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

NameFaker

Members
  • Posts

    228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NameFaker

  1. Juolevi hasn't regressed. At most, he's stagnated, and there are mitigating factors which explain that. We shouldn't be worrying yet.
  2. This is a straw-man. Way I look at it, there's two obvious options here. Either you're genuine, in which case, meh. Or, you're trolling, which is pretty lame. The 5th Line has consistently provided an alternative voice on these forums. That's valuable, because it gets people thinking. It doesn't affect the most vocal because their opinions are set, but it can change the minds of the uninvested. Realistically, Juolevi's developed, but not as much as we would have liked. Pointing that out, albeit in different language, should not be slagged or derided. I think all of us should consider more factors when evaluating Juolevi however, perhaps most importantly our limited knowledge and extensive fallibility.
  3. I really don't think Virtanen's greatest assets are his size and shot. To me, it's his speed and strength that stand out. His shot is strong but lacks accuracy. I think a lot of that has to do with his psyche. He's straight up missing the net with his wristers from 20-35 feet out. That's a lack of confidence, not talent. His struggle will be to learn the details of defense and then cultivate a strong and speedy transition game that generates rebounds and crease havoc. Honestly, the payoff at 6th overall is low, but that's not to say he won't be a good player. I'm confident in Jake Virtanen, but all that means is his reasonable potential.
  4. Not necessarily. We might be better off in the long run by signing some tweener depth or running with what we've got while they continue to develop. They might be undercooked, and we want that porridge juuuussssst right.
  5. I think our normal intuitions are based around the success of a project. If Gauguin hadn't become a famous painter, then he's just an asshole who abandoned his family. But he succeeded, and we consider his works to supersede that moral evil. Or, at least, some people think it's justified. In a similar way, the success or failure of draft picks determine our view of the people making those decisions. JB takes big risks with his early picks, as I see it. Defensemen are more chimerical, difficult to predict, and take longer to develop. Jake was always an enigma, but the allure of his potential made the hockey gods salivate. These were risks. They haven't been successful yet, and so we condemn the man who made the choice. But Gaugin wasn't famous right away. It took years to develop his craft and hone his skills. Patience, and an open mind. After considering as many angles as I can, the least I can say is that I understand and respect JB's method.
  6. Agreed. Looks like we've got a good shot at two 2nds this year, which bodes well for drafting wingers. I hope we load up on skill entirely through this draft. I think Lockwood will surpass expectations. He's showing much more skill and finesse than he was advertised as having. His reads seem to be solid (from highlights and game packages) and he's got great speed. I think he peaks as a really solid middle-six guy.
  7. I want to comment on the apparent divide between "Jakers" and "non-Jakers". Guys like 5thLine aren't being dubious dickweeds about Jake's development in the way that people seem to think they are. As mentioned a few posts above, it's good to temper one's expectations, and the most common route to this is contrarian thought. Hype a prospect. Demean him. End up somewhere in the middle. This is a dialectic we should value. I strongly oppose who vehemently some of the community has reacted to "negative" commentary. Perspective is just that. At minimum, we can all respect that, and why wouldn't we want to? As an addendum, I think Jake is doing fine. I expect a middle six winger with maybe four or so twenty goal seasons. Not a world beater, but an occasional game breaker. Maybe, just maybe, he becomes a key piece of a cup run. That alone would make it worth it.
  8. I think the whole reason Willie has been so insistent on playing Megna is because his game is closer to Hansen's than anyone else. Granted, the basic similarity is speed, but their other skills aren't too far off from each other that they can't be thought of as fulfilling similar roles. Please, let it be Megna...
  9. His best asset is his brain. But he's not an exceptional athlete (for the NHL). He'll be an overpaid but valuable asset throughout his contract like Burrows has been the last couple years.
  10. Are you worried he'll read our comments and get stressed 'bout success? Aw, muffin
  11. This a joke? J.R. nailed it.
  12. Dude, nice post. There seems to be an almost static perception of players based on their draft day "projection". I think in one way, that's fair. How they're measured should reflect their draft standing. But... It's also crucial to any franchise's success that they better evaluate talent than other teams. And that means relative future values in comparison to current value. It's for this reason that I place trust in Benning. His character-based approach, in combination with the needed focus of whichever time our team finds itself in, is what will lead to numerous successful picks, and, in a long-term game, these players recouping higher value than the pick is, simply put, winning. A caveat: the team still has to have all the right parts, like a balanced line-up and a tactical coach. I think we're on our way, though. Gaudette is an example of this. tl;dr - I broke things off with girl and hockey is salvation
  13. Massive improvements. But, as the article points out, the probability of his success (his pGPS) varies week to week. These numbers are a snapshot and shouldn't be taken as gospel. Elvis got fat and died on his toilet.
  14. Can we all just take a moment to appreciate "face hump my keyboard"?
  15. His numbers actually aren't that far off of Naslund's... Jazzy didn't break through until he was 25, too. Thinking about how much Baer relies on mentality, I wouldn't be surprised to see him blow up next year and emerge as a bonafide top-six guy.
  16. Yeah, it's for that reason that I'm hoping Benning renegs on his earlier statements about NTC's. Granny's starting to look like he belongs. I bet that by the end of the season his underlying numbers and counting stats look pretty good considering our team, and that next year, he takes another step. Ideally, we'd lose Gaunce in the expansion. His upside is lower than Granny or Baer. It does mean Sbisa's gotta go, though. Does anyone know of a team with only two worthy-of-protecting defensemen? That's a team we could target, and maybe snag a 2nd and a 4th from.
  17. To my knowledge, Rodin won't have played enough games. Could be wrong on that. Granlund will likely be exposed if Hansen isn't traded.
  18. I can't believe I'm writing this, but... Sbisa has actually looked OK. He's most likely to be claimed off our team, unless, Spaghetti-Monster forbid, Benning exposes Baer. Baers don't like being exposed...
  19. Dude, what information do you have that the rest of us don't? You know he wasn't injured? You are Brock Boeser? WHY HAVE YOU BEEN HOLDING OUT ON US????
  20. What if Gaud ette's one of us...
  21. Yeah, he wasn't noticeable in the way Stetcher or Hutton was, but I'd say he played a strong game. His positioning was sound, he was poised with the puck, he rarely made mistakes and when he did, he recovered well. There were a couple moments where I thought he looked weak, but hey, I thought Edler looked weaker way more often. Obviously, bias is at work here (I expect more from Edler so I'm harsh on him and I'm stoked on Juolevi so my rose-coloured glasses get stapled to my face when he's on the ice...), but I think he's demonstrated exceptional potential. He plays a contemplative game where first he reads and second he reacts. The gap between reading and reacting will shorten as he gains familiarity. I want to emphasize how strong Juolevi was positionally. As he gains strength and footspeed, his effectiveness within the role will increase accordingly. And, according to what's already on the ice, we should all be thoroughly excited.
  22. One interesting comparison I don't see much of is between Keith and Hutton. At the same ages, they performed similarly. Hutton will never be as mean as Keith, but he might be as good a puck mover. Beisebois I see as a more offensively minded Tanev. That said, I don't think he'll be a big point producer.
×
×
  • Create New...