Player Discussion: Olli Juolevi | III

[topched88]

Looking at Tkachuk's HERO chart:

Assuming this continues, and Tkachuk's offensive numbers increase with an increase in ice-time, Juolevi is literally going to have to be a number 1 defensemen to make this not a draft blunder.

I think it was a blunder the minute he made the selection. Regardless, hopefully Juolevi can pan out, he could still become a really valuable piece even if i would have much preferred MT.

 

[Lindgren]

London is up 5-1 on Guelph after two, one goal coming on the power play. Juolevi is pointless and a minus 1.

My concern continues to grow.

 

[y2kcanucks]

London is up 5-1 on Guelph after two, one goal coming on the power play. Juolevi is pointless and a minus 1.

My concern continues to grow.

Eh, don't waste your time being concerned. Juolevi is what he is. He won't become a number 1, and was never projected to. Benning's Lidstrom comment was one of the stupidest things he's said, in a long list of stupid things that he's said. If we accept that Benning blundered that 5th overall pick, move on, and accept Juolevi for what he will become I'm sure we'll be satisfied with a second pairing two-way defenseman. If we compare him to the guy that we passed up, well then Juolevi won't ever be able to win over this fan base.

 

[Lindgren]

Eh, don't waste your time being concerned. Juolevi is what he is. He won't become a number 1, and was never projected to. Benning's Lidstrom comment was one of the stupidest things he's said, in a long list of stupid things that he's said. If we accept that Benning blundered that 5th overall pick, move on, and accept Juolevi for what he will become I'm sure we'll be satisfied with a second pairing two-way defenseman. If we compare him to the guy that we passed up, well then Juolevi won't ever be able to win over this fan base.

I agree that it's best not to worry about what we passed up. It's judging him by his own standards that's led me to become anxious. I'm starting to wonder if he'll even get to where you conservatively project him. He simply seems to have stagnated this year.

Note ... I'm just worrying out loud, not expressing an opinion I think should sway anyone else who knows his play well.

 

[VanJack]

I thought this guy would be a lock to make the Canucks next year as a depth d-man at least, but now I'm not so sure....the way the young guys have come on at the NHL level this year, and the guys knocking on the door from Utica, Juolevi is a long-way down the depth chart the way he's played this year.

Man I wish in a parallel universe the Canucks had drafted Nylander and Tkachuk.....the outlook for this team would be so much different right now.

 

[bbud]

I think it was a blunder the minute he made the selection. Regardless, hopefully Juolevi can pan out, he could still become a really valuable piece even if i would have much preferred MT.

Comparison of a winger to a young dman is not really effective geez OJ might not be a #1 today maybe never but comparison should be against 18 yr old dmen use stats properly.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Something I've noticed with relation to Juolevi's offensive output is that he has now mustered the same production as last year (41 points in 53 games vs 42 points in 57 last year). Last year at around this time, the top three scorers on the team all had over 100 points. (Top 3 had 121, 116 and 107 respectively.)

This year, the Top 3 scorers have 85, 65 and 61 points. So while at first glance it would seem that Juolevi's point totals have somewhat stagnated, he has actually managed to factor in on more of his teams offense, in spite of that team's drop in overall production.

Not sure if this has been pointed out already or if anyone cares. I just thought it was interesting and cause for optimism, and I'm a glass half full kinda guy.

 

[Lindgren]

Something I've noticed with relation to Juolevi's offensive output is that he has now mustered the same production as last year (41 points in 53 games vs 42 points in 57 last year). Last year at around this time, the top three scorers on the team all had over 100 points. (Top 3 had 121, 116 and 107 respectively.)

This year, the Top 3 scorers have 85, 65 and 61 points. So while at first glance it would seem that Juolevi's point totals have somewhat stagnated, he has actually managed to factor in on more of his teams offense, in spite of that team's drop in overall production.

Not sure if this has been pointed out already or if anyone cares. I just thought it was interesting and cause for optimism, and I'm a glass half full kinda guy.

Interesting. (I care.)

 

[Trelane]

Eh, don't waste your time being concerned. Juolevi is what he is. He won't become a number 1, and was never projected to. Benning's Lidstrom comment was one of the stupidest things he's said, in a long list of stupid things that he's said. If we accept that Benning blundered that 5th overall pick, move on, and accept Juolevi for what he will become I'm sure we'll be satisfied with a second pairing two-way defenseman. If we compare him to the guy that we passed up, well then Juolevi won't ever be able to win over this fan base.

It was an unfortunate comment. Stylistic not direct if memory serves. Gillis would never have made it but over the years I've heard dozen of GMs make similar faux pas when projecting recent draftees.

Surprised that you're the voice of reason on this. People do get overly worked up over something that won't be settled for 5-8 years. Worth noting that when Lidstrom was the same age as is OJ today he had yet to be drafted (was an overager) and mustered all of two assists in a half season of work in the SEL.

 

[Verviticus]

the only reason to get worked up is if some buffoon is trying to argue that jim benning didnt yet again **** up, and nobody is trying to do that

 

[F A N]

It was an unfortunate comment. Stylistic not direct if memory serves. Gillis would never have made it but over the years I've heard dozen of GMs make similar faux pas when projecting recent draftees.

It's better than saying "And we believe in our talented group of prospects, including Bo Horvat, Nicklas Jensen, Frank Corrado, Dane Fox, Brendan Gaunce and Hunter Shinkaruk, who will be part of our short and long-term success."

 

[denkiteki]

It's better than saying "And we believe in our talented group of prospects, including Bo Horvat, Nicklas Jensen, Frank Corrado, Dane Fox, Brendan Gaunce and Hunter Shinkaruk, who will be part of our short and long-term success."

No idea why Fox is in that group...

But out of those, Horvat is basically a top 6 center so there's 1 good player there. Jensen and Shinkaruk both still look like they have top 6 potential. Corrado of course doesn't look like he'll turn into much. Gaunce will be a NHLer but probably 3rd/4th liner.

Also Hutton and Tanev (both from MG) are solid top 4 players. So MG actually left Benning with some decent pieces (tho not much depth, partially due to the simple fact we were always in the playoffs/competing for a cup).

Remember MG highest pick during his entire reign was 10th overall. If you count the Horvat pick (via trade), then 9th overall. Benning has drafted 5th and 6th overall and likely locked for another top 6 pick (bottom 3) if not higher.

Summary, MG has had the

10th pick (08)
22 (09)
115 (10)
29 (11)
26 (12)
9, 24 (13)

On the flip side Benning has had
1, 24 (14)
23 (15)
5 (16)

Out of these top picks, realistically only Boeser's value has increased since his draft and would be drafted higher if there was a redraft. McCann is debatable but wouldn't be much higher. Virtanen wouldn't even be a first round pick right now and honestly i don't think Juolevi would be either if this was his draft year (basically no statistical progression, tho it is kinda hard to judge Ds in the CHL).

That isn't to say Benning hasn't done a better job drafting (since his later picks have been much better than MG in terms of progression). Still most of the core pieces Benning is building off of are actually from MG (Horvat, Tanev, even Markstrom until Demko takes over).

 

[CanaFan]

It's better than saying "And we believe in our talented group of prospects, including Bo Horvat, Nicklas Jensen, Frank Corrado, Dane Fox, Brendan Gaunce and Hunter Shinkaruk, who will be part of our short and long-term success."

And yet even that is better than saying "And with the 6th pick in the 2014 NHL draft, Vancouver selects from the Calgary Hitmen ..."

:shrugs

 

[y2kcanucks]

the only reason to get worked up is if some buffoon is trying to argue that jim benning didnt yet again **** up, and nobody is trying to do that

Yup.

For the second time in three years Jim Benning has ****ed up his first round draft pick. He's managed to **** up two top-six draft picks during his tenure. No sense getting worked up over it now since there's nothing that can be done to change this. Calgary certainly isn't going to trade us Tkachuk for Juolevi.

 

[rune74]

I'm willing to wait and see what we have here before completely writing this player off.

 

[tantalum]

I'm willing to wait and see what we have here before completely writing this player off.

I don't think anyone is writing the player off completely at all and it's not the players fault he was picked where he was. Thinking the team would have been better off drafting another player does not equal hoping a guy fails or thinking he will fail.

He was the wrong pick that I firmly believe. He can still be a good piece moving forward.

 

[rune74]

I don't think anyone is writing the player off completely at all and it's not the players fault he was picked where he was. Thinking the team would have been better off drafting another player does not equal hoping a guy fails or thinking he will fail.

He was the wrong pick that I firmly believe. He can still be a good piece moving forward.

There are a few hoping hard, but you are right most are not. I was just giving my feel on the player.

 

[M2Beezy]

There are a few hoping hard, but you are right most are not. I was just giving my feel on the player.

Only ones hoping hard hate the canucks which makes sense. Still the wrong pick from us tho

 

[y2kcanucks]

There are a few hoping hard, but you are right most are not. I was just giving my feel on the player.

Who is actively hoping that Juolevi fails?

 

[krutovsdonut]

Something I've noticed with relation to Juolevi's offensive output is that he has now mustered the same production as last year (41 points in 53 games vs 42 points in 57 last year). Last year at around this time, the top three scorers on the team all had over 100 points. (Top 3 had 121, 116 and 107 respectively.)

This year, the Top 3 scorers have 85, 65 and 61 points. So while at first glance it would seem that Juolevi's point totals have somewhat stagnated, he has actually managed to factor in on more of his teams offense, in spite of that team's drop in overall production.

Not sure if this has been pointed out already or if anyone cares. I just thought it was interesting and cause for optimism, and I'm a glass half full kinda guy.

not to be a glass half empty guy, but wouldn't that also mean his stats last year were inflated by strong team mates?

knights are 47 goals down from last year with 4 games left. so juolevi has maintained his production with weaker forwards, less scoring, and a guy being played in front of him on the pp and in offensive situations.

he looks like a solid prospect. i think folks are sad because he does not resemble a #1 guy in performance or temperament. of course, a #1 guy showing this early would be a home rune draft pick at #5.

that being said, a good proportion of #1 dmen do not resemble #1d in junior, and a good proportion of guys who are #1 dmen in junior do not make the jump.

 

[y2kcanucks]

not to be a glass half empty guy, but wouldn't that also mean his stats last year were inflated by strong team mates?

knights are 47 goals down from last year with 4 games left. so juolevi has maintained his production with weaker forwards, less scoring, and a guy being played in front of him on the pp and in offensive situations.

he looks like a solid prospect. i think folks are sad because he does not resemble a #1 guy in performance or temperament. of course, a #1 guy showing this early would be a home rune draft pick at #5.

that being said, a good proportion of #1 dmen do not resemble #1d in junior, and a good proportion of guys who are #1 dmen in junior do not make the jump.

Kinda like a guy already showing as a #1 LWer would be a home run draft pick at #5.

 

[MS]

I've tried really hard to support this pick, maybe partly because it was so nice to see them rate an IQ-based defender so highly after so many terrible calls on tools-based defenders (Sbisa, Pedan, Bartkowski, Gudbranson) but it really isn't looking great. In a couple opportunities to see him play recently, his unwillingness to engage physically and assert body position is a major concern. You don't have to smash guys to be good defensively but you can't be soft.

Likewise, his failure to take steps offensively is a concern. 8 points in his last 17 games now, and his only goal in that stretch was a fluke bank shot from behind the net.

Can't see him seriously competing for an NHL spot next year. Hopefully they let him go back to Finland and compete against men, something that probably should have happened already this year.

 

[TruGr1t]

This is the second highly-important rebuild pick that looks to have been an error based on picking by "need" versus BPA. The Virtanen pick was sold as needing more physicality and grit in the top six, though players like Ehlers and Nylander were (apparently rightfully) ranked higher by consensus. But we apparently had enough "soft" skill and didn't need players like that. Turned out well there.

Then with the Tkachuk situation it comes out from iMac that management thought they didn't need another scoring winger due to having Virtanen and Boeser in the organization. So we went ahead and drafted defense, again based on perceived need, though there was a ton of commentary that no defenseman in the draft deserved to go in the top five. In fact, glancing back there were a few outlets that weren't sure if Juolevi was a better pick than Sergachev.

If you're going to act like you're smarter than everybody else in the room, at least actually be smarter than everybody else in the room. Continually going off the board in the early rounds and missing on your picks isn't a great look.

 

[Nucker101]

I wouldn't have a problem with sending him back next year if he doesn't impress in camp, he's not exactly dominating the OHL. Would also be fine with loaning him to Europe to play against stronger/bigger players.

My concern is that he still needs to adapt to the North American game and I don't think he'll be able to do that if he spends an entire year on a bigger ice surface. He's still too passive for my liking, I know he's never going to by a physical guy, but I'm talking about all facets of the game. Not strong/hungry enough in board/puck battles, sometimes too patient with the puck looking for the homerun pass instead of moving it quickly. Would also like to see him carry the puck and rush it a bit more. I feel like playing in Europe may not help him work on those weaknesses.

I've watched European games before and know that it isn't as soft as it's made out to be, especially in big rivalry/playoff games which can get pretty chippy, but the larger ice surface is my main concern.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Kinda like a guy already showing as a #1 LWer would be a home run draft pick at #5.

there's always a risk but you should expect to get a first line winger with a #5 pick, and be disappointed if you do not.

getting a #1c at #5 is significantly tougher. you expect a top 6 guy and hope for #1c.

getting a #1d at #5 is a home run. it only happens if the guy is not clearly a #1d on draft day. you expect a solid top 4 guy and hope for a #1.

which brings up the bpa argument. if you follow that literally, you don't ever taken a dman outside the top 3 until you are in the teens somewhere because very few dmen are clearly bpa at that level and those that are go at the very top of the draft. i'd say most defencemen taken early after the top 2 are taken because they were projected to safely be a top 4 guy and also had #1d potential.