BoeserSnipe
-
Posts
209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by BoeserSnipe
-
-
Just now, Alflives said:
I remember JB talking about Jake being a power forward, and those guys need extra time to develop. Then Trevor earlier this season said Jake wasn’t really a power forward. Maybe, where Jake is concerned, our management doesn’t really know what they have?
Yes you're right, a furry puppet on CDC knows more lol
SMH - good night man your comments are beyond stupid
-
3 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Is it the job of the coach to get the best from his players, while putting each player in the position to do their best? Yes, Jake is his own problem, but over coaching (IMHAO) is part of the problem too. Plus, Jake should be playing on his off wing. He sees the ice better, because his hips are open the middle of the ice.
Yes you're right, the responsibility of playing hard doesn't fall on the player, its really on the coach to physically move Jake's his legs for him (WTF are you on man) - I am not even talking about lack of offensive production. I am talking about things 100% in his control. Effort, skating, playing physical, trying to be a difference maker without scoring every shift - anyone objective watching his play can see he's doing pretty much nothing
As I said, its not hard for Jake to play as hard as Gaunce, to play that same game, and given he's on the fourth line, that's all that's being asked of him, and he can't even do that. Effort is internal.
Your comments are absurd
-
3 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Yes, I think (off the ice) Jake is lazy. He doesn’t appear to be professional, when it comes to training. On the ice, I believe he thinks too much, because he’s over coached.
A player can play like matt martin if they had no coaching friend. I played at a high level, simply using your motor and working hard is easy. His lack of effort is not because of overcoaching
1. With Willie it was the coaches fault
2. Green seemed to be making inroads with him in Utica
3. Green is now the coach and he's doing the same thing as he did with Willie - being a passenger
4. But somehow, its the coaches fault again
IF Green was making improvements in his game in Utica, and was doing a good job coaching, well Green is still the coach. The constant in the scenario above is Jake being lazy with 2 coaches and one that was credited for helping him prior.
Green has been sitting him now, so...when do you people start putting the onus on the player to show he wants to be in the league vs blaming the coaches?
-
1 minute ago, Law of Goalies said:
I agree..as I believe he was never a 200 ft player until coming into the league, you can't blame him for over thinking many things. There are times you see that he overthinks for a split second in which he loses his check or the puck. However, there are times when he is on his game, he claimed that he "just did it without thinking" which I think is good for people with lower hockey IQ. As what is said above, he has been over coached by Green and Willie. I think people see him less hitting first is because he is afraid he will make a mistake and he will be benched or scratched again.
Wasn't he drafted in 2014? How on earth is he on D+4 already? He is drafted in 2014 doesn't mean you just add 4 years and say he is +4. The season starts in October so technically he is D+3.
I seriously think it isn't he not being hard working, it is just that he is sometimes uncertain how to play. And the person who says he shouldn't be up high watching the defencemen, so you want him running around and opening up for a backdoor pass?
Hockey isn't brain surgery guys....smh- its a damn game he's played all his life
He's lazy
-
Just now, Alflives said:
Those guys likely process the game faster though, don’t you think? Even on the forecheck, players have a 200 foot game responsibility, don’t they? I think Jake’s issues are over coaching. When guys have (so called) lower hockey IQ, coaching less sounds like the best for them.
To play and straight up and down 200 ft game doesnt take much hockey IQ buddy, it takes effort, that's all. When are people here going to actually place his lack of effort on him, vs 'overcoaching'
Give that nonsense a rest. So because Green is telling him to play defense it means he can't work as hard as other players? He can't work as hard as Burr or Hansen did as they came into the league? Is it 'too hard' or the coaches fault that he can't play as hard as say Matt Martin? Or Gaunce
Apologists on this site for Virtanen's indifferent play, either don't know hockey or are such fan boys they are biased, you cannot objectively say he's giving his all. Is that why he saw barely any ice that last few games in the third?
A player has a choice to want to contribute or not, he is choosing not to contribute its that simple
-
12 minutes ago, Alflives said:
Jake’s not being so quick onto the forecheck could also be coaching. Maybe Jake is trying to process his defensive responsibility, and it’s slowing him down?
So, to play good defense he can't forcheck? LOL...
Maybe Bo, Granny, Sutter, etc should do the same then?
WOW SMH
-
1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:
I think Jake has made some good progress in his play away from the puck this year, but yah his effort has been inconsistent. When he's been "on" though he's looked really good. So again, lets see what two more seasons under Green produces.
Maybe a lot of people here aren't old enough to remember Berts defensive play, it was pretty bad even in his good years.
Agree with all you've said but bert had shown some pretty strong offensive play in his first two years and took a step back in year three. Given we gave up a 27 yr old Linden, clealry he was seen as having alot of potential.
My issue and many here is that the effort to make a difference every night is not there. He has the tools to impose his will on other players with his speed and physicality but I seldom see him as the first man in, throwing a hit, etc. That's effort nothing else
-
30 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:
so? he was a young struggling power forward type that didn't emerge until his mid-20s. Jakes only 21, I don't care what his "D+" is, he needs to mature a bit before anyone can say definitely what he is.
You can’t say what he is I agree but you Cannot also ignore “trajectory”. Many people use the Bertuzzi example or say “power forwards take time to develop”, and sure every player is different. However, what you need to see is a player making significant improvements in key facets of his game, and see “it coming”. Bert was inconsistent in his earlier years but there was still enough of an upward trajectory to see he could hopefully put it together. Virtanen hasn’t shown that whatsoever and one could argue this season he actually looks worse as he’s not really doing anything to show he belongs, and the effort to try and make a difference just isn’t there.
would people be on Jake if he was working as hard as Gaunce? Maybe a few but many would say “ok I see the effort, and with that effort over time, hopefully the talent emerges”. But he’s not.
hes trending a lot more like kassian in Buffalo and here than he is Bertuzzi
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, The Lock said:
Well, if your point is that Virtanen's not Neely, then that I would agree with. That's pretty obvious. I just also think Virtanen's at least shown stints of wanting to be around. Even if it's not all the time, at least it's better than even a year ago at this time.
That's a very low hurdle/ benchmark. And my comment was in response to the idea that trading him would risk another neely type situation. It won't . This kid is on the path of Kassian and will be lucky to even reach the level Kassian has, with his indifference to being a pro
It seems he's happier to be 'seen as a pro athlete', vs actually doing the hard work to actually be one. That is evident by his effort on the ice. I suspect if he doens't find a way to start contributing this year, it may be his last as a Canuck as he wont be able to clear waivers next year, and he certainly hasn't earned a spot in the lineup and each year, hungrier players step in and are willing to compete for spots.
Jake plays the game like he thinks he's earned the rope the twins have.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, The Lock said:
As far as Neely goes, I'm not going to get into that too much. That's obviously your opinion on that situation and you're right in I'm fairly young in that regard. However, I also tend to look at things as people's opinions tend to be skewed so I'm going to take that with a grain of salt more than anything. Nothing against you, it's just it's your word vs other people. *shrug* I think drafts and trades are a crapshoot often times. In fact, not matter what a GM does, it's a crapshoot often time. Unfortunately we clearly got the bad end of that trade in a big way.
With the statement I bolded: personally, I don't think we have a large enough sample size of him in the AHL andd don't really see the point in coming to such conclusions. He showed improvements under Green in the AHL, albeit not on the score sheet. We also saw those changes at the start of this season on the Canucks where he looked like he wanted to belong. He's died off a bit obviously, but maybe that's a sign he'll get better too. What's really the point in being pessimistic about it in the end?
I think, in the end, it's up to Jake to figure himself out. Hindsight obviously shows Ehlers would have been better but again, that's hindsight. Having said that, I do know there were people who were high on Ehlers during the 2014 draft as I'm sure there are people who were against the Neely trade back then. However, I look at it as you are one person and one person does not necessarily mean the majority of the fanbase (and way too often than not on this board I've seen people make the claim that "everyone thinks the way they do")
poll some of those who were around at the time and who were Canucks fans- Neely was seen as a game changer through his physical and intimidating play alone as a rookie - not to mention the 21 goals he scored as a rookie in 56 games buddy - it was seen as an awful trade right at that time, choose to accept that or not but asking around will tell you something.
and the point was, Virtanen is not close to Neely in ANY manner irrespective of your choice to accept my analysis or not, simply look at the point totals, pims, go look at some of the youtube videos of his play as a canuck etc, and see for yourself.
No one saw Neely becoming a 50 goal player, but those of us around saw a unique talent that was already PROVING he was a game changer as a rookie. Virtanen has not shown he even wants to be in the game in his D+3 year.
-
12 minutes ago, The Lock said:
That's all hindsight though and I tend to wonder how a lot of these people who use hindsight as "proof" what they actually would have done at that time WITHOUT knowing what they know now.
It's easy to say things now. It's history. It's right there in front of us and it reads like a book, but can you tell me exactly what to expect from whatever blockbuster trade we try in the next couple of years? I remember when people got excited about getting David Booth, or Keith Ballard, or (insert player here). I also remember us trading for players like Dorsett and people went "who?"
Don't get me wrong. Hindsight can be fun to look back on things with, but way too often does it get used as a way of defamation by people who want to believe they are somehow "hockey experts" and that's where hindsight gets used in the wrong way.
I remember the Neely trade. most who understood the game saw the deal as a rape by Boston when it happened.
perhaps you’re too young, but I remember how angry I was. Neely came into the league as a rookie and was hitting, scoring at a decent pace, intimidating, and beating the crap out of anyone. You could see he was a force and was going to at worst be (comparatively) someone like What he had in Bert after him. He was breaking out offensively in his third year with the Nucks and to trade him at 21 plus our first round pick, when we sucked, for a 27 yr old small center was absurd.
it was an awful trade even at that time, not knowing what he would become. It’s a VERY different situation than Virt.
Virt is in his Draft + 3? year and has shown no signs of being even a solid AHLer yet.
-
3 hours ago, dpn1 said:
Jake is not our main problem. His Defensive game is not bad. His +\- is better than the majority of the team. Also, the best players in the league are not going to play 82 games perfectly every night. This kid just can't seem to catch a break in this market.
No one here is saying he’s our “main problem”. We’re saying he’s not showing the drive to want to be a NHL
player and certainly not showing material signs of being anything other than a fringe NHL at best. I would argue he’s not even shown that to date.
-
14 hours ago, Alflives said:
Jake is ABSOLUTELY a more effective offensive player on the left side. I don’t get the desire of the Canucks to force Jake to play away from his strength? Give Jake the freedom to use his speed, and natural aggression.
He hasn’t earned freedom given a lack of effort. Anyone can see he’s not giving it every night- effort is easy. You don’t reward a kid for how he played in his draft year, you reward him for what he shows now. Why should he get special treatment relative to Bo? Bo proved he deserved more ice, he proved he deserved PP time. That’s what professional teams expect and if he can’t deal with that and wants to play like a pansy - go to Europe. Sick of all the apologists for this kids lack of drive and effort. Does he have all the tools to be a great player yes, but I question his desire to actually be a pro.
-
10 minutes ago, mll said:
If they have not banked cap space they need to be at 61M to be able to add a 14M salary. There is 25% of the season remaining at the TDL.
25% x (75M - 61M) = 3.5M
Adding a salary of 14M for 25% of the season = 3.5M.
If they are at 71.5M they cannot add a salary of 14M because they are only going to have 25% of 3.5M (75 - 71.5).
Kid you dont get it...good luck
You seem to be the type who'd answer 2+2= 3 on a math test, give a long answer, spin yourself into confusion, then argue with your math teacher for 8 hours because he explains to you 2+2 = 4....
I am sorry you are confused
Oh and by they way 14 mil if we retain 50% on one of the twins = 2.625 mil. If a team has 2.625 in cap space they can acquire the twins its THAT DAMN SIMPLE - NOT SURE WHY YOU CANT UNDERSTAND THIS
There are 2 numbers you need - and this is PROVEN by the NHL.com link i gave you
1. What is the cap space left - see the link I provided
2. What is the remaining cap hit the team is assuming - in this case 2.625 mil (assuming 50% retention on one twin)
3. If a team has cap space > 2.625 mil they can aquire the twins - they dont need your funky math you've spun yourself into and 14 mil
4. There are many teams that will have 2.625 mil of cap space
Move along- i am done proving you wrong
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, mll said:
Exactly. But the team's remaining cap space is also pro-rated.
If a team has not banked cap space due to injuries and is at say 71.5M at the TDL - so 3.5M under the cap. There is 25% of the season remaining. They are only going to create 25% of 3.5M and not 3.5M. The 3.5M is for a full season. Same principle as for the player salary - the space also gets pro-rated.
but you stated they need 14 mil not 14 mil prorated right? you're playing fun with numbers guy. 2.65 mil is 2.65 mil. if a team has that room they can aquire the twins they dont need 14 mil its THAT SIMPLE - 3.5 mil in cap space is not hard for many teams - many have close to that space already or could make room. There are very few teams that couldn't afford the twins if we retained 50% on one of them
move along, tired of repeating myself when I am right. Here's the list AGAIN of projected cap space
-
22 minutes ago, mll said:
They do if they have not banked cap space.
no they dont - try reading the link i provided it spells it out for you
-
Just now, mll said:
Cap space is calculated daily. [75M/186 days] - [total of player cap hits / 186 days]. If the difference is positive the amount is banked and can be used in the future. At the end of the season the sum of all the salaries pro-rated for length on the roster has to be less than 75M. Injuries, recalls all count.
At the TDL the remaining cap space of the acquiring team is also pro-rated. There is only 25% of the season left so they are going to create only 25% of whatever the difference between 75M and their salary cap but can use what they have already banked.
Two examples.A team operates at 74M and has no movement by the TDL - no injuries, no recalls. Each day they have banked [1M / 186 days]. So 75% into the season they will have banked 750K. They can add a player with a salary cap of 4M. There is only 25% of the season left. He is going to count for 1M. 750K is going to come from the cap space they have banked and the remaining 250K are going to come from the remaining of the season.
75% of the season at 74M + 25% of the season at 78M (74 + new 4M) = 75M.
Same team but a lot of injuries that forced them to recall players. They are finally healthy at the TDL but have not banked any cap space because it was used on their recalls. They can only add a player with a cap hit of 1M.
75% of the season at 74M + 750K used for recalls + 25% at 75M (74 + new 1M)= 75M.
Cap Friendly shows the different numbers. 'Projected cap space' is the banked cap space plus future banked cap space at the end of season assuming no changes to the current roster. The column 'current cap space' shows the full cap hit that can be added based on the remaining days to the season (making allowance for banked cap space).
the point is an acquiring team doesn't need 14 mil in cap space as you suggested.
-
2 hours ago, mll said:
Banked cap space.
If a team hasn't banked any space due to injuries they must have 14M open assuming no retention (and hope for no injuries) - because the remaining accrual is also pro-rated.
Not sure what you mean by 'Banked cap space' but a team acquiring the twins would NOT need 14 mil in cap space friend - my math was correct. The hit to the cap is 'whats left' of their salary/ cap hit for the year /contract which we know ends this season).
-
4 minutes ago, aGENT said:
Can only retain on one of them FWIW so:
can retain up to 50% (you are correct) for up to three players and i see we have Lou and Hansen so you're right.
Math then
1.75 for Henrik (50% retained) = 875k
1.75 for Daniel (none retained) = 1.75 mil
total =2.625 mil - many teams still have space left and we can always take a player back and for 2 players thats not alot.
Thanks for clarifying
-
25 minutes ago, kloubek said:
Why even do so before the trade deadline then? They can talk about it in the offseason.
I agree, I think they want to see what the Canucks thoughts are and they may pull a Burrows and throw the organization a bone by being good soldiers here to help the future. Then resign one year contracts in july for next year
-
34 minutes ago, kloubek said:
No kidding. Not sure if this should be taken to indicate they would be open to it, or if they just expect they might be asked to waive.
It would be challenging to trade them to a contender. They have to go as a pair, and what contender has 14m lying around? The ONLY way I could see it happening is if we got an asset but took a bad contract as well.
I'm not reading too much into this though. They plainly said they didn't want to go anywhere else and I have to assume that hasn't changed. I also have to assume management will respect that; not like they really have a choice with the clauses in effect.We can retain salary, they go to a contender for cheap, we get some picks and prospects, they come back in July on one year deals at 2.5 each and we've helped the rebuild - Many teams would love them for cheap salary as 2b/3rd liners. Imagine adding them to Tampa, Anaheim, San Jose, New Jersey etc?
Don't forget teams are only on the hook for the 'remaining cap', so at the end of the year its not alot and if we retain say 75% most teams in the playoffs could have a shot at them.
Here's some guestimate math. By trade deadline there is what, 25% of the season left? So 25% of 14 mil is only 3.5 mi for both players to your cap. hit.
$3.5 mil opens alot of teams to the twins and if the nucks retain even 1/2 of that its only 1.75 mil for TWO players....every team w cap space would make a call.
-
4 hours ago, dpn1 said:
They are both wingers but Jonah is a left winger and Jake is a right winger. Maybe they both should flank Pettersson.
Jake played LW in junior and was much more effective on his off wing "offensively" - I take your point though as they are playing him on his strong side in the pros. That being said it may be simply to make it easier on him initially as he's focusing on developing his defensive positional play and they dont want him even thinking offense right now. When he's proven he can 'play the way they want him to' - he may get a chance to get back to that more offensive role and thus its plausible to see him back on his offwing.
That being said, depth wise, it is better to have size on both wings so time will tell what they do with him. I agree he's being played as a RW but don't forget he was a LW in junior where he was potting alot of goals!
-
1 hour ago, aGENT said:
And I'd rather sign Kane for that spot personally
In a few years, something like:
Kane, Pettersson, Boeser
Dahlen, Horvat, Virtanen/Lind
Gadjovich, Gaudette, Lind/Virtanen
Gaunce, MacEwan, Lockwood
The rest moved to fill other holes and/or further picks/prospects to keep the pipeline flowing.
That's a hell of a team if the young prospects can reach those levels of play! I like, but I'd like to see Labate/Dowd on the 4th line. Lockwood is a maybe to make the NHL and if he does his role is likely a 3rd liner who can swing up to a 2W if required. I see him as depth if he even makes it.
Love that first line, and would still like to see Granny around - He reminds me alot of Hansen - less physical but does all the same things Hansen did just as well, and has slightly better hands.
-
8 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said:
I'd rather Gadjovich on the first line if his skating can improve. A line that has an elite passer/good shooter in Pettersson and an elite sniper in Boeser needs a net front presence for screening/tipping/garbage goals. Vanek kind of plays that role on the PP for the Sedins and Boeser sometimes.
I like Bo and Baer (if he's still here by then) with Goldobin (if he's still here) because I think they can show him defensive responsibility.
Virtanen can be a good third line checker with speed who can shoot (with questionable accuracy). Disappointing for a 6th overall pick but Torres was a critical role in our cup run depth so if Virt can be a less dirty version of him that we keep long term, that'd be aces. Problem is he isn't using his body nearly enough anymore.
I see Gadjovich and Virtanen as interchangable and depending on who maxes out higher is a better first line winger. I am not judging 'what' virtanen is until he's 24/25. If he can be a 40 pt winger and hit, intimidate, drive the net, with his speed on the first line he's all we need.
Gadjovich needs to improve his speed for sure and while Boeser is improving there, he'll never be a burner. You need someone to get in on the forecheck and do the dirty work to get Petterson the puck, who then feeds Brock in his spots to score. Much of the reason Babcock loves Hyman on the first line is because he is fast and does all the hard / dirty work to get Matthews and Nyalnder the puck. Much as Burr did for the twins, i just think irrespective of where Virtanen ends up points wise, with his speed he can be exactly what "that" first line needs to be incredibly effective, and he only needs to work hard to be that player already.
Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW
in Alumni
Posted · Edited by BoeserSnipe
Yep a player's drive is all because of a coach, not because he wants to be a successful professional athlete., lets keep changing coaches because little jakey is sad and pouty because he has to play hard - again you ignore the fact that Green seemed to be having progress with him last year, so clearly its not coaching is it? First wilie, ok remove willie and use the coach that got through temporarily, and guess what, Jake is the same kid...maybe he's just lazy....its not the coach it the player
SMH dude - not sure if you're a troll or what but if not you've never played a sport in your life other than lawn bowling
What's the most odd here, is not once have you even suggested Jake has responsibilty for his own effort, all deflection, all blame...is that you Jake?