He looks awesome in London already.
Not sure I agree with the Maata comparison (very similar?). I think Juolevi has shown far greater offensive instinct and attack mentality at this stage. While they are both very well rounded, high end guys for sure. I think Juolevi has shown a higher upside, especially offensively. While Maata definitely had a edge in defensive zone composition at a young age.
He's going to blow Maata's offensive numbers in London out of the water.
I haven't watched him this season in London.
I have seen from him only a couple of games personally, and I base my evaluation more on comments from guys who watch a lot Finnish junior players.
But I think you would say that while Määttä is a bit more defensive oriented, Juolevi is offensive - both still are overall pretty well-balanced.
But regarding Määttä, I think that for some reason his offense dropped when he moved to London from Finland. During the season before his draft season he played a really good season havinh games in Mestis (second tier professional league in Finland), and did pretty well offensively as well for his age. Also was selected to U20 WJC team (which Juolevi wasn't at the same age).
I think a big reason for Määttä to drop as much as he did was that his offense was considered questionable thanks to his seasons in London. After leaving Juniors his offense kind of bounced back. It's pretty strange. But Juolevi still is considered better offensively, despite Määttä's bit drop in London offensively.
Chychrun is the ONLY top target. Followed by Juolevi.
A top wing for Eichel? We've got years of Kane, Girgensons, Ennis... not to mention Fasching, Baptiste, Bailey, etc.
At the top of the draft, if you aren't drafting for need... you are doing it wrong (despite popular myths about BPA)
If this means that we draft Juolevi 3rd overall if Chychrun is taken top-2, I don't think I can agree. Unless Juolevi really has a rock solid season overall and becomes a legitimate top-5 selection.
Drafting philosophy is a lot debated, yet a little actual information is pretty hard to find.
There still is one really interesting interview with Jarmo Kekäläinen when he was an assistant GM in St.Louis:
http://www.jatkoaika.com/Kolumni/pää-ja-sydän-ratkaisee-jarmo-kekäläisen-haastattelu-osa-2/77555
And here is the first part (not that much about draft philosophy, though) :
http://www.jatkoaika.com/Kolumni/jarmo-kekäläinen-rakentamassa-st-louis-bluesia-osa-1/77621
Unfortunately I don't have time to translate it.
But he says there that you don't really draft for need on higher rounds, because a position once looked a weakness, might be something else after a 4-5 years.
There is also this pretty interesting thing about players being on categories named as "preferable, desirable, acceptable and considerable" between the 1st overall and your own pick (St.Louis drafted 9th overall that year).
So basically if there are two players in the same category, you could draft for need. If for example Puljujärvi and Juolevi both were on "preferable" or "desirable", you could take Juolevi. But if Juolevi is on lower category, you don't take him for a need, and you take Puljujärvi instead regardless of your need.
And after two first rounds your lists consists players listed by their position or style (goaltender, power forward, skill/finesse fw, stay-at-home-defenseman etc). So after the first two rounds you don't list players similarly.
That interview is from 2007, so Keklu might think differently now, and not every organisation act similarly.
I think Juolevi will be a legitimate top-10 selection but not sure will he be legitimate top-5 not to talk about even top-3 selection. Time will tell.
