Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi Discussion XXXIIII (Post #755)

[M2Beezy]

Time for a new one guys. Should be a beaut

EDIT should be part 5 not VVVIIII sorry was reading wrong thread

Click to read more...

 

[Captain Bowie]

Peak Hamhuis > 60-point Zach Parise.

 

[DL44]

Peak Hamhuis > 60-point Zach Parise.

All day everyday.
Except on a power play.
That's what i say.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Peak Hamhuis > 60-point Zach Parise.

What about 90pt Parise?

 

[dellzor]

What about 90pt Parise?

I take Parise

 

[Captain Bowie]

What about 90pt Parise?

Even Y2K agreed that Tkachuk would likely never reach that kind of offensive production. He said Joulevi's ceiling is Hamhuis and Tkachuk's is Parise minus his elite offensive seasons.

 

[racerjoe]

People are underrating Hamhuis here. He was better than most people here have been giving him credit for. He was a top pairing dman that carried the 2nd best pairing in the NHL for a few years. He and Bieksa at their best was really good. He was an absolute #1 dman.

I don't think Joulevi gets there. I think he will be very good, but not the guy that can carry a top pairing and certainly not carry the 2nd best pairing in the NHL. Again he will be very good, and I can see him playing on a top pair.

Tkachuk look like he can carry his own line already. He was a huge part of that Calgary line this season. Very impressive.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

The only problem I have with it is that where the team is at, we ****ing need something to get excited about. A d
Young Dan hamhuis would be very good, but not exciting. With the flop of Virtanen we need someone who will bring fans out of their seats and juolevi probably won't be that guy even if he is quietly very effective.

Maybe it's not the best reason to draft. Someone but holy **** someone has to buy these tickets.

 

[F A N]

People are underrating Hamhuis here. He was better than most people here have been giving him credit for. He was a top pairing dman that carried the 2nd best pairing in the NHL for a few years. He and Bieksa at their best was really good. He was an absolute #1 dman.

I don't think Joulevi gets there. I think he will be very good, but not the guy that can carry a top pairing and certainly not carry the 2nd best pairing in the NHL. Again he will be very good, and I can see him playing on a top pair.

Tkachuk look like he can carry his own line already. He was a huge part of that Calgary line this season. Very impressive.

Agree with the gist of your points. However, I don't think Hamhuis in his prime is a #1 Dman. I am in the camp that there isn't 31 #1 Dman out there just because there are 31 NHL teams. A #1 Dman to me has to be able to put up good offensive numbers unless you're an extremely dominant defensive Dman like Scott Stevens. But it doesn't really matter. It's a bit of a meaningless classification.

I think the whole "carry" his own pairing or line is overrated especially on D. There's a reason that D pairings matter. Jovo couldn't carry his own pairing but he was a #1 Dman when paired with a suitable partner like Lachance and Malik. Speaking of Lachance and Malik, these guys couldn't carry any pairing but they were extremely effective and bonafide top 4 Dmen when paired with suitable partners.

Up front it's a little bit different but chemistry is important. Burrows is in no way a 1st line winger. But with the Sedins he is and no one else comes close to having the long term chemistry he has had with the Sedins. I'm still not convinced that Tkachuk's long term future is that of a star winger or even 1st line winger. I still think his skating is going to hold him back.

As for Juolevi. I'm still very high on him. I don't think he's going to be a #1 Dman or an offensive producer but I still see him as a guy whose going to be able to log a ton of minutes (especially in the playoffs) without much in the way of mistakes. I see him as one of those guys whose going to excel in the playoffs because he's going to log heavy minutes and just be so efficient at moving the puck up ice even if his point production isn't anything special.

 

[elitepete]

Peak Hamhuis > 60-point Zach Parise.

Tkachuk will be better than a 60 points Parise.

 

[Verviticus]

burrows was absolutely a first line player for 2-3 years there. when he wasnt with the sedins he fully carried any line he was on

i remember at one point he was moved off that line and onto a line with two morons for like 6 games and everyone went "holy **** those guys look great" and it was just burrows dragging their ***** around

they played him at centre for a few games as well and woah surprise he did great as a centre as well because he was an excellent player

Agree with the gist of your points. However, I don't think Hamhuis in his prime is a #1 Dman. I am in the camp that there isn't 31 #1 Dman out there just because there are 31 NHL teams. A #1 Dman to me has to be able to put up good offensive numbers unless you're an extremely dominant defensive Dman like Scott Stevens. But it doesn't really matter. It's a bit of a meaningless classification.

well the sane people here can use the classification because its useful and you can use whatever vague nonsense you want to. heres some words people love: elite bonafide star stud franchise dominant

 

[F A N]

burrows was absolutely a first line player for 2-3 years there. when he wasnt with the sedins he fully carried any line he was on

i remember at one point he was moved off that line and onto a line with two morons for like 6 games and everyone went "holy **** those guys look great" and it was just burrows dragging their ***** around

they played him at centre for a few games as well and woah surprise he did great as a centre as well because he was an excellent player



well the sane people here can use the classification because its useful and you can use whatever vague nonsense you want to. heres some words people love: elite bonafide star stud franchise dominant

? That was a bunch of jibberish.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

burrows was absolutely a first line player for 2-3 years there. when he wasnt with the sedins he fully carried any line he was on

i remember at one point he was moved off that line and onto a line with two morons for like 6 games and everyone went "holy **** those guys look great" and it was just burrows dragging their ***** around

they played him at centre for a few games as well and woah surprise he did great as a centre as well because he was an excellent player

Sometimes I wonder to what degree Burrows best seasons were a product of the Sedins, and visa versa. The guy was fantastic in his prime. He just happened to get overshadowed by what Daniel, Henrik and Kesler were doing. He scored 25+ goals four seasons in a row while playing Selke caliber defense on the most productive line in the NHL.

The Canucks have had ridiculously good luck with their undrafted players. Maybe we should just make whoever unearthed Burrows, Tanev and Stetcher the GM.

Agree with the gist of your points. However, I don't think Hamhuis in his prime is a #1 Dman. I am in the camp that there isn't 31 #1 Dman out there just because there are 31 NHL teams. A #1 Dman to me has to be able to put up good offensive numbers unless you're an extremely dominant defensive Dman like Scott Stevens. But it doesn't really matter. It's a bit of a meaningless classification.

Yeah, agreed. Hamhuis was a solid top pairing defenseman, but he was not a "#1 defenseman" in the way that parlance is traditionally applied. A true #1 defenseman is someone you can hypothetically build a team around, not just someone who stabilizes or compliments a pairing.

The weird thing is that "A Finnish Dan Hamhuis" was viewed as poor value at 5th overall by some (I remember comments like "I want a lot more than Dan Hamhuis if I'm picking 5th overall"), whereas Dan Hamhuis and the career he turned out would have been one of the better 5th overall picks in history. We went through the same thing when it was questioned whether or not a "Raffi Torres" at 6 was disaster value (it's not). Sadly, Virtanen has a lot of work to do to reach even the lofty heights of a prime Torres. In both cases the real pinch on both picks wasn't the quality of the player chosen or whether their prospective ceilings represented value at the pick position, it was the players picked directly after them.

However, cerebral defensemen don't often make for "sexy" picks, and the Canucks are a team starved for fan engagement and on-ice sizzle. I'm not sure there's a club in the NHL more bereft of either at the moment, save for some moribund US outfits who have never had fan engagement in any form. Neither Virtanen nor Juolevi was a "popular" pick, and suspicions that they'll go for the trifecta at the podium this year run rampant. They need to do whatever they think is best for the hockey club and not what the fans want, but A) they haven't shown they're particularly adept at determining what that is, and B) at some point you need to consider your fans or you're not going to have them any more. So for the sake of everyone involved, I hope this year's selection is someone the fans collectively can be excited about, and not a long term value proposition that may pay off in spades half a decade from now while the player picked immediately after tears up the NHL in his draft +1.

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

Juolevi has more skill and offensive awareness so not sure how Hamhuis is his ceiling.

 

[vancityluongo]

burrows was absolutely a first line player for 2-3 years there. when he wasnt with the sedins he fully carried any line he was on

i remember at one point he was moved off that line and onto a line with two morons for like 6 games and everyone went "holy **** those guys look great" and it was just burrows dragging their ***** around

they played him at centre for a few games as well and woah surprise he did great as a centre as well because he was an excellent player



well the sane people here can use the classification because its useful and you can use whatever vague nonsense you want to. heres some words people love: elite bonafide star stud franchise dominant

Not to piggy back on every one of your posts, but you've been nailing it recently. Yeah.

Even forget that he scored 35 goals for a second; Burrows was probably the best defensive/penalty killing forward in the league for a two year stretch. That alone made him a first line player, even if not in a conventional sense.

Back to Juolevi Part 34? Eh, he's probably not Dan Hamhuis who was/is a really good player. If he is, that makes the pick "good". But on the flipside it's not much use to have a Dan Hamhuis when the team in front of him has a maximum potential of 175 goals amongst the 17 other skaters.

 

[clay]

Juolevi has more skill and offensive awareness so not sure how Hamhuis is his ceiling.

Hamhuis was significantly more productive in junior, even with Juolevi playing on the same team and sharing a power play with one of the best lines in junior history.

 

[Captain Bowie]

LOL "XXXIIII" isn't even a real number. It's just jibberish.

 

[M2Beezy]

LOL "XXXIIII" isn't even a real number. It's just jibberish.

Yeah i know was looking at the wrong thread and got the wrong number the corrected one in op

 

[y2kcanucks]

Even Y2K agreed that Tkachuk would likely never reach that kind of offensive production. He said Joulevi's ceiling is Hamhuis and Tkachuk's is Parise minus his elite offensive seasons.

I'm not even sure Juolevi will reach peak Hamhuis levels. I also mentioned the non-40 point scoring Edler as another comparison.

I don't see Juolevi having the shutdown ability that peak Hamhuis had.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

LOL "XXXIIII" isn't even a real number. It's just jibberish.

It is perfectly valid to represent four as IIII. People commonly use IV as an abbreviation but it is not mandatory.

 

[Intoewsables]

they played him at centre for a few games as well and woah surprise he did great as a centre as well because he was an excellent player

I wanted to see a Higgins - Burrows - Hansen tough minutes 3rd line for so long after those few games he played at center. He looked legitimately fantastic and maybe even better than he was on the wing, if memory serves.

 

[Jyrki21]

They need to do whatever they think is best for the hockey club and not what the fans want, but A) they haven't shown they're particularly adept at determining what that is, and B) at some point you need to consider your fans or you're not going to have them any more. So for the sake of everyone involved, I hope this year's selection is someone the fans collectively can be excited about, and not a long term value proposition that may pay off in spades half a decade from now while the player picked immediately after tears up the NHL in his draft +1.

I dare say that the fans here, collectively, have shown a considerably better knack for identifying the correct draft pick to take than management has, at least in the early rounds. And that's often just going for "the next name on the list". There is absolutely zero reason to trust management over the majority view on this one, when they have shown themselves unable to take the easy route.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I dare say that the fans here, collectively, have shown a considerably better knack for identifying the correct draft pick to take than management has, at least in the early rounds. And that's often just going for "the next name on the list". There is absolutely zero reason to trust management over the majority view on this one, when they have shown themselves unable to take the easy route.

I pretty well say as much, yeah.

 

[Verviticus]

Sometimes I wonder to what degree Burrows best seasons were a product of the Sedins, and visa versa. The guy was fantastic in his prime. He just happened to get overshadowed by what Daniel, Henrik and Kesler were doing. He scored 25+ goals four seasons in a row while playing Selke caliber defense on the most productive line in the NHL.

The Canucks have had ridiculously good luck with their undrafted players. Maybe we should just make whoever unearthed Burrows, Tanev and Stetcher the GM.

if i was (were??) a romantic, id love to say that playing with the sedins let burrows understand that he had the brain and hands to play a skill game, a revelation he might not have come to had he kept playing as a grinder for his career. realistically im guessing we just undervalued/underplayed him and he didnt really complain because that doesnt seem his type

as for his work with hank/dank - id still say he benefited more. largely because the best players tend to do the most elevating of their line, but also because both hansen and samuelsson had similar success with them - burrows is just the one people remember scoring back to back hat-tricks. also burrows definitely offered them some defensive play that they didn't get with samuelsson at least

numbers:
samuelsson in 09-11 without sedins: GF60: 2.73, GA60: 2.25
samuelsson in 09-11 with henrik: GF60: 3.6, GA60: 2.9

henrik in 09-11 with burr: GF60: 3.78, GA60: 2.07
henrik in 09-11 with sammy: GF60: 3.68, GA60: 2.89

so ya, a good winger pulled the sedins up a fair bit, but they controlled scoring almost 2:1 with burr! which is ****ing insane. thats just below "sidney crosby in his best years" level

Yeah, agreed. Hamhuis was a solid top pairing defenseman, but he was not a "#1 defenseman" in the way that parlance is traditionally applied. A true #1 defenseman is someone you can hypothetically build a team around, not just someone who stabilizes or compliments a pairing.

why dont people just say a #1 defenceman as it should be mathematically and logically, and then qualify where in the spectrum that lands? karlsson is #1 in the nhl and probably the world, and dan hamhuis might've been #15 in his prime. those are both #1 defencemen just as both connor mcdavid and tyler seguin are #1 centres.

The weird thing is that "A Finnish Dan Hamhuis" was viewed as poor value at 5th overall by some (I remember comments like "I want a lot more than Dan Hamhuis if I'm picking 5th overall"), whereas Dan Hamhuis and the career he turned out would have been one of the better 5th overall picks in history. We went through the same thing when it was questioned whether or not a "Raffi Torres" at 6 was disaster value (it's not). Sadly, Virtanen has a lot of work to do to reach even the lofty heights of a prime Torres. In both cases the real pinch on both picks wasn't the quality of the player chosen or whether their prospective ceilings represented value at the pick position, it was the players picked directly after them.

its a weird setup because if you were just guaranteed to pick hamhuis and torres you would be getting alright value on your picks and you would never, ever be able to build an awesome team off of drafting because you would never get lucky on their upside. ultimately it would be much easier to build a team off of a star player and a bust than two hamhuises or whatever, even though the odds work out in such a way that both of those realities are similar

this isnt exactly what im saying but here's a really good quick article on the return of aiming for stars vs aiming for Pretty Good

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

Hamhuis was significantly more productive in junior, even with Juolevi playing on the same team and sharing a power play with one of the best lines in junior history.

I don't care. I've watched them both play...