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

Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW


avelanch

Recommended Posts

Just now, stawns said:

The move toward younger, cheaper players on NHL rosters has had a very negative effect on the game, as a whole, if you ask me

Result of a CAP and signing some at ridiculous amounts where two players take up more than 15% (or even more) of your total CAP.   In Edmonton, they will end up with two players and a bunch of young ELC contracts for next decade (I exaggerate but not by much) and it is not helping the game - I agree with you.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said:

It isn't a lie to say that he has 12th most NHL games played and 14th most NHL goals when you look at the entire 2014 first round picks.  It isn't a lie to say the fifth and seventh picks from the draft have yet to play a single NHL game.  It isn't a lie to say that power forwards tend to develop more slowly.

 

Soooo, when one says that his in the upper half of his draft year first round picks in NHL goals and games played, plays a position that is traditionally slower in developing (power forward) and has by all accounts of his AHL coach (and now possibly NHL coach) improved a lot in key areas last year - where are the lies?   Did you expect him to develop unusually faster than, say, a Bertuzzi?   Is he at 20 supposed to be far ahead of others who were 22 to 23 before landing steady NHL jobs?

 

One person's disappointment is another's simply being patient and realistic.   No lie.

This doesn't mean much. On 29 other teams he wouldn't have sniffed a roster spot. In fact gifting him a roster spot stunted his development more than helped him. This is why the next season he showed up out of shape and with an attitude that screamed entitlement. McCann is just above him in both stats and he is far from a successful pick either. Guys like Fiala, Kapanen, Ho-Sang, Vrana, Honka, Schmaltz, Sanheim etc. are all lower but tracking better as prospects than either Jake or Jared, and will likely pass Jake in both stats in the upcoming year.

 

Bert is a poor comparison as he was far more accomplished at the same age than Jake is currently. 

 

I wanted him to show more growth in his offensive game which he hasn't shown enough of. The extent of his offensive game is to skate really fast and put a hard wrister on net which any goalie whose view is not impeded can parry away easily. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/6/2017 at 7:23 PM, The 5th Line said:

He wasn't good in Utica, there was little to absolutely no good reviews by the members who watch Utica games religiously.  I watched a few, sure he shows flashes but his positioning and decision making is still terrible, his shot selection was atrocious and the stat line speaks for itself.  Not to mention he wasn't very physical at all, he's supposed to be that rough and tough guy but that was also somewhat non-existent.   He is improving as he should be, but he is a long way from earning the right to not be slammed.  That's just the way it is

 

I still believe he had some issue with his shoulder, which wasn't made public, that led him to take it easy on the physical stuff over last couple seasons. He's definitely coming to camp with something to prove, and whether he makes the team or not I still expect him to have a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-09-06 at 6:34 PM, Alflives said:

How many of us have seem Jake play while slim and in proper condition?  He's going to really surprise a lot people with just how friggin good he is.

Yeah I don't know Jake well, but I do know he's trained harder this summer then he ever has. Looks like the boy is turning into a man. Last year was a reality check, he wants NHL money and exposure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/09/2017 at 11:13 AM, N4ZZY said:

I agree. I just think that people wanted Jake to be a "generational" type of talent to burst onto the scene and put up points. y'know, NHL18 like gameplay where you score 60 goals, and get 100 assists. Jake certainly has the chance to bust, and I understand that perspective. I also understand that he's 21, and his development wasn't and isn't ideal. Shouldn't have been in the league that first year, but he was, and then shuffled back and forth from the AHL to the NHL, as well as playing under a head coach, who most of us felt was out of his league in the NHL. Add all that up, and yeah, if I were Jake, I'd be pretty frustrated. At the same time, the kid isn't Horvat. He doesn't scream "mature beyond his years" to me. He needs time to develop and mature. This is, like everyone else is saying, a big year for Jake, whether in the minors or in the NHL. There needs to be some evidence that he can play in the NHL and become a regular contributor of sorts. Doesn't have to produce 20 goals, but 10-15 (in the NHL) would definitely be an improvement over his 7 goals his first year. 

 

C'mon now, no one ever said or expected that and you know it. His ceiling during the draft according to most scouts and fans was a 50-60pt top six pwf. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Butters Stoch said:

C'mon now, no one ever said or expected that and you know it. His ceiling during the draft according to most scouts and fans was a 50-60pt top six pwf.

Why was he drafted so high if that was his ceiling?

 

50-60 pts isn't bad I guess, but he'd be a second line forward or something, with some ability to change the game. I guess that's what you hope for in a 6th overall.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Why was he drafted so high if that was his ceiling?

 

50-60 pts isn't bad I guess, but he'd be a second line forward or something, with some ability to change the game. I guess that's what you hope for in a 6th overall.

Because of his combination of size/hitting and hard shot(for a WHLer at least). Canucks were still hurting off that 2011 finals loss and under the impression that we desperately needed more size in case the big Bruins push us around again. 

 

It was no secret, at the time of the draft, that we didn't pick the most offensively talented player with that selection, even Benning knew that. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, a top 6 power forward winger who can snipe while playing a very fast game with some marquee hits would be a great thing - even if they aren't putting up a point a game. I'd love for him to be 50+ points a year.

 

What I think people wanted (certainly I did) was that it was our highest pick in a long time, and to take a player with that higher ceiling and potential for reward. Many of those fans weren't as risk averse considering the old core (and the Sedins particularly) were on the tail end, and to have seen Nylander or Ehlers in our prospect pool putting up points and being exciting would have been very welcome for a fan base staring down a rebuild. Even with our other higher picks we went a little safer (i.e. Horvat, but even Hodgson was meant to be a bit safe being a responsible player with offensive skill vs high end flash) and fans were ready to be dazzled a bit and excited about a potential 1st line forward.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought Ehlers was the right pick but was pulling for Ritchie as he had the skill to score but is huge and tough. With Ehlers and Ritchie on opposite ends I thought at the time Virtanen was the safest pick. BC boy, good size, good skating, goal scorer. My theory is that if Virtanen became a physical 15 (Raffi Torres, bigger Hansen) we would love him whereas if Ehlers was a 15-20 goal scorer/40 pt second liner (Mason Raymond) we would hate him, especially if BC boy Virtanen became that physical top 6 player we've desired for so long. 

 

Ritchie is doing pretty well (about what I expected) and Ehlers is on the high end of his potential. Right now Virtanen is not doing well by he has a lot of time to turn things around.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, canucklehead44 said:

I thought Ehlers was the right pick but was pulling for Ritchie as he had the skill to score but is huge and tough. With Ehlers and Ritchie on opposite ends I thought at the time Virtanen was the safest pick. BC boy, good size, good skating, goal scorer. My theory is that if Virtanen became a physical 15 (Raffi Torres, bigger Hansen) we would love him whereas if Ehlers was a 15-20 goal scorer/40 pt second liner (Mason Raymond) we would hate him, especially if BC boy Virtanen became that physical top 6 player we've desired for so long. 

 

Ritchie is doing pretty well (about what I expected) and Ehlers is on the high end of his potential. Right now Virtanen is not doing well by he has a lot of time to turn things around.

Jake's ceiling and potential to influence games in multiple ways (bigger Hansen) is far more impactful than either Ehlers or Ritchie.  Ehlers is very small, and one dimensional.  Ritchie can't skate, and struggles to keep up.  Jake will be, by far, the superior player of the three.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Jake's ceiling and potential to influence games in multiple ways (bigger Hansen) is far more impactful than either Ehlers or Ritchie.  Ehlers is very small, and one dimensional.  Ritchie can't skate, and struggles to keep up.  Jake will be, by far, the superior player of the three.  

I won't argue on ceiling, but Jake is VERY far behind those two. Ritchie scored 14 goals and was 8th in the league in hits playing just 13 minutes per game as a rookie (or sophomore depending how you look at it).

 

Ehlers is already putting up 1st line numbers.

 

Virtanen put up below average 3rd line numbers in the AHL. He had a long way to go before even proving he belongs in the NHL, the other two guys are making an impact. I hope your right, and this season will be huge for Jake to show he is still one of our top prospects. Another bad year and he plummets down the ranks.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, canucklehead44 said:

I won't argue on ceiling, but Jake is VERY far behind those two. Ritchie scored 14 goals and was 8th in the league in hits playing just 13 minutes per game as a rookie (or sophomore depending how you look at it).

 

Ehlers is already putting up 1st line numbers.

 

Virtanen put up below average 3rd line numbers in the AHL. He had a long way to go before even proving he belongs in the NHL, the other two guys are making an impact. I hope your right, and this season will be huge for Jake to show he is still one of our top prospects. Another bad year and he plummets down the ranks.

Never liked Ehlers.  Way too soft.  Unless he puts up 80 plus points, he's hurting his team.  Way too one dimensional.  I liked 

Ritchie at the draft too, but found his skating to be far too limited.  He's not much more than a fourth line guy at best.  Jake has the entire package.  He's been out of shape.  Now we will see the real Jake, and will be thankful JB selected him over those two previously mentioned, and (much like Nukushkin) soon forgotten.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Never liked Ehlers.  Way too soft.  Unless he puts up 80 plus points, he's hurting his team.  Way too one dimensional.  I liked 

Ritchie at the draft too, but found his skating to be far too limited.  He's not much more than a fourth line guy at best.  Jake has the entire package.  He's been out of shape.  Now we will see the real Jake, and will be thankful JB selected him over those two previously mentioned, and (much like Nukushkin) soon forgotten.  

You may not like them, but they are both in the nhl making BIG impacts in the league. Ehlers is soft but he's been producing at a high level man, I'd take that over Jake in our current situation. I don't want to count Jake out, and I think he can become a great player but atm Ehlers and Ritchie are nhl regulars. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Jake's ceiling and potential to influence games in multiple ways (bigger Hansen) is far more impactful than either Ehlers or Ritchie.  Ehlers is very small, and one dimensional.  Ritchie can't skate, and struggles to keep up.  Jake will be, by far, the superior player of the three.  

Based on...???

 

Pretty sure you wouldn't be saying that if he wasn't a Canuck. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Never liked Ehlers.  Way too soft.  Unless he puts up 80 plus points, he's hurting his team.  Way too one dimensional.  I liked 

Ritchie at the draft too, but found his skating to be far too limited.  He's not much more than a fourth line guy at best.  Jake has the entire package.  He's been out of shape.  Now we will see the real Jake, and will be thankful JB selected him over those two previously mentioned, and (much like Nukushkin) soon forgotten.  

lol

Edited by Odd.
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Why was he drafted so high if that was his ceiling?

 

50-60 pts isn't bad I guess, but he'd be a second line forward or something, with some ability to change the game. I guess that's what you hope for in a 6th overall.

Probably cause he was never expected to be a big point producer. Big body, can hit, score and can maybe be a presence in front of the net. Not to mention the draft was, maybe still is, considered weak at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping at the time that the Canucks would choose Ehlers but I knew there would be hell to pay if Benning bypassed the big local kid. My reasoning was that Ehlers was the more skilled and was a +85 in his last year of junior. There's no way a "one-dimensional" player ends up with a +/- that high.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Schmautzie said:

I was hoping at the time that the Canucks would choose Ehlers but I knew there would be hell to pay if Benning bypassed the big local kid. My reasoning was that Ehlers was the more skilled and was a +85 in his last year of junior. There's no way a "one-dimensional" player ends up with a +/- that high.

where'd you find those numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Alflives said:

Jake's ceiling and potential to influence games in multiple ways (bigger Hansen) is far more impactful than either Ehlers or Ritchie.  Ehlers is very small, and one dimensional.  Ritchie can't skate, and struggles to keep up.  Jake will be, by far, the superior player of the three.  

I'm a Virtanen supporter but I don't know about that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...