Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Olli Juolevi | #48 | D


b3.

Recommended Posts

On 2/1/2017 at 11:16 PM, messier's_elbow said:

The Tkatchuk lovers should read this. 

Tkachuk currently has 32 points as a rookie in the NHL... that would put him 2nd on our team for points and only 1 behind Horvat. The reason so many of us would have rather had Tkachuk is because we are extremely thin on scoring even if you include Boeser. The Sedins clearly arent what they used to be and right now we have a pretty good stockpile of D prospects

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TheAce said:

Tkachuk currently has 32 points as a rookie in the NHL... that would put him 2nd on our team for points and only 1 behind Horvat. The reason so many of us would have rather had Tkachuk is because we are extremely thin on scoring even if you include Boeser. The Sedins clearly arent what they used to be and right now we have a pretty good stockpile of D prospects

The depth on defense was not obvious prior to the draft. Nobody thought 2 rookie d would be on the team and contributing so well.

 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, gurn said:

The depth on defense was not obvious prior to the draft. Nobody thought 2 rookie d would be on the team and contributing so well.

 

the depth is just not there, not at the draft and not now.

 

Edler's offensive has disappeared for years. I don't really see a resurgence happening. Hutton is very weak defensively and may provide some offense here and there. I'm doubtful he will become a top 4D.

 

Juolevi is much needed. Of course we could use Tkachuk as well. We need talent everywhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tkachuk is doing great but if you have a shot at drafting a top end D or a top end LW you always take the top end D. Reason why is teams are reluctant to let top D go so they are never available unless you draft them. How many top end D's have been traded over the years?  Weber for Subban was D for D. Jones for Johansen was a D for a #1 centre. Hall was an exception but he was a top end LW in the league and also Larsson isn't even in the same category as Weber, Subban or Jones. 

 

The fact is we could never trade for a D like Juolevi. You have to draft that player. As for Tkachuk his type of player can be available for trade and also can be available as a free agent. If both players equal out I'd still take Juolevi over Tkachuk. 

Edited by Harvey Spector
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, J.R. said:

I still take Juolevi even with that hindsight. Too much of CDC is still focused on now. 

I'd been thinking through this and came to the same conclusion.

With that same hindsight though (and considering expansion), I think I hold off the Gudbranson trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

At this point I'm pretty sure you would take Horvat over McDavid.  

Drama queening it up again I see. Seems I was correct in my assessment of your ability to actually talk hockey.

Edited by J.R.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nzan said:

I'd been thinking through this and came to the same conclusion.

With that same hindsight though (and considering expansion), I think I hold off the Gudbranson trade.

I'd still do both. I still hope we move Tanev and one of Baer/Granlund for an upgrade on wing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, shazzam said:

the depth is just not there, not at the draft and not now.

 

Edler's offensive has disappeared for years. I don't really see a resurgence happening. Hutton is very weak defensively and may provide some offense here and there. I'm doubtful he will become a top 4D.

 

Juolevi is much needed. Of course we could use Tkachuk as well. We need talent everywhere!

I thought Hutton was looking better defensively for a few games leading up to his injury. Looked a lot calmer. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using the awesome power of hindsight, the top 3 defenseman chosen (Juolevi, Chychrun and Sergachev) have similar skillsets and ceilings.  Wouldn't have been a bad idea for JB to trade down a bit for some additional assets.  Of course, that all could just be wishful thinking.

 

 

While having Tkatchuk would definitely been helpful, the original argument was supposed to be either Tkatchuk or PLD.  OJ wasn't even supposed to have been available for pickup as he was slated to go #4.  It just so happens that Columbus threw a complete curveball.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we took Tkatchuk and he made the team, we wouldn't have picked Boucher off waivers probably, so if he has any sort of career with the Canucks, we could conclude that it is now Boucher + Juolevi...

It's a Tryamkin like reach, but not impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Using the awesome power of hindsight, the top 3 defenseman chosen (Juolevi, Chychrun and Sergachev) have similar skillsets and ceilings.  Wouldn't have been a bad idea for JB to trade down a bit for some additional assets.  Of course, that all could just be wishful thinking.

 

 

While having Tkatchuk would definitely been helpful, the original argument was supposed to be either Tkatchuk or PLD.  OJ wasn't even supposed to have been available for pickup as he was slated to go #4.  It just so happens that Columbus threw a complete curveball.  

I read through this three times now. I'm just trying to see what your point is? Respectfully. 

 

Also so due to Columbus's lack of high-end centre depth I wouldn't necessarily call drafting Dubois a curveball. With that being said Benning had Juolevi higher than most people though on his list. Us drafting Juolevi should not just be thought of as reactionary to Columbus drafting PLD. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Camel Toe Drag said:

I read through this three times now. I'm just trying to see what your point is? Respectfully. 

 

Also so due to Columbus's lack of high-end centre depth I wouldn't necessarily call drafting Dubois a curveball. With that being said Benning had Juolevi higher than most people though on his list. Us drafting Juolevi should not just be thought of as reactionary to Columbus drafting PLD. 

When it comes with higher draft picks, it should usually be BPA, not just drafting based on need.  IIRC, according to most scouts, It was Matthews as the #1 with the 3 Finns up next.  Tkatchuk, Chychrun and PLD after depending on positional need.  Hence the Oilers were like completely shocked when they were able to draft Puljujarvi.

 

The original point I'm trying to make is that pre-draft, the initial conversation on CDC was whether the Canucks should be picking Tkatchuk, Chychrun, or PLD.  OJ wasn't even in the conversation as he was expected to have been taken already.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Camel Toe Drag said:

I read through this three times now. I'm just trying to see what your point is? Respectfully. 

 

Also so due to Columbus's lack of high-end centre depth I wouldn't necessarily call drafting Dubois a curveball. With that being said Benning had Juolevi higher than most people though on his list. Us drafting Juolevi should not just be thought of as reactionary to Columbus drafting PLD. 

People just refuse to accept or can't understand that Columbus chose based off of team and organizational need for the future not the now instead of picking the perceived BPA in Puljujarvi.

 

Ironically, it seems to have worked out for them yet people still cannot fathom it

 

Benning did a similar thing, knowing this team needed scoring NOW, but also understanding this team needed high end defensive help in 5 years, drafted what was the perceived best D man of the draft instead of a forward who while doing well on the top 6 in Calgary with choice line mates and PP time; would have been buried on the bottom 6 here to "develop"

 

The long game is something that is slowly playing out here for the first time in Canucks history.  It actually appears as though we might be planning for a genuine future not a season by season format.  This year if benning picks another high end defenseman, in Liljegren or Foote I have 0 issues with that.  If he drafts a pure offensive stud forward I have no issues with that


As long as they're allowed to develop for 2 more years.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lancaster said:

When it comes with higher draft picks, it should usually be BPA, not just drafting based on need.  IIRC, according to most scouts, It was Matthews as the #1 with the 3 Finns up next.  Tkatchuk, Chychrun and PLD after depending on positional need.  Hence the Oilers were like completely shocked when they were able to draft Puljujarvi.

 

The original point I'm trying to make is that pre-draft, the initial conversation on CDC was whether the Canucks should be picking Tkatchuk, Chychrun, or PLD.  OJ wasn't even in the conversation as he was expected to have been taken already.  

Like when the Oilers drafted Hall a winger instead of Seguin a center?  Or when they drafted Yakupov a winger instead of Reilly or Galchenyuk?

 

BPA is not the best way to go always.  It's been proven by this club countless times.  Look at the lost decade of drafting that was 2005-2015.  We almost always went with the BPA and grabbed such gems as Hodgson, Schroeder, Rahimi, White, Ellington, Sauve and more.

 

All the proverbial BPA, when had we drafted for need instead for those years with an eye 2 seasons in to the future we'd have been far far better off.

 

The funny thing about BPA over knowing your needs in 2 to 5 seasons time is that the BPA is almost always a now factor which; in the case of this fan base, turns in to why isn't my 18 year old producing at 2 PPG in the AHL or 1 PPG in the NHL he's a bust should have drafted.....

 

I'm happy we grabbed Juolevi.  Tkachuk was actually by all accounts slated for the #4 spot for the Oilers based on their shipping Hall off.  Tkachuk would have been a decent gritty replacement for a team that needed the sandpaper and skill he brought.  At no point in time was there going to be any doubt that Juolevi/Dubois/Puljujarvi/Tkachuk were going 3-6.  Just the way it ended up is all is what threw people.

 

If anything the msot shocking thing is how the Oilers actually finally sent Puljujarvi down to the AHL for seasoning instead of leaving him in like they've done everyone else not named Draisatl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -Vintage Canuck- changed the title to Olli Juolevi | #48 | D
  • -SN- locked and unlocked this topic

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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