Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[coryberg]

8 hours ago, stonecoldstevebernier said:

Didn't watch today's game, but Juolevi got a huge boost in ice time over the previous two games. 22:49 compared to the 16ish he was getting before. Probably should've been playing that from the start though, its too late for the Finns unless they get another Danish miracle tomorrow...

But yeah, I agree with other sentiments that you shouldn't judge a player by their WJC performances, good or bad. Whether he leads the tourney in d-man scoring like last year or has a year like this one, it'll be way different when he's playing on a team of grown men in the NHL. You take Laine, Puljujarvi, Aho, Rantanen, and Kapanen out of your lineup and you're just not going to look as good. If you're going to get nine assists you need some players to convert those passes (and the ice time to do it).

Could have used this picture to save your thousand words.

[WeneedLumme]

3 hours ago, terrible.dee said:

Do you have any idea at all how baseless nearly every point you made is? And how the tiniest dash of critical thinking would leave you embarrassed to have written it? You are regurgitating lame cliched excuses as if they were actually true. And worse as if they are original conclusions you have come to on your own, 

 

I am so tired of picking apart thoughtless posts, If I had you on the stand I would eat you for breakfast

 

I cannot stem the tide of millennial  ADD reasoning, I'm tapping out

 

But before I go let me say this , A wall painted white is a wall painted white, just because you point at it and say "No No this wall is black" does not make it any less white.

 

Results are results and mediocrity is mediocrity you can parrot the clubs spin of the week if you want, though I 'm sure you don't even know you're doing it, some of us tell the truth as it exists and that truth is that Joelevi's pathetic camp leaves no doubt he was an unwise pick at #5, and as for Virtanen, if his work habits were exemplary then there would be less cause for concern but the odds are overwhelmingly against him being a top 6 player at this point, and his work habits need work.

 

The problem is that Jake is failing for all the reasons everyone knew, and Juolevi seems highly unlikely to be a high impact talent, these were two crucial picks and in both cases the better options were obvious, and have already proved they would have been better picks.

Not sure exactly who this rant is directed at, but I assume it is aimed at all Canuck fans who have hopes for the team's prospects. You sound like a young, ignorant lawyer who believes that his very narrow area of knowledge makes him an expert on everything.

 

Your delusion that you know the future is pathetic. Assuming that you know the future career trajectories of children is ridiculous. And stating nonsense like: "have already PROVED they would have been better picks" with respect to said children demonstrates very sloppy, arrogant thinking.

[Stelar]

4 hours ago, terrible.dee said:

Do you have any idea at all how baseless nearly every point you made is? And how the tiniest dash of critical thinking would leave you embarrassed to have written it? You are regurgitating lame cliched excuses as if they were actually true. And worse as if they are original conclusions you have come to on your own, 

 

I am so tired of picking apart thoughtless posts, If I had you on the stand I would eat you for breakfast

 

I cannot stem the tide of millennial  ADD reasoning, I'm tapping out

 

But before I go let me say this , A wall painted white is a wall painted white, just because you point at it and say "No No this wall is black" does not make it any less white.

 

Results are results and mediocrity is mediocrity you can parrot the clubs spin of the week if you want, though I 'm sure you don't even know you're doing it, some of us tell the truth as it exists and that truth is that Joelevi's pathetic camp leaves no doubt he was an unwise pick at #5, and as for Virtanen, if his work habits were exemplary then there would be less cause for concern but the odds are overwhelmingly against him being a top 6 player at this point, and his work habits need work.

 

The problem is that Jake is failing for all the reasons everyone knew, and Juolevi seems highly unlikely to be a high impact talent, these were two crucial picks and in both cases the better options were obvious, and have already proved they would have been better picks.

This is a silly post.  Sadly all you will have to do to backtrack from this in 3-4 years is post a barely read "man was I wrong" post and all will be good.....

Edited December 30, 2016 by Stelar

[vancan2233]

10 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

Not sure exactly who this rant is directed at, but I assume it is aimed at all Canuck fans who have hopes for the team's prospects. You sound like a young, ignorant lawyer who believes that his very narrow area of knowledge makes him an expert on everything.

 

Your delusion that you know the future is pathetic. Assuming that you know the future career trajectories of children is ridiculous. And stating nonsense like: "have already PROVED they would have been better picks" with respect to said children demonstrates very sloppy, arrogant thinking.

The perfect definition of the saying : "genius in his/her own mind"

[vancan2233]

2 minutes ago, Stelar said:

This is a stupid post.  Sadly all you will have to do to backtrack from this in 3-4 years is post a barely read "man wa I wrong" post and all will be good.....

Not really stupid as it is arrogant, short sighted and immature. 

[Stelar]

4 minutes ago, vancan2233 said:

Not really stupid as it is arrogant, short sighted and immature. 

I changed it to silly

[Alflives]

4 hours ago, terrible.dee said:

Do you have any idea at all how baseless nearly every point you made is? And how the tiniest dash of critical thinking would leave you embarrassed to have written it? You are regurgitating lame cliched excuses as if they were actually true. And worse as if they are original conclusions you have come to on your own, 

 

I am so tired of picking apart thoughtless posts, If I had you on the stand I would eat you for breakfast

 

I cannot stem the tide of millennial  ADD reasoning, I'm tapping out

 

But before I go let me say this , A wall painted white is a wall painted white, just because you point at it and say "No No this wall is black" does not make it any less white.

 

Results are results and mediocrity is mediocrity you can parrot the clubs spin of the week if you want, though I 'm sure you don't even know you're doing it, some of us tell the truth as it exists and that truth is that Joelevi's pathetic camp leaves no doubt he was an unwise pick at #5, and as for Virtanen, if his work habits were exemplary then there would be less cause for concern but the odds are overwhelmingly against him being a top 6 player at this point, and his work habits need work.

 

The problem is that Jake is failing for all the reasons everyone knew, and Juolevi seems highly unlikely to be a high impact talent, these were two crucial picks and in both cases the better options were obvious, and have already proved they would have been better picks.

Excellent post.  If you would like to feel more positive about the Canuck's prospects - and future - JB is handing out free green and blue suckers, to (you know) suckers.  

[Warhippy]

4 hours ago, terrible.dee said:

Do you have any idea at all how baseless nearly every point you made is? And how the tiniest dash of critical thinking would leave you embarrassed to have written it? You are regurgitating lame cliched excuses as if they were actually true. And worse as if they are original conclusions you have come to on your own, 

 

I am so tired of picking apart thoughtless posts, If I had you on the stand I would eat you for breakfast

 

I cannot stem the tide of millennial  ADD reasoning, I'm tapping out

 

But before I go let me say this , A wall painted white is a wall painted white, just because you point at it and say "No No this wall is black" does not make it any less white.

 

Results are results and mediocrity is mediocrity you can parrot the clubs spin of the week if you want, though I 'm sure you don't even know you're doing it, some of us tell the truth as it exists and that truth is that Joelevi's pathetic camp leaves no doubt he was an unwise pick at #5, and as for Virtanen, if his work habits were exemplary then there would be less cause for concern but the odds are overwhelmingly against him being a top 6 player at this point, and his work habits need work.

 

The problem is that Jake is failing for all the reasons everyone knew, and Juolevi seems highly unlikely to be a high impact talent, these were two crucial picks and in both cases the better options were obvious, and have already proved they would have been better picks.

Then go away.

 

The irony of someone named terrible d calling a d prospect terrible is not lost on some.

 

Keeping in mind though of course with your brilliant insight sir

 

Ehlers/Nylander and or Tkachuk would NOT be playing on a team with a coach like Babcock or with high profile linemates like Laine/Wheeler/Schieffle/Gaudreau/Bennett/Monahan/Giordano and would be at the mercy of good ol Willy D

 

But again, I mean yes.in hindsight we coulda had KOP!TARZZZZ and all that because we're all Bowmans in hindsight aren't we.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Warhippy

[JamesB]

12 hours ago, Darius71 said:

 

I agree with some of what you say, but im not so sure about how to gauge players based on their WJC performance.  For instance Dubois hasnt scored a goal yet on a power house Canada team that has basically bi#t% slapped other teams. He was taken 3rd overall.  Barzal - taken 16th has 3 goals, and Raddysh-taken 58th overall has 5 goals.  

 

Should Columbus fans be disappointed? Should all of those teams that took players ahead of Raddysh be disappointed?  I dont think they should be, WJC performances are not a sure shot indicator of NHL success - otherwise Jordan Schroeder and Cody Hodgson would be all stars.  Conversely Bo Horvat looked very average when he made his WJC appearance too.

 

I think we should be cautious about judging Juolevi - his team just doesnt look that good.  Ive seen lots of his passes die on his team mates sticks, ive seen them unable to handle his hard passes.

 

Good points. The WJC is a small sample and any small sample can be misleading. A full year of Junior is a much better indicator than performance at the WJC. Still, the WJC does tell us something and strong performance at the WJC is a good indicator.  The top scorers from last year are Puljujarivi, Aho, Laine, Matthews, and Tkachuk, Those guys are all doing well in the NHL this year.  From 2015 the top scorers were Reinhart, Petan, McDavid, Domi, and Nylander.

 

I would love to have any of those ten guys on the Canucks rights now.

 

As for Horvat, he was a solid member of Team Canada in his draft+1 year and took on the role of Canada's top defensive forward (and he still picked up 4 pts in the tournament). In his draft+2 year, when he would have almost certainly been one of the stars to the team, the Canucks did not make him available. Overall, I would say that his NHL performance is consistent with his WJC performance: a good WJC player in his draft+1 season has become a good NHL player.

 

Not every star from the World Juniors becomes a star in the NHL and not every NHL star did well at the World Juniors, but there is a significant and meaningful correlation.

 

I also agree that Finland does not look good and that the performance of any one player depends a lot on his teammates. Still, it is nice to see players who drive play and make the guys around them significantly better. I think Horvat is in that category. I don't think Juolevi is.

 

I agree that Juolevi is a good prospect. I would just like to see more at this stage from the #5 overall pick and the top player taken from the OHL..

[JamesB]

13 hours ago, Sean Monahan said:

@JamesB have you actually watched Finland's games?

As much as I could bear to watch.

 

The last three years have been bad years for Canuck fans and many of the few remaining fans are clutching at straws to find things they can interpret as positives, like a belief in Benning's drafting ability or a belief that top draft picks like Virtanen and Juolevi will justify their draft positions. But right now that is mostly wishful thinking. The facts are that the Canucks have a very weak presence at the World Juniors, a very weak AHL team, and a very weak NHL team. 

 

The biggest positives on the organization are Horvat and Hutton, who were Gillis picks, and Stecher, who was a gift in that he was from Vancouver and wanted to come home.

In fairness, Boeser is the other big positive and he is a Benning pick. And Demko and Tryamkin are also Benning picks who look pretty good.

 

But that is slim pickings (sorry for the pun) for a team that has struggled as much as the Canucks have over the past few years.

 

Time for a new GM in my view.

[PlanB]

17 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

Not every star from the World Juniors becomes a star in the NHL and not every NHL star did well at the World Juniors, but there is a significant and meaningful correlation.

 

 

There is a correlation;  however the significance is debatable :

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/25/world-junior-success-no-guarantee-of-nhl-career

[baumerman77]

Far too early to judge. Especially, a defenseman. That being said we need to lower our expectations. The odds are against him being a great number 1 defenceman, the odds are against him being the best defenseman in the 2016 draft and the odds are against him ending up being the best player we could've taken at 5.  

[Sean Monahan]

4 minutes ago, JamesB said:

As much as I could bear to watch.

 

The last three years have been bad years for Canuck fans and many of the few remaining fans are clutching at straws to find things they can interpret as positives, like a belief in Benning's drafting ability or a belief that top draft picks like Virtanen and Juolevi will justify their draft positions. But right now that is mostly wishful thinking. The facts are that the Canucks have a very weak presence at the World Juniors, a very weak AHL team, and a very weak NHL team. 

 

The biggest positives on the organization are Horvat and Hutton, who were Gillis picks, and Stecher, who was a gift in that he was from Vancouver and wanted to come home.

In fairness, Boeser is the other big positive and he is a Benning pick. And Demko and Tryamkin are also Benning picks who look pretty good.

 

But that is slim pickings (sorry for the pun) for a team that has struggled as much as the Canucks have over the past few years.

 

Time for a new GM in my view.

There's absolutely no way of verifying the bolded. I'm sick of hearing people talk about "Benning is garbage, yet I'll admit he stumbled into some successes despite the fact he's a completely inept loser"- or something along those lines. Who says he didn't just do a better job of recruiting Stecher than other teams did? Sure, being a Vancouver native probably played a factor but the list of local boys who shunned Vancouver is far, far bigger than the list of those who haven't. Likely at least 10x longer. 

 

Also, it's disingenuous to mention other picks like Boeser, Demko, Tryamkin (I'll go ahead and throw in some other picks that look promising in guys like McKenzie, Lockwood, Gaudette, and Brisebois) while downplaying the potential impact of it. I think Benning has drafted at least 6 future NHL players in his 3 drafts which makes for a pretty dam good success rate- one most other teams (and certainly the Canucks of the Gillis era) would envy.

 

And to get to the ultimate point of this debate- Juolevi vs Tkachuk. I'll start by saying that it wasn't "off the board" or "reaching" to take Juolevi at 5. Plenty of experts and analysts had him going there, a couple even had him at 4th. If you want to talk about a reach you should look at Columbus taking PLD at 3rd. Aside from the draft day debate, why are we even bothering to draw conclusions at this point? The debate is entirely "apples to oranges", not to mention incredibly premature. You're comparing a left winger, who was physically ready to play in the NHL and spends much of his time playing with quality linemates such as Gaudreau, Frolik, Backlund, et al, to a d-man who was widely believed to be physically unready for the big time but considered a longer term investment. What's wrong with that? Didn't Benning get roasted for the "instant gratification" pick in Virtanen over Nylander/Ehlers? Juolevi is a tremendous prospect. A quick and simple Google search will tell you that many people outside of CDC share that opinion. To conclude we "lost" on draft day a mere 6 months afterwards is asinine. I think Tkachuk is likely a higher floor, lower ceiling guy while Juolevi is probably a lower floor/higher ceiling prospect- and I'm willing to wait and see about that. Juolevi will be an analytics darling in due time, and don't we all know that's what wins Stanley Cups?

[logic]

23 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

Good points. The WJC is a small sample and any small sample can be misleading. A full year of Junior is a much better indicator than performance at the WJC. Still, the WJC does tell us something and strong performance at the WJC is a good indicator.  The top scorers from last year are Puljujarivi, Aho, Laine, Matthews, and Tkachuk, Those guys are all doing well in the NHL this year.  From 2015 the top scorers were Reinhart, Petan, McDavid, Domi, and Nylander.

 

I would love to have any of those ten guys on the Canucks rights now.

 

As for Horvat, he was a solid member of Team Canada in his draft+1 year and took on the role of Canada's top defensive forward (and he still picked up 4 pts in the tournament). In his draft+2 year, when he would have almost certainly been one of the stars to the team, the Canucks did not make him available. Overall, I would say that his NHL performance is consistent with his WJC performance: a good WJC player in his draft+1 season has become a good NHL player.

 

Not every star from the World Juniors becomes a star in the NHL and not every NHL star did well at the World Juniors, but there is a significant and meaningful correlation.

 

I also agree that Finland does not look good and that the performance of any one player depends a lot on his teammates. Still, it is nice to see players who drive play and make the guys around them significantly better. I think Horvat is in that category. I don't think Juolevi is.

 

I agree that Juolevi is a good prospect. I would just like to see more at this stage from the #5 overall pick and the top player taken from the OHL..

Cody Hodgson and Jordon Schroeder top scorers with real good NHL careers eh... The correlation has more to do with which team has the most firepower and chemistry in any given year,

 

Lets go back to 2000 and compare Juolevi to other D drafted fifth overall.

02 Ryan Whitney

07 Karl Alzner

08 Luke Schenn

12 Morgan Rielly

15 Noah Hanifin

Looking at other Dmen drafted at the SAME selection since 2000 don't you think you should lower your expectations a little bit. It's unfair to just expect OJ to be a norris contending, consistent best Dman on the ice.

 

[Ronaldoescobar]

I think what has been agreed is that there is a small WJC sample size and Finland is struggling so OJ is a bust and MT was the pick at #5 because he is in the NHL right away! Forget about last year as a 17 year old top D on a gold medal squad (who made the WJC all-star team to boot) as he was obviously carried by Laine and PJ.  I mean if you cant make the NHL as a 18 year old dman then you are horrible! I guess it is even worse for both PLD and Jost as they are centers and it is even easier to make the NHL.

[Odd.]

2 hours ago, logic said:

Cody Hodgson and Jordon Schroeder top scorers with real good NHL careers eh... The correlation has more to do with which team has the most firepower and chemistry in any given year,

 

Lets go back to 2000 and compare Juolevi to other D drafted fifth overall.

02 Ryan Whitney

07 Karl Alzner

08 Luke Schenn

12 Morgan Rielly

15 Noah Hanifin

Looking at other Dmen drafted at the SAME selection since 2000 don't you think you should lower your expectations a little bit. It's unfair to just expect OJ to be a norris contending, consistent best Dman on the ice.

 

Not just that, but generally, looking at 5th overall picks since 2000, they are quite weak in terms of being an above average player depending on how you look at it. For example, the only above-average players taken with the 5th overall pick since 2000 are Phil Kessel, Carey Price, and Thomas Vanek. Still quite early for the recent 5th overall picks since 2012, but historically, the 5th overall pick dont usually end up being above-average although that doesn't mean there hasn't been good 5th overall picks. It's important that we don't rush Juolevi.

 

There's also the possibilty that had we selected Tkachuk, he might not have had the same success as hes getting in Calgary. As a poster said above, he's surronded by offensive players like Gaudreau, Monahan, Backlund, etc. Maybe he wouldn't have made the team had he been with us? Maybe he wouldn't get as much playing time if he were to play with us considering it's two different coaches but then people will use the sad sack excuse saying that Coach A would be better for player x than Coach B but that's another argument. 

 

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Odd.

[Noble 6]

1 hour ago, logic said:

Cody Hodgson and Jordon Schroeder top scorers with real good NHL careers eh... The correlation has more to do with which team has the most firepower and chemistry in any given year,

 

Lets go back to 2000 and compare Juolevi to other D drafted fifth overall.

02 Ryan Whitney

07 Karl Alzner

08 Luke Schenn

12 Morgan Rielly

15 Noah Hanifin

Looking at other Dmen drafted at the SAME selection since 2000 don't you think you should lower your expectations a little bit. It's unfair to just expect OJ to be a norris contending, consistent best Dman on the ice.

 

Alzner would be a solid comparable for Juolevi's potential role and impact on our team in the future, wouldn't he?

[Fanuck]

1 hour ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

Alzner would be a solid comparable for Juolevi's potential role and impact on our team in the future, wouldn't he?

To me,  Alzner fits the role of a physical,  stay - at - home defenceman who clears the net on a nightly basis whereas we were sold,  imo,  on OJ being a great skating,  mobile puck moving defender.  

 

Time will tell. 

[Alflives]

No matter how it's spun, OJ (so far) is disappointing.  JB has had four first round picks.  Three are disappointments.  We are rebuilding, and JB is making the rebuild take even longer with these misses, isn't he?  

[Zoolander]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

No matter how it's spun, OJ (so far) is disappointing.  JB has had four first round picks.  Three are disappointments.  We are rebuilding, and JB is making the rebuild take even longer with these misses, isn't he?  

How is OJ a disappointment? He's captaining a country at the WJC. Not his fault the goalie is a siv and the young offense can't find chemistry.

 

Also, Virtanen is worth the investment. Ehlers and Nylander can put up all the points in the world, but if Virtanen catches them with their head down it's game over.