y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
will you be applying this logic to petterson's development?
if not, why not?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
canafan said:I don't have any comparables because I don't think it matters.
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.
oh come on. since when do comparables not matter when discussing prospects? seriously.