Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[Phat Fingers]

14 hours ago, Borvat said:

I'm not on the bust train.  Just need to be convinced he has top six potential. Doesn't mean he won't be a regular NHL player some day. It's up to him, as I said above I am pulling for him.

 

I agree Utica is the place for him, I said this at the beginning of the year. He should remain there until he starts producing consistently to ensure he gets a solid foundation and won't regress when he hits some adversity.  Some players take longer and need more development time.  

 

 

Sorry,

 

 

Didnt mean to but you on the 'bust train'.  I started to reply, then came back after a while and finished, then was thinking of another posters comments. 

 

Glad to agree with you. 

 

EW

[Phat Fingers]

18 hours ago, DeNiro said:

 

Players drafted top 10 find a way to produce no matter what teams they're on. You don't think Ehlers would be lighting up the AHL right now? We need to stop,making excuses for this guy.

 

I only hope they learn from their mistakes in the future. Hockey IQ should be at the forefront of players they draft. You can't simply be wowed by a players skating and physical play. Those kinds of players can be found in later rounds. We need to be taking elite offensive talent with top 10 picks.

 

Tkachuk was my guy. Him and Boeser would have been great playing alongside Horvat. And yes Juolevi could potentially be that number 1 D-men we've been looking, but Tkachuk was a lock to be a top 6 player, something we also need badly.

 

I don't think this team can afford to role the dice on potential right now. They need the sure things, and I don't think Virtanen or Juolevi represented that. That's ,my thoughts anyways, I hope I'm wrong about both.

IQ is very important, but don't forget that Hodgson and Schoeder were drafted largely based on their precieved high IQ. 

 

Lots of reasons to contrast and compare prospects, but in fairness, the clock is still ticking.  Jake could be still in Junior as an overager this year.  It's not like he is done and is a lost cause. 

 

Really hard to gauge his progress or regress based on his jump to pro early. Not the best move from

the organization and management.  I have speculated on what reason they had, but one bad season in the NHL and rough start to the AHL is not the end all be all of a person or player. 

 

I will join you in a year on the bust train, but not before. 

 

 

EW

[canucklehead80]

49 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

How about all of them?  Jensen, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Pedan plus all of the later round picked guys..  Grenier, Archibald, Zalewski etc Don't use Markstrom or Baertschi as examples because they weren't with Green for very long.  Gaunce is the one prospect who was actually groomed by Green and come on, the kid couldn't score his way out of a paper bag.  Subban is next in line to fail...  Hutton, Stetcher, Baertschi, Horvat, Granlund, Tryamkin are our young guys and NONE of them truly developed in our farm system.  You know what's actually quite funny?  Even Megna and Chaput were developed in another organization and they are two borderline NHL'ers that every team should have in their farm system, but we still had to go out and acquire them from somewhere else.  

 

I hope Jake does well, I can't imagine it would be very fun walking around Abbotsford and being known as the kid who got picked high by the Canucks and ended up busting.

 

Green harping on the defensive and positional side of Jake's game, that's great and all but this kid desperately needs to learn how to put up some numbers.  By the time he gets the defensive side of the game figured out, he will have that much less room to grow offensively.  8 points in 36 AHL games?  Really?  When has a forward drafted in the top 10 ever tracked this poorly?

Gaunce===Rookie playing 4th line minutes, and playing good responsible hockey. 50% on face-offs. Would like to see more production and hopefully it comes soon, but its not really expected of him in his current role. 

 

Cassels====3rd round pick in his 2nd pro season. 1st pro year was wasted due to recovering after major surgery and little off season training (playing catchup). How many 3rd rounds picks blossom after a 1 1/2 years pro?

 

Subban====4th round pick in his 2nd season of pro. I'm so tired of people writing him off as a bust or as done with the Canucks. Our D is much deeper than it was last season. He still has more to learn/develop down on the farm. He is only 21. A long ways from being a bust or done. Does it really matter if he were to spend another year or 2 in Utica? There is little room for him at this time anyway. By the time he is ready there will either be a spot ready for him to take or he will have more value as trade bait. 

 

Biggest problem these days is nobody has any patience and want results "Now". Always seems like our young guys who haven't have the opportunity or time to prove themselves are always getting ripped apart for what they haven't done instead of getting excited about what they could do in the future.

[aGENT]

23 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

I responded to J.R who said "you couldn't be more wrong about Jake imo".  

To clarify, my comment was clearly (or so I thought) in regards to your comments on him needing to learn to play a complete game.

 

1 hour ago, The 5th Line said:

Green harping on the defensive and positional side of Jake's game, that's great and all but this kid desperately needs to learn how to put up some numbers.  By the time he gets the defensive side of the game figured out, he will have that much less room to grow offensively.

 

This ^^ sentiment is nonsense IMO. Just as it was when WD was insisting Baer need to play a complete game and half of CDC was screaming "buuuutttt HH eeeZZZ Offennnnnsssse Plaaaayyyyerzzzz!! NeededddZZZZZZZ PP annnnd OOOfeennnssssivvvVVe StarttttttZTZZZ!"

 

And lo and behold....when he started playing a complete game, he started getting more chances. When he did that WD gave him more opportunity. With those two things he then got more production! 

 

Shockingly, when you insist players develop a complete, NHL level game, they actually.... improve!

 

 

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, The 5th Line said:

You're pretty immature for someone who is what?  40?  50? 

 

I responded to J.R who said "you couldn't be more wrong about Jake imo".   I have been 100% correct about everything that has happened with Jake thus far, so when someone tells me I "couldn't be me wrong about Jake"  obviously im going to defend myself. 

 

The only reason you are using these capital letters is because you are looking for the attention.  You want everybody to see your post.  Go back to the Eriksson thread and reply to my post that you conveniently ignored 

 

 

The only reason I am using capital letters is to emphasize the self congratulatory tone you were taking.

 

I'm the only one snivvel whine complain

 

Sadly, no.  You and MANY others had/have concerns about Virtanen, but you seem to be one of the few delighting in trying to prove your superiority over everyone by drawing attention to it

1 hour ago, BlackBeard said:

same can be said about you

Sorry if your feeling is hurt.  Go get a ribbon elsewhere.

 

I am not a nice person

[canuckledraggin]

1 hour ago, The 5th Line said:

How about all of them?  Jensen, Shinkaruk, Cassels, Pedan plus all of the later round picked guys..  Grenier, Archibald, Zalewski etc Don't use Markstrom or Baertschi as examples because they weren't with Green for very long.  Gaunce is the one prospect who was actually groomed by Green and come on, the kid couldn't score his way out of a paper bag.  Subban is next in line to fail...  Hutton, Stetcher, Baertschi, Horvat, Granlund, Tryamkin are our young guys and NONE of them truly developed in our farm system.  You know what's actually quite funny?  Even Megna and Chaput were developed in another organization and they are two borderline NHL'ers that every team should have in their farm system, but we still had to go out and acquire them from somewhere else.  

 

I hope Jake does well, I can't imagine it would be very fun walking around Abbotsford and being known as the kid who got picked high by the Canucks and ended up busting.

 

Green harping on the defensive and positional side of Jake's game, that's great and all but this kid desperately needs to learn how to put up some numbers.  By the time he gets the defensive side of the game figured out, he will have that much less room to grow offensively.  8 points in 36 AHL games?  Really?  When has a forward drafted in the top 10 ever tracked this poorly?

Wow that post set off quite the $h!t storm. Let's go through your list shall we. Those 1st 2 were traded so Greens ability to develop them is over, but both of them have played games in the NHL this year. Jensen was traded to get a more NHL ready Etem and Shinkaruk, whose arms most likely still look like toothpicks was traded for Granlund and you probably have a problem with that too I suppose.

 

Cassels is still a work in progress, but he took a huge jump from last year to this one and that won't show up on the stats sheet so you wouldn't know about it. Pedan was a 3rd rounder who was traded for a 3rd round pick and he does need to get some games before the end of the year, but Biega needs to get 6 more games in before the trade deadline in case anyone comes inquiring about one of our defenseman in a trade. I believe this may be the one lineup decision that Benning might interfere with, but WD has a reluctance to try new things, so that could be all on him. You left Biega off your list as well and IMO he should be in the AHL, but you can't deny that Green developed him from the ground up.

 

Grenier is maybe the only guy that legitimately could be put on that list, because of his size and offensive instincts, but he has also played games at the NHL level. He was still a 3rd rounder, who played as soft as butter before TG started coaching him. Archibald and Zalewski seriously? Also both of whom have played NHL games and were undrafted 

 

Why would I not mention the biggest turnaround success stories in our franchise Baertschi and Markstrom? Both of those guys were on their way to busting their way back to Europe before going to Utica. Is it a coincidence that Baertschi was a scoring machine for the Portland Winterhawks and then found his game in the AHL under the same coach? Baertschi and Conacher were the players responsible for putting up points during the Comets playoff run, and Markstrom cleared waivers that same year. TG rode Markstrom like a rented mule and got his confidence level up to heights that it had never been in Florida.

 

Jake should be the one guy who TG gets judged on and we will see if he gets a callup this year or if we have to wait until next training camp to see what he has learned. I'm hoping that TG gets his opportunity next year with the Canucks, because there is no way he signs a new deal to coach the Comets next season. I like his demeanor and the fact that he is not very far removed from playing in the NHL. I'd love to see what he can do with a team that has actual NHL level talent.

[HotDogHorvat]

First post on this site so be nice! I do have the best name here though but I am not related to the kid or his dad! LOL

 

On Jake a few comments that I have regarding his play, future, and expectations.

 

Firstly, I was one of many who felt Nylander or Ehlers was a better choice at draft day. I mentioned this to many friends at the time and its not that I don't see what Benning liked about Jake's 'toolkit' but rather, at that time, and still today, we really needed to find a replacement for the 'elite' skill of Hank and Danny. Bo is part of that equation, and likely Boeser, Demko, and Juolevi (hopefully) in other areas but we still need more top end skill. I don't think anyone could argue that.

 

Now, Jake was expected to bring and could still bring a VERY important group of skills to our team and future cup chances, that being a big, speedy, physical presence that has hands. The concern with many (who aren't 'haters') is a fair argument that we're not seeing the type of progression we'd hoped for.

 

The concerns of many here are valid, questions on maturity (Which can change), comittment to training (which can change), hockey IQ, and more importantly competitive fire and attitude. Jake has all the tools to be a very good NHL'er, elite, maybe not, but can he be a top 6 simply on his skills and an effort of the type a Burrows or Hansen puts in? Certainly, because those guys, while they may have higher 'hockey IQ's' certainly didn't when they came into the league. They were grinders with hard hands who worked their tails off and learned the game. Jake has much more natural ability than those 2 started with. The issue again, is does he have the attitude and mindset to compete as hard as he must to become a player worthy of not only his draft selection but of the expectations Benning and Co had for him when they chose him.

 

To those saying "Power forwards take time', I would argue this is a bit of an overused generalization. Every player develops differently, Baerschi took time and isn't a power forward. Its a mentally lazy excuse for why Jake has not shown the development we'd hoped for to this stage (and I am realistic as he is only 20)- and it really is just being an apologist for his lack of commitment and effort.Such arguments are (IMHO) an attempt to deflect from real and fair criticisms of this young man (as is the complaint that  'well they mismanaged him'. Mismanagement aside, it should never impact effort and Jake's commitment and effort have not been there on and off the ice we all KNOW that - look at Bo, look at Try and how they managed to prove they belong or at least want to belong-that is commitment and effort). That being said,many and most players take time so its not just power forwards, anyone suggesting otherwise is just making nonsensical comments and is probably just anti-jake so take such comments with a grain of salt. Thus, the take time point is moot in my view, power forward or not, most players take time to develop, only generational players do not. Getzlaf, Perry took a year in junior plus the AHL, Kesler, Burrows, Hansen, Hell even the twins were not really ready for 2 years post a year in the SEL for NHL Play. Look at Mantha on Detroit (clearly has always been a better player than Jake) but he spent 3 years stewing in the AHL, finally comes up and the kid is a monster. Anyone arguing he's a bust at this stage is really arguing nonsense.

 

That being said there still is alot of FAIR criticism of Jake. What Jake or any professional in any arena cannot control is outcome and the time it takes to become good at their craft, but what he (or anyone) CAN control is effort and desire. This is where I think many critics have a valid argument. We just haven't seen anything from Jake on a consistent basis that has shown how "BADLY" he wants to be an NHL player (irrespective of being an impact player).

 

I remember this quote from an interview during his draft year, and as someone who has interviewed many young professionals in a highly demanding career path, it actually worried my when I heard rumblings about us drafting him, the question was this :

 

"A kid goes into a draft interview and the Florida Panthers ask: “If you were in the military, would you pilot an attack helicopter, be a medic or a sniper?”

Interesting question. See, if you’re the pilot, the inference is you’re in command, comfortable with the responsibility for taking others into and out of danger. If you’re the medic, you put others ahead of yourself and risk your life to save theirs. And if you’re the sniper, well, you might score 50 goals and lead your army to the Stanley Cup and get medals on your chest and those gold, fringy things on the shoulders of your uniform.

What in the world was Jake Virtanen to say?

“When they were asking the question, I was thinking about that,” Virtanen says. “But I just went with sniper because I’m a goal-scorer and I love scoring. I said sniper and they thought it was pretty funny.

It was all fun.”

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Abbotsford+Jake+Virtanen+stoked+idea+being+Canuck/9971180/story.html

 

To me this question was to see if this player 1. Had the smarts to even know what the team was asking about 2. To see if he's a team player. That's a question we would ask in our process and it tells you two things - even if he's not a team player is he smart enough to give you the right answer!

 

By suggesting the word sniper (and some here may think I am reading to deep but believe me I am not, this is why they asked that question-they are digging into his psyche), he is saying 1) I am a lone wolf 2) I want to be recognized as the key guy 3) By not answering that he'd be the pilot , the leader who is guiding the mission and ensuring the safety of his team or 4) the medic, the guy who is just there to serve his team in the face of danger, it tells you a great deal about him. It tells you his attitude is not 'team first' but me first.

 

Now what's interesting is when I read this years ago, it worried me, and sure enough what are we seeing now is a young man who seems to believe he 'should' be the star of the show. This has to change before we see any real change in his game and to me that is the biggest issue with this young man. It's mental.

 

I really hope being in Utica away from the distractions of buddies and partying in Vancouver and the impact of Green can help this young man learn what it takes to be a professional anything. I love the skills Jake has, I think he can be a key contributor for the future core group and as importantly his skill set will be needed in that core group.

 

That being said, it really is up to him how he develops as its about effort and committment. Talent only gets you so far in this world, as they say genius is 98% sweat. I think those of us who aren't happy with Jake are not 'on him because we didn't draft Nylander or Ehlers' and how they have progressed, but rather we don't see the committment by Jake to become what he can become and that is, at least to me, the most concerning aspect of this young man's trajectory to date.

 

I

Edited January 13, 2017 by HotDogHorvat

[N4ZZY]

18 hours ago, messier's_elbow said:

Being disappointed is one thing but saying he will fail to make the NHL at 20 is beyond stupid.

I'm not saying he will fail. I'm saying that if Virtanen isn't teachable, then he isn't going to make it. 

I'm hoping of course he's teachable, but i'm on the fence as well. Jake's posture, attitude has to convince me otherwise....

 

[canuckledraggin]

2 minutes ago, N4ZZY said:

I'm not saying he will fail. I'm saying that if Virtanen isn't teachable, then he isn't going to make it. 

I'm hoping of course he's teachable, but i'm on the fence as well. Jake's posture, attitude has to convince me otherwise....

 

Don't forget facial expressions...

[Hectic]

26 minutes ago, HotDogHorvat said:

First post on this site so be nice! I do have the best name here though but I am not related to the kid or his dad! LOL

 

On Jake a few comments that I have regarding his play, future, and expectations.

 

Firstly, I was one of many who felt Nylander or Ehlers was a better choice at draft day. I mentioned this to many friends at the time and its not that I don't see what Benning liked about Jake's 'toolkit' but rather, at that time, and still today, we really needed to find a replacement for the 'elite' skill of Hank and Danny. Bo is part of that equation, and likely Boeser, Demko, and Juolevi (hopefully) in other areas but we still need more top end skill. I don't think anyone could argue that.

 

Now, Jake was expected to bring and could still bring a VERY important group of skills to our team and future cup chances, that being a big, speedy, physical presence that has hands. The concern with many (who aren't 'haters') is a fair argument that we're not seeing the type of progression we'd hoped for.

 

The concerns of many here are valid, questions on maturity (Which can change), comittment to training (which can change), hockey IQ, and more importantly competitive fire and attitude. Jake has all the tools to be a very good NHL'er, elite, maybe not, but can he be a top 6 simply on his skills and an effort of the type a Burrows or Hansen puts in? Certainly, because those guys, while they may have higher 'hockey IQ's' certainly didn't when they came into the league. They were grinders with hard hands who worked their tails off and learned the game. Jake has much more natural ability than those 2 started with. The issue again, is does he have the attitude and mindset to compete as hard as he must to become a player worthy of not only his draft selection but of the expectations Benning and Co had for him when they chose him.

 

To those saying "Power forwards take time', I would argue this is a bit of an overused generalization. Every player develops differently, Baerschi took time and isn't a power forward. Its a mentally lazy excuse for why Jake has not shown the development we'd hoped for to this stage (and I am realistic as he is only 20)- and it really is just being an apologist for his lack of commitment and effort.Such arguments are (IMHO) an attempt to deflect from real and fair criticisms of this young man (as is the complaint that  'well they mismanaged him'. Mismanagement aside, it should never impact effort and Jake's commitment and effort have not been there on and off the ice we all KNOW that - look at Bo, look at Try and how they managed to prove they belong or at least want to belong-that is commitment and effort). That being said,many and most players take time so its not just power forwards, anyone suggesting otherwise is just making nonsensical comments and is probably just anti-jake so take such comments with a grain of salt. Thus, the take time point is moot in my view, power forward or not, most players take time to develop, only generational players do not. Getzlaf, Perry took a year in junior plus the AHL, Kesler, Burrows, Hansen, Hell even the twins were not really ready for 2 years post a year in the SEL for NHL Play. Look at Mantha on Detroit (clearly has always been a better player than Jake) but he spent 3 years stewing in the AHL, finally comes up and the kid is a monster. Anyone arguing he's a bust at this stage is really arguing nonsense.

 

That being said there still is alot of FAIR criticism of Jake. What Jake or any professional in any arena cannot control is outcome and the time it takes to become good at their craft, but what he (or anyone) CAN control is effort and desire. This is where I think many critics have a valid argument. We just haven't seen anything from Jake on a consistent basis that has shown how "BADLY" he wants to be an NHL player (irrespective of being an impact player).

 

I remember this quote from an interview during his draft year, and as someone who has interviewed many young professionals in a highly demanding career path, it actually worried my when I heard rumblings about us drafting him, the question was this :

 

"A kid goes into a draft interview and the Florida Panthers ask: “If you were in the military, would you pilot an attack helicopter, be a medic or a sniper?”

Interesting question. See, if you’re the pilot, the inference is you’re in command, comfortable with the responsibility for taking others into and out of danger. If you’re the medic, you put others ahead of yourself and risk your life to save theirs. And if you’re the sniper, well, you might score 50 goals and lead your army to the Stanley Cup and get medals on your chest and those gold, fringy things on the shoulders of your uniform.

What in the world was Jake Virtanen to say?

“When they were asking the question, I was thinking about that,” Virtanen says. “But I just went with sniper because I’m a goal-scorer and I love scoring. I said sniper and they thought it was pretty funny.

It was all fun.”

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Abbotsford+Jake+Virtanen+stoked+idea+being+Canuck/9971180/story.html

 

To me this question was to see if this player 1. Had the smarts to even know what the team was asking about 2. To see if he's a team player. That's a question we would ask in our process and it tells you two things - even if he's not a team player is he smart enough to give you the right answer!

 

By suggesting the word sniper (and some here may think I am reading to deep but believe me I am not, this is why they asked that question-they are digging into his psyche), he is saying 1) I am a lone wolf 2) I want to be recognized as the key guy 3) By not answering that he'd be the pilot , the leader who is guiding the mission and ensuring the safety of his team or 4) the medic, the guy who is just there to serve his team in the face of danger, it tells you a great deal about him. It tells you his attitude is not 'team first' but me first.

 

Now what's interesting is when I read this years ago, it worried me, and sure enough what are we seeing now is a young man who seems to believe he 'should' be the star of the show. This has to change before we see any real change in his game and to me that is the biggest issue with this young man. It's mental.

 

I really hope being in Utica away from the distractions of buddies and partying in Vancouver and Green can find a way to help this young man learn what it takes to be a professional anything. I love the skills Jake has, I think he can be a key contributor for the future core group and as importantly his skill set will be needed in that core group.

 

That being said, it really is up to him how he develops as its about effort and committment. Talent only gets you so far in this world, as they say genius is 98% sweat. I think those of us who aren't happy with Jake are not 'on him because we didn't draft Nylander or Ehlers' and how they have progressed, but rather we don't see the committment by Jake to become what he can become and that is, at least to me, the most concerning aspect of this young man's trajectory to date.

 

I

Great first post! +1. 

 

I agree with the points you made. I'll go a bit further and say that I think Benning and co. drafted Virtanen for the reasons you stated, in addition to him being a local kid. The way they've treated him and advertised him extensively as a big part of our future, in my opinion, has instilled a sense of entitlement in him, and it's unfortunate that this happened. A tour of his place, all the media being fixated on him, coupled with the "sniper" type personality that he has = recipe for potential failure. Any other draft pick with such high status on our team ever get treated like this? 

 

Looking at Ehlers, Nylander, Fabbri, Larkin, Pastrnak.. of course hindsight is 20/20. But when you look at the fact that this is a local kid, and the way things have been going, I'm not really looking forward to JV being a middle 6 F (perhaps a 20G 50P guy) when the reasons for drafting him and overlooking the other options was because he was a local kid. I know it's early to give up on prospects, but I would be absolutely stoked if JB had the courage to trade Gudbranson and Virtanen for Landeskog or Duchene. He won't do it, but that's the type of trade that I would totally be on board with, and feel the organization needs to take it to the next level. Essentially our 2014 1st round (Virtanen + McCann) for a top 3 pick - makes sense to me. 

[HotDogHorvat]

12 minutes ago, Hectic said:

Great first post! +1. 

 

I agree with the points you made. I'll go a bit further and say that I think Benning and co. drafted Virtanen for the reasons you stated, in addition to him being a local kid. The way they've treated him and advertised him extensively as a big part of our future, in my opinion, has instilled a sense of entitlement in him, and it's unfortunate that this happened. A tour of his place, all the media being fixated on him, coupled with the "sniper" type personality that he has = recipe for potential failure. Any other draft pick with such high status on our team ever get treated like this? 

 

Looking at Ehlers, Nylander, Fabbri, Larkin, Pastrnak.. of course hindsight is 20/20. But when you look at the fact that this is a local kid, and the way things have been going, I'm not really looking forward to JV being a middle 6 F (perhaps a 20G 50P guy) when the reasons for drafting him and overlooking the other options was because he was a local kid. I know it's early to give up on prospects, but I would be absolutely stoked if JB had the courage to trade Gudbranson and Virtanen for Landeskog or Duchene. He won't do it, but that's the type of trade that I would totally be on board with, and feel the organization needs to take it to the next level. Essentially our 2014 1st round (Virtanen + McCann) for a top 3 pick - makes sense to me. 

I am not sure how much of the local kid aspect played into their decision vs his 'toolbox'. I don't think anyone can argue that his tools, if can put them together, would make him an impact player in the NHL

 

We've seen him destroy men 8 years his senior with hits as a 19 yr old, be one of the fastest players on our team, and snipe some really nice goals. I actually never thought he was a 'bad pick' at 6 but rather not OUR best pick.

 

But my view on why Benning chose him is not because he was local, but because of the above - an incredibly physical, fast winger who could score. Those players come playoff time are not only gold but platinum if they manage to become solid NHL'ers. If Jake can live up to the REASON they drafted him, I personally think he adds a very valuable dynamic to this core - so I get why Benning made the choice.

 

On the 'pumping up is ego' side, I never thought of that but yes, clearly they didn't read his personality very well and it could have contributed to his already existing entitlement attitude - but again to me that's still a bit of deflection. At the end of the day, Jake or anyone is responsible for their own effort, attitude and achievement, blaming how he's handled (which I know you are not doing), is really a cop out. I think the promotional stuff was marketing, it helps people connect to the team having local kid, but it wasn't a driving reason for selecting him nor can be even argued as a fair reason for his lack of effort and preparedness.

Edited January 13, 2017 by HotDogHorvat

[NEON.KNEE]

man this thread is terribad...It needs to be deleted and restarted, and should only be filled with updates on Jake Virtanen's progress...Not board members all bringing their magnifying glass to the measuring contest... This is officially the worst thing CDC has to offer.

[Warhippy]

12 minutes ago, NEON.KNEE said:

man this thread is terribad...It needs to be deleted and restarted, and should only be filled with updates on Jake Virtanen's progress...Not board members all bringing their magnifying glass to the measuring contest... This is officially the worst thing CDC has to offer.

Just gonna leave this here 

[iinatcc]

The whole "Power Forwards" take longer do develop is said a lot in these forums but I feel like even comparing Virtanen to his contemporaries his progress has been falling behind. If you look at the top NHL power forwards today  Wayne Simmonds, Mark Stone , Milan Lucic. Chris Kreider, and Kyle Okposo and where Virtanen is you can tell Jake is way behind where he should be at. At least in the AHL level he should at least be at 0.5 PPG player. 

[JamesB]

1 hour ago, iinatcc said:

The whole "Power Forwards" take longer do develop is said a lot in these forums but I feel like even comparing Virtanen to his contemporaries his progress has been falling behind. If you look at the top NHL power forwards today  Wayne Simmonds, Mark Stone , Milan Lucic. Chris Kreider, and Kyle Okposo and where Virtanen is you can tell Jake is way behind where he should be at. At least in the AHL level he should at least be at 0.5 PPG player. 

It is said a lot but it is not true. There was a fairly detailed analysis of this point in another thread in the recent past that, in my view, was pretty much definitive. Also for what it is worth I have downloaded the entire NHL.com and done quite a few checks on this point. It is not obvious how you define "power forwards" for the purposes of statistical analysis but if we say they tend to be big wingers who make more hits than average and/or take more penalties than average (or any other permutation that we think might correspond to being a power forward) those guys do not develop any later than other forwards.

 

Some guys are late bloomers but most high end forwards (power forwards or small playmakers or whatever) show more than Jake has by their draft+3 year. Body type has nothing to do with it. We just have to hope that Jake is a late bloomer. 

[saucypass]

14 minutes ago, JamesB said:

It is said a lot but it is not true. There was a fairly detailed analysis of this point in another thread in the recent past that, in my view, was pretty much definitive. Also for what it is worth I have downloaded the entire NHL.com and done quite a few checks on this point. It is not obvious how you define "power forwards" for the purposes of statistical analysis but if we say they tend to be big wingers who make more hits than average and/or take more penalties than average (or any other permutation that we think might correspond to being a power forward) those guys do not develop any later than other forwards.

 

Some guys are late bloomers but most high end forwards (power forwards or small playmakers or whatever) show more than Jake has by their draft+3 year. Body type has nothing to do with it. We just have to hope that Jake is a late bloomer. 

Just a guess but were you referring to my post where I gathered stastical data on the first 3 years of every PWF or PWF-like players' progress and their eventual point production value?

[saucypass]

The Kyle Beach we never had.

 

Jokes, I'm really hoping he becomes the Joel Ward we never had. Late bloomer PWF. 

[guntrix]

4 hours ago, NEON.KNEE said:

man this thread is terribad...It needs to be deleted and restarted, and should only be filled with updates on Jake Virtanen's progress...Not board members all bringing their magnifying glass to the measuring contest... This is officially the worst thing CDC has to offer.

If this thread were dedicated to reporting on his progress, it'd be empty. Not just because there's so few of us who actually watch the Utica games but because he's actually regressed play-wise. 

 

Forums are about expressing views and opinions about said topics and that's pretty much what makes them entertaining. It's no coincidence that this thread and the Burrows thread have been two of the hottest threads on this forum since their inception. 

[shiznak]

I don't understand why management and the coaching staff are so hell-bent on developing Jake into a two-way player. He's never been that great in the defensive zone and probably never will be. It's like trying to teach a cat, dog tricks. It's less likely he's going to improve, no matter how much they try to teach him. Thus, hindering his offensive skillset and confidence to be successful in the NHL. They need to forget this whole 200-foot game, let him make his mistakes, and give him every opportunity to play in the offensive zone.

[iinatcc]

40 minutes ago, shiznak said:

I don't understand why management and the coaching staff are so hell-bent on developing Jake into a two-way player. He's never been that great in the defensive zone and probably never will be. It's like trying to teach a cat, dog tricks. It's less likely he's going to improve, no matter how much they try to teach him. Thus, hindering his offensive skillset and confidence to be successful in the NHL. They need to forget this whole 200-foot game, let him make his mistakes, and give him every opportunity to play in the offensive zone.

Maybe the felt after further evaluation he doesn't have much of a offensive upside?