Bravo Benning. The D is pretty much rebuilt.

[PuckMunchkin]

All that D + 3 or D +4 crap is hot garbage. Players can improve or take a leap at any time. The individual decides what he wants to get out of hockey and how much he’s willing to improve. Sedins, Naslund, and what now appears to be Markstrom, all took a leap in their mid 20’s (Markstrom late 20’s). Bertuzzi was also a late developer. Look at what Hutton and Stecher have done this past year.

Now - will Juolevi be a superstar in this league? While anything is possible, it’s unlikely. However - he can still be a very key component for us in the future. Ditto for Virtanen.

Back in 2011, the Canucks had a guy that was drafted 5th overall back in his day, and never quite lived up to his billing. His name? Raffi Torres. I think we can all agree that Torres played a solid role for the Canucks that year.

Who’s to say that Juolevi and Virtanen don’t do the same for us one day?......even if they don’t become superstars.

By the way - the emergence of Hutton has given legs to the argument that perhaps we can move on from Edler......and so in one form or another, I wasn’t completely off base in suggesting (back in 2016) that maybe we’ll have our Edler replacement (even if that guy wasn’t Juolevi).

Progress isn't linear no... But if you looked in to analytics you would also know its not random either.

2016-17

Matthew Tkachuk was 0.63 ppg in his rookie year .

Olli Juolevi progressed slightly, maintaining his previous years slightly sub point per game pace while exposed to lesser team mates.

People tried to tell you at that point that Tkachuk was projecting to be the better player and you fought it vehemently.

2017-18

Matthew Tkachuk ups his pace to 0.72 ppg.

This year Juolevi looks worse than he did last year in training camp against other prospects. He is sent to Finland where he stagnates or progresses slightly depending on how much weight you give Liiga. We hear him having similar issues with compete level.

People try to tell you Matthew Tkachuk + other D men like McAvoy have overtaken Juolevi as a prospect and you still defend him.

Now its 2018-19 Tkachuk is playing PPG pace (altho his large bump in shooting% leads us to believe this is not probably sustainable) Juolevi has missed last summer doing rehab instead of getting better and is now losing this year of hockey doing rehab on his knee.

This didn't come out of the blue. He was progressing poorly ever since being drafted. I baffles me why this doesn't interest you enough to actually take in some of the analytics? As a Canucks fan I love following the kids before they get to the big league and I drink up any data and video available that provides us info in to how they project as NHL players.

Sorry for the rant... But it seems like people try to talk to you in these terms again and again and none of it seems to hit home.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Progress isn't linear no... But if you looked in to analytics you would also know its not random either.

2016-17

Matthew Tkachuk was 0.63 ppg in his rookie year .

Olli Juolevi progressed slightly, maintaining his previous years slightly sub point per game pace while exposed to lesser team mates.

People tried to tell you at that point that Tkachuk was projecting to be the better player and you fought it vehemently.

2017-18

Matthew Tkachuk ups his pace to 0.72 ppg.

This year Juolevi looks worse than he did last year in training camp against other prospects. He is sent to Finland where he stagnates or progresses slightly depending on how much weight you give Liiga. We hear him having similar issues with compete level.

People try to tell you Matthew Tkachuk + other D men like McAvoy have overtaken Juolevi as a prospect and you still defend him.

Now its 2018-19 Tkachuk is playing PPG pace (altho his large bump in shooting% leads us to believe this is not probably sustainable) Juolevi has missed last summer doing rehab instead of getting better and is now losing this year of hockey doing rehab on his knee.

This didn't come out of the blue. He was progressing poorly ever since being drafted. I baffles me why this doesn't interest you enough to actually take in some of the analytics? As a Canucks fan I love following the kids before they get to the big league and I drink up any data and video available that provides us info in to how they project as NHL players.

Sorry for the rant... But it seems like people try to talk to you in these terms again and again and none of it seems to hit home.

I get it.

Tkachuk has been more impressive than Juolevi thus far and the underlying numbers gave a glimpse into the future of that.

I understand all that.

All of that does “hit home” as you say.


I just think that is way too early to write off a 20 year old......especially when you consider the fact that he’s been unlucky with two major injuries. Before his injury earlier this year, he did look noticeably improved from the year before.

I like to strongly consider both sides of the coin on all issues. Perhaps it would beehove you to do the same. Believe it or not, there are players out there with great “advanced stats” that struggle and/or never took a leap in their games. Advanced stats are a very useful tool, but they aren’t the “key to life.”

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I get it.

Tkachuk has been more impressive than Juolevi thus far and the underlying numbers gave a glimpse into the future of that.

I understand all that.

All of that does “hit home” as you say.


I just think that is way too early to write off a 20 year old......especially when you consider the fact that he’s been unlucky with two major injuries. Before his injury earlier this year, he did look noticeably improved from the year before.

What is this "noticeably improved" based on?

I like to strongly consider both sides of the coin on all issues. Perhaps it would beehove you to do the same. Believe it or not, there are players out there with great “advanced stats” that struggle and/or never took a leap in their games. Advanced stats are a very useful tool, but they aren’t the “key to life.”

Who are these players with great "advanced stats" that struggle?

The answer to poor science (or advanced stats, or analytics) is better science.

 

[Horse McHindu]

What is this "noticeably improved" based on?

At the start of the year down in Utica, Juolevi seemed to be playing better than the previous year. According to the reports anyways. Go have a look at some of the earlier reports.

Who are these players with great "advanced stats" that struggle?

The answer to poor science (or advanced stats, or analytics) is better science.

I’m not sure about today but a few years ago, guys like Michael Matheson, Brett Ritchie, Connor Carrick, and Julias Honka had fantastic underlying numbers, and the numbers clearly suggested that all of those players would be taking a huge leap in their games very shortly.

In contrast, a great superstar like Aleksander Barkov had very average underlying numbers and iCorsi a few years ago despite him having a very solid season.

This year for instance - Jay Beagle has very poor underlying numbers in certain categories but I think we can all agree that he’s been very good with the Canucks so far.

If I recall correctly - the analytics didn’t shed a very good light on both Markstrom and Hutton last year. The underlying numbers showed that Markstrom was not only NOT a number one goalie, but was a very average back up goalie.

These are just a few examples and I’m sure there are many more.

Analytics are a very useful tool, but they don’t tell the whole story. You have to consider other factors as well. Getting back to the topic of Juolevi, I still think it’s way too early to write him off. The dude is 20. People grow, learn, mature, and improve at different ages.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

At the start of the year down in Utica, Juolevi seemed to be playing better than the previous year. According to the reports anyways. Go have a look at some of the earlier reports.

I would like to look at the same data and / or reports you are looking at so I we are working with the same information.

From what I understand he was collecting points on the PP but was struggling otherwise. I don't think this is a great sign. But could be partly explained by his back issue during the summer and now his knee injury (that could be caused by his nerv issue that required the disc surgery)

I’m not sure about today but a few years ago, guys like Michael Matheson, Brett Ritchie, Connor Carrick, and Julias Honka had fantastic underlying numbers, and the numbers clearly suggested that all of those players would be taking a huge leap in their games very shortly.

In contrast, a great superstar like Aleksander Barkov had very average underlying numbers and iCorsi a few years ago despite him having a very solid season.

Matheson had good corsi numbers in offensively lopsided deployment...

Honka had decent corsi numbers in a limited,somewhat sheltered, deployment. That's the extent of his "fantastic" underlying numbers...

Barkov has always been a analytics darling. His SEAL adjusted scoring in Liiga are still the benchmark.

This year for instance - Jay Beagle has very poor underlying numbers in certain categories but I think we can all agree that he’s been very good with the Canucks so far.

If I recall correctly - the analytics didn’t shed a very good light on both Markstrom and Hutton last year. The underlying numbers showed that Markstrom was not only NOT a number one goalie, but was a very average back up goalie.

These are just a few examples and I’m sure there are many more.

I don't think Beagle has been very good with the Canucks so far. Our PK was bad before and it is bad still. Some of us said he wasn't that great on the PK last year with the Washington when he was signed.

Markström has been an average starter with most of his Canucks career. Obviously he has taken a leap forward this year. A leap you should not expect player to take at 29 years old because it is very very very very rare. (This is the whole point.)

Analytics are a very useful tool, but they don’t tell the whole story. You have to consider other factors as well. Getting back to the topic of Juolevi, I still think it’s way too early to write him off. The dude is 20. People grow, learn, mature, and improve at different ages.

I think with Juolevi we are past that point now. We should be positively surprised if he becomes a valuable piece for the Canucks but should no longer expect it.



All this leads me to believe you really don't understand analytics that well. Are you really just using raw corsi numbers...?

 

[iceburg]

Honest question: how do analytics project development of a player who has had multiple serious injuries in his D+X years?

Juolevi's development, by any measure has been disastrous. Every time he starts to show positive signs, he has a major injury set back. To me, it makes it very hard to project what his future development will look like, and what his upside is.

 

[RobertKron]

All that D + 3 or D +4 crap is hot garbage. Players can improve or take a leap at any time. The individual decides what he wants to get out of hockey and how much he’s willing to improve. Sedins, Naslund, and what now appears to be Markstrom, all took a leap in their mid 20’s (Markstrom late 20’s). Bertuzzi was also a late developer. Look at what Hutton and Stecher have done this past year.

Now - will Juolevi be a superstar in this league? While anything is possible, it’s unlikely. However - he can still be a very key component for us in the future. Ditto for Virtanen.

Back in 2011, the Canucks had a guy that was drafted 5th overall back in his day, and never quite lived up to his billing. His name? Raffi Torres. I think we can all agree that Torres played a solid role for the Canucks that year.

Who’s to say that Juolevi and Virtanen don’t do the same for us one day?......even if they don’t become superstars.

By the way - the emergence of Hutton has given legs to the argument that perhaps we can move on from Edler......and so in one form or another, I wasn’t completely off base in suggesting (back in 2016) that maybe we’ll have our Edler replacement (even if that guy wasn’t Juolevi).

Markstrom is a goalie.
Bertuzzi scored 18 goals at 20, and played 13 games in the minors.
Naslund put up 19g/52p in 66 games at 22, and played 12 games in the minors.
Daniel scored 20 at 19 years old.

You think Torres is what you hope for when you pick a player 5OA? That's your benchmark for success?

 

[Horse McHindu]

Markstrom is a goalie.


You think Torres is what you hope for when you pick a player 5OA? That's your benchmark for success?

Reading comprehension 101.

I said that while Raffi Torres clearly didn't live up to expectations as a #5 overall, he was still a highly effective player in his prime.........and was a highly effective player for us in 2011.

And that's the point I was trying to make with Juolevi and Virtanen. Even if they can't live up the hype of being a #5 or #6 overall, they can still perhaps be highly effective players for us one day.

Things don't have to be so black and white (i.e. becomes a superstar or complete bust).

 

[Horse McHindu]

Markstrom is a goalie.
Bertuzzi scored 18 goals at 20, and played 13 games in the minors.
Naslund put up 19g/52p in 66 games at 22, and played 12 games in the minors.
Daniel scored 20 at 19 years old.

Perhaps, but what I'm saying is that people can take 'leaps' at different ages and different times.

Perhaps Juolevi "takes a leap" next year or the year after next and becomes a good 2nd pairing defenseman. Perhaps Virtanen "takes a leap" and becomes an excellent 3rd line player that wouldn't look completely out of place on a 2nd line.

So what if Juolevi doesn't become a top pairing defenseman? So what if Virtanen doesn't become an elite 1st line winger? You don't just cast them out like lepers because they didn't light the world on fire before the age of 22.

Not everyone has to be a superstar. Our 2011 team had guys like Torres and Erhoff. Maybe Virtanen and Juolevi become as good as those guys one day...........which wouldn't be the worst things in the world. Maybe they become better than that. The point is, they're still young. Give them time to develop.

 

[y2kcanucks]

All that D + 3 or D +4 crap is hot garbage. Players can improve or take a leap at any time. The individual decides what he wants to get out of hockey and how much he’s willing to improve. Sedins, Naslund, and what now appears to be Markstrom, all took a leap in their mid 20’s (Markstrom late 20’s). Bertuzzi was also a late developer. Look at what Hutton and Stecher have done this past year.

Now - will Juolevi be a superstar in this league? While anything is possible, it’s unlikely. However - he can still be a very key component for us in the future. Ditto for Virtanen.

Back in 2011, the Canucks had a guy that was drafted 5th overall back in his day, and never quite lived up to his billing. His name? Raffi Torres. I think we can all agree that Torres played a solid role for the Canucks that year.

Who’s to say that Juolevi and Virtanen don’t do the same for us one day?......even if they don’t become superstars.

By the way - the emergence of Hutton has given legs to the argument that perhaps we can move on from Edler......and so in one form or another, I wasn’t completely off base in suggesting (back in 2016) that maybe we’ll have our Edler replacement (even if that guy wasn’t Juolevi).

I stopped reading there. No point in continuing if you deny reality.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Perhaps, but what I'm saying is that people can take 'leaps' at different ages and different times.

Perhaps Juolevi "takes a leap" next year or the year after next and becomes a good 2nd pairing defenseman. Perhaps Virtanen "takes a leap" and becomes an excellent 3rd line player that wouldn't look completely out of place on a 2nd line.

So what if Juolevi doesn't become a top pairing defenseman? So what if Virtanen doesn't become an elite 1st line winger? You don't just cast them out like lepers because they didn't light the world on fire before the age of 22.

Not everyone has to be a superstar. Our 2011 team had guys like Torres and Erhoff. Maybe Virtanen and Juolevi become as good as those guys one day...........which wouldn't be the worst things in the world. Maybe they become better than that. The point is, they're still young. Give them time to develop.

Honestly who gives a f*** if he takes a unpredictable random leap?

Im really trying to understand the way you think and more and more it looks like you have the cart before the horse.

You have a conclusion that you have decided would be nice and then you work towards that conclusion ignoring what ever data points to the contrary.

 

[timw33]

but what I'm saying is that people can take 'leaps' at different ages and different times

Whoops the data heavily condemns your opinion.

 

[YeahHeDid]

Perhaps, but what I'm saying is that people can take 'leaps' at different ages and different times.

Perhaps Juolevi "takes a leap" next year or the year after next and becomes a good 2nd pairing defenseman. Perhaps Virtanen "takes a leap" and becomes an excellent 3rd line player that wouldn't look completely out of place on a 2nd line.

So what if Juolevi doesn't become a top pairing defenseman? So what if Virtanen doesn't become an elite 1st line winger? You don't just cast them out like lepers because they didn't light the world on fire before the age of 22.

Not everyone has to be a superstar. Our 2011 team had guys like Torres and Erhoff. Maybe Virtanen and Juolevi become as good as those guys one day...........which wouldn't be the worst things in the world. Maybe they become better than that. The point is, they're still young. Give them time to develop.

You're working hard to defend those picks at 5 and 6 overall, saying "give them time". And you aren't wrong. We should give them time. But if you are also defending the picks even with 20/20 hindsight then you've lost the plot. It's OK to admit they were the wrong picks at the time. I'm sure even Benning does the same in a private setting.

 

[MisfortuneCookie]

Back in 2011, the Canucks had a guy that was drafted 5th overall back in his day, and never quite lived up to his billing. His name? Raffi Torres

Wow. Raffi Torres. What a reveal. Shocking. You do of course realize that the Canucks simply signed Raffi Torres as a free agent, right? The man went through 6 different NHL teams. Kind of defeats the purpose of drafting a player when they give you what you can buy off the shelf every season.

When you're drafting at the top of the first round you're trying to find players who don't end up floating around in free agency or on the trading block. Teams moved on from Raffi Torres half-a-dozen times.

Raffi Torres as a 5th overall pick? Yes, a massive disappointment. You're trying to find future stars, not utility grinders the likes of whom are available and looking for work every two years.

For example, there was one rather effective utility player who ended up playing for *six* different NHL teams despite being drafted at 5th overall. That young man's name? Albert Einstein.

 

[MS]

I get it.

Tkachuk has been more impressive than Juolevi thus far and the underlying numbers gave a glimpse into the future of that.

I understand all that.

All of that does “hit home” as you say.


I just think that is way too early to write off a 20 year old......especially when you consider the fact that he’s been unlucky with two major injuries. Before his injury earlier this year, he did look noticeably improved from the year before.

I like to strongly consider both sides of the coin on all issues. Perhaps it would beehove you to do the same. Believe it or not, there are players out there with great “advanced stats” that struggle and/or never took a leap in their games. Advanced stats are a very useful tool, but they aren’t the “key to life.”

Juolevi looked good on the PP in Utica but was horrific at ES and bleeding goals despite having a coach who didn’t even trust him on the ice for a defensive zone faceoff.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

Reading comprehension 101.

I said that while Raffi Torres clearly didn't live up to expectations as a #5 overall, he was still a highly effective player in his prime.........and was a highly effective player for us in 2011.

And that's the point I was trying to make with Juolevi and Virtanen. Even if they can't live up the hype of being a #5 or #6 overall, they can still perhaps be highly effective players for us one day.

Things don't have to be so black and white (i.e. becomes a superstar or complete bust).

Using the term "highly effective" in this context is a bit misleading. Yes, Torres was "highly effective"...as a 3rd/4th liner. Those are the types of players you can get in free agency (see Malhotra, Roussel, Beagle, etc.) - not the type of players you justify using a top 10 pick on. I'd rather draft an average top 6 player that can put up 50 points over a "highly effective" bottom 6 player.

 

[RandV]

Honest question: how do analytics project development of a player who has had multiple serious injuries in his D+X years?

Juolevi's development, by any measure has been disastrous. Every time he starts to show positive signs, he has a major injury set back. To me, it makes it very hard to project what his future development will look like, and what his upside is.

I can't recall his full injury history but apart from the obvious one this season he played the majority of the season in his D1 and D2 years and didn't really show much signs of progression then that you would expect of a 6th overall pick.

 

[megatron]

Markstrom is a goalie.
Bertuzzi scored 18 goals at 20, and played 13 games in the minors.
Naslund put up 19g/52p in 66 games at 22, and played 12 games in the minors.
Daniel scored 20 at 19 years old.
You think Torres is what you hope for when you pick a player 5OA? That's your benchmark for success?

Perhaps, but what I'm saying is that people can take 'leaps' at different ages and different times.

So you post some names and they don't backup your point, then you say leaps can happen at different times. Yeah No sh*t. But the point that youre missing is that nothing that Joulevi has done so far tracks him to meet expectations of his pick number. But yeah by your logic anything can happen, can he randomly be a top pair D, yeah but not likely, can he randomly score 30 goals, uhh yeah thats possible but not likely. Not sure if youre being intentionally obtuse. And ofcourse it matters what happens in D+1, D+2, D+3 years, it gives us a basis to reach an objective determination on how well a player is tracking and what future expectations are. If you're not using D+1,D+2 data/analysis you're essentially just going blind and making sh*t up.

 

[iceburg]

I can't recall his full injury history but apart from the obvious one this season he played the majority of the season in his D1 and D2 years and didn't really show much signs of progression then that you would expect of a 6th overall pick.

D1=> pretty much a flat (or maybe even down) development year. No increase in offensive production for London. I think he may have even seen a reduction in ice time in favour of Boucher? It certainly didn't help that his London teammate, Mete, outscored him after being drafted 100 overall in the same draft. He also didn't have a stellar WJC after looking very good the year before. By all measures, it was a really disappointing D1 year.

D2 => over to Liiga to play under Salo. Good organizational move as another year in London wasn't going to be helpful. As I recall, Salo had some "negative words" about Juolevi saying he needed to improve in certain areas if he was going to make it to the NHL. The reaction in this market was pretty stern given the passing over of Tkachuk and the absolute lack of D-depth in the organization. I also recall he was injured just as his play was starting to improve. He missed a bunch of games. Then by the end of the year he was averaging 25 minutes a game for TPS and Salo was singing his praises. Overall, it was a good year despite the slow start and injuries.

D3 => Everyone wanted to see what he could do in Utica. He lasted 18 games before a season ending injury. He left as a top minute, top point guy. Some say he struggle defensively. Below are some quotes from the Utica thread, some very positive, some not so much - consistency seemed to be an issue as was stated by Cull. In the end, 18 games as a 20 year old in the AHL is way to small a sample set to make any conclusions. It was a complete bust of a year.

Overall, IMO, we can't put any stock in the D3 year, the D2 year was a reasonable development year, and the D1 year was disappointing. I think it's the latter, fresh after passing by Tkachuk that has soured a lot of people on Juolevi. Final word, he's 20 years old.

Juolevi still makes some mistakes with the puck and his positioning at times but he is certainly one of the Comets better defensemen.

Beautiful play by Juolevi waiting that extra second and then feathering a nice pass in transition to the forward who then makes nice pass to MacEwen who buries net.

Juolevi had a very strong game through the first two periods, at least three excellent transition passes that dissected the Laval forecheck and neutral zone defence allowing the Comets to enter the zone with speed. Clearly the most skilled player On the ice. The Rockets were getting picked apart by his transition game so started taking runs at him to disrupt.

Solid game last night. Excellent in transition.

Juolevi is just so, so soft. 1-0 goal was embarrassing - was in a 50-50 race for a dump-in, lets up completely and does a soft hockey stop 3 feet away from his opponent and watches him center it for a bang-bang goal.

Juolevi had a more solid game and wasn't exposed defensively. Moved the puck well as usual. But people need perspective on how much he's being sheltered. Does not PK. Does not take d-zone faceoffs.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Wow. Raffi Torres. What a reveal. Shocking. You do of course realize that the Canucks simply signed Raffi Torres as a free agent, right? The man went through 6 different NHL teams. Kind of defeats the purpose of drafting a player when they give you what you can buy off the shelf every season.

When you're drafting at the top of the first round you're trying to find players who don't end up floating around in free agency or on the trading block. Teams moved on from Raffi Torres half-a-dozen times.

Raffi Torres as a 5th overall pick? Yes, a massive disappointment. You're trying to find future stars, not utility grinders the likes of whom are available and looking for work every two years.

For example, there was one rather effective utility player who ended up playing for *six* different NHL teams despite being drafted at 5th overall. That young man's name? Albert Einstein.

Fair enough.

All I’m saying is that it’s not the end of the world if guys like Juolevi (5th) and Virtanen (6th) don’t end up being superstars. That’s the nature of the draft. You win some, you lose some.

For instance - if Juolevi and Virtanen become Erhoff and Torres caliber level players one day (I’m talking caliber here, this isn’t a stylistic comparison), then I don’t think that’s the end of the world. Sure - it’s technically a disappointment, but that’s still better than having those players turning out to be Nail Yakupov and Brandon Gormley caliber.

And yes - I still think it’s WAY too early to write off a 20 year old kid.

 

[valkynax]

I’ll have to admit defeat as far as Gudbranson goes.

Having said that, I’m so impressed with Hutton. The guy was called out by Green, ate a huge serving of humble pie last year, and then worked his butt off in the off season and came back better than ever.

As far as Juolevi goes, the guy looked like he had improved before he got injured again. Juolevi hasn’t lit it up as of yet, but he’s still so young......and I believe that it’s still too early to write him off. Take off your Benning hatred googles for a sec and give the kid some rope.

Ps - what’s Brandon Gormley up to these days? Pretty sure I seem to recall you wanting the Canucks to pick Jack Wise over Tyler Madden as well.

Admitting defeat earns you respect and creds, at least in my books.

As for OJ, I myself won't hope for anything anymore. A disappointment every year thus far. I do hope he's aware of the seriousness of his situation, make up for lost ground and prove doubters like me wrong, I welcome it.

 

[RobertKron]

Fair enough.

All I’m saying is that it’s not the end of the world if guys like Juolevi (5th) and Virtanen (6th) don’t end up being superstars. That’s the nature of the draft. You win some, you lose some.

For instance - if Juolevi and Virtanen become Erhoff and Torres caliber level players one day (I’m talking caliber here, this isn’t a stylistic comparison), then I don’t think that’s the end of the world. Sure - it’s technically a disappointment, but that’s still better than having those players turning out to be Nail Yakupov and Brandon Gormley caliber.

And yes - I still think it’s WAY too early to write off a 20 year old kid.

I mean, yeah. It would be even worse if they accidentally burned down the arena. Whoopee.

I don't really get your point? People shouldn't be disappointed because the absolute worst case hasn't come to be? A high pick is an opportunity to get a young impact player under the team's control for many years. Not getting that is bad. Period. The fact that Juolevi hasn't yet stabbed Elias Pettersson or whatever doesn't really change that.

 

[Horse McHindu]

You're working hard to defend those picks at 5 and 6 overall, saying "give them time". And you aren't wrong. We should give them time. But if you are also defending the picks even with 20/20 hindsight then you've lost the plot. It's OK to admit they were the wrong picks at the time. I'm sure even Benning does the same in a private setting.

I agree here.

In retrospect, yeah.........we probably should have selected Tkachuk over Juolevi......and Ehlers over Virtanen. By the same token, other teams should have selected Boeser, Pettersson, and Hughes a lot earlier as well and yet I don’t see “Team Tank” giving Benning props on this one.

Bad draft pick? It’s Benning’s fault. Good draft pick? It’s because of Brackett. So biased and makes no sense.

My point remains though........even if Juolevi and Virtanen never live up to their billing, they can still be key roster players. Obviously, we would have wanted them to be Duncan Keith and Corey Perry, but it’s not the end of the world if they end up being Chrisitan Erhoff and Raffi Torres caliber guys.

With Quinn Hughes here now, there is far less pressure on Juolevi. Let Juolevi develop and maybe he becomes a decent 2nd pairing dman one day.......even if he has some limitations (like MS pointed out).

 

[RobertKron]

I agree here.

In retrospect, yeah.........we probably should have selected Tkachuk over Juolevi......and Ehlers over Virtanen. By the same token, other teams should have selected Boeser, Pettersson, and Hughes a lot earlier as well and yet I don’t see “Team Tank” giving Benning props on this one.

Bad draft pick? It’s Benning’s fault. Good draft pick? It’s because of Brackett. So biased and makes no sense.

My point remains though........even if Juolevi and Virtanen never live up to their billing, they can still be key roster players. Obviously, we would have wanted them to be Duncan Keith and Corey Perry, but it’s not the end of the world if they end up being Chrisitan Erhoff and Raffi Torres caliber guys.

With Quinn Hughes here now, there is far less pressure on Juolevi. Let Juolevi develop and maybe he becomes a decent 2nd pairing dman one day.......even if he has some limitations (like MS pointed out).

This isn't in retrospect, though. This was the obvious choice at the time. That is the glaring issue.

Also, you keep saying "let Juolevi develop," as if there's any question as to if that will happen or not, and I don't really understand why. You're kind of all over the map here.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Admitting defeat earns you respect and creds, at least in my books.

As for OJ, I myself won't hope for anything anymore. A disappointment every year thus far. I do hope he's aware of the seriousness of his situation, make up for lost ground and prove doubters like me wrong, I welcome it.

Thanks man.

I did have high hopes for Gudbranson but the game does seem to have passed him by. He can’t skate (which is something that our pro scouting said that he was good at), and nowadays, it seems like he’s trying too hard to make something happen (ie go for a big hit even if it means going way out of position).

Obviously for OJ, it would be great if he lived up to his billing, but I think the presence of Quinn Hughes changes the expectation and pressure.

I think Hughes is going to be a top pairing franchise defenseman and will be our “alpha” moving forward. That’s why I don’t see the OJ situation being so life and death. If OJ ends up being a Christian Erhoff caliber guy for us (ie a good 2nd pairing dman that despite having a few holes in his game, still has enough strengths to be considered a decent dman), then I don’t think that’s the end of the world.

But again - the guy is 20! Lots of time to develop And improve.