Player Discussion Jesse Puljujarvi Discussion Part 4 [UPD: Nov 24th Recalled]

Status
Not open for further replies.

KamiJ

Registered User
Mar 2, 2017
5
4
South Korea
The only player who is remotely close to being a comparable is Pacioretty but he didnt start in the NHL until he was 20 years old.

So if age is the most important element in your criteria then every player you posted simply isnt a valid comparable.

As for your take on McLellan...I dont understand you you think that your subjective take on Jesse's time under TMac makes that irrelevant. Doesnt make a lick of sense to me.
The reality is that Hitch isnt deploying Jesse any differently than TMac did.

So I get that you and others (myself included) want Jesse to succeed you cant just throw out factual information because it doesnt fit your narrative.

Age is definitely one of the most important criteria when you look at young players. Usually players keep developing physically and mentally many years after their 20 years old birthday. Puljujärvi is improving his game by every match since Hitch took over the bench. That is a very positive sign. However, the most important criteria, I would argue, is self-confidence and Jesse was lacking of it for a very long time. I believe that we will see him improving even faster if he can build-up his confidence and chemistry with the team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HockeyHistorian

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
Age is definitely one of the most important criteria when you look at young players. Usually players keep developing physically and mentally many years after their 20 years old birthday. Puljujärvi is improving his game by every match since Hitch took over the bench. That is a very positive sign. However, the most important criteria, I would argue, is self-confidence and Jesse was lacking of it for a very long time. I believe that we will see him improving even faster if he can build-up his confidence and chemistry with the team.

I never said age wasnt important...of course it is.

In any event we shall see how much Jesse improves. I hope he does as well as some posters want to believe.
 

Bryanbryoil

Pray For Ukraine
Sep 13, 2004
85,960
34,082
Scoring one goal (his 4thpoint OF THE YEAR) doesn’t make him clear from criticism. He looked better though, hope to see that shot on the #1 PP unit next game.

The offense has been slow in coming but he has factored into 2 of our last 3 goals even though he only has one point to show for it. He is getting better, that should count for something.
 

Panda Bear

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
6,566
5,699
@guymez: First, every single person ever has a narrative. If you dispute this, you have a narrative about narratives. Yes, I believe that Puljujarvi has potential and was poorly handled by McLellan. I also believed that RNH suffered under Eakins, lost confidence in his natural game, and that he could still be a very good player. I even believed that Petry got the short shrift by the organization and was unfairly targeted, and that Dubnyk's biggest issue in his final season here was confidence-related.

Aerrol and I both wrote about why we think you're off the mark: you were going off development after rookie season without looking at seasons played after being drafted (which tends to correlate directly with age unless you're drafted overage). Koivu? D+5. Schwartz? D+5. Pacioretty? D+5. Wheeler? D+5.

Puljujarvi? D+3.

I don't agree that centres take a longer time to piece their games together than wingers. It's a more complicated position, but centres play centre because their games are suited to that more complicated position. In the NHL timeline, players drafted as centres either break out offensively as centres or as wingers. All I care about is when they break out.

So if you put JP with someone like Drai or Chiasson he would get assists?
If JP gets to the point where he is confident enough in his game to carry the puck and do the things that made him go #4, then yes, he will get more assists.

I've seen enough of his one-touch passing and small passes at the NHL level to know he's aware, and he has a body of work outside the NHL (AHL, Liiga, World Juniors) that shows he likes to carry the puck and hit people backpost and in the slot. He has vision, but I'm not going to pretend it's as good as our top three forwards.

The less sure you are of yourself, the less likely you are to take risks. Playmaking involves risk, which is why playmakers tend to have so many giveaways.
 

Panda Bear

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
6,566
5,699
Even if Puljujarvi has games where he gets similar minutes as he would under McLellan, he isn't getting benched or shuffled around without a clear role.

Puljujarvi already looks more dynamic than he did in the final days of McLellan, and that's because a coach is working directly with him to give him opportunities to succeed while not depriving him of chances to earn trust and build confidence.

Puljujarvi must have loved the fact that he got to close out a game a little while ago--unheard of with McLellan--and he's even being trusted with a role on the penalty kill. This goes a long, long way for raw players.
 

GameChanger

Registered User
Jun 29, 2016
2,161
1,231
My memory was proven wrong yes. Maby there is Pulujärvi's funniest goals clip etc. .
But when I can I ll find you that second luckky one.

As I said earlier I have actually spoken with Puljujärvi and I like him.
But he is not that good prospect as his position at draft was. Also people seem to miss mutch of his wrong positioning etc. or and forget it if he shoota once to the net.
That said I hope ge delivers as he is a good kid and Oilers need him atleast 25 goal scorer.

I hope you know that I'm perfectly fine with your opinion and how you see Puljujarvi! I'm never saying my opinion is better than anyone's. I also understand if people feel they want to express their thoughts here, as that's a big reason for people to create an account. But I can tell when the writer neglects every single positive thing and comes to express only the negative ones, that's when it's easy to think that's an agenda and I actually believe you understand me there.

As for the 2nd lucky goal, basically this makes no difference in the big picture but I can guarantee you will agree with me if you rewatch that there's no one to be found.

As for myself, I've written a lot here but it's not the end of the world if Pulju never fullfills his potential. I'm still adamant he did much better than many people remember here at some times earlier (especially for the first 20 or so games last year) and I know I tend to overstate that, but the past is pretty irrelevant anyway. Let's hope the future has started to get brighter now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aerrol

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
@guymez: First, every single person ever has a narrative. If you dispute this, you have a narrative about narratives. Yes, I believe that Puljujarvi has potential and was poorly handled by McLellan. I also believed that RNH suffered under Eakins, lost confidence in his natural game, and that he could still be a very good player. I even believed that Petry got the short shrift by the organization and was unfairly targeted, and that Dubnyk's biggest issue in his final season here was confidence-related.

Aerrol and I both wrote about why we think you're off the mark: you were going off development after rookie season without looking at seasons played after being drafted (which tends to correlate directly with age unless you're drafted overage). Koivu? D+5. Schwartz? D+5. Pacioretty? D+5. Wheeler? D+5.

Puljujarvi? D+3.

I don't agree that centres take a longer time to piece their games together than wingers. It's a more complicated position, but centres play centre because their games are suited to that more complicated position. In the NHL timeline, players drafted as centres either break out offensively as centres or as wingers. All I care about is when they break out.

Your criteria doesnt include context. Centre is a tougher position to play especially when making the jump to the NHL.
The defensive responsibility's make it a much tougher position therefore these players typically take longer to develop.
This has been reported by scouts and NHL coaches alike. You can discount it if you like though.

As for your D+3 criteria...again...context matters. For example...College players are a different animal all together.
Age is the most relevant factor here and from an age perspective your examples are not comparable.
Its a reach at best.
 

Panda Bear

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
6,566
5,699
I was bloody wrong about Yakupov and Omark making it.*



*But I blame Eakins for ruining the instincts of the former before he spiralled out never recovering his game, and criticized the latter greatly for not working on his shot and skating in the off-season before his final season here, which lead to him being too predictable and not able to get into positions at the right time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aerrol

Drivesaitl

Time to Drive
Oct 8, 2017
45,304
54,861
Duck hunting
@guymez: First, every single person ever has a narrative. If you dispute this, you have a narrative about narratives.

I have a narrative about this narrative about narratives and I just wanna say....

;)


Nice that Pulju scored, man, given how things have gone for him I was scared the goal was going to be taken back. That would have been tough.
 

TopShelfGloveSide

Registered User
Dec 10, 2018
17,658
23,695
I was bloody wrong about Yakupov and Omark making it.*



*But I blame Eakins for ruining the instincts of the former before he spiralled out never recovering his game, and criticized the latter greatly for not working on his shot and skating in the off-season before his final season here, which lead to him being too predictable and not able to get into positions at the right time.
I noticed it is never the players fault with you. Not agreeing or disagreeing. Just seems to be what you think.
 

Panda Bear

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
6,566
5,699
Your criteria doesnt include context. Centre is a tougher position to play especially when making the jump to the NHL.
The defensive responsibility's make it a much tougher position therefore these players typically take longer to develop.
This has been reported by scouts and NHL coaches alike. You can discount it if you like though.

As for your D+3 criteria...again...context matters. For example...College players are a different animal all together.
Age is the most relevant factor here and from an age perspective your examples are not comparable.
Its a reach at best.
I am not sure what you are missing.

I am saying that these players took more than three seasons post-draft to become impactful NHL players. Wheeler was college, the rest were not. Puljujarvi is in the midst of his third season. So how come he's not being given the same amount of rope to turn into a good player? Because he started in the NHL at a younger age, which was the choice of the organization?

And yes, centre is a more difficult position. It takes more time to become a well-rounded centre than a well-rounded winger, which is why you hear about players being either defensively deficient despite putting up numbers and the reverse. So feel free to drop Koivu, and then look at how Wheeler, Pacioretty, Schwartz and Kreider are all wingers.

Oh--and it's disingenuous to prorate Kreider's playoff numbers across an entire regular season beforehand given sample size and the fact that he used that regular season to develop in college. He got 3 points in 23 NHL games the following season. He's another D+5 for breakout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Studz

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
I am not sure what you are missing.

I am saying that these players took more than three seasons post-draft to become impactful NHL players. Wheeler was college, the rest were not. Puljujarvi is in the midst of his third season. So how come he's not being given the same amount of rope to turn into a good player? Because he started in the NHL at a younger age, which was the choice of the organization?

And yes, centre is a more difficult position. It takes more time to become a well-rounded centre than a well-rounded winger, which is why you hear about players being either defensively deficient despite putting up numbers and the reverse. So feel free to drop Koivu, and then look at how Wheeler, Pacioretty, Schwartz and Kreider are all wingers.

Oh--and it's disingenuous to prorate Kreider's playoff numbers across an entire regular season beforehand given sample size and the fact that he used that regular season to develop in college. He got 3 points in 23 NHL games the following season. He's another D+5 for breakout.

I know what you are saying but lets take a closer look.

So from your perspective break it down for me....lets focus on 1 player.
How is a college player like Wheeler comparable to Jesse?
 

Panda Bear

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
6,566
5,699
I noticed it is never the players fault with you. Not agreeing or disagreeing. Just seems to be what you think.
Some players have infallible self-confidence and never lose their game. Taylor Hall is one of those people.

RNH is not one of those people, and neither is Puljujarvi. If they were, then RNH never would have been so disappointing for those seasons and Puljujarvi would likely be doing just fine right now.

For those talented players who don't have unstoppable confidence, I would argue that how they're coached and deployed in the NHL is more important to their long-term success than they are. If they could just choose to be unbreakable, I'm sure they would. Unfortunately, they aren't.

Confidence makes or breaks a player.
 

KamiJ

Registered User
Mar 2, 2017
5
4
South Korea
I never said age wasnt important...of course it is.

In any event we shall see how much Jesse improves. I hope he does as well as some posters want to believe.

Of course, you didn't say that. I can read. Also, I never said that age is the most important criteria either. Anyways enough about that.

Jesse has possibilities to improve his game a lot. We will never know unless he does it though. Sure, let them believe in Jesse. I think he deserves a chance.
 

guymez

The Seldom Seen Kid
Mar 3, 2004
32,644
12,154
Of course, you didn't say that. I can read. Also, I never said that age is the most important criteria either. Anyways enough about that.

Jesse has possibilities to improve his game a lot. We will never know unless he does it though. Sure, let them believe in Jesse. I think he deserves a chance.

Potential is nothing if it isnt fulfilled. I agree that jesse has potential but IMO he is missing important ingredients.
One is a willingness or ability to be an assertive player. the other is an ability to think the game at a high level. he has shown flashes that he can be assertive but he needs to do it consistently which is the hardest thing to do for a player. I wonder if its an element that is in conflict with who he is as a player and thats why its been so inconsistent.
If Jesse doesnt sort out those 2 elements then he will be a bottom 6 winger at best just like Pajaarvi.

Lastly something that nobody (@Aerrol or @Panda Bear) has addressed at all is that Jesse has regressed drastically this season from a points perspective. I am not aware of any player that regressed this badly and are still able to rise above it and persevere. Its a deficit position.
That doesnt mean it cant happen...it just means that its unlikely to happen.
 
Last edited:

GameChanger

Registered User
Jun 29, 2016
2,161
1,231
So if you put JP with someone like Drai or Chiasson he would get assists?

I've been wondering about the low assists as well. The good thing is he's assisted in quite a few goals without getting an official assist (remember the cases last season), but at the same time that tells about his new role which is sometimes hard for us long-time followers who would like to see him thrive in a different role.

At the end of last season especially Lucic failed quite a few opportunities he created, but Pulju failed to score himself too. However, when you isolate Pulju's numbers to when he played with McDavid and Drai the first two seasons look much better so yes I think he'd get assists with them. Hopefully he's now getting ready to do that with others too, but it's early to say.

In his first season he was actually #1 in all of NHL at primary assists/60 so for the low amount of TOI and games he did produce in that regard. All assists combined he was the 4th of the team (McDavid, Drai and Eberle ahead) at assists/60. Since that those numbers have been disappointing.
 
Last edited:

Panda Bear

Registered User
Apr 2, 2010
6,566
5,699
I know what you are saying but lets take a closer look.

So from your perspective break it down for me....lets focus on 1 player.
How is a college player like Wheeler comparable to Jesse?
Like Wheeler, Puljujarvi was drafted at #4 to play as an NHL winger.

Instead of being signed to play his D+1 in the NHL with the Coyotes, he played in the USHL. He then played in college for three years. Wheeler developed outside of the spotlight for four years. He made an impact in his D+5 and became the player he is today in his D+8.

Instead of playing in the USHL and college, Puljujarvi has been playing in the NHL. He is in his D+3.

It really, really doesn't matter in what league a player develops as long as they develop enough to become an impactful player.

If it did, then Wheeler was a far worse prospect than Puljujarvi since he wasn't hacking it in the NHL at the same point in his career. After all, college is nowhere near as good.

As for looking at NHL rookie seasons and going from there rather than going from draft year? Why, when Wheeler came out of college at an age older than Puljujarvi is now to play his rookie season, then one of two things were to be the case to make his D+5 NHL rookie season comparable to Puljujarvi's D+1 NHL rookie season:
1) Suddenly all of his years playing in the USHL and college were a mirage and he was actually 18 years old playing in his D+1; or
2) he didn't actually develop as a player whatsoever during those seasons in the USHL and college, so he could have made the same NHL impact in his D+1 as his D+5.

The timeline for boom-bust doesn't shift for prospects whether they play their D+1 in the NHL, AHL, college, junior or overseas. We would be a lot happier with Puljujarvi as a group if this was his rookie NHL season, but it isn't. He still gets the same amount of rope to turn into a player even though he started in the NHL earlier.
 

PULSATING

Registered User
Sep 20, 2018
1,119
2,509
Give the guy 5 games on the PP. Seriously wtf do you have to lose.

With the sorry state of the first unit right now I'm inclined to agree.

However, I'm not sure if his board work is strong enough to help the unit maintain possession and that's one of their biggest problems right now. But, what the hell, its not like we really have a better option to try than him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Burning GOAT

Aerrol

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Sep 18, 2014
6,555
3,208
WARNING - ESSAY BELOW. TL;DR: Sorry @guymez, I do read the posts and you've made a series of poorly argued/explained points here to try and discredit @Panda Bear's examples.

Well, I finally have time to write a more detailed response and I see that @Panda Bear has covered many of the points I would have liked to address. That said, I can’t let the following stand:
Sorry but this is flat out wrong. My post completely details why the examples are not valid. Why dont you show me where my post was incorrect?
I have to be honest I am actually a little surprised at this response if in fact you actually read my post. You completely missed the mark which supports my contention that you are not looking at the actual content of a post but reacting to what you think it says.
If I am wrong about this then show me which part of my post was off the mark.
I assure you, @guymez , I can and do read everything in these posts. For your reading pleasure, I have first edited my prior post to only quote the parts of your post it addressed. I have then broken up the remaining portions of your post to address each item in turn.

And to demonstrate I have, indeed, been able to read the conversation since then, I have also included even more specific quotes I address as well.

I would appreciate you responding in kind, or I may assume that you weren’t able to fully comprehend my post :sarcasm:. (If you don’t have time, then maybe you might understand why not every one of my posts addresses every one of your points before accusing me of being unable to read or being too “emotionally invested” to comprehend what you are writing. Maybe the issue is that you are communicating your point poorly.)
This post is in response to @Aerrol, @GameChanger and @KamiJ as well. No hard feelings interned at all.
My last post was hardly nitpicking...it was factual and relevant. That tends to rub people the wrong way when they are so invested emotionally into a player like Jesse and it doesnt fit their narritive.
This thread for the most part is fueled by that.
Addressed in my edit of my last post, but this is entirely unnecessary and serves only to 1. inflame the people you’re supposedly discussing the player with (ironic, given your next paragraph) and 2. comes across as a smug dismissal of differing viewpoints. Maybe they just disagree with you, have you considered that?
Your previous post stated: “So none of these players are valid comparables.” and then cited their points per game without any context as to age/development pace. What I can gather from the context of your following posts is that you think that a player’s PPG in their early NHL career is a good indicator of what they will become later on. This is my best read on what you’re getting at, as I note that you don’t actually say this outright anywhere. You just dismissed @Panda Bear ‘s examples with a lazy critique based on points per game which ignored the very important context of age, then addressed age by saying because they weren't in the NHL yet, they aren't a good comparable. I fail to see how this is true. You never address @Panda Bear ‘s main point: that development time (e.g. time played after draft year) matters more than the initial ppg of a young player in the NHL.
Well...I just want to make something clear here. I am not interested in a polarized debate regarding Jesse based on emotion. Too many posters here just jump all over any post that triues to bring realism and honesty to this discussion which turns it into a Pro Jesse / Anti Jesse discussion. I dont see it that way. Some posters are just trying to bait and I am not one of those.
I am just trying to look at facts and realistic expectations.
Again, if your aim is to avoid a “polarized debate” and discuss “facts and realistic expectations”, opening with shots at other people’s supposed lack of objectivity and “emotional investment” is a funny way of doing that. No one here is objective. We all have our own subjective opinions, you included, sorry. The only objective parts of a discussion on prospect development are the facts of the numbers they put up, the games they played, and the time they had on the ice. EVERYTHING else is subjective.

As you have disputed this before, let me provide you the relevant definition of objective from Merriam Webster:
“expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”

Just because you feel that you have less emotional investment in Puljujarvi’s development (which you also can’t verify, I note) does not mean you are not interpreting the information and are dealing with raw facts. We are all dealing with second or third hand information here on the player’s development. By definition, in order to have any opinion on the subject, we have to interpret the information we have read/heard and thus our opinions are not objective points of view. They are subjective opinions.
So I agree that age matters. I think you would agree that Centres are not valid comparables as well.
Here is where you actually get to the point and start discussing the actual argument. I will admit that I did not address the core point presented here in my previous post and apologize for that.

I think Centre has more complexity to it, but I do not think it is as simple as “Centre=Harder therefore Centres =/= Comparables for Jesse”. I think you can look at play-style, size, etc when considering potential comparables. Regardless, I believe it is more useful for discussion purposes to narrow it down to just the Wing examples @Panda Bear provided.
So with that in mind lets look at age and what players were doing at approx 20 years old to see which players from your list were valid comparables.....
Schwartz....0.70 ppg
Wheeler came out of college at 22 years old. 1st season he was a 0.55 ppg player
Kreider entered the NHL at 21 years old and his aggregate ppg for the equivalent of his 1sr season was 0.45.
Granlunds 1st season was at 21 years old and his aggregate ppg for the equivalent of his 1sr season was 0.55
The only player who is remotely close to being a comparable is Pacioretty but he didnt start in the NHL until he was 20 years old.
So if age is the most important element in your criteria then every player you posted simply isnt a valid comparable.

For completion’s sake, I will address each of these, but I do note that @Panda Bear has covered these points more or less already. The relevant NHL ppgs are as follows:
Puljujarvi went 0.29ppg in his D+1 season (2016-17) over a short 28 games. In his D+2 season (last season, 2017-18) he went 0.31 PPG over 65 games. This season (D+3) he is currently at 0.17PPG in a short 24 games played.

Jaden Schwartz went 0.43pgg over a short 7 games in 2011-12. He then, in his second call-up the following season, went 0.29ppg over 45 games in 2012-13 (his D+4 season). Finally, in his first full NHL season, he went the 0.70ppg you cite in his D+5 season, 2013-14.

Blake Wheeler is probably the closest comparable to Puljujarvi considering position, playstyle, size, draft position and development pace. This is why his name continues to come up as a best-case-scenario comparable to Puljujarvi. He did not see an NHL game until 2008-09, his D+5 year. In that year he went 0.56ppg, as you cite.

Kreider went 0.39ppg in the 2011-12 Playoffs (his D+3 year), then 0.13ppg in 23 games in his D+4 year, and finally 0.56ppg in 66 games in his D+5 year, 2013-14. Your usage of “aggregate of his equivalent of his 1st full season” is confusing to me here, as that is not what you use to judge Puljujarvi later on. I will address this at that point.

Granlund went 0.30ppg in 27 games in 2012-13, his D+3 year. D+4 he went 0.65ppg. Again, I do not understand how an “aggregate ppg for the equivalent of his 1st season” helps at all. It simply obscures the point about development time vs NHL ppg in their debut (which, again, is my best understanding of the point you are trying to make).

Pacioretty went 0.32PPG in 34 games in his D+2 year, his NHL debut, then 0.27PPG in D+3 (52 GP), and 0.65 PPG in 37 games in D+4.

The central response to all of this, in brief, is that all of these players entered the NHL much later in their post-draft careers than Puljujarvi, and were all chosen as examples showing that good NHL players can and do develop later in their careers. Wheeler, and Granlund go on to have further jumps in NHL production even later on in their careers: ~0.50ppg to ~0.85ppg for Wheeler from D+5-D+7 to D+8 on; ~0.60ppg to ~0.85ppg for Granlund from D+4-D+6 to D+7 on.

Once more, I am operating on the understanding that your point is as follows:

NHL players seldom develop significantly once they enter the NHL.

I am sure you will provide more nuance to it than this, but I think the numbers show that the examples above are Wingers (C/W for Granlund) who did in fact develop much later in their careers, with Wheeler and Granlund developing further while in the NHL. I and @Panda Bear believe that development age matters much more than the specific league you are playing in to do that development.
As for your take on McLellan...I dont understand you you think that your subjective take on Jesse's time under TMac makes that irrelevant. Doesnt make a lick of sense to me.
The reality is that Hitch isnt deploying Jesse any differently than TMac did.
So I get that you and others (myself included) want Jesse to succeed you cant just throw out factual information because it doesnt fit your narrative.

I addressed this in my last post, but you are just wrong here. Hitchcock has used Puljujarvi to close out games, he’s put him on the second line, and he’s yet to bench Puljujarvi for a game. These are all big changes from how McLellan utilized Jesse. Nevermind the complete shift in the narrative the coach is providing on the player.
Your criteria doesnt include context. Centre is a tougher position to play especially when making the jump to the NHL.
The defensive responsibility's make it a much tougher position therefore these players typically take longer to develop.
This has been reported by scouts and NHL coaches alike. You can discount it if you like though.
I addressed this point above.
As for your D+3 criteria...again...context matters. For example...College players are a different animal all together.
Age is the most relevant factor here and from an age perspective your examples are not comparable.
Its a reach at best.
Age is indeed the most relevant factor. It shows that Jesse is ahead of all of those examples at the same ahead if we’re looking at the league they’re playing in. Development is hardly so simple, but you haven’t dug into any of the comparables that would prove otherwise – their numbers in the lower league, usage, etc. I appreciate that this would be a lot of work, but I think it is hardly a reach to make the point that there are quite a few examples out there of late-blooming NHL stars.

To dig into the comparison in the lower leagues, let’s pull out Jesse’s AHL numbers so far:
D+1: 0.72ppg in 39 games. D+2: 0.50ppg in 10 games.

Schwartz: D+1: 1.56ppg in 30GP (college). D+2: .1.37ppg in 30GP (college). D+3: 0.58ppg in 33GP (AHL).

Wheeler: D+1: 0.81ppg in 58GP (USHL). D+2: 0.60ppg in 39GP (college). D+3: 0.86ppg in 44GP (college). D+4: 80ppg in 44GP (college).

Kreider: D+1: 0.61ppg in 38GP (college). D+2: 0.75ppg in 32GP (college). D+3: 1.02ppg in 44GP (college). D+4: 0.48ppg in 48GP (AHL). D+5: 0.67ppg in 6GP (AHL).

Granlund: D+1: 0.92ppg in 39GP (SM-Liiga). D+2: 1.13ppg in 45GP (SM-Liiga). D+3: 0.97ppg in 29GP (AHL).

Pacioretty: D+1: 1.05ppg in 37GP (college). D+2: 0.78ppg in 37GP (AHL). D+3: 0.61ppg in 18GP (AHL). D+4: 1.19 PPG in 27GP (AHL).

None of this is definitive, but it seems to me that Puljujarvi has had AHL numbers at least in line with what Schwartz, Kreider and Pacioretty put up at similar or older ages. A true in-depth look would have to consider the quality of those teams and their usage, but I don’t have that much time, even if I am writing this long essay. I note that the earliest any of these players played in the AHL or NHL was Pacioretty in his D+2 year. So, again, Pulju has been playing in that league far earlier than any of them, and the AHL is definitely a harder league to play in than college or the USHL. I know that there is an argument to be made that SM-Liiga is better than the AHL for quality of competition, but I will just state that the AHL is probably the closest league to the NHL in terms of both quality of competition and style of play.
Potential is nothing if it isnt fulfilled. I agree that jesse has potential but IMO he is missing important ingredients.
One is a willingness or ability to be an assertive player. the other is an ability to think the game at a high level. he has shown flashes that he can be assertive but he needs to do it consistently which is the hardest thing to do for a player. I wonder if its an element that is in conflict with who he is as a player and thats why its been so inconsistent.
If Jesse doesnt sort out those 2 elements then he will be a bottom 6 winger at best just like Pajaarvi.
I don’t disagree with this, though I would attribute much of that inconsistency to his unsurprisingly terrible handling by the Oilers. If nothing else, I would note that looking at players like Wheeler and Granlund suggests to me even more that they should have kept him in Finland at least one more full season after his draft.
Lastly something that nobody (@Aerrol or @Panda Bear) has addressed at all is that Jesse has regressed drastically this season from a points perspective. I am not aware of any player that regressed this badly and are still able to rise above it and persevere. Its a deficit position.
That doesnt mean it cant happen...it just means that its unlikely to happen.
As I note earlier, this is confusing, as you are now holding Jesse’s more limited sample sizes (28GP, 65GP and now 24GP) against him but at the same time created aggregated ppgs for “full seasons” for Kreider and Granlund. In fact, if we look at the players described above, we can see that Schwartz and Kreider both experienced similar dips in ppg where they showed poorer after promising starts the season before. Granlund had a disappointing first crack at the NHL, then came on much stronger in the next season (his D+4 season vs Jesse's current D+3). The regression you speak of for Jesse is approximately 0.3 to 0.17, or a loss of 0.13ppg. Schwartz dropped from 0.43 to 0.29 or a drop of 0.14ppg. Kreider dropped from 0.39 to 0.13, or a drop of 0.26ppg. So right there, in the examples being discussed, are two good NHL players who showed significant ‘regression’ and then rebounded. Nevermind that for Puljujarvi and those two, the sample size is really too small to say too much without watching the games, or that Puljujarvi looks significantly better under Hitchcock to my eye.

Other examples of bounce-back at the NHL level include: Max Domi (0.64ppg, 0.64ppg, 0.55ppg, currently 0.97ppg in 34 GP),Eric Staal (0.77ppg, 0.70ppg, 0.52ppg, 0.79ppg, 0.92ppg, currently 0.69ppg in 32GP), Ovechkin (1.51ppg, 1.08ppg, 0.83ppg, 1.17ppg, 1.01ppg, 1.00ppg, 0.90ppg, 0.84ppg, 1.06ppg, currently 1.34ppg in 32GP), and Kuznetsov (0.53ppg, 0.46ppg, 0.93ppg, 0.72ppg, 1.05ppg, currently 1.19ppg in 26GP). Obviously somewhat different circumstances for Staal, Ovie and Kuznetsov, especially Ovie and Staal, but the point stands that having down years is not that rare in the NHL.

As for likelihood of development, I do think it’s in the very unlikely category that Puljujarvi develops into a star. I’d say if I were to estimate right now, I’d put it at 10% chance of total back-to-Europe bust ala Yakupov, 40% chance of turning into a Paajarvi type player, 30% chance of becoming a valuable but ultimately disappointing 3rd line checking winger, and 20% chance of turning into a legitimate top-6 forward.

Given their initial looks in the NHL and their growth later in their NHL careers, the examples @Panda Bear cited are indeed great examples of potential comparables for Jesse being a late blooming NHLer.

And that concludes my essay in response to @guymez ‘s posts on age vs initial NHL ppg as proof that I do, in fact, read the posts I comment on. All ppg numbers were hand calculated by me and used hockeydb as the source.

As I suspect that this thread will be closed soon due to length, I will make sure to re-post this in the new thread as well so you have ample opportunity to respond :D if you so choose.

p.s. @GameChanger my comment about the multiple posts was mostly tongue in cheek – it can be hard to follow a conversation when you quote that many different people at once but at the same time it’s not a big deal. No offense intended :).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->