Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[vancan2233]

32 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

Don't give up yet @terrible.dee. I appreciate your forthright comments.

 

 

 

Good post @samurai but I think it is misleading in one respect.

 

First, you are right that first rounders taken as a group has a less than 50% chance of becoming regular top 6 forwards or top 4 defencemen.

However, there is a big difference depending on where in the first round a player is picked. See, for example, http://nhlnumbers.com/2016/5/1/is-it-worth-it-to-trade-up-in-the-nhl-draft. (Or http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/analyzing-value-nhl-draft-picks/.

 

But, not all players taken in the first round are unlikely to become core players (top 4 D or top 6 forwards). In fact, players taken in the #1, #2, and #3 positions are very likely to become core players.  Here are the last 10 #1 picks: Matthews, McDavid, Ekblad, MacKinnon, Yakupov, Nugent-Hopkins, Hall, Tavares, Stamkos, and Kane. With the exception of Yakupov, every one of those guys is a first liner or top pairing D and most of those guys are candidates for major awards.

 

Certainly any pick in the top 6 that does not turn out to be a top 4 D or a top 6 forward is a mistake. It happens, but not that often. And one point that is often overlooked is that draft assessments are getting better and better. It is now much more scientific and much more information is available. Ten years ago you would see a lot of disappointing picks. That is less and less likely, especially for GMs who look at the data carefully instead of just relying on the "eye test" for the few games they or their scouts manage to see.

 

I have looked at the data pretty closely, including running a lot of regressions. At this stage there is no question that Jake is a significant under-performer for his draft position. From the data that just is not a debatable point. Both Dal Colle (#5 overall) and Virtanen (#6 overall) are struggling, but the other forwards in the top 10 are all doing well. I am not saying it is impossible to turn it around. But the odds are clearly against JV becoming a top 6 forward based on his trajectory so far.

 

With OJ I agree that it is obviously too early to say much. Even so, if you look at recent relatively high pick Ds, what he has done so far in comparison is at least worrying. As I noted in a previous message, you would expect the top pick taken from the OHL to be a standout player in the OHL the following year (if he is not in the NHL). Things have not worked out that way.

 

I admit that the top pick taken from the "Q" -- Dubois -- is also off to a disappointing start.

 

The other point is that high draft picks don't come along very often except for a few teams that go through spectacularly bad management (i.e. Edmonton). For a team to rebuild successfully they have to capitalize on the high picks they get (Kane and Toews, Doughty and Kopitar, Sedin and Sedin, etc.).

Good post except the bold part. According to what guide lines are we rating this. Stat watching or actually watching the player play. Seem to me most people are just stat watching. Do you know if OJ is dominating the play when he is on the ice with his defensive play or not? How is he being deployed , from my understanding he is the key defensive player and is used as such, only jumping into offensive mode with good reads on the play. This year his team has a lot less offensive punch so they rely on him even more on the defensive side of the game while trying to give the forward the good first pass out of the d zone to start the offense.

Edited December 31, 2016 by vancan2233

[Gaudette Celly]

37 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

Don't give up yet @terrible.dee. I appreciate your forthright comments.

 

Misery loves company.  It's like group therapy here.

 

33 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Wow!  Great post!  Could you call JB and get a job helping him draft in the first round?

 

And right on cue, affirmation and encouragement to keep it rolling.

[JamesB]

3 hours ago, vancan2233 said:

Good post except the bold part. According to what guide lines are we rating this. Stat watching or actually watching the player play. Seem to me most people are just stat watching. Do you know if OJ is dominating the play when he is on the ice with his defensive play or not? How is he being deployed , from my understanding he is the key defensive player and is used as such, only jumping into offensive mode with good reads on the play. This year his team has a lot less offensive punch so they rely on him even more on the defensive side of the game while trying to give the forward the good first pass out of the d zone to start the offense.

 

Good post. From what I have seen @vancan2233 is right about OJ's deployment. His normal playing partner (Mete) is more aggressive offensively and OJ is the key defensive player on the team. And, as I have said before, there is no question that OJ is a good player. However, I am not sure he was the BPA at #5 overall given that Tkachuk was also available. There were several good Ds in the draft: OJ, Chychrun, Sergachev, and Bean. Most of the rating agencies had them close before the draft and they are still close.

 

OJ would have been a good pick at #9 (where Horvat was taken) and a great pick at #12 or #13. But at #5 it would nice to get a guy who contributes more toward toward putting points on the board.

[Time Lord]

11 minutes ago, JamesB said:

OJ would have been a good pick at #9 (where Horvat was taken) and a great pick at #12 or #13. But at #5 it would nice to get a guy who contributes more toward toward putting points on the board.

Just curious, how good do you think Juolevi will be? Also how many points do you see Tkachuk putting up in his prime, and what would Juolevi have to do to be as valuable in your opinion?

[Sean Monahan]

47 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

OJ would have been a good pick at #9 (where Horvat was taken) and a great pick at #12 or #13. But at #5 it would nice to get a guy who contributes more toward toward putting points on the board.

Would've been, but I seriously doubt you'd get him there. 

[aGENT]

I don't even know what to do but  at some of these posts. 

[CanucksJay]

8 hours ago, Alflives said:

Are you happy with those first round picks, except for Boeser, knowing that we could have Ehlers, Pasternak, and Tkatchuk in our forwards right now?  

I'm happy with Virtanen and Juolevi. 

Every time I watch  a game, I lament over the fact that we don't have any players that can make impact hits that change the complexion of the game. I haven't seen a big kid skate that fast and has the ability to lay huge hits like that. Add to that a lethal shot. I haven't given up on him. I would be ecstatic if he becomes a 1st liner in the league however, his lack of hockey IQ could be a problem of reaching that potential. However, even if he becomes a 3rd liner, I see him as a Raffi Torres but with more size and speed and the ability to chip in and score 15 goals. In a playoff series, if he can take one of their top players out of the playoffs with a huge hit while chipping in 2 goals, that's a win. 

We love Stetcher but he is a poor man's version of Juolevi. If we love the way Stech plays now, wait until Juolevi laces em up for the nucks in a couple of years.

 We're just really fortunate that Benning has hit some home runs with other picks such a Tryamkin, Boeser, and signing Stech. 

[JamesB]

2 hours ago, Time Lord said:

Just curious, how good do you think Juolevi will be? Also how many points do you see Tkachuk putting up in his prime, and what would Juolevi have to do to be as valuable in your opinion?

Good questions from @Time Lord. But first, do you realize that you are not only a Time Lord but also Prince Phillip in the "The Crown"?

 

I don't have a Crystal Ball and I would rather predict the past than try to predict the future, but my best assessment of OJ is as follows.

 

I am going by scouting reports and rankings that came out at the draft, what I have seen since then, and other commentary and numbers since then.

 

1. Draft Rankings. My favorite website for draft rankings is http://www.mynhldraft.com/2016-draft/nhl-draft-rankings/.

That site lists most of the major rankings. They have 14 different rankings. (NHL central scouting provides separate North American and European rankings but they were easy to combine in this case.) These are the different ranks he got in order: 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8,8,9, 9, 10, 11,11,11. The highest ranking Juolevi got was #5  and the lowest was #11. His median ranking was 8 so that is what I would take as his consensus rank. I think he is a pretty standard high single digit draft pick. Interestingly, every single ordering on this website has Tkachuk ahead of Juolevi. So that is the sense in which Benning went "off the board" to pick Juolevi.

 

2. The scouting reports gave him very little chance of being a #1 D -- top of the depth chart on a good team. I think the consensus was -- good chance of being a good top pairing D (i.e. #2 on a good team), probably at least a good top 4 D, but no guarantees. That is pretty standard for a high single digit draft pick.

 

3. His performance in Junior last year and this year is consistent with that. His numbers are slightly better this year but he is no longer playing behind the best line in Junior hockey. London is still a good team, but he has probably made more progress than his numbers indicate. So he is very good but not dominant.

 

4. As for style of play, one thing that has been clarified this year is that he is probably stronger defensively than offensively. He is widely regarded as having a high hockey IQ, is very good at making a first pass, and very low risk in general. Here is a quote from a scouting report: "What Juolevi lacks in flash, he makes up for with substance and consistency."

 

Scouting reports describe his skating as "smooth", "fluid", "graceful", and "balanced". But he does not have blazing speed. Here is a typical quote from a scouting report: "His skating is smooth and low-effort, but his top speed could stand to improve." 

 

Here are some other quotes from scouting reports that I think are accurate:

 

a. "His positioning is incredible, always in the right spot to disrupt the puck carrier and getting his stick in the way."

b. 'With such a well-rounded game and among the highest hockey IQ in the entire draft class [for defencemen], it’s hard to find faults with the package that Juolevi brings to the table."

c. The one glaring area of Juolevi’s game that’s missing is a physical element;"

 

Juolevi has good height (6-3) but is slim and lanky. Currently listed in the mid 180s, he probably needs to at least another 10 lbs of muscle to hold his own in NHL puck battles. 

 

Playing on a stacked London team and on a stacked Finnish team at the WJC probably raised his stock last year.

 

My own best guess is that he will most likely become a borderline #2 or very good #3 D on a good team. He will probably get tapped for a lot of shutdown and PK time, and could maybe spend some time on the PP. He has the skill to provide useful offensive support, but if he gets 20 to 25 pts a year in his prime, that would be pretty good. A good Canuck comparable might be Dan Hamhuis or a more offensive version of Chris Tanev (who would probably be #3 on a good team). 

 

I see him breaking into the NHL the year after next -- in his draft+3 season. I hope Benning does not rush him as he would get pushed around by big NHL forwards if brought up too soon.

 

As for Tkachuk, virtually every scouting service had him above Juolevi. He is a legitimate scoring talent. He put up huge numbers last year in his draft year in London but was very good the previous year in the USHL. And he is doing well in the NHL this year in his draft+1 year. He has a high hockey IQ and great instincts down low. And he has decent size, strength, and toughness. He is not a great skater but neither are the Sedins. Based on his scoring stats so far he is a strong bet to be first liner for a long time and should quite often reach or at least threaten the point a game threshold. 

 

So bottom line: I think Juolevi is a good prospect. But the Canucks had a rare opportunity to bring in a genuine top scoring first liner when Tkachuk fell into their laps given the strength at the top of the draft and the weird decision made by Columbus. I think Juolevi is more like a Horvat-level prospect. And that is obviously good. But I am bit disappointed that I think we should have Ehlers (or Nylander) and Tkachuk on the team right now. Put Horvat between Ehlers and Tkachuk and that is probably a solid first line right now and an excellent first line a couple of years down the road. Put that with the D we had tonight (with a healthy Gudbranson later in the year) and having the Sedins as the second line, and a lot of people would be excited by the team.

 

[messier's_elbow]

9 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Not a good tournament for him, no need to sugar coat it. As a 19 year old he should at the very least be able to spark their powerplay, but they only have 1 goal.

 

Hopefully this drives him to come back strong for London.

Gimme a break. This kids a winner.  His team sucked. From what I watched, they were a shadow of the team last year.The panic is getting tiresome on every single prospect. There's no reason to believe Juolevi won't be a top pairing dman. He's  a number 5 pick overall not a first year overall saviour like Mcdavid. 

[messier's_elbow]

8 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

 

Was he on the top PP unit?  I don't think he was 

You should be an NHL GM. You seem to have such extensive hockey knowledge 

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

This thread is why I hate the World Juniors. 

Edited December 31, 2016 by Herberts Vasiljevs

[HorvatToBaertschi]

I swear people are so fickle on thèse boards. Juolevi is playing with a less offensive Knights team, playing a more defensive role, and has increased his PPG. How does that not shut every hater up? Seriously. I guess hes such à product of dvorak tkachuk and company, or maybe it was the other way àround?  

[mll]

Coaching staff fired mid-tournament.  The players were unhappy with the system - they felt it was too passive and wanted more freedom.  So after a players only meeting on Wednesday morning - Juolevi & his assistants met with the coaching staff to discuss a new game plan.  It was too late though.

 

Edited December 31, 2016 by mll

[TheSnipeshow91]

Juolevi is the type of player that you have to watch multiple times in order to really appreciate his hockey sense. I have no doubt he"ll be a top pair dman.

[Canucks Curse]

Maybe his minutes will go up with the coaching change

[Phat Fingers]

2 hours ago, mll said:

Coaching staff fired mid-tournament.  The players were unhappy with the system - they felt it was too passive and wanted more freedom.  So after a players only meeting on Wednesday morning - Juolevi & his assistants met with the coaching staff to discuss a new game plan.  It was too late though.

 

 

 

So we can now blame Juolevi for having his WJC coach fired, am I doing it right for the trolls on the CDC?  Sarcasm. 

[Phat Fingers]

2 hours ago, mll said:

Coaching staff fired mid-tournament.  The players were unhappy with the system - they felt it was too passive and wanted more freedom.  So after a players only meeting on Wednesday morning - Juolevi & his assistants met with the coaching staff to discuss a new game plan.  It was too late though.

 

 

 

So we can now blame Juolevi for having his WJC coach fired, am I doing it right for the trolls on the CDC?  Sarcasm 

[Alflives]

8 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

I'm happy with Virtanen and Juolevi. 

Every time I watch  a game, I lament over the fact that we don't have any players that can make impact hits that change the complexion of the game. I haven't seen a big kid skate that fast and has the ability to lay huge hits like that. Add to that a lethal shot. I haven't given up on him. I would be ecstatic if he becomes a 1st liner in the league however, his lack of hockey IQ could be a problem of reaching that potential. However, even if he becomes a 3rd liner, I see him as a Raffi Torres but with more size and speed and the ability to chip in and score 15 goals. In a playoff series, if he can take one of their top players out of the playoffs with a huge hit while chipping in 2 goals, that's a win. 

We love Stetcher but he is a poor man's version of Juolevi. If we love the way Stech plays now, wait until Juolevi laces em up for the nucks in a couple of years.

 We're just really fortunate that Benning has hit some home runs with other picks such a Tryamkin, Boeser, and signing Stech. 

I think Raffi Torres was a top pick too?

[aGENT]

6 hours ago, JamesB said:

My own best guess is that he will most likely become a borderline #2 or very good #3 D on a good team. He will probably get tapped for a lot of shutdown and PK time, and could maybe spend some time on the PP. He has the skill to provide useful offensive support, but if he gets 20 to 25 pts a year in his prime, that would be pretty good. A good Canuck comparable might be Dan Hamhuis or a more offensive version of Chris Tanev (who would probably be #3 on a good team).

 

Chris Tanev is what you hope Juolevi will become. If Juolevi adds more offense (not to mention likely more size) to that...

 

I'd say that projects Juolevi in to solid #2 with an outside chance at becoming a # 1 (though I'd agree #2 is most likely). He'd have to regress/develop poorly to fall to a #3 IMO.

 

5 hours ago, mll said:

Coaching staff fired mid-tournament.  The players were unhappy with the system - they felt it was too passive and wanted more freedom.  So after a players only meeting on Wednesday morning - Juolevi & his assistants met with the coaching staff to discuss a new game plan.  It was too late though.

 

 

Clearly the coaching was fine everybody. Juolevi simply ruined his team by being so awful and not being able to play a full 60 minutes, in every position, all at the same time.

Edited December 31, 2016 by J.R.

[Boudrias]

16 hours ago, Canucks Curse said:

Isn't Alzner a UFA thisxyear?

kis is from here, we will have cap, can sign him and move Tanev+1st for landeskog and col 2nd

Bang on! Word is that the CAPs cannot afford to resign him as the market is expected at $6 mil/year. Sign him and move Tanev and Van has a seriously 'big' d-core. He is 28 and plays at 220 pounds.