Olli Juolevi | #48 | D

[shiznak]

10 hours ago, DeNiro said:

 

Does that show how good he is or how bad the Yotes are?

 

I'm pretty sure Juolevi would be putting up points had we forced him into the lineup and given him big minutes. Doesn't mean he was ready though.

 

Also, the Coyotes have allowed 18 goals against in 4 games, so that tells you all you need to know about their D core.

It shows that if you have a camp like Chychrun had, outplaying the veterans. You deserve a spot on the roster, regardless of how bad the team is structured. If Juolevi had the same impact at camp as Chychrun, he probably would've had his 9 game trial, with the big club.

 

18 goals allowed tells me very little about their defensive core, considering they currently have 2 AHL goalies as their starters and a fringe #1 on the IR. I wouldn't doubt if the roles were reversed, we would probably have the same results as the Coyotes.

 

IMO, their defensive core is on par as ours. 

Edited October 23, 2016 by shiznak

[DeNiro]

4 minutes ago, shiznak said:

It shows that if you have a camp like Chychrun had, outplaying the veterans. You deserve a spot on the roster, regardless of how bad the team is structured. If Juolevi had the same impact at camp as Chychrun, he probably would've had his 9 game trial, with the big club.

 

18 goals allowed tells me very little about their defensive core, considering they currently have 2 AHL goalies as their starters and a fringe #1 on the IR. I wouldn't doubt if the roles were reversed, we would probably have the same results as the Coyotes.

 

IMO, their defensive core is on par as ours. 

 

Their D core outside of OEL and Goligoski is pretty weak.

 

I wouldn't say their D is on par with ours, so I'm not sure the statement about Juolevi is true. He would have had to beat out Edler, Hutton, Sbisa, and Tryamkin. Chychrun didn't have nearly the same level of competition.

 

Under Tippett's system any average goalie can look good, so I'm not so sure it's not just lack of depth on D. Regardless, unless a D-man is on the same level as Ekblad they shouldn't be playing in the NHL at 18.

 

 

[shiznak]

25 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

 

Their D core outside of OEL and Goligoski is pretty weak.

 

I wouldn't say their D is on par with ours, so I'm not sure the statement about Juolevi is true. He would have had to beat out Edler, Hutton, Sbisa, and Tryamkin. Chychrun didn't have nearly the same level of competition.

 

Under Tippett's system any average goalie can look good, so I'm not so sure it's not just lack of depth on D. Regardless, unless a D-man is on the same level as Ekblad they shouldn't be playing in the NHL at 18.

 

 

Stone is their Tanev, with better offensive sense. Arguably their most consistent defensemen last year, on both ends of the ice. Some nights, he even outshined OEL. Murphy is their Gubrandson, but a better skater. We certain have better depth, but I would say their top 4 is slightly better than ours.

[ReggieBush]

Going to see Olli live in November vs the icedogs!

[ReggieBush]

6 minutes ago, shiznak said:

Stone is their Tanev, with better offensive sense. Arguably their most consistent defensemen last year, on both ends of the ice. Some nights, he even outshined OEL. Murphy is their Gubrandson, but a better skater. We certain have better depth, but I would say their top 4 is slightly better than ours.

 

 

No dman in the league at Guddy's size moves as well as him

[Phat Fingers]

29 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

 

Their D core outside of OEL and Goligoski is pretty weak.

 

I wouldn't say their D is on par with ours, so I'm not sure the statement about Juolevi is true. He would have had to beat out Edler, Hutton, Sbisa, and Tryamkin. Chychrun didn't have nearly the same level of competition.

 

Under Tippett's system any average goalie can look good, so I'm not so sure it's not just lack of depth on D. Regardless, unless a D-man is on the same level as Ekblad they shouldn't be playing in the NHL at 18.

 

 

 

 

Goligoski is not a strong defence man. (Sorry for the bold, I am not yelling;). 

 

Other than OEL Zona's d is really weak, like ours last year. IMO.  Well maybe not that bad....

[HorvatToBaertschi]

10 hours ago, shiznak said:

Stone is their Tanev, with better offensive sense. Arguably their most consistent defensemen last year, on both ends of the ice. Some nights, he even outshined OEL. Murphy is their Gubrandson, but a better skater. We certain have better depth, but I would say their top 4 is slightly better than ours.

Arizona's defense is WEAK. Stone is not comparable to Tanev and Murphy is not comparable to Gud

[TheHockeyNerds]

Why is this discussion even happening lol? Anyone who knows anything about chychrun would know he is physically ready for the NHL and that if OJ was 20 pounds heavier he would probably have made it as well. That said good on Chychrun for proving the haters wrong 

[DeNiro]

22 minutes ago, TheHockeyNerds said:

Why is this discussion even happening lol? Anyone who knows anything about chychrun would know he is physically ready for the NHL and that if OJ was 20 pounds heavier he would probably have made it as well. That said good on Chychrun for proving the haters wrong 

 

Jake Virtanen is physically ready for the NHL too, does that mean he should be there right now?

 

Being physically ready and being mentally ready are two different things.

 

Chychrun hasn't proven anything yet other than the fact that he can skate at the NHL level.

Edited October 23, 2016 by DeNiro

[TheHockeyNerds]

4 hours ago, DeNiro said:

 

Jake Virtanen is physically ready for the NHL too, does that mean he should be there right now?

 

Being physically ready and being mentally ready are two different things.

 

Chychrun hasn't proven anything yet other than the fact that he can skate at the NHL level.

Well clearly he has proven something because an 18 year old simply just doesn't make the NHL if he has major things he needs to work on. Plus Chychrun has being getting great reviews from many people around the hockey world such as Bob MCKenzie 

[Kass]

On 10/22/2016 at 7:42 AM, Camel Toe Drag said:

 

Way to redescribe exactly what I said. Your really on the spot. 

 

Did you not get the joke? 

[Camel Toe Drag]

40 minutes ago, Kass said:

 

Did you not get the joke? 

I did not 

[Kass]

On 10/21/2016 at 9:17 PM, stonecoldstevebernier said:

A pair of assists for Juolevi tonight gives him 1-4-5 in six games on the year now.

  On 10/21/2016 at 9:23 PM, clam linguine said:

Two assists for OJ  today in a 5-1 London win.  He had 5 points in 6 games.  

 

They both almost said the same thing one after another. With a few words slightly different. 

 

  On 10/21/2016 at 9:28 PM, Camel Toe Drag said:

 

Thanks guys. I'm glad you agree on his stats tonight. 

 

You then replied to them with that. So I went and slightly altered what you said so it would be a double double.

 

  On 10/21/2016 at 9:32 PM, Kass said:

 

Bless you guys. I'm joyed to see that you can concur on his points this evening.

 

[ReggieBush]

9 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

 

 

Domingue is a brutal goaltender, go look at all the softies he has been letting in this year.     .851sv% and 5.03 GAA in 4 games 

 

FYI 

 

 

Marky would look like a sieve behind that D.

Edited October 24, 2016 by ReggieBush

[blackpluto96]

On 10/23/2016 at 4:10 AM, DeNiro said:

 

Does that show how good he is or how bad the Yotes are?

 

I'm pretty sure Juolevi would be putting up points had we forced him into the lineup and given him big minutes. Doesn't mean he was ready though.

 

Also, the Coyotes have allowed 18 goals against in 4 games, so that tells you all you need to know about their D core.

Coyotes are bad but Chychrun has been doing well in the four games he's played even looking at advanced stats. 52.6% Corsi with 53.8% d-zone start. But again it's a very small sample size and I still think we picked the right D. We just need to be patient.

[LaBamba]

On 2016-10-22 at 8:01 AM, J.R. said:

 

We got the best D imo but a lot of teams after us should be kicking themselves IMO. JC should have gone top 10.

  

What exactly is your opinion based on? 

[shiznak]

3 hours ago, LaBamba said:

  

What exactly is your opinion based on? 

Bob McKenzie's draft ranking, apparently.

 

 

[LaBamba]

5 hours ago, shiznak said:

Bob McKenzie's draft ranking, apparently.

 

 

 

How does Bob know we drafted the best Dman? You aren't going to know that until they all play in the NHL. I don't care where he is ranked. 

[The Lock]

On 10/22/2016 at 8:01 AM, J.R. said:

 

We got the best D imo but a lot of teams after us should be kicking themselves IMO. JC should have gone top 10.

 

I don't know to be honest. Hindsight is so easy to make these kind of assumptions, especially if someone gets off to a good start. We could have been saying the exact same thing about McCann around this time of last year and, before last season, McCann wasn't even considered to be a great prospect by some.

 

I think what we really have to do is look at when he was drafted and the factors looming around him: he didn't make the Team Canada, he started lagging behind during the season, and other defenders started looking better than him. We did not have a crystal ball to show what he's doing now.

 

Essentially, you can't used hindsight as a reason for whether we should or should not have drafted someone; yet, it's something a lot of people seem to want to do this. This especially proves a false case when you consider they would have had to go on a different path to the NHL: a different team, a different competition, a different staff to determine whether he stays up or goes back to minors. Using what happens now as a "should have could have" It's simply not a good argument to make. In fact, it's a very weak argument to make.

Edited October 26, 2016 by The Lock

[aGENT]

9 hours ago, LaBamba said:

  

What exactly is your opinion based on? 

 

 

34 minutes ago, The Lock said:

 

I don't know to be honest. Hindsight is so easy to make these kind of assumptions, especially if someone gets off to a good start. We could have been saying the exact same thing about McCann around this time of last year and, before last season, McCann wasn't even considered to be a great prospect by some.

 

I think what we really have to do is look at when he was drafted and the factors looming around him: he didn't make the Team Canada, he started lagging behind during the season, and other defenders started looking better than him. We did not have a crystal ball to show what he's doing now.

 

Essentially, you can't used hindsight as a reason for whether we should or should not have drafted someone; yet, it's something a lot of people seem to want to do this. This especially proves a false case when you consider they would have had to go on a different path to the NHL: a different team, a different competition, a different staff to determine whether he stays up or goes back to minors. Using what happens now as a "should have could have" It's simply not a good argument to make. In fact, it's a very weak argument to make.

 

I had him in my top 10 at the draft, not hindsight.