Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,063
- 6,639
Better at defense than Matthew Tkachuk
He's just not good at it yet. Also his offense isn't good because his coach used him as a defensive specialist. He's also super skinny but his skating has suffered because he weighs too much.
well facts are facts and i am not insisting that my profile is correct, i am looking for someone to argue otherwise instead of the broad brush approach i see. and you can't reject my viewpoint because it is hard to disprove. i realize people like to argue and project prospects here, but that doesn't mean you reject logical arguments because they force you to be patient with a player.
and if you follow this thread you know that before this discussion i specifically asked people to identify such snowflakes and got crickets. nobody was willing to say who juolevi resembled as a prospect with or without my parameters. i share that difficulty. convince me guys resemble juolevi and i'm interested.
what we have here instead is a group of people projecting a player using extremely crude metrics. "he doesn't have a career progression like other successful high d draft picks" is the dominant narrative, but i have yet to see anyone argue he resembles other high draft picks who either busted or didn't bust so that this is a fair comparison. you wouldn't compare the career trajectory of petterson and virtanen because of their similar draft position as a way of projecting how petterson is doing d+2. they are completely different players with different talents and different physical development when drafted. but folks here are doing exactly that with dmen.
i do think this pre-season will be telling and help "put to rest" the uncertainties with this player. but i want to emphasize that even if the guy is a complete tire fire one on one in his own end, that's not the story. what you should be looking at is the mental skill set that got him drafted. does he have that vision and poise? because even low iq guys can be taught to play defence in their own zone, skating footwork can be improved, and if he is not yet there physically there is every reason to think he will fill out. in fact there is much more reason to doubt petterson will fill out than juolevi.
Don't know what you're getting at here
Better at defense than Matthew Tkachuk
Krnuckfan said:People have no idea what normal prospect development is. ALways with the same bs excuses, "power forwards develop slower" "defencemen develop slower" What a bunch of bs.
All you have to do is look at the list of dmen drafted high in the draft and see when they were able to make the jump to the NHL. The vast majority of defencemen that turn out good make the jump by their draft + 2 season. The ones who fail to make that jump turn out to be disappointments/busts.
2012
Murray - d+2
Reinhart - still not a regular (d+5)
Rielly - d+2
Lindholm - d+2
Dumba - d+3
Pouliot - still not a regular (d+5)
Trouba - d+2
Koekkoek - still not a regular (d+5)
2013
Jones - d+1
Nurse - d+3
Ristolainen - d+2
2014
Ekblad - d+1
Fleury - still not a regular
2015
Hanifin - d+1
Provorov - d+2
Werenski - d+2
From what I've seen, Juolevi has a long way to go before cracking the roster and is well on track to be a disappointment.
Krnuckfan said:Decided to extend out the list further past just to see.
2004
Barker - d+4
Smid - d+3
Valabik - d+5
2005
Johnson - d+3
Lee - d+4
Bourdon =(
2006
Johnson - d+2
2007
Hickey - d+6
Alzner - d+4
Ellerby - d+4
2008
Doughty - d+1
Bogisian - d+1
Pietrangelo - d+3
Schenn - d+1
2009
Hedman - d+1
OEL - d+2
Cowen - d+3
2010
Gudbransson - d+2
McIlrath - bust
2011
Larsson - d+2
Hamilton - d+2
Brodin - d+2
2012
Murray - d+2
Reinhart - still not a regular (d+5)
Rielly - d+2
Lindholm - d+2
Dumba - d+3
Pouliot - still not a regular (d+5)
Trouba - d+2
Koekkoek - still not a regular (d+5)
2013
Jones - d+1
Nurse - d+3
Ristolainen - d+2
2014
Ekblad - d+1
Fleury - still not a regular
2015
Hanifin - d+1
Provorov - d+2
Werenski - d+2
12 years of drafts, you can see some clear trends. Out of the 38 dmen drafted in the top 10 of the NHL draft, 20 made the NHL by their draft + 2 year.
Just because you make it to the NHL early doesn't mean that you'll actually live up to expectations, but if you don't make it by your d+2 season, chances are you'll be a big disappointment.
Out of the 18 dmen that didn't make the NHL by their d+2 season, only Pietrangelo is an actual successful draft pick.
This is silly though, and doesn't really accurately describe top defenceman player/prospect development either. As trendy as it is around here these days to parrot the "defencemen don't actually take longer to develop" and "good defencemen make it by their D+2 or they're not going to be good" narratives.
Firstly, it completely de-emphasizes the "made the NHL under this arbitrary D+2 threshold but still disappointed" defencemen...of which there are nearly as many as the "good" defencemen. That alone makes your point about this "magic D+2 threshold" of seriously questionable value. Basically suggesting there's a narrowly less than 50/50 chance of defencemen becoming a disappointment even if they make the draft by their D+2 year. If anything, that just emphasizes how hard it is to find stud defencemen and suggests that making the NHL quickly is far from the end-all, be-all of projecting NHL future value.
Secondly, you're confining things to an unnecessarily narrow band of cohorts in the first place. The day after the draft, it stopped mattering that Juolevi was a 5th overall pick. He goes into the same bin with all of the other chumps drafted behind him as "defence prospects trying to make the NHL".
And that's where, if you take a look at the top defencemen around the NHL...you realize it's entirely common for very good top defencemen to take until their D+3 or even 4 or 5 year to really establish a solid foothold in the National Hockey League.
Let's do a different list here, looking at roughly the top defencemen (and old guys who have been top defencemen) around the league by team, and when they established a solid foothold in the NHL:
-----------------------------
ANA: Fowler (+1), Lindholm (+2).
BOS: Chara (+2/3), Krug (+5).
ARI: OEL (+2), Hjalmarsson (+3/4/5), Goligoski (+5).
BUF: Ristolainen (+1/2), Scandella (+3/4).
CGY: Giordano (+5), Brodie (+4), Hamilton (+2), Hamonic (+3).
CAR: Faulk (+2), Slavin (+4), Pesce (+3), Hanifin? (+1).
CHI: Keith (+4), Seabrook (+3).
CBJ: Jones (+1), Werenski (+2), Savard (+3/5).
COL: Johnson (+2), Barrie (+4/5).
DET: Green (+2/3), Kronwall (+4/7).
DAL: Klingberg (+5), Hamhuis (+3), Lindell (+5).
FLA: Ekblad (+1), Yandle (+3).
EDM: Klefbom (+4), Larsson (+1/4ish).
MTL: Weber (+3/4), Alzner (+2/4ish), Petry (+5/6).
LAK: Doughty (+1), Muzzin (+6), Martinez (+4).
NJD: Greene (+6/7), Severson (+3).
MIN: Suter (+3), Spurgeon (+3), Brodin (+2), Dumba (+3).
NYI: Leddy (+2), Boychuk (+8), DeHaan (+4).
NSH: Josi (+4), Subban (+4), Ekholm (+5), Ellis (+3/5).
NYR: McDonagh (+4), Shattenkirk (+4), Skjei (+5).
SJS: Burns (+1*), Vlasic (+2), Martin (+4).
OTT: Karlsson (+2), Phaneuf (+3).
STL: Pietrangelo (+3), Bouwmeester (+1), Parayko (+4).
PHI: Provorov (+2), Gostisbehere (+4).
VAN: Tanev (+3/4ish), Edler (+3/4).
PIT: Letang (+3), Dumoulin (+7), Schultz (+5), Maatta (+2).
TBL: Hedman (+1), Stralman (+3).
TOR: Rielly (+2), Gardiner (+4), Zaitsev (+7).
WAS: Carlson (+2/3), Niskanen (+3), Orlov (+3/5).
WPG: Trouba (+2), Byfuglien (+5*), Morrissey (+4), Enstrom (+5), Myers (+2).
Out of 84 roughly top defencemen (aiming for 90 ie essentially surefire Top-3D), i count ~26 who solidly met this D+2 threshold...with a few asterisks included, and a few "maybes" on the outside. You can argue a few inclusions/exclusions here or there, but as a whole...We're talking roughly ~30% of the sample who meet the D+2 "good defencemen are ready immediately" threshold.
ie. It's actually more common that these Top-90ish type defencemen did not establish a solid foothold in the NHL until their D+3 season or later (in some cases much later). And that's just talking about guys registering games in the NHL, to speak nothing of guys there who struggled or played limited roles through their early years or when they really found their game.
Even if we narrow the sample to the cream of the crop, Top-30 types (per this >Informal HFBoards Poll< for convenience)...i count ~15/32 who qualify. About half. Which is about as strong as your odds of a Top-10 pick defenceman who makes the NHL by their D+2 year actually panning out well. And quite frankly, i don't think very many people were realistically projecting with any certainty for Juolevi to pan out as a Top-30 Defenceman. That's ambitious for a guy most (including Benning) suggested was unlikely to be a true #1D.
Now you can scream and cry until you're blue in the face about how that sample includes guys from all over the draft including late picks and even FAs; but the reality is, those are overperforming picks and guys who in a re-draft, would probably go in or around the Top-10 of most draft years. We simply weren't getting Juolevi with a later pick. Where he ends up down the road is what matters here. Not whether he meets some arbitrarily imposed threshold of NHL by D+2 or he's a disappointment, just because he was drafted Top-5. Especially a threshold built on some awfully shaky information, and skewed by a handful of outlier absolute Franchise Defenceman studs (which Juolevi was never really projected to be).
The takeaway here above all, should probably be that different players develop differently. Particularly defencemen. Trying to impose patterns on them to define a rigid timeline of development threshold pass/fail is rough guesstimating at best, total futility at worst. Different players develop differently, and track differently through stages of development. Nothing wrong with discussing it and sharing projections...but to use that information as some sort of hard and fast "well actually, you have no idea how development works" rule is too much.
I'd argue those two had alot more competition to fight thru to get "those kind of minutes"; at least with respect to what we have know at present on the blueline.VAN: Tanev (+3/4ish), Edler (+3/4).
The takeaway here above all, should probably be that different players develop differently. Particularly defencemen. Trying to impose patterns on them to define a rigid timeline of development threshold pass/fail is rough guesstimating at best, total futility at worst. Different players develop differently, and track differently through stages of development. Nothing wrong with discussing it and sharing projections...but to use that information as some sort of hard and fast "well actually, you have no idea how development works" rule is too much.
You can put lipstick on a turd but it's still a turd.
You can put lipstick on a turd but it's still a turd.
This is silly though, and doesn't really accurately describe top defenceman player/prospect development either. As trendy as it is around here these days to parrot the "defencemen don't actually take longer to develop" and "good defencemen make it by their D+2 or they're not going to be good" narratives.
Firstly, it completely de-emphasizes the "made the NHL under this arbitrary D+2 threshold but still disappointed" defencemen...of which there are nearly as many as the "good" defencemen. That alone makes your point about this "magic D+2 threshold" of seriously questionable value. Basically suggesting there's a narrowly less than 50/50 chance of defencemen becoming a disappointment even if they make the draft by their D+2 year. If anything, that just emphasizes how hard it is to find stud defencemen and suggests that making the NHL quickly is far from the end-all, be-all of projecting NHL future value.
Secondly, you're confining things to an unnecessarily narrow band of cohorts in the first place. The day after the draft, it stopped mattering that Juolevi was a 5th overall pick. He goes into the same bin with all of the other chumps drafted behind him as "defence prospects trying to make the NHL".
And that's where, if you take a look at the top defencemen around the NHL...you realize it's entirely common for very good top defencemen to take until their D+3 or even 4 or 5 year to really establish a solid foothold in the National Hockey League.
Let's do a different list here, looking at roughly the top defencemen (and old guys who have been top defencemen) around the league by team, and when they established a solid foothold in the NHL:
-----------------------------
ANA: Fowler (+1), Lindholm (+2).
BOS: Chara (+2/3), Krug (+5).
ARI: OEL (+2), Hjalmarsson (+3/4/5), Goligoski (+5).
BUF: Ristolainen (+1/2), Scandella (+3/4).
CGY: Giordano (+5), Brodie (+4), Hamilton (+2), Hamonic (+3).
CAR: Faulk (+2), Slavin (+4), Pesce (+3), Hanifin? (+1).
CHI: Keith (+4), Seabrook (+3).
CBJ: Jones (+1), Werenski (+2), Savard (+3/5).
COL: Johnson (+2), Barrie (+4/5).
DET: Green (+2/3), Kronwall (+4/7).
DAL: Klingberg (+5), Hamhuis (+3), Lindell (+5).
FLA: Ekblad (+1), Yandle (+3).
EDM: Klefbom (+4), Larsson (+1/4ish).
MTL: Weber (+3/4), Alzner (+2/4ish), Petry (+5/6).
LAK: Doughty (+1), Muzzin (+6), Martinez (+4).
NJD: Greene (+6/7), Severson (+3).
MIN: Suter (+3), Spurgeon (+3), Brodin (+2), Dumba (+3).
NYI: Leddy (+2), Boychuk (+8), DeHaan (+4).
NSH: Josi (+4), Subban (+4), Ekholm (+5), Ellis (+3/5).
NYR: McDonagh (+4), Shattenkirk (+4), Skjei (+5).
SJS: Burns (+1*), Vlasic (+2), Martin (+4).
OTT: Karlsson (+2), Phaneuf (+3).
STL: Pietrangelo (+3), Bouwmeester (+1), Parayko (+4).
PHI: Provorov (+2), Gostisbehere (+4).
VAN: Tanev (+3/4ish), Edler (+3/4).
PIT: Letang (+3), Dumoulin (+7), Schultz (+5), Maatta (+2).
TBL: Hedman (+1), Stralman (+3).
TOR: Rielly (+2), Gardiner (+4), Zaitsev (+7).
WAS: Carlson (+2/3), Niskanen (+3), Orlov (+3/5).
WPG: Trouba (+2), Byfuglien (+5*), Morrissey (+4), Enstrom (+5), Myers (+2).
Out of 84 roughly top defencemen (aiming for 90 ie essentially surefire Top-3D), i count ~26 who solidly met this D+2 threshold...with a few asterisks included, and a few "maybes" on the outside. You can argue a few inclusions/exclusions here or there, but as a whole...We're talking roughly ~30% of the sample who meet the D+2 "good defencemen are ready immediately" threshold.
ie. It's actually more common that these Top-90ish type defencemen did not establish a solid foothold in the NHL until their D+3 season or later (in some cases much later). And that's just talking about guys registering games in the NHL, to speak nothing of guys there who struggled or played limited roles through their early years or when they really found their game.
Even if we narrow the sample to the cream of the crop, Top-30 types (per this >Informal HFBoards Poll< for convenience)...i count ~15/32 who qualify. About half. Which is about as strong as your odds of a Top-10 pick defenceman who makes the NHL by their D+2 year actually panning out well. And quite frankly, i don't think very many people were realistically projecting with any certainty for Juolevi to pan out as a Top-30 Defenceman. That's ambitious for a guy most (including Benning) suggested was unlikely to be a true #1D.
Now you can scream and cry until you're blue in the face about how that sample includes guys from all over the draft including late picks and even FAs; but the reality is, those are overperforming picks and guys who in a re-draft, would probably go in or around the Top-10 of most draft years. We simply weren't getting Juolevi with a later pick. Where he ends up down the road is what matters here. Not whether he meets some arbitrarily imposed threshold of NHL by D+2 or he's a disappointment, just because he was drafted Top-5. Especially a threshold built on some awfully shaky information, and skewed by a handful of outlier absolute Franchise Defenceman studs (which Juolevi was never really projected to be).
The takeaway here above all, should probably be that different players develop differently. Particularly defencemen. Trying to impose patterns on them to define a rigid timeline of development threshold pass/fail is rough guesstimating at best, total futility at worst. Different players develop differently, and track differently through stages of development. Nothing wrong with discussing it and sharing projections...but to use that information as some sort of hard and fast "well actually, you have no idea how development works" rule is too much.
krnuckfan said:Just because you make it to the NHL early doesn't mean that you'll actually live up to expectations
Now he's a turd?
Come on guys, at one time this place was better then this.
Was the team better back then as well?
Nice effort, but your analysis is very lacking.
First off, did you miss the part where I said
I'm not saying just make the nhl by your d+2 and you'll be a good player.
It makes much more sense to compare Juolevi to other dmen drafted high in the draft rather than guys drafted much later in the rounds. If you are taken late in the draft, it is because at the time of the draft when the player is 18, there are some holes to his game and you are much less ready for the NHL than a guy taken high in the draft.
It makes no sense looking at guys like Tanev, Krug, Giordano and comparing to a guy like Juolevi. The fact that these guys were late developers doesn't mean Juolevi will also be a late developer. The above players were so immature at the time of the draft that it will take many more than 2 years to develop and make the NHL.
Juolevi does not have any major significant holes like those guys did at the time of the draft.
It would be stupid to expect a guy taken late in the draft to make the NHL by the draft+2 season but it is a completely reasonable expectation for a guy taken high in the draft.
Again, pretty much the ONLY player drafted high in the draft and didn't make the nhl by d+2 and lived up to expectations was Pietrangelo.
You can continue sticking your head in the sand and talk about tanev, krug, etc but those guys have no relevance to Juolevi as their development curve is completely different to Juolevi's given how immature they were at the time of the draft.
Well said. It's mind boggling how anyone can argue that players drafted as longshots or projects have any relevance to a player deemed by some to be "the best available" D at the time of the draft. Those players went late because they had massive holes in their game and require time and development to address them. Juolevi had no such issues. He could skate, pass, "elite IQ" we were told. What exactly does he require 3-4 years to develop? If he's got just as much to work on as a 5th rounder then why the hell did we take him 5th overall? Take a player who doesn't have that much to work on. I mean there were plenty of other good options at 5 for us.