The poultryfication of Jake Virtanen

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

Didn’t change a single goalpost.  Central Scouting never had him ranked 6th overall pick where we took him.  Exactly as I said...

 

Not my fault you don’t understand how their lists work and think that 6th out of just North Americans is the same as 6th overall... or that you finally do understand, but think going into histrionics to hide your mistake is the best path to save face.

 

Hey, let’s check out the 2016 Central Scouting List for North American Skaters!  Wow Juolevi jumps to #5... right where we took him!  Great job by our scouts!  Well, I mean “great” if you ignore the European Skaters Matthews, Laine and Puujujarvi who were all ignored off this draft ranking entirely for some weird reason but picked really high out of the blue.  I guess they must be lower down somewhere, or the scouts missed them... odd.

 

 

 

Wrong again, Provost. Central Scouting DID have him at number 6. It's on the NHL website. So your statements about Virtanen have been wrong, and you're doubling down in an embarrassing fashion. How much more wrong do you need to be shown?

So you're bad at reading, weak at reasoning - and, last but not least, inept at even understanding what you're talking about. Look at those multiple statements you've made earlier in the thread. All of them were your words and not taken out of context.

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-css-2014-n-american-skaters-final-rankings/c-712854

 

That's four times you've been wrong. LOL.

 

You've also mentioned European skaters, for whatever reason... It bares no relevance to what you've been trying to say.

 

Are you seriously trying to undermine the way scouts list prospects? What does that have to do with Virtanen being rated 6th for North Americans. The other website I showed you adds Ehlers and Nylander with Virtanen. From that article, it sure seemed like Virt would be a safer pick...

 

If you're trying to say that Virtanen would fall lower than 6th when compared to European skaters, well, that's just changing goal posts.

 

Let me give you an example:

 

https://www.tsn.ca/2017-nhl-cs-final-draft-ranking-eur-skaters-1.721441

 

Klim Kostin number 1 on European skaters!!! Must be number 1 prospect!!!!

 

Elias Pettersson was number 2...

 

But omg ISS doesn't even rank Pettersson, even though it combines lists! What the He double hockey sticks?!!!

 

https://www.isshockey.com/iss-hockey-releases-final-rankings-in-2017-nhl-draft-guide/

 

Do you realize that Pettersson was actually picked 5th and Kostin 31st? How do you explain this using your 'logic'?

 

The point I am showing is that you were trying to manipulate the argument (and failing badly at that) by constantly changing the parameters. This example shows your argument that Virtanen should be lower on this list because the lists are split into two is complete nonsense.

This is why you should think beyond the boundaries of your massive, but completely unwarranted ego.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Dazzle

[BMorrison 7]

Shouldn’t even be having this discussion because he shouldn’t of even signed him.  Great idea to give a guy a raise that’s a healthy scratch 60% of the time, great general managing 

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, MNaslund?? said:

Shouldn’t even be having this discussion because he shouldn’t of even signed him.  Great idea to give a guy a raise that’s a healthy scratch 60% of the time, great general managing 

2.55 is not a bad signing at all. Only a 2 year deal, easily managable, and this was the very last try to get him motivated.

[BMorrison 7]

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

2.55 is not a bad signing at all. Only a 2 year deal, easily managable, and this was the very last try to get him motivated.

Yeah but he didn’t deserve another try IMO

fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me (Benning) 

[Dazzle]

@Provost

 

Check this out on Virtanen. Obviously Virt didn't work out. Everyone can see that. But your pretentious attitude has gotten you into a lot of trouble, especially when you can't even see pass your own mistakes. Virt WAS comparable to Ehlers/Nylander, with POTENTIALLY a better future than the above two. It just didn't work out - and we can blame a multitude of reasons for this, but that's gonna be a separate discussion.

 

Imagine this scenario: If we had chosen Ehlers and he produced Virtanen type numbers, whereas Virtanen ends up producing like Ehlers or Nylander for that matter. Man, Vancouver fans would be PISSED. A Vancouver boy who ends up scoring like Toffoli did against us. I can see the victim complex fanbase crying over this one...

 

https://nesn.com/2014/06/2014-nhl-draft-rankings-nikolaj-ehlers-leads-deep-class-of-wingers/

 

Let’s take a look at the best wingers in this year’s draft.

 

1) Nikolaj Ehlers

Height: 5’11″ Weight: 163 Shoots: Left

Team: Halifax (QMJHL)

2013-14 stats: 63 GP, 49 G, 55 A

Ehlers finished fourth in scoring and won the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League’s Rookie of the Year award last season. He doesn’t have tremendous size or strength, but he’s an incredible offensive talent with game-changing speed, a heavy shot and the ability to make linemates more productive with his fantastic playmaking skills. In fact, few players in junior hockey were more exciting to watch than Ehlers last season, and he’s definitely the type of player capable of selling tickets in a non-traditional market that needs a star forward.

His international experience includes two gold medals at Under-18 and Under-20 tournaments with Denmark, where he displayed great poise and decision making under pressure.

When ranking the best pure goal scorers in this draft class, Ehlers is at or very close to the top of the list.

2) William Nylander

Height: 5’11″ Weight: 174 Shoots: Right

Team: Modo (Sweden)

2013-14 stats: 22 GP, 1 G, 6 A

Nylander, the son of a former NHL center, is the best playmaking winger in this class. His vision is excellent, he passes the puck accurately in all areas, and his hockey IQ is off the charts.

His 27 points in 35 games against professional players in Sweden was quite impressive when you consider he’s just 18 years old, and as he gets stronger it’s very possible that he becomes a 60-to-80 point player at the NHL level. Nylander also would significantly improve an NHL team’s power play with his goal-scoring ability and creativity in the attacking zone.

From a defensive standpoint there’s lots of room for improvement, but there’s no question that his offensive talent is NHL-ready right now. Nylander will be a top-10 pick as one of the safest prospects in this draft.

3) Jake Virtanen

Height: 6’1″ Weight: 210 Shoots: Right

Team: Calgary (WHL)

2013-14 stats: 71 GP, 45 G, 26 A

Virtanen is among the best goal scorers in this class and combines a powerful and accurate shot with elite speed. He’s a dynamic offensive player who creates scoring chances for himself and linemates with good vision, a high hockey IQ and great patience with the puck.

What separates Virtanen from other wingers in this class is his defensive skills. He back checks consistently, plays physical in all three zones, battles hard for puck possession in his own end and is willing to block shots. Don’t be surprised if he receives ice time on the power play and penalty kill during his rookie season. Coaches will be able to trust him in any situation.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Dazzle

[vannuck59]

3 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Virtanen is among the best goal scorers in this class and combines a powerful and accurate shot with elite speed. He’s a dynamic offensive player who creates scoring chances for himself and linemates with good vision, a high hockey IQ and great patience with the puck.

What separates Virtanen from other wingers in this class is his defensive skills. He back checks consistently, plays physical in all three zones, battles hard for puck possession in his own end and is willing to block shots. Don’t be surprised if he receives ice time on the power play and penalty kill during his rookie season. Coaches will be able to trust him in any situation.

It must have been Jake's mom that wrote this ? High hockey IQ? LOL BUST, BUST

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by vannuck59

[Provost]

7 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Wrong again, Provost. Central Scouting DID have him at number 6. It's on the NHL website. So your statements about Virtanen have been wrong, and you're doubling down in an embarrassing fashion.

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-css-2014-n-american-skaters-final-ra

 

That's four times you've been wrong. LOL.

 

You've also mentioned European skaters, for whatever reason... It bares no relevance to what you've been trying to say.

You can yell, stamp your feet, hold your breath... whatever floats your boat.  Still makes you wrong.
 

No matter how many times you show that he was #6 on a list of just North American skaters.... that will never mean that they ranked him to be taken 6th in the draft.

 

That is what you keep conflating and trying to argue.
 

Those aren’t the same thing.

 

Central Scoring also didn’t rank Dubois to be taken 1st in the draft in 2016 over Matthews, Laine, and Puljujarvi like your logic suggests.

 

You are simply lying.

 

The statement that you were, and continue to be trying to argue against (feel free to read the thread) is that none of the lists had Jake being taken as high as we took him.

 

That is still true and you are still wrong.  Central Scouting did not have Jake ranked as going 6th overall.  
 

6th out of North American skaters does not equal ranking 6th overall in the draft.  

Same as 6th on Central Scouting’s European Skaters list does not equal ranking 6th overall in the draft

Same as 6th on Central Scouting’s North American Goalie list does not equal ranking 6th overall in the draft.

Same as 6th on Central Scouting’s European Goalie list does not equal ranking 6th overall in the draft 

 

They have four individual lists... being 6 on any of the four doesn’t mean they rank you as being 6th in the draft.

You did miss the one list that can be found if you scour the internet that has Jake at #6 overall.  A bunch of Eklund style hockey bloggers from The Hockey Writers had him at #6 overall.  They got dropped from the list aggregators for being terrible.  We would have Virtanen, Konecny, Tkachuk, Vilardi, Bouchard as our 1st rounders.  The only one they got right was the one that all the big lists had as well over Juolevi, and another one Jim got wrong.

 

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Provost

[JM_]

Jake was high on a lot of peoples draft lists: http://www.mynhldraft.com/2014-nhl-draft-prospect-rankings/

 

Whats more interesting to me is Craig Button had Jake in the 2nd round. Maybe we need to listen to Button more. 

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[Provost]

6 hours ago, Dazzle said:

@Provost

 

Check this out on Virtanen. Obviously Virt didn't work out. Everyone can see that. But your pretentious attitude has gotten you into a lot of trouble, especially when you can't even see pass your own mistakes. Virt WAS comparable to Ehlers/Nylander, with POTENTIALLY a better future than the above two. It just didn't work out - and we can blame a multitude of reasons for this, but that's gonna be a separate discussion.

 

Imagine this scenario: If we had chosen Ehlers and he produced Virtanen type numbers, whereas Virtanen ends up producing like Ehlers or Nylander for that matter. Man, Vancouver fans would be PISSED. A Vancouver boy who ends up scoring like Toffoli did against us. I can see the victim complex fanbase crying over this one...

Wait... so now that it is clear to everyone that Virtanen was pegged lower than 6th overall on ALL the other draft lists you provided as your “evidence” (your repeated silliness about North American Skaters aside).... and the consensus was that Nylander was the BPA at that spot.... 

 

You are now falling back on an alternate dimensions  theory to support your argument?

 

So to justify the pick we now have to imagine an alternate dimension that Virtanen worked out and scored like Ehlers... and Ehlers scored like Virtanen? ... and we have to use our imagination years later to support Jim picking him higher than the other lists would have back in 2014?

 

That is getting next level crazy in Jake fanboy-dom.

 

We all live in this dimension unfortunately, where Virtanen isn’t producing like an elite talent.

 

It is pretty simple no matter how much you try to wriggle and weasel around.

 

Virtanen hasn’t lived up to his draft position.

All the other public lists you provided  show him going either a little later or a lot later in the draft.

The consensus pick of almost all those lists would have been Nylander.

In this dimension Nylander is better than Virtanen.

 

So that adds up to it being a bad pick by Benning.  

Is your next argument going to be that Petterson wasn’t a good pick by Benning because in an alternate universe Gabe Vilardi has been outscoring him?  
 

That is your logic.... and it is weird and dumb.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Provost

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, Provost said:

 

So that adds up to it being a bad pick by Benning.  

 

I don't have evidence, but I suspect this was more of a group consensus pick. Maybe Linden wanted a home town power forward? dunno. I'd bet good money that if Jake's draft year was in year 2 or 3 of Benning's tenure Jake isn't taken at 6.

 

But it wasn't like it was a massive reach either. Sometimes these things don't work out. 

[Provost]

30 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I don't have evidence, but I suspect this was more of a group consensus pick. Maybe Linden wanted a home town power forward? dunno. I'd bet good money that if Jake's draft year was in year 2 or 3 of Benning's tenure Jake isn't taken at 6.

 

But it wasn't like it was a massive reach either. Sometimes these things don't work out. 

I have no idea who was pushing for the pick.  He seemed like one of the players that fit the mold Jim always talks about.... “I like his size”.

We can say it wasn’t Brackett... that is about it.

That link with the various lists is part of what I used when I did that deep dive into how we would have come out by using all the other major lists.  I excluded that Hockey Writers one as it was just a collection of some random bloggers/fans like Eklund’s guys.  I couldn’t find them referred to anywhere but their site and no bios from

any of the writers indicating any sort of hockey experience.

It had bad picks all over.  It was the one list that had Virtanen at 6th out of all the ones I saw.

 

We would certainly have been better off using Button or Pronman as our draft experts.  Worse if we used Mackenzie and some others.

Edited March 1, 2021 by Provost

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

I have no idea who was pushing for the pick.  He seemed like one of the players that fit the mold Jim always talks about.... “I like his size”.

We can say it wasn’t Brackett... that is about it.

That link with the various lists is part of what I used when I did that deep dive into how we would have come out by using all the other major lists.  I excluded that Hockey Writers one as it was just a collection of some random bloggers/fans like Eklund’s guys.  I couldn’t find them referred to anywhere but their site and no bios from

any of the writers indicating any sort of hockey experience.

It had bad picks all over.  It was the one list that had Virtanen at 6th out of all the ones I saw.

 

We would certainly have been better off using Button or Pronman as our draft experts.  Worse if we used Mackenzie and some others.

actually Judd was a part of the scouting team. It just felt like a feel good pick to me.... home town boy picked bynew President, new GM, wasn't entirely Bennings scouting group yet. But its just a pet theory.

 

I've actually gone over the picks from the last 6 to 7 years using that site to see who to trust going into drafts, and Craig Button has been one of the best. Pretty exited about how high he is on Podkolzin. 

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

Wait... so now that it is clear to everyone that Virtanen was pegged lower than 6th overall on ALL the other draft lists you provided as your “evidence” (your repeated silliness about North American Skaters aside).... and the consensus was that Nylander was the BPA at that spot.... 

 

You are now falling back on an alternate dimensions  theory to support your argument?

 

So to justify the pick we now have to imagine an alternate dimension that Virtanen worked out and scored like Ehlers... and Ehlers scored like Virtanen? ... and we have to use our imagination years later to support Jim picking him higher than the other lists would have back in 2014?

 

That is getting next level crazy in Jake fanboy-dom.

 

We all live in this dimension unfortunately, where Virtanen isn’t producing like an elite talent.

 

It is pretty simple no matter how much you try to wriggle and weasel around.

 

Virtanen hasn’t lived up to his draft position.

All the other public lists you provided  show him going either a little later or a lot later in the draft.

The consensus pick of almost all those lists would have been Nylander.

In this dimension Nylander is better than Virtanen.

 

So that adds up to it being a bad pick by Benning.  

Is your next argument going to be that Petterson wasn’t a good pick by Benning because in an alternate universe Gabe Vilardi has been outscoring him?  
 

That is your logic.... and it is weird and dumb.

Wow, I put in an alternate scenario that was more about a food for thought. It's funny that you decided to try and feast on that. I even said that everyone knows that Virtanen didn't work out. There is no spinning of the story that he was a good pick, in hindsight.

 

That being said, you've completedly misunderstood what was written, either deliberately or due to incompetence. 

 

You've stated exactly what I knew you were gonna say about NA skaters and European. And I've already addressed this beforehand because I knew you'd go this route. Looks like you didn't read.

 

Your theory: Virtanen wouldn't be number 6 if you included European skaters into the mix

 

Your fallacy: the assumption that European skaters were necessarily equal to NA skaters.

 

Example in 2017, Klim Kostin and Elias Pettersson were rated 1 and 2 respectively. Does that mean Kostin should have been a higher pick or no?

 

Kostin ends up being picked last in the first round, whereas Pettersson gets picked 5th.

 

Provost, no matter how hard you try to justify your spot, you've embarrassed yourself plenty of times in this thread.

 

Five times you've been wrong. This one being a logical fallacy.

[4petesake]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

actually Judd was a part of the scouting team. It just felt like a feel good pick to me.... home town boy picked bynew President, new GM, wasn't entirely Bennings scouting group yet. But its just a pet theory.

 

I've actually gone over the picks from the last 6 to 7 years using that site to see who to trust going into drafts, and Craig Button has been one of the best. Pretty exited about how high he is on Podkolzin. 

I liked the pick a lot at the time and remember thinking that Button must be pretty stupid for having Jake rated so low. That kind of explains why Button has a paying gig and I make comments in a fan forum.

[Provost]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

actually Judd was a part of the scouting team. It just felt like a feel good pick to me.... home town boy picked bynew President, new GM, wasn't entirely Bennings scouting group yet. But its just a pet theory.

 

I've actually gone over the picks from the last 6 to 7 years using that site to see who to trust going into drafts, and Craig Button has been one of the best. Pretty exited about how high he is on Podkolzin. 

Brackett was a long-time part time regional scout on the NorthEast college beat since the Gillis days... he didn't become the Head of Amateur Scouting until 2015 (the 2016 draft would have been his first running the show).  I don't think we can pin anything on him until then as he wasn't in any sort of decision making position.

It is fair to put the responsibility on Linden as well as Benning though.  Linden was the boss, and Benning was the guy who had been a head scout.  If it turned out well they get the credit, if it turned out badly they get the blame.

[JM_]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

Brackett was a long-time part time regional scout on the NorthEast college beat since the Gillis days... he didn't become the Head of Amateur Scouting until 2015 (the 2016 draft would have been his first running the show).  I don't think we can pin anything on him until then as he wasn't in any sort of decision making position.

It is fair to put the responsibility on Linden as well as Benning though.  Linden was the boss, and Benning was the guy who had been a head scout.  If it turned out well they get the credit, if it turned out badly they get the blame.

 

I don't think you can say at the time Jake was a "bad" pick, our management staff likely reached down 2 or 3 spots to take him but Elhlers was a smurf then too so that may have played into it a bit. So many 1st rounders end up being disappointments and not all GMs were idiots for picking those guys. 

 

I've always thought it was drafting+development anyway that matters the most, I don't really see how you can separate the two outside of the generational talents. 

[Provost]

12 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Provost, no matter how hard you try to justify your spot, you've embarrassed yourself plenty of times in this thread.

 

Five times you've been wrong. This one being a logical fallacy.

Umm you might want to look up what fallacy means...

I made no assumptions at all.  I simply stated the irrevocable, true fact that Central Scouting's North American prospect list is not a list indicating overall draft rankings, and can't be used as such because that would lead you to make terrible drafting mistakes due to your lack of understanding that European players and goalies also exist in the draft... so you can't claim it is or that their scouting ranked Jake to go #6 overall, which you keep basing your entire argument on.  They just didn't.  IT ISN'T TRUE.

You have made the assumption that being the 6th best N.A.skater on their group of lists means that they ranked him as 6th overall.  That is simply not true.  Please find any evidence that Central Scouting had a combined list that ranked Jake to go #6 or higher in the draft.  You can keep posting their North American list over and over ad nauseum, but that doesn't make the argument you keep trying to make.  I will hold my breath waiting for you to find your Combined Central Scouting Draft Ranking List showing Jake at #6 overall.  You haven't provided it yet, even with hours of scouring the internet for some shred of back up to justify your mistaken understanding.

So... your fallacy is that you have a mistaken belief, based on one unsound argument.  That Central Scouting had him ranked going 6th overall in the draft.  That is a mistaken belief from not understanding how they do their prospect lists, and an unsound argument because it is simply not true or at least you have shown zero evidence that it is (at least in this dimension, I can't speak to any theoretical alternate dimensions that you propose).

[Provost]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

I don't think you can say at the time Jake was a "bad" pick, our management staff likely reached down 2 or 3 spots to take him but Elhlers was a smurf then too so that may have played into it a bit. So many 1st rounders end up being disappointments and not all GMs were idiots for picking those guys. 

 

I've always thought it was drafting+development anyway that matters the most, I don't really see how you can separate the two outside of the generational talents. 

Sure we can say he was a bad pick... he didn't work out.  We have many years of history to show us this.  

Can you make an argument for why Benning ignored the overall consensus of Nylander as BPA in that spot?  I guess you can, but it doesn't stop it from being a bad pick.

You can't "forgive" decisions that turn out badly, but give credit for decisions that turn out well.  That is just inventing things to support a preconceived opinion.  Virtanen and Juolevi were bad picks (at least with any evidence we have up until now).  Petterson was a great pick (at least with any evidence we have up until now).

[JM_]

14 minutes ago, Provost said:

Sure we can say he was a bad pick... he didn't work out.  We have many years of history to show us this.  

Can you make an argument for why Benning ignored the overall consensus of Nylander as BPA in that spot?  I guess you can, but it doesn't stop it from being a bad pick.

You can't "forgive" decisions that turn out badly, but give credit for decisions that turn out well.  That is just inventing things to support a preconceived opinion.  Virtanen and Juolevi were bad picks (at least with any evidence we have up until now).  Petterson was a great pick (at least with any evidence we have up until now).

I guess I begin with the premise that no GM or scouting team can always be correct or have perfect knowledge of players. We're dealing with people here, and thats always going to have an element of uncertainty to it. 

 

Reaching down 2, 3 ,4 spots in a deepish draft doesn't seem that onerous, and maybe they didn't like Nylander's dad. Who knows. 

 

I think you have to look at 4 or 5 years of drafting to make a fair comment on a GM.

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[Wolfgang Durst]

9 hours ago, Dazzle said:

2.55 is not a bad signing at all. Only a 2 year deal, easily managable, and this was the very last try to get him motivated.

Oh my goodness,

Jake needs a contract and money for motiviation.... That says it all.

 

No intrinsic motiviation from Jake

No passion for the game from Jake

 

Jim didn't do his due diligence on Jake before drafting him - another glaring mistake from Jim. What's the purpose of having a conversation between the prospect and the Canucks staff at the combine ahead of the draft? Right, to get a grasp of the personality of a player, especially what's the motivation of the player. Does he love the game.

 

Funny that some Jake supporters have been defending him for several years.