Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Adam Gaudette | #96 | C


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Just wondering what scouting reports had Juolevi at a 4/5 defender. Everything I read prior to the draft was at minimum he was projected to be a solid top 4 defender, likely end up as a top 2 player in a similar mode as Plaveski in SJ. Outside chance at becoming a legit #1 one guy.  

Don't want to speak for @JamesB, but I think the following

 

22 minutes ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

borderline #4/5 NHL D up to solid #2 D

is pretty much the same (albeit a bit more conservatively stated) as the kind of range you're suggesting with a "minimum" of top-4, "likely" top-2, and and "outside chance" of becoming a legit #1.

 

I don't think @JamesB was suggesting any of the scouts projected Juolevi as a fringe middle pairing D. More a case of a #4/5 being his "floor" and his "ceiling" was a very solid #2 (although I can remember a few scouts did say he might become a #1).

 

And I think that #2 ceiling was more a case of scouts questioning whether or not Juolevi had "elite" upside or if he was more likely to be a very good first pairing D but one who would play a more complimentary role.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, kenhodgejr said:

Jakes development suffered majorly as a result of not leaving him in junior another season. Then letting him start in Utica this season and slowly earn his way to the NHL like everyone else. Now their trying to teach him fundamentals on a farm team after rewarding him with a season in the NHL right after being drafted. He can't be rushed. He probably needs 2-3 seasons as a leader and captain playing big roles and taking the team deep into the playoffs. Thats how you build character, experience, professionalism, and maturity. Teams like Chicago never rush their prospects. Banning made the mistake managing Jake

 

Wrong thread but... IMO having Jake in the pros last year wasn't inherently a 'mistake'. Given some possibly questionable usage in CAL and knowledge of his weaknesses (behaving/training/practicing like a pro), it actually made a lot of sense to have him up here to monitor his practice, training, diet etc habits more closely and have consummate, hard working pros like the Sedins, Burrows, Hansen, Horvat etc around for him to learn from as opposed to going back to junior and continuing with those bad junior habits.

 

That said, I think they could have handled him better than they did last year if that was the plan. A more consistent play, training and practice schedule with more one on one coaching even when the rest of the team wasn't practicing/was on the road, conditioning stints in Utica if available, a plan to send him to the WJC off the bat short of exceptional progression etc. Far too much was left up to Jake to be the professional he clearly wasn't yet IMO.

 

He also should have been sent to Utica off the bat this year given his play/injury in the preseason. 

 

Sounds like's largely back on track working hard and learning to be a pro, learning fundamentals and unlearning bad junior habits. It will be interesting to see how he responds when Green eventually starts giving him more rope once he feels comfortable with Jake in those aspects.

 

As for Juolevi... I maintain he's likely a solid #2-3 D with #4 as his floor and #1 with his ceiling (if less likely). IMO we end up with a larger, slightly more creative and offensive Tanev. My crystal ball says he'll either be a good complimentary #2D or a VERY good 1B/2A D who will be able to share the load almost equally with another very good D. (Tryamkin?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, J.R. said:

As for Juolevi... I maintain he's likely a solid #2-3 D with #4 as his floor and #1 with his ceiling (if less likely). IMO we end up with a larger, slightly more creative and offensive Tanev. My crystal ball says he'll either be a good complimentary #2D or a VERY good 1B/2A D who will be able to share the load almost equally with another very good D. (Tryamkin?)

Tanev's offensive creativity and production are minimal.  Juolevi has much more instinct, creativity, and ability already and far more potential.  Having no shot or offensive vision, the only thing Tanev offers on the PP is to keep pucks in the zone whereas Juolevi can actually run it and make plays.  Looks to be a Lumme with more upside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Don't want to speak for @JamesB, but I think the following

 

is pretty much the same (albeit a bit more conservatively stated) as the kind of range you're suggesting with a "minimum" of top-4, "likely" top-2, and and "outside chance" of becoming a legit #1.

 

I don't think @JamesB was suggesting any of the scouts projected Juolevi as a fringe middle pairing D. More a case of a #4/5 being his "floor" and his "ceiling" was a very solid #2 (although I can remember a few scouts did say he might become a #1).

 

And I think that #2 ceiling was more a case of scouts questioning whether or not Juolevi had "elite" upside or if he was more likely to be a very good first pairing D but one who would play a more complimentary role.

Thanks, Sid, for providing an answer to @Eastcoast meets Westcoast.

 

You explained this better than I could have.

 

And I admit that my current reading of the scouting reports is probably colored by what Juolevi has done since the draft -- which is not bad by any means, but which makes me interpret the scouting reports a bit more conservatively.

Edited by JamesB
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Tanev's offensive creativity and production are minimal.  Juolevi has much more instinct, creativity, and ability already and far more potential.  Having no shot or offensive vision, the only thing Tanev offers on the PP is to keep pucks in the zone whereas Juolevi can actually run it and make plays.  Looks to be a Lumme with more upside.

Sorry, that should have been, slightly more offensive (I don't think he'll put up huge numbers, likely 25-35 points in his prime) but yes, he is much more creative/dynamic. He'll do more to drive play, particularly in the offensive zone, even if that doesn't translate to vastly more individual points.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, J.R. said:

As for Juolevi... I maintain he's likely a solid #2-3 D with #4 as his floor and #1 with his ceiling (if less likely). IMO we end up with a larger, slightly more creative and offensive Tanev. My crystal ball says he'll either be a good complimentary #2D or a VERY good 1B/2A D who will be able to share the load almost equally with another very good D. (Tryamkin?)

 

22 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Tanev's offensive creativity and production are minimal.  Juolevi has much more instinct, creativity, and ability already and far more potential.  Having no shot or offensive vision, the only thing Tanev offers on the PP is to keep pucks in the zone whereas Juolevi can actually run it and make plays.  Looks to be a Lumme with more upside.

I think we're getting to point of splitting hairs here boys. ;)

 

And I think we can all agree that, with Juolevi, so long as we're reasonable with our expectations, we'll likely end up with a player that we're either "happy" with (top-4 D) or "very happy" with (top-2 D).

 

It remains to be seen how Juolevi's offensive ability will translate at the pro level. But defensively, his overall hockey IQ gives some weight to the Tanev comparison, in terms of his potential two-way ability at 5v5, bringing aspects of what Benning has called "transitional defensive" defending (ie: making plays from his own zone that smoothly and consistently move the puck up ice).

 

Once play moves beyond his own blue line, he projects as a much slicker and more offensively gifted player than Tanev, with a stronger toolbox on that side of the puck (shot, playmaking, reading the offense, etc.). OJ has the potential to be a creative, puckmoving, playdriving defenseman. Maybe not a truly dynamic, offensive D who stacks up individual points, but nonetheless an "engine" type of offensive player whose touches through the neutral zone and into the offensive zone will help drive the offence for the 5 man unit and create scoring opportunities for teammates (leading to him banking a ton of "3rd assists).

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Juolevi is a Dan Hamhuis 2.0.

 

Strong IQ, strong defensively, decent skater, great positionaly

Not overly physical, not overly dynamic, but able to make the smart plays look easy. 

 

 

 

Imo he has better offensive tools than hammer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ReggieBush said:

Imo he has better offensive tools than hammer.

Possibly, but at the same age hammer was showing more offensive tools too.  Hammer was a ppg in junior and even put up 51 points in 76 games as a 22 year old in the AHL  His second full season in the NHL he put up his career high of 38 points in 82 games which is pretty reasonable for the 23 year old. I don't know if i see Juolevi much more than high 30's, low 40 point player with similar defensive capabilities as hammer. 

 

And that's not a knock on Juolevi, Hammer was a really solid D.  A real good #3 with the ability to be have been used as a #2 type guy. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Possibly, but at the same age hammer was showing more offensive tools too.  Hammer was a ppg in junior and even put up 51 points in 76 games as a 22 year old in the AHL  His second full season in the NHL he put up his career high of 38 points in 82 games which is pretty reasonable for the 23 year old. I don't know if i see Juolevi much more than high 30's, low 40 point player with similar defensive capabilities as hammer. 

 

And that's not a knock on Juolevi, Hammer was a really solid D.  A real good #3 with the ability to be have been used as a #2 type guy. 

Hammer in his prime was a legit #2D IMO.

 

We never been blessed with a true #1D, but during that period we were overflowing in quality #2's.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Possibly, but at the same age hammer was showing more offensive tools too.  Hammer was a ppg in junior and even put up 51 points in 76 games as a 22 year old in the AHL  His second full season in the NHL he put up his career high of 38 points in 82 games which is pretty reasonable for the 23 year old. I don't know if i see Juolevi much more than high 30's, low 40 point player with similar defensive capabilities as hammer. 

 

And that's not a knock on Juolevi, Hammer was a really solid D.  A real good #3 with the ability to be have been used as a #2 type guy. 

I agree with this post but Hamhuis was actually a #2 d-man statistically most seasons, and that's not even taking his great defensive play into account. I considered Hamhuis to be a high end #2 d-man in his prime, so I can see Juolevi being an average #2 d-man based on having slightly less offensive talent at the junior level.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you think Juolevi will work with Gaudette on a PP? Think they could run a unit together? I like Gaudette on the half wall in college at least. He can rip it a bit like Puljujarvi. Boeser has a better 1 T than those guys though. Not Laine good, but somewhere in the middle

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derp... said:

How do you think Juolevi will work with Gaudette on a PP? Think they could run a unit together? I like Gaudette on the half wall in college at least. He can rip it a bit like Puljujarvi. Boeser has a better 1 T than those guys though. Not Laine good, but somewhere in the middle

 

 

Boeser's 1T is closer to Laine's than Pulujaarvi's

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, vancan2233 said:

Why does every prospect forum turn in to talking about every thing but the actual prospect.The last sixteen plus posts, none about Adam Gaudette.

 

Speaking of Adam Gaudette; his Northeastern Huskies play the Lowell River Hawks right now. 3 pm our time that is, on TSN 2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, vancan2233 said:

Why does every prospect forum turn in to talking about every thing but the actual prospect.The last sixteen plus posts, none about Adam Gaudette.

WTF do you think this is?  The Gaudette thread?

 

We want to hear mroe about how Tkachuk is doing and why Jolevi is complete crap because we didn't take Keiths kid.  We want to know everything about NYlander and Ehlers because Virtanen is a complete 20 year old bust.

 

And we want comparables to everyone in other orgs detailing why they'd be better picks than anyone Benning failed ono by picking with nothing more than opinion and anecdotal evidence

 

If you want talk about Adam gaudette, go to the Adam Gaudette thread jeez

 

:bigblush:

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

WTF do you think this is?  The Gaudette thread?

 

We want to hear mroe about how Tkachuk is doing and why Jolevi is complete crap because we didn't take Keiths kid.  We want to know everything about NYlander and Ehlers because Virtanen is a complete 20 year old bust.

 

And we want comparables to everyone in other orgs detailing why they'd be better picks than anyone Benning failed ono by picking with nothing more than opinion and anecdotal evidence

 

If you want talk about Adam gaudette, go to the Adam Gaudette thread jeez

 

:bigblush:

Some days I swear I have to look at the topic to ensure I didn't click on the wrong page.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NU was down 3-1 in the third.  Now tied 3-3 , Gaudette with an assist on the tying goal.   Sikura, who plays on a line with Gaudette, gets both goals in the third.  Sikura is a 6th round hawks draft pick.  Less than 5 minutes to go.  

 

 

Edited by Darius71
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...