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

Toews

Members
  • Posts

    10,090
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Toews

  1. The question is who would you take right now. I am going to agree with Alf, you would have to take heavy doses of "blue and green koolaide" to still pick Virtanen.
  2. I agree with this. Its almost annoying now knowing what we had before.
  3. 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".
  4. 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.
  5. I don't really consider "off the board" as a determination as whether a pick is good or bad. Anyway we can agree to disagree in the way we evaluate picks.
  6. 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.
  7. What is an example of a bad pick? I keep hearing people say that we "needed" a "big bodied physical and offensive presence". Why do needs factor into the equation at all? The Canucks were at a point in time where the cupboards were almost entirely empty and there was just an aging declining core that everyone felt could be leveraged into futures. Horvat, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Hutton, Corrado were the few notable prospects. Looking at that prospect pool you would easily notice that the Canucks needed just about everything from forwards to defenseman and even goalies as Luongo and Schneider had both been traded. So why prioritize anything over the other? Why not just select the best player on your draft board and not put any thought into team needs. Imo this should be the goal for almost every team when you walk up to the draft board. Its maddening to me that fans want to see the team draft for what is lacking in the current team rather than what maybe lacking in the team 3-4 years from now. You have to as a GM have enough foresight to be able to look past what is required today as opposed to what is required in the future. If you are expecting a draft pick to solve your issues with size and toughness then you are a poor GM. I say this because it takes 2-3 years for all but the best of picks to make an impact at the NHL level. You are trying to solve today's problem with a solution that isn't going to available in that 2-3 years time frame. A lot can change in one years time let alone 2-3. Getting back to the point about a "bad pick". Let me ask you a question. The Rangers picked Dylan Mcilrath at 10th overall above Cam Fowler. Most Rangers fans hated the pick but a few continued to defend that pick citing the reason that there was no one on the Rangers blue line at the time who could be a big physical presence. Opponents were taking easy liberties with the Rangers defense and did not have to take any punishment for taking up key positions in the Rangers zone. So by this logic, is Mcilrath not a good pick? The logic being that the Rangers were addressing a need while they made the selection. I judge picks by what value they bring to your team over the course of their career compared to what was available at that spot. I don't factor in the logic behind the selection as you can justify every single selection. To give you an example a guy like Hugh Jessiman was a terrible pick considering all the talent in the 1st round went on to have good careers. Jessiman on the other hand only played like 5 games or so. I don't really care what reasons the Rangers cite for making that pick. A bad pick is a bad pick.
  8. You called him a drama queen. In my experience those that jump to personal attacks without being personally provoked definitely have some hurt feelings. Its especially amusing as you took exception to a post that comes right out of your own playbook. Judge the difference between these two posts, This was in response to a post from Sid about Jake learning from his failures. Both posts are exaggerations, both misrepresent the arguments being presented in this thread. No one is calling Virtanen a bust yet just like no one thinks he is an "elite top line player". This isn't the first time I have seen you do this. Sensationalize the arguments of posters you disagree with to make them sound irrational and stupid. Now you know how that feels.
  9. Are you referring to his play thus far in Utica or in general getting in shape? Because until he is able to string together a few good games, his highs can only be considered the normal ebs and flows of the season. Currently in the games I have watched he has been a non-factor in all but one of them. So I would like to see some sustained play before I agree that there has been any progression.
  10. I think he means that he will go point per game in the rest of the games left in this season. Based on what I have seen I would easily bet that he won't but we will have to wait and see.
  11. Who are these posters? I don't see anyone not rooting for him. Lets face the facts though, he has been outproduced in the AHL by every single forward drafted in the first round except for Bleackley. Bleackley was unsigned by Colorado (who let him go for the 54th overall pick) and he was drafted in the 5th round in this year's draft. That's not at all encouraging.
  12. I agree with you to an extent. Yes Babcock has had a better collection of young talent at his disposal. He has little choice but to play them because the veterans on the payroll like Laich, Greening and Michalek can't even crack the top 6 of their farm team. No doubt he tries to win every single game but he still puts the development of his young players as a higher priority than winning. This is the evident in the way he deploys his players. He even commented on it after the outdoor game against the Wings. The gist of it was that he could have sent out his best defensive center (Kadri) out there when the team was up a goal with just a little over a minute still left to play. The team was in shambles after allowing two successive goals but he sent his rookie line out there and his justification was that you have to put your players in a position to face the pressure of closing out a game. Ultimately they failed but Babcock hasn't stopped throwing them out there regardless because development takes priority over winning. I have voiced my displeasure of WD over his treatment of Jake but after getting all the facts in hand its hard to fault him for it anymore. Like Daniel said Jake isn't a professional yet. Willie has been attempting to get his team to play hard every single night. It doesn't send a good message when you are playing a guy that hasn't bothered to get into shape and doesn't quite work as hard as everyone else on the ice. For many fans including me Willie was a great scapegoat for the uninspiring play of a 6th overall pick and I think some are still not willing to deny that they were wrong about Willie at least in regards to Jake. You cannot deny that he has a done a good job getting the best out of Horvat, Baerstchi, Granlund, Tryamkin etc. which he should get credit for. I am no longer on the fire WD train anymore. I think he is a good coach for what the Canucks are trying to accomplish which is to develop young talent while remaining competitive. I am not averse though to finding a replacement for him when the time comes as I just cannot trust his decision making with the game on the line. In short I don't see him as an elite coach that can take this team to the next level.
  13. I am not even sure if the headline was supposed to be received that way. "Goat" could have meant "scapegoat" as that is what was happening all over the country, people were blaming the loss on a 19 year old kid playing for one of the worst coached team I have ever seen at the World Juniors. Jake definitely under performed at the tournament but he wasn't the only one. Perlini was absolutely worthless every time he was on the ice. Point was supposed to be one of the leaders on that team and he was invisible for the most part. Strome and Marner were trying to do too much out there. It is our depth that is our biggest strength every year but the coaching staff was over playing an already ineffective top 6. The lines should have been juggled. Guys like Barzal and Konecny should have been given more opportunities in the top 6. Anyway no point complaining about it anymore.
  14. I remember JB saying they prioritize character above all else. So far that just doesn't seem to be the case with Jake. Chowed down on a few too many cheeseburgers in the offseason then whined about not playing higher up the lineup after doing nothing to deserve such special treatment..
  15. If you are a family man/woman you will really appreciate this piece by Paul Holmgren. Its a piece that I think everyone should read. I made a thread in the NHL forum as well.

     

    http://www.theplayerstribune.com/paul-holmgren-nhl-my-brother-dave/

  16. Virtanen isn't Horvat though. I watched a fair bit of Horvat in junior and he always impressed you when you watched him play. He was tasked with playing the opposing team's top lines and he would somehow manage to come out ahead or the very least break even. He never took a shift off and you never saw him coasting on the ice. He may not have the flashy play that attracted people's eyes in junior but he was always one of the most effective players on the ice. Hunter could not stop gushing about him and said that he would be a top player one day. With that said I don't see any of those qualities in Jake, you can say he lacks maturity but to me its sad that a 17 year old Horvat showed more commitment than a 20 year old Jake. Right now Jake has the worst production in the AHL out of almost all forwards (and many defenseman for that matter) selected in the first round of the 2014 draft. The only one who has worse production is Conner Bleackley who the Avs refused to give a contract to (he was selected in the 5th round this year). With Bo there were always encouraging signs, I have just never felt that about Jake. Even watching Juolevi this year in junior I am left impressed with him. Even if you ignore the fact that he isn't producing you just don't see the kind of intelligence in his game that you see in many NHLers and even AHLers for that matter. He has the physical tools but he has little idea what to do with them. I am not sure that his biggest flaw is something that can be rectified. If I had to make a guess I would say the best case scenario is a Chris Stewart kind of player.
  17. Its not about dismissing Demko. I think everyone is excited about his potential but its just that... potential. There is a big jump from college hockey to the AHL and subsequently another jump from the AHL to the NHL. There are many examples of guys coming out of college or even junior with sparkling numbers but they don't manage to live up to expectations. So lets push the brakes before saying he is going to be better than Schneider. Goaltending is the hardest position to project precisely because it takes years of development before most goalies are ready to play in the NHL and do well.
  18. Having watched both of those guys this year I would dispute that either are riding anyone's coattails. Nylander doesn't play with Matthews or Marner 5v5. He did play with Matthews at the start of the year but has since been moved to the shutdown line. Ehlers has played quite a lot of minutes with Scheifele and Laine but he isn't riding their success, he is very much capable of generating his own offense. This is evident when Maurice switches up the lines and Ehlers manages to create chances and produce with Little and Wheeler as well. As of now Nylander is on pace for 57 points and Ehlers 69 points, I would be ecstatic if a 20 year old was giving you that kind of production. I agree with you that JB's first draft does look promising but its still way too early to tell how things look a few years from now. I do see star potential in Demko but projecting goaltending is always risky.
  19. Just like Gaudreau is getting crushed in the Pacific?
  20. I just looked through all 748 pages, didn't see it.
  21. I have looked through the last few pages and I still don't see where you are seeing this. A few seem to think that they are tracking to be 1st line forwards which isn't outrageous at all considering their growth and production thus far.
  22. Arguing with yourself again? No one has said the bolded nor even implied it. People have talked about those guys being replacements, but that's hardly the same thing as claiming that they are HOFers or will win Art Ross trophies. Classic straw man.
  23. Laine possible concussion after getting hit hard by McCabe.

     

    Its tough to watch an 18 year old kid get wrecked like that. Great hit though.

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Toews

      Toews

      They are saying his head hit the ice but in that replay I don't see it.

    3. Brad Marchand

      Brad Marchand

      Almost looks like their faces collided. McCabe had to get stitches after that.

    4. Ghostsof1915

      Ghostsof1915

      Maybe some work in juniors, etc to try and get players to make better passes, and less suicide passes? 

      The hit is clean, but if I was the player passing it to Laine, I'd feel awful. 

  24. Kunin, Greenway, Kaprisov and Eriksson Ek

     

    The Wild are loaded with forward prospects. The benefit of keeping your picks and good drafting.

  25. Sometimes I feel like the Canucks haven't done as much as they could have for Utica. I know there is a serious lack of prospects at that level so there is only so much you can do but I feel like the farm system is an integral part of the organization. The roster down in Utica is unimpressive to say the least which is why I wish the Canucks had signed a few more skilled AHL vets to 1 year one way contracts. These vets help keep the team competitive so that a player like Jake has some decent talent to play with down there. You end up stretching the budget a little which I am not sure the ownership would be happy with but hopefully once the farm system actually starts to receive some picks from the recent few drafts we will get to see some of those moves. I am looking at whats happening in Tampa and they have a talent laden system and it almost seems like anyone they send down comes back improved and hungry. I believe that when you are developing kids at the farm level, having talented players around other talented players can help their development.
×
×
  • Create New...