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

[y2kcanucks]

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.

I posted that list months ago but most people ignored it.

 

[y2kcanucks]

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.

Same point total despite playing in 1 more game. His PPG went down. That's a fact.

He was used differently because they had better options for the top PP unit because Juolevi wasn't progressing like they expected.

No one is saying he's in bust territory. Just that based on his lack of progression he's trending towards that direction. That's a very reasonable statement based on the evidence.

 

[CanaFan]

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.

Different kind of "controversial" though. Like I said, fans had about 10 minutes to digest the Schneider trade before the pick was made. Most hadn't been focused on the top 10 of the draft as we never expected to have a pick in that range. People were reacting to the rankings more than their own opinions of Horvat, as most hadn't watched him all that closely.

Virtanen, Nylander, Ehlers, and Ritchie were studied, evaluated, and debated from March until June in 2014. Juolevi, Tkachuk, Dubois, Keller, Jost, and Sergachev were similarly dissected for months. People had time to watch videos, look into the stats, speak to fans of junior teams, etc. I think this is an entirely different situation than the 2013 "guess we have the 9th pick, quick who do you want?" scenario. If we had had 3-4 months to watch Bo in the OHL playoffs, discuss his upside with Knights fans, etc I think it would have been a much different reaction.

 

[Krnuckfan]

Decided to extend out the list further past just to see.

2004

Barker - d+4
Smid - d+3
Valabik - d+5

2005

Johnson - d+3
Lee - d+4
Bourdon =(

2006

Johnson - d+2

2007

Hickey - d+6
Alzner - d+4
Ellerby - d+4

2008

Doughty - d+1
Bogisian - d+1
Pietrangelo - d+3
Schenn - d+1

2009

Hedman - d+1
OEL - d+2
Cowen - d+3

2010

Gudbransson - d+2
McIlrath - bust

2011

Larsson - d+2
Hamilton - d+2
Brodin - d+2


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


12 years of drafts, you can see some clear trends. Out of the 38 dmen drafted in the top 10 of the NHL draft, 20 made the NHL by their draft + 2 year.

Just because you make it to the NHL early doesn't mean that you'll actually live up to expectations, but if you don't make it by your d+2 season, chances are you'll be a big disappointment.

Out of the 18 dmen that didn't make the NHL by their d+2 season, only Pietrangelo is an actual successful draft pick.

 

[MS]

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.

I never said 'bust'.

I said his development is currently trending disappointingly. I've repeatedly said I think he'll be an NHL player of some sort.

And yes, if you don't understand that his development is disappointing to his point, you don't understand prospect development.

His production was down very slightly in the OHL regular season, down in the OHL playoffs, and way down at the WJC.

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

if not, why not?

Absolutely. This discussion has already been had here.

Pettersson should be expected to shred the SHL this year and be on the Canuck roster in 18-19. Especially as a 1998-born player a year older than most of his draft contemporaries.

And this isn't a Benning thing, for the record. I've said the same things about Jensen and Schroeder and White and every high Canuck draft pick going back a very long time. Guys who succeed separate themselves early and dominate. The guys who don't ... aren't likely to justify their draft position.

 

[rune74]

Same point total despite playing in 1 more game. His PPG went down. That's a fact.

He was used differently because they had better options for the top PP unit because Juolevi wasn't progressing like they expected.

No one is saying he's in bust territory. Just that based on his lack of progression he's trending towards that direction. That's a very reasonable statement based on the evidence.

Ok, he had less assists but more goals in his second year, that's another way to look at it.

People are in fact saying he is in bust territory, in this thread even, you are just doing the safe route until you can pounce.

 

[CanaFan]

I hate people using the "bust" term, even things like "trending towards a bust". Juolevi will play in the NHL. I'd put him more in the Gudbranson category of "drafted too high for what he brings". I'm more concerned that he is going to be "just" a vanilla second pair defenseman - similar in impact to a guy like Hutton - than of him actually not playing in the NHL.

"Trending towards a disappointing pick" is a better way of stating things.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I hate people using the "bust" term, even things like "trending towards a bust". Juolevi will play in the NHL. I'd put him more in the Gudbranson category of "drafted too high for what he brings". I'm more concerned that he is going to be "just" a vanilla second pair defenseman - similar in impact to a guy like Hutton - than of him actually not playing in the NHL.

"Trending towards a disappointing pick" is a better way of stating things.

This is fair. I'm using bust in the way that you're using disappointing. It's not that I don't think Juolevi will ever make the NHL..I just don't think he's going to be worth anything close to what we should be expecting with a 5th overall pick, or what that guy who went 6th overall who we should have drafted is worth.

 

[rune74]

I hate people using the "bust" term, even things like "trending towards a bust". Juolevi will play in the NHL. I'd put him more in the Gudbranson category of "drafted too high for what he brings". I'm more concerned that he is going to be "just" a vanilla second pair defenseman - similar in impact to a guy like Hutton - than of him actually not playing in the NHL.

"Trending towards a disappointing pick" is a better way of stating things.

I agree....it's irksome when you have guys screaming bust like they won at bingo.

 

[CanaFan]

I agree....it's irksome when you have guys screaming bust like they won at bingo.

As Y2Ks post above shows, people are applying two different meanings to the term. Some people take "bust" to mean a player who never plays in the NHL or who finds only a fringe role.

Others use it to mean a player who turns out significantly below their draft projection but is still more than a fringe player.

I agree with the usage of the first one and am undecided on the second. Technically Gudbranson is an example of the latter. A marginal 4/5 D with no offensive game is a horrible disappointment for a 3rd overall pick. But is it accurate to call him a "bust"? I wouldn't but I can see how some would.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Pettersson should be expected to shred the SHL this year and be on the Canuck roster in 18-19. Especially as a 1998-born player a year older than most of his draft contemporaries.

your opinion comes down to the idea that athletes who reach maturity a year or two later than others are unlikely to excel in the nhl. that would be a trend i have not seen documented in any other sport.

does it make sense to you? or is it possible that the age 18 draft means most kids drafted high are early maturers ready for the nhl sooner, which would mean your stats are of no probative value when assessing a late bloomer drafted high.

 

[CanaFan]

your opinion comes down to the idea that athletes who reach maturity a year or two later than others are unlikely to excel in the nhl. that would be a trend i have not seen documented in any other sport.

does it make sense to you? or is it possible that the age 18 draft means most kids drafted high are early maturers ready for the nhl sooner, which would mean your stats are of no probative value when assessing a late bloomer drafted high.

Why would a kid who reaches maturity "a year or two later" be a high pick then? Those kids are the ones being taken in the late rounds, not 5th overall in the draft. If a kid isn't good enough because he's "not mature" (physically or skills wise) then teams generally don't roll the dice that they *will* mature with a high pick. You are arguing for a team to draft Ben Hutton 5th overall, which is stupid because even if you secretly love the player you don't need to draft him at 5th. It's either bad valuation of the player or the draft pick.

And specific to Juolevi and Pettersson, their games were never "not mature". They both excelled (relatively speaking) in their draft year. They by definition already had "mature" games. It's the lack of further progression that is the concern for Juolevi and would be if Pettersson does the same.

Like in what world is it reasonable to draft a player at #5 and expect him to not be at the top of his age group for another 3-4 years? If that's the case then you shouldn't have drafted that player and instead taken someone who you think will be at the top of their peer group.

It's a strange argument you are making.

 

[MS]

I hate people using the "bust" term, even things like "trending towards a bust". Juolevi will play in the NHL. I'd put him more in the Gudbranson category of "drafted too high for what he brings". I'm more concerned that he is going to be "just" a vanilla second pair defenseman - similar in impact to a guy like Hutton - than of him actually not playing in the NHL.

"Trending towards a disappointing pick" is a better way of stating things.

Exactly.

I only use the term 'bust' for guys who don't stick in the NHL. In the case of Juolevi, he's trending disappointingly toward being a disappointing pick.

If you get a Ben Hutton #4-5 skill defender from the 5th round, that's great. If you get a Ben Hutton from a #5 overall pick, that's an awful result.

Why would a kid who reaches maturity "a year or two later" be a high pick then? Those kids are the ones being taken in the late rounds, not 5th overall in the draft. If a kid isn't good enough because he's "not mature" (physically or skills wise) then teams generally don't roll the dice that they *will* mature with a high pick. You are arguing for a team to draft Ben Hutton 5th overall, which is stupid because even if you secretly love the player you don't need to draft him at 5th. It's either bad valuation of the player or the draft pick.

And specific to Juolevi and Pettersson, their games were never "not mature". They both excelled (relatively speaking) in their draft year. They by definition already had "mature" games. It's the lack of further progression that is the concern for Juolevi and would be if Pettersson does the same.

Like in what world is it reasonable to draft a player at #5 and expect him to not be at the top of his age group for another 3-4 years? If that's the case then you shouldn't have drafted that player and instead taken someone who you think will be at the top of their peer group.

It's a strange argument you are making.

Yeah, it's just ... weird.

If Pettersson isn't one of the top players in his age group who is ready to step into the NHL and contribute quickly ... he shouldn't have been a top-5 pick.

He was the highest-producing player available in 2017 when you adjust for levels and one of the oldest players drafted in the first round, playing against men already for two years. He should be MORE ready than other guys and closer to the NHL, if anything.

But 13 years ago Blake Wheeler was a high pick and got good late, or something. It's irritating the excuses people make, and how they prepare themselves for unlikely outlier situations rather than sensible most likely outcomes.

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

IMO, people use the word bust as essentially a blown pick.

Not so much towards the player themselves but where they were selected and how they fared against those drafted around them.

Thus, in the case of Virtanen and Juolevi, they are currently deemed by many as "busts" even though there is a high likelihood that both carve out some sort of NHL career.

 

[topched88]

This is fair. I'm using bust in the way that you're using disappointing. It's not that I don't think Juolevi will ever make the NHL..I just don't think he's going to be worth anything close to what we should be expecting with a 5th overall pick, or what that guy who went 6th overall who we should have drafted is worth.

Agree with this 100%

 

[krutovsdonut]

Why would a kid who reaches maturity "a year or two later" be a high pick then? Those kids are the ones being taken in the late rounds, not 5th overall in the draft. If a kid isn't good enough because he's "not mature" (physically or skills wise) then teams generally don't roll the dice that they *will* mature with a high pick. You are arguing for a team to draft Ben Hutton 5th overall, which is stupid because even if you secretly love the player you don't need to draft him at 5th. It's either bad valuation of the player or the draft pick.

And specific to Juolevi and Pettersson, their games were never "not mature". They both excelled (relatively speaking) in their draft year. They by definition already had "mature" games. It's the lack of further progression that is the concern for Juolevi and would be if Pettersson does the same.

Like in what world is it reasonable to draft a player at #5 and expect him to not be at the top of his age group for another 3-4 years? If that's the case then you shouldn't have drafted that player and instead taken someone who you think will be at the top of their peer group.

It's a strange argument you are making.

i expect teams to take a chance on a late maturing kid who shows exceptional talent at draft year. that is clearly what happened with petterson. to a lesser extent that was juolevi too. i think on draft day petterson would have been the consensus as the least physically nhl ready forward in the top 15. juolevi likely holds that title among dmen for his year too.

i agree it's not all that common to buck the "nhl ready" trend but it happens, and it's not necessarily wrong and definitely not proven wrong unless you track the success rate of those kind of players. that's why i am interested to see who people think juolevi actually resembles. it's funny that people are ducking that comparison don't you think?

 

[CanaFan]

i expect teams to take a chance on a late maturing kid who shows exceptional talent at draft year. that is clearly what happened with petterson. to a lesser extent that was juolevi too. i think on draft day petterson would have been the consensus as the least physically nhl ready forward in the top 15. juolevi likely holds that title among dmen for his year too.

i agree it's not all that common to buck the "nhl ready" trend but it happens, and it's not necessarily wrong and definitely not proven wrong unless you track the success rate of those kind of players. that's why i am interested to see who people think juolevi actually resembles. it's funny that people are ducking that comparison don't you think?

Question 1: In what way was Juolevi "late maturing" in his draft year? What part of his game wasn't "mature" relative to other kids his age?

Question 2: What prospects do you feel Juolevi resembles with respect to this "late maturing" argument?

 

[iFan]

if Juolevi doesn't standout in a good way at camp/pre-season games then its time to get concerned with him. He's not a late round draft pick he was a 5th overall pick, I understand he had a disappointing season last year, if that didn't light a fire under his ass this off season to get much better than this is concerning.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Question 1: In what way was Juolevi "late maturing" in his draft year? What part of his game wasn't "mature" relative to other kids his age?

I presume he means he was skinny/slightly built and his game wasn't NHL-ready in terms of physical maturity.

 

[CanaFan]

I presume he means he was skinny/slightly built and his game wasn't NHL-ready in terms of physical maturity.

And I wonder how that is relevant with him weighing in at close to 200lbs this summer?

This is the part I'm not understanding. Juolevi is not "not mature" in either his skills or body. I can accept part of that argument for Pettersson (the extreme lack of weight) but Juolevi is pretty "mature" for a 19 year old. He just may not be as good as Benning had hoped he was, in part (I believe) due to over-valuing his 2016 WJC.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Question 1: In what way was Juolevi "late maturing" in his draft year? What part of his game wasn't "mature" relative to other kids his age?

Question 2: What prospects do you feel Juolevi resembles with respect to this "late maturing" argument?

question 1: relative to other top dman draft picks, on draft day juolevi was tall but skinny and showed not much core/man strength and above average but not elite physical talent. he defended by zone/containment and stick work instead of physical engagement, and he was not strong on his skates and tended to get bounced out of the play in traffic. he was drafted because of what he did with the puck when he got it, and because he had enough other skill and a frame that appeared likely to fill out so that you could project him to be able to put his poise and puck possession skill to good use.

question 2: that's what i have been asking. ever since his draft people have been reaching hard for comparisons. i think if he succeeds he ends up looking like a lot of classic strong transition dmen but gets there by a different route as a prospect. i don't know how you project a guy like this by comparing him to players he doesn't resemble. you could certainly argue he should have been a later pick, but again, who are the later draft pick comparisons?

 

[CanaFan]

question 1: relative to other top dman draft picks, on draft day juolevi was tall but skinny and showed not much core/man strength and above average but not elite physical talent. he defended by zone/containment and stick work instead of physical engagement, and he was not strong on his skates and tended to get bounced out of the play in traffic. he was drafted because of what he did with the puck when he got it, and because he had enough other skill and a frame that appeared likely to fill out so that you could project him to be able to put his poise and puck possession skill to good use.

Two things.

1) You are describing his game in junior vs other players who are not much bigger/stronger than him. He stick checks because that's how he plays the game, not because he is "immature". It's a fallacy to use "physically immature" to rationalize his game in the OHL against similarly aged/sized/strength kids.

2) As of this summer he has made up much of that gap. Listed at near 200lbs, he is actually bigger (6'3) and heavier (~200) than many players in the NHL. If he is sent back to junior / Finland this year I don't think physical immaturity is a satisfactory explanation. I would accept it for Pettersson as I think his physical immaturity is at an outlier level.

question 2: that's what i have been asking. ever since his draft people have been reaching hard for comparisons. i think if he succeeds he ends up looking like a lot of classic strong transition dmen but gets there by a different route as a prospect. i don't know how you project a guy like this by comparing him to players he doesn't resemble. you could certainly argue he should have been a later pick, but again, who are the later draft pick comparisons?

I don't have any comparables because I don't think it matters. There is nothing to Juolevi's game that I think "prevents" him from either dominating the OHL or transitioning to the NHL at 19 years of age. His size and weight is not at an outlier level, his skating is more than adequate, his processing of the game is fine. If he doesn't make it it's simply because he isn't putting his various skills and tools together effectively rather than any specific deficiency in his game. And I don't think that is necessarily going to be remedied with time. I mean, he will probably get better (most 19 year olds do), but probably not so significantly that he will ever be a high level NHLer. If he isn't showing strong signs at 19 then I don't think he is going to at 22 or 23.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Two things.

1) You are describing his game in junior vs other players who are not much bigger/stronger than him. He stick checks because that's how he plays the game, not because he is "immature". It's a fallacy to use "physically immature" to rationalize his game in the OHL against similarly aged/sized/strength kids.

2) As of this summer he has made up much of that gap. Listed at near 200lbs, he is actually bigger (6'3) and heavier (~200) than many players in the NHL. If he is sent back to junior / Finland this year I don't think physical immaturity is a satisfactory explanation. I would accept it for Pettersson as I think his physical immaturity is at an outlier level.

i am dubious that he has not overdone the weight gain but we'll see.

i agree that him not choosing to engage physically is not just physical immaturity but it is certainly an immature way to play defence that takes time to unlearn, and one that won't normally get you drafted highly, which was my point: he was drafted in spite of those flaws for a single talent in the belief he would fillout and could be taught to play proper defence. basically a top 4 when defending and a top pair guy with the puck.

maybe the way to look at juolevi is that he is a little like a high draft pick undersized skinny offensive dman but with a higher upside to physically play defence, and only the transition/possession game part of the classic offensive dman profile.

and if he doesn't show that poised transition game at the nhl level, i'll be onboard with the naysayers.

I don't have any comparables because I don't think it matters.

oh come on. since when do comparables not matter when discussing prospects? seriously.

 

[CanaFan]

i am dubious that he has not overdone the weight gain but we'll see.

i agree that him not choosing to engage physically is not just physical immaturity but it is certainly an immature way to play defence that takes time to unlearn, and one that won't normally get you drafted highly, which was my point: he was drafted in spite of those flaws for a single talent in the belief he would fillout and could be taught to play proper defence. basically a top 4 when defending and a top pair guy with the puck.

maybe the way to look at juolevi is that he is a little like a high draft pick undersized skinny offensive dman but with a higher upside to physically play defence, and only the transition/possession game part of the classic offensive dman profile.

and if he doesn't show that poised transition game at the nhl level, i'll be onboard with the naysayers.

A player who has to "unlearn" their game should not be drafted anywhere near 5th overall. That is a frightening assessment tbh.

oh come on. since when do comparables not matter when discussing prospects? seriously.

It doesn't matter in the sense that you are trying to make it. You are seeking an excessive level of specificity in order to avoid arriving at an unfavourable conclusion for Juolevi. A player like Ivan Provorov seems like a suitable comparable to me. He's not any bigger (6'1) or heavier (201lbs), is a good (not great) skater, and spent two years developing on a strong CHL team. That player then made the Flyers in his D+2 season and quickly became one of their top Dmen. That is the type of trajectory that we should be expecting for a 5th OA pick if we are to be not disappointed with it.

You seem to be suggesting that Provorov isn't a suitable comparison because ... I'm not sure. Doesn't have to unlearn his style of playing defense? In the end the biggest difference may just be that Provorov developed strongly in his D+1 and D+2 seasons and Juolevi has not. Maybe the only fair comparable then is a defenseman who was drafted too high in the first place and then stagnated in his D+1 season. Is Thomas Hickey a decent comparable?

 

[krutovsdonut]

provorov was listed at 201 lbs his draft year, and is either 2 or 3" shorter than juolevi depending on which site you check. that does seem like a different physical type to me. i'd consider an 18 year old over 200 lbs to be an early maturer.

https://www.defendingbigd.com/2015/...aft-ivan-provorov-profile-and-scouting-report