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

[krutovsdonut]

Bringing up low probability comparisons is a waste of time. I’m not sure what you are trying to prove other than point out the incredibly obvious point that some prospects don’t develop quickly but still are impact NHL players.

When a goalie prospect struggles to make the NHL and is still in the AHL at 30 do you constantly bring up Tim Thomas as a comparison?

should i compare him to thomas chabot then?

because he's got 12 ahl games to get himself promoted to catch him.

 

[krutovsdonut]

It's just a schtick; I think he thinks it's funny.

ridiculous. we all know it's only funny to trash canuck players here.

 

[Melvin]

ridiculous. we all know it's only funny to trash canuck players here.

You are so insecure.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You are so insecure.

i read that as "so immature" at first. which made me think of sitting in the hall playing mattel electronic football in the eighth grade while a girl who secretly had a crush on me lectured me for cutting class. thanks for that memory.

 

[Hodgy]

should i compare him to thomas chabot then?

because he's got 12 ahl games to get himself promoted to catch him.

Chabot would be a closer comparison, but fails to recognize the immense difference between a top five overall pick, and a mid first round pick. You would expect the former to develop at a quicker rate and make an impact at the NHL sooner.

 

[Melvin]

i read that as "so immature" at first. which made me think of sitting in the hall playing mattel electronic football in the eighth grade while a girl who secretly had a crush on me lectured me for cutting class. thanks for that memory.

How did you know she secretly had a crush on you? Did you find out later?

 

[krutovsdonut]

How did you know she secretly had a crush on you? Did you find out later?

i found out later at the grade 8 dance. and thanks for that memory also. but this is getting a little weird.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Chabot would be a closer comparison, but fails to recognize the immense difference between a top five overall pick, and a mid first round pick. You would expect the former to develop at a quicker rate and make an impact at the NHL sooner.

In defense of Juolevi, Swedes and D-men tend to be slow to develop. (hears Screams of "Juolevi is not a Swede").

I hated the pick, but just because I thought JB should have traded down if he wasn't taking M Tkachuk. There were like 8 equal players, someone probably would have paid at least a 2nd for him. He should have cashed in. And likely still would have got Juolevi ...

7 - Keller
8 - Nylander
9 - Sergachev
10 - Jost
11 - Brown
13 - bean
14 - McAvoy
16 - Chychrun

If he had Juolevi so highly rated that this was not a good move, then his evaluation was way off. If he didn't then he should have traded the pick.

 

[racerjoe]

Disagree...
He's stepped up at every level to be called an impact player... especially playoffs.

It just hasn't been seamless and perfect throughout...

How did he step up in his D1? Last year, maybe but hard to compare the two leagues.

Having said that he has not addressed his biggest fault. He does not engage and does not battle.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Chabot would be a closer comparison, but fails to recognize the immense difference between a top five overall pick, and a mid first round pick. You would expect the former to develop at a quicker rate and make an impact at the NHL sooner.

your point depends upon the unstated belief it is impossible to scout for the draft a lidstrom or the many other top pair dmen who mature later. if it is possible to spot a dman who you believe will take longer then be a top pair dman then you would logically draft him early regardless of whether that has been done historically. the only reason not to would be if you expect the player might still be available for your next draft pick.

to put this another way, it is no less logical to draft a physically immature guy you believe has all the mental and dexterity skills to be a top pair dmen eventually, then it is to use the same level of picks on manchild guys like gudbranson and cowen who have the physical size and raw tools and you hope will develop the iq. it may in fact be more logical.

 

[Melvin]

your point depends upon the unstated belief it is impossible to scout for the draft a lidstrom or the many other top pair dmen who mature later. if it is possible to spot a dman who you believe will take longer then be a top pair dman then you would logically draft him early regardless of whether that has been done historically. the only reason not to would be if you expect the player might still be available for your next draft pick.

to put this another way, it is no less logical to draft a physically immature guy you believe has all the mental and dexterity skills to be a top pair dmen eventually, then it is to use the same level of picks on manchild guys like gudbranson and cowen who have the physical size and raw tools and you hope will develop the iq. it may in fact be more logical.

It is less logical because those guys are available later in the draft. Like Jack Rathbone might well develop into a great player but he was a long term project from the start which is why we got him in round 4.

At 5 overall you should be getting a much better, more polished prospect. Juolevi is developing like a 3rd round pick, that's not a good thing.

 

[M2Beezy]

In defense of Juolevi, Swedes and D-men tend to be slow to develop. (hears Screams of "Juolevi is not a Swede").

I hated the pick, but just because I thought JB should have traded down if he wasn't taking M Tkachuk. There were like 8 equal players, someone probably would have paid at least a 2nd for him. He should have cashed in. And likely still would have got Juolevi ...

7 - Keller
8 - Nylander
9 - Sergachev
10 - Jost
11 - Brown
13 - bean
14 - McAvoy
16 - Chychrun

If he had Juolevi so highly rated that this was not a good move, then his evaluation was way off. If he didn't then he should have traded the pick.

Can you imagine if we had traded 2016 5th overall to Boston for 2016 14th overall and Carlo/2016 2nd round pick???? And then Boston takes Tkachuck and ices him and Marchand on the same line. Yikesssss

 

[DL44]

How did he step up in his D1? Last year, maybe but hard to compare the two leagues.

Having said that he has not addressed his biggest fault. He does not engage and does not battle.

Its grossly overblown... you can count on less than one hand the number of battles people have issue with.
The Kopitar goal (1play) became the screaming signature play that has defined him..
Fair to him?

He did a lot of good subtle stuff right...

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Its grossly overblown... you can count on less than one hand the number of battles people have issue with.
The Kopitar goal (1play) became the screaming signature play that has defined him..
Fair to him?

He did a lot of good subtle stuff right...

That's how this board works, people usually will remember the one very bad moment and beat it to dead, complete;y ignore the current

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Supposively playing well in Utica which is a good sign. He like all dmen will look better on a good team than a bad team. More time in offensive zone makes every dman look better except maybe Tanev? He is very smart with the puck in offensive zone I could see him being very good second pp dman or even a 1st pp level guy. Though I hope Q. Hughes makes that impossible. The question is will he intense enough to be a pk dman? If he can be he would be a good top 4 dman.

 

[racerjoe]

Its grossly overblown... you can count on less than one hand the number of battles people have issue with.
The Kopitar goal (1play) became the screaming signature play that has defined him..
Fair to him?

He did a lot of good subtle stuff right...

He played two games, and was mysteriously scratched in another. Yes that play is talked about most because it so terrible. Much like when people talk about bad back checking and Ovie, it is the one goal that gets replayed like a video game.

I won’t go through each game as I don’t have the means to do so but it talked about for years and still no improvement.

 

[Hodgy]

your point depends upon the unstated belief it is impossible to scout for the draft a lidstrom or the many other top pair dmen who mature later. if it is possible to spot a dman who you believe will take longer then be a top pair dman then you would logically draft him early regardless of whether that has been done historically. the only reason not to would be if you expect the player might still be available for your next draft pick.

to put this another way, it is no less logical to draft a physically immature guy you believe has all the mental and dexterity skills to be a top pair dmen eventually, then it is to use the same level of picks on manchild guys like gudbranson and cowen who have the physical size and raw tools and you hope will develop the iq. it may in fact be more logical.

I don't think it really is possible in the way you are suggesting it. I don't think the Red Wings drafted Lidstrom thinking he would ever be as good as he was. If they thought this, they would have used their first pick on him. Players like Lidstrom, or Tim Thomas, are very rare and extremely unpredictable. It is far more likely the top players were top players that developed as such. In fact, everything Jim Benning stated regarding Olli Juolevi after drafting him suggested that he was very close to being an NHL player.

If you are drafting within the top five, you dam well better get a player that is not only close to the NHL, but has a very high potential. Just look at Pettersson and Virtanen. One was a pretty poor pick, the other a great pick. But they were both close to the NHL when drafted. Look at Scott Glennie. A terrible pick that wasn't close to the NHL when drafted.

The problem with your theory is that it relies on hindsight to prove that the player farther from making the NHL has higher upside. This is because a player's upside is judged based on his development curve, which depends on his current ability. Therefore, if one player has a very high ability at the time of being drafted, and another player has a lower ability at the time of being draft, it is counterintuitive to suggest the latter player has a higher upside, and in this scenario, the former player obviously is closer to the NHL. Sure, in hindsight, and after years of development, the latter player may turn out to be the better player, but at the time of the draft, it would be impossible to determine that.

 

[Hodgy]

The back surgery obviously effected his play after the procedure was done, not retroactively or whatever garbage you’re trying to straw man me with this time. I challenge you to find a single post of mine that says his back surgery effected games in the past.

In the preseason of 2017 he wasn’t physical because he was only 18 years old and physically immature for his age. I’ve explained this over and over again. The back surgery made things worse. Should be a simple point that anyone reasonable can agree with but you can’t be reasonable because Juolevi was drafted by Benning and you’re already on record blasting the pick before he plays a single NHL game.

First, you have only replied to only one of my points. I guess I can take that as you conceding to the fact that your suggestion that preseason games were meaningless to Juolevi was ridiculously illogically, and quite frankly, downright stupid.

Second, Juolevi's unwillingness to engage physically actually dates back to his junior days as others have stated. Moreover, it persisted last year in Finland. As a result, even if one concedes that he was unwilling to engage physically in his first NHL camp because he was physically underdeveloped (which is illogical in and of itself since this was a concern in junior), your argument is still illogical because this problem persisted in his draft plus one year in Finland. Furthermore, his inability to physically engage has nothing to do with his physique, its all mental. Look at Pettersson for christ sake. No one is questioning his willingness to physically engage and he has to be one of the most physically underdeveloped players in the league.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

First, you have only replied to only one of my points. I guess I can take that as you conceding to the fact that your suggestion that preseason games were meaningless to Juolevi was ridiculously illogically, and quite frankly, downright stupid.

Second, Juolevi's unwillingness to engage physically actually dates back to his junior days as others have stated. Moreover, it persisted last year in Finland. As a result, even if one concedes that he was unwilling to engage physically in his first NHL camp because he was physically underdeveloped (which is illogical in and of itself since this was a concern in junior), your argument is still illogical because this problem persisted in his draft plus one year in Finland.

Please stop. You are hurting my brain with your hilarious misapplication of the word logic. It's perfectly consistent for me to say that he has been physically underdeveloped for each of the last 3 seasons and it follows that he would therefore be less willing to engage physically during those 3 seasons.

Furthermore, his inability to physically engage has nothing to do with his physique, its all mental. Look at Pettersson for christ sake. No one is questioning his willingness to physically engage and he has to be one of the most physically underdeveloped players in the league.

Yeah you might have a point here. It could be mental and it probably is to an extent. It could also be rational for him to avoid contact if every time he engages someone physically he loses the battle, gets the worse end of it, and since he's a defenseman it results in a horribly dangerous situation. He could be mentally deciding to avoid contact and at least maintain good defensive positioning rather than try to do something he's not good at, lose position, and surrender a chance against. Pettersson is a forward so when he falls down in the offensive zone it's not as bad as if he's the last line of defense protecting the net.

 

[Pip]

That's how this board works, people usually will remember the one very bad moment and beat it to dead, complete;y ignore the current

Nope

 

[Hodgy]

Please stop. You are hurting my brain with your hilarious misapplication of the word logic. It's perfectly consistent for me to say that he has been physically underdeveloped for each of the last 3 seasons and it follows that he would therefore be less willing to engage physically during those 3 seasons.

Hold on a moment here, your first argument was that it was the injury and surgery that explained his unwillingness to physically engage. Now you are arguing that was actually only applicable to his last training camp, so you are already switching the goal posts on this argument. My point was that your original explanation was illogical, which it clearly was, not that every conceivable explanation you may come up with after the fact might also be illogical. But in any event, your newest argument is also illogical. How was Juolevi physically underdeveloped in the OHL?

 

[ChilliBilly]

Can you imagine if we had traded 2016 5th overall to Boston for 2016 14th overall and Carlo/2016 2nd round pick???? And then Boston takes Tkachuck and ices him and Marchand on the same line. Yikesssss

Sorry, but I would never make that deal. The farther down you move the more you expect. I would have been happy with a 2nd to move down up to 4 or 5 spots. Dropping to 14th would remove to many of the pieces i mentioned ... Say our 5th OA and a 2017 2nd for 14th overall, their 3rd round pick and Bost unprotected 1st in 2017. which Bost would never do.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Hold on a moment here, your first argument was that it was the injury and surgery that explained his unwillingness to physically engage. Now you are arguing that was actually only applicable to his last training camp, so you are already switching the goal posts on this argument. My point was that your original explanation was illogical, which it clearly was, not that every conceivable explanation you may come up with after the fact might also be illogical. But in any event, your newest argument is also illogical. How was Juolevi physically underdeveloped in the OHL?

A lanky 18 year old was probably a lanky 17 year old and will probably be a lanky 19 year old.. it's not rocket science dude.

That and the surgery are both explanations for his lack of physicality at various times throughout his last 3 seasons. It's not hard and I've been quite clear. This argument is so dumb.

 

[Hodgy]

A lanky 18 year old was probably a lanky 17 year old and will probably be a lanky 19 year old.. it's not rocket science dude.

That and the surgery are both explanations for his lack of physicality at various times throughout his last 3 seasons. It's not hard and I've been quite clear. This argument is so dumb.

So you actually think that Juolevi was physically underdeveloped in his draft season, playing in the OHL, at 6"2, 180 pounds. That's so ridiculously stupid I don't even know how to respond.

 

[CanaFan]

A lanky 18 year old was probably a lanky 17 year old and will probably be a lanky 19 year old.. it's not rocket science dude.

That and the surgery are both explanations for his lack of physicality at various times throughout his last 3 seasons. It's not hard and I've been quite clear. This argument is so dumb.

So is he ever not gonna be lanky? Sounds like you know exactly what age his lankiness will stop being a problem and he’ll magically be not too lanky to play against NHLers. So what’s the age? 22? 25? 35?