Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi

[Canuck Enforcer]

Seriously,

the pick has been made and discussed to death. Juolevi is a Canuck, Tkachuk is not. I am all for constructive criticism about Juolevi and how he's playing and progressing currently, but debating who we should have picked or why the pick was bad or anything else related to management and making the pick; should be over with by now. Or taken to the Management thread.

It is time to move on guys. We are all hoping Juolevi becomes a top 4 Defenseman for years to come. His success only means good things for the future of this franchise. Please remember that.

 

[lawrence]

Seriously,

the pick has been made and discussed to death. Juolevi is a Canuck, Tkachuk is not. I am all for constructive criticism about Juolevi and how he's playing and progressing currently, but debating who we should have picked or why the pick was bad or anything else related to management and making the pick; should be over with by now. Or taken to the Management thread.

It is time to move on guys. We are all hoping Juolevi becomes a top 4 Defenseman for years to come. His success only means good things for the future of this franchise. Please remember that.

This is a thread to discuss Olli Juolevi, his development and his play.

It is not a management thread. Please stay on topic.

Thank you.

already been mentioned in the 1st post, but this thread seems to be the same few people continuously slamming Juolevi being passive aggressive and extremely condescending if you try to defend the player. really sad topic, you won't even know your in a Canuck forum at times, when Virtanen and Juolevi topic is more busy then the draft topic.

 

[Teflon Jim]

Yep , Jim haters who sense some ill conceived weakness around the OJ pick and want to exploit it in the hopes of a JB firing

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

You're either missing the argument or losing the argument or both. My argument for years is that based on their selection, the Canucks had Juolevi as their BPA ahead of Tkachuk. My argument for years is that that ranking and selection is reasonable based on what McKenzie said, based on what Botchford said, as well as other surrounding circumstances such as Edmonton apparently would have drafted Sergachev in that spot had Puljujarvi not available to them. Your argument for years is OMG AVERAGE RANKINGS had Tkachuk as the BPA as if that proves everything and everyone else is wrong. You see things in such a black and white way.

My comment in regards to Mark Edwards's comments and McKenzie is to explain that many scouts had those two players in the same class and very close. One team could of had Tkachuk higher and one team could of had Juolevi higher. Ultimately, Mark Edwards and McKenzie had Tkachuk ranked one spot higher. Somehow you're treating this as proof that Tkachuk is the BPA and selecting anyone else is a reach etc etc. Again. Don't be cheap. Buy the draft guide. And put their rankings into context if you're going to rely on them.

When teams come up with their draft list, they don't just submit their least and average things out. They argue it and explain why. If one scout's only reason for having a top 10 player out of the top 30 is because he thinks his skating sucks but every one else thinks his scouting isn't a problem, you think his ranking should be pulled down based on this one scout's view? Your answer would be yes.




I didn't reject anything. I haven't read all of those sources or heard why they ranked certain players that way. I am just telling you that at least a couple of sources you rely on I know the basis for their rankings. For example, McKenzie's rankings is based on the polling of 10 scouts. He often explains why certain players are ranked ahead of others and that includes the number of 1st place votes, the number of top 5 rankings etc. If you don't consider what goes into those rankings then those rankings are rather meaningless. You don't see that. That's the problem. It's black or white for you. Hate to live in your world.



Lol. You never realize that your logic is warped and no one is actually cornered by you? I don't know what to tell you. You constant try to corner someone body in discussions but you never do because whenever you often think a poster has made an admission that totally wins the argument for you when it doesn't.



It's only big admissions because you have this warped perception of what I think. One is in the NHL playing a 1st line role. One isn't and isn't expected to come in an be an impact player.

Seriously. It's like you have no reading comprehension at all. You have this stuck idea in your head and want to corner posters into making "admissions' whereby in your head you're like "aha I am right."

Also of note,..8 out of the 10 scouts that are Bob McKenzies sources are Head Scouts...To be completely accurate,Bob McK has no opinion on the individual players whatsover,....It is a last minute consensus of individual team BPA'a,and it what order they will be picked.

 

[F A N]

1. It was not reasonable for the Canucks to pick Juolevi over Tkachuk. I'm saying their process was wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not the only and final arbiter of reasonableness.

3. The Canucks made an incorrect projection while McKenzie and Edwards made a correct projection. Even with their rationale of class, the latter sources ranked Tkachuk ahead. On the opposite end, the Canucks' incorrect process and thinking led them to an incorrect result.
...
What are you going on about? I'm taking the averages to normalize data. It's so the "terrible scouts" don't throw off the result of the good to great scouts. This is why I've asked you to vet the sources. You didn't eliminate any of them. So why are you talking about the averages being a bad thing? Oh, they lack context? Ok, let's move to your own sources. Is their ranking meaningful or not? They provided context and a ranking, after all.

McKenzie doesn't project anything. Did you read what Mark Edwards and his staff wrote?

Again. Don't be cheap. If you're going to rely on a draft guide's rankings, presumably you think the draft guide has done the work and seen the kid play. If you're going to rely on a draft guide's rankings, at least read what they have to say about the prospects and try to gleam the process in which they came to having certain players ranked higher. Maybe they tell you right there in the guide. Go and buy the draft guides and read things for yourself.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

Hav we acquired Tkachuk yet?

 

[F A N]

Also of note,..8 out of the 10 scouts that are Bob McKenzies sources are Head Scouts...To be completely accurate,Bob McK has no opinion on the individual players whatsover,....It is a last minute consensus of individual team BPA'a,and it what order they will be picked.

Are they head scouts? I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for that. Yes Bob McKenzie doesn't give an opinion. For some reason Ronning on Empty thinks McKenzie projects players, which isn't surprising since he just looks at his rankings and ignore McKenzie's explanation? Not sure why since it's free to read. I think McKenzie's list is the most accurate predictor of how the draft would go in the first round.

 

[Scott Stevens]

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not the only and final arbiter of reasonableness.



McKenzie doesn't project anything. Did you read what Mark Edwards and his staff wrote?

Again. Don't be cheap. If you're going to rely on a draft guide's rankings, presumably you think the draft guide has done the work and seen the kid play. If you're going to rely on a draft guide's rankings, at least read what they have to say about the prospects and try to gleam the process in which they came to having certain players ranked higher. Maybe they tell you right there in the guide. Go and buy the draft guides and read things for yourself.

Glean. That’s the one for this.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not the only and final arbiter of reasonableness.

No, but I think a large sample of scouting opinion at the time serves as the best gauge. You use 2-3 hand picked quotes. I use full lists from 14 different sources, including the same sources that provided you those quotes. Somehow, you think my research is lacking and yours is the more accurate barometer...? Weird. I'm including your evidence and still countering your point with even more evidence. How then can you possibly believe that Tkachuk was not generally regarded as the better player? It's mind boggling. Anyone reading this should be concluding the same. In fact, Pitseleh posted about this very same thing independent of our conversation. He too remarked that it wasn't close, at all. Only you think it was close due to a few quotes.

Everyone reasoned that Tkachuk was ahead. Everyone. Not a single source agreed with your interpretation via ranking.

McKenzie doesn't project anything. Did you read what Mark Edwards and his staff wrote?

Again. Don't be cheap. If you're going to rely on a draft guide's rankings, presumably you think the draft guide has done the work and seen the kid play. If you're going to rely on a draft guide's rankings, at least read what they have to say about the prospects and try to gleam the process in which they came to having certain players ranked higher. Maybe they tell you right there in the guide. Go and buy the draft guides and read things for yourself.

When I say Mckenzie "projects", it should be understood that I am referring to the 10 scouts behind his ranking. Or, did you need me to point that out to you explicitly every time out?

You want me to GLEAM (do you mean glean?) the process they utilized when ranking certain players higher, but not pay attention to who they ended up ranking higher... That's a great bit of common sense right there. Forget the result of the rationale, and only focus on the rationale. Not both. Just the rationale. Hmmm... awesome!

I've learned that when you probably look at a ranking from a vetted source, you assume that no due diligence or rationale went into it... If you can't see a quote, it's meaningless. Maybe some sub-employee at Hockey Prospect was throwing darts on a board to get to a list. Then, some writer comes along and fills in the blanks, to make the rankings legit. No one is thinking about the order before that writer comes along and writes. Darts on a board they are. The order is random. Has to be. The list has no meaning. It doesn't actually mean that that writer or employee thinks one player is better than the other. Nah, that can't be it, can it? There are no quotes!