? He provides elite defence and even strength play. Is Boucher projected to be an elite two - way forward?

What I said was physical play provides value, his contract is the sum of all the value he provides, of which the physicality is a component, but with Boucher it's all 'no skill'.

Heck, Goodrow who Boucher certainly projects as more skilled than just got a 6 year 3.6 mil deal.

I get preferring some other options,. Boucher wasn't my top choice, but people seem to have a hard time recognizing the value players that play Boucher's style bring. If you can't see how a 35-45 point physical menace will bring value well beyond his offense, there's not going to be much room for discussion. We might as well agree to disagree and move on.

If you just don't see Boucher having enough skill to hit that ~40 pts projection, or can't see him terrorizing the opposition on the forcheck, well we can certainly explore his tool set to other similar players like @BondraTime did with Goodrow and Coleman

 

[coladin]

I'm more skeptical about this pick than I was on draft day.

Was hoping he'd show some hidden top 6 talent, vision or IQ in the showcase that the scouting staff managed to identify, but there was nothing of the sort.

Seen him over 10 games now and I'm pretty confident that there's not a ton of offense with this player.

Obviously the kid can hit like a truck, but he needs to do more than that if he's going to justify a top 10 selection.

Oh My God , Hale and I agree on something

 

[JungleBeat]

What I said was physical play provides value, his contract is the sum of all the value he provides, of which the physicality is a component, but with Boucher it's all 'no skill'.

......and also his defensive play. Let’s not gloss over that.

 

[TheDebater]

I'd rank Sillinger and Boucher as similar prospects. Lucius is a bit better than the both of them imo, when it comes to skill.

Sillinger definitely does not have this elite IQ, hands, package that you think Boucher is lacking.

And Lucius was passed on by 6 other teams after Ottawa selected Boucher, what does that tell you? Rosen, Bolduc, Othmann and Coronato were all ranked lower than him on Mackenzie's list (and most lists), yet he dropped to 18th. Could be a huge steal for the Jets, but it goes to show you that every team makes picks based on what they believe, not simply by what the draft experts suggest.

 

[Hale The Villain]

I'd rank Sillinger and Boucher as similar prospects. Lucius is a bit better than the both of them imo, when it comes to skill.

Sillinger definitely does not have this elite IQ, hands, package that you think Boucher is lacking.

You're right that Sillinger doesn't have elite hands. Above-average but not elite. Disagree about his IQ and scoring ability though. He's a very smart player and has a 30G scorer's shot, and is far superior to Boucher in that regard.

 

[Micklebot]

......and also his defensive play. Let’s not gloss over that.

Not what I did but let's just pretend that you didn't completely misrepresent Bondratime's initial point along with try and put words in my mouth and move on.

 

[DaveMatthew]

I'm not convinced he has a lot more offense in him. Expecting him to stagnate around 60P a year.

Eh, he's the type of player who'll benefit, more than most, from the rest of our team improving.

The better that Stützle, Batherson, Norris, Chabot, Brannstrom, etc get, the more zone time we'll have, and the more havoc Tkachuk will be able to wreak down low.

There'll be a year where he scores 35 goals. If he can get his SH% to a league average 9.5%, he's a 30+ goal scorer (last year he was at 7.7%). He'll never shoot like Kucherov, or even Norris, but he has lots of room to improve.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Isn't this the 4th draft in a row with essentially the same response?

• 2018 NHL Draft the Sens took Brady Tkachuk 4th overall
• 2019 NHL Draft the Sens took Shane Pinto 32nd overall
• 2020 NHL Draft the Sens took Jake Sanderson 5th overall
• 2021 NHL Draft the Sens took Tyler Boucher 10th overall

In each of those drafts there was a very vocal negative response to those picks. Lots of angry people claiming the Sens took the player way too high. That they left a ton of skill on the board. That those kinds of players are easy to come by. That their upside is that of a 3rd or 4th liner (or in Sanderson's case a 2nd or bottom pairing d man).

There was a ton of pessimism and then less than a year later the response quickly changed to how good those players are. For the most part the pessimists have quieted down on Tkachuk, Pinto and Sanderson (although there are still a few very vocal about Tkachuk). Even in the 2020 draft that list could be expanded to include Ridly Greig (28th overall), Tyler Kleven (44th overall) and Egor Sokolov (61st overall) so there are even more examples of people having the same kinds of reactions, and making the same kinds of assumptions and eventually being proven wrong.

It is interesting to see the reaction happen again about Boucher.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

You think that deal is only because Coleman is physical? He provides elite defence and even strength play. Is Boucher projected to be an elite two - way forward?

Boucher is a fairly strong defensive forward. You can see examples of that in the Shifts & Clips of his game vs Adrian College. He was used on the penalty kill and was given the responsibility of taking draws. He created a number of scoring chances short handed.

Was Coleman projected as an elite defensive forward when he was drafted? I know that he has become that now but I am not sure what the scouting report was on him in his draft year. Boucher appears to have the ability to become an elite defensive forward and could follow a similar development path to Coleman in that regard.

The fact that he is so capable defensively really separates him from other mean and physical forwards that have been drafted very high in past drafts. Plenty of them have not been very well rounded. Boucher has the making of being a complete 200 foot player with elite physicality.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Isn't this the 4th draft in a row with essentially the same response?

• 2018 NHL Draft the Sens took Brady Tkachuk 4th overall
• 2019 NHL Draft the Sens took Shane Pinto 32nd overall
• 2020 NHL Draft the Sens took Jake Sanderson 5th overall
• 2021 NHL Draft the Sens took Tyler Boucher 10th overall

In each of those drafts there was a very vocal negative response to those picks. Lots of angry people claiming the Sens took the player way too high. That they left a ton of skill on the board. That those kinds of players are easy to come by. That their upside is that of a 3rd or 4th liner (or in Sanderson's case a 2nd or bottom pairing d man).

There was a ton of pessimism and then less than a year later the response quickly changed to how good those players are. For the most part the pessimists have quieted down on Tkachuk, Pinto and Sanderson (although there are still a few very vocal about Tkachuk). Even in the 2020 draft that list could be expanded to include Ridly Greig (28th overall), Tyler Kleven (44th overall) and Egor Sokolov (61st overall) so there are even more examples of people having the same kinds of reactions, and making the same kinds of assumptions and eventually being proven wrong.

It is interesting to see the reaction happen again about Boucher.

There was also a negative response to the Bowers and Thomson picks, but it seems you missed those.

Sens staff has definitely been hitting more than missing lately, but the Boucher pick makes me think they may be believing their own hype a little bit too much.

That and/or they are taking culture fit way too much into consideration when making their selections.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

It's true. You do rarely get those guys there. I think Sillinger will be a more impactful player than Boucher though. Fine with Boucher if we didn't pass on a couple real high end skill guys. So from 14 on he was fine to me. Tough to see passing on Sillinger/Corronato - Sillinger in particular.

The bolded part seems debatable. Sillinger is a very good goal scorer but I have read reports that suggest that he lacks consistency in compete level and intensity. I would assume that the Sens felt that that was an accurate assessment and that may have lead them to valuing Boucher more than Sillinger. Sillinger will likely have some dominant games and dominant shifts, but he might be more quiet on other shifts/games.

It might also be worth noting that Dorion said he was watching Boucher shifts at the same time as the Stanley Cup final and ended up finding himself being more interested in watching Boucher clips than the Cup Final games. He stated it in a way to suggest that the Cup Finals were exciting but that Boucher clips were on another level of excitement.

If you watch Boucher play he tends to have very impactful shifts were lots of things are happening. He is just a high intensity player who competes hard pretty much every shift. The fans will love him when he gets here. He will have a big impact pretty much every game and maybe even every shift.

 

[JungleBeat]

Looks like most of his goals scored in his shortened season came against tier II junior teams and div 3 NCAA teams. (Small sample size)

 

[JD1]

There was also a negative response to the Bowers and Thomson picks, but it seems you missed those.

Sens staff has definitely been hitting more than missing lately, but the Boucher pick makes me think they may be believing their own hype a little bit too much.

That and/or they are taking culture fit way too much into consideration when making their selections.

He bulleted 4 names. Added 3 more. Then you added 2 more. That's 9 first or second rounders in 4 years where there's a negative reaction umless i added that up wrong

my take is it's the guys with the negative reactions over reacting

 

[RAFI BOMB]

There was also a negative response to the Bowers and Thomson picks, but it seems you missed those.

Sens staff has definitely been hitting more than missing lately, but the Boucher pick makes me think they may be believing their own hype a little bit too much.

That and/or they are taking culture fit way too much into consideration when making their selections.

I didn't include the Bowers pick because the Sens didn't commit to this team/organizational identity until the Tkachuk pick. Or at least that it my understanding, that the Tkachuk pick influenced the direction they wanted to build the team in. The Thomson pick does seem questionable so I am not sure the rationale around that one. He seems like he still could end up an NHL player and maybe a 2nd pairing guy (Troy Mann's most recent projection) but he is on the smaller side.

The point I was making is that there have been some pretty solid examples where the reaction among the fans was extremely negative and the end result proved to be a solid pick. What I am seeing with the Boucher reaction is that fans are not only skeptical of the pick but pessimistic and having a high degree of certainty about that pessimism. It just doesn't seem to be a balanced take that at least gives consideration to these recent examples.

Shouldn't we give it a bit more time before passing such judgment on the Boucher pick? The Sens did their research and determine he was the best pick for what they are trying to build. Plenty of players in this draft played limited games so there is a decent chance that the rankings look far off in retrospect.

 

[DaveMatthew]

He bulleted 4 names. Added 3 more. Then you added 2 more. That's 9 first or second rounders in 4 years where there's a negative reaction umless i added that up wrong

my take is it's the guys with the negative reactions over reacting

Outside of Tim Stutzle, who was a no-brainer, the last time I can remember when there wasn't a major "OMFG what are we doing?!!?" reaction after our 1st and 2nd round picks was 2016 when we drafted Logan Brown and Jonathan Dahlen so... go figure...

 

[JungleBeat]

Noesen
Puempel
Prince
Ceci
Lazar
Englund
White
Chlapik
Gagne
Brown
Bowers
Tychonick
Thomson


Obviously this team can miss on prospects in the first two rounds.

 

[RAFI BOMB]

Noesen
Puempel
Prince
Ceci
Lazar
Englund
White
Chlapik
Gagne
Brown
Bowers
Tychonick
Thomson


Obviously this team can miss on prospects in the first two rounds.

Different Chief Amateur Scouts, different team of scouts (at least partially), different drafting philosophies. That makes a handful of the names you listed not really comparable to evaluating this particular scouting staff.

 

[JungleBeat]

Different Chief Amateur Scouts, different team of scouts (at least partially), different drafting philosophies. That makes a handful of the names you listed not really comparable to evaluating this particular scouting staff.

2017 should be the cut off then since he got promoted to chief amateur scout. Too early to clearly say who was a good pick or not but there are some clear misses and clear good picks.