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

[y2kcanucks]

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.

lol at the hindsight garbage. It's not hindsight when I, and several others, called it before the draft. I guess a bunch of us are smarter than Benning. Especially when you consider the HF consensus has outdrafted him in the first round.

 

[Dr Good Vibes]

lol at the hindsight garbage. It's not hindsight when I, and several others, called it before the draft. I guess a bunch of us are smarter than Benning. Especially when you consider the HF consensus has outdrafted him in the first round.

You're right. You'd make a better GM than our General Manager Jim 'the dim' Benning. You're much better equipped to run the franchise and you're probably the most intelligent person in the Province. Your hockey insight is unparalleled in the land of man. But hey, at least you don't feel powerless and angry over the success of a sports team, right?

 

[Nuckles]

 

[Hit the post]

You're right. You'd make a better GM than our General Manager Jim 'the dim' Benning. You're much better equipped to run the franchise and you're probably the most intelligent person in the Province. Your hockey insight is unparalleled in the land of man. But hey, at least you don't feel powerless and angry over the success of a sports team, right?

Exactly. What would y2k's reasoning be that he could be as good as a NHL GM with all that experience Benning accumulated?

I mean, with y2k at the helm - imagine how much worse we'd finish in the standings this past season.

But he can speak for himself. What would I have done? Hired somebody in the first place after rightfully firing Gillis (goalie debacle was pretty bad) who actually was a GM of a NHL club before (or at the very least not have a rookie NHL coach and rookie NHL President at the same time - with Weisbrod being the "mentor executive").

But back to the thead topic...still have hopes for Juolevi as a Canuckfan.

 

[CanaFan]

lol so true

 

[krutovsdonut]

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.

well facts are facts and i am not insisting that my profile is correct, i am looking for someone to argue otherwise instead of the broad brush approach i see. and you can't reject my viewpoint because it is hard to disprove. i realize people like to argue and project prospects here, but that doesn't mean you reject logical arguments because they force you to be patient with a player.

and if you follow this thread you know that before this discussion i specifically asked people to identify such snowflakes and got crickets. nobody was willing to say who juolevi resembled as a prospect with or without my parameters. i share that difficulty. convince me guys resemble juolevi and i'm interested.

what we have here instead is a group of people projecting a player using extremely crude metrics. "he doesn't have a career progression like other successful high d draft picks" is the dominant narrative, but i have yet to see anyone argue he resembles other high draft picks who either busted or didn't bust so that this is a fair comparison. you wouldn't compare the career trajectory of petterson and virtanen because of their similar draft position as a way of projecting how petterson is doing d+2. they are completely different players with different talents and different physical development when drafted. but folks here are doing exactly that with dmen.

i do think this pre-season will be telling and help "put to rest" the uncertainties with this player. but i want to emphasize that even if the guy is a complete tire fire one on one in his own end, that's not the story. what you should be looking at is the mental skill set that got him drafted. does he have that vision and poise? because even low iq guys can be taught to play defence in their own zone, skating footwork can be improved, and if he is not yet there physically there is every reason to think he will fill out. in fact there is much more reason to doubt petterson will fill out than juolevi.

 

[krutovsdonut]

lol at the hindsight garbage. It's not hindsight when I, and several others, called it before the draft. I guess a bunch of us are smarter than Benning. Especially when you consider the HF consensus has outdrafted him in the first round.

but you'd have been fired by then for when you drafted shinkaruk instead of horvat.

 

[y2kcanucks]

but you'd have been fired by then for when you drafted shinkaruk instead of horvat.

If GM's were fired for blowing draft picks, Benning would have been gone a long time ago.

 

[krutovsdonut]

If GM's were fired for blowing draft picks, Benning would have been gone a long time ago.

i'm not the guy who compared my personal drafting record to benning and suggesting i am better. you went there dude, so let's have a reckoning of accounts.

can you explain to me why you're not an idiot for blowing shinkaruk over horvat, but benning is an idiot for virtanen over ehlers/nylander or juolevi over tkachuk?

i'll hang up and listen to your explanation.

 

[y2kcanucks]

i'm not the guy who compared my personal drafting record to benning and suggesting i am better. you went there dude, so let's have a reckoning of accounts.

can you explain to me why you're not an idiot for blowing shinkaruk over horvat, but benning is an idiot for virtanen over ehlers/nylander or juolevi over tkachuk?

i'll hang up and listen to your explanation.

Probably because Benning does this for a living and has a lot more resources than I do? And yet I, along with most of HF has outdrafted him in the first round since he got here.

 

[rune74]

i'm not the guy who compared my personal drafting record to benning and suggesting i am better. you went there dude, so let's have a reckoning of accounts.

can you explain to me why you're not an idiot for blowing shinkaruk over horvat, but benning is an idiot for virtanen over ehlers/nylander or juolevi over tkachuk?

i'll hang up and listen to your explanation.

One thing I have noticed is that generally these comparisons aren't made until after the player is proven to be good. Shrink is a weird one where he went all in regardless of the outcome.

 

[Hit the post]

One thing I have noticed is that generally these comparisons aren't made until after the player is proven to be good. Shrink is a weird one where he went all in regardless of the outcome.

Well at least you were around this board when that happened instead of mysteriously registering an account some three years after said event happened.

Anyhow, like most around here - we are rank amateurs mostly with respect to scouting. You'd expect people doing it for a living (ie., professionals) not to make these kind of mistakes (that is, if it indeed is a mistake).

 

[CanaFan]

i'm not the guy who compared my personal drafting record to benning and suggesting i am better. you went there dude, so let's have a reckoning of accounts.

can you explain to me why you're not an idiot for blowing shinkaruk over horvat, but benning is an idiot for virtanen over ehlers/nylander or juolevi over tkachuk?

i'll hang up and listen to your explanation.

Tbf, Horvat was a "controversial" pick at the time as most mocks and scouting services had him rated outside the top 10 which would have impacted how he was perceived by this board. Also there was probably less than 10 minutes between learning we had acquired the pick and the actual selection meaning most posters hadn't really spent much time evaluating the top part of the draft. It was more the panic of "we need to draft the highest offensive guy at this spot" and Shinkaruk, along with Nichushkin and Domi, was the most suitable guy at the time.

Whereas 2014 and 2016 we had months to watch, discuss, and debate the merits of who to take at our spot. I'd say that more closely resembles the typical scouting process than the 10 minutes of chaos and emotion (Schneider trade) of 2013.

Not saying Y2K wasn't wrong at the time - most of this board was - but it was quite a different scenario than either 2014 and 2016.

 

[Krnuckfan]

well facts are facts and i am not insisting that my profile is correct, i am looking for someone to argue otherwise instead of the broad brush approach i see. and you can't reject my viewpoint because it is hard to disprove. i realize people like to argue and project prospects here, but that doesn't mean you reject logical arguments because they force you to be patient with a player.

and if you follow this thread you know that before this discussion i specifically asked people to identify such snowflakes and got crickets. nobody was willing to say who juolevi resembled as a prospect with or without my parameters. i share that difficulty. convince me guys resemble juolevi and i'm interested.

what we have here instead is a group of people projecting a player using extremely crude metrics. "he doesn't have a career progression like other successful high d draft picks" is the dominant narrative, but i have yet to see anyone argue he resembles other high draft picks who either busted or didn't bust so that this is a fair comparison. you wouldn't compare the career trajectory of petterson and virtanen because of their similar draft position as a way of projecting how petterson is doing d+2. they are completely different players with different talents and different physical development when drafted. but folks here are doing exactly that with dmen.

i do think this pre-season will be telling and help "put to rest" the uncertainties with this player. but i want to emphasize that even if the guy is a complete tire fire one on one in his own end, that's not the story. what you should be looking at is the mental skill set that got him drafted. does he have that vision and poise? because even low iq guys can be taught to play defence in their own zone, skating footwork can be improved, and if he is not yet there physically there is every reason to think he will fill out. in fact there is much more reason to doubt petterson will fill out than juolevi.

Oh please, Juolevi isn't such a special snowflake that he's any different than other defencemen that get drafted in round 1.

Fact is he's not developing like other elite dmen drafted high have been. You just choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore that, clutching onto hopes that juolevi is somehow "different" than all the other dmen drafted in the past.

 

[CanaFan]

Oh please, Juolevi isn't such a special snowflake that he's any different than other defencemen that get drafted in round 1.

Fact is he's not developing like other elite dmen drafted high have been. You just choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore that, clutching onto hopes that juolevi is somehow "different" than all the other dmen drafted in the past.

Agree with this but krutovsdonut is right about one thing. If Juolevi doesn't impress at this camp / preseason then his chances of being an impact player drop significantly. Given that he is physically close to being able to play, the only remaining factor to him not impressing is his game/style/ability. Most highly drafted D make the NHL in their D+2 season and if Juolevi doesn't at least *look good* (regardless if he makes the team) then that's a devastating sign.

 

[Gaunce4gm]

How has he looked at camp? I really would like to see a photo/video of him standing next to someone like Edler cause I think they'll end up being around the same size when Juolevi fills out

 

[MS]

People have no idea what normal prospect development is. ALways with the same bs excuses, "power forwards develop slower" "defencemen develop slower" What a bunch of bs.

All you have to do is look at the list of dmen drafted high in the draft and see when they were able to make the jump to the NHL. The vast majority of defencemen that turn out good make the jump by their draft + 2 season. The ones who fail to make that jump turn out to be disappointments/busts.

2012

Murray - d+2
Reinhart - still not a regular (d+5)
Rielly - d+2
Lindholm - d+2
Dumba - d+3
Pouliot - still not a regular (d+5)
Trouba - d+2
Koekkoek - still not a regular (d+5)

2013

Jones - d+1
Nurse - d+3
Ristolainen - d+2

2014

Ekblad - d+1
Fleury - still not a regular

2015

Hanifin - d+1
Provorov - d+2
Werenski - d+2


From what I've seen, Juolevi has a long way to go before cracking the roster and is well on track to be a disappointment.

This needs to be re-posted.

Again, the top-10 guys who are actually good and live up to their draft position make an impact right away. The guys who didn't? Are Matt Dumba and a bunch of bums.

There aren't a bunch of 'dumb high tools guys' making it and then being passed by 'high IQ' types. Players taken in this range should have both tools and IQ and those guys make an immediate impact.

Right now Juolevi is trending toward that 2nd group. Which is concerning. And if you don't think it's concerning or understand why it's concerning, you don't understand prospect development.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Well at least you were around this board when that happened instead of mysteriously registering an account some three years after said event happened.

i'd like to think my perspective and style is distinct enough that you've put those concerns behind you by now. but, if you check, someone brought his history up last fall when he was trashing me about i think the granlund trade, so i went back and looked.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Wow, that list is really damning. Yeah, Juolevi is leaning way closer to bust territory than anything else.

Disappointing to blow two top-10 picks like this.

 

[rune74]

I don't think he is trending towards bust at all(I thought we weren't using this yet?).

There are some weird thoughts on facts here....for instance in one post someone said his point total regressed last year when in fact he was putting up the exact same point total t o the year before with a change in how he was used.

I think it is far to early to speculate that he is in bust territory and I also think the strawman that if we don't see that then we just don't understand is helping anything.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Oh please, Juolevi isn't such a special snowflake that he's any different than other defencemen that get drafted in round 1.

Fact is he's not developing like other elite dmen drafted high have been. You just choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore that, clutching onto hopes that juolevi is somehow "different" than all the other dmen drafted in the past.

i don't think i am ignoring anything.

i think i have been making the same criticisms of his play and raising the same concerns that others have. i am just not ready to draw the same inferences from them as others based on how i read this player and also based on the stated rationale for drafting him.

and, i am saying the jury is still out, not that he is trending strongly. he is no way trending as a #1d. i just think he could definitely still be a solid top pair guy if his vision/poise with the puck translates to the nhl and his body and the rest of his game catches up. and i also think nothing so far causes me to doubt that his vision/poise with the puck translates to the nhl, or that the other things won't happen, albeit maybe not as fast as for other high draft picks who were physically more nhl ready when drafted.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Again, the top-10 guys who are actually good and live up to their draft position make an impact right away. The guys who didn't? Are Matt Dumba and a bunch of bums.

will you be applying this logic to petterson's development?

if not, why not?

 

[Siludin]

Tbf, Horvat was a "controversial" pick at the time as most mocks and scouting services had him rated outside the top 10 which would have impacted how he was perceived by this board. Also there was probably less than 10 minutes between learning we had acquired the pick and the actual selection meaning most posters hadn't really spent much time evaluating the top part of the draft. It was more the panic of "we need to draft the highest offensive guy at this spot" and Shinkaruk, along with Nichushkin and Domi, was the most suitable guy at the time.

Whereas 2014 and 2016 we had months to watch, discuss, and debate the merits of who to take at our spot. I'd say that more closely resembles the typical scouting process than the 10 minutes of chaos and emotion (Schneider trade) of 2013.

Not saying Y2K wasn't wrong at the time - most of this board was - but it was quite a different scenario than either 2014 and 2016.

Horvat was being propped up despite his stats the entire season. Anyone with an eye for defensive hockey knew what he could bring. His playoff numbers spoke for themselves. Horvat was picked right where he should have been in a very deep draft. The only person you could have reasonably had ahead of Horvat at that spot is Nichushkin.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Tbf, Horvat was a "controversial" pick at the time as most mocks and scouting services had him rated outside the top 10 which would have impacted how he was perceived by this board. .

well arguably every high pick made during benning's tenure has been controversial. virtanen was taken for pure physical size and talent with questions on the mental. juolevi was taken for mental ability despite not being physically impressive or showing top end skills. petterson was taken for mental ability and skill despite not being physically there at all.

each time he has gambled on a weakness being overcome that would make the player a home run if it happened, in return for a risk of bust if it does not. not once has he taken a safe pick.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Agree with this but krutovsdonut is right about one thing. If Juolevi doesn't impress at this camp / preseason then his chances of being an impact player drop significantly. Given that he is physically close to being able to play, the only remaining factor to him not impressing is his game/style/ability. Most highly drafted D make the NHL in their D+2 season and if Juolevi doesn't at least *look good* (regardless if he makes the team) then that's a devastating sign.

i agree with this with the caveat that he needs to look good under pressure on passing and transition and generally be poised when he gets the puck. if he also cannot get the puck of a forward, gets turned inside out repeatedly and is knocked off the puck then that will be bad, but not devastating to his long term prospects if he shows the other things.