Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi, Pt. III | Off to Juo-tica

[PuckMunchkin]

So even if someone has a very well thought out opinion you wouldn't care if he's not in your list of opinion of people you respect?

I have to agree with him.

Some people have proven to be ... say, less reliable.

 

[Nomobo]

Probably worth noting that all his points are on the PP and he's -6.

Yeah, he's good at passing and moving the puck on the PP. We knew that. But from just stat watching, no one can say whether he has made progress in the areas he needs to improve. And from what I've read in the Utica reports, seems like he hasn't.

Ryan Johnson gave an account of where he’s at and by the sounds of it he’s making good progress or is that you put more stock in what the Utica posters are saying? I’m going with the guy that runs the team. OJ is going to be a good NHL defender.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Ryan Johnson gave an account of where he’s at and by the sounds of it he’s making good progress or is that you put more stock in what the Utica posters are saying? I’m going with the guy that runs the team. OJ is going to be a good NHL defender.

By all accounts he struggled defensively in the first few games and is playing better now. Not really surprising that he’d struggle adjusting to a tougher league and having just recovered from an injury.
The 5 points in 8 games though is intriguing and that’s quite good production for a defenseman in the AHL. We really need to see him keep this up for the full year before we can say that he’s taken a step at least offensively. But as you say the comments from both Salo and Ryan Johnson are encouraging. Juolevi seems like he takes a while to adjust to each level and then improves as he gets more familiar with it. Hopefully we see the same continued improvement in Utica this year.

 

[VancouverJagger]

HALP!!! I started around 6 pages ago trying to get an update from someone who has actually watched him play this year (who isn't his coach) and I didn't happen to see much except a lot of bickering and ummmm.......discussion - yes I know this is a hockey board where people discuss these things - got it - 10-4 there however does anyone of the kind intelligent and informed gentleman on this board have an update to how he has played and whether or not he actually has been more engaging physically? (if you aren't kind, intelligent please still feel free to comment).

 

[lawrence]

HALP!!! I started around 6 pages ago trying to get an update from someone who has actually watched him play this year (who isn't his coach) and I didn't happen to see much except a lot of bickering and ummmm.......discussion - yes I know this is a hockey board where people discuss these things - got it - 10-4 there however does anyone of the kind intelligent and informed gentleman on this board have an update to how he has played and whether or not he actually has been more engaging physically? (if you aren't kind, intelligent please still feel free to comment).

take it for what it's worth, he is tied for points by a rookie defencemen as of right now.

also grabbed another quote from another member

" I watched every minute of every game to this point in the season and he is their best Dman - period. Plus/minus is at times a useless stat - and certainly it is with Utica so far this season. Brisebois has been good but has a better partner and has not been left alone on many odd-man rushes nor has he been given the tough assignments. Juolevi has gone up against the other teams number one line almost exclusively each game plus the PP and PK assignments.

No one is overevaluating anyone - simply watching the games and commenting. If you have been watching the games and have a different perspective, that is more than fine. If you are basing it on stats - go right ahead. I use the eye test over stats myself. Your method is up to you."

another user, this one is a Utica fan

"
1. Sautner
2. Juolevi
3. Brisebois
4. Chatfield
5. McEneny

For me Sautner is the clear #1. Very solid and makes few mistakes. Juolevi and Brisebois are similar and the order could be switched. Both are good skaters and make good breakout passes. Chatfield is a distant 4th. EMac has a ways to go to get back to where his was before his latest knee surgery. "

 

[DL44]

Werenski was a whole 9 months younger than Q was when they played their draft years in the NCAA. This is true. Werenski also had the benefit of playing on much better teams than Q. First year he had Hyman, Larkin, Motte, and Copp who are all playing in the NHL, next year Kyle Connor, JT Compher, and Tyler Motte. Q doesn’t quite have the same caliber of teammates.

Doesn't matter...
We know from Juolevi's D+1 that quality of teammates doesn't matter and shouldn't effect his production...
if he doesn't produce, he's likely just not capable of it and stagnating.

 

[Askel]

Doesn't matter...
We know from Juolevi's D+1 that quality of teammates doesn't matter and shouldn't effect his production...
if he doesn't produce, he's likely just not capable of it and stagnating.

Come on man, Joulevi did not have a good D+1 season, He was outscored by a 16 year old in Bouchard and 5th round pick in Mete, who both managed to increase their point total even though their teammates wasn't as good. Good players on the Junior Level score, and score a lot. Players who do not produce generally dont make it, and not progressing your scoring is a bad sign.

Hughes is a IMO a much better prospect than Joulevi, and I still think Joulevi will be a NHL d-man.

 

[DL44]

Come on man, Joulevi did not have a good D+1 season, He was outscored by a 16 year old in Bouchard and 5th round pick in Mete, who both managed to increase their point total even though their teammates wasn't as good. Good players on the Junior Level score, and score a lot. Players who do not produce generally dont make it, and not progressing your scoring is a bad sign.

I know.
That's what I said.

 

[F A N]

Come on man, Joulevi did not have a good D+1 season, He was outscored by a 16 year old in Bouchard and 5th round pick in Mete, who both managed to increase their point total even though their teammates wasn't as good. Good players on the Junior Level score, and score a lot. Players who do not produce generally dont make it, and not progressing your scoring is a bad sign.

Sergachev didn't score a lot in his draft +1 year either. Juolevi actually was London's best PP Dman both in the regular season and playoffs and was the top scoring Dman in the playoffs for London.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Sergachev didn't score a lot in his draft +1 year either.
Juolevi actually was London's best PP Dman both in the regular season and playoffs and was the top scoring Dman in the playoffs for London.

Didn't get to see him at all with London so I won't comment on that at all.
What we do know for sure is London lost Dvorak, Marner, Tkachuk & Berisha (their top4 scorers) and OJ was still able to keep same point pace. He actually scored less on the PP and more 5on5.

2015-16

2016-17

So while at a quick glance it looks like his game took no steps forward but just a wee bit deeper of a look you see maintaining same point pace while not exposed to the likes of Dvorak, Marner and Tkachuk should be seen as progress. IMHO

 

[JT Milker]

Doesn't matter...
We know from Juolevi's D+1 that quality of teammates doesn't matter and shouldn't effect his production...
if he doesn't produce, he's likely just not capable of it and stagnating.

Given his progression to date, I’m not sure Juolevi is a great example.

 

[tyhee]

Didn't get to see him at all with London so I won't comment on that at all.
What we do know for sure is London lost Dvorak, Marner, Tkachuk & Berisha (their top4 scorers) and OJ was still able to keep same point pace. He actually scored less on the PP and more 5on5.

...
So while at a quick glance it looks like his game took no steps forward but just a wee bit deeper of a look you see maintaining same point pace while not exposed to the likes of Dvorak, Marner and Tkachuk should be seen as progress. IMHO

In 2016-17 the London Knights had the 4th best regular season record in the 20 team OHL. There were only 4 points back of #1 overall and would have won two of the league's four divisions handily. They had the 3rd most goals in the 20 team league that season.

Losing Dvorak, Marner and Tkachuk didn't keep his fellow defencemen on the Knights from increasing their scoring. Comparing 2015-16 (draft year for Juolevi and Mete) with 2016-17,

Juolevi went from 42 pts in 57 games (0.737) to 42 pts in 58 games (0.724)
Mete went from 38 pts in 68 games (.559) to 44 pts in 50 games (.88)
Bouchard went from 17 pts in 43 games (.395) to 44 pts in 68 games (.647)

In his draft season Juolevi had 9 pts in 9 games in the WJC and was considered a star. In his D + 1 season he had 2 pts in 6 games and was considered a major disappointment.

Between his draft season and his D + 1 season Juolevi went from being the best defenceman both on a Memorial Cup winning junior team AND a championship winning world junior team to a 2nd pairing defenceman and major disappointment on a good junior team and on a disappointing WJC team. His intensity level and lack of physicality were major disppointments in his D + 1 season and he was not better defensively.

There is no reasonable argument that Juolevi progressed between his Draft and Draft + 1 seasons.

 

[tyhee]

HALP!!! I started around 6 pages ago trying to get an update from someone who has actually watched him play this year (who isn't his coach) and I didn't happen to see much except a lot of bickering and ummmm.......discussion - yes I know this is a hockey board where people discuss these things - got it - 10-4 there however does anyone of the kind intelligent and informed gentleman on this board have an update to how he has played and whether or not he actually has been more engaging physically? (if you aren't kind, intelligent please still feel free to comment).

Sorry not to be giving a direct answer, but in the Utica Comets thread you can usually find reports on which players did well and which didn't, often with specific strengths and weaknesses, after every Comets' game.

For example, after the Sunday win by the Comets:

From post 212 by orcatown "Joulevi (sic) - looked good on the PP and defended the 2 on 1 better. Still needs more intensity and more willingness to get on the body. Can't be all about finesse. Got nailed on a hard check to the head in the late going (of course no call) and looked a little groggy going to the bench."

After the October 19 game against Cleveland:

From post 107 by Bad Goalie "Juolevi actually turned around to find a trailer to pass it to. Never once did he head man the puck or carry it in open space when he could have. Cleveland was laying in wait for that pass and disrupted the rush continuously."

 

[Isi]

Ryan Johnson gave an account of where he’s at and by the sounds of it he’s making good progress or is that you put more stock in what the Utica posters are saying? I’m going with the guy that runs the team. OJ is going to be a good NHL defender.

i mean, if anyone tried this same argument with jim benning they'd get laughed off the forum. ryan johnson's account has to be taken with a grain of salt for reasons that hardly seem like they need explaining

 

[DL44]

Given his progression to date, I’m not sure Juolevi is a great example.

-highly selected D
-returned to the same level in D+1 yr.
-numbers stagnate
-disappointing millions

If Hughes stagnates statistically this yr, it will be the perfect parallel with Juolevi because think of the logic people would use to explain potential reasons for said stagnation.
History shows that if Hughes numbers remain flat, people don't take kindly to context or suggested reasons why.


Even Virtanen who was coming off of an inactive summer into his D+1 was not tolerated.

Just the way it is. Flat numbers in your D+1, widespread disappointment and hand wringing.

Only reason he would escape it may be because only a handful of people wanted another player. So being right on the internet may supercede Benning/Hughes critique.

 

[Askel]

Sergachev didn't score a lot in his draft +1 year either. Juolevi actually was London's best PP Dman both in the regular season and playoffs and was the top scoring Dman in the playoffs for London.

And a LOT of people were worried that Sergachev had stagnated. For Every Sergachev there is probably 10 player who stagnated and never met their potential. There are players that will be statistical anomalies, but most succesful player follow the same statistical form.

You want your draft picks to improve, a offensive d-man that don´t score more in his D+1 season is a bad sign, it might be circumstances that mediate somewhat but its an important clue to how a players development is tracking. I know scoring isn't everything but its an easy observable measure.

Im not saying that Juolevi is a bust, Im saying that his deveopment this far have not been as good as hoped when he was the first d-man picked in the draft.

 

[DL44]

Didn't get to see him at all with London so I won't comment on that at all.
What we do know for sure is London lost Dvorak, Marner, Tkachuk & Berisha (their top4 scorers) and OJ was still able to keep same point pace. He actually scored less on the PP and more 5on5.







So while at a quick glance it looks like his game took no steps forward but just a wee bit deeper of a look you see maintaining same point pace while not exposed to the likes of Dvorak, Marner and Tkachuk should be seen as progress. IMHO

The context of that season is set aside and ignored by those critical of Juolevi's D+1 season.

 

[Kaako Kappo]

He's -6, but can anyone who's seen his games tell me what he's been like defensively?

 

[Melvin]

He's -6, but can anyone who's seen his games tell me what he's been like defensively?

Sorry not to be giving a direct answer, but in the Utica Comets thread you can usually find reports on which players did well and which didn't, often with specific strengths and weaknesses, after every Comets' game.

For example, after the Sunday win by the Comets:

From post 212 by orcatown "Joulevi (sic) - looked good on the PP and defended the 2 on 1 better. Still needs more intensity and more willingness to get on the body. Can't be all about finesse. Got nailed on a hard check to the head in the late going (of course no call) and looked a little groggy going to the bench."

After the October 19 game against Cleveland:

From post 107 by Bad Goalie "Juolevi actually turned around to find a trailer to pass it to. Never once did he head man the puck or carry it in open space when he could have. Cleveland was laying in wait for that pass and disrupted the rush continuously."

 

[JT Milker]

-highly selected D
-returned to the same level in D+1 yr.
-numbers stagnate
-disappointing millions

If Hughes stagnates statistically this yr, it will be the perfect parallel with Juolevi because think of the logic people would use to explain potential reasons for said stagnation.
History shows that if Hughes numbers remain flat, people don't take kindly to context or suggested reasons why.


Even Virtanen who was coming off of an inactive summer into his D+1 was not tolerated.

Just the way it is. Flat numbers in your D+1, widespread disappointment and hand wringing.

Only reason he would escape it may be because only a handful of people wanted another player. So being right on the internet may supercede Benning/Hughes critique.

Your previous comment implied Juolevi was a positive example, which he isn’t.

 

[xtra]

Does anyone in the canucks organization say anything negative about their players? I mean we just had Travis green praising Louis eriksson.

Johnson’s opinion has to be taken with a grain of salt cause they need Olli to do well to avoid critics. I feel that the posters that watch him in Utica and cheer for Utica might be a little less biased

 

[krutovsdonut]

Does anyone in the canucks organization say anything negative about their players? I mean we just had Travis green praising Louis eriksson.

Johnson’s opinion has to be taken with a grain of salt cause they need Olli to do well to avoid critics. I feel that the posters that watch him in Utica and cheer for Utica might be a little less biased

this is fair. also i think a gm can dabble in bullshit to a greater degree than a coach. it’s way too early to organize a parade for juolevi

 

[xtra]

this is fair. also i think a gm can dabble in bull**** to a greater degree than a coach. it’s way too early to organize a parade for juolevi

While I say fans might be less biased they could also be less educated about the nuances of the game or go full hyperbole mode like M2B does here for a prospect.

We need to take all the information available (fans, coaches, our own viewings) and then come to an opinion

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Most of what you say is perfectly reasonable, IMHO. First of all... I guess I need to just say it out loud. He was a bad pick.
I can agree with you at all when you say that there is not even a reasonable argument for him progressing.

Now... I will respond to select points;

Let's not pretend the Knights were bad in Juolevi's D + 1 season.

In 2016-17 the London Knights had the 4th best regular season record in the 20 team OHL. There were only 4 points back of #1 overall and would have won two of the league's four divisions handily. They had the 3rd most goals in the 20 team league that season.

As for losing good players, it didn't keep his fellow defencemen from scoring more. Comparing 2015-16 (his draft year) with 2016-17:

Juolevi went from 42 pts in 57 games (0.737) to 42 pts in 58 games (0.724)
Mete went from 38 pts in 68 games (.559) to 44 pts in 50 games (.88)
Bouchard went from 17 pts in 43 games (.395) to 44 pts in 68 games (.647)

Im definitelynot arguing against Mete & Bouchard. They got better, maybe even passed OJ by.
I think just the fact that he is no longer exposed that ridiculous PP and still maintains his point pace is improvement in it self.

In the regular season in his D + 1 season Juolevi was the 3rd highest scoring defenceman on the Knights, 2 points behind Mete (same age, Mete played fewer games) and Bouchard (who was younger and played more games.) In the playoffs Juolevi outscored Mete and Bouchard by 1 point each, 8 to 7, with his scoring rate well below what it was in the regular season and in the previous season's playoffs.

In his draft season Juolevi had 9 pts in 9 games in the WJC and was considered a star. In his D + 1 season he had 2 pts in 6 games and was considered a major disappointment.

I watched all the games and felt he was among Finland's teams best players every game, and their best player the last game.

So what we have is Juolevi maintains almost as good a points performance in his D + 1 season as in his draft season while scoring at significantly lower rates both in the OHL playoffs and in the WJC. He was considered a star in his draft season and a disappointment both at the OHL level and in the WJC in his D + 1 season. His weaknesses-intensity level and lack of physicality-did not improve in any way. He was not better defensively.

Between his draft season and his D + 1 season Juolevi went from being the best defenceman both on a Memorial Cup winning junior team AND a championship winning world junior team to a 2nd pairing defenceman and major disappointment on a good junior team and on a disappointing WJC team.

There is no reasonable argument that Juolevi progressed between his Draft and Draft + 1 seasons.
I can't see any reasonable argument in favour of saying this is progression, much less the type of significant progression one expects to see between D and D+1 seasons.

It is reasonable to argue that he progressed. Again. The London Knights went from scoring 319 goals to scoring 289 goals.
That is a 10% dip in overall goals scored by the Knights. He still maintained the same point pace. I can't find TOI stats for the OHL but I think he was playing less on the PP. Bouchard pushed him for PP time?

I don't know if it was significant progression. Obviously he isn't projecting like his draft-position would lead you to expect. But still his team scored 10% less and he scored more then the year before.

 

[F A N]

Does anyone in the canucks organization say anything negative about their players? I mean we just had Travis green praising Louis eriksson.

Green criticizes players all the time (mostly young players) in mostly a nonoffensive way. Benning and Johnson have talked about what some players need to work on.