Was Virtanen mismanaged here?

[JM_]

11 minutes ago, oldnews said:

this question, likewise, makes no sense.

I'm doubtful you read the post you responded to - and if you did, you missed the point - not sure what kind of answer you're looking for, but the 'answers' to these questions are in that post.

OK. 

 

I guess I'm not as impressed on those numbers as you and a few others. Given the amount of focused coaching time and attention you'd expect a lot more out of a 6th oa pick in his 5th pro year. 

[oldnews]

34 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

OK. 

 

I guess I'm not as impressed on those numbers as you and a few others. Given the amount of focused coaching time and attention you'd expect a lot more out of a 6th oa pick in his 5th pro year. 

Being "impressed" is not the metric though  -  I'm assessing his actual minutes - relatively/in context - not expecting top 6 production in them = which isn't realistic.  You can focus on his draft position if you will - I think it clouds the decision about what to do with/about the player.

 

His defensive and physical numbers are better than most people realize - or should have expected - from a 'top 6' type prospect.  He's being developed unconventionally, period - I see the value in it.  There are two sides of the game - and roles - so assessing a player based on their role and the context of their play - is more representative than abstract expectations, and not only do players not develop in parallel linear ways, but all players also don't develop on parallel timelines.   This team has had a pretty solid history of this form of development - from players like Kesler, Hansen, Burrows to this generation where guys like Virtanen and Motte could likewise climb up the lineup from bottom six development. 

 

Virtanen's draft pedigree isn't really relevent at this point - it's history.  Pedigree means nothing.  I wouldn't make the mistake of 'expectations'.   Were 'expectations'  what encouraged teams to move players like Neiderreiter prematurely?  He scored 3 pts in his first 64 NHL games on the 4th line of a bad team, and they dumped him for Clutterbuck.  Couturier never scored more than 15 goals until he was 25 (he had deflated numbers by virtue of his deployment early in his career).....He was an 8th overall who didn't crack 40 pts until his mid 20s (in more significant minutes than Virtanen).   The point is not to make a 'comparable' of these players - but to illustrate that 'expectations' can get in the way of seeing the player.  Dal Colle and Sam Bennett - the two players taken before Virtanen - had 12 pts each this season.  Nick Ritchie - taken 10th in that draft, had 21 pts this year.  Perlini, taken 12th, had 10 pts.  Draft position means nothing at this point - what matters is whether the player has more to give, or not.  I'd take Virtanen's chances of upticking over many - but my 'expectation' that he's capable of more is based on his performance in his minutes, not his pedigree.

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Being "impressed" is not the metric though  -  I'm assessing his actual minutes - relatively/in context - not expecting top 6 production in them = which isn't realistic.  You can focus on his draft position if you will - I think it clouds the decision about what to do with/about the player.

 

His defensive and physical numbers are better than most people realize - or should have expected - from a 'top 6' type prospect.  He's being developed unconventionally, period - I see the value in it.  There are two sides of the game - and roles - so assessing a player based on their role and the context of their play - is more representative than abstract expectations, and not only do players not develop in parallel linear ways, but all players also don't develop on parallel timelines.   This team has had a pretty solid history of this form of development - from players like Kesler, Hansen, Burrows to this generation where guys like Virtanen and Motte could likewise climb up the lineup from bottom six development. 

 

Virtanen's draft pedigree isn't really relevent at this point - it's history.  Pedigree means nothing.  I wouldn't make the mistake of 'expectations'.   Were 'expectations'  what encouraged teams to move players like Neiderreiter prematurely?  He scored 3 pts in his first 64 NHL games on the 4th line of a bad team, and they dumped him for Clutterbuck.  Couturier never scored more than 15 goals until he was 25 (he had deflated numbers by virtue of his deployment early in his career).....He was an 8th overall who didn't crack 40 pts until his mid 20s (in more significant minutes than Virtanen).   The point is not to make a 'comparable' of these players - but to illustrate that 'expectations' can get in the way of seeing the player.  Dal Colle and Sam Bennett - the two players taken before Virtanen - had 12 pts each this season.  Nick Ritchie - taken 10th in that draft, had 21 pts this year.  Perlini, taken 12th, had 10 pts.  Draft position means nothing at this point - what matters is whether the player has more to give, or not.  I'd take Virtanen's chances of upticking over many - but my 'expectation' that he's capable of more is based on his performance in his minutes, not his pedigree.

thats all fair. The Neiderreiter comp is an interesting one.... thats probably how someone trading for him would be viewing him. Looking at his stats I can see what you're getting at: https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/n/niedeni01.html

 

 

 

 

[CanucksJay]

If Virtanen wants to stay in his home town, i think he's gotta visit JB at the office and beg for a 1 year show me contract and then go into beast mode for off season training and show up at camp in the best shape of his life. 

If he doesn't, he'll most likely be traded. 

I guess we'll see how much he 

1) wants to stay in Vancouver 

2) wants to be a star player

 

Look at our boy Tony. Growing up in Richmond and signing a contract with the Canucks was probably a childhood dream. If only he had Jake's size and speed....

Edited September 14, 2020 by CanucksJay

[Baggins]

3 hours ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

Honestly, I don't care where he succeeds so long as he succeeds. If he's a Kunitz or a Maroon, so be it. Enough with the politics, place him where he succeeds.

A coaches job is to get the most out of the players he's given. That's not politics. What's being asked of Jake is well within the toolbox he already has. He just doesn't seem to want to put in the effort. If he played like Motte, which is the way they've been trying to get him to play, he'd be a top six shoe in because he's bigger, faster, and has a better shot than Motte. Meaning the tools are already there, he just needs to use them. He just doesn't have the commitment and drive Motte has to be the best he can. The proof is in the pudding. He's come into camp in poor shape two of his five seasons. Then again after the lockdown. As the cherry on top he went out partying during a pandemic just prior to entering the bubble with his teammates. No commitment to his job. Should any coach or GM ignore this? 

 

I've preached patience with Jake for his first four seasons. But I've come to the conclusion he's not very bright and he's lazy to boot. He had a natural ability that required minimal effort in junior: He could simply overpower other kids with his size and speed to score. Have you noticed he doesn't try to deke defenders with skating or stickhandling? He's not a playmaker or great passer. Those skills require practice and effort. The defensive side of the game also requires work. It's just tougher to learn that side. He was succeeding in junior on one ability and saw no need to work on others. In other words he never really had to work hard and had no desire to do so. That lazy approach hasn't seemed to change much. He has improved his defensive play but I wouldn't put my trust in him in that department. And honestly that's the only minor improvement I've seen in five seasons. Watching games you can plainly see the effort and drive of players like Bo, Petey, Miller, Pearson, and Boeser at both ends of the ice. Do you see that consistent level of compete from Jake at either end? That's the reason they are top six and Jake isn't. It's also the reason he's verging on being expendable.

 

What am I missing that your seeing?

[Baggins]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

Being "impressed" is not the metric though  -  I'm assessing his actual minutes - relatively/in context - not expecting top 6 production in them = which isn't realistic.  You can focus on his draft position if you will - I think it clouds the decision about what to do with/about the player.

 

His defensive and physical numbers are better than most people realize - or should have expected - from a 'top 6' type prospect.  He's being developed unconventionally, period - I see the value in it.  There are two sides of the game - and roles - so assessing a player based on their role and the context of their play - is more representative than abstract expectations, and not only do players not develop in parallel linear ways, but all players also don't develop on parallel timelines.   This team has had a pretty solid history of this form of development - from players like Kesler, Hansen, Burrows to this generation where guys like Virtanen and Motte could likewise climb up the lineup from bottom six development. 

 

Virtanen's draft pedigree isn't really relevent at this point - it's history.  Pedigree means nothing.  I wouldn't make the mistake of 'expectations'.   Were 'expectations'  what encouraged teams to move players like Neiderreiter prematurely?  He scored 3 pts in his first 64 NHL games on the 4th line of a bad team, and they dumped him for Clutterbuck.  Couturier never scored more than 15 goals until he was 25 (he had deflated numbers by virtue of his deployment early in his career).....He was an 8th overall who didn't crack 40 pts until his mid 20s (in more significant minutes than Virtanen).   The point is not to make a 'comparable' of these players - but to illustrate that 'expectations' can get in the way of seeing the player.  Dal Colle and Sam Bennett - the two players taken before Virtanen - had 12 pts each this season.  Nick Ritchie - taken 10th in that draft, had 21 pts this year.  Perlini, taken 12th, had 10 pts.  Draft position means nothing at this point - what matters is whether the player has more to give, or not.  I'd take Virtanen's chances of upticking over many - but my 'expectation' that he's capable of more is based on his performance in his minutes, not his pedigree.

But what about matchups? Can a sheltered player show good advanced stats with the variables of who you play with and against regardless of the zone they start in? If so it's not fair comparison to those with higher ice time in more difficult match ups. Even d-zone starts can mean less when you're #2 in the league at faceoffs. The d-zone becomes rather easier when you start with possession. There just seems a lot of variables that can have an effect. I don't think any stats, even points, tell the whole story. Many pundits of advanced stats actually say they are more accurate judging a team as a whole rather than individuals.

 

For me it's more about watching the games than the stats. Stats are a tool but don't tell the whole story, and I'm not entirely sold on advanced stats tbh. Can you just look at stats without watching games and accurately assess a players value and performance? What I see from our core top six is 100% effort and drive at both ends of the ice. Petey is pretty much the pinnacle of commitment and drive on the entire rink - consistently. Can you say that watching Jake's effort? Even if he has decent underlying numbers how good could he be if he had the same drive and commitment the five firmly planted in our top six show game in and game out? That's where Jake falls flat for me.

[5Fivehole0]

3 hours ago, Baggins said:

A coaches job is to get the most out of the players he's given. That's not politics. What's being asked of Jake is well within the toolbox he already has. He just doesn't seem to want to put in the effort. If he played like Motte, which is the way they've been trying to get him to play, he'd be a top six shoe in because he's bigger, faster, and has a better shot than Motte. Meaning the tools are already there, he just needs to use them. He just doesn't have the commitment and drive Motte has to be the best he can. The proof is in the pudding. He's come into camp in poor shape two of his five seasons. Then again after the lockdown. As the cherry on top he went out partying during a pandemic just prior to entering the bubble with his teammates. No commitment to his job. Should any coach or GM ignore this? 

 

I've preached patience with Jake for his first four seasons. But I've come to the conclusion he's not very bright and he's lazy to boot. He had a natural ability that required minimal effort in junior: He could simply overpower other kids with his size and speed to score. Have you noticed he doesn't try to deke defenders with skating or stickhandling? He's not a playmaker or great passer. Those skills require practice and effort. The defensive side of the game also requires work. It's just tougher to learn that side. He was succeeding in junior on one ability and saw no need to work on others. In other words he never really had to work hard and had no desire to do so. That lazy approach hasn't seemed to change much. He has improved his defensive play but I wouldn't put my trust in him in that department. And honestly that's the only minor improvement I've seen in five seasons. Watching games you can plainly see the effort and drive of players like Bo, Petey, Miller, Pearson, and Boeser at both ends of the ice. Do you see that consistent level of compete from Jake at either end? That's the reason they are top six and Jake isn't. It's also the reason he's verging on being expendable.

 

What am I missing that your seeing?

I mean, all you've done is speculate. Let's be honest here. He also may not be trying those things because he has such a short leash and doesn't want to make mistakes, shell shocked. I think that's a much more reasonable assumption than assuming you know what he's been doing, or if he's actually lazy or not. Also you say he's learned the game defensively, and another poster backed it up with stats earlier. And then you say he's never back in his own zone. He was 3rd on the team in takeaways this playoff run, I do believe. 

So, a lot. To answer your question.

Statistically he performs well when surrounded by talent. That's where he should be.

Edited September 15, 2020 by 5Fivehole0

[Comeback_Kings]

Virtanen > Pearson 

 

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

I mean, all you've done is speculate. Let's be honest here. He also may not be trying those things because he has such a short leash and doesn't want to make mistakes, shell shocked. I think that's a much more reasonable assumption than assuming you know what he's been doing, or if he's actually lazy or not. Also you say he's learned the game defensively, and another poster backed it up with stats earlier. And then you say he's never back in his own zone. He was 3rd on the team in takeaways this playoff run, I do believe. 

So, a lot. To answer your question.

Statistically he performs well when surrounded by talent. That's where he should be.

I don't see it as speculation at all when both Willie and Travis have publicly said how they want Jake to play. Hard on the forecheck, hard on the backcheck and finishing checks. The fact, and it is a fact, that's he hasn't shown up in good shape ready to compete more than once (three times) is not a sign of commitment or strong work ethic. You're playing poor baby with him when he's a man, a five year veteran. Do what's asked and there won't be a leash.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say he's "he's learned the defensive game" I said "he has improved but I still wouldn't put my trust in him". Nor did I say "he's never back in his own zone" in any post. 

 

I'm basing my opinion on what is actually seen and real events. I don't see him putting in the same effort or having the commitment others on the team do game in and game out. On or off the ice. That's what I see. What do you "see"? Showing up in poor shape and partying during a pandemic are real events. They don't scream "solid work ethic" no matter how you spin it. Quite the opposite. Stats are a useful tool but rarely tell the whole story. But if you want to go down that road he was actually 8th on the team in takeaways in the playoffs with 6, along with 5 giveaways. Motte was first in takeaways with 17 and 7 giveaways. As I said, they want him to play like Motte. Toffoli had 3 takeaways in less than half the games playing on a bad ankle. Here's another playoff stat - Motte outshot Jake 29-16 and didn't have the luxury of PP time. Motte also outhit him 61-36. The way Motte plays leads to takeaways and scoring chances. He's always hard on the forecheck, hard on the backcheck. Game in, game out. Exactly what has been asked of Jake for five seasons. Jake doesn't have shifty moves, fancy stickhandling or great playmaking skills. He does have the size, speed, and shot to be a superior version of Motte though. Simply by using skills he already has to maximum effect.

 

The only real speculation I made was why he seems to lack a strong work ethic and has a limited toolbox. My speculation being - with his size and speed he had an easy time in junior and didn't see any need to really work at anything else. Why mess with success right? It's not much of a reach considering his limited tools.

[Law of Goalies]

On 9/13/2020 at 6:03 AM, RU SERIOUS said:

I've stated on numerous occasions over the last two seasons that his days were dwindling here unless he wised up and got his head back into the game instead of floating around like a cork and after this years poor playoff performance by him, I'd say its fairly safe to now say "he's finished as a Canuck".  It's really too bad to admit - but he's born to float and will never get engaged in the game let alone ever make a pass to a fellow team mate.   I would suggest he be packaged up with one of the other bottom six deadwood players and shipped off to some nowhereland like Toronto where he can float forever. 

Since you have made this observation, it seems that I can assume that you didn't watch Jake play the last two years and you are basing based on his first few years? Your arguments that he does not pass well or pass to fellow teammates was a knock on him when he first started playing in the NHL. If you bothered to see him play, you will see that he has held on to the puck much longer now and makes good passes majority of the time (albeit a lot of players make bad passes once in awhile). 

[oldnews]

17 hours ago, Baggins said:

But what about matchups? Can a sheltered player show good advanced stats with the variables of who you play with and against regardless of the zone they start in? If so it's not fair comparison to those with higher ice time in more difficult match ups. Even d-zone starts can mean less when you're #2 in the league at faceoffs. The d-zone becomes rather easier when you start with possession. There just seems a lot of variables that can have an effect. I don't think any stats, even points, tell the whole story. Many pundits of advanced stats actually say they are more accurate judging a team as a whole rather than individuals.

 

For me it's more about watching the games than the stats. Stats are a tool but don't tell the whole story, and I'm not entirely sold on advanced stats tbh. Can you just look at stats without watching games and accurately assess a players value and performance? What I see from our core top six is 100% effort and drive at both ends of the ice. Petey is pretty much the pinnacle of commitment and drive on the entire rink - consistently. Can you say that watching Jake's effort? Even if he has decent underlying numbers how good could he be if he had the same drive and commitment the five firmly planted in our top six show game in and game out? That's where Jake falls flat for me.

You're misusing the concept of "sheltered" to start with.

And follow it by asking, on one hand, if it's fair to compare to higher ice time, in more difficult matchups...and then you do an 'eye-test' comparison to Petey's drive....

How would, for example, Pearson 'matchup' against Petey's eye-test drive read?

But more to the specific point about minutes, you're making a few incorrect assumptions - that bottom six minutes with a shutdown center like Sutter are easier minutes / implying they are 'sheltered'.

 

The faceoffs point would be valid - if Virtanen's dzone starts came while playing with one of the three high end faceoff guys on the team.   In reality, they've come principally while playing with Sutter (who is a 48.9% faceoff guy) - so again, it's a hypothetical question you ask, but the context gives you the answer.  And further - that point has already been made.

 

Quote

Virtanen has played with solid veteran bottom six defensive forwards - who themselves are under-appreciated/rated in general - and who deserve some credit in his outcomes

Of course statistics aren't 'all' - no one can glimpse Virtanen blowing by NHL defensemen in a way very few players in the league can - by looking at 'advanced stats'.

And of course they have significant limits - as do the eye-tests of CDC armchairs.

But  I don't see any real engagement from you with those objective outcomes - aside from scratching the surface - er I'm skeptical of stats.  You should be.

Anyhow - I'm not sure I see any real point here.  If the question is 'does Virtanen match EP's drive'?  You could go a lot further - to naming at least half the team - that don't.

[Law of Goalies]

11 hours ago, oldnews said:

You're misusing the concept of "sheltered" to start with.

And follow it by asking, on one hand, if it's fair to compare to higher ice time, in more difficult matchups...and then you do an 'eye-test' comparison to Petey's drive....

How would, for example, Pearson 'matchup' against Petey's eye-test drive read?

But more to the specific point about minutes, you're making a few incorrect assumptions - that bottom six minutes with a shutdown center like Sutter are easier minutes / implying they are 'sheltered'.

 

The faceoffs point would be valid - if Virtanen's dzone starts came while playing with one of the three high end faceoff guys on the team.   In reality, they've come principally while playing with Sutter (who is a 48.9% faceoff guy) - so again, it's a hypothetical question you ask, but the context gives you the answer.  And further - that point has already been made.

 

Of course statistics aren't 'all' - no one can glimpse Virtanen blowing by NHL defensemen in a way very few players in the league can - by looking at 'advanced stats'.

And of course they have significant limits - as do the eye-tests of CDC armchairs.

But  I don't see any real engagement from you with those objective outcomes - aside from scratching the surface - er I'm skeptical of stats.  You should be.

Anyhow - I'm not sure I see any real point here.  If the question is 'does Virtanen match EP's drive'?  You could go a lot further - to naming at least half the team - that don't.

Agree on the drive part. We all hope our whole damn team has Petey/Hughes/Bo drive..Even Bo has off days. If people are going to throw Virt under the bus and say he lacks Petey's drive, then you should throw (as oldnews mentioned above), half the team with him.

 

Do I want Jake to have more drive..most definitely yes!

 

Is Jake the worst player on the team/league that is only worth 950k? Definitely not. Even with not looking at the advanced stats, using the "eye-ball" test, there is no way you can't say Jake hasn't improved every year. When you look at his junior stats, he is currently following a similar trajectory. He was slow at the beginning and then became a first round pick. Even for the playoffs, he seems to be slow at the start. Yes..he is a first round pick and everyone's expectations are high but even Raffi Torres was drafted 5th overall. Got to tamper expectations and see him for him now instead of clouding your judgment with unrealistic expectations (esp since our recent high draft picks have done so well)

Edited September 16, 2020 by Law of Goalies

[oldnews]

12 hours ago, Law of Goalies said:

Agree on the drive part. We all hope our whole damn team has Petey/Hughes/Bo drive..Even Bo has off days. If people are going to throw Virt under the bus and say he lacks Petey's drive, then you should throw (as oldnews mentioned above), half the team with him.

 

Do I want Jake to have more drive..most definitely yes!

 

Is Jake the worst player on the team/league that is only worth 950k? Definitely not. Even with not looking at the advanced stats, using the "eye-ball" test, there is no way you can't say Jake hasn't improved every year. When you look at his junior stats, he is currently following a similar trajectory. He was slow at the beginning and then became a first round pick. Even for the playoffs, he seems to be slow at the start. Yes..he is a first round pick and everyone's expectations are high but even Raffi Torres was drafted 5th overall. Got to tamper expectations and see him for him now instead of clouding your judgment with unrealistic expectations (esp since our recent high draft picks have done so well)

yes - and beyond the eye test - looking at his 'personality' - he is a young-minded type person - not a criticism - everyone develops - and grows up - at their own rate.  Some guys are NHL ready at 19, others bloom late - become far better players at ages 24, or 25, and some even later before they hit their prime.

It's a bad time to discontinue the efforts where Virtanen is concerned imo.

 

I know this is going to run against the grain of most opinions, but I wasn't particularly impressed with Horvat's playoffs - and further, in spite of his two way game, his ability to win faceoffs, his ability to play a dual role (secondary scoring and matchup) - I consider one of his real weaknesses to remain his consistency.  We see what he's capable of in a small sample like the Blues series, and then we see him flag considerably in the next.  I like Horvat, but I'm one of the few that is not sold on his captaincy, this early.  I would have made Edler the captain, and waited - to see who among the youth continues to emerge.  For my money, EP has more fire, more drive, more consistency - so I would not have filled that future position with a young player quite yet.  I realize Horvat was being groomed for the role for years, but still, I would not have prepackaged that, and I also think he was somewhat distracted - and overwhelmed - by the role at times this year.  Bottom line - his entire line relatively disappeared in the Vegas series.  Were there mitigating factors - ie an injury to Toffoli, an ice cold Pearson - harder minutes with injuries to Miller (and seemingly Sutter) - perhaps - but I saw more fight and drive from EP - in comparably challenging circumstances.  He may not have Horvat's heaviness and two way game at this point, but I see natural captain when I look at EP - Horvat I see a groomed one.   I'm not foreclosing on Horvat - he could and probably will become a great captain - but he's not that yet, and was the whole lead by example thing up to EP's?  I'm not sure.

 

And there is also a 'bright' side to his yound-minded, late blooming nature.

First - he remains coachable.

But just as importantly, he hasn't broken out - meaning he's still a young, affordable RFA asset.  If the team had taken a Nylander type and saddled themselves with a 7 million double flamingo, would that have been preferable?  Not in my opinion. 

Virtanen's trajectory might actually line up ideally with the team's overall.  What he did two or three years ago is absolutely irrelevent, almost advantageous.  The only sense in which his metered development could 'hurt' the team, is if it reduces his market value/return - which is part of the reason I would not bother 'shoppng' him.  Stay the course - and be patient (a rare commodity - patience - which most people around here think should be all spent by now.  I disgree, for reasons already stated.

Edited September 16, 2020 by oldnews

[erkayloomeh]

On 9/14/2020 at 1:13 PM, oldnews said:

Being "impressed" is not the metric though  -  I'm assessing his actual minutes - relatively/in context - not expecting top 6 production in them = which isn't realistic.  You can focus on his draft position if you will - I think it clouds the decision about what to do with/about the player.

 

His defensive and physical numbers are better than most people realize - or should have expected - from a 'top 6' type prospect.  He's being developed unconventionally, period - I see the value in it.  There are two sides of the game - and roles - so assessing a player based on their role and the context of their play - is more representative than abstract expectations, and not only do players not develop in parallel linear ways, but all players also don't develop on parallel timelines.   This team has had a pretty solid history of this form of development - from players like Kesler, Hansen, Burrows to this generation where guys like Virtanen and Motte could likewise climb up the lineup from bottom six development. 

 

Virtanen's draft pedigree isn't really relevent at this point - it's history.  Pedigree means nothing.  I wouldn't make the mistake of 'expectations'.   Were 'expectations'  what encouraged teams to move players like Neiderreiter prematurely?  He scored 3 pts in his first 64 NHL games on the 4th line of a bad team, and they dumped him for Clutterbuck.  Couturier never scored more than 15 goals until he was 25 (he had deflated numbers by virtue of his deployment early in his career).....He was an 8th overall who didn't crack 40 pts until his mid 20s (in more significant minutes than Virtanen).   The point is not to make a 'comparable' of these players - but to illustrate that 'expectations' can get in the way of seeing the player.  Dal Colle and Sam Bennett - the two players taken before Virtanen - had 12 pts each this season.  Nick Ritchie - taken 10th in that draft, had 21 pts this year.  Perlini, taken 12th, had 10 pts.  Draft position means nothing at this point - what matters is whether the player has more to give, or not.  I'd take Virtanen's chances of upticking over many - but my 'expectation' that he's capable of more is based on his performance in his minutes, not his pedigree.

Well written but not sure if I agree although I know what your trying to say about his draft position. 

His draft position is a reflection of his play in junior mostly. That play is what you hope for translates to the NHL and I think it's fair for a fan to want that.

If it doesn't then usually the player gets blamed when alot of times it's not the players fault. 

Where I think fans fall short is in assesment of players and why they aren't where they feel they should be. 

Pretty easy to say he isn't trying, no hockey IQ etc. 

I believe in Jakes case he has always played a certain way and is now being asked to re invent himself and is having trouble doing so. 

Yet, still on pace for 21 goals.  Impressive if you ask me. 

I like Jake and believe in him.  

He will take longer to produce as "expected".  

Other people here don't agree with me that Jake reminds me of kesler. But what I've been trying to say is that Kesler always doing things thru sheer will. They never could find the right linemates for him because he just didn't use team mates effectively. Did things on his own.  Didn't seem to me he was successful because of hockey IQ but physical strength and determination. 

Just like Jake in junior.!!!

But like I said. Being asked to play a different way and can't change 

You will see the NHL version of Jake in junior under a different coach and that's not meant to be a criticism of green

[oldnews]

10 minutes ago, erkayloomeh said:

Well written but not sure if I agree although I know what your trying to say about his draft position. 

His draft position is a reflection of his play in junior mostly. That play is what you hope for translates to the NHL and I think it's fair for a fan to want that.

If it doesn't then usually the player gets blamed when alot of times it's not the players fault. 

Where I think fans fall short is in assesment of players and why they aren't where they feel they should be. 

Pretty easy to say he isn't trying, no hockey IQ etc. 

I believe in Jakes case he has always played a certain way and is now being asked to re invent himself and is having trouble doing so. 

Yet, still on pace for 21 goals.  Impressive if you ask me. 

I like Jake and believe in him.  

He will take longer to produce as "expected".  

Other people here don't agree with me that Jake reminds me of kesler. But what I've been trying to say is that Kesler always doing things thru sheer will. They never could find the right linemates for him because he just didn't use team mates effectively. Did things on his own.  Didn't seem to me he was successful because of hockey IQ but physical strength and determination. 

Just like Jake in junior.!!!

But like I said. Being asked to play a different way and can't change 

You will see the NHL version of Jake in junior under a different coach and that's not meant to be a criticism of green

lots of good point

I think he can/is re-making his game.  at some point it will be versatile -and second nature - enough that Green can finally 'set him lose'. we see glimpses of it - with intermittent regression - but that's the story for so many young players - and some of them wind up really breaking out.  For a muted career thus far, I think it's tracking pretty well.  I posted a season of another 23 year old (at the time) - Josh Anderson (in the Trades forum Anderson thread)  - and the outcomes are pretty damn comparable.

[Baggins]

On 9/15/2020 at 9:02 AM, oldnews said:

You're misusing the concept of "sheltered" to start with.

And follow it by asking, on one hand, if it's fair to compare to higher ice time, in more difficult matchups...and then you do an 'eye-test' comparison to Petey's drive....

How would, for example, Pearson 'matchup' against Petey's eye-test drive read?

But more to the specific point about minutes, you're making a few incorrect assumptions - that bottom six minutes with a shutdown center like Sutter are easier minutes / implying they are 'sheltered'.

 

The faceoffs point would be valid - if Virtanen's dzone starts came while playing with one of the three high end faceoff guys on the team.   In reality, they've come principally while playing with Sutter (who is a 48.9% faceoff guy) - so again, it's a hypothetical question you ask, but the context gives you the answer.  And further - that point has already been made.

 

Of course statistics aren't 'all' - no one can glimpse Virtanen blowing by NHL defensemen in a way very few players in the league can - by looking at 'advanced stats'.

And of course they have significant limits - as do the eye-tests of CDC armchairs.

But  I don't see any real engagement from you with those objective outcomes - aside from scratching the surface - er I'm skeptical of stats.  You should be.

Anyhow - I'm not sure I see any real point here.  If the question is 'does Virtanen match EP's drive'?  You could go a lot further - to naming at least half the team - that don't.

This seems like a smoke and mirrors response. I said I don't know much about advanced stats and ask questions. Like would sheltered minutes, who you play with and who you play against, you know - variables - have an affect. You give a condescending answer starting with "You're misusing the concept of "sheltered" to start with" and didn't answer the question at all. I give you full credit for your master debater skill though. 

 

Then there's gem of an answer:

 

 

"..and then you do an 'eye-test' comparison to Petey's drive....

How would, for example, Pearson 'matchup' against Petey's eye-test drive read?"

 

When I actually said:

"What I see from our core top six is 100% effort and drive at both ends of the ice. Petey is pretty much the pinnacle of commitment and drive on the entire rink - consistently. Can you say that watching Jake's effort?"

 

Hmmm. It seems I was actually comparing Jakes drive and commitment to the entire top six while saying Petey is the Pinnacle of that group.

 

Plus another backhand dig:

"of course they have significant limits - as do the eye-tests of CDC armchairs."

 

Ok, so no opinions of what we mere mortals see. That should be left to the gods.... such as you.

 

Then these...

"yes - and beyond the eye test - looking at his 'personality' - he is a young-minded type person - not a criticism - everyone develops - and grows up - at their own rate. "

 

I hate to break it to you but Jake is a 24 year old (one year younger than Horvat) 5 season pro, who can't even show up to camp in shape and ready to work. Heaven forbid we be critical of this poor child making over $2m a year for his lack of drive and commitment.

 

"First - he remains coachable."

 

I wonder if Travis has the same opinion. Five years of him being asked to forecheck and backcheck hard and we're still waiting for him to even treat it as a job.

 

"But just as importantly, he hasn't broken out - meaning he's still a young, affordable RFA asset. "

 

On the flipside we wouldn't have needed to trade assets for Toffoli, or see a need to re-sign him, if Jake had worked hard and broken out while on this contract. 

 

You certainly got your last piece of condescension right though....

 

"Anyhow - I'm not sure I see any real point here."

 

 

 

[BlueDragon23]

Jake has been given a very long leash. I have always held out hope that he could finally break through with the potential he has locked away. But I’m at the point of saying that’s it, he’s had plenty of chances and he’s not proven anything. 

 

I especially wanted to see if he was a playoff performer since he is literally built for that style of play, however I barely noticed him. He was very ineffective offensively  And especially disappointing physically. Yes he is still young, and maybe he was a little rushed, but you’d think by playing 5 seasons in the NHL that he would’ve progressed a bit further. But he appears to be stuck in limbo; mediocrity. 
 

I’m not against having fun off the ice at all, however when it affects your career there needs be a line drawn. His partying off the ice and lack of motivation And determination on the ice just annoys the crap out of me.

 

Hometown boy is good and all, but it may be time to move on.

Edited September 17, 2020 by BlueDragon23

[kingofsurrey]

 I want to see Jake back next season. I think he can get  25 -30 goals next year and on a reasonable contract.

[Law of Goalies]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

This seems like a smoke and mirrors response. I said I don't know much about advanced stats and ask questions. Like would sheltered minutes, who you play with and who you play against, you know - variables - have an affect. You give a condescending answer starting with "You're misusing the concept of "sheltered" to start with" and didn't answer the question at all. I give you full credit for your master debater skill though. 

 

Then there's gem of an answer:

 

 

"..and then you do an 'eye-test' comparison to Petey's drive....

How would, for example, Pearson 'matchup' against Petey's eye-test drive read?"

 

When I actually said:

"What I see from our core top six is 100% effort and drive at both ends of the ice. Petey is pretty much the pinnacle of commitment and drive on the entire rink - consistently. Can you say that watching Jake's effort?"

 

Hmmm. It seems I was actually comparing Jakes drive and commitment to the entire top six while saying Petey is the Pinnacle of that group.

 

Plus another backhand dig:

"of course they have significant limits - as do the eye-tests of CDC armchairs."

 

Ok, so no opinions of what we mere mortals see. That should be left to the gods.... such as you.

 

Then these...

"yes - and beyond the eye test - looking at his 'personality' - he is a young-minded type person - not a criticism - everyone develops - and grows up - at their own rate. "

 

I hate to break it to you but Jake is a 24 year old (one year younger than Horvat) 5 season pro, who can't even show up to camp in shape and ready to work. Heaven forbid we be critical of this poor child making over $2m a year for his lack of drive and commitment.

 

"First - he remains coachable."

 

I wonder if Travis has the same opinion. Five years of him being asked to forecheck and backcheck hard and we're still waiting for him to even treat it as a job.

 

"But just as importantly, he hasn't broken out - meaning he's still a young, affordable RFA asset. "

 

On the flipside we wouldn't have needed to trade assets for Toffoli, or see a need to re-sign him, if Jake had worked hard and broken out while on this contract. 

 

You certainly got your last piece of condescension right though....

 

"Anyhow - I'm not sure I see any real point here."

 

 

 

The last point about the trading assets for Toffoli if he broke out..that is the silver lining. He hasn't really broken out with 40 points and he only cost 2 mil. Now we can have both Toffoli and Virt. 

 

And if you want to say drive of comparing Jake with the top 6. Besides Petey, Miller, Bo, I would say his drive fits around the bottom of top 6. I might make an excuse for Boeser a bit more since he showed a bit more drive in the playoffs. But besides these four out of six, I wouldn't say Jake has less drive than Pearson or Ericksson. 

 

And you say he doesn't back check? Do you even watch the games? Excluding his back checking that everyone seems to see in the playoffs but completely forget that they might have saw during the regular season, I think his defensive work has improved immensely. 

 

As what another poster said, it seems like his game is being reinvented here. He went from being a scoring force in juniors to being a two way player. Look at Tyler Motte, he was a hobey baker finalist and now he is a defensive specialist. He was drafted I think one year earlier than Jake (albeit 121st overall) but I'm sure he took some time to redevelop his game (please correct me if anyone knows his trajectory better). Also, look at Miller, the Miller we see now is the finished product of many years for him to "get it". That's why Miller did say he sees a lot of himself in Jake. 

[Baggins]

14 hours ago, Law of Goalies said:

The last point about the trading assets for Toffoli if he broke out..that is the silver lining. He hasn't really broken out with 40 points and he only cost 2 mil. Now we can have both Toffoli and Virt. 

How is it a silver lining a player isn't where he should after five seasons? His low cost would only be a true asset if he had actually broken out. Which would have negated the need of trading assets to obtain Toffoli due to Boeser being out. What if Jake never has that breakout? I honestly think he may need to be traded as a wakeup call.

 

 

14 hours ago, Law of Goalies said:

And if you want to say drive of comparing Jake with the top 6. Besides Petey, Miller, Bo, I would say his drive fits around the bottom of top 6. I might make an excuse for Boeser a bit more since he showed a bit more drive in the playoffs. But besides these four out of six, I wouldn't say Jake has less drive than Pearson or Ericksson. 

His drive and commitment is below all six. Which is why he's bottom six. Btw, Eriksson isn't top six when the team is healthy. Toffoli replaced Eriksson there. Again, if Jake had the drive and commitment we wouldn't have needed to trade for Toffoli. He would have replaced Eriksson himself during the season and we could have weathered Boeser being out.

 

 

14 hours ago, Law of Goalies said:

And you say he doesn't back check? Do you even watch the games? Excluding his back checking that everyone seems to see in the playoffs but completely forget that they might have saw during the regular season, I think his defensive work has improved immensely. 

When did I say he doesn't backcheck? As a matter of fact I've said his defensive play has improved. But when you start off sucking there's nowhere to go but up. I've said he's not where he needs to be and I wouldn't put my trust in him in the finals minutes with a one goal lead. His effort at both ends is inconsistent. His lack of commitment is evident by showing up to three camps in poor shape. How long do you wait before giving the wakeup call of being traded? Five years is a lot of patience. Particularly when he shows up to camp below their fitness standard twice in that 5th year.

 

 

14 hours ago, Law of Goalies said:

As what another poster said, it seems like his game is being reinvented here. He went from being a scoring force in juniors to being a two way player. Look at Tyler Motte, he was a hobey baker finalist and now he is a defensive specialist. He was drafted I think one year earlier than Jake (albeit 121st overall) but I'm sure he took some time to redevelop his game (please correct me if anyone knows his trajectory better). 

Motte is a defensive specialist. In the playoffs he had 17 takeaways to Jakes 6, and outhit him 61-36. They say good defense leads to offense. Well Motte also outshot Jake 29-16 without the luxury of PP time. Wait what? I wonder why the coaches have been after Jake to play the way Motte does for five years. What's being asked is well within his toolbox of size and speed. They're asking him to use tools he already has effectively and consistently both directions. Not much of a reinvention. Ask Yzerman about putting in the same effort defensively as you do offensively. He was cut from Team Canada twice despite being a 100+ point offensive threat because of his lack of defensive effort. In Detroit Bowman even told him if he didn't start putting in the same effort defensively he'd trade him. Bowman insisted on the two way game from everybody. Could that be part of the reason he's the winningest coach in NHL history? Yzerman wanted to stay in Detroit bad enough he committed to the two way game. The result was instead of being cut from Team Canada he became one of Team Canada's most respected captains. You'll never convince me that buy in and commitment to the defensive side should be dismissed and players allowed to just do what they like best. Even for the most offensively talented. The majority of coaches push the two way game now. That goes back to Bowman's success.

 

 

15 hours ago, Law of Goalies said:

Also, look at Miller, the Miller we see now is the finished product of many years for him to "get it". That's why Miller did say he sees a lot of himself in Jake. 

Miller played under AV and (much like Jake) saw himself as an offensive player and was criticized for his inconsistent play. That does sound rather familiar. AV also insists on good two way play. Not buying in was the reason Miller was traded at 25. He said himself in an interview being traded by NY was a shock and his attitude changed in Tampa. Sometimes a player just needs to be traded to "get it" and realize it's a job he actually needs to work at. Some don't get it even after being moved. On one hand you're saying Jake shouldn't need to reinvent himself then you hold up a player that reinvented himself after being traded as an example of what Jake can be. Ironic. After 5 seasons Jake may need that kind of wakeup call himself to buy into what's being asked of him. It's the difference between wanting to play and wanting to excel. After being traded Miller decided he wanted to excel.

 

Believe me, I'd love to see Jake succeed. I just doubt it's going to happen without a major wakeup call. Meaning it's not likely to happen here.