Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[GritGrinder]

Just now, The Lock said:

Wow, is bringing some positivity too much for you or something?

 

I had looked at Nux's comment earlier going "I like that we have some optimism happening." I should have known someone would bring in the pessimism.

Sorry dude, but when I see a completely idiotic post like that I just have to call it out.

[The Lock]

Just now, GritGrinder said:

Sorry dude, but when I see a completely idiotic post like that I just have to call it out.

Wow, and then we go into insults automatically.

 

You sound like the kind of person I wouldn't want to hang out with in real life. No offence.

[Rob_Zepp]

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

“He has a tendency sometimes to look like he’s disinterested, even though he’s not,” Salo said. “Body language is very important in the NHL. You can’t have bad body language. He has to show he’s really into the games and wants to be out there.

“He got better this year as the season went on.”

 

 

A lot different than saying "he is lazy".   

Edited December 4, 2018 by Rob_Zepp

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

I posted that more than a week ago man. 

 

Anyway, @ForsbergTheGreat already found the Salo quote for you. 

 

Please just put me on ignore. It feels like you specifically have quoted me in this thread more than everyone else in every other thread combined. Just let it sleep. 

Your constant bashing of this one player needs a sense of balance.   Consider it a civic duty.      At least you have moved on from Virtanen.

[Rob_Zepp]

1 hour ago, The Lock said:

If you need a link to Forsberg's post:

 

https://theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/canucks-top-prospects-no-2-olli-juolevi

 

Also, if you think that's character assassination, I wonder what you think of people who are actually giving pessimistic comments....

What Salo said and what was implied are different things.   Further, FTG has a consistency to his posts and I agree with him quite often, the other poster in question only bashes certain players and this one in particular (having moved on from Virtanen).

[Kanukfanatic]

15 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

There was hardly any concern shown before we knew it would only be 3 weeks and there was a lack of relief shown when we heard to good news that he would only miss 3 weeks.  Hughes, Boeser, Petterson etc would gain a lot more attention, that's all I'm saying.

 

 

Oh look. The guy that is always negative. Big surprise he is saying the sky is falling once gain. 

[mll]

 

3 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

He's playing for a pretty bad club.  Horvat was -30 a couple seasons ago.  It's a stat that doesn't mean much without context.

Assistant coach Gary Agnew, who is responsible for the Ds in Utica, on Juolevi's minuses last month:  "Certainly he’s not fully responsible for all those minuses. But when there’s a little bit of a trend, there’s a trend."  Says he needs to get better at defending and learn how to play at AHL pace.

 

With Sutter out injured Baer-Horvat and often Vrbata were the Canucks main shutdown line starting primarily in the d-zone.  Juolevi is used in offensive situations in Utica with heavy o-zone starts.  

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by mll

[Kanukfanatic]

14 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

This was one of the bigger triggers I've seen in awhile...chill out man.

 

Hardly any of this makes any sense, anyways..I literally read this paragraph 10 times and couldn't figure out how to answer it.  Why would I want him to sit in the pressbox or play just 5 minutes? I dont get it.  

 

I'll just admit I was wrong.  People aren't disappointed with his progression, not at all

Go back to your Leafs thread dude. Seriously, why come here and just diss everything about the Canucks?

[krutovsdonut]

juolevi is a weird polarizing case.  he's following a physical development pace more typical for a mid 1st or later pick, yet still showing tantalizing signs of living up to his draft position.  he's certainly not a bust, but bust against expectations is a real possibility.  i still cannot tell if he is more like hickey or lidstrom as two opposite extremes.  i feel like there is potentially a step he can take that will lead to a shocking positive transformation in his game.  otoh, the folks who would vote hickey certainly have a point at this point.  he was drafted as a peer of patrick laine and puljujarvi for his skill in feeding them the puck.   three years later he is not the only member of that triumverate whose ceiling is now in doubt.

 

 

 

 

[stawns]

52 minutes ago, krutovsdonut said:

juolevi is a weird polarizing case.  he's following a physical development pace more typical for a mid 1st or later pick, yet still showing tantalizing signs of living up to his draft position.  he's certainly not a bust, but bust against expectations is a real possibility.  i still cannot tell if he is more like hickey or lidstrom as two opposite extremes.  i feel like there is potentially a step he can take that will lead to a shocking positive transformation in his game.  otoh, the folks who would vote hickey certainly have a point at this point.  he was drafted as a peer of patrick laine and puljujarvi for his skill in feeding them the puck.   three years later he is not the only member of that triumverate whose ceiling is now in doubt.

 

 

 

 

for a fwd, maybe

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, krutovsdonut said:

juolevi is a weird polarizing case.  he's following a physical development pace more typical for a mid 1st or later pick, yet still showing tantalizing signs of living up to his draft position.  he's certainly not a bust, but bust against expectations is a real possibility.  i still cannot tell if he is more like hickey or lidstrom as two opposite extremes.  i feel like there is potentially a step he can take that will lead to a shocking positive transformation in his game.  otoh, the folks who would vote hickey certainly have a point at this point.  he was drafted as a peer of patrick laine and puljujarvi for his skill in feeding them the puck.   three years later he is not the only member of that triumverate whose ceiling is now in doubt.

 

 

 

 

Have to wonder how he would do feeding Boeser and Pettersson.

[krutovsdonut]

15 minutes ago, stawns said:

for a fwd, maybe

 

no, for a dman.

 

josh morrissey and thomas chabot are recent examples of mid 1st round dman picks who spent time in the ahl in their d+3 seasons and turned out just fine.   

 

morrissey spent two years in junior after the draft then went to the ahl d+3 and got into a single nhl game

 

chabot also spent two years in junior after the draft.  he did get into a single nhl game d+2 then went back to junior.  for d+3 he played 13 games in the ahl and was called up and stuck.  

 

so, right now, juolevi with 18 games played is 5 ahl games behind chabot and tracking the same as morrissey.  arguably he is ahead of morrissey since he played last year in a pro league instead of junior.

 

incidentally, chabot was -10 in his 13 ahl d+3 games.  morrissey was -9 in 57 ahl games his d+3 ahl season.  and juolevi so far is out-ppg-ing both of them in the ahl.

 

so, on paper at least, he's as good a prospect as either of those guys.  with juolevi i think the glass half empty perspective tends to overlook that he still is a very decent prospect even if you discount the possibility he may still live up to his draft pick.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by krutovsdonut

[krutovsdonut]

8 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Have to wonder how he would do feeding Boeser and Pettersson.

hopefully nicely, but this type of offence talk talk does worry me with juolevi.  you see ryan johnson talking about him as an offensive / power play guy but that's a recent spin.  he was drafted as a top pair 2 way guy with transition skills not as a pp guy.  i do have a sneaking suspicion this may be part of the canucks trying to pump his tires up to move him in a trade.  that would explain the top pp minutes he was handed in utica.  

Edited December 4, 2018 by krutovsdonut

[theo5789]

1 minute ago, krutovsdonut said:

hopefully nicely, but this type of offence talk talk does worry me with juolevi.  you see ryan johnson talking about him as an offensive / power play guy but that's a recent spin.  he was drafted as a top pair 2 way guy with transition skills not as a pp guy.  i do have a sneaking suspicion this may be part of the canucks trying to pump his tires up to move him in a trade.  that would explain the top pp minutes he was handed in utica.  

Maybe so, but lots of young guys get the easier minutes while gradually learning how to play the harder minutes. They want him to improve defensively as we all do, but why not let him get comfortable playing first and find a role for him to progress into? It's all about trying to build the confidence so the player doesn't have to overthink. He could still be a top pairing guy like Edler that excels being partnered with a more steady defensive dman like Tanev/Gudbranson or Woo in the future. It wouldn't shock me if the top 4 in the near future is Hughes-Gudbranson and Juolevi-Woo. Add in Rathbone/Brisebois with Stecher/Chatfield to round out the bottom pairing.

 

If we are pumping his tires for a trade, what are we looking for? We need more quality dmen and trading him would seem counterproductive after the development we have put into him IMO.

[krutovsdonut]

Just now, theo5789 said:

Maybe so, but lots of young guys get the easier minutes while gradually learning how to play the harder minutes. They want him to improve defensively as we all do, but why not let him get comfortable playing first and find a role for him to progress into? It's all about trying to build the confidence so the player doesn't have to overthink. He could still be a top pairing guy like Edler that excels being partnered with a more steady defensive dman like Tanev/Gudbranson or Woo in the future. It wouldn't shock me if the top 4 in the near future is Hughes-Gudbranson and Juolevi-Woo. Add in Rathbone/Brisebois with Stecher/Chatfield to round out the bottom pairing.

 

If we are pumping his tires for a trade, what are we looking for? We need more quality dmen and trading him would seem counterproductive after the development we have put into him IMO.

i am not a scout and most of the hockey i watch is on tv which misses a lot of details with players.  from what i have seen and read, there are three possible narratives for me to explain what i see.

 

1.  juolevi is a talented waste.  he doesn't work hard enough and has a toxic attitude.  he has enough skill and size to look good in lower leagues, especially towards the end of the season as he plays himself into shape, and for big games.  however, he is thoroughly exposed at the nhl level and he has not developed his details as he should instead relying on raw talent.

 

2.  juolevi is talented and does the right things but is not going to be as a big or strong as the canucks projected and will need extra time to all his "man strength" to be strong and fast enough to be a dman in the nhl.  think phillip larson or anton rodin body type but a tad bigger than both of them.

 

3.  juolevi needs time to mature physically and mentally but will get their eventually.  his elite talents will shine in the nhl once his body catches up.

 

in scenario 1, the canucks want to move the guy and are trying to pump his tires set the table for that to happen.  in scenario 2, the canucks are trying to adjust his game to reflect his limitations.  in scenario 3 it's all cookies and ice cream.

 

if i am being honest, there is more evidence of 1 or 2 than there is of 3.  

 

[MrCanuck94]

21 minutes ago, krutovsdonut said:

hopefully nicely, but this type of offence talk talk does worry me with juolevi.  you see ryan johnson talking about him as an offensive / power play guy but that's a recent spin.  he was drafted as a top pair 2 way guy with transition skills not as a pp guy.  i do have a sneaking suspicion this may be part of the canucks trying to pump his tires up to move him in a trade.  that would explain the top pp minutes he was handed in utica.  

Recent? Juolevi has been running the  PP for all his teams and his WJC team since his draft year.

 

Praising a player doesn't increase his value, there's a reason every team has scouts.

[Bobby James]

28 minutes ago, MrCanuck94 said:

Recent? Juolevi has been running the  PP for all his teams and his WJC team since his draft year.

I agree

 

I'm not sure where the pp critique is coming from. He is a very talented 2 way defender and all evidence points to him being strong in that role as that pp dman. I think in the scenarios shared above number 3 is definitely the most likely. 

 

He is very young, but his talent is clear and evident. With some more training and time he will continue to mature and become an excellent dman for the Canucks. It just feels like a lot of people/media is calling this kid a bust when he should still be getting a couple more years of development (minimum) before that discussion is even started. 

 

Also has shown he has a slick breakout pass which the Canucks desperately need 

[theo5789]

36 minutes ago, krutovsdonut said:

i am not a scout and most of the hockey i watch is on tv which misses a lot of details with players.  from what i have seen and read, there are three possible narratives for me to explain what i see.

 

1.  juolevi is a talented waste.  he doesn't work hard enough and has a toxic attitude.  he has enough skill and size to look good in lower leagues, especially towards the end of the season as he plays himself into shape, and for big games.  however, he is thoroughly exposed at the nhl level and he has not developed his details as he should instead relying on raw talent.

 

2.  juolevi is talented and does the right things but is not going to be as a big or strong as the canucks projected and will need extra time to all his "man strength" to be strong and fast enough to be a dman in the nhl.  think phillip larson or anton rodin body type but a tad bigger than both of them.

 

3.  juolevi needs time to mature physically and mentally but will get their eventually.  his elite talents will shine in the nhl once his body catches up.

 

in scenario 1, the canucks want to move the guy and are trying to pump his tires set the table for that to happen.  in scenario 2, the canucks are trying to adjust his game to reflect his limitations.  in scenario 3 it's all cookies and ice cream.

 

if i am being honest, there is more evidence of 1 or 2 than there is of 3.  

 

Juolevi is 6'3 and nearly 200lbs, in comparison Edler is 6'3 212lbs currently. Juolevi doesn't play an overly physical game, but I'm not sure if Edler did coming into the league as well. So I'm not too concerned about his size/"man strength". He is adjusting to the pace of the game at the higher level and he seems like more of a cerebral player.

 

Personally I see more of scenario 3 right now and that's why I'm not that concerned.

 

Although those scenarios seem to demonstrate the differing opinions of Juolevi and how they feel about him currently.

[cyoung]

49 minutes ago, krutovsdonut said:

i am not a scout and most of the hockey i watch is on tv which misses a lot of details with players.  from what i have seen and read, there are three possible narratives for me to explain what i see.

 

1.  juolevi is a talented waste.  he doesn't work hard enough and has a toxic attitude.  he has enough skill and size to look good in lower leagues, especially towards the end of the season as he plays himself into shape, and for big games.  however, he is thoroughly exposed at the nhl level and he has not developed his details as he should instead relying on raw talent.

 

2.  juolevi is talented and does the right things but is not going to be as a big or strong as the canucks projected and will need extra time to all his "man strength" to be strong and fast enough to be a dman in the nhl.  think phillip larson or anton rodin body type but a tad bigger than both of them.

 

3.  juolevi needs time to mature physically and mentally but will get their eventually.  his elite talents will shine in the nhl once his body catches up.

 

in scenario 1, the canucks want to move the guy and are trying to pump his tires set the table for that to happen.  in scenario 2, the canucks are trying to adjust his game to reflect his limitations.  in scenario 3 it's all cookies and ice cream.

 

if i am being honest, there is more evidence of 1 or 2 than there is of 3.  

 

What is your evidence that you are basing your opinion off? Lol

 

He's a pretty big dude, not overly physical but that's not why he was selected. His game has progressed well considering the injuries that have been slowing him down. 

[mll]

12 minutes ago, Bobby James said:

I agree

 

I'm not sure where the pp critique is coming from. He is a very talented 2 way defender and all evidence points to him being strong in that role as that pp dman. I think in the scenarios shared above number 3 is definitely the most likely. 

 

He is very young, but his talent is clear and evident. With some more training and time he will continue to mature and become an excellent dman for the Canucks. It just feels like a lot of people/media is calling this kid a bust when he should still be getting a couple more years of development (minimum) before that discussion is even started. 

 

Also has shown he has a slick breakout pass which the Canucks desperately need 

Probably from the quote by assistant coach Agnew who is responsible for the Ds in Utica - his quote:  "(...) he’s a guy that’s going to be a power-play type of guy when he gets there, and as long as he can get the other facets of his game down — which he is doing — he should be able to get there at some point, and stay there. [...] I think that’s the type of guy he’s going to be. A good puck-moving, solid defenceman that can add offensively and hopefully defend the right way."

 

He doesn't seem to suggest that Juolevi will be a two-way defender that can be deployed in all situations.  He is deployed offensively and is not used on the PK in Utica.