Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr. Canucklehead

Kitimat Canuck
Dec 14, 2002
40,600
31,639
Kitimat, BC
What do you think of Schroeder, Hodgson, Jensen and Shinkaruk? Still too early to tell, right?

Slightly OT, but - Jensen is putting up some pretty damn good numbers in the KHL. I wonder if he ever gets another shot in North America (or if he ever decides to give North America another shot).
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,905
9,588
Injuries curtailed Hodgson and Shinkaruk’s careers (in the case of Hodgson, it ended it). Much like injuries are putting a serious roadblock in OJ’s development.

at a certain point you cannot look at injuries as just annoying temporary interruptions but rather as a defining elements of a career.

juolevi has a chance for redemption still, but it will take a lot now for those injuries not to be a prominent part of his story.
 

iceburg

Don't ask why
Aug 31, 2003
7,645
4,026
Great points... except draft position has a ton to do with development as has been talked about for years now.

The higher you go in the draft the sooner you should be in the NHL this is because you are already advanced when drafter. Your improvements show your growth, your lack of improvements in this case shows a lack of growth, and no one should expect someone on a flat growth rate to suddenly make leaps and bounds of improvement.

This has been talked about in this thread just as much as Joulevi being a bust, but some posters want to try ignore this fact.
Fair enough but I think the jury is in on the development based on draft position. He is what he is today and I prefer to look forward to what he might become based on his age and current development status. What does he have to improve in order to be an impactful NHL defenseman? What is his upside? I think the last question is a good way to distinguish why it works better to focus on now rather than 2016. When he was drafted his upside was a top pairing D-man with a probability of reaching that upside being moderately high. Now it's probably middle pairing with a low probability.
 

Hodgy

Registered User
Feb 23, 2012
4,338
4,341
at a certain point you cannot look at injuries as just annoying temporary interruptions but rather as a defining elements of a career.

juolevi has a chance for redemption still, but it will take a lot now for those injuries not to be a prominent part of his story.

To be clear though, Juolevi wasn't a great prospect tracking well that had injury troubles that derailed his career or development (e.g., Hodgson). He was a prospect that was not tracking well but then had injuries.
 

racerjoe

Registered User
Jun 3, 2012
12,194
5,899
Vancouver
Fair enough but I think the jury is in on the development based on draft position. He is what he is today and I prefer to look forward to what he might become based on his age and current development status. What does he have to improve in order to be an impactful NHL defenseman? What is his upside? I think the last question is a good way to distinguish why it works better to focus on now rather than 2016. When he was drafted his upside was a top pairing D-man with a probability of reaching that upside being moderately high. Now it's probably middle pairing with a low probability.

But you have to look at where he has come from to see what he could be. Is he improving? If so at what rate?
 

sting101

Registered User
Feb 8, 2012
15,951
14,866
To be clear though, Juolevi wasn't a great prospect tracking well that had injury troubles that derailed his career or development (e.g., Hodgson). He was a prospect that was not tracking well but then had injuries.
How is he different than Hodgson?
 

sting101

Registered User
Feb 8, 2012
15,951
14,866
Probably that Hodgson had an absolutely tremendous D+1 season?
Yes but it was junior. Juolevi won gold in the U20s, Mem cup blah blah blah.

Hodgson looked bad at camp just like Juolevi did and struggled in his transition to pro hockey. Both had/have skating issues it seems.

They're actually good comparisons at this point
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hindustan Smyl

vanuck

Now with 100% less Benning!
Dec 28, 2009
16,804
4,036
Yes but it was junior. Juolevi won gold in the U20s, Mem cup blah blah blah.

Hodgson looked bad at camp just like Juolevi did and struggled in his transition to pro hockey. Both had/have skating issues it seems.

They're actually good comparisons at this point
Difference is Hodgson was already a contributing young NHL'er by his D+4 season, while Juolevi in his D+4 today hasn't separated himself from the rest of the pack at the AHL level.
 

RobertKron

Registered User
Sep 1, 2007
15,516
8,652
Yes but it was junior. Juolevi won gold in the U20s, Mem cup blah blah blah.

Hodgson looked bad at camp just like Juolevi did and struggled in his transition to pro hockey. Both had/have skating issues it seems.

They're actually good comparisons at this point

Juolevi is in his D+4. In Hodgson's D+4, he scored 19 goals in the NHL.
 

Motte and Bailey

Registered User
Jun 21, 2017
3,692
1,556
Difference is Hodgson was already a contributing young NHL'er by his D+4 season, while Juolevi in his D+4 today hasn't separated himself from the rest of the pack at the AHL level.

‘You said that Juolevi never separated himself from the pack and that’s wrong. He scored at a historically good pace in the AHL for his age group last year and is looking good this year. Does he take over games and singlehandedly dominate? No.

Juolevi’s playstyle isn’t suited to dominating games by himself, he is a pass first defender who plays a more subtle supportive role. Some of his tools are absolutely elite and he is playing well in all situations at the AHL level right now. He should get a look in the NHL soon. Is he behind schedule by a year or two? Sure but that can largely be attributed to injuries. He is 21 years old but since he got drafted he has missed over a season of development and multiple summers of training due to injury so realistically I look at him as I would a 19 year old prospect right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hindustan Smyl

settinguptheplay

Classless Canuck Fan
Apr 3, 2008
2,629
873
Absolutely elite, but subtle in the AHL. Injuries make you younger. Okay.

That is not what he said. You have managed to twist every one of his points.

I do agree that some of what he wrote was exaggerated. If OJ has an elite skill it is his first pass. Which is magnificent. So "some of his tools" would not be accurate. He has one potentially elite skill. The point that his injuries have hampered his development putting his path equal to that of a 19 year old. Again, I think exaggerated but the point is fair. He has missed almost 2 years of development. Fair to say he has not had the same development path as others in his draft class.
 

RobertKron

Registered User
Sep 1, 2007
15,516
8,652
That is not what he said. You have managed to twist every one of his points.

I do agree that some of what he wrote was exaggerated. If OJ has an elite skill it is his first pass. Which is magnificent. So "some of his tools" would not be accurate. He has one potentially elite skill. The point that his injuries have hampered his development putting his path equal to that of a 19 year old. Again, I think exaggerated but the point is fair. He has missed almost 2 years of development. Fair to say he has not had the same development path as others in his draft class.

That's not how it works, though. This is basically the same dumb argument as when people were trying to claim that it was a good thing that Mackenze Stewart didn't start playing hockey until late, because it meant that he had X number of extra years of development that other players had already used up. It's completely asinine.
 

Lonny Bohonos

Registered User
Apr 4, 2010
15,645
2,060
Middle East
That's not how it works, though. This is basically the same dumb argument as when people were trying to claim that it was a good thing that Mackenze Stewart didn't start playing hockey until late, because it meant that he had X number of extra years of development that other players had already used up. It's completely asinine.
Sounds like Trumps battery argument. Lol
 

bossram

Registered User
Sep 25, 2013
15,606
14,885
Victoria
Yes but it was junior. Juolevi won gold in the U20s, Mem cup blah blah blah.

Hodgson looked bad at camp just like Juolevi did and struggled in his transition to pro hockey. Both had/have skating issues it seems.

They're actually good comparisons at this point

I really disagree.

Hodgson's D+1 was phenomenal. There was a lot of growth there. Then he ran into injury trouble. But he managed it well enough to become a pretty useful NHLer (which OJ is nowhere near at this point). He was still tracking upward. Until the degenerative condition he had derailed his career.
 

settinguptheplay

Classless Canuck Fan
Apr 3, 2008
2,629
873
That's not how it works, though. This is basically the same dumb argument as when people were trying to claim that it was a good thing that Mackenze Stewart didn't start playing hockey until late, because it meant that he had X number of extra years of development that other players had already used up. It's completely asinine.

I do not disagree with that but I do not think that is what he was implying. What I understood is that due to Juolevi's injury past he is more likely to compare him to someone younger in their development. Does not mean he can't bust still. Or he gets a freebie reset in his development. He is saying, in short, i think, that Juolevi might need more time to get a fair assessment of where he is in his development curve. Comparative to his draft peers. Whom for the most part have not had development and off season training derailed due to injuries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad