messier's_elbow Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 This guy has no physical weaknesses. I dont know why some people were so pissed after we selected him. His only knock is his so called lack of iq by the haters. He had 45 goals as a 17 year old his iq is just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonny_Bohonos_14 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 This guy has no physical weaknesses. I dont know why some people were so pissed after we selected him. His only knock is his so called lack of iq by the haters. He had 45 goals as a 17 year old his iq is just fine. If by 'haters' you mean scouts and analysts, then yes. Jake wasn't my first choice, but I'll support him as long as he's a Canuck. To quote another Canuck prospect 'it is what it is.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) What has he done lately? That over quoted sentence should never be used for someone who is only 22! You do know that when someone goes from 20 to 22 that it doesn't take 4 years right? And to throw Booth into the mix? NO player should ever be compared to Booth. Did you ever catch any of his interviews? Even Torts called him out for being weird. That being said; I do see a lot of similarities in their on-ice game. However, I always thought Booth could have consistently put up those numbers if he had his head right. I don't see the mental warnings yet for Virtanen. I see a kid who is absolutely obsessed with the game of hockey, and has been his whole life.isn't Schroeder like 22? Should we keep giving him chances? Listen I'm not saying he's a bad player. I know hes a very good player. But calling him a 30 goal scorer is the same as calling booth a 30 goal scorer and Kesler a 40 goal scorer and Clarkson a 30 goal scorer. Edited July 9, 2014 by Gooseberries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messier's_elbow Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 If by 'haters' you mean scouts and analysts, then yes. Jake wasn't my first choice, but I'll support him as long as he's a Canuck. To quote another Canuck prospect 'it is what it is.' Enlighten me please. What scouts and legit analysts are saying it was a bad pick by the Canucks? Looks like the only one was Button, and he started back tracking big time as the draft came along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonny_Bohonos_14 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Enlighten me please. What scouts and legit analysts are saying it was a bad pick by the Canucks? Looks like the only one was Button, and he started back tracking big time as the draft came along. I never said he was a bad pick or even that scouts were saying it was a bad pick, but questions did arise about his hockey IQ. Edited July 9, 2014 by Lonny_Bohonos_14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niloc009 Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Enlighten me please. What scouts and legit analysts are saying it was a bad pick by the Canucks? Looks like the only one was Button, and he started back tracking big time as the draft came along. Not the best pick possible =/= Bad pick I was in the Nylander/Ehlers boat, I'm disappointed that we picked Virtanen, but I'm not bashing or hating the kid. That's what I see everyone else as too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yogolol Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 isn't Schroeder like 22? Should we keep giving him chances? Listen I'm not saying he's a bad player. I know hes a very good player. But calling him a 30 goal scorer is the same as calling booth a 30 goal scorer and Kesler a 40 goal scorer and Clarkson a 30 goal scorer. Schroeder hasn't accomplished anything at the NHL level so don't even try to compare him to Kane, Idk why you have your hate on for Kane right now but comparing him to Clarkson and concussion head Booth just proves you don't know what youre taking about, he's a way better player than those 2 (if you watched him at all you would know that) and he has put up solid numbers on a very bad jets team 41 points in 66 games last year, 33 points in 48 games in the lockout, i wouldnt be surprised at all if he puts up 30 next year in fact im expecting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Schroeder hasn't accomplished anything at the NHL level so don't even try to compare him to Kane, Idk why you have your hate on for Kane right now but comparing him to Clarkson and concussion head Booth just proves you don't know what youre taking about, he's a way better player than those 2 (if you watched him at all you would know that) and he has put up solid numbers on a very bad jets team 41 points in 66 games last year, 33 points in 48 games in the lockout, i wouldnt be surprised at all if he puts up 30 next year in fact im expecting it.again I'm not saying he's a bad player but calling a player on one good season is like calling Henrik sedin a second liner due to last season. Kane is a good player he is by no means great. Again calling Kane a 30 goal scorer is the same as calling Clarkson a 30 goal scorer. Do you consider JVR a 30 goal scorer? Probably not. When he puts up 2 or 3 in 5 or 6 years you can call him that. Oh and if he is as spectacular as some of you say why did peg have him in the press box while they were vying for a playoff spot? And why are the jets so eager to rid of him? Edited July 9, 2014 by Gooseberries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD_FISH Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) again I'm not saying he's a bad player but calling a player on one good season is like calling Henrik sedin a second liner due to last season. Kane is a good player he is by no means great. Again calling Kane a 30 goal scorer is the same as calling Clarkson a 30 goal scorer. Do you consider JVR a 30 goal scorer? Probably not. When he puts up 2 or 3 in 5 or 6 years you can call him that. Oh and if he is as spectacular as some of you say why did peg have him in the press box while they were vying for a playoff spot? And why are the jets so eager to rid of him? You must have missed the original argument. It was about potential. Not being a 30 goal scorer. That was just an example I used because its so rare that a 20 year old accomplishes it. When trying to judge potential you have to look at the body of work, up to that point. So that was the example that jumped out to me. I have herd many experts predict Kane to be a special talent and peg him as a possible perennial 40 scorer. At his age group I urge anyone to find a player with more upside based on his skill set. So when I read people saying that Virtanen has MORE potential than Kane I have to assume that they don't know what they are talking about. In hindsight I probably should have left it alone because to me its not even an argument. Edited July 10, 2014 by JD_FISH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 You must have missed the original argument. It was about potential. Not being a 30 goal scorer. That was just an example I used because its so rare that a 20 year old accomplishes it. When trying to judge potential you have to look at the body of work, up to that point. So that was the example that jumped out to me. I have herd many experts predict Kane to be a special talent and peg him as a possible perennial 40 scorer. At his age group I urge anyone to find a player with more upside based on his skill set. So when I read people saying that Virtanen has MORE potential than Kane I have to assume that they don't know what they are talking about. In hindsight I probably should have left it alone because to me its not even an argument.ya I doubt virtanen ever suprpases kane in talent haha. It just bothers me when people refer to kane like he is already a perennial 40 goal scorer when th jets don't even want him in their linup. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgerKing Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 (edited) ugh. Already had a major injury and surgery, and he is not even in the NHL. Only 26 assists and his numbers were inflated by a carreer year by his overage line mate. Just because he's a local kid. Stupid reason to draft him. So far this management has disappointed. his teammates`numbers were by no means exceptional, I think it`s his potential that excited the canucks, if he was a month younger he would not even have been eligiable for the draft, for the kind of team Benning wants to build he was the right choice, you look at the teams having success, they are full of big tough north americans. Ritchie was an option but he reportedly has disipline issues. If he pans out you are looking at a guy like Kreider or Dustin Brown. Edited July 10, 2014 by BurgerKing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyllenhaal Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 ugh. Already had a major injury and surgery, and he is not even in the NHL. Only 26 assists and his numbers were inflated by a carreer year by his overage line mate. Just because he's a local kid. Stupid reason to draft him. So far this management has disappointed. You obviously know nothing about Virtanen. He rarely played with Greg Chase and Brady Brassart. He was on the second line with constantly shifting line mates and on the 2nd PP the majority of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaudette Celly Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 You obviously know nothing about Virtanen. He rarely played with Greg Chase and Brady Brassart. He was on the second line with constantly shifting line mates and on the 2nd PP the majority of the season. Yeah, so it's no surprise really that he took matters into his own hands. All those even-strength goals with weak linemates? Makes sense that he "didn't use them" and that the perception was that his hockey IQ might be lacking. Even if it were to some degree true, it's his natural skill, speed, size, balance, grit, and desire that will carry him along very well. Most bigger kids at that age don't have near the coordination yet, part of what takes power forwards longer to develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unknown33429 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Not the best pick possible =/= Bad pick I was in the Nylander/Ehlers boat, I'm disappointed that we picked Virtanen, but I'm not bashing or hating the kid. That's what I see everyone else as too. Ehlers would have been a massive risk. Nylanders would been less risky, but Jake's athleticism is unreal. In regards to his hockey IQ, he may not be the best playmaker, but he scores most of his goals by driving hard to the net (at least that's what I've heard; haven't actually seen him play). Basically, his "lack" of hockey IQ can be an advantage because he'll end up playing hockey in a way that may be more beneficial for his build. My two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vneckjersy Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Yeah, so it's no surprise really that he took matters into his own hands. All those even-strength goals with weak linemates? Makes sense that he "didn't use them" and that the perception was that his hockey IQ might be lacking. Even if it were to some degree true, it's his natural skill, speed, size, balance, grit, and desire that will carry him along very well. Most bigger kids at that age don't have near the coordination yet, part of what takes power forwards longer to develop. Sounds like Kesler. Unable to make a pass if his life depended on it. Maybe Jake just doesn't know how to use his linemates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
messier's_elbow Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 This guy will make the haters look silly in a few years. This kids a beast. Legs like tree trunks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niloc009 Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Ehlers would have been a massive risk. Nylanders would been less risky, but Jake's athleticism is unreal. In regards to his hockey IQ, he may not be the best playmaker, but he scores most of his goals by driving hard to the net (at least that's what I've heard; haven't actually seen him play). Basically, his "lack" of hockey IQ can be an advantage because he'll end up playing hockey in a way that may be more beneficial for his build. My two cents. Agreed, they're both high risk/high reward (anywhere from bust to 1st liner), but I see Jake as a medium risk/medium reward (anywhere from 4th liner to 2nd liner). While having a near guaranteed NHLer in the system, we're lacking in potential top liners, only having Shinkaruk (maybe) and McCann/Horvat (depending on who you ask). I thought it was time to take a risk and shoot for someone to replace the twins in the future, but if management wants more of the Boston model with no elite scoring wingers but a multitude of 50 point guys, that's fine too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post hydro2053 Posted July 10, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted July 10, 2014 For what it's worth, I watched Jake play while he lived in Langley as an 8 yr old for 4 or 5 years. He was an exceptional talent and was untouchable. His skill level was miles above anyone else. I was in awe of the way he owned the game and many of us parents felt he was destined for the NHL. For him to get drafted so high AND for it to be the Canucks is an incredible opportunity and I couldn't be happier for him and his family. So cool to see him and his parents at the draft. For those of you questioning his IQ...fear not as when he plays with talented linemates this will not be an issue. On a personal note, Jake was always a polite young man when hanging out with my son and I wish him, Brigitte and Rainer all the best 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wshdrvvn Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Agreed, they're both high risk/high reward (anywhere from bust to 1st liner), but I see Jake as a medium risk/medium reward (anywhere from 4th liner to 2nd liner). While having a near guaranteed NHLer in the system, we're lacking in potential top liners, only having Shinkaruk (maybe) and McCann/Horvat (depending on who you ask). I thought it was time to take a risk and shoot for someone to replace the twins in the future, but if management wants more of the Boston model with no elite scoring wingers but a multitude of 50 point guys, that's fine too. i was in the nylander camp but i've come around to virtanen. i'm hoping they go after first line potential in next years draft. its going to be a deep and talented draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thad Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 i was in the nylander camp but i've come around to virtanen. i'm hoping they go after first line potential in next years draft. its going to be a deep and talented draft. Don't count out jake, he's got first line winger tools. Kids got a better shot than most nhlers already. When he's 25 he could be bangin in 40 goals with that speed, shot and toughness. He's got the attitude and swagger for it too. I'm thinking this kids going to be one of our next allstars. Just a hunch but he's got his hometown behind him, I got a feeling he's gonna be the one that exceeds all expectations and goes to stardom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now