Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi, Pt. V

[krutovsdonut]

do you want him to stink it up? simple yes no answer is fine.

no.

 

[WTG]

Ducks fan and Finnish coming in peace here. I really hope Juolevi breaks out of his slump and finally develops a spine and balls. He had a decent run with TPS in Finland, however the swag he has (as a person) doesn't translate on ice and I have to wonder if it ever will.
However the reason I come here to read is the unreal, UNREAL, amount of spinning that some dudes who think Benning is a good GM go through.
It's great entertainment to a random fan - must not feel the same for Canucks fan. At some point arguing becomes pointless.

There are some people, who when their believes get questioned, reconsider their position. There are others who dig in their heels and go further down the rabbit hole to defend something.

I think a apt comparison is to Flat Earthers. Not that I think that these people that support Benning are as dumb as flat earthers of-course. However, when put in situations where their positions get constantly dis-proven, they dig in their heels more. It's the same mindset, just smarter individuals. These people usually are sick and tired of being told they are dumb so they feel pushed against a wall. When you get pushed against a wall, there really is no other direction to push back. What they do not realize is that they put themselves in the position that they are forced to defend Benning, not others.

That's just my theory about why there still are Benning supporters out there, aside from casuals.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

How the hell did this thread suddenly gain four pages since yesterday...?

Oh. That's how.

 

[WTG]

How the hell did this thread suddenly gain four pages since yesterday...?

Oh. That's how.

It's me

 

[F A N]

There are some people, who when their believes get questioned, reconsider their position. There are others who dig in their heels and go further down the rabbit hole to defend something.

I think a apt comparison is to Flat Earthers. Not that I think that these people that support Benning are as dumb as flat earthers of-course. However, when put in situations where their positions get constantly dis-proven, they dig in their heels more. It's the same mindset, just smarter individuals. These people usually are sick and tired of being told they are dumb so they feel pushed against a wall. When you get pushed against a wall, there really is no other direction to push back. What they do not realize is that they put themselves in the position that they are forced to defend Benning, not others.

That's just my theory about why there still are Benning supporters out there, aside from casuals.

This is a classic Democrats vs Republican viewpoint. It's like you have to take sides to the extreme. There are plenty of moderates and independents out there who don't agree with everything the party/politician they support does but they are somehow labeled.

So you have posters who get thrown into your characterization above just because they support some of Benning's moves. It's infuriating because it's mob rule.

 

[Javaman]

This is a classic Democrats vs Republican viewpoint. It's like you have to take sides to the extreme. There are plenty of moderates and independents out there who don't agree with everything the party/politician they support does but they are somehow labeled.

So you have posters who get thrown into your characterization above just because they support some of Benning's moves. It's infuriating because it's mob rule.

There are many critics of Benning on HFCanucks who are have no problem admitting that some of Benning's moves have been good. Hell, the majority of his critics have no problem doing so.

So who is really taking sides to the extreme.. you? Or others?

 

[DFAC]

Given the state of the Canucks back-end at the time, selecting a d-man in the 2016 draft wasn't a risky, 'off-the-board' pick. And let's face it. If Jesse Puljujarvi had 'fallen' to the Canucks at #5 they'd probably have scooped him up. And the judging from current events, that would have been a worse pick.

The problem is expending a high draft pick on a d-man. I'm sure the Islanders thought they were getting a future stud when they drafted Griffin Reinhart fourth overall; or the Pens selecting Pouliot eighth overall.

D-men are just notoriously hard to project as teenagers.

Add Gudbranson to that list for Florida

 

[Bleach Clean]

There are some people, who when their believes get questioned, reconsider their position. There are others who dig in their heels and go further down the rabbit hole to defend something.

I think a apt comparison is to Flat Earthers. Not that I think that these people that support Benning are as dumb as flat earthers of-course. However, when put in situations where their positions get constantly dis-proven, they dig in their heels more. It's the same mindset, just smarter individuals. These people usually are sick and tired of being told they are dumb so they feel pushed against a wall. When you get pushed against a wall, there really is no other direction to push back. What they do not realize is that they put themselves in the position that they are forced to defend Benning, not others.

That's just my theory about why there still are Benning supporters out there, aside from casuals.

I get what you are saying, but I wouldn't isolate Pro-Benning posters as being the only side that has become entrenched. At this point, both sides are entrenched and there is a chasm between parties. Anti-Benning posters are also entrenched. Let's not forget this.

How did we get here? My theory: The option to have a moderate opinion about Benning is gone. There was a time when he hadn't done much and people were still trying to figure him out. That time included nuance and discretion among conversations. No longer. Now, too much evidence against his tenure exists. So if you're still thinking he's even just OK as a GM, that alone is a diametrically opposed view to those that have already condemned his tenure. It's just an extreme the other way. This creates an immediate and lasting opposition.

The trick or quirk here is in evaluating an opinion for what it is. Once deciphered, it's rare to find posters that are still truly ambivalent about Benning overall. Usually, support for or against becomes apparent almost right away. And note, you're not creating it by pointing it out. It's there and there is a reason it's there.

 

[Peter10]

i actually recall that interview around the time it happened, and it seemed then like he was protecting the player against undue expectations of the fanbase that thought lidstrom 2.0 was coming in september. i took it to mean that he was not expected to make the team first year but might if he made a big jump.

You know it was Benning who started the Lidstrom comparison, right?

 

[Jyrki21]

It seems to me that any optimistic projection of OJ's NHL potential begins and ends with his performance in the AHL this season.

If a healthy OJ doesn't dominate the AHL as an all-purpose defenseman, it's probably time to close the book on him. Harsh I know, but top 5 picks rarely take that long to develop into NHL players.

Oh, absolutely.

If Juolevi isn’t a top-pairing high-leverage guy in the AHL by the second half of next season, stick a fork in him.

I feel he is almost certainly likely to spend significant time injured again this year, because (1) that would be very Canucks, and (2) that will allow certain individuals to defer this quasi-argument yet another year as though "we'll still never know whether he would have fulfilled our hopes and dreams!" which is also very Canucks.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I feel he is almost certainly likely to spend significant time injured again this year, because (1) that would be very Canucks, and (2) that will allow certain individuals to defer this quasi-argument yet another year as though "we'll still never know whether he would have fulfilled our hopes and dreams!" which is also very Canucks.

to me he is on his last strike as a prospect i am waiting for. he is at the point that i think another deferral of the assessment of this prospect due to injury cannot be given. one more serious injury and you just have to assume (a) the player is injury prone in a career limiting way and (b) the lost development time cannot be made up. you also have to be suspicious at a certain point that a player with his ego who knows he cannot perform might fake injuries to get out of an impossible situation. that is already a remote possibility based on the way the back and knee injuries both unfolded without a specific on ice incident. it is easy enough for someone with a past injury history to report related phantom pain. i am not saying i think he faked them, but i think if there is another injury along the same lines, that possibility will have to be seriously entertained.

i don't think he has to make the team out of of camp, but if he can't get real traction in the ahl by january he's very likely done in my mind.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You know it was Benning who started the Lidstrom comparison, right?

and?

 

[WTG]

This is a classic Democrats vs Republican viewpoint. It's like you have to take sides to the extreme. There are plenty of moderates and independents out there who don't agree with everything the party/politician they support does but they are somehow labeled.

So you have posters who get thrown into your characterization above just because they support some of Benning's moves. It's infuriating because it's mob rule.

People choose to be in categorizations is my entire point. Also, I'm not sitting here and pretending it comes from one side. I think @Ronning On Empty said it better that each side gets entrenched. That's putting it in better words than I did.

Regardless, I think that my point still stands. Like you said its Democrats vs Republicans and each side becomes entrenched.

 

[F A N]

People choose to be in categorizations is my entire point. Also, I'm not sitting here and pretending it comes from one side. I think @Ronning On Empty said it better that each side gets entrenched. That's putting it in better words than I did.

Regardless, I think that my point still stands. Like you said its Democrats vs Republicans and each side becomes entrenched.

Right and I suppose in your flat earther comparison you were referring to Benning-critics as flat earthers who just dig into their position? I think not.

 

[WTG]

Right and I suppose in your flat earther comparison you were referring to Benning-critics as flat earthers who just dig into their position? I think not.

I stated, quite clearly, that I did not believe people that are Benning supporters are as dumb as flat earthers.

Just compatible mindsets. Keep in mind, I dont think these people are dumb just that their approach is wrong. This had nothing to do with intelligence, at all. There is plenty of cases of this on both sides, as you can point out better than I can.

I think its wired into us, as humans to think tribalistically and entrench.

 

[MS]

I stated, quite clearly, that I did not believe people that are Benning supporters are as dumb as flat earthers.

Just compatible mindsets. Keep in mind, I dont think a lot of these people are dumb just that their approach is wrong. This had nothing to do with intelligence, at all. There is plenty of cases of this on both sides, as you can point out better than I can.

I think its wired into us, as humans to think tribalistically and entrench.

I think a lot of people who were anti-Gillis 'arrogant lawyer!' 'traded both goalies!' backed themselves into a corner by cheering this new regime early on and then dug into their position against all logic and common sense. And used BUT GILLIS, BUT OWNERSHIP, and BUT PROSPECTZ as a crutch to hold up faulty arguments rather than admit 'wow, I was wrong and Gillis was a lot better than this'.

Also there's nothing wrong with being entrenched if you're right. Scientists who defend global warming and a round earth are pretty entrenched in their views, completely correctly.

 

[Peter10]

and?

Seriously?

You claim he had to defend Juolevi against undue expectations when it was him who caused them in the first place.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Seriously?

You claim he had to defend Juolevi against undue expectations when it was him who caused them in the first place.

again, so what? hyping prospects while managing expectations is part of the business of sports. an organization provides compliments including, gasp, comparing aspects of a player's game to past great players. the fans get overheated and run with it. organization then dampens expectations. rinse. repeat.

what is your point here?

 

[MS]

again, so what? hyping prospects while managing expectations is part of the business of sports. an organization provides compliments including, gasp, comparing aspects of a player's game to past great players. the fans get overheated and run with it. organization then dampens expectations. rinse. repeat.

what is your point here?

Uhhhhh ... maybe don't compare the kid you just drafted to the greatest defender of the previous 30 years? Like, this is the same thing the idiot owner in TB did years ago calling Lecavalier the 'Michael Jordan of hockey'. Smart managers don't do this. Or if you have a quote of Calgary management comparing Matthew Tkachuk to Cam Neely, please feel free to share.

And you're just chasing your tail in a circle trying to defend rank idiocy.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Uhhhhh ... maybe don't compare the kid you just drafted to the greatest defender of the previous 30 years? Like, this is the same thing the idiot owner in TB did years ago calling Lecavalier the 'Michael Jordan of hockey'. Smart managers don't do this. Or if you have a quote of Calgary management comparing Matthew Tkachuk to Cam Neely, please feel free to share.

And you're just chasing your tail in a circle trying to defend rank idiocy.

first off, the only way i know to chase your tail is in a circle, so i think your post is poorly composed and could use an editor.

second off, how was it salient to the discussion that we were having for peter10 to bring up the fact that benning let the lidstrom genie out of the bottle? we were talking about the meaning of specific remarks benning made at a certain time that had nothing to do with lidstrom. the poster had no relevant point to make at all to the discussion and was just metaphorically humming the "benning sucks, hur de hur" mantra that passes for critical thought for so many here. it may be that those who hum the mantra all day don't notice it, but it definitely interferes with their critical thinking skills in much the same way that reciting thousands of hail marys every morning while chugging small beer left the scholastics unable to argue and reason properly even though all they supposedly did all day was study and debate.

thirdly, the fact is i gave the poster a chance to explain how what he said related to our discussion. not only can he not do that but, taking his response at face value, he apparently can't even grasp why i would ask that question. giving him the benefit of the doubt, that it's not because he's trolling me, it seems it is because he is unable to grasp why someone would find his random tangential historical observation to be off topic and gratuitous as oppose to being so weighty and pregnant with relevant meaning that he didn't even need to explain why he brought it up.

bottom line, nothing is happening in hockey real life, so you guys are entertaining yourselves playing intellectual halo here with your red team opponents. if you were playing it well, that would be one thing, but you were playing it poorly and lazily and with uneven odds. so rather than shrug and say to myself "forget it krutov, it's hfboards canucks subforum", i decided to jump in and even up the odds in a specific battle, but did not commit to a campaign.

i decline to now engage on the subject of whether benning should have ever mentioned lidstrom even in the limited way he did. it's not what we were talking about and i decline to enter into a new round of halo.

have a good summer.

 

[Peter10]

first off, the only way i know to chase your tail is in a circle, so i think your post is poorly composed and could use an editor.

second off, how was it salient to the discussion that we were having for peter10 to bring up the fact that benning let the lidstrom genie out of the bottle? we were talking about the meaning of specific remarks benning made at a certain time that had nothing to do with lidstrom. the poster had no relevant point to make at all to the discussion and was just metaphorically humming the "benning sucks, hur de hur" mantra that passes for critical thought for so many here. it may be that those who hum the mantra all day don't notice it, but it definitely interferes with their critical thinking skills in much the same way that reciting thousands of hail marys every morning while chugging small beer left the scholastics unable to argue and reason properly even though all they supposedly did all day was study and debate.

thirdly, the fact is i gave the poster a chance to explain how what he said related to our discussion. not only can he not do that but, taking his response at face value, he apparently can't even grasp why i would ask that question. giving him the benefit of the doubt, that it's not because he's trolling me, it seems it is because he is unable to grasp why someone would find his random tangential historical observation to be off topic and gratuitous as oppose to being so weighty and pregnant with relevant meaning that he didn't even need to explain why he brought it up.

bottom line, nothing is happening in hockey real life, so you guys are entertaining yourselves playing intellectual halo here with your red team opponents. if you were playing it well, that would be one thing, but you were playing it poorly and lazily and with uneven odds. so rather than shrug and say to myself "forget it krutov, it's hfboards canucks subforum", i decided to jump in and even up the odds in a specific battle, but did not commit to a campaign.

i decline to now engage on the subject of whether benning should have ever mentioned lidstrom even in the limited way he did. it's not what we were talking about and i decline to enter into a new round of halo.

have a good summer.

The point is that you referred to Bennings comments to those specific remarks and excused them because he had to protect Juolevi against unfair expectations. That it was himself who played a part in this is a significant point in the discussion. If you cant see this then there is indeed no further point to discuss this with you.

 

[F A N]

Seriously?

You claim he had to defend Juolevi against undue expectations when it was him who caused them in the first place.

I don't think Juolevi had undue expectations placed upon him. He was a top 10 pick. Scouts make stylistic comparables. The Benning quote you highlighted merely had Benning saying Juolevi plays a bit like Lidstrom. That's no different from a prospect saying they pattern their games after Jonathan Toews or Erik Karlsson. But even if we are to read into the comparison more seriously, Juolevi was universally considered to have the highest hockey IQ among the top Dmen in the draft and it wasn't even close. Add to the fact that draft-eligible prospects get really hyped up on draft day and you have some big comparisons thrown around. Just listen to the old Bob McKenzie and Pierre McGuire draft day broadcasts to get a sense of it.

 

[Peter10]

I don't think Juolevi had undue expectations placed upon him. He was a top 10 pick. Scouts make stylistic comparables. The Benning quote you highlighted merely had Benning saying Juolevi plays a bit like Lidstrom. That's no different from a prospect saying they pattern their games after Jonathan Toews or Erik Karlsson. But even if we are to read into the comparison more seriously, Juolevi was universally considered to have the highest hockey IQ among the top Dmen in the draft and it wasn't even close. Add to the fact that draft-eligible prospects get really hyped up on draft day and you have some big comparisons thrown around. Just listen to the old Bob McKenzie and Pierre McGuire draft day broadcasts to get a sense of it.

The point is, you cant have it both ways. If he was defending him against because guys like McGuire said he is like Lidstrom then it would have been an ok argument. The argument of Benning defending Juolevi against the expectations raised by Benning himself is rather questionable.

 

[krutovsdonut]

The point is that you referred to Bennings comments to those specific remarks and excused them because he had to protect Juolevi against unfair expectations. That it was himself who played a part in this is a significant point in the discussion. If you cant see this then there is indeed no further point to discuss this with you.

again, how does that relate to the question of what benning meant in the later discussion? that is what we have been talking about here?

you've jumped all over a comment i made (i used lidstrom as an example in a passing remark) and gone off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

what is your point other than seizing on any pretext to toss out random benning criticism?

i mean if eric gudbranson's name comes up tangentially in a discussion, do you then have a licence to barge into the discussion and go off on a tangent ranting about the fact that benning is the one who acquired gudbranson?

weighty questions for a hot summer afternoon.

 

[MS]

again, how does that relate to the question of what benning meant in the later discussion? that is what we have been talking about here?

you've jumped all over a comment i made (i used lidstrom as an example in a passing remark) and gone off on a tangent that has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

what is your point other than seizing on any pretext to toss out random benning criticism?

i mean if eric gudbranson's name comes up tangentially in a discussion, do you then have a licence to barge into the discussion and go off on a tangent ranting about the fact that benning is the one who acquired gudbranson?

weighty questions for a hot summer afternoon.

You have got to be trolling here.

It isn't 'off on a tangent' if it's referring to expectations that Benning himself created.

__________

krutovsdonut : Look at that nice guy helping that injured pedestrian to the ambulance!

rest of HF : Uh, actually that guy ran a red light and ran over the pedestrian in a crosswalk.

krutovsdonut : WHY ARE YOU GOING OFF ON IRRELEVANT TANGENTS?!?