Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[thrago]

If Jake can pop in 18-25 goals a year I am happy with him as a player. By the looks of things that shouldn't be a problem for him going forward.

[reyezone]

What Jets this kid has though, eh?

 

 Couple more off seasons with Mr. stickhandling guru and d-men better watch out. 

 

I have to admit, there were moments when I started looking at the stats of those you-know-who’s that we could have picked and wondered, but I liked the Virtanen pick at the time and I like him now. 

 

 

[guntrix]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

OK let's see if In can bridge the divide here.  Admittedly I have been guilty of being too harsh on some for being so anti Virtanen so let's see if I can be a better person than I have

 

Were Ehlers and Nylander the better picks?  Yes, it looks like they might be better point producing players and top 6 wingers.

 

Are they the more EFFECTIVE players though?  

 

While they seem to be productive based on their point totals alone in playoff hockey, the points they produced seem to come from games that were won very handily by their teams, where as in games they lost or that were close their production was entirely limited while players similar to Virtanen produced fairly evenly.

 

I dare say that Virtanen is still improving, but also when it counts is the more effective player.

 

A 70 point winger is all well and good.  But no team in the history of the NHL has won without muckers, grinders and hard nosed wingers. I think when it all shakes out Virtanen will prove to be the more effective player when it all matters over the "better pick" 

 

Because like it or not, what happened THEN will never be as important as what is happening now or will happen.  Because what happened THEN is all fans of teams like Toronto and Edmonton seem to have while what happens now and will happen are all that matter for a team building itself to contention.  Jake is just one piece of the puzzle and maybe with Ehlers or Nylander, we never draft DiPietro, Hughes, Petterson, Woo or Boeser?

 

Things happen for reasons.

This is where I take issue. 

 

Don't you see a double standard in being harsh on Ehlers/Nylander on such a small playoff sample size while highlighting that players similar to Jake did well? 

 

Let the kid prove that he can hang in the playoffs before coming to conclusions. One of the biggest myths here is that bigger players are somehow gifted with the inherent ability to be effective in the post-season. It's not always the case. 

[guntrix]

6 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Just so I am clear.

 

Draft status was important.  Ehlers or Nylander were the better pick.  Projected stats mean nothing.

 

Virtanen scoring more then he was and having more goals than both of them right now is not important and them scoring more previously is essential to the argument?

 

So.  Is the past more important than the now?  Or the future?  Or is their past more important?

 

Your argument is kind of all over the place at the moment so I'm trying to nail it down.

 

Because on one hand.  Their past seems important.  But the right now doesn't.  On the other their past is important but Jake's trending and future isn't.

 

So any clarification on that would be great

Ehlers admittedly had a slow start, although he's picked it up now. We'll see how that goes. 

 

Nylander has played 3 games. I mean, come on. 

[canuckistani]

1 hour ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Wowza.  You sure have some in depth analysis and a very strong opinion that Jake may or may not ever get better.

 

What NHL team are you a scout for?   Right......lol.

There is nothing 'strong or weak' about saying the future is indeterminate. Lesser developed players at his stage have gone on to do greater things, more developed players than him have fallen off the face of the planet - the reasons for either, are numerous. All i know is that the graph on Virtanen's career trajectory is currently pointing upwards, not downwards but his accomplishments and role in the team are peripheral. 

[canuckistani]

1 hour ago, Nancouver said:

Lol, let me guess, you cringe every time jake scores as it won’t fit your little narrative which you’ve probably been clinging to since the day he was drafted because you were an ”ehlers guy”?

who on earth cringes when a bad choice starts to improve its value, however small that improvement is ?! 
I am no armchair GM or a real GM. So i don't get worked up over who gets drafted where, until it starts to emerge years later that it was a good choice or a bad choice. As a near-15 year Canucks fan, i HOPE we get more good players than busts, but i am no kid with too much time on his hands or fantasy hockey lover who likes to speculate too much. Incase you havn't noticed, i am a 'here and now, whats proven' sort of a fellow. Everything else, however well posited or wishful, is still a fart in the wind. 

[canuckistani]

1 hour ago, Kanukfanatic said:

Stopped reading the drivel.

 

Doesn't matter if he outscores them.......Hahaha.  I have been wrong for decades. I thought hockey had to do with scoring.  Thanks for the clarification stan.

You should really finish reading entire sentences first.....i am sure scoring 40 points vs 45 is always going to make the second fella more valuable by that benchmark...LOL. Your argument is all over the map, mate. 

 

[canuckistani]

1 hour ago, reyezone said:

What Jets this kid has though, eh?

 

 Couple more off seasons with Mr. stickhandling guru and d-men better watch out. 

 

I have to admit, there were moments when I started looking at the stats of those you-know-who’s that we could have picked and wondered, but I liked the Virtanen pick at the time and I like him now. 

 

 

Indeed. Hopefully he can be more than just an North-South guy though - adding the east-west aspect of the game to his repertoire will make him highly compatible with dekey Pete. 

[Nancouver]

3 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

who on earth cringes when a bad choice starts to improve its value, however small that improvement is ?! 
I am no armchair GM or a real GM. So i don't get worked up over who gets drafted where, until it starts to emerge years later that it was a good choice or a bad choice. As a near-15 year Canucks fan, i HOPE we get more good players than busts, but i am no kid with too much time on his hands or fantasy hockey lover who likes to speculate too much. Incase you havn't noticed, i am a 'here and now, whats proven' sort of a fellow. Everything else, however well posited or wishful, is still a fart in the wind. 

So he was a bad choice but you’re no arm chair gm? Sounds to me like quite the contradiction there. 

[Kanukfanatic]

9 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

You should really finish reading entire sentences first.....i am sure scoring 40 points vs 45 is always going to make the second fella more valuable by that benchmark...LOL. Your argument is all over the map, mate. 

 

Not as much as yours. In the Dahlen thread you bring up some random example of a player that took years to get into the NHL and did well (Keith). Dahlen is taking longer than some real homer fans thought he would take to become a high level prospect yet you try to sound all patient there.

 

Yet in the Virtanen thread you spout all this stuff about Virtanen not being so good now, not a top 6.  

 

You, mate, are the one all over the map.  Pal!

Edited December 13, 2018 by Kanukfanatic

[ForsbergTheGreat]

10 hours ago, guntrix said:

This is where I take issue. 

 

Don't you see a double standard in being harsh on Ehlers/Nylander on such a small playoff sample size while highlighting that players similar to Jake did well? 

 

Let the kid prove that he can hang in the playoffs before coming to conclusions. One of the biggest myths here is that bigger players are somehow gifted with the inherent ability to be effective in the post-season. It's not always the case. 

I see too many people putting way to much value on a players playoff performance all based on their physical size.  This is not at all the case. There were many power forwards that seemingly disappeared during the post season, even high ranked ones like Rick Nash who was a ghost anytime he appeared in the post season.  Evander Kane didn’t really do much last year and after years of people claiming he’d be a playoff beast as well. Krieder, simmonds, and Backes are all extremely inconsistent too. A few decent years but mostly no shows.  Admittedly Wilson was a force last year but he's the line walker that may play a huge part to winning or he might be costing your team with a dumb penalty. The other myth is that these playoff performers grit guys are hard to come by and very valuable/expensive, when typically they are third or forth line guys who seemingly get on a role but most of the time cheaply acquired.  Smith-Pelly, Bickell, Kassian (for two games in 17), Ward, Ferklund (who was good against canucks but then disappeared against the ducks) even Canucks picked up Torres up at free agency.  

 

Any way, the most important aspect for being a strong playoff performer is…..Compete.  I will take a small skilled player who’s got a compete factor over a big physical force in the playoffs any day of the week.  Case en point.  EP. This kid in no way has a PWF stature in fact he’s fall right into the small type, but he’s got a playoff MVP trophy to show that he knows how to put things into another gear when games get important.  I don’t know many bigger players I would take over EP for playoffs.  At this point we can all hope and assume that Jake has that extra gear in playoff but we really don’t know that to be the case, not until he proves it. 

Edited December 13, 2018 by ForsbergTheGreat

[Kanukfanatic]

3 minutes ago, Nancouver said:

So he was a bad choice but you’re no arm chair gm? Sounds to me like quite the contradiction there. 

She/He has posted tons of posts on this in her/his opinion Jake isn't a top 6  forward with weird little arguments. 

 

She/He seems to be just trying to create controversy at this point considering her/his post in the Dahlen thread is the exact opposite lol.  Silly posts imo.

[Nancouver]

3 minutes ago, Kanukfanatic said:

She/He has posted tons of posts on this in her/his opinion Jake isn't a top 6  forward with weird little arguments. 

 

She/He seems to be just trying to create controversy at this point considering her/his post in the Dahlen thread is the exact opposite lol.  Silly posts imo.

Just amazes me how a few posters continue to troll jake regardless of how much he’s improved. Now anything he does well is a “fluke” 

[canuckistani]

10 minutes ago, Nancouver said:

So he was a bad choice but you’re no arm chair gm? Sounds to me like quite the contradiction there. 

I think comprehension is NOT your strong suite. One doesn't have to be an armchair GM to conclude that Jagr is a better player than Mason Raymond. 
Read it one more time. and then some more to understand what i am saying. 

[Kanukfanatic]

Just now, canuckistani said:

I think comprehension is NOT your strong suite. One doesn't have to be an armchair GM to conclude that Jagr is a better player than Mason Raymond. 
Read it one more time. and then some more to understand what i am saying. 

I think common sense is NOT in your skills. You make arguments completely opposite of each other in different threads.

 

See...I can do that too!! lol nice try stan!  

[Nancouver]

Just now, canuckistani said:

I think comprehension is NOT your strong suite. One doesn't have to be an armchair GM to conclude that Jagr is a better player than Mason Raymond. 
Read it one more time. and then some more to understand what i am saying. 

The fact that you’re so sure about who the better pick was regardless of how young they still are is what’s so funny. I’m guessing you haven’t been around long, it’s not always the quickest out of the gate that wins the race. You state things so mattter of factly which is what makes you sound like a wanna be gm.

[canuckistani]

Just now, Kanukfanatic said:

I think common sense is NOT in your skills. You make arguments completely opposite of each other in different threads.

 

See...I can do that too!! lol nice try stan!  

No, i don't. You just need to read better. I never stopped saying that Jake is improving and IF he continues to improve, he will have a good future with the team. I simply don't buy the nonsensical argument that he is already valuable to the team based on 30 odd games after 4 years. Not that hard to comprehend, really. 

 

[canuckistani]

Just now, Nancouver said:

The fact that you’re so sure about who the better pick was regardless of how young they still are is what’s so funny. I’m guessing you haven’t been around long, it’s not always the quickest out of the gate that wins the race. You state things so mattter of factly which is what makes you sound like a wanna be gm.

Sure. But 4 years is a good time to start noticing that the gap between Jake and some of the picks after him is significantly large already. He may close the gap - which is also what i said in the post where if he enters the same ballpark in points as those guys,  we may start to consider him a success. But being 3x lower makes him a crappier player as of now. Its not very complicated, really.

 

[Nancouver]

6 minutes ago, canuckistani said:

Sure. But 4 years is a good time to start noticing that the gap between Jake and some of the picks after him is significantly large already. He may close the gap - which is also what i said in the post where if he enters the same ballpark in points as those guys,  we may start to consider him a success. But being 3x lower makes him a crappier player as of now. Its not very complicated, really.

 

People are happy jake is becoming a solid player and at such a young age you’d have to be off your nut to expose him in an expansion draft like you stated earlier. You downplay everything he’s doing well as “flukey” which makes you come across as either a hater or a simpleton. Most people disagree, it’s not complicated.

[canuckistani]

3 minutes ago, Nancouver said:

People are happy jake is becoming a solid player and at such a young age you’d have to be off your nut to expose him in an expansion draft like you stated earlier. You downplay everything he’s doing well as “flukey” which makes you come across as either a hater or a simpleton. Most people disagree, it’s not complicated.

False. I said some of his goals this year has been pretty flukey. Last game's goal is the definition of a flukey goal. 

As far as exposing him goes - well, lets see if he is even on this team in 3 years from now, k ?