Prospect Info: LD Olli Juolevi - London Knights - 5th Overall 2016

[JA]

 

[Havre]

Lidström didn't have much "upside" either. Not sure why so many are almost obsessed with players having one stand-out feature to their game.

Happy we drafted a D and not a winger. Also happy to see that most seem to think that his biggest strength is his hockey IQ.

 

[Havre]

I agree. It never really works out that way, but we seem more balanced now with a talented young D among our top prospects.

For once I can see the logic from our management. Maybe there is a new #1C among the first rounders below the fifth pick, but it isn't exactly obvious who that would be. A smart allround solid D isn't exactly a terrible idea then - especially not when most are probably quite high on Boeser.

 

[Zaddy91]

3 things

1. hes really young
2. hes really smart
3. hes real good

 

[WTG]

You guys want to talk about future line ups and other canucks players I'd suggest going to their respective threads. Any post that isn't about Juolevi will be deleted. Existing posts will be moved to the 2016-17 line combo thread linked below.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2049799

 

[F A N]

Hamhuis was better then Ehrhoff. Maybe not a number one, but he was the top pairing guy playing shut down minutes and putting up 30 point pace.

Joulevi, is very good, I had him as the best D in this draft. His IQ is great. But we just haven't seen the other side of this yet. His offensive numbers should be better. He hasn't been the PPQB and it doesn't look like that is in his style. There is nothing wrong with any of that. But it does mean he is trending more Dan Hamhuis than a true number 1, or the lidstrom comp we have heard.

Benning didn't say he was #1. He said 1st pairing Dman. People forget that Hamhuis was drafted as an offensive Dman. One season, he put up 7 goals and 38 points. Then he fell behind on the offensive depth chart. I actually would be happy if Juolevi developed into the offensive version of Hamhuis or the in his prime defensive version. Hamhuis, Tanev, Vlasic type Dmen are extremely valuable.

Juolevi is now Canuck property and the last 6-7 months of discussion has gone out the window. Anything is possible and likely achievable.

Before the draft: It was hotly debated who was the top defender in this draft, perhaps the biggest debate of this draft as there was a wide variance of opinions. Many agreed that this was not a strong year at the top for defender and because of that there are 3 strong considerations for the 1st defender.
After the draft: Juolevi was the unanimous best defender.

Before the draft: There are no clear #1 defenders in this draft - agreed upon by GMs and many scouts alike.
After the draft: Juolevi will be a #1 defender, there's nothing stopping him.

Again, Benning didn't say he would be #1. He said he could be a first pairing Dman. Hotly debated who was the top defender in the draft is meaningless. At one time before the draft it was hotly debated who was the best forward. Towards the draft, Matthews and Laine had separated themselves. The same for Juolevi who most scouts felt separated himself from the pack in the 2nd half.

 

[JA]

I've said it multiple times already but just for history's sake, I think this could be one of the best Canucks pick in history... although that's not saying much. I'm so ecstatic to have a big bluechip defenseman in the organization. I think Olli is going to blossom into a top pairing defenseman and was the perfect pick given our circumstances. I am 110% behind this pick and player.

This year's edition of the "All-Time Canucks Defencemen" thread ranks Mattias Ohlund, Jyrki Lumme, Ed Jovanovski, Sami Salo, and Alex Edler as the five all-time best defencemen for the organization.

Harold Snepsts currently leads the race for the sixth overall placement by a significant margin.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2094885

If Olli lives up to his potential, he could quite possibly be considered one of this franchise's best all-time defencemen by the time his NHL career ends.

 

[trick9]

Very good pick.

Not that surprised he was picked ahead of Tkachuk. Juolevi outplayed guys like Provorov and other older guys at the WJC.

 

[JA]

Olli was measured at 6'2'' 182 lbs at the Draft Combine.

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/06/04/2016-nhl-draft-combine-heights-weights/

The Canucks have a lot of size on the back end.

Notable defencemen within the organization:

Tryamkin (6'7'')
Gudbranson (6'5'')
Pedan (6'5'')
Edler (6'3'')
Hutton (6'2'')
Tanev (6'2'')
Juolevi (6'2'')
Sbisa (6'2'')
Neill (6'1'')
Brisebois (6'1'')
Larsen (6'0'')
Stecher (5'11'')
Biega (5'10'')
Subban (5'9'')

Outgoing defencemen:
Hamhuis (6'1'')
Bartkowski (6'1'')
Weber (5'11'')

Edler (6'3'')-Tanev (6'2'')
Hutton (6'2'')-Gudbranson (6'5'')
Tryamkin (6'7'')-Larsen (6'0'')
Sbisa (6'2'')
Biega (5'10'')
Pedan (6'5'')

The defence corps is taller than it was a year ago. It's a bonus that Olli isn't undersized and that he is, in fact, as tall as Chris Tanev and Ben Hutton. If he was 5'11'' or 5'10'', I might be a little more leery of this selection.

 

[Bougieman]

Bleacherreport doesn't like the pick:
"I think Sergachev was the best defenseman in the draft. So making Juolevi the first blueliner to go was a confusing choice."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...results-full-grades-review-for-each-franchise

 

[Havre]

Bleacherreport doesn't like the pick:
"I think Sergachev was the best defenseman in the draft. So making Juolevi the first blueliner to go was a confusing choice."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...results-full-grades-review-for-each-franchise

Good. Probably the right choice then.

 

[thefeebster]

Again, Benning didn't say he would be #1. He said he could be a first pairing Dman. Hotly debated who was the top defender in the draft is meaningless. At one time before the draft it was hotly debated who was the best forward. Towards the draft, Matthews and Laine had separated themselves. The same for Juolevi who most scouts felt separated himself from the pack in the 2nd half.

You obviously don't understand the point of that post. I thought it was clear.

It's a narrative that fans are spinning. The before and after. The spin has started.

Again I didn't imply Benning thinks of him at a #1. Many fans in the previous thread do though.

Nope, we chose a defender when there was no consensus top defender and when there was a forward consistently ranked higher.

But keep the spin going..

 

[coastal_nuck]

You obviously don't understand the point of that post. I thought it was clear.

It's a narrative that fans are spinning. The before and after. The spin has started.

Again I didn't imply Benning thinks of him at a #1. Many fans in the previous thread did.

Nope, we chose a defender when there was no consensus top defender and when there was a forward consistently ranked higher.

But keep the spin going..

Completely agreed Feebster. Some fans will just stand behind the team no matter what decisions are made. I think this decision will bite them in the ass for many years to come as this team will have to face Tkachuk several times a year on a go forward basis. But, this was a smart choice because a top pairing D who plays like Lidstrom is what we are getting. #sarcasm

 

[Havre]

Completely agreed Feebster. Some fans will just stand behind the team no matter what decisions are made. I think this decision will bite them in the ass for many years to come as this team will have to face Tkachuk several times a year on a go forward basis. But, this was a smart choice because a top pairing D who plays like Lidstrom is what we are getting. #sarcasm

And some fans will criticize whatever decisions are made right?

Personally I could not have been happier if Linden, Benning and Desjardins got fired today - doesn't mean I can't understand why they went with the pick they did.

I do wonder how much value there is in this kind of scouting. As been discussed to death on Benning - can anyone show to consistently scout better than everybody else? If not you might just take the consensus from these ratings found from Friedman etc.

And by doing that fans will love you for making the "right" decision.

 

[Scurr]

Yeah. He's likely to become a top 2 Tanev/Hamhuis type imo. He has the tools and the toolbox. The question is about his offensive upside. He may be less likely to be a "# 1" than Ekblad was but others would know more about that comparison.

To compare that to Tkachuk… he's pretty likely to be an Andrew Ladd type contributor imo. I think the likely projection of Juolevi (Tanev/Hamhuis) is a more valuable asset. The "ceiling" for Tkachuk as a Corey Perry type franchise winger is certainly a consideration, though. I wonder how likely that is? And how that would compare to the likelihood that Juolevi puts an elite offensive game together?

Completely agreed Feebster. Some fans will just stand behind the team no matter what decisions are made. I think this decision will bite them in the ass for many years to come as this team will have to face Tkachuk several times a year on a go forward basis. But, this was a smart choice because a top pairing D who plays like Lidstrom is what we are getting. #sarcasm

How do you feel about the above comparison? Can you put some percentages on it?

And some fans will criticize whatever decisions are made right?

Personally I could not have been happier if Linden, Benning and Desjardins got fired today - doesn't mean I can't understand why they went with the pick they did.

I do wonder how much value there is in this kind of scouting. As been discussed to death on Benning - can anyone show to consistently scout better than everybody else? If not you might just take the consensus from these ratings found from Friedman etc.

And by doing that fans will love you for making the "right" decision.

This would made a lot of sense if teams had better track records. Do any of the 'draft experts' know what their own hit percentage is?

 

[Havre]

How do you even define hit percentage?

Without having done the math I am pretty sure no GM ever has picked enough players for it to statistically prove anything significant.

So the story you tell and luck is much more important to perception of the success of a GM in terms of making good picks than anything else.

 

[racerjoe]

Benning didn't say he was #1. He said 1st pairing Dman. People forget that Hamhuis was drafted as an offensive Dman. One season, he put up 7 goals and 38 points. Then he fell behind on the offensive depth chart. I actually would be happy if Juolevi developed into the offensive version of Hamhuis or the in his prime defensive version. Hamhuis, Tanev, Vlasic type Dmen are extremely valuable.

AGAIN, myself and Feebs DIDN"T SAY BENNING called him a #1. But lots of posters are calling him that. Hence my post about what he looks like.

I like Joulevi, like I said I had him as the top D but I did have him at 10.

 

[Scurr]

How do you even define hit percentage?

Without having done the math I am pretty sure no GM ever has picked enough players for it to statistically prove anything significant.

So the story you tell and luck is much more important to perception of the success of a GM in terms of making good picks than anything else.

100 NHL games is sometimes used as a barometer. I should have said -how are the draft experts doing compared to NHL teams?

You're right, though, better to be lucky than good where drafting is concerned.

 

[topheavyhookjaw]

im sold on olli. im just mad that the set of events that happened was the literal worst possible permutation that didnt involve unrealistic ******** (like us drafting logan stanley or whatever)

Agree with this.

The CBJ and EDM dominoes fell totally wrong for the Canucks but I like Juolevi.

 

[Josepho]

Bleacherreport doesn't like the pick:
"I think Sergachev was the best defenseman in the draft. So making Juolevi the first blueliner to go was a confusing choice."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...results-full-grades-review-for-each-franchise

The same BleacherReport that considers Tanev our worst contract and Bourdon our biggest bust in recent memory?

 

[Just A Bit Outside]

Wanted Tkachuk but wish the kid nothing but the best and hope he pans out.

Really would be nice to have a potential #1 dman in the system.

 

[HankNDank]

The same BleacherReport that considers Tanev our worst contract and Bourdon our biggest bust in recent memory?

Yeah, but when you are affect by confirmation bias, you'll use whatever you can find to reassure yourself that your ideology is correct.

 

[Nick Lang]

Olli was measured at 6'2'' 182 lbs at the Draft Combine.

http://lastwordonsports.com/2016/06/04/2016-nhl-draft-combine-heights-weights/

The Canucks have a lot of size on the back end.

Notable defencemen within the organization:

Tryamkin (6'7'')
Gudbranson (6'5'')
Pedan (6'5'')
Edler (6'3'')
Hutton (6'2'')
Tanev (6'2'')
Juolevi (6'2'')
Sbisa (6'2'')
Neill (6'1'')
Brisebois (6'1'')
Larsen (6'0'')
Stecher (5'11'')
Biega (5'10'')
Subban (5'9'')

Outgoing defencemen:
Hamhuis (6'1'')
Bartkowski (6'1'')
Weber (5'11'')

Edler (6'3'')-Tanev (6'2'')
Hutton (6'2'')-Gudbranson (6'5'')
Tryamkin (6'7'')-Larsen (6'0'')
Sbisa (6'2'')
Biega (5'10'')
Pedan (6'5'')

The defence corps is taller than it was a year ago. It's a bonus that Olli isn't undersized and that he is, in fact, as tall as Chris Tanev and Ben Hutton. If he was 5'11'' or 5'10'', I might be a little more leery of this selection.

Pretty fantastic work by Benning. He's building a framework and we have a top notch defenceman in our system for once in a couple decades.

Bleacherreport doesn't like the pick:
"I think Sergachev was the best defenseman in the draft. So making Juolevi the first blueliner to go was a confusing choice."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...results-full-grades-review-for-each-franchise

No biggie. As far as I've ever seen Bleacher is absolute garbage. Basically bananas recycled by monkeys.

 

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Incorrect.

The Aggregate Google Spreadsheet of rankings

It is clear that the majority scouts agreed with that premise. It is clear that the Canucks scouts did not. That's the bottom line.

No, averaging a bunch of rankings tells you a bit about consensus but it does not clearly tell you where scouts and GMs see the tiers and drop-offs.

Notice that Puljujarvi was a consensus #3 which would suggest there was a top tier of 3 but in reality there was a top tier of 2 and then a bunch of players really close.

Both Benning and Treliving talked about a top 6 that they liked before a drop-off. It appears both CGY and VAN had Juolevi right up there with Tkachuk/Dubois. There was no drop-off after top 5, that's why these average rankings can be misleading to fans. You can draw incorrect conclusions.

The best way to figure out where the drop-offs are is to listen to as many interviews with GMs and scouts as you can. And if you did that you wouldn't have heard any scout or GM suggest it was a top tier of 5 and then a drop-off.

 

[TMLife*]

What do you guys think Juolevi's chances are of cracking the NHL to start next season?