Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi, Pt. VI

[rune74]

I live in a world of facts. And the fact that a lot of people are ignoring is that Juolevi did not have a good Draft +1 season that would be expected out of a top 5 draft pick. I've also noticed the similarities between those who are still bullish on Juolevi, and those who support Jim Benning.

And again the benning thing. My god the hypocrisy here. No one calls you out on this in your little support group either.

 

[CanaFan]

i am not sure i understand your point. we are all talking about when impact dmen should show their stuff.

you and others have presented the thesis that top draft picks who become an impact dman generally need to show it by d+2.

that's the point i am answering. so why do i need to analyse every nhl dman ever?

biturbo has pointed out that many if not most impact dmen drafted show their potential later than d+2, meaning nhl scouting misses most impact dmen.

i suggested that this means there is a market inefficiency in the draft. i think it is pretty hard to argue otherwise, whatever the explanation for it.

i also suggested this market inefficiency is due to undue focus by the market on early maturing players due to the age 18 draft. i am hardly alone in that viewpoint.

up to this point, juolevi doesn't enter the discussion. so let's drop him completely so we are not distracted by our differing assessments of this particular player. let's take it one step at a time. do you disagree with anything above?

So you're entire argument is about market inefficiency?

Even still you are viewing it wrong. It isn't inefficient to focus on defensemen who mature earlier since their % success rate is likely many times higher than the success rate of D drafted in later rounds. The market is not 100% efficient because scouting and projection is not 100% efficient. You could only argue that it is "inefficient" i.e. not as efficient as is possible with limited information by showing that players drafted in later rounds have a greater success rate than defensemen drafted high. But to do that you have to include all of the misses as well, not just list the hits.

In other words show the % of "slow development" successes like Torey Krug out of all the hundreds of potential Torey Krugs that get drafted each year is higher than the % of "early developer" successes like Victor Hedman.

If you do that then I will be swayed by your hypothesis.

 

[CanaFan]

And again the benning thing. My god the hypocrisy here. No one calls you out on this in your little support group either.

Stop it Y2K, just stop it!

There, did my best.

 

[krutovsdonut]

are you serious? Pitseleh addressed your post about Bit's analysis quite reasonably and articulated several clear counter arguments. Lumping his post in with Y2K's tangent about Benning lovers at this point is weak. Don't expect people to engage you in serious discussions if you are just going to dismiss them like that.

i am kind of surprised to get this from you. how many of your posts have i politely answered, and how many barbs from you have i deflected or ignored?

if i was too harsh with pitseleh that was unintentional and i apologize.
i am currently engaged with at least four different posters who oppose my views for what appear to be roughly similar reasons. all of them have been to varying degrees glib and dismissive in the tenor of their posts. maybe you should try being a "benning lover" taking fire here from multiple directions before you expect me to be perfect in differentiating between the positions each of my detractors holds as expressed over multiple posts over time. in this case pitseleh started off his post mischaracterizing my position as a strawman argument and by focussing on juolevi, when the post he answered hardly touched juolevi. i did answer his criticisms in substance as i have repeatedly done in response to your posts.

 

[CanaFan]

i am kind of surprised to get this from you. how many of your posts have i politely answered, and how many barbs from you have i deflected or ignored?

if i was too harsh with pitseleh that was unintentional and i apologize.
i am currently engaged with at least four different posters who oppose my views for what appear to be roughly similar reasons. all of them have been to varying degrees glib and dismissive in the tenor of their posts. maybe you should try being a "benning lover" taking fire here from multiple directions before you expect me to be perfect in differentiating between the positions each of my detractors holds as expressed over multiple posts over time. in this case pitseleh started off his post mischaracterizing my position as a strawman argument and by focussing on juolevi, when the post he answered hardly touched juolevi. i did answer his criticisms in substance as i have repeatedly done in response to your posts.

I can sympathize somewhat, it can be difficult to keep an even keel when dealing with multiple debates each of a differing style. For my part I've tried to be even handed in our discussions. If I've thrown barbs in the past it was likely an outcome of the tone of our discussion. I rarely start things but I also don't have a long fuse when the tone gets snippy either. And while Y2K can be exhausting, you always have the option of the ignore feature.

Hopefully we can keep this discussion civil and I think Pitseleh deserved the same.

 

[krutovsdonut]

So you're entire argument is about market inefficiency?

well all discussion of drafting boils down to the market efficiency of a draft pick. but no, i have discussed a number of other topics with you and others.

Even still you are viewing it wrong. It isn't inefficient to focus on defensemen who mature earlier since their % success rate is likely many times higher than the success rate of D drafted in later rounds.

that is assuming there is no way to improve market efficiency either generally or on a case by case "outlier" basis. i don't agree with either proposition. it may well be efficient to focus on dmen with certain characteristics even if they are likely to mature later. that is the kind of efficiency advantage analytics guys spend all their time trying to achieve.

The market is not 100% efficient because scouting and projection is not 100% efficient. You could only argue that it is "inefficient" i.e. not as efficient as is possible with limited information by showing that players drafted in later rounds have a greater success rate than defensemen drafted high. But to do that you have to include all of the misses as well, not just list the hits.

no, i can demonstrate it is inefficient by showing a significant proportion of top dmen are not drafted high in the first round even though that is the market value of a top pair dman. i can also demonstrate it is inefficient by showing a large percentage of high first round pick dmen do not merit their draft choice.

what you seem to me to be arguing is that those inefficiencies cannot be fixed.

In other words show the % of "slow development" successes like Torey Krug out of all the hundreds of potential Torey Krugs that get drafted each year is higher than the % of "early developer" successes like Victor Hedman.

If you do that then I will be swayed by your hypothesis.

again, you seem to be saying that unless i can demonstrate it is possible to beat the market, you will assume it cannot be done.

i suppose that is a pragmatic viewpoint. my answer is that if i could prove it, i would be on retainer to one or more nhl teams rather than speculating about the possibility of same on a discussion forum.

 

[Pavel96]

I live in a world of facts. And the fact that a lot of people are ignoring is that Juolevi did not have a good Draft +1 season that would be expected out of a top 5 draft pick. I've also noticed the similarities between those who are still bullish on Juolevi, and those who support Jim Benning.

I don't understand how you can pick a dman top 5- highest picked dman in his draft and then his D1 year he goes back to junior healthy and isn't even in the discussion for top dman in his JUNIOR league. And now he was playing poorly (or even not well) at a prospects camp?

It may not be true but some media and fans from London last year said he wasn't their best dman on some nights even. Why is this stuff even being floated out there if he's anything close to the player they thought they drafted. You can have a bad game but these comments don't come from just one bad game.

Does what's happening with Oli feel more like Jake or Bo? Doesn't feel anything at all like Bo and it's definitely starting to feel like what happened with Jake (didn't they both play in junior for the d1?). Sure Oli wont be gifted a roster spot but let's see how he does playing with a professional team when he had an underwhelming year in junior and a poor rookie camp so far (havent heard how he has done in main camp). Sure anything can happen and we "should give him time before rushing (1.5 years later) a judgement" but it seems fairly obvious he is starting to bust. Is he a bust, guess you can't say that yet because that would be crazy har har! But it is like every opportunity since his draft he's had he has unperformed and disappointed as it was with Jake. Now it's - oh he put on too much weight and that's what is messing him up lol. Hmm rings a bell.

While anything can happen it doesn't seem logical to assume or even think he will come anywhere close to living up to his draft position. Like that other former top 5 pick we have playing d for us now. You know that piece of trash (of a hockey player) named Eric Gubranson we gave up too much for.

 

[CanaFan]

no, i can demonstrate it is inefficient by showing a significant proportion of top dmen are not drafted high in the first round even though that is the market value of a top pair dman. i can also demonstrate it is inefficient by showing a large percentage of high first round pick dmen do not merit their draft choice.

No you can't if you ignore the number of picks it takes to get these "top defensemen".


Look at it this way:

If the current method (valuing early bloomers) yields a top defenseman with every 4 picks and your method (valuing late bloomers) yields a top defenseman with every 10 picks then the current method is more efficient. You are being swayed by the fact that there are far more players (raw numbers) drafted "late" than "early". Yes you may get 5 defensemen late vs 4 defensemen early, but it takes 100-150 picks to find those 5 vs 10-15 to find those 4. Raw numbers cannot identify an inefficiency. You need to look at RATES of success and failures to decide which system is more efficient. Drafting Torey Krug high instead of Jacob Chychrun isn't worthwhile if Torey Krugs bust 80% of the time while Chychruns bust 40% of the time, even if there are more Torey Krugs in the world.

*I am using early picks as a proxy for the current system of high valuation of certain traits and late picks as a proxy for low valuation of certain traits.

what you seem to me to be arguing is that those inefficiencies cannot be fixed.



again, you seem to be saying that unless i can demonstrate it is possible to beat the market, you will assume it cannot be done.

i suppose that is a pragmatic viewpoint. my answer is that if i could prove it, i would be on retainer to one or more nhl teams rather than speculating about the possibility of same on a discussion forum.

Until I see evidence that it can be done then yes, I am going to assume the current system is the most efficient for the very reason that people are looking for ways to improve the system and the fact that it hasn't been improved by any new methodology suggests it is already operating near peak efficiency. If there were arbitrage opportunities they likely would have been discovered and exploited by now. The draft is hardly a new phenomenon and the financial rewards at stake strongly incentivize improving performance.

Come back with an analysis that shows your system beats the current one and then you'll have something. Until then just arguing it *could* be better is meaningless.

 

[MS]

there is a weird insistence here that you have to use a high draft pick to draft a dman who will make the league quickly. this in turn requires that high draft pick dmen must be athletes who physically mature early so they can play with men before they are 20.

biturbo did us a service by demonstrating that this is not the dominant profile of successful top pair nhl defencemen. that's not surprising. there is absolutely no reason i can think of to correlate early physical maturity with top pair success as an nhl defenceman. there is, on the other hand, every reason to expect that with a year 18 draft the majority of dmen prospects drafted early will be athletes who have physically matured early based on the crudeness of historic nhl drafting patterns.

so basically you are all relying on a false correlation. in an efficient draft market, duncan keith should go in the top 5.

at which point the modern analytics educated nhl fan should ignore the stats generated by the dinosaur gms drafting jared cowens in the top 10 and instead we should be debating whether it's possible to identify later maturing prospects who will thrive as nhl defencemen and, if you do spot them, when do you draft them?

the first question is hard to answer and worthy of debate. i've made the case for juolevi potentially fitting this mold but obviously i could be wrong.

the second question is easy: you draft them based on your assessment of market value. in juolevi's case he was widely considered a top 10 pick, so we did not have the option of waiting for the late second round.

You're missing the point.

Imagine, generally, that there are two pools of teenaged defenders :

1) the very few guys who are obvious blue-chippers with mature games + tools who will reach the NHL quickly and be high-end players.

2) everyone else, who has various weakness in their game and who needs to do tons of development before reaching the NHL.

There are literally hundreds of guys in group (2) and yeah Duncan Keith and Alex Edler and Chris Tanev came out of that group ... but they were longshots who developed well and turned out. Most players in that group don't.

Conversely, guys in group (1) reach the NHL quickly and make an impact quickly and are very sure bets, which is why they're usually top-5 and top-10 picks.

When you're picking #5 overall, you'd damned well be getting someone from the first group.

If Juolevi was a physically immature player (which I disagree with) who needed years to refine his game, he shouldn't have been a top-5 pick or anywhere close. He - of course - may yet turn out, but his current level of play and current development curve are incredibly disappointing from a guy who was the top defender taken in a draft. And is in line with a good-but-not-great prospect taken in the latter half of the first round.

Everything you're saying about his game might be true and he might turn into a good player, but they're excuses/allowances for a guy taken #25 overall. Not a top-5 pick. A top-5 pick should dominate and play quickly.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Come back with an analysis that shows your system beats the current one and then you'll have something. Until then just arguing it *could* be better is meaningless.

pretty hard to prove an outlier theory when we don't agree on who is an outlier. if juolevi hits next season and then petterson kills it d+3, i doubt very much you'd credit my analysis of talented but physically immature draft picks as being a thing you judge on a different timeline than the bulk of high draft picks as having been right.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You're missing the point.

Imagine, generally, that there are two pools of teenaged defenders :

1) the very few guys who are obvious blue-chippers with mature games + tools who will reach the NHL quickly and be high-end players.

2) everyone else, who has various weakness in their game and who needs to do tons of development before reaching the NHL.

There are literally hundreds of guys in group (2) and yeah Duncan Keith and Alex Edler and Chris Tanev came out of that group ... but they were longshots who developed well and turned out. Most players in that group don't.

Conversely, guys in group (1) reach the NHL quickly and make an impact quickly and are very sure bets, which is why they're usually top-5 and top-10 picks.

When you're picking #5 overall, you'd damned well be getting someone from the first group.

If Juolevi was a physically immature player (which I disagree with) who needed years to refine his game, he shouldn't have been a top-5 pick or anywhere close. He - of course - may yet turn out, but his current level of play and current development curve are incredibly disappointing from a guy who was the top defender taken in a draft. And is in line with a good-but-not-great prospect taken in the latter half of the first round.

Everything you're saying about his game might be true and he might turn into a good player, but they're excuses/allowances for a guy taken #25 overall. Not a top-5 pick. A top-5 pick should dominate and play quickly.

why don't we just agree that we are on totally different pages as to draft efficiency and juolevi?

 

[CanaFan]

pretty hard to prove an outlier theory when we don't agree on who is an outlier. if juolevi hits next season and then petterson kills it d+3, i doubt very much you'd credit my analysis of talented but physically immature draft picks as being a thing you judge on a different timeline than the bulk of high draft picks as having been right.

Bolded is true. I disagree that Juolevi fits the profile of a "physically immature" draft pick. Considering he is ~200lbs at his 2nd training camp I don't see the relevance to players who have taken 3-4 years. Physical immaturity is not the road block for Juolevi, his on-ice play is.

Like who exactly fits your template of a "talented but physically immature" player outside of Juolevi? If you think this is a thing, then list some names so that we can evaluate it properly. Of course we would also need to identify which players busted as well to arrive at a measure of efficiency.

Previously I suggested players like Lindholm and OEL who had similar height/weight ratios to Juolevi but pointed out that they made the NHL in the D+2 season and quickly became top-level defenders. This might align with your argument that these are good players to target but would contradict your argument that you should adjust your timeline expectations for them.

 

[krutovsdonut]

digressing to actual juolevi facts, do we have the canucks roster sheet for this year that we had last year that shows their measured height and weight at the start of camp?

 

[krutovsdonut]

Bolded is true. I disagree that Juolevi fits the profile of a "physically immature" draft pick. Considering he is ~200lbs at his 2nd training camp I don't see the relevance to players who have taken 3-4 years. Physical immaturity is not the road block for Juolevi, his on-ice play is.

Like who exactly fits your template of a "talented but physically immature" player outside of Juolevi? If you think this is a thing, then list some names so that we can evaluate it properly. Of course we would also need to identify which players busted as well to arrive at a measure of efficiency.

Previously I suggested players like Lindholm and OEL who had similar height/weight ratios to Juolevi but pointed out that they made the NHL in the D+2 season and quickly became top-level defenders. This might align with your argument that these are good players to target but would contradict your argument that you should adjust your timeline expectations for them.

and i conceded they were rough comparables. i'd put karlsson in there as another physically immature dman on draft day who made the league d+2 if you like, although he's no more comparable than petterson is as a player.

as for direct comparisons to juolevi, that has been my point all along. i think he's an unusual draft pick lacking close comparables. i'd say both oel and lindholm were more complete all around packages when drafted. i think juolevi was drafted for a strength in one area, more like karlsson if you like except that karlsson had one exceptional talent and wouldn't have been drafted otherwise, whereas juolevi had one strong talent and was otherwise maybe a late first round candidate based on size, skillset and defensive game.

 

[CanaFan]

and i conceded they were rough comparables. i'd put karlsson in there as another physically immature dman on draft day who made the league d+2 if you like, although he's no more comparable than petterson is as a player.

as for direct comparisons to juolevi, that has been my point all along. i think he's an unusual draft pick lacking close comparables. i'd say both oel and lindholm were more complete all around packages when drafted. i think juolevi was drafted for a strength in one area, more like karlsson if you like except that karlsson had one exceptional talent and wouldn't have been drafted otherwise, whereas juolevi had one strong talent and was otherwise maybe a late first round candidate based on size, skillset and defensive game.

What was that one talent?

Edit: Write up on Juolevi prior to draft:

Juolevi entered his first season in North America as a potential first round draft choice, but not many were expecting the all-around excellence and immediate impact he would have on one of the Ontario Hockey League’s marquee franchises. A smooth skater who exudes confidence with the puck, Juolevi immediately took over the role of the Knights’ number one power play and penalty killing defenseman, in addition to a heavy workload at even strength. While he’s not overwhelmingly physical like fellow top prospect Jakob Chychrun, Juolevi’s calm demeanor and active defensive presence is reminiscent of Hall of Fame defenseman Nicklas Lidstrom. While some may point to his stacked team as a basis for his stellar offensive performance, it’s telling that he was able to rack up even more points spearheading the Finnish attack at the 2016 World Junior Championships. Juolevi is among the best defensemen in the OHL at calmly collecting the puck in his own zone and swiftly transitioning it to his forwards.

With such a well-rounded game and among the highest hockey IQ in the entire draft class, it’s hard to find faults with the package that Juolevi brings to the table. Even with one of the most offensively dominant lines in the history of the OHL headlining the Knights’ attack, Juolevi often was content to sit back and let his forwards do the work. To elevate his game in the professional level and become an elite number one defender, Juolevi must become more assertive on offense. His skating is smooth and low-effort, but his top speed could stand to improve as well. The one glaring area of Juolevi’s game that’s missing is a physical element; he possesses the frame to pack on extra muscle and become even more of a coach’s dream on the back-end.

Juolevi’s combination of smooth skating, hockey smarts, and confidence with the puck is a package that would leave every NHL GM chomping at the bit to get their hands on. Despite still needing to put on some weight to withstand the rigors of a full professional season, Juolevi’s puck possession game and elite hockey sense are perfect for the modern NHL, which is moving away from the brutish, physical defender and transitioning to Juolevi’s brand of stellar two-way play. He may not ever become an elite, number one defender who competes for Norris Trophies, but if his offensive production can improve, he could become a rock solid first pairing defenseman in the NHL for a long time.

https://thehockeywriters.com/olli-juolevi-the-next-ones-nhl-2016-draft-prospect-profile/

Doesn't sound like a player who is a "project". Needs to add some weight (done) and be more assertive offensively (still pending) but everything else seems to be in place.

 

[krutovsdonut]

that's an extremely positive write up but it still says this.

"To elevate his game in the professional level and become an elite number one defender, Juolevi must become more assertive on offense. His skating is smooth and low-effort, but his top speed could stand to improve as well. The one glaring area of Juolevi’s game that’s missing is a physical element; he possesses the frame to pack on extra muscle and become even more of a coach’s dream on the back-end."

 

[CanaFan]

that's an extremely positive write up but it still says this.

"To elevate his game in the professional level and become an elite number one defender, Juolevi must become more assertive on offense. His skating is smooth and low-effort, but his top speed could stand to improve as well. The one glaring area of Juolevi’s game that’s missing is a physical element; he possesses the frame to pack on extra muscle and become even more of a coach’s dream on the back-end."

Right. And he packed that frame on with extra muscle according to earlier reports that put him at 200 lbs.

Other than that what is the hold up? Becoming more assertive on offense? Sure, and he may never get there but that shouldn't stop him from playing in the NHL. His top speed skating? That's another small deficiency.

I still don't really understand this argument. On one hand you want to argue he was super under-developed in several areas of his game (which he really wasn't) and on the other hand you want to argue that being deficient in these areas doesn't make him a poor selection at 5.

He's never going to be a physical player. That isn't his game. He's also likely never going to be an offensive player. That isn't his game. You list these as reasons he may be slow to make the NHL but it is far more likely those are reasons he never becomes a top player at the NHL because he is unlikely to ever change those traits.

Yes he can get a bit bigger and faster. But he isn't so deficient that he should be blocked from making the NHL. His size and skating is at an acceptable level to play. The bigger concern is unless he develops a physical or offensive edge to his game, he won't become a top pair guy which should have been the target with the 5th pick.

Anyway, I think I've exhausted this line of debate. It's going too much in circles and isn't landing anywhere that we can resolve.

Good luck to Juolevi, it sounds like he will need it.

 

[Krnuckfan]

that's an extremely positive write up but it still says this.

"To elevate his game in the professional level and become an elite number one defender, Juolevi must become more assertive on offense. His skating is smooth and low-effort, but his top speed could stand to improve as well. The one glaring area of JuoleviÂ’s game thatÂ’s missing is a physical element; he possesses the frame to pack on extra muscle and become even more of a coachÂ’s dream on the back-end."

Pretty much every player's scouting report will have weaknesses as well as positives. You haven't said anything that would convince me into thinking Juolevi is any different of a player than a guy like OEL, or Brodin.

 

[CanaFan]

Pretty much every player's scouting report will have weaknesses as well as positives. You haven't said anything that would convince me into thinking Juolevi is any different of a player than a guy like OEL, or Brodin.

Other than his lack of post-draft progress. At the draft Juolevi was a minimally acceptable pick, with the complaint being that there were BETTER options available. But I don't think he was necessarily a poor choice in a vacuum.

Post-draft however he is looking more and more to have been a poor selection regardless of the players taken after him.

Now this can still change but this camp is a big one for him. He doesn't absolutely *need* to make the team but how he looks relative to others and how close the decision to keep him / send him away will be telling. But going into camp things aren't looking great.

 

[Jack Burton]

Everything you're saying about his game might be true and he might turn into a good player, but they're excuses/allowances for a guy taken #25 overall. Not a top-5 pick. A top-5 pick should dominate and play quickly.

I get your point about a top 5 pick should dominate and play quickly but OJ being a top 5 pick is not his fault. It's Benning and this scouting staffs misjudgment of a player.

Bottom line OJ was a reach @ 5

Virtanen was a reach @ 6

Pettersson was a reach @ 5

Whenever I read the argument that "a top 5 player should" I don't necessarily see the gun being pointed at the player but instead being aimed directly at Benning and Co.

 

[Krnuckfan]

I get your point about a top 5 pick should dominate and play quickly but OJ being a top 5 pick is not his fault. It's Benning and this scouting staffs misjudgment of a player.

Bottom line OJ was a reach @ 5

Virtanen was a reach @ 6

Pettersson was a reach @ 5

Whenever I read the argument that "a top 5 player should" I don't necessarily see the gun being pointed at the player but instead being aimed directly at Benning and Co.

You're right, a vanilla guy like Juolevi is not the first dmen selected and does not go in the top 5 of any other recent draft that I can remember.

However, that doesn't make his lack of progression in his draft +1 year any less concerning.

 

[MS]

I get your point about a top 5 pick should dominate and play quickly but OJ being a top 5 pick is not his fault. It's Benning and this scouting staffs misjudgment of a player.

Bottom line OJ was a reach @ 5

Virtanen was a reach @ 6

Pettersson was a reach @ 5

Whenever I read the argument that "a top 5 player should" I don't necessarily see the gun being pointed at the player but instead being aimed directly at Benning and Co.

Oh, absolutely. Everything being said is with the context of his draft position.

As I've said repeatedly, I think he's a 'good' prospect who will probably be an NHL player of some sort eventually. If we'd taken him at #28 overall, I'd be quite happy with this player and where he sits right now.

Top-5 picks are a different ballgame. We suffered through a nightmare season to get this extremely high pick that should be a sure-fire NHLer, quickly. When it isn't and the player isn't developing in line with his draft slot, it's fair to be very concerned.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I get your point about a top 5 pick should dominate and play quickly but OJ being a top 5 pick is not his fault. It's Benning and this scouting staffs misjudgment of a player.

Bottom line OJ was a reach @ 5

Virtanen was a reach @ 6

Pettersson was a reach @ 5

Whenever I read the argument that "a top 5 player should" I don't necessarily see the gun being pointed at the player but instead being aimed directly at Benning and Co.

what exactly is a "reach"? we may mostly agree here. need to clarify terminology.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Right. And he packed that frame on with extra muscle according to earlier reports that put him at 200 lbs.

Other than that what is the hold up? Becoming more assertive on offense? Sure, and he may never get there but that shouldn't stop him from playing in the NHL. His top speed skating? That's another small deficiency.

I still don't really understand this argument. On one hand you want to argue he was super under-developed in several areas of his game (which he really wasn't) and on the other hand you want to argue that being deficient in these areas doesn't make him a poor selection at 5.

He's never going to be a physical player. That isn't his game. He's also likely never going to be an offensive player. That isn't his game. You list these as reasons he may be slow to make the NHL but it is far more likely those are reasons he never becomes a top player at the NHL because he is unlikely to ever change those traits.

Yes he can get a bit bigger and faster. But he isn't so deficient that he should be blocked from making the NHL. His size and skating is at an acceptable level to play. The bigger concern is unless he develops a physical or offensive edge to his game, he won't become a top pair guy which should have been the target with the 5th pick.

Anyway, I think I've exhausted this line of debate. It's going too much in circles and isn't landing anywhere that we can resolve.

Good luck to Juolevi, it sounds like he will need it.

i agree with the exhausted line of debate part.

will be watching him play

 

[Cupless44]

Still hate the pick. Have seen nothing that even resembles changing that.