Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

guntrix

Members
  • Posts

    2,620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by guntrix

  1. Don't wanna turn this thread into a Gillis vs Benning thread but those lists are not as even as you portray them to be. Jasek, Forsling (not even ours anymore), Brisebois, Zhukenov, and Tryamkin can all be total busts. Still, like you said, Benning only has 2 seasons under his belt while Gillis had 6.
  2. I disagree. It tends to be disregarded when it doesn't flatter a Canuck (other than this year's scapegoat, poor old Mr. Higgins) and also tends to be used when it does. Only time I remember it being used negatively was when Edler was in last place in the league in +/-.
  3. Plus minus is the most convenient thing in all of sports history. It's dismissed as a "misleading" stat when it doesn't support an opinion and it's used as evidence when it does. Which one's it gonna be CDC?
  4. No one's labelling him a bust, that's a word you guys love to bring up for some reason. Your third paragraph is pure bs seeing as I come on here a third of the time that some of the other posters do. Also, I've never said anything bad about McCann, Baer, Hutton, etc. I'm just not high on this one kid. Simple as.
  5. Can you provide the username of a poster who has only just begun to express negative sentiments of Jake within the past week? Go on. If you can't, then I'll be happy to call you out on your bullsh!t.
  6. Can you explain how probability states this for Jake all things considered? I agree that it's too early to call him a bust but there are absolutely no guarantees. He's just as likely to end up a 3rd/4th line grinder than he is to be a top 6 forward.
  7. If you wanted someone with good net presence, I'm sure we could've found that in the 4th and 5th rounds. Impact every shift? LOL
  8. Virtanen was not dominant in any sense of the word so please stop using it. And yes, goals and assists are also important for how high he was taken. Physicality is great and all but we can cover that aspect by signing a mediocre UFA. Jake was supposedly special because he was said to be a special mix of physicality and offence. He is actually regressing in the latter. I comprehend your $&!#ty arguments perfectly. They're just not that good, as others have pointed out. PS. It's hypocritical that you say that I can't comprehend/respond to your posts when all you do is blab and you never really take into account other people's valid points. I'd ask you if you've ever seen a junior game but you'd probably lie and tell me you have.
  9. The fact that you think that he's too good for junior, despite Jake having a poor season last year with the Hitmen just proves how partial you are. Just because Jake has a good physique doesn't make him too good automatically. Even in his 40 goal season, Jake did NOT dominate the WHL. Thus, I'm sitting here scratching my head at your "dominate" statement considering that Jake has never in his whole life dominated the junior level. This proves that: 1. You have not watched one game of junior. 2. Have not even bothered to look at stat sheets and pretend that you know about what you're talking about. 3. Use highlight reels on YouTube to decide just how dominant he was with Calgary.
  10. 1. Is that what you think? Could it be that he was criminally misused in Calgary? He is definitely not too good for junior. That much is clear. 2. Exactly, but they couldn't. And they were not about to send him back to Calgary this year (see above). 3. Because of the notion of taking it slowly. Not every club is ready to drop their prospect into the shark tank. Detroit, for example, has a number of prospects that are probably more NHL-ready than Jake but they take it slowly. Putting a prospect that's not ready into the big leagues will drastically lower their confidence and has been proven to hinder development. 4,5 I agree, Jake should simply not be in the NHL. He never should have been.
  11. Yeah, draft-wise. Should've been more specific.
  12. You're too blinded by your own rage to even see the point. Jake was not elegible for the AHL, Nylander was. In Jake's case, it was either go back to a badly managed Hitmen team or go with the Canucks. Had Jake been elegible, you'd bet your ass that he would be in the AHL right about now. Considering his play ever since being drafted, it's safe to say that he would not have over a PPG season in the AHL. He is not automatically better than someone like Nylander just because he's in the NHL. If you think otherwise, then you have some serious partiality issues.
  13. Wat. JVs case is different in that he was brought up despite not being ready for the NHL. His closest comparable is averaging over PPG in the AHL. I'm sorry but that's simply better than what Jake's achieved this year. Being in the NHL does not automatically make Jake's season a more successful one, especially considering what he's accomplished.
  14. He responded with a well-informed and educated post and then you retaliate with more useless drivel. Are you Jake's dad? Because your posts seem more emotional than anything.
  15. Please bring up a post were I explicitly labeled him a "bust." Go on... I'll make your life easier and just tell you straight up that I haven't. Yes, I think he's underwhelming. Yes, I at times wish that we had picked other players. Yes, I've seen the Sedins play when they were younger. Yes, I don't think he was the ideal pick at #6. Never called him a bust though. You're not only a horrible debater but you also seem to have difficulty keeping track of things and have a knack for posting misguided crap whilst on a high horse.
  16. Dude... there were so many flaws in your post it was actually hilarious. And I'm not the only poster who pointed it out. I get defending Virtanen but saying that he's a better prospect just because he's in the NHL is lol worthy, especially when the player you're comparing him to is over PPG in the AHL. The other JV supporters must loathe your posts, they basically have to clean up your mess.
  17. 3 scoring chances coupled in with relative obscurity (to the point where I wondered if he was even playing anymore) against a third-rate team as a returnee. I get that you're trying to lower the bar for our very own but let's be real, he was probably one of the weaker Canadian forwards today.
  18. He doesn't need to cause a direct turnover which costs the team the game for him to have a bad game and you know it. Let's not resort to emplacing these petty parameters for gameplay. I watched the game and he was not good. What's funny is that CDC's opinion on Virtanen's play varies from the more neutral forums (such as the WJC HF forum) a lot. I wonder why that is. That's the spirit!
  19. When has he ever proven us wrong? He's been mediocre overall ever since being drafted. If anything, it's you guys that seem to justify his play with numerous excuses. inb4 "that one game vs Sweden" to justify the past year or so. CDC Excuse #4561: "He's not 100%" CDC Excuse #2548: "He hasn't transitioned yet." CDC Excuse #7129: "The euro ice is larger so it's different than was JV's used to." CDC Excuse #6238: I'm gonna state that you guys expect him to be the best player on the team despite no one ever saying that (ie. "The expectations are too high!") He's called Kermit!
  20. So 6 different goal scorers today and 12 players with at least a point and nothing from JV? But he's playing a pro game right?
  21. I said that critiquing is possible with HINDSIGHT. Reading comprehension is also useful.
  22. Hindsight is a powerful and useful tool, especially when you consider that every GM is only human.
  23. Nothing wrong with critiquing a player, especially one like JV who IMO didn't deserve to get picked so high. Can you imagine if this thread was filled with empty compliments of his play? How boring would that be?
  24. So many holes in this argument, an East Hastings hooker would be proud. 1. Continually citing "that one Virtanen goal vs Sweden" simply proves that there's not much supporting evidence of your Virtanen has good IQ argument. 2. "Jake is in the NHL" is not sufficient enough reason to say that he's better than some of his counterparts. 3. Reinhart's and MDC's shortcomings do not justify JV's. For all we know, Reinhart may not turn out as good as initially touted and MDC may be putting his play on cruise control until he's eligible for the AHL (as discussed regarding numerous top 5 picks). 4. "Nylander is in the AHL" is definitely not a good argument as he's actually doing comparatively better than Virtanen despite being in a lesser league. 34 points in 27 games as a 19 y/o AHLer > averaging scrap minutes and 4 points in the NHL. Some on here may deny this premise but I'm sure most neutrals would agree. "Go read my post on him perhaps you'll learn a bit about the game and evaluating players." There's nothing worse than this kind of condescending tone whilst being off the mark. It makes you look bad.
  25. A more accurate analogy on CDC and Virtanen:
×
×
  • Create New...