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

goblix

Members
  • Posts

    2,130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by goblix

  1. Think Erickson is having a better season but I will say this team is quite passive and it'd be nice to have a mean winger on the team that can mix things up and role the team up. it seems to me that when this team gets down in the dumps they lack the energy to work out of it.
  2. Hey man, I usually disagree with what you say, specifically on the Virtanen thread however people need to temper their enthusiasm as much as others with their hatred. Brisebois has potential to be as good as Edler, or even better. It's foolish to say that is a foregone conclusion. Potential is a good thing but it's never a sure thing.
  3. you say rookie year but he's still 17 same age as McDavid and his 120 point campaign, maybe it's a bit more exciting that he's able to adjust to a new league, new ice surface, and etc, etc but not by that much. I mean I'm with you I want Hischier too.
  4. yap haha, part of the growing pains of big physical players.. Learning the whole strength and conditioning pro way of life. One can get by with that in junior but not the NHL / AHL
  5. ??? Ok cool? You tell me Rasmussen is going to be a bust then you say Hischer is the Swiss McDavid... hmmmmm interesting... McDavid who played 47 games and got 120 points in the OHL and EVERYONE touting franchise, generational player vs Hischer who played 43 games and has 76 points in the QMJHL and isn't even a lock to be first overall.... Hischer probably gonna be a real good player but not McDavid level, sorry to burst that bubble. Also confused on why you went on that tangent anyways... not like I am against on winning the lottery lol... nor was I advocating on Rasmussen or any of the players I mentioned over anyone else?
  6. 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.
  7. BUMP! This is awesome thanks for the tip. got it going now
  8. Bleh, what's the point of fretting about what may or may not happen. Think most players show allegiance in the team that they are drafted for.. I don't know how many college players are drafted and signed with their respective teams but I do bet we hear more about the players that don't like Vesey and Schultz more-so than the ones that do.
  9. That is what I was getting at with my post, but you drew it out much clearer. Anyways even if we do sit at 4th and drop to 7th then my main point was that the Center depth is pretty nice in that range anyways so whilst Hischer and Patrick is unlikely the others are quite decent possibilities.
  10. Well what I meant by that is scouts were touting Virtanen as a very good prospect, great intangibles, great speed, great shot. Shooting in the same range as Nylander and Ehlers. What you evaluate as better picks is your opinion but doesn't make the other choices as bad picks. Much like Yak or Murray, Matthews or Laine, Hall or Seguin. Both were deemed as 1A // 1B with slight edges favouring on or the other. Much like this 2017 draft where Patrick and Hischer are so close either are good choices, choosing the other is not a bad choice. Yet if they choose someone else then it would look to be a bad pick because that's not really what the projections are laid out to be. Guess similar idea could be thought of with CBJ picking PLD over Puljujarvi. Honestly I think we are getting hung up on semantics, as I said to many, I would've preferred creative forward at that time like Ehlers or Nylander but I can see that Virtanen wasn't a bad pick but perhaps a worse pick based on my opinion. Again, Virtanen has some good tools to be a NHLer, if he starts performing then all of this becomes a moot point.
  11. lol we're not going to beat the likes of Arizona or Colorado in the tank race... Vegas gets the 3rd soooo at best we are slotted for 4th baring we win the lottery which could happen but I'm not banking on.. That said there seems to be a lot of good top 6 Centers in the top 10 that seem to be pretty good. Rasmussen, Necas, Mittlestadt, Vilardi, Patrick, Hischier, Pettersson. Pettersson sounds like a sweet slippery, slick offensive guy we could use Rasmussen, 6'5" kid from surrey with vision and playmaking hands Mittlestadt, heard good things about this guy on the radio but the drafting profile on draftsite is broken english so I have no clue.
  12. Yup again that was your opinion at the time and I would've shared that opinion with you but others may of not and that wouldn't be wrong either.
  13. My point is two fold, First, is that picks 5-10 ish were very much debateable. How a player turns out does not dictate if he was a bad pick at the time, it makes it BECOME a bad pick but then the normal hindsight argument comes into play. Second, is that we needed physical offensive players as much as we needed offensive creative players. Speed and Size usually beats the tie breaker and the fact that he was a local boy probably helped. IMO BPA is in general a good way of thinking for the draft but if you want to use Edmonton as an example (which i hate to do) you build on BPA and pick forward after forward then you lose to other facets in the game that can destroy your teams development. They lacked goaltending and defense and it arguably destroyed Yaks and Schultz career. For your example, I can't recall the draft positions that Mcilrath was under but quick looks it seems like it's quite off the board and based on that info you can determine that it was a bad pick. Again Virtanen was not 'off the board' thus shouldn't be deemed as a bad pick until the whole story of his career is written. 2014 Mock Drafts http://www.mynhldraft.com/2014-NHL-Mock-Draft/ https://www.draftsite.com/nhl/mock-draft/2014/ 2010 Mock Drafts http://www.mynhldraft.com/2010-NHL-Mock-Draft/ http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=61580 ** ugh looking at that 2010 draft, that's when we traded our first and Grabner for Ballard and Oreskovich thanks for drawing up bad memories
  14. Well to be fair they aren't wrong either We're in agreement! I was and am still in favor of creative and dynamic players but that doesn't mean we don't need the big bodied physical and offensive presence that Virtanen looked to be. My main point that is that Virtanen was not a bad pick, may not of been your choice but still not a bad pick at the time and still not a bad pick considering he's 20 and still has things to polish / learn. And as you say only time will tell which player was the best pick, cough Ehlers, cough but to fret about it is giving into the evil trap of hindsight.
  15. Think Yak was barely ahead of Murray, then I was disturbed when they didn't choose Murray and still am. I know either player didn't truly turn out as their hype dictated but still... The problem with trading down is you need to find a team willing to trade up. Edmonton isn't going to bother with that kind of deal and we didn't have much assets to get a deal to work as well. CBJ had the player they wanted in mind and that was PLD if they go 6 and below there's no guarantee that whoever picks at 3rd / 4th / 5th will take PLD. Thus they picked the player they thought was best and we shall see in time if this turns out.
  16. This is a +1 People have to learn patience... Tkatchuk is good now, Juolevi can be as good and maybe better in 1-3 years from now. Then who cares about Tkatchuk vs Juolevi Benning has had 3 full drafts. 2014, kind of the adjustment period, moving Kesler and some of the dead Gillis contracts 2015, trying to add the stop gap 23-25 age range of which Gillis failed to draft throughout his tenure 2016, focus of the defense, Hutton (Gillis pick) helped but adding, Tryamkin came out of no-where, Stetcher out of thin air and adding Gudbranson and Juolevi whilst Sbisa looking better than previous years is looking nice as well. We went from a nothing defense that played Bartowski and Weber for way too much last year to one of the most deep and hopeful bluelines in the league. 2017 will be the year of the forwards, probably take more than one year to rectify the offensive woes of the team but who knows. All it really takes is a good showing of Boeser, a surprise from a few others and a better showing from a few vets like Erickson and Sedins. Also a 4th line that can chip in a few goals would be nice.. Ok that's a heavy feat to accomplish but so was the defense last year lol.
  17. I bet you most of those assists were off shots and rebounds too, but is that a bad thing? nah. like I said prior I would've preferred a creative player but that doesn't mean a straight-line shooter is useless. I don't know why I have to keep saying this but just because Nylander and Ehlers are the better players now and seem to be trending into very good NHLers (Ehlers already established) however that doesn't mean Virtanen will be a bad pick, hell Virtanen can still become a better pick but it's likely not (I'm a huge fan of Ehlers). For the junior stats, not all leagues are equal and not all cases are as simple as taking the player with the highest PPG but usually it is something that you look for in a top 10 pick. I was proving a point about the scouting report as to what scouts and people in the game saw in Virtanen's game at the time. Clearly if all prospects lived up to their scouting reports and lived up to their junior hype then Daigle, Stefan and Brendl would be all stars of the league. Fact is Drafting is not a perfect science and most of the time it's on the players work ethic and mental aptitude to put the tools together and translate the skillsets to the NHL level, some take longer than others. Theoretically you should hit 100% when drafting top 10 picks but that's not always the case. Jake still has time to steer away from bust territory. On Yak, guess this is another case of players not living up to the hype. Yak had the points to backup the scouting report too so he doesn't really bode well towards your argument... That said I tend to stay away from using Edmonton in any points because they botched everything within those 6 years... As for those who see this as a disaster from the get go, well, it's not a disaster yet... I keep saying this as well if it takes him 2 more years and he becomes a 40 goal player and 60-80 pts is that a disaster? if he becomes a 20 goal player and a 40-50 pt player is that a disaster ? ... ... answer? NOPE
  18. Ehlers on his draft year had around 100 points in 50 games in the QMJHL, Virtanen 71 points in 71 games in the WHL. The Q has been known to be a more offensive league and less structured than WHL that said the points are still in Ehlers favor. However, remember 2 years ago, everyone and I mean everyone was crying for a big body, speed and physical presence, I.E some pushback. Also teams seem to like size and speed combination so that also swings into Virtanen favor, this is arguable for sure. On his scouting report, I did some research for you because it seems people just slam down random opinions and try to pass it as fact. The reports below all relate that Virtanen is a physical, fast, quick, powerful, great shot and it even says that he 'has the character traits, work ethic and individual skills to pose a threat'. Sounds like a good power forward pick to me. Based on comparison to Ehlers and Nylander you can make your opinion on who we should've picked at the time (ignoring present accomplishments as that is hindsight) which I would've agreed with you I would have preferred a highly skilled and creative offensive player but to say that it was a bad pick is ridiculous. Jake has all the tools he needs there's no argument against that.
  19. lolz, I was going to respond to that post but you did a much better job at it than me.. We are all nothing but man babies. It's hindsight to say that they were the better choice to pick at the time. It's clear that they are the better picks at this time and likely onwards. Those are two very different points. Anyways Cam Neely had 4 years that were subpar, allbeit he still got 30pts per year and likely showed promise (before my time) but this was also in the 80s with much less of a competitive league. Give the kid time, I don't want to lose another Cam Neely, or even a Cam Neely-lite that gets 20 goals a season even if it takes hime 4 years to click it all together.
  20. I'll quote what i said earlier to another member here People jump on the hype train as fast as the bash train. I for one have the belief that a player can learn tendencies through development therefore 1 and a half years of lackluster pro seasons is but a short chapter in a larger story so to speak.
  21. Good question, they'll probably say they were always rooting for Virtanen or something Honestly I don't care people chiming in with their opinions on the player and critiquing him but to strictly say he has no chance is way too naive.
  22. Well possession stats are a good sign for a player with good fore-checking, reliability, and other tools to either keep the puck or retrieve the puck which is the first criteria you look for in a 3rd/4th liner. For his shot, he'll have to learn to adjust it to change the shooting angles to get through traffic. In junior the play is more wide open, less 'crowded' so to speak so it's understandable that someone with more of a straight-ahead shooting game will need to go through an adjustment with learning how to go through players that are much bigger and much more structured from what he was used to. The cliche of power forwards and defense take longer to develop than most is derived from the fact that they had the luxury of using their body to shrug off smaller and less physically developed players. Defense is built on positioning and blocking out players in front of the net and power forwards are built on using their bodies to shield the puck, to push players behind them and drive to the net. One could imagine that a 200 pound player would find this much easier against 150-180 pound players versus 200-220 pound players that we see in AHL and NHL not to mention that physically as you age within the 20-26 range you start to really bulk up in muscle and settle in to your frame. So yes as I mentioned before there is an adjustment period for these types of players and even if he's a 'lost puppy dog' out there that just cements the fact that there is an adjustment of familiarity/comfort . There's never a guarantee for anything in the NHL but I'll allow a 20 year old to dictate his career instead of casting strict judgement of things he supposedly lacks.
  23. He shoots well, he hits well, he's got good balance i.e. Hard to knock off the puck. His NHL possession stats were really good at least I recall hearing that on the radio. Either he learn to use those tools offensively or else he'll be a 3rd / 4th line grinder type player.
  24. Eh there are other considerations involved such as the sedins had a strong push towards offensive minutes and power play time. Jake less so. Hard to get points when you get 8-10 minutes a night and hard to get more minutes when your not 100% ready for the NHL. anyways it's not necessarily a comparison to virtanen but an underlying point in that development takes varying times and while it's silly to be overly bullish on a developing prospect it's more so to be outright done with the prospect.
  25. Ah geeze he's not taking the league by storm like Matthews, marner or mcdavid. He's not even scoring in the AHL either!! the guy HAS to be a bust then... sarcasm if you haven't detected it. Instead maybe you can see that virtanen has some things he needs to work on and while he works on that maybe he'll put his NHL speed, shot and body skillsets together and show some production... Or maybe he won't.. that's the point of a prospect. You know the whole "developing" thing. Based on your logic we should've traded the sedins after the first year. I mean they were 2nd and 3rd overall and looked terrible the first few years.
×
×
  • Create New...