Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[gameburn2]

2 minutes ago, guntrix said:

The only thing that worries me is that London doesn't have that great of a track record developing defensemen. I mean, in regards to recent defensive prospects, I can think of Maatta who's pretty good in his own right but no superstar in the making or anything.

 

The whole "don't worry about his play, he's learning and honing his skills" argument is viable when the institution said player is in has a good track record for developing defensemen. If Juo turns out to be a Maatta lite, will it have been a good use of our 5OA?

I trust Benning on selecting D.  Not sure about his trading record or his ability to convince management to rebuild (lol), but good with D. (Tryamkin and Brisebois and a couple of the others look pretty good.)  He had a choice of Sergachev, Chychrun and some other notable players (I kind of liked Sergachev), and he went with Juolevi.  Finnish hockey is really good right now: a lot of good young players at every position, a good attitude with their coaching too.  Laine, and Aho are looking pretty good, and Juolevi looked good with them. 

 

The only reason Juolevi isn't here or in Utica is his age: I believe he's a bit younger physically than some of his draft-year peers -- even a half year makes a big difference at 18 or 19.  Not physically mature enough.  In an ideal world McDavid would have come into the league this year -- he probably would have avoided that nasty injury last year.

 

About London: you make an interesting point, we usually don't think too much about Junior teams' ability to develop players, a lot of us assume that "talent wins out" somehow. I'm hoping that his background in Finland, along with the Int'l competition has been more important for Juolevi.  (I think Major Junior hockey is sometimes overrated.)

[aGENT]

18 hours ago, stawns said:

are people really whining about an almost ppg pace from a dman.  Jesus this fanbase

 

This rebuild is not doing good things to my opinion of this fan base, which wasn't great to begin with. I feel dirty being part of it sometimes.

[Boudrias]

16 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

This rebuild is not doing good things to my opinion of this fan base, which wasn't great to begin with. I feel dirty being part of it sometimes.

With all the variables that come into play when rebuilding getting overly excited one way or the other is not worth it. I think that Van management and ownership is solid and when they make moves I don't understand I have to defer to their knowledge of the situation and need.

 

Fans are far to excitable and to prepared to take shortcuts in a process measured in years rather than a season. While I preferred they started this process in '12 I can watch the process and enjoy. This season I am very excited about the development of the d-core and the prospects in the system. There is a change happening much faster than I ever thought possible. Get excited about Stecher but appreciate the Gudbranson acquisition and the continued development of Hutton. IMHO the game changer is the 3rd pairing of Tryamkin and Sbisa. Physical play combined with a unrealized offensive upside.  

[stawns]

24 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

With all the variables that come into play when rebuilding getting overly excited one way or the other is not worth it. I think that Van management and ownership is solid and when they make moves I don't understand I have to defer to their knowledge of the situation and need.

 

Fans are far to excitable and to prepared to take shortcuts in a process measured in years rather than a season. While I preferred they started this process in '12 I can watch the process and enjoy. This season I am very excited about the development of the d-core and the prospects in the system. There is a change happening much faster than I ever thought possible. Get excited about Stecher but appreciate the Gudbranson acquisition and the continued development of Hutton. IMHO the game changer is the 3rd pairing of Tryamkin and Sbisa. Physical play combined with a unrealized offensive upside.  

as we've said many times, it comes down, mostly, to a fan base who hasn't experienced anything but a winning franchise in vancouver.  Those of us who have suffered through decades of futility can see a bigger picture.

[shiznak]

 

On November 13, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Ihatetomatoes said:

 

He is exactly known for his defense though. That's his best asset. I'd rather have a guy with elite hockey sense than a guy who has elite talent but questionable hockey sense. 

Having elite hockey sense doesn't determine your NHL success, though. We've seen this team draft guys with high hockey IQ, most notably Cody Hodgson, Patrick White, and Jordan Schroeder,  but they never amount to anything in the NHL, but journeymen players. 

 

As the saying goes, you can't teach talent.

[Pears]

16 hours ago, J.R. said:

 

This rebuild is not doing good things to my opinion of this fan base, which wasn't great to begin with. I feel dirty being part of it sometimes.

Me too. I'm almost embarrased to be a part it sometimes.

[terrible.dee]

On 6/25/2016 at 0:59 PM, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

Would also like to point out that this was a very logical pick.

 

So basically we are in a good position to sign two forwards this offseason. 

2 of Lucic, Eriksson, Brouwer. Lets say we luck out and get both Lucic and Eriksson

 

Our line up would look like this

 

Sedin Sedin Eriksson

Lucic Sutter Hansen

Baertschi Horvat Rodin

Etem Granlund Dorsett

Gaunce Grenier

 

Edler Tanev

Hutton Gudbranson

Tryamkin Biega

Sbisa 

 

Markstrom

Miller

 

So basically that forward line up is pretty Jam packed especially with Boeser coming up (Who i think will be better than Tkachuk) not to mention Virtanen as well.

 

Our D core has been undergoing massive changes to reshape it. Juolevi will be able to fill into our D before Tkachuk would fit into our forward group. I am really hoping that Juolevi improves enough to make Edler expendable so we can trade him while he still has high value. 

 

Anyways enough of my Ramble basically I like it because we got a potential top 1-3 D who fits our needs more than a player like Tkachuk does. I also really like Finnish D Idk Why 

 

 

HAHAHAHA.........ohboy

[terrible.dee]

3 hours ago, shiznak said:

 

Having elite hockey sense doesn't determine your NHL success, though. We've seen this team draft guys with high hockey IQ, most notably Cody Hodgson, Patrick White, and Jordan Schroeder,  but they never amount to anything in the NHL, but journeymen players. 

 

As the saying goes, you can't teach talent.

THAT is what you go for in the draft, as much high quality talent as possible, and that is what we did not do

[Warhippy]

15 minutes ago, terrible.dee said:

THAT is what you go for in the draft, as much high quality talent as possible, and that is what we did not do

Maybe....you should write a blog and post a suspicious link about it?

[terrible.dee]

On 11/12/2016 at 8:29 PM, JamesB said:

Yes, it has been worrying me that Juolevi's numbers last year were largely due to playing on a very good team with the best line in Junior hockey often in front of him, especially on the PP. Also, I know that Benning liked him at the World Juniors last year but, once again, he was playing behind the best forwards at the World Juniors. As the #5 overall pick you would hope that he would be a dominant player in the OHL in his draft+1 year but he is just one of several very good defencemen in the league. Let's hope he picks things up. I am seeing too many excuses -- "third assist", "great first pass", etc. He is not physical but he is supposed to be very good at both ends of the ice. So he should be putting up reasonable point totals and very good good +/- numbers.

Nail on the head my friend

 

at #10 overall great pick

 

at #5 ??? Wasted pick

 

You do not shoot for a "solid" player in the top 5

 

but hey, at least we've solved our "lack of 3rd assists" and "Hard but not overly physical" issues

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, terrible.dee said:

Nail on the head my friend

 

at #10 overall great pick

 

at #5 ??? Wasted pick

 

You do not shoot for a "solid" player in the top 5

 

but hey, at least we've solved our "lack of 3rd assists" and "Hard but not overly physical" issues

Who should we have drafted then, if not Oli?

[aGENT]

40 minutes ago, terrible.dee said:

THAT is what you go for in the draft, as much high quality talent as possible, and that is what we did not do

So your position is that Juolevi lacks talent, correct? 

[Makaramel MacKhiato]

On 11/13/2016 at 6:29 AM, JamesB said:

Yes, it has been worrying me that Juolevi's numbers last year were largely due to playing on a very good team with the best line in Junior hockey often in front of him, especially on the PP. Also, I know that Benning liked him at the World Juniors last year but, once again, he was playing behind the best forwards at the World Juniors. As the #5 overall pick you would hope that he would be a dominant player in the OHL in his draft+1 year but he is just one of several very good defencemen in the league. Let's hope he picks things up. I am seeing too many excuses -- "third assist", "great first pass", etc. He is not physical but he is supposed to be very good at both ends of the ice. So he should be putting up reasonable point totals and very good good +/- numbers.

This is stupid. Olli is already averaging more points per game already then last year. You can't say that because he 'had a good team in front of him' is the reason he did well, that's absolutely ridiculous. Teams start by having a good defence who can make the first pass to get the offence started. 

You could argue the same thing about Doughty, Keith, or Letang. Claiming they're only good and they've only won the cup or a gold medal because they had the best players in front of them. Does Letang playing behind Crosby make him an average defender? Or having stars like Kane and Toews mean that Keith is just an average defenceman that only has a ring because of the forwards he played with? Absolutely not. Defencemen are just as, if not more, important to a team's success as the forwards. 

Your argument makes every defenceman that ever played on a winning team irrelevant. 

London is 12-3-3 this year (8-1-1 over the last 10), give me a break. 

Sidenote: Olli has played a handful of games less then other defenceman, currently sits top 20 in Points Per Game. Not bad for a guy who thinks defence first. 

Edited November 15, 2016 by shattenkirk8

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, terrible.dee said:

Nail on the head my friend

 

at #10 overall great pick

 

at #5 ??? Wasted pick

 

You do not shoot for a "solid" player in the top 5

 

but hey, at least we've solved our "lack of 3rd assists" and "Hard but not overly physical" issues

Chychrun has stalled with only 3 points in his first 13 games (Stecher has 3 points in 7 games)

Tkachuk has been good, but again has stalled out after looking good early.  That happens quite often when kids enter the league fueled by adrenaline and wear out after settling in, we saw the same thing happen with McCann last year. 

Sergachev has 2 points in 4 games in the OHL

Keller and Jost have looked good in the NCAA but so has our 3rd round pick Lockwood.

Nylander isn’t doing bad in the AHL but hard to really compare that considering Juolevi couldn’t play in the AHL this year.

 

I’m curious who is this high talent that we could have had at #5. 

[73 Percent]

8 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Chychrun has stalled with only 3 points in his first 13 games (Stecher has 3 points in 7 games)

Tkachuk has been good, but again has stalled out after looking good early.  That happens quite often when kids enter the league fueled by adrenaline and wear out after settling in, we saw the same thing happen with McCann last year. 

Sergachev has 2 points in 4 games in the OHL

Keller and Jost have looked good in the NCAA but so has our 3rd round pick Lockwood.

Nylander isn’t doing bad in the AHL but hard to really compare that considering Juolevi couldn’t play in the AHL this year.

 

I’m curious who is this high talent that we could have had at #5. 

I tend to agree that Juolevi isn't typically the player you want at #5. I'm just not that high in him. however, you are right. I don't think I would choose any player chosen behind him.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Gooseberries said:

I tend to agree that Juolevi isn't typically the player you want at #5.

 

Can't agree with that. The kid has Ryan Suter-esque potential. If that comes to fruition, I take that at 5 all day, every day.

[73 Percent]

2 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

Can't agree with that. The kid has Ryan Suter-esque potential. If that comes to fruition, I take that at 5 all day, every day.

I'm not really high on suter. nor do I think Juolevi has that potential. this is all my opinion of course but I see Juolevi as a slightly better offensively less physical hamhuis.

[Canucks Curse]

14 minutes ago, Gooseberries said:

I'm not really high on suter. nor do I think Juolevi has that potential. this is all my opinion of course but I see Juolevi as a slightly better offensively less physical hamhuis.

I think that's accurate

 

[Noble 6]

1 hour ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Chychrun has stalled with only 3 points in his first 13 games (Stecher has 3 points in 7 games)

Tkachuk has been good, but again has stalled out after looking good early.  That happens quite often when kids enter the league fueled by adrenaline and wear out after settling in, we saw the same thing happen with McCann last year. 

Sergachev has 2 points in 4 games in the OHL

Keller and Jost have looked good in the NCAA but so has our 3rd round pick Lockwood.

Nylander isn’t doing bad in the AHL but hard to really compare that considering Juolevi couldn’t play in the AHL this year.

 

I’m curious who is this high talent that we could have had at #5. 

The most talented players in the draft to me were Keller and Sergachev. They have both been doing very well in college and the NHL (mostly). If we wanted pure talent, I think Keller should have been our pick. 

 

That's not taking anything away from Juolevi, because he will be a very good defenseman for us. But in terms of creating something out of nothing, Clayton Keller would have been our man. 

 

[73 Percent]

3 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

The most talented players in the draft to me were Keller and Sergachev. They have both been doing very well in college and the NHL (mostly). If we wanted pure talent, I think Keller should have been our pick. 

 

That's not taking anything away from Juolevi, because he will be a very good defenseman for us. But in terms of creating something out of nothing, Clayton Keller would have been our man. 

 

Really? you think Sergachev did well in college ?