Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
- Status
Are you suggesting that Tkachuk is in the same class as those two? Hahaha
Nah man OJ Isn’t that good but he’s better than that flame
Chairman Maouth
Retired Staff
How do you know? Until Juolevi plays an NHL game we can pretend he’s gonna be the best player ever to wear hockey skates. That’s the fun part about this. No one can say you’re wrong for sure, so why not shoot for the moon? Juolevi >>> Bobby Orr AINEC. It’s all made up anyway.
DL44
Status quo
Pavel96
Registered User
- Apr 7, 2015
- 2,452
- 2,318
Austin and Patrik are already closer to their potential ceiling, where as Olli made great strides last year and Sami Salo said he will definitely make the team next year.
I agree that you’re determined to believe whatever you want. Just saying you should aim higher. No sense wasting a good fantasy on just Tkachuk.
Don’t be modest. You know Liiga is better than NHL. That’s how Juolevi can be better than Tkachuk. Otherwise your make believe world doesn’t make any sense.
Hmmm, I’m not sure I actually did. And I definitely don’t agree your world isn’t make believe. I’m just saying you shouldn’t limit your make believe to just Tkachuk. Raise your standards man!!
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."
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,044
- 6,610
I'm going to condense this for people just skipping over your posts entirely:
1. Your argument for years has been "the Canucks had Juolevi as their BPA" = Who cares. The premise of this discussion is that the Canucks were wrong to have Juolevi as their BPA.
2. Your argument for years has been that Mckenzie, Botchford and Edwards had Juolevi "in the same class as Tkachuk," and so the pick was reasonable = "Reasonable" does not mean "best pick". They prove this by both ranking Tkachuk as the best pick. If it was reasonable to rank Juolevi ahead, why didn't they do so? Why didn't any of the other 12 sources?
3. You're telling me to buy the guides to understand the context of the rankings. If every single guide concurs that "Juolevi was in the same class as Tkachuk", it doesn't help you. Why? Because they all still chose to value Tkachuk more _within_that_class_, just like the rankings of McKenzie and Edwards do. Your point is irrelevant and actually pushes your rationale towards selection bias, picking and choosing context to make your case.
At every turn, your rationale is running into roadblocks. The same sources you are relying on ranked Tkachuk ahead. Every other source (12 cited) also ranked Tkachuk ahead. Not one ranked Juolevi ahead. Tkachuk also finished ahead in aggregate by 3 spots. Not one, but 3. That's a landslide in one direction...
Your quote "If you don't consider what goes into those rankings then those rankings are rather meaningless".
This is the foolishness of your stance: By your own admission, you know exactly what went into the rankings made by Edwards, Botchford and McKenzie. These rankings, per your own rationale, have then become _meaningful_. Yet for these very same sources, you devalue their ranking in face of the explanation. Why? Make sense of this double standard, if you can?
Each source has a rationale that leads toward a final thought, which is the ranking. You're _choosing_ to promote the rationale only and dismissing the final thought. It's completely warped. Shouldn't you value the rankings just as much or more? It is the end result of all of their hard work. Why think of only the work?
Last edited:
Lol. Again you misinterpret and misconstrue. Aren't you all about the process? If the Canucks had Juolevi as their BPA and it's reasonable for them to do so, why are you taking issue with the process? If you disagree with their choice and criticize the results that would be fine.
What McKenzie and Edwards alluded to is that teams could reasonably choose Juolevi over Tkachuk. What Botchford alluded to is that smart people in the NHL told him that the Canucks made a wise choice. If we are to use a comparison, my argument is that it's clearly apples vs oranges. Your argument is that one is more popular and that is the "best pick"
Can't you think for yourself? I'm pretty sure you made posts valuing 1st line winger vs 2nd pairing D. At the end of the day, you're projecting players. I don't know about you, but I would choose based on a variety of factors. Good draft guides are suppose to accurately point out factors that enter the equation. For example, if a player's main weakness is his skating, it's fair to determine that player's ranking based on whether or not the player's skating is going to hold him back in the NHL. PLD was more often ranked ahead of Tkachuk essentially based on ability to play C and skating alone. If Tkachuk was a C and had PLD's skating, he would have ranked ahead of PLD period.
Again. You are just too ___ to get it.
It's foolish for you to take your stance. Again, the reference to Botchford is that smart NHL people told him that the Canucks made a wise pick. The others came up with rankings based on their own rationale which could be mere consensus. What you are doing is simply taking averages. If you have 2 super scouts and 8 terrible scouts and the 2 super scouts ranked Juolevi ahead and 8 terrible scouts had Tkachuk ahead, you would have ranked Tkachuk higher by a wide margin. Capiche? No? Ya I thought so.
If you are looking to purchase something and asked for advice and 8 out of 10 people tell you to purchase product A because it is a better value even though all 8 people tell you that B is better if you don't consider costs then YOU would purchase A based on "consensus." But your rationale is completely foolish if you don't consider the reasons behind that recommendation and how it fits YOUR needs.[/QUOTE]
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,044
- 6,610
1. It was not reasonable for the Canucks to pick Juolevi over Tkachuk. I'm saying their process was wrong. The common insight at the time was that Tkachuk was more favoured across the board. So how can reaching for an alternative be considered reasonable? It's can't be. Even if these same sources say it is. They themselves all put Tkachuk ahead in the end. They didn't reach. Pay attention to this action.
2. That a team could choose one over the other, does not mean that they should choose one over the other. You're using class to justify a reach. While I'm saying that there was a BPA within that range, and it was a reach to move away from him. My evidence is your very own sources picking Tkachuk, as well as 12 other rankings picking Tkachuk. If any thought it was reasonable to pick Juolevi ahead, why didn't they? Not a single source liked him better. Apples, oranges or whatever.
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.
What about the _unanimous_ vote for Tkachuk? Any thoughts on that? Did they all have it wrong then?
Last, you're saying the others (other scouting services) could have come up with their rankings per their own rationale, which could have been a consensus of their employees. Ok, how do the employees come up with their rationale? At some point, somebody over there has to sit down and think through a list. Meaning, the rankings have a rationale behind them. You don't know it, but you can't dismiss them just because you don't know it. You have to prove that the rankings were arrived at _without_ a rationale. Without context. That's the only way you can dismiss them. Otherwise, we have to assume a rationale was used to arrive at player A is better than player B.
Last edited:
- Status
