Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi II

[krutovsdonut]

Lindholm is really good at playing defense.

Juolevi is - to this point - bad at playing defense.

"bad"? really? whatever he is, the last time we saw him he was playing top pair defence in the playoffs for a professional team at age 19. how is that bad?

 

[TruGr1t]

This guy has benefited from "out of sight, out of mind." This year we'll see where he actually is in terms of development. He's already trending poorly given his draft position and the fact he hasn't even sniffed the NHL at 20 years old. I wouldn't be nearly as critical if he was a second round, or even late first round, draft pick.

 

[MS]

"bad"? really? whatever he is, the last time we saw him he was playing top pair defence in the playoffs for a professional team at age 19. how is that bad?

I freely admit I saw little of him in Finland this year. In London, it was bad. At the WJCs this year, the same habits were still there.

Being skilled enough to play top-pairing minutes in a lower league doesn't mean you project to be good defensively in the NHL. Cam Barker and Philip Larsen are top-pairing guys in a better league than what Juolevi was in, and they're complete garbage defensively.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Being skilled enough to play top-pairing minutes in a lower league doesn't mean you project to be good defensively in the NHL.

when you do it at age 19 and you play a 2 way game, it does in fact increase the likelihood you project to be good defensively in the nhl.

 

[Fire Benning]

Lindholm is a top 10 defenseman in the league. If Juolevi turned into him I'd be over the moon and you'd probably have to consider picking him in the top 3 in a 2016 re-draft. But Lindholm is an elite at shot suppression and I don't think Juolevi has the ability be that good defensively.

 

[MS]

when you do it at age 19 and you play a 2 way game, it does in fact increase the likelihood you project to be good defensively in the nhl.

Based on what I've seen Juolevi has the IQ to be a solid defensive player if he can ever find a set of balls and engage physically, and that IQ gets him by satisfactorally at lower levels but his unwillingness to put his body between the opposition and the play will see him exposed badly at this level if he doesn't make major adjustments.

And any comparison to Lindholm is ludicrous.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Based on what I've seen Juolevi has the IQ to be a solid defensive player if he can ever find a set of balls and engage physically, and that IQ gets him by satisfactorally at lower levels but his unwillingness to put his body between the opposition and the play will see him exposed badly at this level if he doesn't make major adjustments.

And any comparison to Lindholm is ludicrous.

i didn't compare him to lindholm. i just queried your position he was "bad" at defence.

if we are going to make wildass wish fulfillment comparisons i will stick with lidstrom. may as well aim high.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

So the highest defensman in the draft shouldn’t be a top pairing guy? With your logic , then there would be no top pairing defensman in the NHL. If the top selected D shouldn’t be a top pairing guy, who should??

disagreed. If he becomes a solid top 4 for us its still a solid pick, like a Lindholm level dman 25 points is a good pick. If he plays 0 nhl games ok then we riot together, I promise.

 

[lawrence]

So the highest defensman in the draft shouldn’t be a top pairing guy? With your logic , then there would be no top pairing defensman in the NHL. If the top selected D shouldn’t be a top pairing guy, who should??

I'm saying I won't lose it like you if he doesn't become a top pairing dman.

 

[Luck 6]

This guy has benefited from "out of sight, out of mind." This year we'll see where he actually is in terms of development. He's already trending poorly given his draft position and the fact he hasn't even sniffed the NHL at 20 years old. I wouldn't be nearly as critical if he was a second round, or even late first round, draft pick.

In Juolevi’s defense, had he played in North America this year there’s a very good chance he would have been with the big club towards the end of the season. Because he played in Europe that wasn’t an option.

I may be generalizing a bit, but I think it’s a pretty fair assumption that Benning would have wanted him to be force fed minutes in the pointless games down the stretch.

Hence, I don’t know that we can assume that he’s trending downward just because we haven’t seen him in the NHL yet. But I agree, this year is judgement time.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Well that’s a different argument entirely. You’re reaction vs mine to different things .... is irrelevant. That said, top D man in a draft needs to be a top pairing guy. Plain and simple.

I'm saying I won't lose it like you if he doesn't become a top pairing dman.

 

[Grub]

In Juolevi’s defense, wasn’t he one of the youngest guys in his draft class?

 

[M2Beezy]

In Juolevi’s defense, wasn’t he one of the youngest guys in his draft class?

Yep thats right

 

[CanaFan]

Yep thats right

May 5 birthday. Draft cut off is Sept 15. Pretty average age. Sergachev, Dubois, Keller, Bean, Bellows, Fabbro are younger, lots of guys 1-2 months older (Laine, Nylander, Jost, Puljujarvi). Definitely not “one of the youngest” in any sort of meaningful way.

 

[pgj98m3]

May 5 birthday. Draft cut off is Sept 15. Pretty average age. Sergachev, Dubois, Keller, Bean, Bellows, Fabbro are younger, lots of guys 1-2 months older (Laine, Nylander, Jost, Puljujarvi). Definitely not “one of the youngest” in any sort of meaningful way.

Any excuse is a “good” excuse for the Lindenning fans (as opposed to Canuck fans).

 

[DonnyNucker]

Any excuse is a “good” excuse for the Lindenning fans (as opposed to Canuck fans).

Pretty sure “Lindennig Fans” are diehard Canucks fans just like you. Perhaps the poster is just eager to see Juolevi due well and looks for positives instead of only negatives like yourself? The outrage!

 

[CanaFan]

Pretty sure “Lindennig Fans” are diehard Canucks fans just like you. Perhaps the poster is just eager to see Juolevi due well and looks for positives instead of only negatives like yourself? The outrage!

Then find real reasons, not made up ones.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Then find real reasons, not made up ones.

I’m not defending Juolevi

 

[CanaFan]

I’m not defending Juolevi

And I’m not attacking him (or you). But for the OP to think his birthday is at all relevant 2 years after the draft is the height of reaching, and made worse by the fact that it wasn’t even correct.

 

[bobbyb2009]

Well that’s a different argument entirely. You’re reaction vs mine to different things .... is irrelevant. That said, top D man in a draft needs to be a top pairing guy. Plain and simple.

Oh man, I am so tired if reading this shit...

Why does some random poster named Johnny Canucker get to decide what is relevant? In this case, on this topic, I find it is relevant to me that while I read two posters exchange views on a player, one expresses his perspective, so you know what, that makes it relevant. You choose to suggest something someone says is irrelevant to YOU, but that most certainly does not define something as irrelevant.

As a parallel, I find your post, and others from you, rather condescending (my opinion- therefore, I respond to it this time). Unfortunately, mine is only one voice, one opinion, so my perspective does not define each of your posts as condescending, it just simply shares with you my perspective that the tone of them bothers me.

As an aside, one thing I do agree with you about, he may have introduced a different argument or an additional one than he was making earlier. Oh well, this would be his right, to represent his argument. It may be that he continues to hold onto his belief that it hurts to think negatively about everything, and he chooses to look at the positive possibility of Juolevi becoming a top 4 defensemen- which this team clearly needs!

Now to Juolevi.... At this point, I would be very very happy if he became a top 4, play in all situations, useful D for this team for many years to come. I would be a little disappointed that the hope for the upside of a pick this high did not reach its ceiling and become a game changer, but I would also be very happy that we got a really useful player out of the pick rather than a Michael Dal Cole type (or the dozens of other players at this approx draft position that didn't become as useful). I still have doubt that OJ becomes this, but I have hope. Hope is a really good thing for me in my life. I even hope you can find some in yours

 

[brownbello]

Oh man, I am so tired if reading this ****...

Why does some random poster named Johnny Canucker get to decide what is relevant? In this case, on this topic, I find it is relevant to me that while I read two posters exchange views on a player, one expresses his perspective, so you know what, that makes it relevant. You choose to suggest something someone says is irrelevant to YOU, but that most certainly does not define something as irrelevant.

I wish there was a hand clap button. Great post!

 

[Johnny Canucker]

You’re probably new around here. That’s just the way it is.

Oh man, I am so tired if reading this ****...

Why does some random poster named Johnny Canucker get to decide what is relevant? In this case, on this topic, I find it is relevant to me that while I read two posters exchange views on a player, one expresses his perspective, so you know what, that makes it relevant. You choose to suggest something someone says is irrelevant to YOU, but that most certainly does not define something as irrelevant.

As a parallel, I find your post, and others from you, rather condescending (my opinion- therefore, I respond to it this time). Unfortunately, mine is only one voice, one opinion, so my perspective does not define each of your posts as condescending, it just simply shares with you my perspective that the tone of them bothers me.

As an aside, one thing I do agree with you about, he may have introduced a different argument or an additional one than he was making earlier. Oh well, this would be his right, to represent his argument. It may be that he continues to hold onto his belief that it hurts to think negatively about everything, and he chooses to look at the positive possibility of Juolevi becoming a top 4 defensemen- which this team clearly needs!

Now to Juolevi.... At this point, I would be very very happy if he became a top 4, play in all situations, useful D for this team for many years to come. I would be a little disappointed that the hope for the upside of a pick this high did not reach its ceiling and become a game changer, but I would also be very happy that we got a really useful player out of the pick rather than a Michael Dal Cole type (or the dozens of other players at this approx draft position that didn't become as useful). I still have doubt that OJ becomes this, but I have hope. Hope is a really good thing for me in my life. I even hope you can find some in yours

 

[F A N]

I freely admit I saw little of him in Finland this year. In London, it was bad. At the WJCs this year, the same habits were still there.

Being skilled enough to play top-pairing minutes in a lower league doesn't mean you project to be good defensively in the NHL. Cam Barker and Philip Larsen are top-pairing guys in a better league than what Juolevi was in, and they're complete garbage defensively.

Your comparisons are worthless. Barker sucked skating backwards and was slow to turn. Combined with him being a bit slow in processing the game, you can dump the puck in on him all day. Larsen was too weak to defend in the NHL.

I am almost certain that Brooks Orpik is a better Dman in the NHL than he would be in Europe. Means very little.

 

[pgj98m3]

Your comparisons are worthless. Barker sucked skating backwards and was slow to turn. Combined with him being a bit slow in processing the game, you can dump the puck in on him all day. Larsen was too weak to defend in the NHL.

I am almost certain that Brooks Orpik is a better Dman in the NHL than he would be in Europe. Means very little.

I just love how any negative info is worthless but you drool over even the slightest good news.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Your comparisons are worthless. Barker sucked skating backwards and was slow to turn. Combined with him being a bit slow in processing the game, you can dump the puck in on him all day. Larsen was too weak to defend in the NHL.

I am almost certain that Brooks Orpik is a better Dman in the NHL than he would be in Europe. Means very little.

Who would be a better comparison then?