Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[Sean Monahan]

36 minutes ago, Conscience said:

the lowered main land

 

[goblix]

14 minutes ago, Conscience said:

No at the time they were better considering skill, hockey iq, points, ceiling and maturity they were better picks. The only advantage jake had was size and physicality.

 

His size and being from the lowered main land is not a good enough reason to have made that pick. It was a bad pick then and now it just looks way worse.

 

Ehlers on his draft year had around 100 points in 50 games in the QMJHL, Virtanen 71 points in 71 games in the WHL.

The Q has been known to be a more offensive league and less structured than WHL that said the points are still in Ehlers favor.

 

However, remember 2 years ago, everyone and I mean everyone was crying for a big body, speed and physical presence, I.E some pushback. Also teams seem to like size and speed combination so that also swings into Virtanen favor, this is arguable for sure.

 

On his scouting report, I did some research for you because it seems people just slam down random opinions and try to pass it as fact. 

The reports below all relate that Virtanen is a physical, fast, quick, powerful, great shot and it even says that he 'has the character traits, work ethic and individual skills to pose a threat'. Sounds like a good power forward pick to me.

 

Based on comparison to Ehlers and Nylander you can make your opinion on who we should've picked at the time (ignoring present accomplishments as that is hindsight) which I would've agreed with you I would have preferred a highly skilled and creative offensive player but to say that it was a bad pick is ridiculous. Jake has all the tools he needs there's no argument against that.

 

 

Quote

A formidable adversary for any challenger, Jake Virtanen is an imposing power forward in the truest sense. Possesses a non-stopping motor and creates an abundance of on-ice energy when throwing his weight around and establishing his physical presence. Exhibits world-class skating ability, and can blow by defenders just as easily as he can go through them. Stands up for his teammates and never backs down from a challenge. Displays a wicked, NHL-level release that challenges goaltenders of all skill levels. Becoming a recognizable asset when playing a more defensive role as well. All-in-all, a physical power forward that has the character traits, work ethic, and individual skills to pose a threat to whoever stands in his way. (Curtis Joe, EP 2015) - See more at: http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=120197#sthash.yIcuXFok.dpuf

Quote

“Jake has undeniable skill. Excellent skater who has speed, quickness and power. Can beat defenders with his skating and when he gets an advantage, his size makes it almost impossible for a defender to get back on equal footing. Very strong shot and can beat goaltenders from out but also has the quickness in his hands to score in tight. Has the potential to be a dynamic scoring winger.” - Craig Button, TSN Director of Scouting

Quote

Physically punishing forward who skates really well with top speed. He goes to the net with abandon, and scores a lot inside the circles. Ultra-aggressive stronger skating attacker who can make plays at top speed, dangle though defenders one on one, and create havoc in the battle areas. Displays a really good release and shot who jumps out at you when you watch him.  --Bill Placzek--

Quote

Virtanen is a complete power forward. He shoots the puck hard and is strong along the boards. His key asset is his great acceleration and speed. Virtanen moves well laterally without gearing down. He can be relied upon in all situations and has a heavy physical presence to his game.
Read more at http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/jake-virtanen/#TV2PYOKRk8c1rAo2.99

 

[Green Building]

20 minutes ago, Sean Monahan said:

the lowered main land

The Lord main lined

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Conscience said:

No at the time they were better considering skill, hockey iq, points, ceiling and maturity they were better picks. The only advantage jake had was size and physicality.

 

His size and being from the lowered main land is not a good enough reason to have made that pick. It was a bad pick then and now it just looks way worse.

Well as long as you say so, it must be true. 

[goblix]

43 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

Considering how badly we want big powerful wingers on this club, people here for the most part were against picking Virtanen and that's saying something.  A player that physically dominant who was only able to get 26 assists in 71 games definitely has some hockey IQ issues.  

 

It's quite simple, if you just pick the player with the better junior stats you have better odds of that player turning out to be a better player (Ehlers)

 

Nylander was already playing pro and some scouts had him as a first overall talent.  Others were comparing his skill set to that of Patrick Kane

 

 

Who cares what the scouts wrote down, they wrote the same crap about Nail Yakupov. Scouts and coaches will be intrigued by a players size and speed and it is evident by the fact that we saw Virtanen display the worst two weeks of WJHC hockey we have ever seen but yet the coaches kept throwing him out there..The only coach who finally had enough was Willie.   

 

People saw this as being a disaster right from the get go and they weren't wrong.  No hindsight needed on this one 

 

I bet you most of those assists were off shots and rebounds too, but is that a bad thing? nah. like I said prior I would've preferred a creative player but that doesn't mean a straight-line shooter is useless.

 

I don't know why I have to keep saying this but just because Nylander and Ehlers are the better players now and seem to be trending into very good NHLers (Ehlers already established) however that doesn't mean Virtanen will be a bad pick, hell Virtanen can still become a better pick but it's likely not (I'm a huge fan of Ehlers). 

 

For the junior stats, not all leagues are equal and not all cases are as simple as taking the player with the highest PPG but usually it is something that you look for in a top 10 pick. 

 

I was proving a point about the scouting report as to what scouts and people in the game saw in Virtanen's game at the time. Clearly if all prospects lived up to their scouting reports and lived up to their junior hype then Daigle, Stefan and Brendl would be all stars of the league.

 

Fact is Drafting is not a perfect science and most of the time it's on the players work ethic and mental aptitude to put the tools together and translate the skillsets to the NHL level, some take longer than others. Theoretically you should hit 100% when drafting top 10 picks but that's not always the case. Jake still has time to steer away from bust territory.

 

On Yak, guess this is another case of players not living up to the hype. Yak had the points to backup the scouting report too so he doesn't really bode well towards your argument... That said I tend to stay away from using Edmonton in any points because they botched everything within those 6 years... 

 

As for those who see this as a disaster from the get go, well, it's not a disaster yet... I keep saying this as well if it takes him 2 more years and he becomes a 40 goal player and 60-80 pts is that a disaster? if he becomes a 20 goal player and a 40-50 pt player is that a disaster ?

...

...

answer? NOPE

Edited February 5, 2017 by goblix

[thrago]

If Jake becomes a 40 point player is it a disaster? No but damn near IMHO. If he isn't 50-70 player in his prime I'd say we did rather poorly in a very good draft with the 6th pick. But we need to wait at least 6 years to know.

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, The 5th Line said:

-1

 

 Admit that he will be an elite top line player or get out.  Take your non-sense elsewhere

I've literally not seen anything close to that sentiment from anyone. 

 

Constant drama queen, crystal balling is why you get neg'd. 

[Conscience]

2 hours ago, Sean Monahan said:

 

Sweet catch man, do you want to edit my papers too or should I compain to Apple about their auto correction? 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Conscience

[Gurn]

4 minutes ago, Conscience said:

Sweet catch man, do you want to edit my papers too or should I compain to Apple about their auto correction? 

Chill, he was probably giving you a bity of a plug, because when you think about it much of the land over there is pretty low.

[aGENT]

51 minutes ago, thrago said:

If Jake becomes a 40 point player is it a disaster? No but damn near IMHO. If he isn't 50-70 player in his prime I'd say we did rather poorly in a very good draft with the 6th pick. But we need to wait at least 6 years to know.

If Jake can learn to play close to a Jannik Hansen with size and put up around 40 points in his prime, I still take him at 6 all day, every day.

 

There's more to hockey than GAP stat lines. 

[Conscience]

1 hour ago, The 5th Line said:

Considering how badly we want big powerful wingers on this club, people here for the most part were against picking Virtanen and that's saying something.  A player that physically dominant who was only able to get 26 assists in 71 games definitely has some hockey IQ issues.  

 

It's quite simple, if you just pick the player with the better junior stats you have better odds of that player turning out to be the better player in the long run(Ehlers)

 

Nylander was already playing pro and some scouts had him as a first overall talent.  Others were comparing his skill set to that of Patrick Kane

 

 

Who cares what the scouts wrote down, they wrote the same crap about Nail Yakupov. Scouts and coaches will be intrigued by a players size and speed and it is evident by the fact that we saw Virtanen display the worst two weeks of WJHC hockey we have ever seen but yet the coaches kept throwing him out there..The only coach who finally had enough was whoever coached him in Calgary(everybody claimed that he hated the Canucks because he wouldn't develop our prospect properly. lol) and Willie Desjardins 

 

People saw this as being a disaster right from the get go and they weren't wrong.  No hindsight needed on this one 

 

That first paragraph and his immaturity gathered from interviews and coaches should be all you need to know.

 

26 assists as a junior player is not the sign of a dominant player, no matter what his play style is.

 

Some people were worried about nylanders size until he went and killed it the draft combine. To me and the majority of cdc, ehlers and nylander were the better picks, hell even ritchie's name came up. And they weren't wrong were they?

[Conscience]

2 hours ago, J.R. said:

Well as long as you say so, it must be true. 

You know it, I know it, everbody knows it!

[Tystick]

23 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

If I am wrong I will be singled out because I am in the minority and I have had the same stance on him for years.  If you are wrong nobody will remember or care.   

 

 Jake will end the season at a ppg pace?  What does that even mean?   

 

Are you not reading what I post?  I am expressing my observations, my opinions.  But apparently I'm a hater and I want Jake to fail?  I'm a die hard fan and I take offense to someone saying that about me.  I'm not mad at Jake I'm mad at management for taking him 6th overall while we sit here and watch Nylander, Ehlers and Ritchie do well.   Sorry for keeping it real and being reasonable.  

Sure people will remember, people quote other posters all the time.

 

PPG pace = Point Per Game pace.

 

I didn't read what you posted specifically, I jumped in because I see people crucifying the kid day after day and it doesn't seem like there's much optimism. Why are the arguments that he's a bust at 20 years old? Sure he's not in the NHL right now. Virtanen, Ehlers, Nylander, and Ritchie are very all very different players and aren't going to progress at the same pace. I expected Virtanen to step right in and make a difference but he clearly still has things to work on.

 

I can go on and on but I guess my point is what's with the mass amount of critique? I'm not saying you're hating specifically, just what appears to be the general bias of people wanting him to fail. I don't get it, what's done is done, he's our guy, and he's making progress. Who cares if he takes a couple years to step into the top 6. Why not support him?

 

I'd recommend being patient, but feel free to critique all you want, I'm not attacking you.

[Junkyard Dog]

A few years in the AHL would do him good.

 

Hopefully his can start to gain some serious traction before the end of the year. That way he'd have something to build on.

 

Hopefully within a few years we can find a stud offensive player that can elevate Jake's game, when he's ready, and Jake, in turn, can complement said stud.

 

Hopefully we can get lucky. It would be nice since luck hasn't been on our side for a while.

 

Until then all we can do is wait, see and speculate.

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

I also see no point in bickering on who we should of drafted or trying to defend Jake. I see no point and am well past that.

 

What's done is done. If you can't get over the fact we have Jake and not one of the other draft mates then you're just going to trigger yourself by dwelling on the past. No point for backwards thinking

 

You can defend Jake to a point but have realistic opinions. Jake will likely not be as prominent as some of his other draft mates. You're gonna end up disappointed if you set too high of expectations.

 

This isn't really directed at anyone in specific.

 

 

 

We just need to take the next best step forward for our future, whatever that may be.

[Tystick]

23 hours ago, Toews said:

Who are these posters? I don't see anyone not rooting for him. Lets face the facts though, he has been outproduced in the AHL by every single forward drafted in the first round except for Bleackley. Bleackley was unsigned by Colorado (who let him go for the 54th overall pick) and he was drafted in the 5th round in this year's draft. That's not at all encouraging.

Their posts are buried in this thread. My apologies if it's no longer happening, I've been discussing Virtanen and the other guys months before we drafted him.

Vivid memories of the insanity.

 

Fair analysis.

The evidence is their, statistically he's not performing up to our standards. Many expected him to take strides this year.

[Tystick]

1 minute ago, The 5th Line said:

It's just a discussion, that's why these forums exist..  As for the mass amount of critique, well there are a few thousand members on this board and we are a passionate bunch so obviously there will be lots of different opinions.  We are an organization who has a dreadful drafting record and this was our most important draft pick in over a decade.  We needed to hit on an elite player 

 

I have never used the word "bust" nor do I ever plan on using that word for a 20 year old.  I am simply trying to explain why and how I think he is unlikely to become the player that he was "projected to be at the time of the draft.  Sub-arguments branch off and eventually it becomes a big cluster *** of stupid arguing but I guess that's kinda just happens when numerous people start debating things on the internet.

 

I know PPG means points per game but what you are saying is Jake will get 30 points in the next 30 games after getting 9 in his first 32?  Like something overnight is just gonna click and all of a sudden he becomes the most dominant hockey player in the league?  

 

 

I feel ya, I just personally believe he can still be that player, it's up to him though.

 

Once again this wasn't directed towards you specifically, I've read the "bust" argument many times, though many throw that term around all the time.

 

What I meant is at the end of the season I believe he will have taken enough strides to be producing at that pace. No specific number of games, just a prediction. I could be wrong. Like I said in my original post, I just wanted to throw it out there cause I feel I'm one of the few left that still believes he's just fine.

 

We'll see what happens

[Sean Monahan]

1 hour ago, Conscience said:

Sweet catch man, do you want to edit my papers too or should I compain to Apple about their auto correction? 

Well somebody should be editing those papers. I hope you're not submitting that sort of quality to any post-secondary institution. Even a secondary institution for that matter.

[alfstonker]

5 hours ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said:

Alfstonker,

 

Subban is a 4th round pick who is just into his second pro season.  He is a midget and was drafted as a long shot and will always remain a long shot. Cassels is also a long shot in his second year pro. These guys were not rushed into the NHL at the age of 18/19.  All drafted players have it all figured out after living life as entitled high school athletes.  If they haven't learned it before the draft, we'll admit our failure and move on. 

 

 

As for character, dude seriously?  Are you for real, character is an inherited trait??????  WTF are you talking about.  Character is about the most taught thing there is, yes some nature can help, but character is a nutured trait.

 

 

Character is learned, thru experience and adversity. That's how you 'build character'. Building character is how it is acquired. Don't know if you have ever heard of that method, it's quite well know. 

 

I guess you had life all figured out at 19/20 or in your case, since you were born into this world. Since you believe that character is inherited.  You never had to learn how to deal with adversity and disappointment and how to overcome mistakes, to improve yourself thru hard work and self  discipline.  

 

Man your parents never had to do anything but contribute some DNA and then make sure you had food shelter and clothing.  You took care of all the rest yourself. No need for teaching, mentoring or coaching.  

 

I usually respect your posts, even when we don't agree, but your above statement is ridiculous.  End rant/

 

EW

 

 

This is not definitive but there is more and more research being done that is pointing to character traits being inherited. I'm not getting into a whole debate on the subject but suffice to say your dismissiveness of what I wrote is a bit arrogant.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/15/health/empathy-genes/

 

When you talk of character it is not a surface condition, what you are referring to are taught habits i.e. a conditioned response which is entirely different. 

 

[HomeBrew]

16 minutes ago, alfstonker said:

This is not definitive but there is more and more research being done that is pointing to character traits being inherited. I'm not getting into a whole debate on the subject but suffice to say your dismissiveness of what I wrote is a bit arrogant.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/15/health/empathy-genes/

 

When you talk of character it is not a surface condition, what you are referring to are taught habits i.e. a conditioned response which is entirely different. 

 

From the source you provided: 

"Oxytocin receptors have been shown to be modified by a person's environment, for example, so life experiences presumably play a large role too, he says."

 

If you want to get into a debate about social determinism, I am more than game to oblige.