Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi, Pt. VI

[canwincup]

People use the “defensemen take longer to develop” as an excuse. There’s almost no stats that support this. Meanwhile the evidence overwhelmingly supports the statement that defensemen who don’t make the NHL in their Draft +2 season, especially defensemen drafted high, end up busting. Very few exceptions, Dougie Hamilton for example, and those who are the exception at least showed progression between their Draft and Draft +1 seasons.

If you were to do a 2016 re-draft, I question if Juolevi would even go in the first round. Definitely not a top 20 pick at least.

If Makar isn't in the NHL next year will you admit that you were wrong about him?? You've been so adamant that defensman picked in the top 5 should make the NHL in their draft + 2. Avs fans have stated that Makar will need another year in the NCAA, so if that does happen I hope that you're as vocal.

 

[terrible dee]

So did Juolevi have a good game today? How far back into the thread do I have to go to find that out?

This board reads like a high school debate club 20 year reunion.

Yes, trawling though this trash is exceptionally anoying, but don't blame "THE THREAD" the dissonance in discourse is due to a single poster,

I think most people on this board are intelligent, and unlike other boards don't have their ego tied up in being "Right" I think most people hear are fine with changing thier minds in the face of a good point.

So, what then when you encounter a poster who obstinatly refuses to accept the sum of the evidence and continually posts phillibustering B.S to try and control the narritive?

You need to understand what they are doing, because it's not the same thing you are doing, thier goal is to continually have the last comment posted be supportive of whatever it is they are selling.

To take it back a step further, people should know that the Vancouver Canucks hockey club though whatever P.R firm they use, have employed a battalion of "Astroturfers" whoes job it is to try and shape public opinion by inncessant online lieing.

Think back to maybe, 2 years ago? Do you recall a legion of pro Benning supporters, who seemed to be about as in touch with reality as Joulevi was with career ECHL'ers as they breezed past him in training camp, appearing on forums?

Do you recall getting into or seeing arguments that made no sense? Where one party involved was rejecting reallity and badgering anyone who confronted them with it? And all of this happening specifically in threads involving the Canucks?

Well, now you know.

Aqua, Dim Jim and Trev (unfortunatly) have employed professional liars to cover thier blatently embaessing tracks. And Joulevi at #5 is as embaressing as they come.

Agent provocetuers like Krutov's dounut don't beive what they are saying any more than you do.

But, they decided at some point, that being a professional liar isn't something they need to be ashamed of.

It is. It's a truley pathetic way to make a living, for men of low charachter, low self esteem and low integrity.

The proof is in the p**p, and should you care to sniff your way through the last several pages each and every assertaion I make will be prove.

Oh, and there is a predictably personal attack comming up shortly, straight out of the scientology handbook, "ATTACK THE TRUTH-TELLER'S DISTRACT FROM THE TRUTH BY MAKING THEM THE PROBLEM"

There will be no reply from me other than to repeat what I have already said: Read the last several pages.

Mods? Have you not been briefed on this? Astroturfing is about the worst thing you can do on a forum, at a certain point,it's obvious the poster in question has motives beyond discussing hockey, is an "astroturf free" disscussion board not something we all want?

Once popular message board's concerning other topics have been abandoned due to "whistling past the graveyard" on this matter. ALL large companies, political parties and organizations do it, the fact that it exists and is rampant isn't in question, google around for 5 minuetes and you'll see what I mean, to think it doesn't happen here would be naive.

But the issue here is that the Canucks, due to bad press, have embarked on a completely over-the -top campain, that it's there isn't debatable (Reads some threads....ANY threads)

The question is how much longer will this be allowed to disrupt the usage of this bpoard for it's intended purpose?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Yes, trawling though this trash is exceptionally anoying, but don't blame "THE THREAD" the dissonance in discourse is due to a single poster,

I think most people on this board are intelligent, and unlike other boards don't have their ego tied up in being "Right" I think most people hear are fine with changing thier minds in the face of a good point.

So, what then when you encounter a poster who obstinatly refuses to accept the sum of the evidence and continually posts phillibustering B.S to try and control the narritive?

You need to understand what they are doing, because it's not the same thing you are doing, thier goal is to continually have the last comment posted be supportive of whatever it is they are selling.

To take it back a step further, people should know that the Vancouver Canucks hockey club though whatever P.R firm they use, have employed a battalion of "Astroturfers" whoes job it is to try and shape public opinion by inncessant online lieing.

Think back to maybe, 2 years ago? Do you recall a legion of pro Benning supporters, who seemed to be about as in touch with reality as Joulevi was with career ECHL'ers as they breezed past him in training camp, appearing on forums?

Do you recall getting into or seeing arguments that made no sense? Where one party involved was rejecting reallity and badgering anyone who confronted them with it? And all of this happening specifically in threads involving the Canucks?

Well, now you know.

Aqua, Dim Jim and Trev (unfortunatly) have employed professional liars to cover thier blatently embaessing tracks. And Joulevi at #5 is as embaressing as they come.

Agent provocetuers like Krutov's dounut don't beive what they are saying any more than you do.

But, they decided at some point, that being a professional liar isn't something they need to be ashamed of.

It is. It's a truley pathetic way to make a living, for men of low charachter, low self esteem and low integrity.

The proof is in the p**p, and should you care to sniff your way through the last several pages each and every assertaion I make will be prove.

Oh, and there is a predictably personal attack comming up shortly, straight out of the scientology handbook, "ATTACK THE TRUTH-TELLER'S DISTRACT FROM THE TRUTH BY MAKING THEM THE PROBLEM"

There will be no reply from me other than to repeat what I have already said: Read the last several pages.

Mods? Have you not been briefed on this? Astroturfing is about the worst thing you can do on a forum, at a certain point,it's obvious the poster in question has motives beyond discussing hockey, is an "astroturf free" disscussion board not something we all want?

Once popular message board's concerning other topics have been abandoned due to "whistling past the graveyard" on this matter. ALL large companies, political parties and organizations do it, the fact that it exists and is rampant isn't in question, google around for 5 minuetes and you'll see what I mean, to think it doesn't happen here would be naive.

But the issue here is that the Canucks, due to bad press, have embarked on a completely over-the -top campain, that it's there isn't debatable (Reads some threads....ANY threads)

The question is how much longer will this be allowed to disrupt the usage of this bpoard for it's intended purpose?

Jeezus ...Dee..you're verging on 'wingnut' proportions here...

 

[Shareefruck]

That's a great analogy. I mean, it's not like Juolevi is 19 years old or anything.

And we all know that defensemen usually only take a few months, maybe a year tops, to fully develop and showcase their full potential. For instance, Duncan Keith, Zdeno Chara, Ryan Suter, Brent Burns, Victor Hedman, and Mark Giordano all made instant impacts on their team and were all Calder candidates right out of the gate. In fact, I don't think anyone questioned Victor Hedman's development curve at all. He was an instant sensation.


As you may be able to tell from my comment above, defensemen don't develop at the same rate as forwards. There's even a big discrepancy between defensemen, as some develop more quickly than others. Many of the NHL's best defensemen were written off or came out of nowhere, since it's harder to predict how they'll progress.

Unfortunately, even though you don't like it, people who are proclaiming "wait and see" are 100% correct.

he is progressing just fine in finland. he is certainly behind other players. we won't be able to evaluate him until he gets to the nhl. recently he did not look remotely ready for the nhl.

all that is obvious. i agree there is not much to discuss until he returns to the nhl and we can measure his progress where it counts. the recent good results in finland are simply encouraging and reason to hope.

but being "tentatively dismissive" of a 19 year old off who is breaking u20 records in a pro league in finland and calling the idea that he might yet be ok for his draft position "wishful thinking"is not analysis. "tentatively dismissive" is not an analytical approach justified by the objective evidence. it's being unreasonable and disclosing that your analysis has an agenda. perhaps not as big an agenda as another poster calling him a "blown pick" but nevertheless its just posturing masquerading as analysis. you give yourself away with the use of "ludicrous" where it no way fits in with a rational discussion of the situation.

Even considering that defensemen often take a bit longer to develop than forwards (I think that's a bit overblown, especially for a high pick, but whatever), the disparity right now is large enough that there's good reason to doubt that he'll become better than Tkachuk. Tkachuk has pretty much already hit the kind of upside that most people would have conservatively predicted for Juolevi when he was drafted. Juolevi would need to exceed original expectations and improve his current steady trajectory, and Tkachuk would need to stagnate for everything to come together such that Juolevi ends up being better. It requires "hope" to predict that something like that would happen. It's probably not the likely outcome right now, and I don't think the fact that one is a defenseman and the other is a forward is enough to close that gap.

I hope he does, though, and I'm glad that he's showing more promise right now than he previously did. I generally prefer players who play the way that he does over the Tkachuk types.

And what agenda? I'm on record thinking that Juolevi was a better pick than Tkachuk on draft day and stuck by that D+1. I've only expressed any pessimism about Juolevi heading into/during this past preseason, where his play looked well behind schedule. However, it's undeniable that Tkachuk has made a splash, exceeded expectations, and is well ahead of schedule. The probability of players at their draft position reaching their potential isn't high, and Tkachuk's has already accomplished the hardest part, and is basically only rounding out his game at the NHL level and trying to get from high-end key contributor to outright star.

I dislike the connotations involved with 'wait and see' because it seems to imply that the outcome is just a 50/50 coin-toss and that we have no idea which direction the tide is turning or that we should ignore it. It's most reasonable to lean towards the current most likely outcome based on the information we have so far, and doubting that he'll end up better than someone who is currently way ahead and not that far from the finish line is not the same as being certain that something unlikely can't possibly happen.

 

[Ninebreaker]

Yes, trawling though this trash is exceptionally anoying, but don't blame "THE THREAD" the dissonance in discourse is due to a single poster,

I think most people on this board are intelligent, and unlike other boards don't have their ego tied up in being "Right" I think most people hear are fine with changing thier minds in the face of a good point.

So, what then when you encounter a poster who obstinatly refuses to accept the sum of the evidence and continually posts phillibustering B.S to try and control the narritive?

You need to understand what they are doing, because it's not the same thing you are doing, thier goal is to continually have the last comment posted be supportive of whatever it is they are selling.

To take it back a step further, people should know that the Vancouver Canucks hockey club though whatever P.R firm they use, have employed a battalion of "Astroturfers" whoes job it is to try and shape public opinion by inncessant online lieing.

Think back to maybe, 2 years ago? Do you recall a legion of pro Benning supporters, who seemed to be about as in touch with reality as Joulevi was with career ECHL'ers as they breezed past him in training camp, appearing on forums?

Do you recall getting into or seeing arguments that made no sense? Where one party involved was rejecting reallity and badgering anyone who confronted them with it? And all of this happening specifically in threads involving the Canucks?

Well, now you know.

Aqua, Dim Jim and Trev (unfortunatly) have employed professional liars to cover thier blatently embaessing tracks. And Joulevi at #5 is as embaressing as they come.

Agent provocetuers like Krutov's dounut don't beive what they are saying any more than you do.

But, they decided at some point, that being a professional liar isn't something they need to be ashamed of.

It is. It's a truley pathetic way to make a living, for men of low charachter, low self esteem and low integrity.

The proof is in the p**p, and should you care to sniff your way through the last several pages each and every assertaion I make will be prove.

Oh, and there is a predictably personal attack comming up shortly, straight out of the scientology handbook, "ATTACK THE TRUTH-TELLER'S DISTRACT FROM THE TRUTH BY MAKING THEM THE PROBLEM"

There will be no reply from me other than to repeat what I have already said: Read the last several pages.

Mods? Have you not been briefed on this? Astroturfing is about the worst thing you can do on a forum, at a certain point,it's obvious the poster in question has motives beyond discussing hockey, is an "astroturf free" disscussion board not something we all want?

Once popular message board's concerning other topics have been abandoned due to "whistling past the graveyard" on this matter. ALL large companies, political parties and organizations do it, the fact that it exists and is rampant isn't in question, google around for 5 minuetes and you'll see what I mean, to think it doesn't happen here would be naive.

But the issue here is that the Canucks, due to bad press, have embarked on a completely over-the -top campain, that it's there isn't debatable (Reads some threads....ANY threads)

The question is how much longer will this be allowed to disrupt the usage of this bpoard for it's intended purpose?

So you're saying there are paid shills on HFboards? Canuck the Record, if you will.

 

[stampedingviking]

Total red herring. Tkachuk had an outstanding rookie season and is looking very good this season, he is by far the better player at this point in time and was the consensus pick at the spot we were drafting.

I'm happy Juolevi seems to be improving but until he proves himself the better NHL player (unlikely, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility) this was a massive draft blunder. People can and will lament it, as well they should.

Those who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

How many times to you believe Tkachuk would have been suspended last season alone if he was a Canuck?

He may have been the favourite pick on here but don't forget there were misgivings about him, also.

 

[stampedingviking]

So this is the response people get when posting facts?

What facts?

 

[Peter10]

How many times to you believe Tkachuk would have been suspended last season alone if he was a Canuck?

Are you still living in 2011? There is no agenda from the league to get the Canucks, they are terrible enough without any league interference. This arguement is nothing but a deflection from the orignal point. You would be more credible if you d said that Juolevi is now indeed showing signs of improvements and that the move to Liiga may actually have helped him to overcome whatever was hindering his development.

There are so many good arguements to make a case for Juolevi (and i am one who is saying he was the wrong pick) and you just pick the most stupid one.

 

[biturbo19]

Defensemen picked in the top 5 develop very quickly. Defensemen picked in later rounds (like most of your examples) take longer because ... well that’s what players drafted in later rounds do.

I still have to harp back on the question...why does that even remotely matter?

Would the advanced physical development leading to a Luke Schenn/Zach Bogosian "early arrival" progression arc make Juolevi a "better prospect" in the end, than if he manages to slow cook like a typical "later pick" defenceman, and ultimately ends up the better player when he does "arrive"?

If Juolevi completely busts out and fails to ever even establish himself as a quality NHL defenceman, then yeah...absolutely, we can talk about how horrific a reach that was, because he not only didn't have the instant impact of a Schenn/Bogosian/etc., but also totally failed to ever catch up. If he ends up ultimately performing like a failed later pick, it just magnifies the consequence because of how high he was actually picked. But in terms of how valuable a player he can become to the Canucks future, it has diddley squat to do with how immediately he gets to the NHL.

There's some utility to the idea of higher picks typically having an earlier impact than later picks, but at the end of the day, the real value assessment comes with the half dozen years+ down the road "re-draft". What's a guy actually worth in their prime, as an asset or contributor to the team's future?

And in that sense, it's not uncommon for some "typical later round pick" that took a bit longer to develop to emerge massively higher up the charts than their original draft position. Top-5/10 even. However, whether that player was drafted 5th or 205th...it's the result that matters. You could maybe argue that taking a later pick "type" longer-developing prospect earlier (due to less certainty provided by physical maturity, etc.) is a bigger than necessary "risk" to take on at the time of the draft. But it ultimately seems like a stupid and completely moot point if things pan out reasonably well. It's more just a way of throwing extra fuel on the fire of an already obviously botched pick, rather than anything useful.

 

[Jyrki21]

You don't pick a long-term project at 5OA. If you're suggesting that this is what Benning did, then you're basically calling him an idiot.

This is basically my issue with the "wait and see" type arguments that are based on a player's ceiling. Even if a guy like Juolevi somehow ends up having a higher ceiling than Tkachuk, how many peak years are you actually going to get out of him? How many contributing years will Tkachuk have had in the NHL at that point? If he already has 3-5 useful NHL seasons under his belt before your guy makes a real impact, then Juolevi's ceiling had better be damn high to make the discrepancy worth it.

This is the same issue I have with picking power forwards early, or other "project" types... even if they live up to your wildest dreams, it may still not be worth it all told – you have to multiply it against the number of games you get out of them. Now while the team is in a performance nadir, it may matter quite a bit less for him to get there early (and it's also possible a guy like Tkachuk fizzles out much earlier because of his playing style – in fact that is probably the very best argument for not picking him). But you have so much less certainty while you wait to see what the guy might become – it just doesn't seem very economical when you're picking high.

It was one of the things that always annoyed me about a lot of Pat Quinn's first-rounders. He seemed to go after projects deliberately, as if there was this unspoken idea that drafting talented guys was "cheap" and the achievement would be so much sweeter after our patience was rewarded. But there are no style points in drafting – it is both a sprint and a marathon. And most of those guys simply didn't turn out.

 

[Melvin]

I still have to harp back on the question...why does that even remotely matter?

Obviously, if Juolevi takes longer but ends up being Lidstrom, then it makes little difference for us. In a way that might actually be better, in terms of how it lines things up for us.

The problem is that there is basically no precedent for this. I can't think of any examples of what you describe, where the first D-man taken in the draft takes the longest to develop, but ends up being the best. I am sure there are examples, but history has shown us otherwise. Don't get me wrong, I know every player is a snowflake and Juolevi may just be this ultra rare case, but generally it behooves us to to follow the trends of previous drafts in terms of setting expectations.

All of which is just to say that what you posted is not at all wrong, just making a different point I think than what others might be making. In terms of what the probable outcomes are at this point, I would bet against Juolevi ultimately being the better player than the D-men already playing in the NHL. This is not based on him as a player at all, but just the recent history of drafts and tracking player development trends. This is really all the "defensemen take longer" crowd are doing as well, so it is a natural rebuttal.

Anyway, we will see. /shrug

 

[Grantham]

Any more in depth analysis of his last game? I mean as long as it doesn’t derail the recent conversation. I’d really hate to do that

 

[groov2]

If Makar isn't in the NHL next year will you admit that you were wrong about him?? You've been so adamant that defensman picked in the top 5 should make the NHL in their draft + 2. Avs fans have stated that Makar will need another year in the NCAA, so if that does happen I hope that you're as vocal.

I am actually quite curious as to what his answer is.

 

[Diamonddog01]

How many times to you believe Tkachuk would have been suspended last season alone if he was a Canuck?

He may have been the favourite pick on here but don't forget there were misgivings about him, also.

Um no more than he was suspended last season as a Flame? He wasn't just the favourite pick, he was the clear consensus pick. The misgivings were related to his skating, not his 'truculence'. He was the superior pick, both at the time, and in hindsight. There may be a slim chance Juolevi eventually surpasses him at the NHL level, doubtful but as I said not completely outside the realm of possibility. Burying our heads in the sand about this, or creating fantasy narratives regarding Tkachuk not fitting into our team chemistry is not helpful nor honest.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Can all the non Juolevi talks just GTFO

 

[krutovsdonut]

i posted in this thread yesterday trying to shut down abaddan who was trying to post positive things about juolevi compared to tkachuk i thought were totally unjustified and going to derail the thread. ended up being called a paid benning shill.

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Undrafted]

Taken from a thread on the main board.

Was from 2003. Posters doing a 1999 re-draft.

1. R Martin Havlat
2. D Barret Jackman
3. C Mike Comrie
4. C Henrik Sedin
5. D Nick Boynton
6. C Henrik Zetterberg
7. G Ryan Miller
8. L Daniel Sedin
9. G Maxime Ouellet
10. C Patrik Stefan

1. R Martin Havlat
2. D Barret Jackman
3. D Nick Boynton
4. C Henrik Sedin
5. L Daniel Sedin
6. C Henrik Zetterberg
7. D Jordan Leopold
8. G Ryan Miller
9. C Mike Comrie
10. D David Tanabe

1 : M.Havlat
2 : B.Jackman
3 : M.Comrie
4 : H.Zetterberg
5 : Sedin
6 : Sedin
7 : R.Miller
8 : N.Boynton
9 : A.Hall
10 : A.Semenov

Food for thought when writing OJ off so early.

 

[polarbearcub]

We need Ollie to turn out badly as a top 4 d.

Encouraging to hear he's playing really well

 

[CanaFan]

Taken from a thread on the main board.

Was from 2003. Posters doing a 1999 re-draft.

1. R Martin Havlat
2. D Barret Jackman
3. C Mike Comrie
4. C Henrik Sedin
5. D Nick Boynton
6. C Henrik Zetterberg
7. G Ryan Miller
8. L Daniel Sedin
9. G Maxime Ouellet
10. C Patrik Stefan

1. R Martin Havlat
2. D Barret Jackman
3. D Nick Boynton
4. C Henrik Sedin
5. L Daniel Sedin
6. C Henrik Zetterberg
7. D Jordan Leopold
8. G Ryan Miller
9. C Mike Comrie
10. D David Tanabe

1 : M.Havlat
2 : B.Jackman
3 : M.Comrie
4 : H.Zetterberg
5 : Sedin
6 : Sedin
7 : R.Miller
8 : N.Boynton
9 : A.Hall
10 : A.Semenov

Food for thought when writing OJ off so early.

Equally good for thought when looking at our prospect pool and proclaiming them future NHLers.

Things change in both directions but the overall trend is that only the best of the best become top NHLers. So being concerned when a prospect isn’t tracking well is perfectly rational assuming you want/hope he will become an elite NHLer. Now obviously you posted those lists to show everyone that people wrote the Sedins off too early but one could just as easily look at that list and also conclude that we shouldn’t get too excited about Brock Boeser or Elias Pettersson until they’ve actually established themselves as NHL stars.

It cuts both ways.

 

[Shareefruck]

The fact that unexpected things can and often do happen is no justification for thinking that they will. The most rational assumption is to err on the side of the reasoned, probable outcome until proven otherwise.

I can take a shot in the dark and say that William Lockwood, who I like a lot, will become every bit as good as Alex Burrows, based on insufficient reason to actually think so, and there's a small chance it might turn out true. Doesn't make the assertion any less silly, or prove that the assertion shouldn't be scoffed at or met with scrutiny until the outcome is actually proven.

 

[krutovsdonut]

The fact that unexpected things can and often do happen is no justification for thinking that they will. The most rational assumption is to err on the side of the reasoned, probable outcome until proven otherwise.

I can take a shot in the dark and say that William Lockwood, who I like a lot, will become every bit as good as Alex Burrows, based on insufficient reason to actually think so, and there's a small chance it might turn out true. Doesn't make the assertion any less silly, or prove that the assertion shouldn't be scoffed at or met with scrutiny until the outcome actually prove it right or wrong.

do you think the odds of lockwood being the next burrows are similar to the odds of juolevi living up to his draft position?

full disclosure: i don't.

 

[Shareefruck]

One pet peeve I have about forum discussions is that analogies are always expected to be even comparables when they're not supposed to be, nor does an analogy imply that they are. I'm using an extreme case to clearly illustrate the logic behind something.

That being said, the current gap between Juolevi and Tkachuk is significant, not negligible or ambiguous. Juolevi will have a helluva mountain to climb if he wants to turn out better. That can't be ignored simply because it's possible for their fortunes to reverse.

 

[y2kcanucks]

If Makar isn't in the NHL next year will you admit that you were wrong about him?? You've been so adamant that defensman picked in the top 5 should make the NHL in their draft + 2. Avs fans have stated that Makar will need another year in the NCAA, so if that does happen I hope that you're as vocal.

Players that go the college route aren't the same as players in the junior ranks. First off they aren't under contract and don't attend training camp, so it's not like they're being beat out of a job by another player. Secondly, there could be other motivations for him not being in the NHL. If he's interested in completing a diploma at school then automatically he won't be in the NHL by his Draft +2 season. This isn't the same as drafting a player out of Europe or the CHL.

Regarding Makar, I would like to see a bit more offense out of him, but from all reports I've seen he's had a very successful start to the freshman season and is looking like a good young puckmoving defenseman.

 

[Jyrki21]

One pet peeve I have about forum discussions is that analogies are always expected to be even comparables when they're not supposed to be, nor does an analogy imply that they are. I'm using an extreme case to clearly illustrate the logic behind something.

This is what I was complaining about in the Dorsett thread. @Bonose, take note of the above. HFB has a hilarious inability to understand how analogies and comparisons work. In this forum, the long-standing expression "Even the President of the U.S.A. has to look at himself naked in the mirror in the morning" would be interpreted as "OMG you're comparing Player X to TRUMP?!?!"

 

[Shareefruck]

Edit: Nevermind