Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

21 hours ago, Ihatetomatoes said:

Yes I know how many times you've watched him, you say it a lot.  The thing is is that you'll never say anything remotely negative about a prospect and take anything that anyone says that is remotely negative as an insult to the player.  Almost every prospect has something they need to work on, a weakness that that player needs to overcome and it isn't trolling or trying to knock that player down to point these things out.  It's just constructive criticism but for somebody who supposedly watches these players these players so much I don't think I've ever read you write anything remotely negative about a prospect even though they obviously aren't perfect and have weaknesses to their game so it's impossible not to take what you say with a grain of salt because your homerism and bias shines brightly. 

Not sure why you guys feel the need to  say negative things about our prospects in the first place....

If you have nothing good to say...don't say it ...is roughly what my mother taught me.

 

There is a little troop on here supporting negativity and they are the same people who are complaining about all the positive remarks leading too people turning on the prospects when they don't produce...

Well...how is that worse than turning on them before they get the chance...?

 

You guys will be the same guys who do actually turn on them ...not the real fans who support them even if they have a slow start to there season or career.

 

This site is for fans....be one...

Edited April 24, 2018 by Rollieo Del Fuego

[SilentSam]

3 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Tanev draws the attention then dishes it to his partner who has space to operate.  This is why all players look better when paired with him.

..... for half a season historically,  thats not helping..  unless the advantadge to his half season 4.5 m is the fact the 7th Dman or a prospect gets to come up.

... and to add we are probably past the point of a gainful return for Tanev.

[NHL'er]

1 hour ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

Jokiharju went straight from the WHL to the World Championship for Finland. It would look pretty bad on Juolevi if he can't make the team given he's played in a men's league this whole year and is a year older. 

Really hopes Olli makes it. 

[Smashian Kassian]

Boy, I wouldn't have expectations on Juolevi being a legit top 4 D for this team in the first half of the season. I really hope he is and I'm dead wrong about that but I'm expecting an adjustment period whether that's on the Canucks or the Comets.

 

Hopefully they've figured out the logjam and he's good enough to make the team out of camp but I could see them holding onto a guy into camp and making a move or not depending on where they feel OJ is at.

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

1 hour ago, Smashian Kassian said:

Boy, I wouldn't have expectations on Juolevi being a legit top 4 D for this team in the first half of the season. I really hope he is and I'm dead wrong about that but I'm expecting an adjustment period whether that's on the Canucks or the Comets.

 

Hopefully they've figured out the logjam and he's good enough to make the team out of camp but I could see them holding onto a guy into camp and making a move or not depending on where they feel OJ is at.

  If your sort of quoting me...I said something like "if Juolevi makes the team he will be a top 4 D. within weeks"...meaning that even if he comes in at 5-6 D. in terms of minutes played...which is the only real way to say who is top 4...that he will play his way up to the top 4 within weeks.

 

If he isn't ready, it will show up in training camp and off to Utica he goes for a few months...

[Smashian Kassian]

17 minutes ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

  If your sort of quoting me...I said something like "if Juolevi makes the team he will be a top 4 D. within weeks"...meaning that even if he comes in at 5-6 D. in terms of minutes played...which is the only real way to say who is top 4...that he will play his way up to the top 4 within weeks.

 

If he isn't ready, it will show up in training camp and off to Utica he goes for a few months...

 

No I wasn't trying to respond to anyone in particular I just saw some people penciling him in as a 2nd pair guy on a random page. I didn't see who all it was tbh.

 

I agree with you that if he does come in as a good 5-6 I definitely could see him playing his way into the top 4. He's gotta be better than Del Zotto & Pouliot. Hopefully he can buckle down this offseason & get his endurance to NHL standards. We could use his ability in transition. (and on the PP now that the twins r gone)

Edited April 25, 2018 by Smashian Kassian

[Ihatetomatoes]

3 hours ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

Not sure why you guys feel the need to  say negative things about our prospects in the first place....

If you have nothing good to say...don't say it ...is roughly what my mother taught me.

 

There is a little troop on here supporting negativity and they are the same people who are complaining about all the positive remarks leading too people turning on the prospects when they don't produce...

Well...how is that worse than turning on them before they get the chance...?

 

You guys will be the same guys who do actually turn on them ...not the real fans who support them even if they have a slow start to there season or career.

 

This site is for fans....be one...

Why feel the need to say negative things?  Because this is a discussion forum for discussing the Canucks and not everything is always positive so it makes sense to discuss both things that are positive and negative.  I don't understand the logic of you're only a fan if you only say positive things about the team.  If you disagree with a move the coach makes then it's ok to say that.  Disagree with something the GM does, it's ok to say it.  Make note of a player that is playing like $&!#, it's ok to point it out.  I don't get why your only a "true" fan if you only say positive things.  If a player is playing great or a coach or GM does a great thing then ya you'll discuss that but sometimes things aren't always positive.  

 

Same thing goes with prospects.  Almost every prospect has something they need to work on, a weakness.  Why is it a bad thing to discuss that?  For me it's one of the fun things about following prospects, watching what the do well and also watching for what they don't.  For a guy like Pettersson he's amazing but his only weakness is his size and strength, is it wrong to mention that?  For a guy like Horvat he did everything well but he was a slow skater, was it wrong to point that out as something he needs to work on?  Same with Hodgson, he was slow as $&!# and he needed to get faster if he wanted to get better.  Almost every prospect has some weaknesses and I really struggle to understand why it's frowned upon by some posters to point these things out.  

[King Heffy]

7 hours ago, Rollieo Del Fuego said:

I don't think Guddy works well with Edler and Hutton just needs to mature...

 

Edler / Stecher

OJ / Tanev

Hutton / Gudbranson

MDZ  / Sautner or Pouliot

 

If OJ makes it he will be top 4 within weeks and I think they carry 8 D. pretty much for sure if OJ makes it.

Edler played some of the best hockey of his career playing with Guddy.  Guy finally rediscovered his physical game after it had been MIA for years.  I like OJ with Gudbranson if you don't put Edler with him.

[Rob_Zepp]

23 hours ago, steviewonder20 said:

My wife is Finnish so if you need something better than Google Translate, Post the Finnish here and I can get it translated.

Can post links for sure.   I take two daily papers and a sports blog and do my own.   I have a bit of Swedish but that is useless for Finnish I am finding.   

[Dixon Ward]

12 hours ago, Ihatetomatoes said:

Why feel the need to say negative things?  Because this is a discussion forum for discussing the Canucks and not everything is always positive so it makes sense to discuss both things that are positive and negative.  I don't understand the logic of you're only a fan if you only say positive things about the team.  If you disagree with a move the coach makes then it's ok to say that.  Disagree with something the GM does, it's ok to say it.  Make note of a player that is playing like $&!#, it's ok to point it out.  I don't get why your only a "true" fan if you only say positive things.  If a player is playing great or a coach or GM does a great thing then ya you'll discuss that but sometimes things aren't always positive.  

 

Same thing goes with prospects.  Almost every prospect has something they need to work on, a weakness.  Why is it a bad thing to discuss that?  For me it's one of the fun things about following prospects, watching what the do well and also watching for what they don't.  For a guy like Pettersson he's amazing but his only weakness is his size and strength, is it wrong to mention that?  For a guy like Horvat he did everything well but he was a slow skater, was it wrong to point that out as something he needs to work on?  Same with Hodgson, he was slow as $&!# and he needed to get faster if he wanted to get better.  Almost every prospect has some weaknesses and I really struggle to understand why it's frowned upon by some posters to point these things out.  

I agree with you that it is okay to say negative things.  I think the reason that it grates on a lot of people is that being a fan is not supposed to be about logic and reason.  You are supposed to be a fanatic.  Fanatics don't spend so much time trying to be cynical and be 100% accurate about a player all the time.  They allow themselves to get carried away and illogical because they love their team and want something to believe in.  If we were all cynical and logical we would all be Penguins fans until the Canucks make it back to the cup final.  We just want to believe, within reason, and don't want to constantly be corrected by the logic police.

[Rollieo Del Fuego]

12 hours ago, Ihatetomatoes said:

Why feel the need to say negative things?  Because this is a discussion forum for discussing the Canucks and not everything is always positive so it makes sense to discuss both things that are positive and negative.  I don't understand the logic of you're only a fan if you only say positive things about the team.  If you disagree with a move the coach makes then it's ok to say that.  Disagree with something the GM does, it's ok to say it.  Make note of a player that is playing like $&!#, it's ok to point it out.  I don't get why your only a "true" fan if you only say positive things.  If a player is playing great or a coach or GM does a great thing then ya you'll discuss that but sometimes things aren't always positive.  

 

Same thing goes with prospects.  Almost every prospect has something they need to work on, a weakness.  Why is it a bad thing to discuss that?  For me it's one of the fun things about following prospects, watching what the do well and also watching for what they don't.  For a guy like Pettersson he's amazing but his only weakness is his size and strength, is it wrong to mention that?  For a guy like Horvat he did everything well but he was a slow skater, was it wrong to point that out as something he needs to work on?  Same with Hodgson, he was slow as $&!# and he needed to get faster if he wanted to get better.  Almost every prospect has some weaknesses and I really struggle to understand why it's frowned upon by some posters to point these things out.  

That is true...but it is the same 4-5 guys that are always calling out the prospects...and mostly for stuff that none of us really know about...because they are prospects or just joined the team.

I have no issue with calling out management or veteran players...but this constant ragging on prospects reeks of bullying and low brow intelect...

 

Leave the kids alone...crap on Gagme if you want.

[Rush17]

I'd love to see Olli Juolevi earn a bottom 6 role at the world championships. Be a great learning experience and with limited ice time I feel he would excel.  The pace will be much higher then he's use too.

[aGENT]

20 hours ago, SilentSam said:

He has to be moved. Sign Mike Green UFA.  Move Tanev.

Prefer to move Tanev (50% retained?) 'plus' to PHI for MacDonald, Sanheim and one of their two 1st rounders.

[SilentSam]

30 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Prefer to move Tanev (50% retained?) 'plus' to PHI for MacDonald, Sanheim and one of their two 1st rounders.

Sounds good to me Agent, .  And Maybe we dont have to retain,  Tanev would look terribly good in Toronto, a more mobile D core may even enhance his game..  he could look more like a no.1 elsewhere.

The Western Conference has always initiated the need for good physical presence on D fence, not to take anything away from the East.  ... but pounding it out against EDM, CLGY, ANA, LA, SJ, and now LV,  for the majority of a season has been a difficult task.

[Rob_Zepp]

18 hours ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

Jokiharju went straight from the WHL to the World Championship for Finland. It would look pretty bad on Juolevi if he can't make the team given he's played in a men's league this whole year and is a year older. 

Why on earth does it "look bad" for a player when another prospect has an opportunity?   What an obtuse thing to say.    Cody Glass was left off of team Canada this year, did that "look bad" for him?   Not at all, he is still a good prospect.   

 

Any little way you can point out something that could be used as a negative at any of these kids you take it don't you.   What motive do you have for hating on these kids so much.   EVERY post you make is the same.   

 

OJ played in a men's league with near historical rate of production that was matched by a 3rd overall pick who happened to be on same team which is good in that they likely pushed each other.  He was the consensus best Finnish player (any position) at WJC and was selected as such by his own coaches.   He had a remarkable playoff run where he was a minute eater.   Anything more this season is icing on a very deep and delicious cake for this 19 year old and nothing can "look bad" on him at this stage other than your false narrative crap.

[Rob_Zepp]

42 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Prefer to move Tanev (50% retained?) 'plus' to PHI for MacDonald, Sanheim and one of their two 1st rounders.

Yes please!    I think most anything Canucks can do without giving up picks or a player under 25 to get Sanheim would be massive.   Flyers need to move a D at some point - logjam coming and they also need to shore up their D with a veteran or two (clearly demonstrated in playoffs) - plus they need an NHL goalie.

[DrJockitch]

Man when was the last time Philly didn't need an NHL goalie.  What is average for a goalie in Philly, 2 years.  One good year, one bad and gone.  Seems like the same pattern as far as I can remember back as far as Hextall.

[Noble 6]

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Why on earth does it "look bad" for a player when another prospect has an opportunity?   What an obtuse thing to say.    Cody Glass was left off of team Canada this year, did that "look bad" for him?   Not at all, he is still a good prospect.   

 

Any little way you can point out something that could be used as a negative at any of these kids you take it don't you.   What motive do you have for hating on these kids so much.   EVERY post you make is the same.   

 

OJ played in a men's league with near historical rate of production that was matched by a 3rd overall pick who happened to be on same team which is good in that they likely pushed each other.  He was the consensus best Finnish player (any position) at WJC and was selected as such by his own coaches.   He had a remarkable playoff run where he was a minute eater.   Anything more this season is icing on a very deep and delicious cake for this 19 year old and nothing can "look bad" on him at this stage other than your false narrative crap.

 

I would say Glass getting left off of team Canada for the WJC in his draft +1 year doesn't look good on him. As you said, that doesn't mean he's suddenly worthless; it's just one tournament. 

 

The bolded simply isn't true.

 

I agree Juolevi had a very good year in Finland. But losing a spot to a younger player with less pedigree after having the advantage of playing in a men's league instead of the CHL doesn't look like a good sign to me. It wouldn't mean Juolevi's NHL career is lost, it means he needs to improve his game. 

 

You don't have to respond so emotionally to my posts. You did the same thing after misreading Salo's quote.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

 

I would say Glass getting left off of team Canada for the WJC in his draft +1 year doesn't look good on him. As you said, that doesn't mean he's suddenly worthless; it's just one tournament. 

 

The bolded simply isn't true.

 

I agree Juolevi had a very good year in Finland. But losing a spot to a younger player with less pedigree after having the advantage of playing in a men's league instead of the CHL doesn't look like a good sign to me. It wouldn't mean Juolevi's NHL career is lost, it means he needs to improve his game. 

 

You don't have to respond so emotionally to my posts. You did the same thing after misreading Salo's quote.

In the playoffs, when the games meant the most, and were the roughest, Olli was the team's dominant Dman.  That young guy you seem to think so highly of, dissappeared.  Isn't he another of those little Euro Dmen too, who will most likely be like Liligren and the guy we had last season, Larson?  Those guys' games just don't work in the bigger NHL.  

[DrJockitch]

Looks to me the way the NHL is going the Liljigren and OJ are the prototype for D-men.  Decent size, highly mobile good at puck moving and getting up into 5 man offence.  These are the types of guys current NHL Ds are built around, not the Gudbransons of the world.  Problem is when judging a player a year or two after the draft when they still have lots of room for development.  

Any Tanev trade discussions with TO should be centred about Lilljegren (I will spell it differently everytime and still get it wrong).  He is exactly what we need, would be great piece and is really their best prospect.  Not interested in any more wing prospects.  Need to shore up the hard to fill spots.