Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

b3.

By b3.
in Alumni

 Share

Recommended Posts

funkyfresh Abbotsford Star

funkyfresh

Posted
Posted
Just now, Stelar said:

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 

That implies that these other players were at times ranked ahead of Tkachuk, which is not true. Look at the rankings, mate. 

 

You can check my post history and see I was a big fan of McAvoy. However, I don't know what he has to do with this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stelar Canucks Third-Line

Stelar

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, funkyfresh said:

That implies that these other players were at times ranked ahead of Tkachuk, which is not true. Look at the rankings, mate. 

 

You can check my post history and see I was a big fan of McAvoy. However, I don't know what he has to do with this discussion.

You don't think Matthews, Laing, PLD and JP were ranked ahead of MT? And that MT and OJ weren't in the same ballpark draftwise? Our best defenceman in our 45'ish year history is Lumme.  Mother f'n Lumme.  You think maybe we should draft a D?

 

my point on McAvoy is that you have no idea who will be the best player from a draft 6 months after the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
funkyfresh Abbotsford Star

funkyfresh

Posted
Posted
Just now, Stelar said:

You don't think Matthews, Laing, PLD and JP were ranked ahead of MT? And that MT and OJ weren't in the same ballpark draftwise? Our best defenceman in our 45'ish year history is Lumme.  Mother f'n Lumme.  You think maybe we should draft a D?

 

my point on McAvoy is that you have no idea who will be the best player from a draft 6 months after the draft.

Of course they were. I'm talking about you putting Tkachuk in same tier as Nylander, Juolevi,, Sergachev when he was almost always ranked ahead of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stelar Canucks Third-Line

Stelar

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, funkyfresh said:

Of course they were. I'm talking about you putting Tkachuk in same tier as Nylander, Juolevi,, Sergachev when he was almost always ranked ahead of them. 

Your right. MT was head and shoulders above OJ. Benning picking OJ was like Patrick White all over again........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hairy Kneel Canucks All-Star

Hairy Kneel

Posted
Posted
4 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.

Yes he would have made the team and I would have slated him around Granlund and Burrows @ 22-23 points which is still above our 3rd 4th line guys.

He has Bo sized credentials and power forward potential we needed.

 

It's great you believe on OJ I hope he pans out. But that is @ 3 years from NOW. Meanwhile our top 6 is spinning its wheels on the PP. and shooting %

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alflives Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Alflives

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Yes he would have made the team and I would have slated him around Granlund and Burrows @ 22-23 points which is still above our 3rd 4th line guys.

He has Bo sized credentials and power forward potential we needed.

 

It's great you believe on OJ I hope he pans out. But that is @ 3 years from NOW. Meanwhile our top 6 is spinning its wheels on the PP. and shooting %

 

We have a top six?  We have Bo.  The rest are not legitimate top six players, are they?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AK_19 Abbotsford Star

AK_19

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

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

Just to make sure it's clear, I like OJ. I actually still like him as a pick more than MT. I just took issue with the view that MT was not the consensus BPA at #5 before the pick was made.

 

It wasn't my intent to misconstrue your words, but I'm sure you can understand how I came to the conclusion that I did. I hate being strawmanned and I definitely don't want to do it to others. 

 

However, even based on commentary by analyst on draft day, MT was favoured over OJ. You are correct in stating that nobody was surprised by our pick of OJ, but that is because Benning made comments prior suggesting he will pick a Dman. Another poster has already posted the Draft #5 video and it isn't with the kind of excitement shown for #6 where MT was picked up. The analyst himself stated it's tough to pass up on MT in the #5 draft video.

 

Beyond that, there is no fabled 4-6 tier. In that very video the analyst questioned who exactly was the top defenseman in this draft listing OJ or Sergachev. If there really was a 4-6 tier consensus among the analysts on draft day, where OJ was the only dman, why did he question if he was better than the other guy? The person OJ was lumped in with was picked all the way at #9.

Unless you are a Canuck fan with rose coloured glasses or OJ's family member, I don't know how you look at that video and not think the analyst felt MT was the superior pick. 

Edited by AK_19
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
khay Canucks First-Line

khay

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, funkyfresh said:

Of course they were. I'm talking about you putting Tkachuk in same tier as Nylander, Juolevi,, Sergachev when he was almost always ranked ahead of them. 

I do think Tkachuk can and was considered in the same tier as Juolevi, as per Bob McKenzie (http://www.tsn.ca/matthews-goes-wire-to-wire-as-tsn-s-top-prospect-1.511597):

 

Quote

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.

Tkachuk doing well now does prove that had we picked him, we wouldn't be regretting it but it doesn't prove that he is going to be more valuable to our team than Juolevi will be. We are yet to see what Juolevi can do for us. To be honest, our team was lacking a defence prospect with potential to be elite (for a long time), that there was plenty of speculation going around that if we weren't picking Dubois, we were going to pick a defenceman. A lot of people were hoping for Sergachev but I guess JB decided to take the best overall defender rather than take a bit of a gamble in Sergachev -- perhaps more dynamic player than Juolevi but less rounded player.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
khay Canucks First-Line

khay

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We have a top six?  We have Bo.  The rest are not legitimate top six players, are they?

Sedins still are. They are second line players but they get exposed so often now because they are assigned first line duties.

Baertschi also is a legitimate top 6 I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shiftynifty Abbotsford Star

Shiftynifty

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

Just to make sure it's clear, I like OJ. I actually still like him as a pick more than MT. I just took issue with the view that MT was not the consensus BPA at #5 before the pick was made.

 

It wasn't my intent to misconstrue your words, but I'm sure you can understand how I came to the conclusion that I did. I hate being strawmanned and I definitely don't want to do it to others. 

 

However, even based on commentary by analyst on draft day, MT was favoured over OJ. You are correct in stating that nobody was surprised by our pick of OJ, but that is because Benning made comments prior suggesting he will pick a Dman. Another poster has already posted the Draft #5 video and it isn't with the kind of excitement shown for #6 where MT was picked up. The analyst himself stated it's tough to pass up on MT in the #5 draft video.

 

Beyond that, there is no fabled 4-6 tier. In that very video the analyst questioned who exactly was the top defenseman in this draft listing OJ or Sergachev. If there really was a 4-6 tier consensus among the analysts on draft day, where OJ was the only dman, why did he question if he was better than the other guy? The person OJ was lumped in with was picked all the way at #9.

Unless you are a Canuck fan with rose coloured glasses or OJ's family member, I don't know how you look at that video and not think the analyst felt MT was the superior pick. 

Yes, of course, any Canucks fan with a different opinion than you must be wearing rose coloured glasses. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alflives Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Alflives

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

Just to make sure it's clear, I like OJ. I actually still like him as a pick more than MT. I just took issue with the view that MT was not the consensus BPA at #5 before the pick was made.

 

It wasn't my intent to misconstrue your words, but I'm sure you can understand how I came to the conclusion that I did. I hate being strawmanned and I definitely don't want to do it to others. 

 

However, even based on commentary by analyst on draft day, MT was favoured over OJ. You are correct in stating that nobody was surprised by our pick of OJ, but that is because Benning made comments prior suggesting he will pick a Dman. Another poster has already posted the Draft #5 video and it isn't with the kind of excitement shown for #6 where MT was picked up. The analyst himself stated it's tough to pass up on MT in the #5 draft video.

 

Beyond that, there is no fabled 4-6 tier. In that very video the analyst questioned who exactly was the top defenseman in this draft listing OJ or Sergachev. If there really was a 4-6 tier consensus among the analysts on draft day, where OJ was the only dman, why did he question if he was better than the other guy? The person OJ was lumped in with was picked all the way at #9.

Unless you are a Canuck fan with rose coloured glasses or OJ's family member, I don't know how you look at that video and not think the analyst felt MT was the superior pick. 

Okay, but stop rubbing in another JB first round draft mistake.  His misses are depressing:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BI3KSALLENT Abbotsford Prospect

BI3KSALLENT

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Yes he would have made the team and I would have slated him around Granlund and Burrows @ 22-23 points which is still above our 3rd 4th line guys.

He has Bo sized credentials and power forward potential we needed.

 

It's great you believe on OJ I hope he pans out. But that is @ 3 years from NOW. Meanwhile our top 6 is spinning its wheels on the PP. and shooting %

 

Olli will most like be on the team by next year, or the year after. Regardless seeing how Jake, Bo, McCann have been treated (bottom 6 defence first roles) MT would be floundering on a line with Skille atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AK_19 Abbotsford Star

AK_19

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

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

There you go:

http://news.nationalpost.com/sports/nhl/canadian-nhl-teams-draft-results-grade-well-given-all-the-high-picks

 

http://www.cbssports.com/fantasy/hockey/news/prospects-analysis-nhl-draft-first-round-review/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...