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

[Marcel]

given evidence X, Y, and Z, and this is cause for concern. This is not looking like a good pick right now.

I think most sensible fans would take issue with the notion that there is any evidence to suggest that this pick will not pan out.

For those who think they have evidence X,Y, and Z, well..............Ummm how to say it nicely?

 

[CanaFan]

Pretty much. The equivalent would be me going into the Granlund thread and posting "So he is an All Star based on a couple of good games late in the season playing with the Sedins... is this a joke?"

 

[CanaFan]

I think most sensible fans would take issue with the notion that there is any evidence to suggest that this pick will not pan out.

For those who think they have evidence X,Y, and Z, well..............Ummm how to say it nicely?

Watching players play and not perform well is not "evidence" in the context of a developing hockey player?

Well shut this place down then, we're done here.

Obviously it's not evidence in the legal sense but in the context of discussing prospects it is pretty much the gold standard.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Ummm no. You couldn't be more off base actually.

The op mischaracterized arguments raising concerns about Juolevi. I haven't seen anyone call him a bust, in fact, most here think he'll be an NHLer (to varying degrees).

not sure i follow the relationship between the two clauses in your sentence. are you saying that people are not calling him a bust because they project he will play in the nhl to some varying degree? by that logic, would yakupov not be a bust since he is an nhl'er? wickenheiser and lawton played 500 games.

Furthermore, analysis of Juolevi is not based on one prospect tournament, it's a culmination of everything he's done since being drafted. To claim that any negative views of OJ are based solely upon the Youngstars Tournament is frankly ****ing insulting to all those who are engaging in real discussion.

so would you say there is no readily identifiable uptick of negative energy about juolevi in this thread during and following the young stars tournament?

 

[krutovsdonut]

Pretty much. The equivalent would be me going into the Granlund thread and posting "So he is an All Star based on a couple of good games late in the season playing with the Sedins... is this a joke?"

i think i could probably find a post like that in the granlund thread. and i have no problem with it being there. as someone who tries to be positive about granlund i certainly am not insulted and defensive by someone calling me if they think i am overdoing it.

 

[CanaFan]

not sure i follow the relationship between the two clauses in your sentence. are you saying that people are not calling him a bust because they project he will play in the nhl to some varying degree? by that logic, would yakupov not be a bust since he is an nhl'er? wickenheiser and lawton played 500 games.



so would you say there is no readily identifiable uptick of negative energy about juolevi in this thread during and following the young stars tournament?

An uptick is not the same as being the basis. If it were strongly out of line with his post-draft performance then that would be different but it's not.

 

[CanaFan]

i think i could probably find a post like that in the granlund thread. and i have no problem with it being there. as someone who tries to be positive about granlund i certainly am not insulted and defensive by someone calling me if they think i am overdoing it.

Then you would be a rare exception. Most people would find it a disingenuous way to engage in a discussion.

 

[Marcel]

Watching players play and not perform well is not "evidence" in the context of a developing hockey player?

You're making my point if you are suggesting that you've watched enough of his play to form an opinion.

Maybe you think watching 3 games of organized shinny where only a handful of players will ever make the NHL gives you a glimpse into his future?

The better answer would be to tell us what you've learned in the very brief time you've seen him play that tells you his natural skill sets are not transferable to the NHL.

 

[tantalum]

Islanders for one with and Nino, Strome and Reinhart

Its not hard to go look up draft lists.

Does it suck it is happening to us ya, we are not the first fans who have had to deal with this though.

I don't think anyone really said other teams haven't struggled at the draft table. It was find some organizations that did that and manged to be at all successful. I think you'll find the ones that managed to have some success or like the Ducks major success still managed to find big time game changers elswhere in the draft.

Despite how the prospect pool might look now I'm not convinced they have those game changers and so missing on those picks hurts.

The Islanders have missed the playoffs in what 7 or 8 of the last 10 years? I think they are more of an example of what not to do for many things. Also the drafts you bring up for them...Strome sort of a miss. I don't know if Neiderreiter is as he's a top 6 player. NOt a complete whiff anyways. And prior to those drafts they picked 4 guys with over 400 games in 2008, another 4 with over 300 or closing in on 300 in 2009.

 

[mathonwy]

 

[rune74]

Man you are all over the place with links today, though I really liked that writeup.

 

[mathonwy]

Man you are all over the place with links today, though I really liked that writeup.

Serious question. Can you suggest a better way of doing this? As you may have deduced, I'm a fan of information consolidation.

 

[rune74]

Serious question. Can you suggest a better way of doing this? As you may have deduced, I'm a fan of information consolidation.

No, you took it the wrong way. I meant I liked that you were doing it.

 

[racerjoe]

You're making my point if you are suggesting that you've watched enough of his play to form an opinion.

Maybe you think watching 3 games of organized shinny where only a handful of players will ever make the NHL gives you a glimpse into his future?

The better answer would be to tell us what you've learned in the very brief time you've seen him play that tells you his natural skill sets are not transferable to the NHL.

Umm may e go back and read the thread from the past season? It was talked about his play, his demotion off the first pp unit.

Hell MS had a great little write up a few pages back, have you watched him play?

 

[mathonwy]

No, you took it the wrong way. I meant I liked that you were doing it.

Good to know. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[MS]

I think most sensible fans would take issue with the notion that there is any evidence to suggest that this pick will not pan out.

For those who think they have evidence X,Y, and Z, well..............Ummm how to say it nicely?

1) he had a very disappointing season in the OHL.

2) he had a poor WJC.

3) he had a poor prospects camp highlighting the same issues he was having in junior last year.

4) his offensive game hasn't really developed since being drafted, and his junior team took him off the #1 PP unit and traded for a replacement.

5) he shows continual and ongoing issues engaging physically and fails to get in front of guys taking the puck to his net. Constant lazy, soft stickchecks on guys skating by him to create scoring chances. This is an issue in his play which was repeatedly highlighted last year and showed up again - badly - in Penticton.

__________

I think this will probably still be a decent NHL player. But his chances of being an impact top-pairing defender - which is what you'd damn well better be getting at #5 overall - took a substantial hit based on his mediocre performance over the past year. And if you're claiming otherwise, your head is stuck in the sand wearing rose-coloured glasses.

 

[rune74]

1) he had a very disappointing season in the OHL.

2) he had a poor WJC.

3) he had a poor prospects camp highlighting the same issues he was having in junior last year.

4) his offensive game hasn't really developed since being drafted, and his junior team took him off the #1 PP unit and traded for a replacement.

5) he shows continual and ongoing issues engaging physically and fails to get in front of guys taking the puck to his net. Constant lazy, soft stickchecks on guys skating by him to create scoring chances. This is an issue in his play which was repeatedly highlighted last year and showed up again - badly - in Penticton.

__________

I think this will probably still be a decent NHL player. But his chances of being an impact top-pairing defender - which is what you'd damn well better be getting at #5 overall - took a substantial hit based on his mediocre performance over the past year. And if you're claiming otherwise, your head is stuck in the sand wearing rose-coloured glasses.

So that article on canucks army was wrong?

 

[y2kcanucks]

So that article on canucks army was wrong?

JD Burke has been a huge Juolevi supporter since we drafted him, even arguing that he was the right pick over Tkachuk. I think some personal bias may be taking over there.

 

[CanaFan]

So that article on canucks army was wrong?

It's possible. They aren't necessarily the highest authority on things. Just a resource and perspective to consider.

 

[rune74]

JD Burke has been a huge Juolevi supporter since we drafted him, even arguing that he was the right pick over Tkachuk. I think some personal bias may be taking over there.

Yes, some people do that.

 

[Hit the post]

So that article on canucks army was wrong?

Could be just a case where two people looking at the same set of facts and/or opinions coming to two different conclusions (neither are necessarily right or wrong).

 

[krutovsdonut]

JD Burke has been a huge Juolevi supporter since we drafted him, even arguing that he was the right pick over Tkachuk. I think some personal bias may be taking over there.

do you have any proof of that? stop making things up.

 

[mathonwy]

I think this will probably still be a decent NHL player. But his chances of being an impact top-pairing defender - which is what you'd damn well better be getting at #5 overall - took a substantial hit based on his mediocre performance over the past year. And if you're claiming otherwise, your head is stuck in the sand wearing rose-coloured glasses.

So no OEL?

Who are current / past comparables?

 

[MS]

So that article on canucks army was wrong?

If you're having to go into advanced analytics to show why a #5 overall pick having a 40-point CHL season isn't that bad, you can't see the forest for the trees.

A player taken where Juolevi was should be DOMINATING in the CHL - as Provorov did the previous year - regardless of whether or not he's playing tough defensive minutes.

Is he a good CHL defender? Of course! But every #1 pick is a very good CHL player and most won't be impact players in the NHL. Being 'good' in a shutdown role isn't good enough for a player drafted in that position. Guys who project as impact players destroy lower levels.

Absolutely nobody is saying he was a bad player for London last year, and not surprisingly their numbers don't disagree with that. His transition game and outlet pass is outstanding and of course he's a good player at that level. But he wasn't 'great' and wasn't nearly at the level he should have been at, and nowhere near where guys like Provorov/Werensky/McAvoy were at in their draft+1 seasons.

 

[rune74]

1) he had a very disappointing season in the OHL.

But, you did say this.


Now, he put up similar numbers as from the year before but played a different game due to being used as the shut down defenceman...is it not safe to say keeping his numbers steady while changing focus on the ice is not to be expected?