Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi - 5th overall 2016

[valkynax]

Well, whether I like or hate the pick, at this point I've made peace with it. I have to, else I will go insane.

Same thing I said about all our young guys: let's see where this goes, worse case scenario we suck for another 20 years, who cares.

 

[Ainec]

Much like the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause and the ****ing tooth fairy, BPA as you suggest, is a figment of HFboards posters' imaginations. As much as any one person thinks of player selection as black and white, it's, in reality, many, many, many shades of grey. The Canucks went with Joulevi because they thought he was the best player available....maybe he will be.....but i can guarantee you he wasn't "BPA" at 5 on every teams list. Some probably had him there, some probably had him lower, some might have had him higher. Who freaking knows. The whole concept of consensus BPA, on these boards, is a ****ing farce.

You know what, I can agree with you here

Juolevi might very well end up being better than Tkachuk and Keller (my own bias). But the issue I am having is that he was not the consensus best defenseman in the OHL (Sergachev) while everyone here is making him out to be. The Flyers took Provorov, Sanheim, and Morin. 3 different leagues but all highly regarded as the best in each league

 

[iFan]

You know what, I can agree with you here

Juolevi might very well end up being better than Tkachuk and Keller (my own bias). But the issue I am having is that he was not the consensus best defenseman in the OHL (Sergachev) while everyone here is making him out to be. The Flyers took Provorov, Sanheim, and Morin. 3 different leagues but all highly regarded as the best in each league

Bmac list has been the one you guys have been using and Juolevi was indeed the best d man on his list, right there at 6th a few spots higher than the Russian. I personally wouldn't want us to draft a Russian that high, they just haven't been working out well, Yaks, Nuke, Kulikov and remember that other one a few drafts ago that was projected as a 1st overall pick and in his draft year fell like a rock, the Islanders picked him up in a later round. high picked and profile Russians don't seem to work out very well

 

[Nick Lang]

No he can't. He is a solid player like Hamhuis who is not exceptional in any one category. Even on an offensive juggernaut like junior hockey has not seen in years his offensive total is underwhelming and he is a pretty skinny little guy. At the same height Sergachev is 30 lbs heavier.

I really used to enjoy your level headed approach and posts but you've turned cynical and jaded. Unfortunate. Juolevi is miles ahead in intelligence. They are not equivalent in the eyes of Benning, and just about everyone else in the hockey world.

Oh, and by the way, it's their main focus to excite you after one of the only bad years in the last decade. That's silly.

 

[F A N]

Listen, its not a question of Bob's prediction rate, right or wrong. It's his comment that it was an obvious decision. My reply is in response to a quote that implies that HFCanucks manufactured a situation whereby Dubois and Tkachuk were the only two obvious choices. It was an opinion where the majority of scouts, publications, and prominent draft followers aligned, that Tkachuk was the top OHL skater and was considered a top 4-5 player.

I took it as a figure of speech. The question was who does he think the Canucks will draft not who the Canucks should draft. It's like asking Mckenzie who Columbus will draft. The obvious choice was Pujujarvi. But all along, we've heard Benning say that he likes 6 players and it includes a defenseman. It's presumed that that defenseman was Juolevi because it's been mentioned by several analysts/publications/scouts that Juolevi was a guy the Canucks really liked. Given Canucks' need is at centre and on defence, saying Tkachuk is an obvious choice does not take into the fact that the Canucks really like Juolevi.

I honestly don't think McKenzie was as speculative under NBC than when TSN was doing the draft. Back in the day, TSN will often, in certain situations, show a number of names and McKenzie will say something to the effect that Tkachuk is the highest ranked player on the board but people I have spoken to have told me that the Canucks really liked Juolevi etc. NBC is not as prepared for such segments IMO.

Interestingly, TSN's Ryan Rishaug tweeted that the Oilers were going to take a D at 4 before Pujujarvi fell. https://twitter.com/TSNRyanRishaug?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

its really ignorant of GM's to say such stupid things putting a cap on a players ceiling when they have no clue.

Huh? This happens quite often. And Benning has been on record as saying there are probably around 12 or so #1 Dman and he thinks Juolevi is a first pairing Dman. Makes sense to me. You

Why is he so much better than Sergachev? I'm not trying to be a jerk just genuinely curious what makes him so much better than Sergachev and Chychrun

I think it's reasonable for some to have Sergachev over Juolevi. Seems like a matter of preference in terms of ultimate upside. But according to McKenzie's survey, 9 out of 10 had Juolevi in their top 10 and 5 had Sergachev outside of the top 10. I think this suggests that Juolevi's floor is higher and the safer pick. Basically, if you like Juolevi you believe that he thinks the game better at both ends of the ice than Dmen like Sergachev and his 2nd half progression was better than Sergachev.

Chychrun didn't have a good draft year and he fell because there were questions over his ability to think the game vs someone like Juolevi.

 

[701]

Bmac list has been the one you guys have been using and Juolevi was indeed the best d man on his list, right there at 6th a few spots higher than the Russian. I personally wouldn't want us to draft a Russian that high, they just haven't been working out well, Yaks, Nuke, Kulikov and remember that other one a few drafts ago that was projected as a 1st overall pick and in his draft year fell like a rock, the Islanders picked him up in a later round. high picked and profile Russians don't seem to work out very well

Not only Bmac had him as the top D. McKeen's did too, smack dab at #5. Where he was picked.
Prospect rankings vary considerably, and given their inexact and debatable nature, Juolevi was not a reach at #5.

We might know the actual truth in 5 years, but for now, the rankings are buckshot, not bullets.

 

[Nick Lang]

The reason I guess many people are upset and I was dissapointed at the Juolevi pick is mostly because he really doesn't show many #1 d qualities. Like creativity and flash. Look at the most highly coffeted defensemen in the league. They all have that flash and creativity in their game. Juolevi is as bland as you can get.

Not saying that he will always play blandly throughout his career. But if he doesn't develop his offensive game to be more creative then he will not be a #1 guy.

This is also a big reason I had Bean so high on my list (#4). That's not to say that Juolevi will never develop that into his game. However, I think creativity is probably the hardest thing to develop into your game. This is why I have my doubts about him becoming a #1.

But you know what anything can happen, and I'm not too upset about us passing over Tkachuk for him.

I don't think you have be flashy but more importantly make a high percentage of plays that create offence consistently and put the other team under pressure keeping them on the back foot while never making a mistake. That's how Keith plays.

 

[Nick Lang]

Thanks. I'm even more encouraged after seeing that.

That was a terrific highlight package. He'll be the most intelligent, heads up, play controlling defenceman we've ever had. Comparable only perhaps to the likes of Lumme, or Brown.

Some people should have a different viewpoint in 2-3 years then they do today. Edler, Tanev, Garrison, Hamhuis, and Bieksa are/were good players but have absolutely nothing on him when it comes to reading and reacting to the game. I think folks will be pleasantly surprised at what this type of defenceman can do for a team.

 

[thefeebster]

Feebs, it isn't worth it. There have been countless posts on Tkachuk. Everything from studying and critiquing his game, to clips, to reports and scouting chatter about him. If people still consider the pick a toss up after all of that information, that's their prerogative. Yes, Tkachuk was/is favoured in projections... but it's projection in the end. Now we have to see each player play their respective careers. See if that projection holds.

Good thing we will get to see a lot of Tkachuk in CGY...

Can't stop. Won't stop Well at least until its time to sleep.

I took it as a figure of speech. The question was who does he think the Canucks will draft not who the Canucks should draft. It's like asking Mckenzie who Columbus will draft. The obvious choice was Pujujarvi. But all along, we've heard Benning say that he likes 6 players and it includes a defenseman. It's presumed that that defenseman was Juolevi because it's been mentioned by several analysts/publications/scouts that Juolevi was a guy the Canucks really liked. Given Canucks' need is at centre and on defence, saying Tkachuk is an obvious choice does not take into the fact that the Canucks really like Juolevi.

I honestly don't think McKenzie was as speculative under NBC than when TSN was doing the draft. Back in the day, TSN will often, in certain situations, show a number of names and McKenzie will say something to the effect that Tkachuk is the highest ranked player on the board but people I have spoken to have told me that the Canucks really liked Juolevi etc. NBC is not as prepared for such segments IMO.

That's the whole premise of this discussion, who was the obvious pick? That's all i was implying by mentioning that McKenzie quote. Not who the right pick was or who we should have picked, it was to show who the obvious pick was and that was in response to the originally quoted post that implied Tkachuk wasn't the obvious selection for various reasons.

The NBC broadcast was exactly the same as the old TSN. A lot of ppl here even remarked on it, saying it was like the good old days. I'm not buying that NBC wasn't prepared. McKenzie & the panel didn't do anything different from before, nor should he change it up. The names were rolling on a ticker below. The only differences in the broadcasts were the "American player" slides they put up at the start of commercial breaks, to replace the interviews with the players and to make it more geared towards their US audience.

 

[Seventy7]

The only issue I have with the pick is that it is not one that oozes excitement.

Thats honestly what this market is craving... some bloody excitement.

Juolevi is a very solid pick and will help this franchise for many years. Hell, theres a chance for him to be one of the best Canuck blueliners EVER.

But Olli Juolevi wont be Mikael Sergachev. Hell be a better dman overall in my opinion, but wont push fans to the edge of their seats, and that is something I miss dearly about my hockey team, and something this fan base desperately needs imo.

 

[Josepho]

The only issue I have with the pick is that it is not one that oozes excitement.

Thats honestly what this market is craving... some bloody excitement.

Juolevi is a very solid pick and will help this franchise for many years. Hell, theres a chance for him to be one of the best Canuck blueliners EVER.

But Olli Juolevi wont be Mikael Sergachev. Hell be a better dman overall in my opinion, but wont push fans to the edge of their seats, and that is something I miss dearly about my hockey team, and something this fan base desperately needs imo.

I do agree with this, but it says more about how mediocre our defencemen have been than it does about Juolevi.

 

[Olli Juolevi]

The only issue I have with the pick is that it is not one that oozes excitement.

Thats honestly what this market is craving... some bloody excitement.

Juolevi is a very solid pick and will help this franchise for many years. Hell, theres a chance for him to be one of the best Canuck blueliners EVER.

But Olli Juolevi wont be Mikael Sergachev. Hell be a better dman overall in my opinion, but wont push fans to the edge of their seats, and that is something I miss dearly about my hockey team, and something this fan base desperately needs imo.

This fan base needs to relax, the team isn't going to fix itself overnight. During this transition period and post sedins the team will have chances at drafting a #1C to replace Hank. From there they will be in good shape.

 

[Nick Lang]

Production for defenders is driven almost entirely by PP time.

The top offensive defenders in the league (Karlsson excepted) score about 30 ES points, while 'defensive' guys (excluding total coke machines) score around 20. There isn't much difference.

The guys who score 50 points all do so because they are consistently the #1 PP QB option for their team, excel at it, and score 20-25 points with the man advantage.

When you have a guy like Juolevi who - while skilled - is a conservative player who isn't a PP standout even in junior, it's really difficult (and IMO unrealistic) to make that sort of 50-point projection.

Sometimes guys surprise - I wouldn't have thought McDonagh would score 40 points - but looking realistically, Juolevi looks to me like a top-pairing ES guy who'll get 2nd unit PP time. And those guys usually score 25-35 points.

2nd unit? What, he is miles better than any defender we've had since Ehrhoff.

 

[F A N]

That's the whole premise of this discussion, who was the obvious pick? That's all i was implying by mentioning that McKenzie quote. Not who the right pick was or who we should have picked, it was to show who the obvious pick was and that was in response to the originally quoted post that implied Tkachuk wasn't the obvious selection for various reasons.

Right and my point is that it is a figure of speech.

The NBC broadcast was exactly the same as the old TSN.

No it isn't. The production is different.

A lot of ppl here even remarked on it, saying it was like the good old days.

Well ya compared to Sportsnet. You have Mckenzie, Mcguire, and Button as the analysts.

I'm not buying that NBC wasn't prepared. McKenzie & the panel didn't do anything different from before, nor should he change it up. The names were rolling on a ticker below. The only differences in the broadcasts were the "American player" slides they put up at the start of commercial breaks, to replace the interviews with the players and to make it more geared towards their US audience.

Maybe McKenzie wasn't on his game this year then. Do you have a video clip or a complete transcript? I don't remember McKenzie ever saying the "obvious pick is" without offering alternatives and end up being wrong.

 

[Nick Lang]

Better than "okay" in the WJC-U20: he basically tied for the second-most assists *ever* in one
tournament, and is the *only* age 17 player in a forest of age 19s at the top of the chart:

http://www.quanthockey.com/wjc-u20/en/records/most-assists-in-one-season-by-wjc-u20-defensemen.html

Imagine Juolevi at age 19.

What an impressive and successful list of players.

 

[Nick Lang]

its really ignorant of GM's to say such stupid things putting a cap on a players ceiling when they have no clue.

Fact is Juolevi could very well become a number 1 D-man in the NHL and the more good things I hear about him the more I suspect he will become one

It's even funnier that you fell for it. and yet even funnier you admit it.

 

[StIllmatic]

I don't get why people are hating on the player......he's exactly the type of player our team needs. It's fair to criticize the pick but I personally find it hard to hate the player, Juolevi doesn't really have any glaring flaws.

No glaring flaws, but I do not find any part of him to be particularly amazing either. Tkachuk has more upside and was the correct choice. Benning himself said he has 1st line upside and that there is no #1/top pairing(?) defenseman in the draft. Stings even more that it is Calgary who picks up Tkachuk.

 

[DanCloutiersFiveHole]

No glaring flaws, but I do not find any part of him to be particularly amazing either. Tkachuk has more upside and was the correct choice. Benning himself said he has 1st line upside and that there is no #1/top pairing(?) defenseman in the draft. Stings even more that it is Calgary who picks up Tkachuk.

1st pairing d-man is the equivalent of a 1st line fwd IMO. It sucks not to have a replacement for offense and I probably would have picked Tkachuk but there are probably more 1st line wingers than there are 1st pairing d-men. A true number one d-man would be your franchise center equivalent.

 

[thefeebster]

Right and my point is that it is a figure of speech.

No it isn't. The production is different.

Well ya compared to Sportsnet. You have Mckenzie, Mcguire, and Button as the analysts.

Maybe McKenzie wasn't on his game this year then. Do you have a video clip or a complete transcript? I don't remember McKenzie ever saying the "obvious pick is" without offering alternatives and end up being wrong.

A figure of speech... you've got to be kidding me. In plain english, in response to a post that suggested Tkachuk was not the obvious pick, I used Bob's quote right before the pick saying that it was the obvious pick in his opinion. Bob went on the team1040 a month ago saying that all of the scouts he polled, 9/10 had him at 4 or 5. Based on what Bob knows, it was an obvious choice, those are his words. That's not a figure of speech, that's what he knows. This is not discussing who should have been taken or who Benning would have taken given his comment. No, just stop with that. It's a poster saying it's not an obvious decision, countered with Bob saying it was obvious. That is it.

List out how the production is different. They had top ranked players were shown at the bottom, Craig's trait breakdown, and they went over player comparable. Everything's the same, minus the player interviews as Sportsnet got the rights to that, and the new American player/hockey focused segments to replace the interview portions. NBC's production was pretty much the same as TSN.

Did you even watch the NBC production? Because i am really starting to question it.

 

[F A N]

A figure of speech... you've got to be kidding me. In plain english, in response to a post that suggested Tkachuk was not the obvious pick, I used Bob's quote right before the pick saying that it was the obvious pick in his opinion. Bob went on the team1040 a month ago saying that all of the scouts he polled, 9/10 had him at 4 or 5. Based on what Bob knows, it was an obvious choice, those are his words. That's not a figure of speech, that's what he knows. This is not discussing who should have been taken or who Benning would have taken given his comment. No, just stop with that. It's a poster saying it's not an obvious decision, countered with Bob saying it was obvious. That is it.

Okay. It's not a figure of speech in the literal sense. I mispoke. What I meant to say is that what is an obvious choice to Mckenzie is not an obvious choice if considering insider knowledge.

If the word on the street (coming from respectable sources) is that Benning likes Dubois and Juolevi, Benning himself said he likes 6 players with one being a Dman, the Canucks feel they need to draft a Dman, and all else being equal Benning has said he prefers to draft a Dman, but 9 out of the 10 scouts McKenzie surveyed had Tkachuk at 4 or 5 then it's somehow an obvious choice that the Canucks would draft Tkachuk? No, just stop with that.

You know how many times Bob McKenzie has predicted over the years that a team would select a certain player with language that is more certain that "the obviously pick is..." Many many times. McKenzie often uses language to the effect that "I think they will go with" X player. He didn't here. How many times does McKenzie say without any sort of doubt that a team would pick a certain player and it doesn't happen? Rarely if ever. Maybe he had no idea (which does happen). What is obvious is that Tkachuk wasn't the obvious choice if you had any idea on who the Canucks' liked at the draft.

List out how the production is different. They had top ranked players were shown at the bottom, Craig's trait breakdown, and they went over player comparable. Everything's the same, minus the player interviews as Sportsnet got the rights to that, and the new American player/hockey focused segments to replace the interview portions. NBC's production was pretty much the same as TSN.

Did you even watch the NBC production? Because i am really starting to question it.

They didn't have Gord or Duthie. Gord is a much better host IMO. With Gord, their commenting vs what's being shown on tv is much better and more informative. Their camera angles are different. Their ticker is different (as in what is on the screen is different). They actually do have some player interviews but they don't have the GM with the player interviews. The production is not the same.

Did you watch the NBC production? I watched it.

 

[kanucks25]

The only issue I have with the pick is that it is not one that oozes excitement.

Thats honestly what this market is craving... some bloody excitement.

Juolevi is a very solid pick and will help this franchise for many years. Hell, theres a chance for him to be one of the best Canuck blueliners EVER.

But Olli Juolevi wont be Mikael Sergachev. Hell be a better dman overall in my opinion, but wont push fans to the edge of their seats, and that is something I miss dearly about my hockey team, and something this fan base desperately needs imo.

Winning is exciting.

What a mess a team would be if management cared primarily about the entertainment of the average fan.

Toronto is a terrible team right now but their (educated) fans are extremely excited, and rightfully so, because of the great direction they are heading.

I don't think we lack "exciting" players, we lack "good" players. People are upset because Benning is doing a bad job acquiring them and/or making sure we have them in the future.

 

[vanarchy]

I find it interesting that Jimbo picked the player that is going to have the more delayed impact on the team. Just because I don't think he'll be around to see him in the NHL at the pace he's going.

And I don't think it's a wrong pick by any means.

 

[iFan]

A figure of speech... you've got to be kidding me. In plain english, in response to a post that suggested Tkachuk was not the obvious pick, I used Bob's quote right before the pick saying that it was the obvious pick in his opinion. Bob went on the team1040 a month ago saying that all of the scouts he polled, 9/10 had him at 4 or 5. Based on what Bob knows, it was an obvious choice, those are his words. That's not a figure of speech, that's what he knows. This is not discussing who should have been taken or who Benning would have taken given his comment. No, just stop with that. It's a poster saying it's not an obvious decision, countered with Bob saying it was obvious. That is it.

List out how the production is different. They had top ranked players were shown at the bottom, Craig's trait breakdown, and they went over player comparable. Everything's the same, minus the player interviews as Sportsnet got the rights to that, and the new American player/hockey focused segments to replace the interview portions. NBC's production was pretty much the same as TSN.

Did you even watch the NBC production? Because i am really starting to question it.

And Puljujarvi was the obvious choice at 3, BMac had Juolevi at 6th so it's not a reach to draft the highest rated D man on Bobs list when it's that close.

 

[BB88]

No glaring flaws, but I do not find any part of him to be particularly amazing either. Tkachuk has more upside and was the correct choice. Benning himself said he has 1st line upside and that there is no #1/top pairing(?) defenseman in the draft. Stings even more that it is Calgary who picks up Tkachuk.

His IQ is elite, and puck moving is elite, I'd say those are pretty good assets.

They chose a player with one of the highest IQ's from this draft, it's a good bet to try to build around that type of players.
And when you have a prospect with elite IQ/puck moving I don't know how his ceiling can be decided right now already.

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

1st pairing d-man is the equivalent of a 1st line fwd IMO. It sucks not to have a replacement for offense and I probably would have picked Tkachuk but there are probably more 1st line wingers than there are 1st pairing d-men. A true number one d-man would be your franchise center equivalent.

Just look at free agency every year. It's the high end wingers that make it there.