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

Olli Juolevi | #48 | D


b3.

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Tracksuit said:

Look at the five guys taken right after OJ 

not sure how anyone can defend this pick. It was a bad pick he wasn’t the bpa then. 

OJ 36 AHL games 21 points and often injured. 

worst stats of any of the picks taken in the top ten 2016 by MILES. And the Only one to have zero nhl games. 

Would be in the bottom 3 of the top 15 taken in 2016. 

I guess some need to Keep those rose glasses on. (And now for the injury excuses) 

 

Rafferty has bumped OJ further down. 

 

 

Sportsnet had him placed at #6, the top rated D in the draft

TSN (McKenzie) had him rated #6, the top rated D in the draft

HockeyProspects had him reated #6, top rated D in the draft

 

Pretty sure I can find a number of others that had him tagged as top rated D in the draft.

 

We needed a D, he was the top rated D. Tell us what your credentials are that make you a better expert on who we should have picked, as opposed to Jim Benning and his scouting staff, and a number of other people who are PAID to watch hockey and rate where prospects rank in terms of potential.

 

Or, are you saying that you're clairvoyant and that you had some type of foresight that a guy that was a dominant force on the Finland Blueline in the World Juniors would suddenly run into injury problems.

 

Are you basing your analysis on something substantial, or just frustration that our #5 pick from 2016 ran into injury problems, which no one could predict?

 

Take any prospect in that draft, put them in a different teams system and it could be argued that they get injured as injuries are usually due to circumstances which cannot be predicted, unless you happen to have a time machine that non of us know about. I'm pretty sure that if you did have a Time Machine, we wouldn't be having this discussion as you should have accumulated enough wealth from having knowledge of the future, that you could have bought the Canucks.

 

Just curious....

 

  • Cheers 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing - and this is after countless hours and perhaps even days scouring the many responses to this topic - Olli could very well become a serviceable top 4 d-man in the next few years and the level of contention on this forum would not cease! Not after all the time that has passed.

 

Those who choose to dwell on his limitations will continue to dwell on those limitations relative to others drafted in the same vicinity as him. Those who have consistently defended the pick and the player himself will continue to support his development with the kind of unconditional love perhaps only a parent can know. There's really no in between.

 

I appreciate the energy and passion on each side of this debate. I guess I'm just surprised that there are posters who are still enthusiastically engaging in it. Maybe I need some more lessons in the subtleties and curious nature of the CDC.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, zimmy said:

Here's the thing - and this is after countless hours and perhaps even days scouring the many responses to this topic - Olli could very well become a serviceable top 4 d-man in the next few years and the level of contention on this forum would not cease! Not after all the time that has passed.

 

Those who choose to dwell on his limitations will continue to dwell on those limitations relative to others drafted in the same vicinity as him. Those who have consistently defended the pick and the player himself will continue to support his development with the kind of unconditional love perhaps only a parent can know. There's really no in between.

 

I appreciate the energy and passion on each side of this debate. I guess I'm just surprised that there are posters who are still enthusiastically engaging in it. Maybe I need some more lessons in the subtleties and curious nature of the CDC.

I agree. I think a lot of fans get really upset if we pick someone in the top 10, and they aren't in the lineup the first season, playing top pairing or top 6 minutes. It comes from completely unrealistic expectations. 

 

We don't know what OJ is capable of, and won't for a few more years. Will his injury problems suddenly resolve and he'll become a top pairing D on a course to be a Norris contender, or will he be a 6/7 guy, constantly bouncing back and forth to the minors. I don't know and no one on this board knows. 

 

All we do know is, that when he was drafted, he was rated, pretty much universally, as one of the top 3 D in the draft for overall potential. We'll never know if he could have already been dominating our blue line, if not for the unfortunate injury issues.

 

The point that I try and make, over and over to people on this board is, OJ is a 21 year old kid, who has a lot of potential but has really had a bad time with injuries. We should show some patience and see if the injury issue resolves itself, what type of player he can become for us.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said:

Sportsnet had him placed at #6, the top rated D in the draft

TSN (McKenzie) had him rated #6, the top rated D in the draft

HockeyProspects had him reated #6, top rated D in the draft

 

Pretty sure I can find a number of others that had him tagged as top rated D in the draft.

 

We needed a D, he was the top rated D. Tell us what your credentials are that make you a better expert on who we should have picked, as opposed to Jim Benning and his scouting staff, and a number of other people who are PAID to watch hockey and rate where prospects rank in terms of potential.

 

Or, are you saying that you're clairvoyant and that you had some type of foresight that a guy that was a dominant force on the Finland Blueline in the World Juniors would suddenly run into injury problems.

 

Are you basing your analysis on something substantial, or just frustration that our #5 pick from 2016 ran into injury problems, which no one could predict?

 

Take any prospect in that draft, put them in a different teams system and it could be argued that they get injured as injuries are usually due to circumstances which cannot be predicted, unless you happen to have a time machine that non of us know about. I'm pretty sure that if you did have a Time Machine, we wouldn't be having this discussion as you should have accumulated enough wealth from having knowledge of the future, that you could have bought the Canucks.

 

Just curious....

 

It's funny how it's almost always unanimous people will say you always take BPA when drafting high picks yet when talking hindsight people will say we needed a defender so we took a defenseman. Shouldn't this be looked upon as a fault then? If they chose by position instead of BPA?

 

The majority of people aren't upset that we took Juolevi instead of Sergachev or McAvoy it's that we took him over Tkachuk. You won't find one ranking from that draft that had Juolevi ranked higher than Tkachuk. They either picked for position which is a poor decision or they had Juolevi ranked higher than Tkachuk which was a poor decision considering every scouting service had him ranked higher. It's not about being a clairvoyant it's about them wiffing on an obvious pick that looked bad at the time and looks worse in hindsight. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the sympathy for OJ, poor kid, so many injuries, he's so young he has potential … sort of. Heck Luc Bourdain looked like a future 1st pairing D, sadly things happen!  This is business for GM's to make the best decissions. If for instance OJ continues to suffer injuries his career may be over. At that point there will be a long line of fans asking why didn't JB move him. He may turn out good he may turn out to be a liability NO ONE can say different. Thankfully some one in the organization found  and signed Rafferty.

Edited by Fred65
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ihatetomatoes said:

It's funny how it's almost always unanimous people will say you always take BPA when drafting high picks yet when talking hindsight people will say we needed a defender so we took a defenseman. Shouldn't this be looked upon as a fault then? If they chose by position instead of BPA?

 

The majority of people aren't upset that we took Juolevi instead of Sergachev or McAvoy it's that we took him over Tkachuk. You won't find one ranking from that draft that had Juolevi ranked higher than Tkachuk. They either picked for position which is a poor decision or they had Juolevi ranked higher than Tkachuk which was a poor decision considering every scouting service had him ranked higher. It's not about being a clairvoyant it's about them wiffing on an obvious pick that looked bad at the time and looks worse in hindsight. 

 

 

Going into the 2016 draft, if you go back and look at what was being said, most analysts agreed that 1, 2 and 3 were pretty much set. Word was, we were going to take a center until Columbus went off the board, which is why we were willing to trade McCann.

 

Past top 3 (which included Puljujarvi), it was widely discussed that most teams would draft by need as from 4 - 15, most scouts and analysts were saying that there really wasn't a lot of difference in projected ceilings.

 

So, we took a D, which we really needed more depth at.

 

I can't say that it was the wrong decision since, if we took Tkachuk, he could have just as easily been the one getting injured.

 

Hindsight is always 20/20

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Vegas! forgot to quote you but ....
 

I recognize and applaud your patience. You, and others here, have chosen the glass half full. Many of our cohorts prefer an empty glass, however, and will not be deterred. Perhaps a degree of trolling exists in all of this or a desire to revel in the misfortunes/misfirings of others. I guess I'm just not committed to changing minds at this juncture.

Edited by zimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Pool Party is in Europe right now and may never come back.  OJ is in the AHL and can be called up at any time to the big show.  Big difference.  

Right he can’t stay heathy in the AHL but he’s going to get called up. 

Durability is a big part of being successful OJ hasn’t had a injury free season since he was drafted. Sure its hindered his development doesn’t change the fact in his draft class he’s has the worst stats of all the top ten possibly 15 picks.

Hes just back from yet another injury 

like this club needs anymore players made of glass.

Not to mention the same knock on his game is the same as it was 3 years ago he’s sucks defensively. 

I’m sure all the teams after us in that draft are disappointed they didn’t get him.

hope he proves me wrong. 

It was and still is a bad pick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, zimmy said:

Hey Vegas! forgot to quote you but ....
 

I recognize and applaud your patience. You, and others here, have chosen the glass half full. Many of our cohorts prefer an empty glass, however, and will not be deterred. Perhaps a degree of trolling exists in all of this or a desire to revel in the misfortunes/misfirings of others. I guess I'm just not committed to changing minds at this juncture.

Will never change some minds. Maybe if they are always seeing a glass half full, they should try pouring it into a smaller glass?

 

This kid clearly has talent, really hope his injury issues are behind him, and that fans will give him a chance to show what he can do.

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ur a Towel said:

Just because draft ranking systems had Tkachuk ranked higher, clearly Benning and our scouting crew did not and instead chose Juolevi. 

And even MT being 'ranked higher' is a bit of a stretch. They were basically ranked 5/6 of most lists, in the exact same tier (AKA 'equal'), with more than one scout stating outright that they'd see no issue with a team taking OJ first if the team picking at 5 preferred him/a D. The main reason MT was one spot 'ahead' of OJ is that D are inherently harder to predict and take longer to develop whereas MT was/was near NHL ready.

 

This revisionist theory that we didn't take the 'BPA' (at the tiMe of the draft) or 'reached' for OJ is complete and utter horse$&!#. 

 

 

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Olli gets moved. He's not going to make Green's team when the baseline is bag-skating. I say this because I believe his knee will never be 100% and there will always be questions of durability. As of now, I'd say we have some D prospects ahead of him. 

 

Juolevi could turn into an asset at the deadline. I'm thinking a top 6 forward on contract.

 

I actually like Juolevi and am rooting for him. I just think he'll be moved before he gets going with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ossi Vaananen said:

I think Olli gets moved. He's not going to make Green's team when the baseline is bag-skating. I say this because I believe his knee will never be 100% and there will always be questions of durability. As of now, I'd say we have some D prospects ahead of him. 

 

Juolevi could turn into an asset at the deadline. I'm thinking a top 6 forward on contract.

 

I actually like Juolevi and am rooting for him. I just think he'll be moved before he gets going with us.

no chance the move a dman out for a fwd, imo.  None

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Ossi Vaananen said:

I think Olli gets moved. He's not going to make Green's team when the baseline is bag-skating. I say this because I believe his knee will never be 100% and there will always be questions of durability. As of now, I'd say we have some D prospects ahead of him. 

 

Juolevi could turn into an asset at the deadline. I'm thinking a top 6 forward on contra ct.

 

I actually like Juolevi and am rooting for him. I just think he'll be moved before he gets going with us.

Lots of players come back from knee surgery and are fine. Saying that there will always be a question of durability is a bit premature.

 

You also don’t build a team around one coach. Who knows how long Green will last.

 

Either way Juolevi will not net you much until he proves himself more. Dumb to add him in a trade as a throwaway before we know his potential.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Don't sleep on him yet, he is coming around!

 

On a side note, Number 10 for the Marlies is Tanner MacMaster the former Comet.  Got into a tussle with Lind 2 weeks ago, and fought Boucher yesterday, and looks like Juolevi was trying to run him through the boards.  Get the sense that people don't like him haha.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Lots of players come back from knee surgery and are fine. Saying that there will always be a question of durability is a bit premature.

 

You also don’t build a team around one coach. Who knows how long Green will last.

 

Either way Juolevi will not net you much until he proves himself more. Dumb to add him in a trade as a throwaway before we know his potential.

 

Knee surgery is one thing.

 

Knee surgery then back surgery then knee surgery is another thing.

 

Juolevi likely has next to no value at the moment trade wise anyways. It's best just to keep him. 

 

On a side note, the Kings were patient with Vilardi's injury troubles as he missed almost 2 years. He's now back and playing in the AHL looking good. That's the best case for Juolevi.

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Will never change some minds. Maybe if they are always seeing a glass half full, they should try pouring it into a smaller glass?

 

This kid clearly has talent, really hope his injury issues are behind him, and that fans will give him a chance to show what he can do.

Optically, the smaller glass would do the trick. I'm still hanging on the hope that we'll get a super big gulp serving of straight up OJ.!

  • Upvote 2
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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