Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi

[Doyle Hargraves]

you seem fun!!!

I gotta say, talking about this rumour was great, but the meltdowns in this thread were even better.

I haven’t seen any meltdowns in this thread.

 

[Doyle Hargraves]

I don’t know what to make of this post. Don’t know if you’re serious or not.

He’s trying to be funny

 

[ChefBoiRD]

Marek is covering his ass! It was definitely OJ!

The Self Fullfilled Prophecy

 

[Peter10]

Gudbranson is fine. Your talking like he's some lost puppy out there. He wasn't. He stepped nicely this season prior to being shut down. But knowledging that ruins the narrative.

No he is not, he is actually quite bad, from an analytical point of view as well as by the "eyetest"

Erik Gudbranson: Using the “eye test” to settle the debate once and for all

Canucks Army Year in Review: Erik Gudbranson

 

[The Vasili Jerry]

He obviously has to be put with someone, but yeah, I don’t know if Gudbranson is the best for his development. I can also see the point about Tanev getting tough matchups and playing a lot of minutes. I’d still rather him get thrown in the deep end with a solid partner than ease in with lower minutes with a lesser quality partner. At the moment it’s going to be one of Stecher, Tanev, or Gudbranson; Stecher works well with Edler so I don’t see any other combos. I guess there can always be a trade to help find him a new 3rd pairing RHD. Surely Chicago wouldn’t be dealing Jokiharju so early in his career. Even if the Canucks got him that would be truly throwing them into the fire together.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Gudbranson is fine. Your talking like he's some lost puppy out there. He wasn't. He stepped nicely this season prior to being shut down. But knowledging that ruins the narrative.

Playing with Gudbranson vs Tanev...
You'd probably want Tanev out there vs higher quality opposition and more minutes than you want a rookie Juolevi.

He did no such thing:

No he is not, he is actually quite bad, from an analytical point of view as well as by the "eyetest"

Erik Gudbranson: Using the “eye test” to settle the debate once and for all

Canucks Army Year in Review: Erik Gudbranson

You'll get no acknowledgement from a certain crowd on these facts.

 

[Hollywood Burrows]

I haven’t seen any meltdowns in this thread.

One guy (maybe you? who cares!) wrote in this thread that anybody who talked about the rumour has a small penis. Many other posters were wiping tears out of their eyes while they lamented the mean horrible trolls who dared to make jokes about their special lil boy. There's like five pages of it, go check it out. It's really funny.

Want to bet that Juolevi makes the NHL?

listen, I fully support media literacy training for adult posters who struggle to parse quotes they read in news reports

 

[DL44]

No he is not, he is actually quite bad, from an analytical point of view as well as by the "eyetest"

Erik Gudbranson: Using the “eye test” to settle the debate once and for all

Canucks Army Year in Review: Erik Gudbranson

I just think their differences in strengths and skillsets would compliment the best.

I'm not as concerned about Juolevi's development suffering with Gudbranson... there are things he does well that can help him.

The numbers were pretty complimentary toward Pouliot and towards Pouliot-Gudbranson... I'm thinking/hoping Juolevi can step in and play an upgraded version of the same role and compliment Gudbranson the same way.

If not.. Tanev.

 

[Peter10]

I just think their differences in strengths and skillsets would compliment the best.

I'm not as concerned about Juolevi's development suffering with Gudbranson... there are things he does well that can help him.

The numbers were pretty complimentary toward Pouliot and towards Pouliot-Gudbranson... I'm thinking/hoping Juolevi can step in and play an upgraded version of the same role and compliment Gudbranson the same way.

If not.. Tanev.

How long before Guddy tells Olli that it will take 300 games (~ 4 seasons) before he gets any good?

 

[DL44]

How long before Guddy tells Olli that it will take 300 games (~ 4 seasons) before he gets any good?

wasn't it more like ... 300 games before you know what you have ...

Original reference was Hutton... Hutton's at 207... seems he's finally going to be focused on conditioning in the offseason... look forward to how his games 208 to 289 look.

So far the quote seems accurate since we're ALL looking forward to the results of his summer training... and running group.

 

[Peter10]

wasn't it more like ... 300 games before you know what you have ...

Original reference was Hutton... Hutton's at 207... seems he's finally going to be focused on conditioning in the offseason... look forward to how his games 208 to 289 look.

So far the quote seems accurate since we're ALL looking forward to the results of his summer training... and running group.

He was basically saying you dont know how to defend before you have played 300 games...

“We’re going to watch video and see what’s going on and this is a process with a young guy. He (Hutton) has less than 100 games and it takes 300 to learn to defend well.

Guess for him it takes even longer, 391 games played and still bad at all aspects of a NHL defenseman

 

[DL44]

He was basically saying you dont know how to defend before you have played 300 games...

Guess for him it takes even longer, 391 games played and still bad at all aspects of a NHL defenseman

Ah.. thanks..

We have so many learning dmen... Biega, Stetcher, Tryamkin, Hutton.. add Juolevi.

 

[DL44]

He was basically saying you dont know how to defend before you have played 300 games...

Guess for him it takes even longer, 391 games played and still bad at all aspects of a NHL defenseman

Interesting quote from the same Kuzma article:

(From a different coach who was NOT rumored to hate Hutton)

Hutton is wired to make something happen, but Willie Desjardins believes he needs to dial it back and play a more simple and controlled game.
“He’s trying to do too much,” said the Canucks coach. “His minutes have gone up and he gets tired some times and that’s a part of his game he has to work on. He’s better with lower minutes,
but wants to make a difference and you have to admire players like that.
“But he’s putting himself in bad spots.

November 2016

 

[stampedingviking]

That’s a mighty convenient opinion for you.

Oh come on, even you have to admit there were certain posters who were wetting themselves over it being Juolevi.

 

[stampedingviking]

No Tkachuk, Marner is not a satisfactory explanation. The Knights scored ~30 fewer team goals which is a drop of about 9%. A player’s progression from D to D+1 should overcome that as was the case with Victor Mete.

His progression did continue, he scored the same number of points on a team scoring 30 goals less. How is that not progression?

 

[DL44]

His progression did continue, he scored the same number of points on a team scoring 30 goals less. How is that not progression?

I think the past arguments and number were... the team scoring dropped by 9%, but Juolevi's production and role should of stepped up beyond the 9% he managed in production progression.. or however the numbers worked out.

 

[CanaFan]

His progression did continue, he scored the same number of points on a team scoring 30 goals less. How is that not progression?

It’s not much. Most players take big steps from D to D+1. And most aren’t excused because their team scored 30 fewer goals.

 

[Pavel96]

He’s trying to be funny

Jim Benning traded for Erik so he could play a top 4 role and help protect/mentor some of our younger players. That's exactly what he and Olli could do together. So I'm suggesting that they use him in the exact role that Benning acquired him to do. Why would me suggesting that be "trying to be funny"? I guess it could be considered an attempt at humor if you really found Erik's performance to date completely underwhelming and see him as unable to do any of what Jim thought he'd be able to do and likely will stunt Olli's career more than it has own its own? I've read many posters on here comment on how well he played (despite the entire sportsnet segment running him down) with Edler on essentially the top pair. So unless you think that is ludicrous - why would it be considered an attempt at humor? Apparently it was all Hutton's fault that they didn't work out and Olli should be way better than Hutton coming in so maybe it could work out?

 

[Pavel96]

It’s not much. Most players take big steps from D to D+1. And most aren’t excused because their team scored 30 fewer goals.

I think in most cases the top dman of the draft would outperform a teammate of his selected in the 4th round that year but by some accounts and stats Mete outplayed him in their d1(and has more NHL games now and is already being counted on next year to step in).

 

[drax0s]

I think the past arguments and number were... the team scoring dropped by 9%, but Juolevi's production and role should of stepped up beyond the 9% he managed in production progression.. or however the numbers worked out.

Thinking about it, looking at team scoring could be a bit of a red herring, tbh. The most important factor is that the Knights lost an absolutely dominant top line and shifted to scoring by committee. That could definitely impact Juolevi's possible points because he can't play with every line and benefit from the more distributed scoring.

Let's say Juolevi splits his time between the top 2 lines - 50/50 and picks up 35% of points from those top 2 lines. We'll use a 9% Y/Y decline in scoring too. Year 1 the team scores 375 pts (with line 1 is responsible for 40%) and Year 2 the team scores 337 (9% decline) and is more distributed (30% top line - about what the 2016-2017 Knights shifted to)

• Year 1 - Line 1 scores 150 pts. Lines 2-4 score 225 pts (90, 75, 60) - Playing with the top 2 lines our defenseman picks up 42 pts (26.25+ 15.75).
• Year 2 - Line 1 scores 101 pts, Lines 2-4 score 222 (90, 75, 71) - Playing with the top 2 lines our defenseman picks up 36 pts (20 + 15).

Simply by changing to scoring by committee vs scoring via a dominant top line - our defenseman's points decline about 15% - more than the team's scoring declined. Then you add in the fact that Mete / Bouchard seemed to become the go to powerplay guys and I would almost expect his scoring to significantly decline. It didn't. At all.

 

[CanaFan]

Thinking about it, looking at team scoring could be a bit of a red herring, tbh. The most important factor is that the Knights lost an absolutely dominant top line and shifted to scoring by committee. That could definitely impact Juolevi's possible points because he can't play with every line and benefit from the more distributed scoring.

Let's say Juolevi splits his time between the top 2 lines - 50/50 and picks up 35% of points from those top 2 lines. We'll use a 9% Y/Y decline in scoring too. Year 1 the team scores 375 pts (with line 1 is responsible for 40%) and Year 2 the team scores 337 (9% decline) and is more distributed (30% top line - about what the 2016-2017 Knights shifted to)

• Year 1 - Line 1 scores 150 pts. Lines 2-4 score 225 pts (90, 75, 60) - Playing with the top 2 lines our defenseman picks up 42 pts (26.25+ 15.75).
• Year 2 - Line 1 scores 101 pts, Lines 2-4 score 222 (90, 75, 71) - Playing with the top 2 lines our defenseman picks up 36 pts (20 + 15).

Simply by changing to scoring by committee vs scoring via a dominant top line - our defenseman's points decline about 15% - more than the team's scoring declined. Then you add in the fact that Mete / Bouchard seemed to become the go to powerplay guys and I would almost expect his scoring to significantly decline. It didn't. At all.

Which also means Juolevi’s D year production - which was already underwhelming - was actually propped up by playing with one of the most dominant lines in the CHL. That makes his D+1 increase look a bit better (in your context) but his *absolute* production is still quite low for his D+1 and, based on your explanation, even worse in his D season.

 

[drax0s]

Which also means Juolevi’s D year production - which was already underwhelming - was actually propped up by playing with one of the most dominant lines in the CHL. That makes his D+1 increase look a bit better (in your context) but his *absolute* production is still quite low for his D+1 and, based on your explanation, even worse in his D season.

Yeah, of course. I'm not arguing that he's some offensive defenseman or anything, I'm only saying that the argument that he stagnated and declined may not be entirely valid.

 

[CanaFan]

Yeah, of course. I'm not arguing that he's some offensive defenseman or anything, I'm only saying that the argument that he stagnated and declined may not be entirely valid.

It may present his rate of growth in a better light but at the expense of his initial ceiling projection. And keep in mind it’s all predicated on his ToI being skewed towards playing with Marner-Dvorak-Tkachuk, which we don’t truly know (unless you have CHL linemates data). It’s a fair hypothesis to make but I’m not sure it paints anything in a better or worse light in the end.

 

[Krnuckfan]

His progression did continue, he scored the same number of points on a team scoring 30 goals less. How is that not progression?

This weakass excuse yet again...

The london knights defence corps as as group scored more points in 16-17 than they did in 15-16. Mete had no problems increasing his point production over the previous year. His PPG increased more than 50% from the previous year. That's called actual progression.

Then the year after Mete made the NHL full time while juolevi was getting turnstiled by ECHLers in the prospects game.

 

[Shareefruck]

I do think that hypothetically, if Juolevi and Gudbranson were both strong NHL players, they would stylistically be an ideal fit.

However, it would have to be in the eventual role where Juolevi is comfortable enough at the NHL level to consistently shelter Gudbranson defensively the way that a Tanev might. This is the opposite equivalent of why I thought Hutton and Gudbranson were absolutely terrible fits in theory when they were first put together (and thought it could never work), because they both play a style that requires a positionally reliable partner to shelter. (It was absolutely infuriating how people thought Gudbranson was going to be a Willie-Mitchell-esque stay at home defensive defensemen-- He's never played that type of game in his life and is actually the stylistic opposite to that)

To put them together now, however, with Juolevi just starting to try to figure out how to play in the NHL and with Gudbranson being a total liability in most facets of the game, would be absolute suicide, and would be ridiculously unfair to heap onto Juolevi.

Juolevi should be playing with Biega to start, IMO.