Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[aGENT]

23 minutes ago, Toews said:

I am not presuming that Benning chose Virtanen to solve a need, just to be clear. I am questioning the people that try to justify the pick by saying that it was the "right pick" because of what the Canucks were lacking at the time. If you are picking BPA then what the organization is lacking is irrelevant. I have always believed that Benning selected Virtanen because he thought he was the best out of what was remaining on the board. It wasn't because of what was lacking on the team at the time like some in this thread are suggesting.

 

"Possibly"? You would "possibly" take someone who is on pace for 70 points in the NHL? You wouldn't take a guy who has more goals in the NHL than Jake has points in the AHL? And you take offense when @The 5th Line says you would take Horvat over McDavid. If there was a re-draft I would easily take both those guys, and even some more after them. You can refer to this as "crystal ball fretting" or whatever you call it but I haven't been impressed with Virtanen's progression thus far. No way do I take him over players who have shown growth and steady progression since being drafted. Maybe that does change in the future but the list of players I would rather have today is turning out to be a rather long one.

 

Well I agree with your first paragraph  It's a bit of a silly argument.

 

As for the second, ok, I'd quite likely take Ehlers. Better? But if 5 years from now (by some miracle he exceeds expectations) and Virt's putting up +/- 60 points and terrorizing people.... Either way, that's all hind-sighting and crystal balling at present.

 

I'm still not convinced Nylander would have been a better choice than Virt long term regardless of what he happens to be doing right now. Will it perhaps turn out that way? Maybe. But that's the inherent risk of drafting any player. Any of these guys could have struggled out of the gate, just so happens we picked the guy who's struggled the most to this point. Doesn't mean the rest of his story is written yet.

 

Thanks for actually 'talking hockey'

 

 

 

 

[aGENT]

3 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

You are just like Alf.  You will defend a Canucks player to no end, no matter how irrational and unreasonable you are being.  Finally someone will back you in to a corner and you will have no reason but to admit that you are wrong.  Toews just made you admit you would take Ehlers because you couldn't come up with anymore excuses to get

out of it.  You even use the same emojis as Alf with the dude sticking his tongue out.  Ugh

 

"Talking hockey"  Yeah you can take shots at me but I can't take shots at you.  Typical

 

I have defended my case on Jake with plenty of arguments, statistics and historical evidence.  I have tried to discuss hockey with you but you always just go in to defensive mode because you can't ever back up any of your statements.  Don't say I don't talk hockey and don't call me capt hindsight either because I have been saying the same stuff since day 1.  

 

And now I'm gonna have to sit here and answer to Eastcoast, Warhippy, Canuckleddraggin and a few others, probably get another 10 minus reps so yeah that should be fun.

 

  I'm fed up because of the money I have to pay to come watch a Canucks game at rogers arena but the people who run this organization completely whiffed on getting a player who would actually make me enjoy going to the games.  50 years of sucking

 

Sure there chief. Nice hockey talk'n

 

 

 

[orcasgonewild]

2 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

Who are Virtanen's regular linemates in Utica?

 

Is it still Wacey Hamilton and Carter Bancks?  

Jesus no wonder he ain't producing

[elvis15]

25 minutes ago, J.R. said:

Sure there chief. Nice hockey talk'n

I've said it before, I'll say it again: 5th has his reputation because even if he's added stats or actual hockey talk he's continually been overly negative and used language with the definite connotation of that which a troll would typically use. Now, he's nothing but defensive, claiming he's hard done by, and all the banter back to him does is embolden him. We all know what he's about, so let him peter out with his points and he'll lose interest as he finds no one cares about any post he makes without a reasonable discussion (and even then they might not care or even read it).

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, orcasgonewild said:

Jesus no wonder he ain't producing

Yup.

 

On 2/4/2017 at 6:57 PM, J.R. said:

'Don't matter' is probably a bit strong.

 

Aren't as important right now as Jake learning to be a professional athlete, learn the stuff he didn't pick up in junior/unlearning his bad junior habits and in the context of how he's largely being used presently would be more accurate. 

^^^Re: getting points

 

On 2/4/2017 at 3:24 PM, J.R. said:

He's learning the basics of being a pro that he didn't get in junior and because of his own immaturity and circumstance. If he's not scoring next year, I'll be far more concerned. 

 

For right now, he needs to learn how to eat, train and play like a pro. Learn to bring pace and constant pressure with every shift. Scoring, while nice, is not particularly on my radar right now. 

 

On 2/4/2017 at 6:52 PM, J.R. said:

He's not playing poorly in the context Green is using him, so no not really. 

 

I'm not making any excuses. In not coming to any conclusions in fact, on account of he's only 20 years old. 

 

That's your problem IMO. You're simply forming a premature conclusion. It's not 'truth'. Negative or otherwise. 

 

[canuckledraggin]

14 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

I've said it before, I'll say it again: 5th has his reputation because even if he's added stats or actual hockey talk he's continually been overly negative and used language with the definite connotation of that which a troll would typically use. Now, he's nothing but defensive, claiming he's hard done by, and all the banter back to him does is embolden him. We all know what he's about, so let him peter out with his points and he'll lose interest as he finds no one cares about any post he makes without a reasonable discussion (and even then they might not care or even read it).

all of the pluses +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[MrCanuck94]

hahahahahaha gotta love hindsight

 

I wanted Ehlers at the draft, my plan B was Nylander.

 

We drafted Virtanen, yeah I was disappointed, but I could see Jim's reasons and what he saw in his potential.

 

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't always mean they're incompetent (aka Patrick White).

 

Lindenning have drafted more elite and NHL potential players in the three drafts than we have in the past two decades, so stop the hate.

 

Let. The. Kids. Develop.

 

Just because we missed out on Ehlers doesn't mean we have a lesser winger in Jake, we're building a team. Jake can still be an effective Hansen type player if anything and we're gonna have plenty of picks and money to find our scoring wingers in the future.

 

Have. Patience.

 

One love, Go Nucks!

[WeneedLumme]

I see a lot of talk about BPA. As if "best" is objective and measurable. It is not. Jake was clearly not the most skilled player available, which was why many of us wanted Ehlers or Nylander. But if the most skilled player available is 5'4" and 125 lbs., is he the "best" player? Maybe, but not very likely. Obviously, other factors come into play.

 

 I would suggest that "best" player available is often a somewhat subjective term, based at least partly on a given team's situation. "Best" means most valuable to the team. It might be the player who is the most skilled. Or it might be the player who best meets a pressing need of the team, or it might be the player with the highest trade value. Those could be 3 different players.

 

Obviously JB felt that Jake was the most valuable player available to the Canucks. And given the way the Canucks have been bullied, especially in the playoffs, by both the other teams and the refs, I wouldn't say he definitely made the wrong choice. Time will tell. But it certainly hasn't spoken yet.

[Toews]

23 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

I see a lot of talk about BPA. As if "best" is objective and measurable. It is not. Jake was clearly not the most skilled player available, which was why many of us wanted Ehlers or Nylander. But if the most skilled player available is 5'4" and 125 lbs., is he the "best" player? Maybe, but not very likely. Obviously, other factors come into play.

 

 I would suggest that "best" player available is often a somewhat subjective term, based at least partly on a given team's situation. "Best" means most valuable to the team. It might be the player who is the most skilled. Or it might be the player who best meets a pressing need of the team, or it might be the player with the highest trade value. Those could be 3 different players.

 

Obviously JB felt that Jake was the most valuable player available to the Canucks. And given the way the Canucks have been bullied, especially in the playoffs, by both the other teams and the refs, I wouldn't say he definitely made the wrong choice. Time will tell. But it certainly hasn't spoken yet.

When I meant BPA, I meant the player the Canucks scouting staff considered to be the best player at that spot. Forget about what you are lacking on the roster and just select the player you had on the top of your draft board.

[snizzle_]

I'd be cool to see Virtanen play on the same line as Gauncer. A like with Valk in the Middle with Gaunce and Virtanen flanking his wings could be a pretty dynamic line. Also, Utica needs to spread out their scoring with Grenier and Archibald carrying the entire load.

[guntrix]

3 hours ago, MrCanuck94 said:

 

Lindenning have drafted more elite and NHL potential players in the three drafts than we have in the past two decades, so stop the hate.

Serious question, where did you buy that crystal ball of yours? 

 

Last time I checked, no JB picks have made it to "elite" status.... and potential is nothing new. Remember Hodgson? Schroeder? 

[guntrix]

7 hours ago, J.R. said:

 

In hindsight, knowing how Ehlers has turned out so far would I maybe take him instead? Possibly. I'd likely still take Virt over Nylander though and we won't know 'for sure' who the better player will be for another 5+ years.

 

By all means, if Virtanen can't become a pro  in the next couple years and start becoming that player, sure you can call it a 'bad pick' then I suppose, if that's your thing. It's still far too early and impatient to be proclaiming anything at this point though.

This is interesting... why would you take Virtanen over Nylander even with hindsight? 

 

Professional point totals:

 

2014-15 season (18/19 years of age): Nylander: 32 points in 37 games in the AHL. Virtanen was struggling in the minors.

 

2015-2016 season (19/20 years of age): Nylander: 45 points in 38 games in the AHL, 13 points in 22 games in the NHL. Virtanen: 13 points in 55 games in the NHL, 0 points in 2 games in the AHL.

 

2016-2017 season (20/21 years of age): Nylander: 35 points in 50 games in the NHL. Virtanen: 1 point in 10 games in the NHL, 9 points in 33 games in the AHL.

 

But what about size? Nylander is now 6'0" and Virtanen remains at 6'1". While it's true that Virtanen hits more, he never really established himself as a physical presence last season. Nylander has also proven to be more durable after his concussion ever since he put on muscle. Virtanen received another shoulder injury against the sharks, not to mention that rib injury last year.

 

This is without mentioning the maturity levels. If Jake could have only spent the same amount of time at the rink that he does at the Roxy then I'm sure he would've had a better 2015-16 season.

 

Of course, this is without mentioning Ehlers, the better player of the three thus far. 

 

 

 

 

[aGENT]

30 minutes ago, guntrix said:

This is interesting... why would you take Virtanen over Nylander even with hindsight? 

 

Professional point totals:

 

2014-15 season (18/19 years of age): Nylander: 32 points in 37 games in the AHL. Virtanen was struggling in the minors.

 

2015-2016 season (19/20 years of age): Nylander: 45 points in 38 games in the AHL, 13 points in 22 games in the NHL. Virtanen: 13 points in 55 games in the NHL, 0 points in 2 games in the AHL.

 

2016-2017 season (20/21 years of age): Nylander: 35 points in 50 games in the NHL. Virtanen: 1 point in 10 games in the NHL, 9 points in 33 games in the AHL.

 

But what about size? Nylander is now 6'0" and Virtanen remains at 6'1". While it's true that Virtanen hits more, he never really established himself as a physical presence last season. Nylander has also proven to be more durable after his concussion ever since he put on muscle. Virtanen received another shoulder injury against the sharks, not to mention that rib injury last year.

 

This is without mentioning the maturity levels. If Jake could have only spent the same amount of time at the rink that he does at the Roxy then I'm sure he would've had a better 2015-16 season.

 

Of course, this is without mentioning Ehlers, the better player of the three thus far. 

 

 

 

 

Already covered Ehlers. 

 

Because I still think it likely there's a good NHL player in there. 

 

Unlike a lot of CDC I'm not worried, like at all,  about 'RIGHT NOW!'

 

I'm happy to give him a couple years to figure it out. 

 

I think we can pick more players like Nylander in the next few years and we already have Baer, and Boeser coming along but we don't have other Virtanen's.

[goblix]

41 minutes ago, guntrix said:

This is interesting... why would you take Virtanen over Nylander even with hindsight? 

 

Professional point totals:

 

2014-15 season (18/19 years of age): Nylander: 32 points in 37 games in the AHL. Virtanen was struggling in the minors.

 

2015-2016 season (19/20 years of age): Nylander: 45 points in 38 games in the AHL, 13 points in 22 games in the NHL. Virtanen: 13 points in 55 games in the NHL, 0 points in 2 games in the AHL.

 

2016-2017 season (20/21 years of age): Nylander: 35 points in 50 games in the NHL. Virtanen: 1 point in 10 games in the NHL, 9 points in 33 games in the AHL.

 

But what about size? Nylander is now 6'0" and Virtanen remains at 6'1". While it's true that Virtanen hits more, he never really established himself as a physical presence last season. Nylander has also proven to be more durable after his concussion ever since he put on muscle. Virtanen received another shoulder injury against the sharks, not to mention that rib injury last year.

 

This is without mentioning the maturity levels. If Jake could have only spent the same amount of time at the rink that he does at the Roxy then I'm sure he would've had a better 2015-16 season.

 

Of course, this is without mentioning Ehlers, the better player of the three thus far. 

Chiming in on this part, how tall someone is isn't everything with the term 'size' and actually the biggest factor is weight as its the pounds that do the actual pounding (pun intended)

Virtanen is 220 pounds and the frame for it to fill in without him being Wellwood cheeseburger chubby.

Nylander is a slim jim and if he gets to 220 it's by knocking down way too many beers and it's going to show up on the ice. In short Nylander will never get to 220 pounds.

 

Height is only paid attention to because one will know that a 6' 5" and above hockey player is going to be at least 210-220 pounds.

[hammertime]

47 minutes ago, guntrix said:

This is interesting... why would you take Virtanen over Nylander even with hindsight? 

 

Professional point totals:

 

2014-15 season (18/19 years of age): Nylander: 32 points in 37 games in the AHL. Virtanen was struggling in the minors.

 

2015-2016 season (19/20 years of age): Nylander: 45 points in 38 games in the AHL, 13 points in 22 games in the NHL. Virtanen: 13 points in 55 games in the NHL, 0 points in 2 games in the AHL.

 

2016-2017 season (20/21 years of age): Nylander: 35 points in 50 games in the NHL. Virtanen: 1 point in 10 games in the NHL, 9 points in 33 games in the AHL.

 

But what about size? Nylander is now 6'0" and Virtanen remains at 6'1". While it's true that Virtanen hits more, he never really established himself as a physical presence last season. Nylander has also proven to be more durable after his concussion ever since he put on muscle. Virtanen received another shoulder injury against the sharks, not to mention that rib injury last year.

 

This is without mentioning the maturity levels. If Jake could have only spent the same amount of time at the rink that he does at the Roxy then I'm sure he would've had a better 2015-16 season.

 

Of course, this is without mentioning Ehlers, the better player of the three thus far. 

 

 

 

 

I pick Virtanen because I don't like Nylanders face simple as that. 

[bertuzzi4eva]

Gotta put my two cents in here. I probably already have but what the heck, I'm not searching through 794 pages of posts to find it. First off the hockey powers that be picked Virtanen, nuff said there. They obviously scouted the kid, had pre draft interviews with him and his family. So there is something about the kid they like. I'm rather curious though of Jakes numbers in the few games he had this year how they stack up against Gaunce or Chaput or Skille for that matter. From what I've seen of the kid, yeah he's a little off on his scoring game, lets face it he's no Connor Jesus Christ McDavid. The few games I did see he tried to be a physical presence, sometimes not entirely with success. He's a big kid, slotted to be a power forward. We all know power forwards do take time to develop. Most of that development comes from actual ice time in the NHL ... With that in mind why is he down in the minors when we have guys like Chaput, Gaunce  Skille in the line up?  Just asking....

Edited February 7, 2017 by bertuzzi4eva
typo's

[MrCanuck94]

1 hour ago, guntrix said:

Serious question, where did you buy that crystal ball of yours? 

 

Last time I checked, no JB picks have made it to "elite" status.... and potential is nothing new. Remember Hodgson? Schroeder? 

"elite and nhl potential", if you don't think Boeser, Juolevi and Demko have elite potential then you're out to lunch.

 

and seriously, a smartass comment? every prospect has potential until they prove it in the NHL. Some make it, some need to develop, and others flounder, we just have been snake bitten with the latter.

[Toews]

Just now, MrCanuck94 said:

"elite and nhl potential", if you don't think Boeser, Juolevi and Demko have elite potential then you're out to lunch.

 

and seriously, a smartass comment? every prospect has potential until they prove it in the NHL. Some make it, some need to develop, and others flounder, we just have been snake bitten with the latter.

Very few prospects manage to live up to expectations or even exceed them. It wasn't a long time ago that people thought that Hodgson, Schroeder or Kassian had 1st line talent. Until these players make an impact in the NHL you cannot claim that these past few drafts have yielded more players than two decades. Success should be measured by results not "potential".

[elvis15]

6 minutes ago, MrCanuck94 said:

"elite and nhl potential", if you don't think Boeser, Juolevi and Demko have elite potential then you're out to lunch.

 

and seriously, a smartass comment? every prospect has potential until they prove it in the NHL. Some make it, some need to develop, and others flounder, we just have been snake bitten with the latter.

There is the devil's advocate point that a friend of mine liked to remind me of though: potential means very little until they're using that potential to actually help the Canucks. Hodgson was the leading scorer at the WJHC, Schroeder scored the most points all time for the US in the same tournament, others were looking like picks that could really help but never really materialized.

 

You're right that every prospect has their potential, and a lot of management's picks have been looking quite good, but I'm not going to get too excited until they can at least show some of that in the NHL.

[Stormriders]

A lot on here are talking about potential.  What does it mean, . . . . by definition:

"having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future."

"latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness."

 

In other words, potential really means 'not doing it', because if you were doing it, it would no longer be potential but a fact.

 

Jake has great potential and I can't wait for it to become fact !