Jake Virtanen | #18 | RW

[Hairy Kneel]

2 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

I was thinking the other day, clearly with a time warp issue, that is the Canucks as Virtanen and Guddy in their 2011 lineup in SCF against Bruins, does it go down differently?  

Guddy in for Hamuis (injury) bigger D man

Jake running the Lil Rat  Marchand would take the pressure of the twins.

Yeah I believe so.

But the refs...no.

[Alexandre]

2 hours ago, J.R. said:

They probably both would have been suspended 

 

At the very least penalized into submission.

[Rush17]

11 hours ago, ashlynnbrookefan said:

Why do they have to be trolls? Can't just be upset fans with the way the pick has gone so far? So many people in this thread call people that aren't happy or don't think he will turn out as trolls, which is ridiculous. 73 percent says all the time that Jakes young so we can't get on him and in the same post will say McCann is a bust haha. I hope Jake turns into what was hoped from many on draft day. Do I think that will happen? No. Does that make me a troll? No. I want nothing more than the Canucks to win a cup, and hopefully with Virtanen being a contributor on that squad but I wouldn't bet on it. It would be foolish with what we know and we've seen. Anyone pro Jake that gets angry and defensive at anyone who's disappointed/mad/upset at Jake is foolish. If you're anti Jake then there's no reason to get defensive about someone being pro Jake. No ones opinion on this board means anything in Virtanens reality so we will just have to wait and see who's right. Hopefully it's not me. 

may be trolls was my point. not that all people who dislike the pick to this point.  there are several so called jake haters who do actively engage in troll like acts.  

no one; at least not me accused any specific person ie you or the next person of being a troll. i understand if you want to make a statement against pro jake people who have been labeling. but i wont be changing my opinion. just because your not the troll doesn't mean their are no trolls.

 

#downwiththetrolls :D or not. trolls can be hilarious too lol

[Rob_Zepp]

On 7/12/2017 at 9:30 PM, DeNiro said:

As long as Ehlers and Nylander are better it will be a bad pick in their minds no matter what he does.

 

They don't seem to realize that just because he might not end up putting up big point totals, doesn't mean he can't contribute to games in other meaningful ways.

 

Still a long path of development ahead for him. His future is far from being written. 

There are no guarantees, but one player that Virtanen might emulate is David Backes, who scored 10-13-23 in 49 gp in his rookie season. For Backes though, that was at the age of 22/23, 5 years after he was drafted. He was fully a man and had spent his time post draft developing physically and mentally - just like Virtanen may get to - difference is people are expecting it NOW versus when he will be same as Backes was in his rookie year which Virtanen won't be for 2 more years.   When Backes broke out, it was the season he turned 25 and then he has been a pretty strong and consistent to 6 presence ever since.   

 

Again, no guarantees but yet another example of a player someone could have written off far too early.

[The Lock]

On 7/13/2017 at 1:16 AM, kanucks25 said:

Except it's not really opinion, it's more like fact. Look at Virtanen's post-draft numbers and show me historical precedence that proves he's not already deep into bust territory. His lack of development is extremely concerning, players don't produce this badly and magically turn it around often. If you want to have your head in the sand, that's fine, I guess.

The numbers aren't even there to show he is even in "deep bust territory". That in itself is what an opinion is. Facts are things like statistics and things that have already happened.

 

Claiming a player is a bust is something in the future. It's a hypothesis which is impossible to even substantiate into fact. Straight forward science could even tell you this. Remember formulating those hypotheses and then determining whether it's true or not? You've predicted that Virtanen is a bust. This is your opinion/hypothesis.

 

This is literally high school stuff dude. For the record, I'm not trying to troll or anything. It just gets frustrating when people who seem smart don't understand what an opinion and what a fact actually is. Claiming your opinion is fact is nothing more than giving yourself a false sense of ego. It's fake.

Edited July 15, 2017 by The Lock

[PuckYa]

 

On 7/13/2017 at 0:29 PM, kanucks25 said:

I understand what you mean, but for the most part I considered progression compared to the previous season more than the actual raw numbers. Again, the progression/development we see in most prospects who pan out is the important thing.

 

Doesn't really matter what they can become or what kind of players they are, most take the proper steps forward almost every year towards their prime. Virtanen has taken two steps back since being drafted.

D+2 making it to NHL is not a failure. 

D+3 was under T. Green. T. Green seems to think Jake made strides.

https://www.google.ca/amp/theprovince.com/sports/hockey/nhl/vancouver-canucks/jake-virtanen-put-up-good-possession-numbers-in-utica/amp

 

 

Also if Virtanen's development was going so horrible like YOU say all under T. Green, then why is T. Green promoted to our Head Coach?  

 

I can name more if you like?

 

Kunitz -

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=49486

 

Maroon - 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=105400

 

Kassian - 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=106835

 

Coyle -

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=127797

 

Penner -

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=77717

Edited July 15, 2017 by CoolCanucklehead

[kanucks25]

3 hours ago, CoolCanucklehead said:

D+2 making it to NHL is not a failure.

Never said it was.

 

3 hours ago, CoolCanucklehead said:

D+3 was under T. Green. T. Green seems to think Jake made strides.

Strides are nice. Production would be nicer. Prospects that end up putting points in the NHL usually make strides both with their overall game and stat sheet production.

 

3 hours ago, CoolCanucklehead said:

Kunitz -

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=49486

 

Maroon - 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=105400

 

Kassian - 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=106835

 

Coyle -

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=127797

 

Penner -

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=77717

Not really sure how any of these are good examples of anything related to Virtanen.

 

- Kunitz's 2nd pro year was a slight step back from his 1st but not by much and then he took off.

- Maroon was a very good producer at the AHL level for a long time and put up mostly 3rd liner production throughout his NHL career until he was given time with McDavid

- Kassian showed traditional development through most of his key development years 

- Same goes for Coyle, but an even cleaner path

- Same goes for Penner...

 

8 hours ago, The Lock said:

The numbers aren't even there to show he is even in "deep bust territory". That in itself is what an opinion is. Facts are things like statistics and things that have already happened.

 

Claiming a player is a bust is something in the future. It's a hypothesis which is impossible to even substantiate into fact. Straight forward science could even tell you this. Remember formulating those hypotheses and then determining whether it's true or not? You've predicted that Virtanen is a bust. This is your opinion/hypothesis.

 

This is literally high school stuff dude. For the record, I'm not trying to troll or anything. It just gets frustrating when people who seem smart don't understand what an opinion and what a fact actually is. Claiming your opinion is fact is nothing more than giving yourself a false sense of ego. It's fake.

Maybe, I was unclear.

 

By "already deep into bust territory" I meant he's far down the bust "road" and almost at the destination. I'm not saying he's completely busted yet because he's still 20, does have a lot of "potential" and still has a few key development seasons remaining.

 

"Power-forwards don't break out til 22-23!" is rubbish. A few users in this thread have listed over a dozen names trying to prove it (like above) yet none of them are good comparables for Virtanen. 

 

My opinion is that his post-draft development thus far has been very concerning (I find it baffling that people refute this, but whatever), because the numbers/history suggests that players don't have this much trouble post-draft and still end up breaking out into something spectacular. I'm basing my opinion on a large quantity of historical evidence and not some irrational personal hate for Virtanen or the desire to be a "troll".

Edited July 15, 2017 by kanucks25

[canucklehead44]

On 7/13/2017 at 6:56 AM, kanucks25 said:

 

Bertuzzi: improvement D+1 year, improvement D+2 year, over 0.5 PP in the NHL in D+3.

 

Primeau: entered NHL right after being drafted, took a step every year in his first 5 season.

 

Kreider: decent production for a rookie in the AHL coming out of college, took a step into the NHL the next year, improved on those numbers the year after that.

 

Otto: first pro year at around age 23/24, about the same PPG throughout his first 5 seasons. "Never showed anything in the NHL before 85/86"? Maybe 'cause he only played 17 freakin' games in the NHL up until that point. This one is tough to use as a comparison because we don't see his pre-NHL development.

 

Stevens: straight into the NHL after college, improvement every season.

 

Leclair: straight into the NHL after college, improvement in his 2nd season, 3rd season stagnation and but then took another step.

 

Benn: improvement every season post-draft

 

Do you see the development path most players that end up being successful take? It's not just age, it's production along the way at any level. Now not all players have this neat, linear, upward trajectory but for the most part, players build on their performance from the previous year, leading towards their prime. A player's numbers might regress or pause for one year in there (like Leclair in his 3rd NHL season) but usually it's not as drastic as Virtanen's regression. So now let's compare Virtanen's path:

 

Virtanen: Disappointing D+1 year (very, very slight improvement, usually you wanna see a bigger jump), decent rookie season in NHL in D+2 year, step back in D+3 year as he's demoted to the AHL and barely outproduced his NHL numbers from the year prior. So even if you want to consider his 13 points in 55 games in his first NHL season a success, that's still two disappointing seasons in his first three post-draft seasons.

 

Neely is probably the best comparison (still not accurate, but probably the closest) because he too had a disappointing D+3 season (not as disappointing as Virtanen's, though), and obviously that was too early to give up on him because he broke out right after. I acknowledge he's only 20, and still has time to turn it around, there is no doubt about that.

 

However, again, anybody who thinks Virtanen's development so far has not been concerning is again, simply delusional or just too big of a homer. If he turns it around and becomes even half the player he was drafted to be, I'll be ecstatic, but I'm not expecting much right now.

This. Actually Virtanen I thought had a huge regression in his D+1. While is ppg was up very slightly, dropping from 45 goals in 71 games to 26 goals in 50 games was very worrying. 

 

Also agree that Virtanen barely putting up more numbers in the AHL after a full year in the NHL is pretty worrisome. I am not giving up on him, but he really needs to start showing signs of moving up and not down offensively. Other parts of his game improved, but I'd like more than a decent 4th line player out of him. 

[PuckYa]

9 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Not really sure how any of these are good examples of anything related to Virtanen.

 

- Kunitz's 2nd pro year was a slight step back from his 1st but not by much and then he took off.

- Maroon was a very good producer at the AHL level for a long time and put up mostly 3rd liner production throughout his NHL career until he was given time with McDavid

- Kassian showed traditional development through most of his key development years 

- Same goes for Coyle, but an even cleaner path

- Same goes for Penner...

 

 

 

Again, Virtanen is 20 years old.

 

Kunitz was 27 years old before he played a season in the NHL.

 

Maroon was 26 years old when he made the NHL.

 

Kassian was 23 years old when he played his 1st NHL season.

 

Penner was 25 years old in his 1st NHL season. 

 

Along with all the other dozen players I named you that didn't make the NHL until mid 20's.

All these players have something in common. They took more time than most of their piers did to make it to the show & once they did most have became as valuable or more than the ones who got there earlier than them.

 

I'm not saying he's a guaranteed NHL player but I'm also not going to say that he has no chance to be a top 6 player or something in the middle YET. Way too much development time still on Jakes side.

He could easily be a big part of the puzzle here in years to come whether it's in the top 6 or bottom 6.

 

Jake still has at least 3 more years before you can label him as a failure if we actually go by history of all these players & many many more. 

Edited July 15, 2017 by CoolCanucklehead

[kanucks25]

23 minutes ago, CoolCanucklehead said:

Again, Virtanen is 20 years old.

 

...

Age is not the only factor. You're totally ignoring the natural development curve. All those players may have entered the NHL after turning 20 but, as I pointed out, they progressed every year for the most part regardless of what level they were at (college, junior, AHL). If Jake stayed in junior for both years after being drafted and improved his numbers each year, then had a decent AHL rookie campaign (or even the same one he had this season), it'd be a whole different story.

 

What if Virtanen put up literally zero points every year in his D+1, D+2 and D+3 years? Would you still say "he's only 20 and still has a lot of time to grow"?

 

Now obviously he's put up more than zero points, but he's clearly been on the bad side of production line, and again that is concerning given the typical development curve we see from most successful NHLers.

Edited July 15, 2017 by kanucks25

[The Lock]

4 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Age is not the only factor. You're totally ignoring the natural development curve. All those players may have entered the NHL after turning 20 but, as I pointed out, they progressed every year for the most part regardless of what level they were at (college, junior, AHL). If Jake stayed in junior for both years after being drafted and improved his numbers each year, then had a decent AHL rookie campaign (or even the same one he had this season), it'd be a whole different story.

 

What if Virtanen put up literally zero points every year in his D+1, D+2 and D+3 years? Would you still say "he's only 20 and still has a lot of time to grow"?

 

Now obviously he's put up more than zero points, but he's clearly been on the bad side of production line, and again that is concerning given the typical development curve we see from most successful NHLers.

He's not going to have a natural development curve when he's practically handed a spot in the NHL at the beginning. As a result, there's no way he's going to have a normal development curve when part of it's going to be skewed no matter if he's doing well or not. While I see what you're saying regarding such a curve, because it's skewed in this case, it's not going to be good data regarding his development.

 

I'd actually argue that it's a big question mark at this point because of this change in development. It doesn't mean he's performing poorly. It also doesn't mean he'll make the NHL. It's just.... a question mark.

 

But to compare his curve at this point with other prospects is kind of pointless at this point. He has to find his own.

 

Also, your second paragraph is kind of silly. Rhetorical questions that don't really add anything to the argument are kind of pointless. lol

Edited July 16, 2017 by The Lock

[Gaudette Celly]

 

On 2017-07-14 at 7:37 PM, The Lock said:

This is literally high school stuff dude. For the record, I'm not trying to troll or anything. It just gets frustrating when people who seem smart don't understand what an opinion and what a fact actually is. Claiming your opinion is fact is nothing more than giving yourself a false sense of ego. It's fake.

Dave Pratt acolyte.  Whenever he states his opinions, he tags them with "the fact is" or "there's no question" or "there's no doubt about it", as if saying that magically transforms his opinions into facts.

 

"The fact is, Jake Virtanen is a sure-fire superstar, there's simply no question.  No doubt about it, he'll be a 100-point first-team allstar."  So easy to declare reality, by simply inventing it!  Amazing how that works.

[canucklehead44]

On 7/13/2017 at 5:47 AM, CoolCanucklehead said:

Complete garbage?

hockeydb done just for you. 

 

Most of them were already putting up decent numbers in the NHL at Virtanen's current age.?

REALLY. 

 

 

 

Bertuzzi - Born 1975. Never showed anything in NHL until 1999/2000. (25 YEAR OLD) 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=369

 

Primeau - Born 1971. Never showed anything in NHL until 1993/1994. (23 YEARS OLD) 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=725

 

Kreider - Born 1991. Never showed anything in NHL until 2013/2014. (23 YEARS OLD)  

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=120939

 

Otto - Born 1961. Never showed anything in NHL until 1985/1986. (25 YEARS OLD)  

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=4095

 

Stevens - Born 1965. Never showed anything in NHL until 1989/1990. (25 YEARS OLD) 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=5177

 

LeClair - Born 1969. Never showed anything in NHL until 1992/1993. (24 YEARS OLD) 

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=3036

 

 

 

Virtanen Born 1996. ONLY 20 YEARS OLD. 

 

 

 

 

I think the only relevant comparison there is Kreider. 

 

Bertuzzi did score 18 goals in the NHL as a rookie, Primeau was a PPG in the NHL (if this was the case with Virtanen this discussion wouldn't be happening). 

 

Kreider came from the college route and had a good amount of seasoning before stepping into the AHL. As an AHL rookie he scored less than .5 PPG and almost nothing in the NHL. 

 

I would say next season is pivotal, whether Jake comes into the NHL and scores 10 or sticks around the AHL and scores 25 he has to show some progress. 

[GoBoGo53]

16 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Age is not the only factor. You're totally ignoring the natural development curve. All those players may have entered the NHL after turning 20 but, as I pointed out, they progressed every year for the most part regardless of what level they were at (college, junior, AHL). If Jake stayed in junior for both years after being drafted and improved his numbers each year, then had a decent AHL rookie campaign (or even the same one he had this season), it'd be a whole different story.

 

What if Virtanen put up literally zero points every year in his D+1, D+2 and D+3 years? Would you still say "he's only 20 and still has a lot of time to grow"?

 

Now obviously he's put up more than zero points, but he's clearly been on the bad side of production line, and again that is concerning given the typical development curve we see from most successful NHLers.

And again, even if the examples given of Neely, Bertuzzi, Primaeu were accurate, those are cherrypicking the very best case scenerios for Virtanen. There are hundreds of examples of players that put up similar numbers to Virtanen (thus far, he can still turn it around of course) and don't amount to much at the NHL level. In fact, given his production so far, it's far more likely he turns out to be a 4th liner than he is to become a Bertuzzi/Neely type player. That isn't hating on Virtanen, that is using comparables to judge that there is a far greater likelihood of Virtanen being a 4th liner than Bertuzzi just by the shear numbers of his closest production comparables. 

Take a look at Oskar Lindbolm, Philly prospect taken in the same draft as Virtanen (http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=86181) same age as well.

HIs production suggests he is much more likely to become a top 6 forward than Virtanen. Point being for every Bertuzzi, there is 10 or more powerforwards that don't pan out. 

Edited July 16, 2017 by GoBoGo53

[Boudrias]

9 minutes ago, GoBoGo53 said:

And again, even if the examples given of Neely, Bertuzzi, Primaeu were accurate, those are cherrypicking the very best case scenerios for Virtanen. There are hundreds of examples of players that put up similar numbers to Virtanen (thus far, he can still turn it around of course) and don't amount to much at the NHL level. In fact, given his production so far, it's far more likely he turns out to be a 4th liner than he is to become a Bertuzzi/Neely type player. That isn't hating on Virtanen, that is using comparables to judge that there is a far greater likelihood of Virtanen being a 4th liner than Bertuzzi just by the shear numbers of his closest production comparables. 

Take a look at Oskar Lindbolm, Philly prospect taken in the same draft as Virtanen (http://www.eliteprospects.com/player.php?player=86181) same age as well.

HIs production suggests he is much more likely to become a top 6 forward than Virtanen. Point being for every Bertuzzi, there is 10 or more powerforwards that don't pan out. 

Absolutely true. 

 

The most simplistic approach is to compare ppg between players and forecast comparables as they mature. So many influences come to bear. Was Neely stifled in Van by coaching, were his line mates complimentary, were there personality conflicts? Physical or emotional issues? Some players benefit from a change in teams other view it as failure and regress. Fans never know the full story and often management doesn't either.    

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Boudrias said:

Absolutely true. 

 

The most simplistic approach is to compare ppg between players and forecast comparables as they mature. So many influences come to bear. Was Neely stifled in Van by coaching, were his line mates complimentary, were there personality conflicts? Physical or emotional issues? Some players benefit from a change in teams other view it as failure and regress. Fans never know the full story and often management doesn't either.    

I would rather we kept Jake though, and see what he becomes for us.  Trading him would not be a good idea IMHAO. 

[Rush17]

Jake Virtanen is 20 years old!!! let me repeat that... 20 years old!!!!

 

anyone casting judgement on a 20 year old and calling him a bust or under developed player is an idiot.  I'd like to see how any of us would do in the scrutiny fishbowl that is bc.   ( hope that doesn't get me banned )

 

if you hate on jake. cast judgement on a 20 year old. or anything like that.  read the paragraph above.  i feel so bad for this kid. he is busting his balls to get in shape as a young adult. he can't even drink in the states yet!  come on people wake up and give your head a shake. you are passing judgement on jake as if he is a 23 year old zack kassian.  the sad part is more people came to kassians aid then the hometown 20 yr old from Vancouver. 

 

do we seriously have nothing else to talk about? i think we should compile a list of all the jake haters from this day forward so we can remind people how they once treated this kid.  i understand why some media pundits call a segment of our fans deplorables. show some humility for the kid.

[GoBoGo53]

42 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I would rather we kept Jake though, and see what he becomes for us.  Trading him would not be a good idea IMHAO. 

it would be a terrible idea. You wouldn't get much for him anyway. Keep him, coach him, and hope it works out.

[Diamonds]

2 hours ago, Rush17 said:

Jake Virtanen is 20 years old!!! let me repeat that... 20 years old!!!!

 

anyone casting judgement on a 20 year old and calling him a bust or under developed player is an idiot.  I'd like to see how any of us would do in the scrutiny fishbowl that is bc.   ( hope that doesn't get me banned )

 

if you hate on jake. cast judgement on a 20 year old. or anything like that.  read the paragraph above.  i feel so bad for this kid. he is busting his balls to get in shape as a young adult. he can't even drink in the states yet!  come on people wake up and give your head a shake. you are passing judgement on jake as if he is a 23 year old zack kassian.  the sad part is more people came to kassians aid then the hometown 20 yr old from Vancouver. 

 

do we seriously have nothing else to talk about? i think we should compile a list of all the jake haters from this day forward so we can remind people how they once treated this kid.  i understand why some media pundits call a segment of our fans deplorables. show some humility for the kid.

No one is personally attacking Jake. We have every right as fans to be disappointed with a players development, that doesn't mean that we are saying that they are a bad person and we are also allowed to be wrong.

 

Jake is a 6th overall pick, not a 6th round pick. I don't think anyone is saying he should already be an NHL superstar and if not then he's a bust. But what he has shown so far is disappointing. Yes, there are plenty of players who don't make the NHL until their mid 20's, but they also usually show more than Jake has in their draft+3 seasons, especially top 10 picks.

 

In fact, Jake has the lowest AHL ppg out of all top 10 picks since 2003 (who are forwards) in their draft+3/20-year-old seasons. The closest comparable is probably Zach Hamill who still put up 26 pts in 65 games (compared to Jake's 19 in 65). Even players like Alexandre Picard, Scott Glennie, and Nikita Filatov, who are pretty much consensus busts, fared better at the same age. I can accept the argument for Burmistrov being a comparable as well. And since you brought up Zack Kassian, he put up 26 pts in 30 games in the AHL in his draft+3 season.

 

Jake becoming a top six forward in the NHL at this point in time would not be the norm, but the exception. Yes he is only 20 and there is plenty of time for him to prove himself, but history is not in his favor. As a Canucks fan I have every hope that he will beat the odds and become a successful 2nd line NHL player for us but it is certainly not my expectation.

 

This coming season will probably be very telling in terms of his projection. Hopefully we some nice improvement over last season.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Diamonds
Spelling

[ashlynnbrookefan]

20 minutes ago, Diamonds said:

No one is personally attacking Jake. We have every right as fans to be disappointed with a players development, that doesn't mean that we are saying that they are a bad person and we are also allowed to be wrong.

 

Jake is a 6th overall pick, not a 6th round pick. I don't think anyone is saying he should already be an NHL superstar and if not then he's a bust. But what he has shown so far is disappointing. Yes, there are plenty of players who don't make the NHL until their mid 20's, but they also usually show more than Jake has in their draft+3 seasons, especially top 10 picks.

 

In fact, Jake has the lowest AHL ppg out of all top 10 picks since 2003 (who are forwards) in their draft+3/20-year-old seasons. The closest comparable is probably Zach Hamill who still put up 26 pts in 65 games (compared to Jake's 19 in 65). Even players like Alexandre Picard, Scott Glennie, and Nikita Filatov, who are pretty much consensus busts, fared better at the same age. I can accept the argument for Burmistrov being a comparable as well. And since you brought up Zack Kassian, he put up 26 pts in 30 games in the AHL in his draft+3 season.

 

Jake becoming a top six forward in the NHL at this point in time would not be the norm, but the exception. Yes he is only 20 and there is plenty of time for him to prove himself, but history is not in his favor. As a Canucks fan I have every hope that he will beat the odds and become a successful 2nd line NHL player for us but it is certainly not my expectation.

 

This coming season will probably be very telling in terms of his projection. Hopefully we some nice improvement over last season.

This post is gold. Do I fully believe in Jake? No.  But I want nothing but the best for him and hope I'm wrong. Anyone that says it's stupid to call him a busy should realize it's just as stupid to assume he isn't. Calling him a bust is certainly premature, but post being drafted he's certainly closer to being a disappointment than anything else. People with blind faith in Jake are insane. Hopefully this year everything comes together. If he's a guy that takes until 23 or 24 to develop into what was hoped from him then I guarantee he reaches that potential with another organization. You don't take a guy 6th overall and wait on him for 7 years. Projects shouldn't be drafted close to that high. Let's all just see what this coming season has and we will have an even better understanding of where he's at in his developmental curve. Though I'm not your biggest fan, go Jake go, prove me and whoever else that doesn't have faith in you wrong, please.