Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[AK_19]

On 2/10/2017 at 6:52 AM, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

In the arse for making such a good draft pick   

 

IMO Boeser looks to be a similar player to Tkachuk without the asshole smirk. Calgary is flush in decent young defenders where we had almost nothing in the system until this year.  OJ was a higher team need, and is the best defender of the draft. 

 

Tkachuk may be the first horse out of the gate, but there is a long way to go before declaring winners and losers. 

 

OJ is going to be great, I think he was JB's best pick since coming to Van. 

 

The handwringing sore loser draft analyst hype that prevails on this board is hilarious.  

 

BTW, Joulevi and Tkachuk were picked about were they should have been. Toss up. PLD at 3 was the surprise. Not one analyst thought Vancouver should have picked Tkachuk over Juolevi on draft day. 

 

PLD, Tkachuk and OJ were all projected to go between 4-6. There was no consensus ranking. 

 

Another thought, this team road a decent defence into the ground, by no adding any useful d prospects for close to ten years (save Tanev). We finally draft, what will likely be the best defender to wear Canucks colours so far in our entire history, and posters are 'wah wah, we should have drafted the son of Keith.. wah.'  

 

OJ has looked sublime in the film that I have managed to see, increased his points on a weaker team while carrying a pairing and being relied upon to take tough minutes. 

 

Whats not like about OJ and why are people talking about another teams player in his thread. 

 

Does MT play defence?  No, so how does that matter in the evaluation of OJ?  

 

 

That is quite some revisionist history. Here is what reality showed:

http://www.tsn.ca/matthews-goes-wire-to-wire-as-tsn-s-top-prospect-1.511597

http://www.tsn.ca/craig-s-list-canadian-teams-will-fare-well-with-this-class-1.457738

In fact, I can't find one credible analyst listing OJ over MT. Don't get me wrong, I like OJ, but I think JB is a little too obsessed about picking players who fit his terribly boring system. I believe you should always pick BPA and trade the prospect later down the line if you want to someone who better fits the system.

[Hairy Kneel]

1 hour ago, AK_19 said:

That is quite some revisionist history. Here is what reality showed:

http://www.tsn.ca/matthews-goes-wire-to-wire-as-tsn-s-top-prospect-1.511597

http://www.tsn.ca/craig-s-list-canadian-teams-will-fare-well-with-this-class-1.457738

In fact, I can't find one credible analyst listing OJ over MT. Don't get me wrong, I like OJ, but I think JB is a little too obsessed about picking players who fit his terribly boring system. I believe you should always pick BPA and trade the prospect later down the line if you want to someone who better fits the system.

Well I had a Jordan Schroeder deja vu' moment when they announced OJ.

because we needed size up front. a 200 (pounding) pounder with hands. A Tkatchuk.

And we already had young D in Tanev and free agent prospects and draft picks. 

(Who would would be tied for 2nd in scoring today at 34 points )

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

14 hours ago, HomeBrew said:

Because Sbisa was everyones darling in his first 30 games with us? #hindsight

This post made me lol. So true.

[Mr.53]

I don't think people realize that Juolevi is a two-way defenseman, not just an offensive defenseman. The thing that makes him a possible candidate for our top line over say a Subban, if because he can play defense. plus minus isn't always the best indicator, but he's managed to have a pretty good plus minus even on a team depleted of their top stars. (Marner, Dvorak, Tkatchuk etc) Still, he is improving on offense without them, keeping up with his plus minus, and on top, is putting on more muscle day by day. 

 

Juolevi will be a 2-way force for our team. Tkatchuk is a great player, but Linden was correct in saying, in todays NHL, top defenseman are worth so much, that they have basically become the real untouchables of the league. You have to truly overpay to get one later on. I like the bet they took in ensuring the franchise gets a top defenseman. Forwards are great, but you need a defenseman that can activate the forwards and still play reliable defense on the NHL level.

 

Juolevi showed he could do it on that super team in London, putting them over the top. He showed he could do it with that super team in Finland at the WJC, putting them over the top, and showed in preseason he can already play on the NHL level, and just has to get acclimated and build size like his buddy Olli Maata did before him, who by the way is an NHL champion. 

 

With Juolevi developing we can confidently focus on acquiring star forward pieces, we are in good shape.

[aGENT]

8 hours ago, AK_19 said:

That is quite some revisionist history. Here is what reality showed:

http://www.tsn.ca/matthews-goes-wire-to-wire-as-tsn-s-top-prospect-1.511597

http://www.tsn.ca/craig-s-list-canadian-teams-will-fare-well-with-this-class-1.457738

In fact, I can't find one credible analyst listing OJ over MT. Don't get me wrong, I like OJ, but I think JB is a little too obsessed about picking players who fit his terribly boring system. I believe you should always pick BPA and trade the prospect later down the line if you want to someone who better fits the system.

From your own article:

It's a draft that seems to have "layers" or "clumps" of prospects to pick from.

For example, the first layer beyond the Big Three is a four-man grouping that includes three different types of wingers — Tkachuk, who is strong from the top of the circles down; Dubois, who has a strong 200-foot game; and Nylander, whose skill and hockey sense are considered elite — and the one defenceman Juolevi, who's viewed as the best all-around blueliner in the draft.

 

They might not have had him 'ahead' of Tkachuk (due almost entirely to fowards being easier to predict and usually making the NHL sooner) but most of them made mention of how that next group were all basically interchangeable. It was not remotely 'off the board'.

 

6 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Well I had a Jordan Schroeder deja vu' moment when they announced OJ.

because we needed size up front. a 200 (pounding) pounder with hands. A Tkatchuk.

And we already had young D in Tanev and free agent prospects and draft picks. 

(Who would would be tied for 2nd in scoring today at 34 points )

 

 

Because it's not about today. 

[D.B Cooper]

8 hours ago, AK_19 said:

That is quite some revisionist history. Here is what reality showed:

http://www.tsn.ca/matthews-goes-wire-to-wire-as-tsn-s-top-prospect-1.511597

http://www.tsn.ca/craig-s-list-canadian-teams-will-fare-well-with-this-class-1.457738

In fact, I can't find one credible analyst listing OJ over MT. Don't get me wrong, I like OJ, but I think JB is a little too obsessed about picking players who fit his terribly boring system. I believe you should always pick BPA and trade the prospect later down the line if you want to someone who better fits the system.

JB doesn't have an incredibly boring system.  Willy does. 

JB goes for who he thinks will turn out the best.    

 

Whenyou say you pick pick the best available, do you pick the best currently at that age, or who you truly believe will be the best player in the long run?

 

Maybe Keith JR was the most NHL ready, but that doesn't mean he will be the better player overall 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

From your own article:

It's a draft that seems to have "layers" or "clumps" of prospects to pick from.

For example, the first layer beyond the Big Three is a four-man grouping that includes three different types of wingers — Tkachuk, who is strong from the top of the circles down; Dubois, who has a strong 200-foot game; and Nylander, whose skill and hockey sense are considered elite — and the one defenceman Juolevi, who's viewed as the best all-around blueliner in the draft.

 

They might not have had him 'ahead' of Tkachuk (due almost entirely to fowards being easier to predict and usually making the NHL sooner) but most of them made mention of how that next group were all basically interchangeable. It was not remotely 'off the board'.

 

Because it's not about today. 

Tkatchuk is 19, so it would be about tomorrow with him too, wouldn't it?  He and Olli are the same age, no?  The only practical advantage (in terms of it NOT being about today) I see in Juiolevi over Tkatchuk is Olli will still be in his ELC, when Tkatchuk is demanding big money.

[Hairy Kneel]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

 

 

Because it's not about today. 

I know I know it's about 3 seasons from now. If it works out for us in such a big way.

[AK_19]

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

From your own article:

It's a draft that seems to have "layers" or "clumps" of prospects to pick from.

For example, the first layer beyond the Big Three is a four-man grouping that includes three different types of wingers — Tkachuk, who is strong from the top of the circles down; Dubois, who has a strong 200-foot game; and Nylander, whose skill and hockey sense are considered elite — and the one defenceman Juolevi, who's viewed as the best all-around blueliner in the draft.

 

They might not have had him 'ahead' of Tkachuk (due almost entirely to fowards being easier to predict and usually making the NHL sooner) but most of them made mention of how that next group were all basically interchangeable. It was not remotely 'off the board'.

 

Because it's not about today. 

The poster I quoted claimed not one analyst put MT over OJ. That is absolutely not true and could not be farther from the truth. I couldn't find one credible listing that put OJ over MT. 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, AK_19 said:

The poster I quoted claimed not one analyst put MT over OJ. That is absolutely not true and could not be farther from the truth. I couldn't find one credible listing that put OJ over MT. 

I thought I remembered seeing one or two as well... but sure. Did you find some 'not credible' ones? 

 

Numerous scouts also said that Juolevi could go as high as 4th and that they were all basically 'interchangeable' and their draft order would highly depend on what aspects of those players teams saw as most attractive, who was drafting more for near-term returns vs long term etc. 

 

Numerous scouts mentioned Van could take OJ and that it would still be a very solid pick at 5. Players 4-8 were basically a 'tie' and most scouts said as much. And that's all that really matters vs winning some silly internet argument about how they were 'technically' ranked based largely on forwards being easier to predict and translating sooner.

 

If anything, given that these scouts etc were all saying OJ could go as high as 4/5 despite being a longer term/less predictable D should give some insight to how well regarded he was.

Edited February 14, 2017 by J.R.

[AK_19]

10 hours ago, J.R. said:

I thought I remembered seeing one or two as well... but sure. Did you find some 'not credible' ones? 

 

Numerous scouts also said that Juolevi could go as high as 4th and that they were all basically 'interchangeable' and their draft order would highly depend on what aspects of those players teams saw as most attractive, who was drafting more for near-term returns vs long term etc. 

 

Numerous scouts mentioned Van could take OJ and that it would still be a very solid pick at 5. Players 4-8 were basically a 'tie' and most scouts said as much. And that's all that really matters vs winning some silly internet argument about how they were 'technically' ranked based largely on forwards being easier to predict and translating sooner.

 

If anything, given that these scouts etc were all saying OJ could go as high as 4/5 despite being a longer term/less predictable D should give some insight to how well regarded he was.

+1 for giving me a good chuckle. I just said that so someone doesn't link me to some random blogger.

With that being said I do agree with you, I just took issue with the claim that no one put MT over OJ. They were definitely in a similar tier.
However, what worries me is that Benning definitely didn't expect the kind of breakout MT had. I recall Benning himself stating he didn't think there were any #1 dmen in this draft yet he still picked OJ.

Edited February 15, 2017 by AK_19

[aGENT]

14 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

+1 for giving me a good chuckle. I just said that so someone doesn't link me to some random blogger.

With that being said I do agree with you, I just took issue with the claim that no one put MT over OJ. They were definitely in a similar tier.
However, what worries me is that Benning definitely didn't expect the kind of breakout MT had. I recall Benning himself stating he didn't think there were any #1 dmen in this draft yet he still picked OJ.

 

How do you know Benning didn't expect MT to breakout? Would he have broke out to the same degree in the Canucks? Perhaps Benning was thinking more about the team in 4 years vs this year?

 

Is there something wrong with a solid #2D who thinks the game well, skates well, passes well and constantly pushes the puck the right direction and helps nullify offensive forays while maintaining offensive pressure? Sure an elite #1D is nice too but you need a #2 as well. 

 

Also:

https://www.mckeenshockey.com/prospects-blog/mckeens-2016-top-30-nhl-draft-rankings-apr-2016/

Edited February 15, 2017 by J.R.

[BI3KSALLENT]

On 2/14/2017 at 0:20 AM, Hairy Kneel said:

Well I had a Jordan Schroeder deja vu' moment when they announced OJ.

because we needed size up front. a 200 (pounding) pounder with hands. A Tkatchuk.

And we already had young D in Tanev and free agent prospects and draft picks. 

(Who would would be tied for 2nd in scoring today at 34 points )

 

 

Do you honestly think that a)Tkatchuk would have even made the team, b)made the team and be playing the same role he is in Calgary(Top-6 and a lot of PP time), and had 34 pts on a team that can't really produce much. Great he's made the NHL already, but at least wait to see what Juolevi brings before writing him off. In 3-4 years when this team might be looking to push into the playoffs Tanev will already be 30 and someone will need to replace him.

[Standing_Tall#37]

41 minutes ago, BI3KSALLENT said:

Do you honestly think that a)Tkatchuk would have even made the team, b)made the team and be playing the same role he is in Calgary(Top-6 and a lot of PP time), and had 34 pts on a team that can't really produce much. Great he's made the NHL already, but at least wait to see what Juolevi brings before writing him off. In 3-4 years when this team might be looking to push into the playoffs Tanev will already be 30 and someone will need to replace him.

That kid will be drafted this year or maybe someone like Tate Olson who will be slow developing. Anyone whose a first rounder and not playing full time in the NHL by time they're 24-25 is probably a bust. See; Nicklas Jensen, Patrick white, Jordan Schroeder, Nathan smith, etc. 

[Off_The_Schneid!]

2 hours ago, BI3KSALLENT said:

Do you honestly think that a)Tkatchuk would have even made the team, b)made the team and be playing the same role he is in Calgary(Top-6 and a lot of PP time), and had 34 pts on a team that can't really produce much. Great he's made the NHL already, but at least wait to see what Juolevi brings before writing him off. In 3-4 years when this team might be looking to push into the playoffs Tanev will already be 30 and someone will need to replace him.

Tanev plays the right side

juolevi plays the left side 

different positions 

[Phat Fingers]

On 2017-02-14 at 0:25 PM, AK_19 said:

The poster I quoted claimed not one analyst put MT over OJ. That is absolutely not true and could not be farther from the truth. I couldn't find one credible listing that put OJ over MT. 

I am the poster in question and the statement you are referring to is not about pre draft listings, but commentary by analysts on draft day.

 

My statement has nothing to do with the predraft rankings. 

 

No one was surprised or disappointed with Vancouver taking OJ. Go back and watch the tape. 

 

As for the pre draft rankings, as J.R. has highlighted, the top 2 was set, with number 3 (Puljarvi) considered to be another tier down from the top 2, then 4-6 was another tier down. OJ and the  son of Keith along with PLD were in that range. 

 

There was speculation that the Oil could take OJ at 4, then CJB went off the board for PLD.... 

 

The 4-6 range was a group. 

 

So if you have a difference of opinion about my claim, name me one analyst on draft day that questioned Vancouver taking OJ over Tkachuk.  I never saw it, but you show me some tape or a post draft analysis from a legit major network analyst (not some geek typing on a keyboard in his parents basement) and I will yield. 

 

EW

[funkyfresh]

I like Juolevi but it's obvious that Tkachuk was the higher rated prospect. Just watch the draft video below:

 

Even the analysts are saying it's going to be tough to pass on Tkachuk and are dumbfounded when Canucks pick Juolevi. So, let's not bring up some bs about how their were clumps and dumps or whatever; Tkachuk was the higher rated prospect. 

 

Having said that, Juolevi has looked fantastic in the games I've seen him play (except for a few in the beginning of the season).

[Stelar]

42 minutes ago, funkyfresh said:

I like Juolevi but it's obvious that Tkachuk was the higher rated prospect. Just watch the draft video below:

 

Even the analysts are saying it's going to be tough to pass on Tkachuk and are dumbfounded when Canucks pick Juolevi. So, let's not bring up some bs about how their were clumps and dumps or whatever; Tkachuk was the higher rated prospect. 

 

Having said that, Juolevi has looked fantastic in the games I've seen him play (except for a few in the beginning of the season).

Lol, are you seriously using a video that has Damien Cox as the junior hockey "expert"?  Keep reaching. What, Damien was on break from the Davis Cup?

[funkyfresh]

3 minutes ago, Stelar said:

Lol, are you seriously using a video that has Damien Cox as the junior hockey "expert"?  Keep reaching. What, Damien was on break from the Davis Cup?

How am I reaching? Show me a a draft ranking that had Juolevi ahead of Tkachuk. Heck, Juolevi wasn't even top rated dman in a lot of rankings. Don't confuse this as me saying Canucks should have drafted Tkachuk. All I'm saying is that people need to stop making up bs about how they were in the same tier before draft. 

 

It was:

• Mathews, Laine
• Puljujärvi
• Dubois, Tkachuk
• Juolevi, Keller, Sergachev, Nylander, etc

 

[Stelar]

6 minutes ago, funkyfresh said:

How am I reaching? Show me a a draft ranking that had Juolevi ahead of Tkachuk. Heck, Juolevi wasn't even top rated dman in a lot of rankings. Don't confuse this as me saying Canucks should have drafted Tkachuk. All I'm saying is that people need to stop making up bs about how they were in the same tier before draft. 

 

It was:

• Mathews, Laine
• Puljujärvi
• Dubois, Tkachuk
• Juolevi, Keller, Sergachev, Nylander, etc

 

Please don't use Damien Cox as a reasoning to say OJ wasn't in the same class. He is an idiot. 

 

Matthews with Laine close behind

JP 

PLD

MT, OJ,Nylander, Sergachev all in the same ballpark 

 

for all anyone know Charlie McAvoy might end up being the best D man of the whole lot