Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[The Lock]

9 minutes ago, Toews said:

I think you misinterpreted my post. I am saying that Virtanen being bigger and stronger doesn't exactly foretell success in the playoffs. To conclude if a player is a playoff performer or "fades in the playoffs" we need a reasonable sample size of games to base our evaluation upon. I think we can all agree that we don't have that information yet based on what little we have seen of all these players in the playoffs.

I don't disagree but I will add that provided you have enough information, you have the ability to re-evaluate your initial opinion.

That's reasonable. I will also echo the sentiment that I don't consider Nylander or Ehlers as the barometer of success for Jake. I will be more than content if he becomes a core player on this team in the future but he needs to do a lot more growing for that.

 

The way the draft is structured you will almost always have someone who you wish you could have selected, that doesn't mean the player you selected was a flop. 

I agree with most of what you've said but I do want to make a couple of points.

 

What I'm saying is that it increases our chances in the playoffs on paper. I'm not talking about what we see now. I'm talking about what was likely seen when we drafted him. Also, add in the rarity of the kind of player Virtanen is. It's funny really, it's a similar argument to having Kassian over Hodgson, but it's true really. The Kassians and Virtanens are the players you don't just get every day, at least in terms of potential. Seeing that potential is obviously another thing entirely, but that's what a prospect is: how much of a prospect's potential will we see by the end of it all?

 

As far as re-evaluating your opinion, you can with hindsight; however, you don't get that option during the draft. You could use that hindsight for future drafts, but it doesn't magically turn Virtanen into Nylander.

 

 

[guntrix]

On September 8, 2018 at 12:10 PM, Rob_Zepp said:

Lol / ok, let’s see... can’t use goals but assists are ok.   Plus minus, GA/TK and hits per 60 are out too as are offensive zone entries as those make Jake look good.

 

Will remember to only note stats in future that make him look poorly.  Further will never ask you to acknowledge that players like Jake often take until 23/24/25 to hit their “stride” as that interferes with the “he sucks” narrative.

 

That about it?   

How about total points? Is that too old fashioned for you? I've never encountered anyone who refuses to take into account both columns when evaluating a top-6 player (something you say Jake is on the verge of becoming). Then again, you did centre an entire post on 5v5 offensive zone carries per hour. lol.

[Rob_Zepp]

4 hours ago, guntrix said:

How about total points? Is that too old fashioned for you? I've never encountered anyone who refuses to take into account both columns when evaluating a top-6 player (something you say Jake is on the verge of becoming). Then again, you did centre an entire post on 5v5 offensive zone carries per hour. lol.

Sure - there are kinds of metrics but most seemed to be arguing goals.   I could have done hits, points or whatever and the development timelines still fit.

 

5 on 5 carries is perhaps the newest most important stat teams are using past points.   Far more than plus minus.   There is an incredible correlation between that stat and team success during those shifts.  Get past your narrative and look at that list.

 

i have always thought Virtanen would emerge at 23/24 but he may be a year early.   You win with this sort of player.

[Dungass]

The next two years are make or break for Jake and I'm betting on make.  Kid has all kind of skill, just love his blinding speed, of course his hands could still use a little work.

Think Rob has said in the past, if you don't have this kind of player on your team, then you are constantly trying to acquire one. 

 

I really loved that he took time out of his summer to go up to Rupert and take part in the Autism awareness charity.  To me that spoke volumes to how much he has grown as a professional.  

[D.B Cooper]

On 2018-09-08 at 4:30 PM, Alflives said:

We already have Ehlers and Nylander type players in Baer and Goldy.  We need a unique physical specimen like Jake.  Like you say, Guys with Jake’s skill set are very difficult to get.

Hahahah no we don’t.  

Baer and Goldy are fringe second liners at best.   

 

Ehlers and Nylander are younger and MUCH better players. 

[kloubek]

14 minutes ago, Dungass said:

The next two years are make or break for Jake and I'm betting on make. 

Depends on what you mean by "break".  I do agree with you, but in the context that "break" constitutes a 3rd or 4th line role whereas "make" constitutes a 1st or 2nd line role.

Jake will be an NHL player no matter what - it just remains to be seen as to what level. Is he a Zack Kassian, or is he a Bertuzzi?  My own guess is somewhere in between.  I don't believe he will be a 1st line player, but I feel there IS still potential there as a 2nd line complimentary player.  His improvement at the tail end of last year still has me hopeful he will reach that level, but not at all convinced.  I think we'll discover fairly quickly this season if he has continued that progression through the offseason or if he remains stalled.

 

Hahahah no we don’t.  

Baer and Goldy are fringe second liners at best.   

 

Ehlers and Nylander are younger and MUCH better players. 

I'm pretty sure by "type", he meant "type" and not claiming that either are on the same talent level as Ehlers or Nylander.

Edited September 10, 2018 by kloubek

[D.B Cooper]

On 2018-09-08 at 4:26 PM, The Lock said:

Like I said earlier, it's a journey when you draft a power forward, meaning there are going to be ups and downs. There will be times when it's like "wow he plowed right through that defender" and there will be times that's it's easy to question the pick.

 

We don't even have to look much further in our backyard for evidence of this. Take a look at Todd Bertuzzi for example. He was drafted in 1993, but it wasn't until the Islanders traded him to us (foolishly) that he amounted to much of anything. Even then, he didn't play an 80 game season until 1999-00. That's over 6 years. If we were back in mid to late 90's talking about Bertuzzi on a forum like we are about Virtanen, if Bert were drafted by us (which he wasn't of course), would we not be having the same conversation? I mean the main difference could be that Bert was drafted 23rd overall, but still, look at how much we get riled up over ANY 1st round pick these days.

I always hear the saying ‘power forwards take longer’.  

Outside of a few, Bertuzzi included, can you name some notable power forwards that took more than 4-5 years to hit stride?

It seems to me that phrase is kinda BS. 

I used to just say, yeah it takes longer, but then I started researching the good PFs from the last handful of years, and outside of a small handful of players, the development path isn’t much longer than normal.  

 

Do so we just keep saying this to justify Jake taking a little while to get going?

[D.B Cooper]

4 minutes ago, kloubek said:

Depends on what you mean by "break".  I do agree with you, but in the context that "break" constitutes a 3rd or 4th line role whereas "make" constitutes a 1st or 2nd line role.

Jake will be an NHL player no matter what - it just remains to be seen as to what level. Is he a Zack Kassian, or is he a Bertuzzi?  My own guess is somewhere in between.  I don't believe he will be a 1st line player, but I feel there IS still potential there as a 2nd line complimentary player.  His improvement at the tail end of last year still has me hopeful he will reach that level, but not at all convinced.  I think we'll discover fairly quickly this season if he has continued that progression through the offseason or if he remains stalled.

 

I'm pretty sure by "type", he meant "type" and not claiming that either are on the same talent level as Ehlers or Nylander.

Gotta have similar skill and abilities to play the same type of game, unless a garbage version of it is what you are going for.   

 

Id take Ehlers or Nylander over those two any day.  

Heck, I’d take them over 90% of our team. 

[kloubek]

24 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

Gotta have similar skill and abilities to play the same type of game, unless a garbage version of it is what you are going for.   

 

Id take Ehlers or Nylander over those two any day.  

Heck, I’d take them over 90% of our team. 

You're missing the point.  Nobody is comparing their skill.  The two guys we have ARE garbage versions of Ehlers and Nylander. I'd have those two over our two any day as well, as would ALF, I'm sure. His point was that they play the same style that lacks intensity and gritty play, and I totally agree.  We don't need more players like that.

[Rob_Zepp]

33 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

I always hear the saying ‘power forwards take longer’.  

Outside of a few, Bertuzzi included, can you name some notable power forwards that took more than 4-5 years to hit stride?

It seems to me that phrase is kinda BS. 

I used to just say, yeah it takes longer, but then I started researching the good PFs from the last handful of years, and outside of a small handful of players, the development path isn’t much longer than normal.  

 

Do so we just keep saying this to justify Jake taking a little while to get going?

Read the thread just a page back...I offer up a whole whack of them... it is a common and documented development situation with power forwards.  It is NOT a handful but the majority of these players.    List these PFs you have been "researching" - I have a database of every NHL/AHL/SEL etc. player back to 1998 and follow these closely by position and can say, with confidence, that players of the PF nature (e.g. taller, heavier and/or who play that sort of heavier game) hit their stride and become what they are about 1.5 to 2 full seasons after the smaller forwards.   Almost every example of "later bloomer" comes from that group.

[Alflives]

38 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

Gotta have similar skill and abilities to play the same type of game, unless a garbage version of it is what you are going for.   

 

Id take Ehlers or Nylander over those two any day.  

Heck, I’d take them over 90% of our team. 

We already have the smaller, skilled guys.  We need the Jake Virtanen type player, way more than more little guys (or guys who play small).  When we are a playoff team (coming soon) we will all be super happy we have Jake.  Those little guys like WM and NE disappear in the playoffs - as those two have shown.  

[wildcam]

We will be fine with Jake he will improve again this year..The last 20 games of last season showing confidence, great speed and NHL shot.

I could see Jake scoring 20 goals and 40 points this season. With the confidence Jake has and knowing his size and speed will cause havoc every time he drives fast and hard to net..

Exciting big power forward just 22 yrs old, 6'1, 215 lbs.

Every team need more power forwards that have speed and size.

GP 75 - G 18-20 - A 20 -- PTS 38-40 points   2018-2019 season

[RogersTowell]

He's a big strong kid with some of the best wheels in the league.  He's coming along nicely and this year should be another step in the right direction for him.  By the time we are making the playoffs regularly, he will be in his prime.

[D.B Cooper]

27 minutes ago, Alflives said:

We already have the smaller, skilled guys.  We need the Jake Virtanen type player, way more than more little guys (or guys who play small).  When we are a playoff team (coming soon) we will all be super happy we have Jake.  Those little guys like WM and NE disappear in the playoffs - as those two have shown.  

I love Jake. Don’t get me wrong.  I like the pick.  

But if you are willing to give Jake so much time and leniency, you need to give Ehlers and Nylander the same.  

They are the same age and deserve equal development time.   

They aren’t the only 21 year olds who had a rough go in their first playoff experience. 

At least they did great during the regular season and helped their teams make the playoffs.  

Hank and Dan weren’t great in the post season early on either.  

 

Also, they are both at least 6’ tall.  Not little. 

[SingleThorn]

12 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

I love Jake. Don’t get me wrong.  I like the pick.  

But if you are willing to give Jake so much time and leniency, you need to give Ehlers and Nylander the same.  

They are the same age and deserve equal development time.   

They aren’t the only 21 year olds who had a rough go in their first playoff experience. 

At least they did great during the regular season and helped their teams make the playoffs.  

Hank and Dan weren’t great in the post season early on either.  

 

Also, they are both at least 6’ tall.  Not little. 

I don't know if you are saying that we were wrong not to draft Nylander or Ehlers. You really have to be true to the context of the day. #1 we needed a dman or power forward #2 we had ( it was constantly being debated ) too many euros. Great for the Presidents cup, but sucked for the post season. #3 we'd been bitten a couple of times with recent 'skill' picks ( Jensen & Schroeder ) #4 the 2014 draft was not deep in dmen ( which we needed the most ).

 

The Nylander/ Ehlers / Virtanen debate was probably more of a Virtanen/ Ritchie debate for our scouts !

[smithers joe]

57 minutes ago, wildcam said:

We will be fine with Jake he will improve again this year..The last 20 games of last season showing confidence, great speed and NHL shot.

I could see Jake scoring 20 goals and 40 points this season. With the confidence Jake has and knowing his size and speed will cause havoc every time he drives fast and hard to net..

Exciting big power forward just 22 yrs old, 6'1, 215 lbs.

Every team need more power forwards that have speed and size.

GP 75 - G 18-20 - A 20 -- PTS 38-40 points   2018-2019 season

i still think that jake can learn to be pettersson and dahlen's, burrows. imo  jake will take another step this year. 

[Rob_Zepp]

19 minutes ago, drummerboy said:

I love Jake. Don’t get me wrong.  I like the pick.  

But if you are willing to give Jake so much time and leniency, you need to give Ehlers and Nylander the same.  

They are the same age and deserve equal development time.   

They aren’t the only 21 year olds who had a rough go in their first playoff experience. 

At least they did great during the regular season and helped their teams make the playoffs.  

Hank and Dan weren’t great in the post season early on either.  

 

Also, they are both at least 6’ tall.  Not little. 

Why are you comparing Virtanen to totally different players who play/contribute in an entirely different manner?   It is like comparing Demko to a Dman....totally different nature of players.   You need all types of players to succeed.  A team fully of Ehlers or Nylander would not succeed nor would would a team of Virtanens.   However, you need BOTH types of plyaers and they can be equally valuable without question.   Washington doesn't win the cup without the play of Beagle and Wilson, for example, nor Ovie and Kunzie .... they needed both.

 

The continual compare of Jake with players he is nothing like, will not be like and SHOULD not be like is silly and at odds with the hockey logic of the pick.   Players like Nylander/Ehlers do develop more quickly - proven over time and time again in all professional leagues.   You NEED those types and Canucks have the EPs and Boeser's etc to do that - Ehler's teammate Wheeler players a different role to Ehlers....WPG cannot make playoffs without both styles.    

 

Canucks, like all teams, NEED a player like Virtanen and Virtanen has the potential to be one of the very best in the league at what he does.   Few of the bigger players in teh league (play big) are as fast as he is.   His offense will never be a team leading type but it will come and complement his other unique skills that will make him a player the team cannot do without.    Yes it is a projection but it comes from following these sorts of players very closely for a long while and even longer when a database is used to track both nature of players and their progression....he is on track nicely.

[vannuck59]

Jake has no mind for the game putting him on Pettersson's would be a mistake plus he is not tough enough to play that roll.

[Ballisticsports.]

1 hour ago, vannuck59 said:

Jake has no mind for the game putting him on Pettersson's would be a mistake plus he is not tough enough to play that roll.

I think EP will be paired with a vet who will step in for him when confronted

Teams may  get us taking penalties as 3rd man in though, rendering EP less effective

I think he will be on the P.P. with all the younger skilled players we have though

[The Lock]

7 hours ago, drummerboy said:

I always hear the saying ‘power forwards take longer’.  

Outside of a few, Bertuzzi included, can you name some notable power forwards that took more than 4-5 years to hit stride?

It seems to me that phrase is kinda BS. 

I used to just say, yeah it takes longer, but then I started researching the good PFs from the last handful of years, and outside of a small handful of players, the development path isn’t much longer than normal.  

 

Do so we just keep saying this to justify Jake taking a little while to get going?

You want more comparibles? That's not too difficult to be honest.

 

Cam Neely, when he was with us, played sub par (compared with what he would do later on). While there were a number of factors as far as I know that led to his trade, he didn't start playing well until Boston.

Jarome Iginla. He played reasonably well at the start, but not exactly how he played a few years later. In his 1st 3 seasons, his maximum point total was 51.

Milan Lucic. Did you know that, aside from his second season having 42 points, he wasn't exactly on fire at the start? Again, another power forward that needed time to develop into the game that we actually know him to play.

Nino Neidereiter. Now he's a really good comparable. He was sent to the minors similarly to Virtanen and didn't actually start producing until his 4th or 5th season.

 

There are a ton of other comparibles but hopefully you get the picture. Just because a phrase is said over and over it does not make it BS. In fact, most of those phrases are true as there is a reason behind those phrases. Could there be examples against those phrases? Of course and there always will, but just because someone may have a differing opinion to the cliches out there, it doesn't make them right in opposing that cliche unless if they've actually done the research to oppose them. Most of the time, you ask for people to come up with reasons as to why it's BS and they just keep stating how it's BS and not actually come up with any good reasoning.

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by The Lock