Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[Gaudette Celly]

38 minutes ago, Kaner said:

Since 2013 (excluding 2017 of course) there's only been a few prospects drafted in the top 5 who haven't made an immediate impact. Namely MIchael Dal Colle and Bennet, both players who probably shouldn't have been drafted where they were. 

 

Based on what, hindsight?  They were universally considered to be in the group of 5 set apart at the top end of the draft in 2014.  Bennett in fact was ranked #1 by many at different points in the season.

[cyoung]

3 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Based on what, hindsight?  They were universally considered to be in the group of 5 set apart at the top end of the draft in 2014.  Bennett in fact was ranked #1 by many at different points in the season.

Exactly, it's easy to assess a few years down the road. All these players still have opportunity. Not every player becomes who they were scouted to be. 

[Rocksterh8]

12 hours ago, J-Dizzle said:

Hindsight is great.  The only player I remember anyone being surprised Juolevi jumped was Tkachuk.  

I'm sorry you have Dementia 

[Hairy Kneel]

OJ looks 3 years away.

Which isn't the end of the world considering where our team is developmentally..

[Fan since 82]

9 hours ago, gameburn2 said:

Yes, the D just could not hold the line or defend well at all.  Not bad with the puck, but hopeless defending. 

And you have to draft high-end D; just look at how their respective teams acquired: Doughty, Keith, Karlsson. 

Bad luck with Tryamkin, but he may come back some day. 

 

While not wanting to generalize too much, it does seem like the best D are coming out of Canada and Sweden.  Some good players from Finland too, but in general, Canada and Sweden seem to produce the majority. 

While he became a great player, at the time he was drafted (54th overall) Duncan Keith was hardly considered to be a high end d-man.  There were also quite a few other d taken before Karlsson in 2008, and while he had a high ceiling there are 12 other teams who probably wish they had taken him instead of who they picked (pretty sure Tampa and LA were happy with their picks). You are right though we do need top end D, it's just that this scouting and drafting thing isn't as easy as it looks.

[J-Dizzle]

58 minutes ago, Rocksterh8 said:

I'm sorry you have Dementia 

Refresh my geriatric memory.....

[Phat Fingers]

10 hours ago, Kaner said:

The problem with Juolevi is that his development has been stagnant. He hasn't really improved since he was drafted, which is inexcusable for someone picked that high. You can take Tkachuk out of the equation and still be upset over the Juolevi pick.  

How do you base this?  Stats alone or are you considering quality of competition, d pairings and deployment?  Cause if you look at how Dale Hunter used OJ from two seasons ago to last season, they are very different. 

 

Last year OJ was tasked with the 9 highest quality of competition in the OHL, paired with a rookie d man and was the primary plenaty killer.

 

His PP time was reduced and he was tasked with shutting down the other teams top lines.  That and the team as a whole was weaker than the previous one.  

 

So taken in that light, did OJ stagnate or grow while maintaining his point totals?  

 

Added to that OJ is roughly 20lbs heavier than last year. Look at how Jake is doing, finally matched his size with conditioning, which took almost 3 years to get to a decent pro level. 

 

OJ is in the same period of development, his IQ and skill is their, but he does need a year or two of Pro development, one in Europe and one in the AHL before he is ready. How is that not normal?  He was the smartest d man in his draft class. The other top d men got there based on physical attributes.  Would you rather have the smart guy get stronger or try to make the strong guys smarter?  

 

EmW

 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by Eastcoast meets Westcoast

[aGENT]

14 hours ago, runtzguy said:

I have to admit. I was excited when Juolevi was drafted. However, I do not know why but Juolevi looks like $&!# in the preseason game and the penticton games. His passes were always too hard for the forwards to receive and his defense is lackluster especially when a forward challenges him. 

 

Not sure what his problem is cause he looks different from his draft year. The problem I see with Juolevi right now is that he is slow to react to everything on the ice. EX: defending, passing, and shooting. 

Players like him excel more in structured games with pros. In a game with a bunch of kids playing scrambly, out of position hockey and who can't take a hard pass...not so much.

 

He's also likely adjusting to his new weight he added this summer. 

 

And he's only 19.

 

With some additional practice time and more preseason games, he likely starts to look better IMO.

 

That said, very few people had him penciled on the Canucks and we have zero need to have him here. This year in London or Finland, next year in Utica with call ups. CDC can collectively come down off the ledge now.

Edited September 19, 2017 by J.R.

[aGENT]

11 hours ago, Kaner said:

The problem with Juolevi is that his development has been stagnant. He hasn't really improved since he was drafted, which is inexcusable for someone picked that high. You can take Tkachuk out of the equation and still be upset over the Juolevi pick.  

 

18 hours ago, J.R. said:

No, stat-watchers would actually be the problem.

 

He put up the same points offensively, playing a harder, more defensive role, against the highest QOC all while sheltering a rookie on an inferior team. His year was perfectly fine.

 

Even the Canucks/Benning haters at Canucks Army are on side:

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2017/09/07/canucks-army-pre-season-prospect-profiles-3-olli-juolevi/

 

[MattJVD]

55 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Players like him excel more in structured games with pros. In a game with a bunch of kids playing scrambly, out of position hockey and who can't take a hard pass...not so much.

 

He's also likely adjusting to his new weight he added this summer. 

 

And he's only 19.

 

With some additional practice time and more preseason games, he likely starts to look better IMO.

 

That said, very few people had him penciled on the Canucks and we have zero need to have him here. This year in London or Finland, next year in Utica with call ups. CDC can collectively come down off the ledge now.

Yeah, I noticed some of his passes seemed "too hard". I agree that's not really a fault, better players would have no trouble receiving those.

[R3aL]

Gotta say we have the right to react to Juolevi's disappointing performances.

 

We invested a very important top 5 pick in him, he was the first dman and after him our dline pipeline is VERY thin.

 

Chychrun and Sergachev both currently are looking like better dmen.

 

Yes Dmen take longer, and we have to be understanding to the fact that he just wasted away in the OHL after winning everything with better teams both London and Finland.

 

Sergachev almost made Montreal out of camp but went back to the OHL and improved his game.

 

This year is extremely important for Juolevi, he must make big strides in Finland with Salo and make up for the year of regression/stagnation.

 

Its hard to argue against:

• Virtanen over: Nylander/Ritchie/Ehlers etc.
• Juolevi over: Tkachuk/Sergachev
• McCann for Gudbranson
•  

Virtanen I am less worried about after this preseason but cannot help be worried about Juolevi.

 

His biggest pro was his hockey IQ and decision making? Yet he made many bad mental mistake in a prospect tournament and preseason, that is concerning.

 

Time will tell but this is a very important year for Juolevi, I hope he:

• Goes to Finland plays for Salo against men, and learns how to develop a Salo Clapper and is challenged to improve his overall game.
• Has a strong camp next year, doesn't make the team, but has a strong year in Utica
• Makes the team as an injury call-up and stays or makes the team the following year.

Dmen like Juolevi do take longer, and the timeline could workout best for our teams rebuild timeline, but this year has scared me for his future.

 

[messier's_elbow]

Anyone freaking about Juolevi needs to chill. He's a 19 year old Dman.....

[Derp...]

1 hour ago, Rocksterh8 said:

Such a lame excuse, can't you come up with anything better than that?

Two top young d prospects, Chabot and McAvoy, both are 97 birthdays, Juolevi is a season behind those guys. Give him a year.

[DeNiro]

4 hours ago, R3aL said:

Chychrun and Sergachev both currently are looking like better dmen.

 

Yes Dmen take longer, and we have to be understanding to the fact that he just wasted away in the OHL after winning everything with better teams both London and Finland.

 

Sergachev almost made Montreal out of camp but went back to the OHL and improved his game.

Sergachev went back to a stacked Windsor team, whereas Juolevi went back to a depleted London team. To compare their performances in their draft +1 seasons isn't really fair.

 

Both of these players can play in the NHL because of their size and strength, but from what I've seen neither of them play a very smart game. It would surprise me if either of them became more than a #3-4 Dman.

 

Juolevi may be more of a gamble but I think his IQ at least gives him a chance to be a solid number 2 guy. He still needs to get stronger and learn how to deal with the physical aspect of the game. Which he'll likely do in Finland this season.

Edited September 19, 2017 by DeNiro

[aGENT]

4 hours ago, R3aL said:

This year is extremely important for Juolevi, he must make big strides in Finland with Salo and make up for the year of regression/stagnation.

 

On 9/18/2017 at 2:32 PM, J.R. said:

No, stat-watchers would actually be the problem.

 

He put up the same points offensively, playing a harder, more defensive role, against the highest QOC all while sheltering a rookie on an inferior team. His year was perfectly fine.

 

Even the Canucks/Benning haters at Canucks Army are on side:

 

https://canucksarmy.com/2017/09/07/canucks-army-pre-season-prospect-profiles-3-olli-juolevi/

 

[Rocksterh8]

21 hours ago, runtzguy said:

I have to admit. I was excited when Juolevi was drafted. However, I do not know why but Juolevi looks like $&!# in the preseason game and the penticton games. His passes were always too hard for the forwards to receive and his defense is lackluster especially when a forward challenges him. 

 

Not sure what his problem is cause he looks different from his draft year. The problem I see with Juolevi right now is that he is slow to react to everything on the ice. EX: defending, passing, and shooting. 

I was not happy when JB drafted him and I'm not happy with his development now. I have watched him play a few times and every time I could not see what Jim keeps saying about him... he's very smart with the puck, smart with his positioning and quit type of leader....  I still have not seen any of those things and until I do he will not make the NHL anytime soon, maybe never.

[Junkyard Dog]

I am not worried. To early to make judgments.

[gameburn2]

9 hours ago, Fan since 82 said:

While he became a great player, at the time he was drafted (54th overall) Duncan Keith was hardly considered to be a high end d-man.  There were also quite a few other d taken before Karlsson in 2008, and while he had a high ceiling there are 12 other teams who probably wish they had taken him instead of who they picked (pretty sure Tampa and LA were happy with their picks). You are right though we do need top end D, it's just that this scouting and drafting thing isn't as easy as it looks.

When it comes to D, I agree completely.  There are just too many Olympic quality D taken in later rounds to say that you make or break your chances on the first round.  I think that in the past (prior to Benning in particular) there was a tendency to choose many more forwards than D.  I could imagine a team deciding on 3 forwards, 3 D, and a goalie, maybe, every draft.  Doesn't work that way i imagine. But D are so important -- and the position is so open to change (Orr, Burns, Robinson, Karlsson, Pronger... all D!) that you need a range of them and plenty.  

 

From the look of the last 10 or even 20 drafts, I think the high-end forwards -- generationals and just below that -- are pretty obvious choices.  The D?  How good is Sergachev?  We passed on him for Juolevi (not my choice lol) but how good is he?  Better than any of Team Canada's D of Sochi?  Some of whom were not first rounders?   

[thrago]

6 hours ago, R3aL said:

Gotta say we have the right to react to Juolevi's disappointing performances.

 

We invested a very important top 5 pick in him, he was the first dman and after him our dline pipeline is VERY thin.

 

Chychrun and Sergachev both currently are looking like better dmen.

 

Yes Dmen take longer, and we have to be understanding to the fact that he just wasted away in the OHL after winning everything with better teams both London and Finland.

 

Sergachev almost made Montreal out of camp but went back to the OHL and improved his game.

 

This year is extremely important for Juolevi, he must make big strides in Finland with Salo and make up for the year of regression/stagnation.

 

Its hard to argue against:

• Virtanen over: Nylander/Ritchie/Ehlers etc.
• Juolevi over: Tkachuk/Sergachev
• McCann for Gudbranson
•  

Virtanen I am less worried about after this preseason but cannot help be worried about Juolevi.

 

His biggest pro was his hockey IQ and decision making? Yet he made many bad mental mistake in a prospect tournament and preseason, that is concerning.

 

Time will tell but this is a very important year for Juolevi, I hope he:

• Goes to Finland plays for Salo against men, and learns how to develop a Salo Clapper and is challenged to improve his overall game.
• Has a strong camp next year, doesn't make the team, but has a strong year in Utica
• Makes the team as an injury call-up and stays or makes the team the following year.

Dmen like Juolevi do take longer, and the timeline could workout best for our teams rebuild timeline, but this year has scared me for his future.

 

I want to appologize upfront for going off topic, but I don't think it's worth making it's own thread about and it's something I just can't understand. I am asking this out of pure ignorance not to start an argument. I just want to know the answer.

 

The post that I quoted received two negatives. Why? I thought negatives where for people being D*cks or really argumentative, trolls or something?  Am I wrong?

 

To me this post seems well thought out and articulated although I don't agree with all of his/her opinion I do appreciate it and the effort it took. 

 

Sorry again I am not trying to start an argument I truly want to know if negatives are for what I thought they where for or if they are just for anyone you disagree with?

 

Again I know this is the wrong place for this I don't know the right place and if a moderator wants to just pm me the answer and erase this post I am totally cool with that. Thank you.

[GrizzlyAdams]

36 minutes ago, Rocksterh8 said:

Your dribble is so meaningless it's not worth my time.

 

31 minutes ago, canuckledraggin said:

cool 1 liner. apparently is was worth your time, but you came up with this drivel. ( Pssst...it's drivel. Maybe clean your  bib of the dribble and get .back to me once you've hit puberty).

 

/headshot

 

25 minutes ago, Rocksterh8 said:

nope, with you its definitely dribble, look at your icon you basement dweller.

 

23 minutes ago, canuckledraggin said:

That only took 5 minutes. I'm impressed.