Prospect Info: Noah Juulsen Part III

[Rafafouille]

I like his style and still have high hopes for him, but he had atrocious stretches last season and his ice time was reduced as a result. I'm guessing #3 RD spot is his to lose.

When was his ice time reduced? His last game before getting injured he played 20:30. Came back for a few games and then was shut down for the rest of the season because of the injury. He never lost ice time other than those last 4 games where he tried playing before the team decided he was done.

 

[Mike Mike Caron]

I believe he's our best defence prospect, as a 20 years old he was already playing like a vet before his injuries.

 

[Runner77]

A little bit eerie that the rating comes from a source whose name includes the word “Eyes”.

And that Juulsen is slated to play a season that ends in 2020.

Here’s hoping he’s 100% recovered.

 

[habsfan891]

If Petry is resigned before the expansion draft causing us to lose one of mete or juulsen for nothing that will be the stupidest asset management I've seen in a long time

 

[Mrb1p]

A little bit eerie that the rating comes from a source whose name includes the word “Eyes”.

And that Juulsen is slated to play a season that ends in 2020.

Here’s hoping he’s 100% recovered.

Cricket sound

 

[Mike Mike Caron]

If Petry is resigned before the expansion draft causing us to lose one of mete or juulsen for nothing that will be the stupidest asset management I've seen in a long time

None of them will ever come close to Petry's contribution.

 

[habsfan891]

None of them will ever come close to Petry's contribution.

Maybe but ill still take mete and juulsen over a 35+ petry no questions asked because i certainly expect brook to equal and possibly better his production

 

[DAChampion]

None of them will ever come close to Petry's contribution.

Neither will Petry given the aging process.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I believe he's our best defence prospect, as a 20 years old he was already playing like a vet before his injuries.

If you told Bergevin and Timmins that they could keep two of Juulsen, Brook and Romanov; I guarantee you Juulsen would be gone.......not to say I dislike Juulsen but that he is definitely not valued as much as Brook and Romanov.

 

[Miller Time]

If you told Bergevin and Timmins that they could keep two of Juulsen, Brook and Romanov; I guarantee you Juulsen would be gone.......not to say I dislike Juulsen but that he is definitely not valued as much as Brook and Romanov.

The certainty you speak with... Is it grounded in anything beyond personal opinion?

 

[montreal]

The certainty you speak with... Is it grounded in anything beyond personal opinion?

logic, there's no way it's not true.

 

[Miller Time]

logic, there's no way it's not true.

i would disagree strongly with that usage of the word "logic"...

common sense might fit a bit better, seeing as Brook/Romanov are riding successful post-draft seasons and so still benefit from the lag btw pure projection of their NHL potential and actual evidence of how they manage the transition (like Juulsen has had, which while he hasn't done anything to limit/reduce the potential projected to him when he was drafted - higher than both comparables, 2 & 3 yrs previously). Juulsen's injury, also, chipping away at his perceived value, especially among fans.

but from there, to suggest that it is "logic" to assume that the organization without hesitation values (or projects higher) Brook/Romanov over Juulsen, is far too big a leap. It may well be the case, and I certainly woulnd't bet against that, but I also wouldn't call it a given...

at least one public ranking of habs top 25 prospects under 25 has Romanaov 9, Juulsen 10, Brook 11... inferring certainty that the GM couldn't possibly share that assessment, or have his own assessment placing Juulsen above both in his own valuing, is a reach unless someone has access to information that would confirm his evaluation.

 

[montreal]

i would disagree strongly with that usage of the word "logic"...

common sense might fit a bit better, seeing as Brook/Romanov are riding successful post-draft seasons and so still benefit from the lag btw pure projection of their NHL potential and actual evidence of how they manage the transition (like Juulsen has had, which while he hasn't done anything to limit/reduce the potential projected to him when he was drafted - higher than both comparables, 2 & 3 yrs previously). Juulsen's injury, also, chipping away at his perceived value, especially among fans.

but from there, to suggest that it is "logic" to assume that the organization without hesitation values (or projects higher) Brook/Romanov over Juulsen, is far too big a leap. It may well be the case, and I certainly woulnd't bet against that, but I also wouldn't call it a given...

at least one public ranking of habs top 25 prospects under 25 has Romanaov 9, Juulsen 10, Brook 11... inferring certainty that the GM couldn't possibly share that assessment, or have his own assessment placing Juulsen above both in his own valuing, is a reach unless someone has access to information that would confirm his evaluation.

I think it's 100% that the organization would without hesitation value Brook and Romanov over Juulsen. That's not a slight on Juulsen who is a solid young D but his upside is limited and then you have injury issues to go with it. Brook was just one of the best defensemen in the CHL, something we haven't seen since Subban did it in his age 19 season as well. Romanov if he were a RD maybe there's a case to be made as I'm not as sold on him as others in terms of his upside. But with LD being the biggest issue for the Habs going forward and the impressive season he just had a 18, I just don't see how any team would not value him higher as of today.

 

[Miller Time]

I think it's 100% that the organization would without hesitation value Brook and Romanov over Juulsen. That's not a slight on Juulsen who is a solid young D but his upside is limited and then you have injury issues to go with it. Brook was just one of the best defensemen in the CHL, something we haven't seen since Subban did it in his age 19 season as well. Romanov if he were a RD maybe there's a case to be made as I'm not as sold on him as others in terms of his upside. But with LD being the biggest issue for the Habs going forward and the impressive season he just had a 18, I just don't see how any team would not value him higher as of today.

I don't see how any team with as thin a LD org. depth would trade a top prospect LD... but that's the point. What we observe from the outside and deduce as "common sense" or "logical" remains opinion and speculation, and GM's regularly make decisions that seem to run counter to general consensus.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Brook or Romanov's potential, though i do disagree with the way you position Juulsen's injury "issues" - based on the available information i've seen, there is zero reason to suggest his freak eye-injury will have any limiting factor on his potential, beyond the 1/2 season of hockey he missed. Yet none of that adds up to certainty about how the current team management internally ranks/projects the players...

Funny you mention PK, bc the illogical way the current management group evaluated him when he was about Juulsen's age, was very apparent both in the comments made by the HC and by MB's bridge fiasco... what appears obvious and common sense to some should never be assumed to be a given for others.

 

[montreal]

I don't see how any team with as thin a LD org. depth would trade a top prospect LD... but that's the point. What we observe from the outside and deduce as "common sense" or "logical" remains opinion and speculation, and GM's regularly make decisions that seem to run counter to general consensus.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Brook or Romanov's potential, though i do disagree with the way you position Juulsen's injury "issues" - based on the available information i've seen, there is zero reason to suggest his freak eye-injury will have any limiting factor on his potential, beyond the 1/2 season of hockey he missed. Yet none of that adds up to certainty about how the current team management internally ranks/projects the players...

Funny you mention PK, bc the illogical way the current management group evaluated him when he was about Juulsen's age, was very apparent both in the comments made by the HC and by MB's bridge fiasco... what appears obvious and common sense to some should never be assumed to be a given for others.

Juulsen has had more then the eye injury, he's been injured several times. He never once played all 72 games in his 4 WHL seasons, one season he was close with 68 games. He's played in 78 games over 2 years between the NHL and AHL as he was also injured at the start of his rookie pro season. So I'm sure it's something that any GM would take into consideration if they were forced to trade one of the three.

It's of course just opinion or speculation, there is nothing else when posting on a message board. To me it's logic or common sense, either way to me that's how I see it.

As for Subban he's in a very different situation for very different reasons which don't need to be discussed in this thread. Just because they made a move with him when we don't have all the facts or variables doesn't mean anything in regards to Juulsen, Brook and Romanov. It was years ago with total different players that play very different games and are very different people. I wouldn't compare the situations at all other then it's MB but he clearly seems to be taking this team in a direction that is built for the future more then the present imo.

 

[Miller Time]

It's of course just opinion or speculation, there is nothing else when posting on a message board. To me it's logic or common sense, either way to me that's how I see it.

.

right... which is all i was saying from the start. At times, posters do have additional information or insights, which is what I was asking EP in the first place when you chimed in.

There is, imo, a big difference btw an opinion grounded on speculation and inference, and an opinion grounded on firm information. How one chooses to articulate the two is a question of semantics, to a degree, and i didn't intent to bog down the forum with semantic arguments/debates... however making statements like "logic, there's no way it's not true" imo confuses the two in a problematic way. I appreciate that you cleared it up.

The PK reference i think holds true... the timing of it, or even the ppl involved, is irrelevant to the point that GM's regularly make decisions that don't align with public consensus, or even statistical facts. They to, operate from opinions and judgement, and can & do regularly make assessments on players that would seem to fly in the face of "logic".

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

If you told Bergevin and Timmins that they could keep two of Juulsen, Brook and Romanov; I guarantee you Juulsen would be gone.......not to say I dislike Juulsen but that he is definitely not valued as much as Brook and Romanov.

I like Juulsen plenty but out of Mete, Romanov, Brook and maybe even Fleury; I'd probably get rid of Juulsen first. Juulsen looks rock solid but I don't think the upside is that high. I'd gamble on the others' respective ceilings for sure. Again, no Juulsen hate. I liked what I saw but I'm biasing offensive D men and I think Juulsen has the lowest offensive upside of the 5.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I like Juulsen plenty but out of Mete, Romanov, Brook and maybe even Fleury; I'd probably get rid of Juulsen first. Juulsen looks rock solid but I don't think the upside is that high. I'd gamble on the others' respective ceilings for sure. Again, no Juulsen hate. I liked what I saw but I'm biasing offensive D men and I think Juulsen has the lowest offensive upside of the 5.

I like Juulsen as well but my biggest concern isn't necessarily offense as he may very well be better than Mete in this area solely based on his shot. My concerns are with his lack of mobility relative to our other young dmen especially with the fact that Weber isn't getting any faster and will be playing RD for us for a long time. The other cocern is the elephant in the room with Juulsen and that is concussions. Hopefully he never has to deal with another one again but I don't think anyone would bet on that. Unfortunately he may only be 1 bad one away from being done.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

I like Juulsen as well but my biggest concern isn't necessarily offense as he may very well be better than Mete in this area solely based on his shot. My concerns are with his lack of mobility relative to our other young dmen especially with the fact that Weber isn't getting any faster and will be playing RD for us for a long time. The other cocern is the elephant in the room with Juulsen and that is concussions. Hopefully he never has to deal with another one again but I don't think anyone would bet on that. Unfortunately he may only be 1 bad one away from being done.

yeah if he doesn't get a bit quicker being a top 4 could be a problem. Looks like he got burned on the outside a bunch last year. That could just be fixed with experience but still I'm biasing skating along with offense too. I'm a huge Mete fan but again fair point. Juulsen has a solid shot and actually decent puck skills.

 

[Tyson]

Good young player, nothing special.

 

[26Mats]

I believe he's our best defence prospect, as a 20 years old he was already playing like a vet before his injuries.

Many believe he'll ultimately be a 2 or 3.

Is his ceiling Marc Staal in his prime?

 

[Video Coach]

I'm not convinced about his foot work. Still a bit sluggish with his feet getting to pucks and reacting to plays. He'll get a good shot this year but I no longer see him as a truly important player for this team. Maybe that will change over the course of this year, but I see him as a replaceable player at this point.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

I'm not convinced about his foot work. Still a bit sluggish with his feet getting to pucks and reacting to plays. He'll get a good shot this year but I no longer see him as a truly important player for this team. Maybe that will change over the course of this year, but I see him as a replaceable player at this point.

If Brook has a good year he could very well make Juulsen expendable, especially if Fleury takes another step as well. I really do like Juulsen but I could see him being traded at the draft for picks or to move up.

 

[montreal]

right... which is all i was saying from the start. At times, posters do have additional information or insights, which is what I was asking EP in the first place when you chimed in.

There is, imo, a big difference btw an opinion grounded on speculation and inference, and an opinion grounded on firm information. How one chooses to articulate the two is a question of semantics, to a degree, and i didn't intent to bog down the forum with semantic arguments/debates... however making statements like "logic, there's no way it's not true" imo confuses the two in a problematic way. I appreciate that you cleared it up.

The PK reference i think holds true... the timing of it, or even the ppl involved, is irrelevant to the point that GM's regularly make decisions that don't align with public consensus, or even statistical facts. They to, operate from opinions and judgement, and can & do regularly make assessments on players that would seem to fly in the face of "logic".

Usually if someone has some type of info they would list it for their reasoning since anyone that spends even a little time here knows you are going to get called out around here for anything and everything said.

To me I just think it's not much of a decision, I got to think hands down, 100% management would value Brook and Romanov over Juulsen.

I like Juulsen plenty but out of Mete, Romanov, Brook and maybe even Fleury; I'd probably get rid of Juulsen first. Juulsen looks rock solid but I don't think the upside is that high. I'd gamble on the others' respective ceilings for sure. Again, no Juulsen hate. I liked what I saw but I'm biasing offensive D men and I think Juulsen has the lowest offensive upside of the 5.

Brook and Romanov I'd say 100% for sure imo, Mete I assume so especially when you consider the LD vs RD issues then add Mete is such a better skater with great mobility and in today's NHL that is key. Fleury though that one is much tougher, I would expect Juulsen to end up being the better NHLer but it's more of an offense vs defense as Fleury can put the puck in the net better but Juulsen owns him in their own end. Fleury has the skating and mobility that Juulsen lacks though so it would be tougher to say. If Fleury takes a big leap this season and Juulsen struggles or stays the same even, then I could see him being moved out so that they don't lose him by the expansion draft. Although it's so far away it's very hard to really say how it will unfold at this time.

I like Juulsen as well but my biggest concern isn't necessarily offense as he may very well be better than Mete in this area solely based on his shot. My concerns are with his lack of mobility relative to our other young dmen especially with the fact that Weber isn't getting any faster and will be playing RD for us for a long time. The other cocern is the elephant in the room with Juulsen and that is concussions. Hopefully he never has to deal with another one again but I don't think anyone would bet on that. Unfortunately he may only be 1 bad one away from being done.

agreed, if Juulsen had better mobility but in today's NHL that is huge so we'll need to see if he's been working on that.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I like Juulsen too. Seems like a nice enough fellow. I have never been sold on his ability to play NHL hockey. I don't like his upside/ability much and I think his value is nearly zero.