Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[hlinkas wrister]

I've wanted to stay away from this train wreck of a thread but I have a habit of doing silly things so here goes (sorry for the long read). I think there's a lot of misconception going on here about what's wrong with Jake and on the flip side, how people feel Green and the Canucks handle his deployment, and I think a lot of fans should be looking at this more objectionably.

 

First of all, lets discuss the off ice stuff. Are some of the things (lets keep it recent, the home-dresser vid and going out to a bar) that Jake has been called out for doing immature? 100% yes. But are they equally being blown out of proportion by a bunch of people who are stuck living in myopic covid-closets and venting on social media? Also 100% yes. More importantly, do these 2 events show that Jake is a bad guy or will they have any bearing on whether Jake is still a Canuck come next season? 100% no. Jake and every other player in the NHL have conduct clauses written into their contracts and by any reasonable measure Jake didn't even come close to breaching in either instance. Let it go.

 

Secondly, Jake's conditioning for training camps. In the preseason camp (and now again in the post-season camp) people assumed that Jake showed up out of shape. Is there any evidence for this? In the preseason Green said that Jake failed to meet agreed on targets, but were these targets ever 100% confirmed by anybody? I would argue that if anybody watched the preseason game where demoted Jake played for the B squad against Calgary he was absolutely flying, and he didn't look a step behind in the early going of the regular season either. Nobody in the org has intimated that Jake has shown up for this camp out of shape either, so let's put this argument for bed and look at the real reasons that Jake may find himself as a black ace instead of a starter this post season.

 

Practice like you play. Anybody who has played sports, even at a mediocre level, has heard their coaches say this. None of us (to my knowledge) have been present at this most recent Canuck camp but the videos of Jake's first scrimmage were less than flattering. Sure, context will tell you that they are playing non-contact shinny but Jake was doing a pretty believable impersonation of a pylon at a couple of points in that game. Jake's biggest weakness has always been his play without the puck in his own end and Green is right in my opinion to send Jake (and everybody else) the message that a lack of effort defending will not be tolerated. There were a few Iverson "practice?" mentions flying around here but this isn't a typical training camp-it's a playoff training camp. In the regular season you can afford to give up the occasional weak goal but in the playoffs when the whistles get put away you can't score your way out from under those defensive lapses. I'm not an advanced stat expert but I thought this article was a fairly objectionable look at Jake's offensive vs. defensive contributions and his defensive shot map isn't very pretty:

 

 https://thehockeywriters.com/canucks-jake-virtanen-trade-options/

 

But a shot map and a bad practice aren't the only reasons why Jake might be replaced by big Mac on the third line come playoff time, sometimes it's just a question of fit. I think it was @Provost that was calling Jake out for his inconsistent play this year, saying that Jake essentially had a poor start and a poor finish sandwiched around a decent middle and for the most part he's right. If you look at that a little more critically though, the beginning of the season and the end of the season (after we acquired Toffoli) is where when Jake spent most of his time in the bottom 6 (mostly on the Gaudette line). Jake's best production (not surprisingly) coincided with the period where he spent more of his time playing in the top 6 and PP2. So why is MacEwan maybe a better choice than Jake for the third line? I guess it has everything to do with what Green envisions the third line being- hard to play against, physical and defensively responsible. Jake may have more offensive upside than Zack, but Zack suits what Green wants a third liner to be and he has shown better chemistry (albeit in a small sample size) with Roussel and Gaudette.

 

So where should Jake play? I think it's fair to say that Jake has shown decent offensive improvement every year and that when given an opportunity in the top six and power play that he can not only hold his own, but excel. Some of these stats are adjusted for 60 minutes but they paint a pretty encouraging picture of Jake's year offensively, even when he spent a considerable portion of it "not producing" in a bottom 6 role: 

 

Jake Virtanen's rank amongst #Canucks fwds (min. 20GP w/ VAN this season).

G - 18 (5TH)

EVG - 12 (4TH)

PPG - 6 (4TH)

GWG - 6 (1ST)

G/60 - 1.19 (2ND)

PPG/60 - 5.86 (1ST

) HITS - 102 (3RD)

TK - 37 (T-2ND)

(sorry for the formatting but I don't have a clue how to copy and paste tweets)

 

The evidence (to me anyways) points to Jake being a black ace for one of the top 2 right wing spots (or left wing, lets not even get into that argument) for the playoffs this year. He produces consistently when he's played top 6, he gets exposed defensively when he plays in the bottom 6 and he hasn't shown great chemistry playing with Roussel and Gaudette. Boeser and Toffoli are at this point in time better players and should get the nod for game 1. If we get an injury to any winger in the playoffs (or if we struggle to score) Jake should be first in. Let me be clear about something before Jake fans start coming at my assessment, Jake is probably my favorite player on the Canucks. But if we are being completely honest when assessing Jake and where he fits with our team, he's not very effective playing bottom 6 minutes or with bottom 6 players (not that Boeser was either but at least he looked like he was trying to play his way out of it). And if Toffoli re-signs I can't imagine Jake is a Canuck next season.

 

 

 

  

 

 

[Tre Mac]

Just now, Moose Nuckle said:

No it isn't. Jake's game is hitting people. He isn't allowed to hit his teammates. 

 

Easily destroyed this crap narrative. 

Only thing your destroying is your credibility kiddo, if you had any to begin with.  

[lmm]

15 hours ago, The Lock said:

Okay. Thank you for this. I can respect this and I think this is much better than simply going "where's your evidence" and slapping on a video and calling it a day.

 

First of all, let me clarify my stance on all 3 subjects without going into details yet:

1. Fistcuffs can be good for a team in a game . (Serious) fistcuffs in practice generally lead to breakdowns in the locker room which I think is bad (or at least risky),

2. Humiliating a teammate: that's an interesting one as there's a right time and a wrong time as well as a right person and a wrong person to do it on. I'm up in the air there, but I could potentially get persuaded.

3. Ultimately, I think Bo punching Jake in practice is bad. It falls in line with part 1.

 

So I'm going to let you choose here a bit, but to give a little more detail of the above:

 

1) Fighting is pretty synonymous with the game and fistcuffs are pretty good way to rally things up. I doubt we'd disagree there. However, when it comes to decking a teammate in practice, we have to look at a couple of things:

    i) What are the implications in the locker room? Will there be bad blood in the end?

    ii) What sort of impact (if at all) is it actually going to have on the player? Will it actually teach a lesson?

    iii) Are we talking just a straight up deck or are we talking about the 2 of them in a brawl? The later is a lot more common in practice. The former's kind of $&!#ty if it knocks          the person out or something. lol

 

2) So let me go back to the whole Byfuglien/Kane thing, I believe that was words which would fall under number 2. Obviously, that was a situation where it wasn't good for the team and ultimately resulted in a trade (without getting into semantics on if it was what caused the trade in the first place). However, there can be times (ie. Torts yelling) where it can actually be a good thing (or backfire). This is where is depends on the person and the situation really.

 

3) I don't question Horvat's leadership (nor do I think that's what's being questioned here in the first place). I'm going to resort to point one with my opinion on this and we can go from there. 

I think what we are beating around is team culture and leadership.

I'll try to stay on point.

 

starting with

1. iii, I think straight up decking anybody is a no no. I cannot think of any time one would do that to a team mate. You save that for egregous circumstances.

1. ii, What sort of impact, leads me to the above, 'team culture'. This is really the crux of the conversation.. One can ask many questions around this topic and they all lead back to team culture and leadership. 

1. i, Implications/bad blood. Bo swearing at Jake may have equally bad consequences. (I will remind you that I have not seen video, only heard audio) but I wonder if the rift does not already exsist? From what I heard, Bo is frustrated by more than that short moment, maybe his outburst was exposing a rift that has been growing.  I don't know this, just theorizing.

 

2. I am not versed in the Kane /Buff drama, but I cannot think of a time when embarrassing your team mate will have a good outcome either. I just cannot think that Jake, you, me, Buff or anyone is really gong to think, "Ya, I'm gonna change my ways" after that kind of embarrassment. If no one stands up for Jake (white team mates) he is likely more alienated now than before.

 

3. Bo's leadership. I have had questions about his leadership since before he was named captain. I know I will get lots of wonkie faces from the usual crew,(Shay, Dazzle, I-Batch, I know they are coming) but here goes. I was on board for the 'Culture change' when the Sedins were preparing to retire. I do not believe that has happened yet. Bo was annointed 'future captain' the day he was drafted. I don't think that was helpful. I was on board with Beagle as intrim, if it were this summer I might go with Miller. Make no mistake, Bo speaking out against Jake was leadership. Time will tell whether it was wholey or partly effective. But the Jake incident won't tell the whole story, this team needs to start winning, if Bo captains us to a round or two then maybe he is the guy. If he steps up when Petey or Hughes get mauled, then great. But if he is "looking the other way" 

the next time Petey gets slammed or talks about the NHL protecting its stars, that is the kind of leadership that will lead us nowhere. To my eyes, Bo has a lot to prove, he has been compared to Jonathan Toews, If he can meld a Kane, Buff, Hossa, Keith ( Jake must fit in there somewhere, probably closest to Byfuglien) into winners and get himself some consideration for a Selke, great. If not, well there is always next time.

 

4. Since this is the Jake thread, 

I think he is now earning his way out of town. In the long run Jake seems like a guy that would make a good Deadline pick up. A guy who can help in the short term, and be cut adrift before he makes the whole team mad it him. Time will tell there as well I guess.

 

[MeanSeanBean]

1 hour ago, lmm said:

I think what we are beating around is team culture and leadership.

I'll try to stay on point.

 

starting with

1. iii, I think straight up decking anybody is a no no. I cannot think of any time one would do that to a team mate. You save that for egregous circumstances.

1. ii, What sort of impact, leads me to the above, 'team culture'. This is really the crux of the conversation.. One can ask many questions around this topic and they all lead back to team culture and leadership. 

1. i, Implications/bad blood. Bo swearing at Jake may have equally bad consequences. (I will remind you that I have not seen video, only heard audio) but I wonder if the rift does not already exsist? From what I heard, Bo is frustrated by more than that short moment, maybe his outburst was exposing a rift that has been growing.  I don't know this, just theorizing.

 

2. I am not versed in the Kane /Buff drama, but I cannot think of a time when embarrassing your team mate will have a good outcome either. I just cannot think that Jake, you, me, Buff or anyone is really gong to think, "Ya, I'm gonna change my ways" after that kind of embarrassment. If no one stands up for Jake (white team mates) he is likely more alienated now than before.

 

3. Bo's leadership. I have had questions about his leadership since before he was named captain. I know I will get lots of wonkie faces from the usual crew,(Shay, Dazzle, I-Batch, I know they are coming) but here goes. I was on board for the 'Culture change' when the Sedins were preparing to retire. I do not believe that has happened yet. Bo was annointed 'future captain' the day he was drafted. I don't think that was helpful. I was on board with Beagle as intrim, if it were this summer I might go with Miller. Make no mistake, Bo speaking out against Jake was leadership. Time will tell whether it was wholey or partly effective. But the Jake incident won't tell the whole story, this team needs to start winning, if Bo captains us to a round or two then maybe he is the guy. If he steps up when Petey or Hughes get mauled, then great. But if he is "looking the other way" 

the next time Petey gets slammed or talks about the NHL protecting its stars, that is the kind of leadership that will lead us nowhere. To my eyes, Bo has a lot to prove, he has been compared to Jonathan Toews, If he can meld a Kane, Buff, Hossa, Keith ( Jake must fit in there somewhere, probably closest to Byfuglien) into winners and get himself some consideration for a Selke, great. If not, well there is always next time.

 

4. Since this is the Jake thread, 

I think he is now earning his way out of town. In the long run Jake seems like a guy that would make a good Deadline pick up. A guy who can help in the short term, and be cut adrift before he makes the whole team mad it him. Time will tell there as well I guess.

 

" I heard the audio from yesterday but only the video of the Tanev goal.

Personally if Jake was POed because he got walked, I think that is a good thing, and if Horvat doesn't like it he should put his fist in Jake's mouth, not swear at him and tell him to relax."

 

Funny, cause the entire reason this is being debated is because I called you out on saying Horvat should have punched him. Now your first argument is the exact opposite?

Edited July 22, 2020 by shayster007

[aGENT]

5 hours ago, Moose Nuckle said:

No it isn't. Jake's game is hitting people. He isn't allowed to hit his teammates. 

 

Easily destroyed this crap narrative. 

 

It's not a double standard, Jake just doesn't play a fancy, soft as jello game like Petey and Hughes. 

But Jake is allowed to hit team mates in practice. Just like Ferland is/did.

 

He didn't get called out for hitting a team mate. He got called out for f'ing up and missing his check and taking his frustration out for doing so, on a team mate.

 

Jake playing hard, fast and physical is what the entire team wants Jake to do in practice and in game. Missing checks and making frustrated, likely to be penalized hits, is not.

[MeanSeanBean]

20 hours ago, lmm said:

the problem with long posts is that it gives too much room to dance around the subject.

If we keep it short, we stay on topic.

At this point we can debate 3 things

1. fisticuffs is good/bad for the team (my arguement, I guess)

2. humiliating a teammate with words is good for the team (that was Shaysters point)

3. Bo's leadership (your response to my post)

 

so no need for me to make a long post until we decide which topic we are debating or we might end out with more topics.

if you want to post your opinion, I will debate your opinion, if you make it sound like fact, I will ask for proof.

If we move on with Bieksa, that fall into  topic 1

but you have not offered any response to my asking for proof about "most times...", so you are just passing on that one? You could just delete that statement, and we move onto Bieksa

 

debates have rules, and these are the rules i am willing to debate under, feel free to add some of your own

name calling is generally frowned upon.

 

or if ou prefer

http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~karchung/debate1.htm

we can use these

My point was adults use words, not fists. If that's how you interpreted what I said, you clearly missed the point entirely.

[Tre Mac]

6 hours ago, Moose Nuckle said:

When I read your comments all I hear in my head is a loud greasy fart, so it seems like you're accurately representing yourself.

[WeneedLumme]

56 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

My point was adults use words, not fists. If that's how you interpreted what I said, you clearly missed the point entirely.

Better get used to that if you are going to respond to that poster.

[MeanSeanBean]

9 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

Better get used to that if you are going to respond to that poster.

Oh I know... Was really surprised to see me personally name dropped in 2 posts over the last few pages. I figured I better step back in and shut this down since the poster wasn't even remotely repressing what I said correctly.

Edited July 22, 2020 by shayster007

[lmm]

2 hours ago, shayster007 said:

" I heard the audio from yesterday but only the video of the Tanev goal.

Personally if Jake was POed because he got walked, I think that is a good thing, and if Horvat doesn't like it he should put his fist in Jake's mouth, not swear at him and tell him to relax."

 

Funny, cause the entire reason this is being debated is because I called you out on saying Horvat should have punched him. Now your first argument is the exact opposite?

the problem with you Shay is that there are gaps in your reasoning and you like to jump on my every comment. I guess I should be flattered, I guess I am flattered.

But there is a large gap between what I said, and what you think I said.

You have taken my comment as," Bo should have skated at full speed and driven his fist through Jakes jaw shattering into 12 pieces and ending Jake's season"

Where as I am thinking more along the lines of Bo skates directly over to Jake applies a slight can opener, takes a fist full of jersey right under Jake's chin and says whatever is on his mind. He could say exactly what he said, the other day, but he need not give us this fodder. No one needed to hear but Jake. 

OK, that is fist on chin not fist in mouth, so I have revised my story. but there is still potential for fist in mouth should Jake decide that is how it should go.

There is about 50 shades of gray between what I write and what you read.

 

And you said, 

"Making a hothead feel stupid for their childish behavior is the best way to handle someone acting out like that"

Now correct me if I have read this wrong, but I read this, "belittling Jake in front of his team mates will make Jake a better player and team guy"

 

Whether that is what you meant or not, I am sticking with swearing at a team mate during a mic'ed  practice is not the best way.

[lmm]

2 hours ago, shayster007 said:

Oh I know... Was really surprised to see me personally name dropped in 2 posts over the last few pages. I figured I better step back in and shut this down since the poster wasn't even remotely repressing what I said correctly.

oh, I see the problem.

When you get above 2 syllables you don't actually know what the words mean

[Moose Nuckle]

Virtanen with a goal and assist, after Peteys terrible showing I guess these pathetic fans will want Petey sent to the minors and traded. Now that Virtanen had a good training camp day he's our top line center!

[MeanSeanBean]

17 minutes ago, lmm said:

oh, I see the problem.

When you get above 2 syllables you don't actually know what the words mean

Straight to the personal attacks again. You're a lost cause.

[Toews]

22 minutes ago, Moose Nuckle said:

Virtanen with a goal and assist, after Peteys terrible showing I guess these pathetic fans will want Petey sent to the minors and traded. Now that Virtanen had a good training camp day he's our top line center!

What can I say? You are right. You are the most diehard of the diehard fans that has ever walked the face of this planet. That makes you a true arbiter of fandom. I vow to you you we will all come to you with our posts so that they meet your approval before we click that submit button. We owe you that honour as we are pathetic and you are the enlightened. Like Moses you will lead us to the promised land!  

Edited July 23, 2020 by Toews

[Moose Nuckle]

58 minutes ago, Toews said:

What can I say? You are right. You are the most diehard of the diehard fans that has ever walked the face of this planet. That makes you a true arbiter of fandom. I vow to you you we will all come to you with our posts so that they meet your approval before we click that submit button. We owe you that honour as we are pathetic and you are the enlightened. Like Moses you will lead us to the promised land!  

Finally someone gets it. 

[lmm]

1 hour ago, shayster007 said:

Straight to the personal attacks again. You're a lost cause.

you crack me up!!

[kingofsurrey]

Virt is one of top 2 way forwards on the club.

He will be a HUGE part of our club the next few years.

 

Lethal combo of speed and size.     He is one of the few forwards that can get in on the forecheck and do some damage.

 

 

[dpn1]

I think that Jake will be on RW beside Gauds.  Just my opinion.  His was solid this season and in the end more suited to be on the third line than Big Mac.  I like Big Mac but see him better on the forth line where he would be great on the right with Beags and Motte.  For what it worth. 

[bree2]

14 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Virt is one of top 2 way forwards on the club.

He will be a HUGE part of our club the next few years.

 

Lethal combo of speed and size.     He is one of the few forwards that can get in on the forecheck and do some damage.

 

 

you mean he could be one of the top 2 way forwards on the team, cause right now he is not. 

[wloutet]

18 hours ago, lmm said:

Where as I am thinking more along the lines of Bo skates directly over to Jake applies a slight can opener, takes a fist full of jersey right under Jake's chin and says whatever is on his mind.

Spoken like someone who has not really played a team sport at a high level. The team captain, and the coaches have ways to get their ideas across without doing what you are suggesting. A team has to run with all players on the same side, not with divisions or name calling or being the tough guy with your own teammate.