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

[krutovsdonut]

I didn't ignore it. I said your expectations are appropriate for a #20-25 overall pick.

If we took a guy at #5 overall with limited physical tools who uses his IQ to be a 'pretty good' 40-45 point CHL defender at this point in his development ... that's an awful pick.

With a #5 overall pick you should be getting a blue-chip player who has both the physical tools and the mental game to be an All-Star. Like those guys in 2015.

well no, with a #5 pick you take a chance if you chase a potential all rounder #1d all star because the physical dominance and skills of those prospects masks their mental limitations at the junior level. it's a risky pick as has been shown over and over. you might just get a toolsy stay at home dman with character to spare.

i do think a player like that is often worth a 5th overall pick despite the bust potential.

but my view is that a top pairing dman prospect is also worth a 5th overall pick and need not follow the #1d all rounder prospect paradigm and profile. my view is that a career trajectory for juolevi as a top pairing dman can be reconciled with him not dominating in junior because of the type of player he is and was known to be when drafted. you shouldn't necessarily expect his junior career or his transition to the nhl to track like someone drafted as a physical all rounder.

so i want to see how he does in training camp and continue to evaluate, and i won't be panicking on this guy until i see he does not have the mental game he was drafted for, or unless a physical limitation shows up that goes beyond not being ready. i can be patient and happy for another year if i don't see those problems, because i believe the physical strength and the meat and potatoes defensive work will come.

 

[Pip]

I don't know why you're so convinced that dominant Junior players so often have mental limitations. NHL players who get by on their smarts still ripped up Junior

 

[krutovsdonut]

I don't know why you're so convinced that dominant Junior players so often have mental limitations.

i am saying you can't tell if they do.

going back ten years i count the following dmen taken in the top ten who have significantly underperformed to their draft positions

hickey
ellerby
schenn
cowen
gudbranson
mcilrath
murray
reinhart
puoliot
koekkoek
fleury

considering i can't really make calls on 16-17, that is a lot for 8 seasons. i only count 20 top 10 drafted dmen in that period who have lived up to expectations and we could debate some of those and also look at slow development for some. that's a miss rate of 33% .

the list would be much longer if i went top 15.

 

[Fatass]

i am saying you can't tell if they do.

going back ten years i count the following dmen taken in the top ten who have significantly underperformed to their draft positions

hickey
ellerby
schenn
cowen
gudbranson
mcilrath
murray
reinhart
puoliot
koekkoek
fleury

considering i can't really make calls on 16-17, that is a lot for 8 seasons. i only count 20 top 10 drafted dmen in that period who have lived up to expectations and we could debate some of those and also look at slow development for some. that's a miss rate of 33% .

the list would be much longer if i went top 15.

Is it better to take elite skilled forwards with top 10 picks, and Dman in round two?

 

[CanaFan]

Is it better to take elite skilled forwards with top 10 picks, and Dman in round two?

That's always been my belief, unless it's a surefire #1 D. Taking guys that project as 2's and 3's doesn't make sense given the variability in how they turn out.

 

[pitseleh]

i am saying you can't tell if they do.

going back ten years i count the following dmen taken in the top ten who have significantly underperformed to their draft positions

hickey
ellerby
schenn
cowen
gudbranson
mcilrath
murray
reinhart
puoliot
koekkoek
fleury

considering i can't really make calls on 16-17, that is a lot for 8 seasons. i only count 20 top 10 drafted dmen in that period who have lived up to expectations and we could debate some of those and also look at slow development for some. that's a miss rate of 33% .

the list would be much longer if i went top 15.

Coincidentally, other than Pouliot all of those players were poor to average offensively in junior, and he always had defensive limitations. Hardly a list of players who "dominated at both ends of the rink in junior".

I think a fairer theme is that drafting players who are shutdown defenders in Junior in the top-10 of the draft is generally a fool's game.

Juolevi looks more like the Dumba/Murray/Gudbranson/Nurse/Fleury tier of defenders through his draft and draft +1 season than he does like the Pietrangelo/Jones/Provorov/Werenski tier.

 

[Bleach Clean]

but my view is that a top pairing dman prospect is also worth a 5th overall pick and need not follow the #1d all rounder prospect paradigm and profile. my view is that a career trajectory for juolevi as a top pairing dman can be reconciled with him not dominating in junior because of the type of player he is and was known to be when drafted. you shouldn't necessarily expect his junior career or his transition to the nhl to track like someone drafted as a physical all rounder.

The only way to refute a statement like the one you have made is to find snowflakes similar to the one you feel Juolevi represents. And even then, the caveats of where they were drafted, their production, and their style + IQ level will have to be agreed upon before you even begin to overturn your opinion. Only then will this purely potential based argument be put to rest... It's a nigh impossible task because the agreements will never meet your perception. This is part of why your "evidence" is woefully insufficient.

Other posters are widening the lens and are putting forth data. They have it more correct than you do, IMO. Juolevi has not tracked well. The surprising aspect of his development is that his defense has come under fire, when he was touted to be almost robotic in that area. He needed to improve his offense... or so many thought.

Granted, a Dman does not have to dominate in junior in order to achieve top-pairing NHL status. There are cases where this happens. But again, you are relying on the exception to the rule in order to prove your case. Not the rule itself. More often than not, the better the player is early on, the better he will be later on. This is about the majority of cases, not specific cases. In that sense, your viewpoint is off (IMO).

 

[y2kcanucks]

That's always been my belief, unless it's a surefire #1 D. Taking guys that project as 2's and 3's doesn't make sense given the variability in how they turn out.

So would you go Svechnikov over Dahlin?

 

[Pip]

So would you go Svechnikov over Dahlin?

Does Dahlin project as a 2/3 defenseman?

 

[Tv9924]

So would you go Svechnikov over Dahlin?

Dahlin is probably the best defense prospect since Hedman...

 

[y2kcanucks]

Does Dahlin project as a 2/3 defenseman?

It was a serious question on who would he take. Both are projected as the top 2 picks in this upcoming draft.

Dahlin projects as a number 1, but he's not sure fire.

 

[Tv9924]

It was a serious question on who would he take. Both are projected as the top 2 picks in this upcoming draft.

Dahlin projects as a number 1, but he's not sure fire.

What is sure fire to you?

 

[rune74]

What is sure fire to you?

The player he picks, but only after he turns out good

 

[CanaFan]

It was a serious question on who would he take. Both are projected as the top 2 picks in this upcoming draft.

Dahlin projects as a number 1, but he's not sure fire.

Well no one has played their actual draft year yet so I suppose no 2018 prospects are "sure fire" yet. But the early projections are strongly looking in that direction.

And yes, I'd take him over Svechnikov at the current time.

 

[Dr Good Vibes]

It was a serious question on who would he take. Both are projected as the top 2 picks in this upcoming draft.

Dahlin projects as a number 1, but he's not sure fire.

If we win the draft lottery sarcasm and Benning takes the forward over Dahlin, I'll be livid. Dahlin is as close to a sure thing as we've seen since Victor Hedman. I think Dahlin looks better than Hedman. He's amazing, he's got it all: vision, hands, skill, skating and size. His IQ seems off the charts from footage I've watched. His game just projects 'special player.' You say Dahlin projects as a #1, but I think he looks more like the next Doughty or even better.

Regarding Juolevi, I think he's projecting fine. The disappointing aspect is how good Tkachuk looks, but who saw that coming? On draft day I was glad we passed on him because I thought he was a recipient of great linemates. Now we know he probably added something significant to that London Knights line, but hindsight is 20/20.

Give Juolevi a couple of years and see where he's at. If Juolevi still looks weak and passive in 2019, we'll call him what he is; a bust. He's still leaps and bounds ahead of Virtanen, and things could be worse. At least we didn't draft Dubois.

 

[Marcel]

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.

No, and to suggest that you can accurately draw this conclusion on a player who is not yet AHL eligible is comical.

That's a nice way to put it.

My suggestion to you is to put the pen down and pick it up in again in another 3 to 5 years and then if you want to take the negative road, which by the way you spend a lot of time on, your assessment might have some value.

My prediction is that over the next few seasons there will be some very good outings and there will be some not so good, but your challenge is to keep the pen on the desk and resist the knee jerk reactions.

 

[CanaFan]

No, and to suggest that you can accurately draw this conclusion on a player who is not yet AHL eligible is comical.

That's a nice way to put it.

My suggestion to you is to put the pen down and pick it up in again in another 3 to 5 years and then if you want to take the negative road, which by the way you spend a lot of time on, your assessment might have some value.

My prediction is that over the next few seasons there will be some very good outings and there will be some not so good, but your challenge is to keep the pen on the desk and resist the knee jerk reactions.

Most prospects don't become high end NHLers though. That is the most probable outcome for the majority of prospects, even #5 picks. From the outset it was more likely he doesn't become a top pair D than does. And players who eventually become top end NHLers usually show signs of this very early on. Suggesting that people "shouldn't judge" a player for several years doesn't make sense. Good players are obvious early on. Players who don't shine early rarely shine later.

Your argument is simply the deferral of tracking a player's actual progress, assuming that time alone will make Juolevi an excellent NHLer. That's not really how it works.

 

[sting101]

No, and to suggest that you can accurately draw this conclusion on a player who is not yet AHL eligible is comical.

That's a nice way to put it.

My suggestion to you is to put the pen down and pick it up in again in another 3 to 5 years and then if you want to take the negative road, which by the way you spend a lot of time on, your assessment might have some value.

My prediction is that over the next few seasons there will be some very good outings and there will be some not so good, but your challenge is to keep the pen on the desk and resist the knee jerk reactions.

The prediction you just made could be said of anyone and did you really just ask him to shut up for 3 to 5 yrs?

 

[Dr Good Vibes]

The prediction you just made could be said of anyone and did you really just ask him to shut up for 3 to 5 yrs?

No talking about hockey on this hockey message board until the future, at which point we'll be bound to wait another 3 to 5 to know the real truth.

 

[M2Beezy]

If we had to do a do over of the 2016 draft would Juolevi even be a first rounder?

And we got him at 5 over Tkachuck Keller Jost Mcavoy among others

We said never again after Virtanen over Nylander and then this

 

[rune74]

If we had to do a do over of the 2016 draft would Juolevi even be a first rounder?

And we got him at 5 over Tkachuck Keller Jost Mcavoy among others

We said never again after Virtanen over Nylander and then this

Chicken little a bit here.

 

[Pip]

What's the point of this message board if we can't discuss the progress of prospects, whether it be positive or negative? For me that's one of my favourite parts of beign a part of this site,

 

[Tv9924]

Chicken little a bit here.

You're the second guy to call him that

 

[Bleach Clean]

Regarding Juolevi, I think he's projecting fine. The disappointing aspect is how good Tkachuk looks, but who saw that coming? On draft day I was glad we passed on him because I thought he was a recipient of great linemates. Now we know he probably added something significant to that London Knights line, but hindsight is 20/20.

It's not hindsight if people get it right prior to the draft, and there were many that wanted Tkachuk.

You could argue that Juolevi is tracking as well as could be expected and that Tkachuk is exceeding expectations, making for difficult discussion. That's not the case, IMO. Juolevi is not tracking well and Tkachuk is shattering expectations. The gulf between the two cannot be overstated. Juolevi will have to progress at a phenomenal rate just to compare evenly at this point.

 

[valkynax]

If we win the draft lottery sarcasm and Benning takes the forward over Dahlin, I'll be livid. Dahlin is as close to a sure thing as we've seen since Victor Hedman. I think Dahlin looks better than Hedman. He's amazing, he's got it all: vision, hands, skill, skating and size. His IQ seems off the charts from footage I've watched. His game just projects 'special player.' You say Dahlin projects as a #1, but I think he looks more like the next Doughty or even better.

Regarding Juolevi, I think he's projecting fine. The disappointing aspect is how good Tkachuk looks, but who saw that coming? On draft day I was glad we passed on him because I thought he was a recipient of great linemates. Now we know he probably added something significant to that London Knights line, but hindsight is 20/20.

Give Juolevi a couple of years and see where he's at. If Juolevi still looks weak and passive in 2019, we'll call him what he is; a bust. He's still leaps and bounds ahead of Virtanen, and things could be worse. At least we didn't draft Dubois.

Um...EVERYONE?

The only debate this board had at the time, if I remembered correctly, was between Tkachuk and Dubois. And we were extremely certain that we will be getting one or the other.

Same with Virtanen, at the time the debate was between Nylander and Ehlers.

So no, calling it hindsight is laughably inaccurate.