[Signing] Canucks re-sign Jake Virtanen

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I have 2 words for you..........LUI.................ERICKSSON! 

I hate to tell you but despite him being a black hole for his own points (and grossly overpaid), he did in fact make Horvat and Pearson more productive (Virtanen did the inverse btw) and PK's. All while presumably working harder on and off the ice and bring more consistent (even if that is offensively quite underwhelming on his own).

[EdgarM]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

I hate to tell you but despite him being a black hole for his own points (and grossly overpaid), he did in fact make Horvat and Pearson more productive (Virtanen did the inverse btw) and PK's. All while presumably working harder on and off the ice and bring more consistent (even if that is offensively quite underwhelming on his own).

Oh! so basically he was Bo and Pearson's "Luck Charm"? 

Hate to tell you this but being a PKer has nothing to do with earning a spot in the top 6. He could do that quite well in the bottom 6 where a guy with NO OFFENSE AT ALL, plays well defensively, who works hard and is more "consistent" plays. 

Oh and wasn't this discussion regarding "EARNING"? His offensive numbers does not spell earning a spot beside Bo in any stretch of the imagination. Nice try though.

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Oh! so basically he was Bo and Pearson's "Luck Charm"? 

Hate to tell you this but being a PKer has nothing to do with earning a spot in the top 6. He could do that quite well in the bottom 6 where a guy with NO OFFENSE AT ALL, plays well defensively, who works hard and is more "consistent" plays. 

Oh and wasn't this discussion regarding "EARNING"? His offensive numbers does not spell earning a spot beside Bo in any stretch of the imagination. Nice try though.

Horvat and Pearson scored more with Eriksson on their line than Virtanen. That's why. 

 

Think of how sad it is that there's legitimate numbers to back up playing Eriksson there over Virtanen. Jake couldn't even make more of a contribution to team performance than Loui &^@#ing Eriksson! My post was not an endorsement of Eriksson!

[EdgarM]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

Horvat and Pearson scored more with Eriksson on their line than Virtanen. That's why. 

 

Think of how sad it is that there's legitimate numbers to back up playing Eriksson there over Virtanen. Jake couldn't even make more of a contribution to team performance than Loui &^@#ing Eriksson! My post was not an endorsement of Eriksson!

Your argument is pointless as we are talking about a small sample size anyway and Jake's time with that line wasn't anywhere the time LE spent on that line. Just because LE got in the oppositions way in a few games does make him my first choice in playing with our top offensive players. He did not contribute in any other way , believe me, I watched all of his games he played on that line. I also remember seeing times when he had empty netters and missed on those as well. You are not fooling anybody, he was useless.

My whole argument is that Jake didn't get quality time to see what he can do. He made a mistake or didn't do what TG wanted and was immediately moved off that line. This is during the game, not after the game or even after the period was over, he was moved immediately. 

Almost all of our prospects have been given the opportunity to play through their deficiencies. This goes for Bo, Petey,Hughes and for the most part, Boes. Boes was relegated to the third line for a brief time last year but basically stays on the #1 PP and top lines even if he is struggling. 

I haven't seen Jake given any time on the #1 PP, PK duties or any quality time 3 on 3 and he is been on this team for 5 seasons now. I am not saying he would be a shoe-in for more quality ice-time but I would like to see the coach be a little more creative with this young group of players he is in charge with. 

I actually don't think he is a fit with Bo anyway I seen more coesion with him playing with Miller and Petey , but that would mess up the "649" line and we can't have that can we.

[aGENT]

17 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Your argument is pointless as we are talking about a small sample size anyway and Jake's time with that line wasn't anywhere the time LE spent on that line. Just because LE got in the oppositions way in a few games does make him my first choice in playing with our top offensive players. He did not contribute in any other way , believe me, I watched all of his games he played on that line. I also remember seeing times when he had empty netters and missed on those as well. You are not fooling anybody, he was useless.

My whole argument is that Jake didn't get quality time to see what he can do. He made a mistake or didn't do what TG wanted and was immediately moved off that line. This is during the game, not after the game or even after the period was over, he was moved immediately. 

Almost all of our prospects have been given the opportunity to play through their deficiencies. This goes for Bo, Petey,Hughes and for the most part, Boes. Boes was relegated to the third line for a brief time last year but basically stays on the #1 PP and top lines even if he is struggling. 

I haven't seen Jake given any time on the #1 PP, PK duties or any quality time 3 on 3 and he is been on this team for 5 seasons now. I am not saying he would be a shoe-in for more quality ice-time but I would like to see the coach be a little more creative with this young group of players he is in charge with. 

I actually don't think he is a fit with Bo anyway I seen more coesion with him playing with Miller and Petey , but that would mess up the "649" line and we can't have that can we.

No, he doesn't get opportunity there because his commitment is poor, which makes his conditioning poor, which makes his consistency during games and from one game to the next poor. He hasn't EARNED the opportunity through his efforts.

 

And again, statistically Horvat's line scored more with Erriksson on their line to help contribute to wins. The entire point of playing hockey is to win. It's because Eriksson is sound defensively and let's Horvat and Pearson focus more on offense.

 

The point isn't too give Virtanen opportunities he hasn't earned. Want the opportunity? Outplay Loui &^@#ing Eriksson, it's not that high of a bar!

[EdgarM]

16 minutes ago, aGENT said:

No, he doesn't get opportunity there because his commitment is poor, which makes his conditioning poor, which makes his consistency during games and from one game to the next poor. He hasn't EARNED the opportunity through his efforts.

 

And again, statistically Horvat's line scored more with Erriksson on their line to help contribute to wins. The entire point of playing hockey is to win. It's because Eriksson is sound defensively and let's Horvat and Pearson focus more on offense.

 

The point isn't too give Virtanen opportunities he hasn't earned. Want the opportunity? Outplay Loui &^@#ing Eriksson, it's not that high of a bar!

One of these guys are stronger, younger, faster and as you can see below: has more offense. So , not looking at their names, which one would you say "outplayed" the other in securing a spot in the top 6? 

Speaking of winning, who scored more winning goals in these stats? One of them had 0 and one had 6. Just saying.

2019-20

Vancouver Canucks

NHL

69

18

18

36

-4

41

|

PLAYOFFS

16

2

1

2019-20

Vancouver Canucks

NHL

49

6

7

13

-2

12

|

PLAYOFFS

10

0

0

[aGENT]

12 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

One of these guys are stronger, younger, faster and as you can see below: has more offense. So , not looking at their names, which one would you say "outplayed" the other in securing a spot in the top 6? 

Speaking of winning, who scored more winning goals in these stats? One of them had 0 and one had 6. Just saying.

2019-20

Vancouver Canucks

NHL

69

18

18

36

-4

41

|

PLAYOFFS

16

2

1

2019-20

Vancouver Canucks

NHL

49

6

7

13

-2

12

|

PLAYOFFS

10

0

0

Unfortunately for you and Jake, hockey isn't an individual sport.

[EdgarM]

10 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Unfortunately for you and Jake, hockey isn't an individual sport.

Oh, good come back. 

Oh and I am not too particular about one player I just realize that the top lines NEED a player like Jake and not a player like LE. If Ferlund was fit to play I would say that it would make Jake less important, unfortunately that is not the case. 

The 2011 playoffs put a bad taste in my mouth in that our offense was nullified due to aggressive play in which no one in our top 6 had an answer. 

You go ahead and keep telling yourself that a guy like LE is good enough when we get outskated , out muscled and out checked right out of the playoffs again. 

I really don't want to see Petey get "speed bagged" or checked so heavily that he gets put off his game. Somebody's got to go into the corners and retrieve the puck for guys like Petey and Boes and I am not going to rely on a guy like LE come playoff time. Sorry.

[coryberg]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

Jake couldn't even make more of a contribution to team performance than Loui &^@#ing Eriksson! 

Goals? Jake 18 loui 6

Assists? Jake 18 loui 7

Blocks? Jake 28 loui 15

Takeaways? Jake 37 loui 17

Hits? Jake 102 loui 10

[EdgarM]

9 minutes ago, coryberg said:

Goals? Jake 18 loui 6

Assists? Jake 18 loui 7

Blocks? Jake 28 loui 15

Takeaways? Jake 37 loui 17

Hits? Jake 102 loui 10

Don't forget GWG's? Jake 6 LE 0

Playoff Pt.'s last year?       3       0

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, EdgarM said:

Oh, good come back. 

Oh and I am not too particular about one player I just realize that the top lines NEED a player like Jake and not a player like LE. If Ferlund was fit to play I would say that it would make Jake less important, unfortunately that is not the case. 

The 2011 playoffs put a bad taste in my mouth in that our offense was nullified due to aggressive play in which no one in our top 6 had an answer. 

You go ahead and keep telling yourself that a guy like LE is good enough when we get outskated , out muscled and out checked right out of the playoffs again. 

I really don't want to see Petey get "speed bagged" or checked so heavily that he gets put off his game. Somebody's got to go into the corners and retrieve the puck for guys like Petey and Boes and I am not going to rely on a guy like LE come playoff time. Sorry.

Yeah...not a 'comeback' just facts. That line scores more when LE is on it than Virtanen. Their individual points aren't even the argument. It's a team sport.

1 hour ago, coryberg said:

Goals? Jake 18 loui 6

Assists? Jake 18 loui 7

Blocks? Jake 28 loui 15

Takeaways? Jake 37 loui 17

Hits? Jake 102 loui 10

See above. When the line scores more with one player on it than another = better for the team. If the team got wins for Jake getting more points individually than LE, you two Einsteins might have an argument.

 

Again, that Jake actually makes Loui &^@#ing Eriksson a plausible, better option for his coach by his lack of commitment, conditioning and consistency and making his line mates and hence team perform worse...that's just sad commentary on what he needs to work on. 

Edited October 29, 2020 by aGENT

[EdgarM]

35 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Yeah...not a 'comeback' just facts. That line scores more when LE is on it than Virtanen. Their individual points aren't even the argument. It's a team sport.

See above. When the line scores more with one player on it than another = better for the team. If the team got wins for Jake getting more points individually than LE, you two Einsteins might have an argument.

 

Again, that Jake actually makes Loui &^@#ing Eriksson a plausible, better option for his coach by his lack of commitment, conditioning and consistency and making his line mates and hence team perform worse...that's just sad commentary on what he needs to work on. 

Again, your still talking about a small sample size and we all know that stats alone can be swayed anyway we like, common sense. Or is it? 

So if you are right and LE was a better choice, why was he benched for the rest of the playoffs then? Was the coach trying to make the team weaker on purpose? Please explain, thanks. 

[aGENT]

18 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Again, your still talking about a small sample size and we all know that stats alone can be swayed anyway we like, common sense. Or is it? 

So if you are right and LE was a better choice, why was he benched for the rest of the playoffs then? Was the coach trying to make the team weaker on purpose? Please explain, thanks. 

No, clearly that's what he was doing all season according to you. Purposely trying to make the team worse.

[EdgarM]

35 minutes ago, aGENT said:

No, clearly that's what he was doing all season according to you. Purposely trying to make the team worse.

[Ferlands_Head]

7 hours ago, EdgarM said:

As you can see by your own stats he never had any consistent time with the top 6. A 6 game stretch and a 10 game stretch "broken into 2 stretches", so really not much more then 5-6 game in a row.

The other consideration to think about is that even if Jake "started" the game with the top 6, by the end of the game he was back playing on the 3rd line most of time, epecially if nothing was happening offensively, which I think played a big role in Jake's confidence over time.  

I know you are really, really trying to prove me wrong but the fact remains the same that he was not a "regular" in the top 6 and I think in order to find out if he fits there, he needs to given significant time there to fail or succeed. 

I think our disagreement comes from you saying that "Most of the time it was for a period or two but a lot of times it was a shift or two."  Yes there were many MANY games where he played on in the top 6 and then was back playing on the 3rd or 4th most of the game and in general all over the lineup. A "swiss army knife" of sorts as iBatch put it.  However, i did not include those games in the numbers i posted.

 

In those stretches Jake spent entire games not a shift or period or 2 but all 3 periods with either Bo or EP. It's far from consistent i'll give you that but it's also nothing to sneeze at. It's a decent trial IMO, not great but we got a pretty decent look at what he can do with Bo and EP. 

 

Nobody is saying Jake was a "regular" in the top 6 btw .  

[Ferlands_Head]

6 hours ago, EdgarM said:

Your argument is pointless as we are talking about a small sample size anyway and Jake's time with that line wasn't anywhere the time LE spent on that line. Just because LE got in the oppositions way in a few games does make him my first choice in playing with our top offensive players. He did not contribute in any other way , believe me, I watched all of his games he played on that line. I also remember seeing times when he had empty netters and missed on those as well. You are not fooling anybody, he was useless.

My whole argument is that Jake didn't get quality time to see what he can do. He made a mistake or didn't do what TG wanted and was immediately moved off that line. This is during the game, not after the game or even after the period was over, he was moved immediately. 

Almost all of our prospects have been given the opportunity to play through their deficiencies. This goes for Bo, Petey,Hughes and for the most part, Boes. Boes was relegated to the third line for a brief time last year but basically stays on the #1 PP and top lines even if he is struggling. 

I haven't seen Jake given any time on the #1 PP, PK duties or any quality time 3 on 3 and he is been on this team for 5 seasons now. I am not saying he would be a shoe-in for more quality ice-time but I would like to see the coach be a little more creative with this young group of players he is in charge with. 

I actually don't think he is a fit with Bo anyway I seen more coesion with him playing with Miller and Petey , but that would mess up the "649" line and we can't have that can we.

I LOL'd when i read that bolded part and immediately remembered that blowout win vs Boston where LE had an WIDE open net at the side and he fans on it. Luckily Pearson was there to bury it and he got an assist 

[EdgarM]

10 minutes ago, Ferlands_Head said:

I think our disagreement comes from you saying that "Most of the time it was for a period or two but a lot of times it was a shift or two."  Yes there were many MANY games where he played on in the top 6 and then was back playing on the 3rd or 4th most of the game and in general all over the lineup. A "swiss army knife" of sorts as iBatch put it.  However, i did not include those games in the numbers i posted.

 

In those stretches Jake spent entire games not a shift or period or 2 but all 3 periods with either Bo or EP. It's far from consistent i'll give you that but it's also nothing to sneeze at. It's a decent trial IMO, not great but we got a pretty decent look at what he can do with Bo and EP. 

 

Nobody is saying Jake was a "regular" in the top 6 btw .  

I guess it really boils down to what we all see as a "decent trial". 

I am hoping to see Jake or Gaud given a chance in that position and the LE "experiment" or whatever you want to call it better be over. 

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I guess it really boils down to what we all see as a "decent trial". 

I am hoping to see Jake or Gaud given a chance in that position and the LE "experiment" or whatever you want to call it better be over. 

You still don't get. The NHL isn't a place you're 'given' anything. Nor should it be.

Edited October 29, 2020 by aGENT

[EdgarM]

17 minutes ago, aGENT said:

You still don't get. The NHL isn't a place you're 'given' anything. Nor should it be.

Wow! I don't get it? I never seen in any of your argument how you convinced me that LE deserved to be in the top 6 other then he is some player's "Lucky Charm". He was "given" that position where he was benched before he got there and after as well. A player who has "earned" that position does not get sent to the press box like that. So that throws your theory right out the window.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Wow! I don't get it? I never seen in any of your argument how you convinced me that LE deserved to be in the top 6 other then he is some player's "Lucky Charm". He was "given" that position where he was benched before he got there and after as well. A player who has "earned" that position does not get sent to the press box like that. So that throws your theory right out the window.

Nope, lucky charm was a term you used. Not mine.

 

He's better defensively and allows Horvat and Pearson to create more offensively. Zero to do with luck. It's shown, plain as day, in the numbers. That doesn't make him a top 6 player hence why he's in and out of that line and the lineup in general.

 

Again, for what must be the fourth time, this isn't about 'selling' you Erriksson as a top 6, he's not. But the math doesn't lie. He allowed that line too produce more offense than Virtanen did. How sad is that? And all because Virtanen lacks the professionalism to actually maximize his potential (the reason HE'S in and out of the top 6 and lineup).

 

But carry on...

Edited October 29, 2020 by aGENT