Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[WHL rocks]

2 hours ago, JamesB said:

I would think it is hard to laugh when your eyes are bleeding.

As for player projections: Scouts, GMs, coaches, media guys, and fans are constantly making projections about players. That is true for 17-year-olds, 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds, etc. That is what the draft is all about. And that comprises a big part of what gets discussed in the prospect section of CDC. No one says those projections are necessarily right but, at any given time, it is possible to make "best guess" assessments or to talk about how players "appear to be developing".

And, having looked at the data closely, I can say for sure that there is a high correlation between performance at age 18 or 19 and later NHL performance. This is illustrated by data on how draft position translates into NHL performance.  (See, for example,  http://donttellmeaboutheart.blogspot.ca/2014/11/nhl-draft-pick-value-chart.html).

Furthermore, it is a very good sign if players outperform their draft position over the next couple of years (like 19 year-old Dylan Larkin) and a bad sign if they underperform their draft position (like 19 year-old Michael Dal Colle). They are both 19 but there is not a GM, scout, or fan anywhere who would not predict that Larkin will have a better career than Dal Colle. 

Yes there are outliers. Burrows is a big outlier. But outliers are, by definition, different from the general pattern. Assessments at age 19 still have value even if they are sometimes off the mark.

At this stage, given the general pattern, Jake is underperforming his draft position -- not by a lot but definitely underperforming. McCann, on the other hand, is overperforming his draft position, which is a good sign.

Also, while the Sedins have always had their detractors, well-informed opinion never had them as "busts" -- at age 19 or any other age.

Excellent post.

I was listening to 1040 earlier, looks like Weisbrod just showed up at the WJC's and he spoke of Virt being a north south player and that being the reason he's not top line player at the tourney etc. He also said 19 year old could lose his confidence quickly... It was a short clip I heard but to me it seems like Canucks mgmt is a bit concerned with Virtanen's play. That's the feeling I got. 

They should just send him to juniors after that tourney and let him over ripen before bringing him back upto the NHL next year.

Edited December 29, 2015 by WHL rocks

[McCannon]

28 minutes ago, guntrix said:

He responded with a well-informed and educated post and then you retaliate with more useless drivel. 

Are you Jake's dad? Because your posts seem more emotional than anything. 

Actually he argued against himself with the point I highlighted. The fact you can't comprehend that is quite ironic given your commentary.

Edited December 29, 2015 by McCannon

[McCannon]

10 minutes ago, WHL rocks said:

Excellent post.

omg jake is bust folks!! he's played 19 games in the NHL at 19 years old!!! omg omg omg what a bust what a bust!!!

omg omg !!!

 

LMAO

Lack of hockey knowledge on this site is actually unbelievable. You kids better hope you aren't evaluated in your career projection after 19 days on job LOL 

Edited December 29, 2015 by McCannon

[elvis15]

5 minutes ago, McCannon said:

omg jake is bust folks!! he's played 19 games in the NHL at 19 years old!!! omg omg omg what a bust what a bust!!!

omg omg !!!

 

LMAO

Lack of hockey knowledge on this site is actually unbelievable. You kids better hope you aren't evaluated at a real job after 19 days on job LOL - that is one that daddy didn't give you.

It seems like every post you say this (or something roughly the equivalent to IQ levels) - so why do you even come here?

Edited December 29, 2015 by elvis15

[McCannon]

9 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

It seems like every post you say this - so why do you even come here?

Some people can't accept that evaluating a 19yr old hockey player and labelling him a bust (or implying that he will be) at this stage, is absurd.

The fact they do, when he's too good to be in junior, but couldn't go to the AHL because of age reasons says a great deal about their lack of hockey knowledge. Last time I checked Getlzaf and Perry, Carter, Richards all played as 19 yr olds in junior - yet this is not a fair argument to others? LOL. By saying Virtanen is a bust or implying he will be, when he has shown the ability to play at the NHL level but perhaps should have been in the AHL (but couldn't as mentioned), is pure idiocy.

Those are fair comparables and he is arguably outperforming those players at his age by even getting a sniff of the NHL. Should he be in junior, probably given he's not fully ready at the NHL level but he certainly would be better off in the AHL than junior (and likely would be if he was eligible- its well known why the Canucks chose to place him on their roster. He is physically ready and they wanted more control over his development and couldn't send him to the Comets where Benning probably would agree he belongs). Does this mean he's a bust? LMAO not even close.

It really is a sign of immaturity to not understand that development is indeed a process in every profession not just pro sports, but I suppose most gen y's think they know more than everyone, including Benning and Linden clearly lol

I suppose most here think they can do a better job, interesting really, I find it funny.

Edited December 29, 2015 by McCannon

[WHL rocks]

8 minutes ago, McCannon said:

omg jake is bust folks!! he's played 19 games in the NHL at 19 years old!!! omg omg omg what a bust what a bust!!!

omg omg !!!

 

LMAO

Lack of hockey knowledge on this site is actually unbelievable. You kids better hope you aren't evaluated in your career projection after 19 days on job LOL 

Welcome to CDC. You'll notice most of us are here because we enjoy the game and discussing the team. Most people here aren't looking for arguments or to put down other people's opinion.

Relax and do some reading. Get to know some of the regular posters and then make up your mind on who has hockey knowledge and who doesn't. You're jumping the gun a bit. There are guys who've been on here for many years, give it some time and get to know them a bit, at least a couple of months before calling others out.  

[Caknuckle Puck]

Power forwards take longer to develop 

[WHL rocks]

1 minute ago, Caknuckle Puck said:

Power forwards take longer to develop 

True, as do Dmen. 

[guntrix]

14 minutes ago, McCannon said:

 

Those are fair comparables and he is arguably outperforming those players at his age by even getting a sniff of the NHL. 

Wat.

JVs case is different in that he was brought up despite not being ready for the NHL. 

His closest comparable is averaging over PPG in the AHL. I'm sorry but that's simply better than what Jake's achieved this year. Being in the NHL does not automatically make Jake's season a more successful one, especially considering what he's accomplished. 

[McCannon]

3 minutes ago, Caknuckle Puck said:

Power forwards take longer to develop 

I don't think even evaluating a kid at 19 years old power forward or not makes sense

A month ago, people were calling Baer a bust. Now the same people are saying wow wow look at baer he;s coming alive. He's got what 3, 4 years and AHL experience over Virtanen.

This kid is not Bure lol - he's not going to come in and show what he did in junior immediately for many reasons.

1. The coaches asked him to develop other parts of his game, that's what he focused on its VERY evident

2. He's getting 6-8 minutes a game and no real offensive ice time

3. He's learning to adjust to the speed, responsibility, the league, etc

4. He's YOUNG

5. Look around the league- how many 19 year olds step in and make an impact, I'd guess around 3% if you're lucky and they tend to be the first 2-3 picks 

6. I mentioned his draft peers in another post and yet many bashers here say you can't use others as comparables? LOL Look at his draft year, on a ppg basis he's in the same range excluding Ekblad, Larkin and McCann, and just by making the NHL he's ahead. One person argued that Nylander being in the AHL vs NHL is not fair - of COURSE it is. Is the NHL not harder? If Nylander is SOO much better why isn't he in the NHL then? these people want to cherry pick their arguments. 

Should Virt be in the AHL - probably but I am playing devils advocate on many of my points that refute these bashers and yet they can't handle it because it points out the absurdity of their arguments.

[Sean Monahan]

Just now, guntrix said:

Wat.

JVs case is different in that he was brought up despite not being ready for the NHL. 

His closest comparable is averaging over PPG in the AHL. I'm sorry but that's simply better than what Jake's achieved this year. Being in the NHL does not automatically make Jake's season a more successful one, especially considering what he's accomplished. 

Who's that? 

[McCannon]

5 minutes ago, guntrix said:

Wat.

JVs case is different in that he was brought up despite not being ready for the NHL. 

His closest comparable is averaging over PPG in the AHL. I'm sorry but that's simply better than what Jake's achieved this year. Being in the NHL does not automatically make Jake's season a more successful one, especially considering what he's accomplished. 

What's a tougher league the NHL or AHL? Leafs suck yet Nylander isn't in the NHL - logic says virt is better then son - I'm not saying he's better but you get the point right? And the point is its way to early to judge any player then right? because logic says if Nylander is in the AHL and a ppg well there are tons of ppg AHL superstars than never make the NHL, and Jake already showed he can at least compete at this level - get the point? its about obtuse logic.

What is the word by the way not 'wat'

Jake was brought up because the people who understand hockey and player development better than you or I felt he's too good for junior but couldn't go to the AHL THE SAME DECISION WAS MADE FOR CARTER, RICHARDS, GETZLAF, PERRY yet they were sent back right?

So 'waaat' - I guess my logic holds

Edited December 30, 2015 by McCannon

[guntrix]

1 minute ago, McCannon said:

What's a tougher league the NHL or AHL? Leafs suck yet Nylander isn't in the NHL - logic says virt is better then son

What is the word by the way not 'wat'

Jake was brought up because the people who understand hockey and player development better than you or I felt he's too good for junior but couldn't go to the AHL THE SAME DECISION WAS MADE FOR CARTER, RICHARDS, GETZLAF, PERRY yet they were sent back right?

So 'waaat' - I guess my logic holds

You're too blinded by your own rage to even see the point. 

Jake was not elegible for the AHL, Nylander was. In Jake's case, it was either go back to a badly managed Hitmen team or go with the Canucks. 

Had Jake been elegible, you'd bet your ass that he would be in the AHL right about now. Considering his play ever since being drafted, it's safe to say that he would not have over a PPG season in the AHL. 

He is not automatically better than someone like Nylander just because he's in the NHL. If you think otherwise, then you have some serious partiality issues. 

[Canorth]

7 minutes ago, Wild Sean Monahan said:

Who's that? 

You would think he means Nick Ritchie since he's the only similar player as Virtanen and has actually played in the NHL. However, since Nick Ritchies ppg average is half of Virtanen in the NHL - I suspect he's trying to compare him to Nylander.

[guntrix]

2 minutes ago, Canorth said:

You would think he means Nick Ritchie since he's the only similar player as Virtanen and has actually played in the NHL. However, since Nick Ritchies ppg average is half of Virtanen in the NHL - I suspect he's trying to compare him to Nylander.

Yeah, draft-wise. Should've been more specific. 

[Sean Monahan]

Just now, Canorth said:

You would think he means Nick Ritchie since he's the only similar player as Virtanen and has actually played in the NHL. However, since Nick Ritchies ppg average is half of Virtanen in the NHL - I suspect he's trying to compare him to Nylander.

Unfortunately that's what I thought. 

[McCannon]

10 minutes ago, guntrix said:

You're too blinded by your own rage to even see the point. 

Jake was not elegible for the AHL, Nylander was. In Jake's case, it was either go back to a badly managed Hitmen team or go with the Canucks. 

Had Jake been elegible, you'd bet your ass that he would be in the AHL right about now. Considering his play ever since being drafted, it's safe to say that he would not have over a PPG season in the AHL. 

He is not automatically better than someone like Nylander just because he's in the NHL. If you think otherwise, then you have some serious partiality issues. 

I think you and the poster above need to slowly read my post and understand the logic son

I don't rage over hockey players, its a sport, its a game. You feel the need to be 'right'. No one is right, time will tell who is 'right'

But here is some spoonfeeding

1. Yes Jake was not eligible for the AHL but the reason he was put in the NHL was because people with better hockey knowledge than anyone here felt he's too good for the WHL.

2. If they could have sent him to the A, they likely would have

3. The NHL is a tougher league than the AHL, if Nylander was SO much better, well by LOGIC, HE WOULD BE IN THE NHL WOULDN'T HE?

4. Many players who have succeeded in the NHL have gone back to junior at 19 I have named a number - that same decision was made for them and Jake may indeed be sent back, great if so.

5. Many players who have become stars have played at 19 in junior a year or two in the AHL, in fact the majority have, the majority have NOT jumped straight into the NHL

SO THE POINT IS ITS TOO DAMN EARLY TO JUDGE ANYTHING - YOU PEOPLE DON'T GET HOW I AM SHOWING FALACY IN YOUR LOGIC BECAUSE.....well I know the answer to that...you likely are unable to admit to that reality

Edited December 30, 2015 by McCannon

[RonMexico]

2 minutes ago, McCannon said:

I think you and the poster above need to slowly read my post and understand the logic son

I don't rage over hockey players, its a sport, its a game. You feel the need to be 'right'. No one is right, time will tell who is 'right'

But here is some spoonfeeding

1. Yes Jake was not eligible for the AHL but the reason he was put in the NHL was because people with better hockey knowledge than anyone here felt he's too good for the WHL.

2. If they could have sent him to the A, they likely would have

3. The NHL is a tougher league than the NHL, if Nylander was SO much better, well by LOGIC, HE WOULD BE IN THE NHL WOULDN'T HE?

4. Many players who have succeeded in the NHL have gone back to junior at 19 I have named a number - that same decision was made for them and Jake may indeed be sent back, great if so.

5. Many players who have become stars have played at 19 in junior a year or two in the AHL, in fact the majority have, the majority have NOT jumped straight into the NHL

SO THE POINT IS ITS TOO DAMN EARLY TO JUDGE ANYTHING - YOU PEOPLE DON'T GET HOW I AM SHOWING FALACY IN YOUR LOGIC BECAUSE.....well I know the answer to that...you likely are unable to admit to that reality

LOUD NOISES!

[guntrix]

9 minutes ago, McCannon said:

I think you and the poster above need to slowly read my post and understand the logic son

I don't rage over hockey players, its a sport, its a game. You feel the need to be 'right'. No one is right, time will tell who is 'right'

But here is some spoonfeeding

1. Yes Jake was not eligible for the AHL but the reason he was put in the NHL was because people with better hockey knowledge than anyone here felt he's too good for the WHL.

2. If they could have sent him to the A, they likely would have

3. The NHL is a tougher league than the NHL, if Nylander was SO much better, well by LOGIC, HE WOULD BE IN THE NHL WOULDN'T HE?

4. Many players who have succeeded in the NHL have gone back to junior at 19 I have named a number - that same decision was made for them and Jake may indeed be sent back, great if so.

5. Many players who have become stars have played at 19 in junior a year or two in the AHL, in fact the majority have, the majority have NOT jumped straight into the NHL

SO THE POINT IS ITS TOO DAMN EARLY TO JUDGE ANYTHING - YOU PEOPLE DON'T GET HOW I AM SHOWING FALACY IN YOUR LOGIC BECAUSE.....well I know the answer to that...you likely are unable to admit to that reality

1. Is that what you think? Could it be that he was criminally misused in Calgary? He is definitely not too good for junior. That much is clear. 

2. Exactly, but they couldn't. And they were not about to send him back to Calgary this year (see above). 

3. Because of the notion of taking it slowly. Not every club is ready to drop their prospect into the shark tank. Detroit, for example, has a number of prospects that are probably more NHL-ready than Jake but they take it slowly. Putting a prospect that's not ready into the big leagues will drastically lower their confidence and has been proven to hinder development. 

4,5 I agree, Jake should simply not be in the NHL. He never should have been.

Edited December 30, 2015 by guntrix

[McCannon]

12 minutes ago, guntrix said:

1. Is that what you think? Could it be that he was criminally misused in Calgary? He is definitely not too good for junior. That much is clear. 

2. Exactly, but they couldn't. And they were not about to send him back to Calgary this year (see above). 

3. Because of the notion of taking it slowly. Not every club is ready to drop their prospect into the shark tank. Detroit, for example, has a number of prospects that are probably more NHL-ready than Jake but they take it slowly. Putting a prospect that's not ready into the big leagues is will drastically lower their confidence and has been proven to hinder development. 

4,5 I agree, Jake should simply not be in the NHL. He never should have been.

Benning and Linden had one choice Junior or the NHL. They felt he was ready physically which he is for the NHL and I would wager they would have preferred to send him to the AHL if they could have.

They have stated many times that they wanted more control over his development, so they had one choice right? So am I smarter than benning are you? are 17yr olds who play NHL 16? NO....they will do what's best for him.

It's very easy to criticise in hindsight, but given what we saw from him physically he is indeed much too good for Junior.That point is important. Why? because many people here are failing to understand what he NEEDS TO DEVELOP.

1. The NHL is a faster game with bigger players, the biggest adjustment for most players is the speed.

2. What this means is, players such as Jake who could dominate physically in junior both because of his size and speed got what in junior? MORE SPACE AND TIME

3. This extra space and time gives him what? better looks at the net, more time to release his shot, easier ability to get to the hard spots and more time to shoot and look or make a decision when he's there in that spot right? So he scores more right?

4. When he starts playing against men in the NHL or stepping stone AHL what happens? That time and space is gone. Its harder to get to those spots, he has less time to release, less time to make the shot, pass, dump decision right? So what happens? He needs to learn to adjust his game to address this so here's the kicker that many don't seem to understand

5. Sending him to junior simply engrains habits that don't help him at the next level, at the faster pace. Jake NEEDS TO DEVELOP HIS ABILITY TO MAKE FASTER OFFENSIVE DECISIONS , to get to the dangerous spots and release faster in order to score at the NHL level (outside of the defensive side of the game). In the NHL and AHL he learns that because his physical skills don't let him dominate the same way as in junior.

THAT SIR, IS WHY BENNING WANTS HIM IN THE NHL - he will learn what HE needs to learn better here, rather than pick up bad habits in junior where what he needs to learn can't be learned.

Edited December 30, 2015 by McCannon