Post-Game Talk: Canucks 5 Oilers 2 - My kids are better than your kids!

[Rey]

Are we done here?

no, this is entertaining for me.

 

[CanaFan]

I don't think we are setting hard caps, just arguing what's likely and what's unlikely.

Even knowing what we know now, I still think that it would have been unrealistic at the time to be optimistic that Horvat could improve his speed to a degree which would make him one of the fastest players on the team, or that Kesler would improve his shot to a degree where he could score 40 goals on the strength of it.

Those things can and did happen (and very reasonably shocked people), but it was still very reasonable to be down on them and skeptical early on, IMO.

Reasonable? No because I read in numerous sources outside of our boards that Horvat had 2C upside and numerous fans of other teams commented on how much they liked the pick. We are a semi-neurotic board driven by 45-cupless years and sprinkled in with 2 gut wrenching cup losses, and a history of drafting duds (which of course had no actual bearing on a draft in the year 2013). We take a negative, worst-case-scenario to most things especially our prospects. I found the reaction to Horvat (and to a lesser degree McCann) to be largely unreasonable and pessimistic in nature. I continue to see this expressed in posts about Virtanen even after a game where he clearly showed an ability to make the kind of plays that he has been widely accused of being unable to make.

I'm very happy with Jake's play tonight (along with the progression of Horvat and McCann) but not as surprised as some because I try to keep an open mind about how much a player can grow from 18 to 22-23. Sure a lot of the time it doesn't happen, but that doesn't mean one always needs to take a pessimistic outlook on every kid. Keep an open mind and allow for surprises to occur. It's more fun.

 

[Ozone]

Virtanen first knew he was fine, still crumpled on the ice, when he saw Horvat screaming at him.

“It’s in the net!â€

“It wasn’t my eye so I knew I was going to be OK. I’ll take the goal.â€

Virtanen then walked off the ice, and in one of the better Virtanen moments of the preseason, waved to the Oilers crowd, just a couple weeks after causing a mild raucous around these parts by blowing through Connor McDavid in a Young Stars game.

Virtanen said he had to do it, the wave to the crowd. And they cheered.

Who wouldn’t?

Great moment.

You weren’t alone, Horvat loved that line too

“I hope this line is together for a long time.â€

Hey, we just hope it’s together next week.

What made it work?

“It’s a great mixture of different play,†Horvat said. “Jake has a great forecheck, and a ton of speed, and great puck movement.

“Sven has ton of skill. I got the two-way game. It just really works together.â€

I asked Willie if he’d use this one in a regular season game.

“Uh, I’m open to all our lines … but we have other guys, so it’s going to be tough get a lineup spot for us.

“We probably have 14 forwards who could play 15 or 16 minutes.â€

hmm.

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/10/01/canucks-win-5-2-what-we-learned-on-horvats-growth-virtanens-goal-and-svens-gritty-side-what/

 

[Ozone]

no, this is entertaining for me.

I'm glad someone is entertained....

 

[Rey]

I'm not sure I buy that the logic is wrong.

You said that Vey and Horvat had the same amount of chances but Horvat was just able to capitalize on more. The way I, and it appears other people, read that, suggests that Horvat and Vey are (at least in this instance) able to generate or find a similar number of chances but one simply has more finish.

But this isn't true. They aren't able to generate a similar number of chances. The finish isn't even close to what separates them. It's everything else as well, by every metric, and by a wide margin.

Your comment, logically, kind of undersells the disparity between them in every other area of their game.

The analogy would be-- it's kind of like saying, after a game where the Sedins dominate possession and score goals and Dorsett doesn't, "Dorsett had the same chances, the Sedins were just able to put those chances in the net."

I think you are overthinking it and have completely taken the whole situation out of context.

 

[Shareefruck]

Reasonable? No because I read in numerous sources outside of our boards that Horvat had 2C upside and numerous fans of other teams commented on how much they liked the pick. We are a semi-neurotic board driven by 45-cupless years and sprinkled in with 2 gut wrenching cup losses, and a history of drafting duds (which of course had no actual bearing on a draft in the year 2013). We take a negative, worst-case-scenario to most things especially our prospects. I found the reaction to Horvat (and to a lesser degree McCann) to be largely unreasonable and pessimistic in nature. I continue to see this expressed in posts about Virtanen even after a game where he clearly showed an ability to make the kind of plays that he has been widely accused of being unable to make.

I'm very happy with Jake's play tonight (along with the progression of Horvat and McCann) but not as surprised as some because I try to keep an open mind about how much a player can grow from 18 to 22-23. Sure a lot of the time it doesn't happen, but that doesn't mean one always needs to take a pessimistic outlook on every kid. Keep an open mind and allow for surprises to occur. It's more fun.

I think it's more fun to have a measured approach to expectations and actually be surprised when something genuinely unlikely happens. I don't find it reasonable to consider that "pessimism" simply because in some cases (usually not the norm), prospects can surprise you. It's not being close-minded to simply be skeptical of something and not expect more than you do.

If you sort of have an "anything can happen, so I'm going to be hopeful that the best thing will", can it really be considered a meaningful "surprise" in the rare case where it does?

 

[Shareefruck]

I think you are overthinking it and have completely taken the whole situation out of context.

If Ozone wasn't reacting to that, what was he reacting to? That's what I assumed he was talking about when he criticized it.

 

[Rey]

If Ozone wasn't reacting to that, what was he reacting to? That's what I assumed he was talking about when he criticized it.

Wrong guy?

 

[Serac]

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/10/01/canucks-win-5-2-what-we-learned-on-horvats-growth-virtanens-goal-and-svens-gritty-side-what/

Willies response kills all optimism
It's amazing

 

[Shareefruck]

Wrong guy?

Whoops. Quat.

You all look the same to me.

 

[WTG]

Willies response kills all optimism
It's amazing

Benning says that McCann gets the last 2 games.

WD basically says McCann will get cut.

Benning last year said that he basically forced Horvat to be on the team and that WD was not very happy about it.

Benning is in charge of the roster/callups.


I actually expect Benning to make the right move here and keep McCann

 

[Disappointed EP40]

I'll have to slightly disagree with this.

Management must have felt VERY confident in

1) Markstrom's ability to take over the crease within two years
2) Markstrom ultimately becoming a better goalie than Eddie Lack.

Time will tell obviously, but I am of the opinion that the above two points will hold true.

The problem in keeping Lack is that you'd have to sign him for 3+ years - probably around 3.5-4 million....if we're being optimistic (my guess is that Lack would have wanted at least 4-5 years). With Miller, at least his contract expires in two seasons.

And I do think that having some kind of pedigree at a high level is a factor. Miller played in the 2010 Olympic finals and that experience is something you can't ignore. Whether we like it or not, Miller did have a brief stretch there where he was an elite goalie. That experience helps if the Canucks manage to make the playoffs (and don't use last season as an example as Miller entered Game 5 still injured and rusty after a long layoff).

I think Benning made the right move in keeping Miller and parting ways with Eddie Lack. Lack would have wanted term, and given management's apparent confidence in Markstrom, signing Lack to a long term deal wouldn't have made sense.

It's not about Markstrom -- It's about Miller.

Lack >> Miller

Take anything for Miller, keep Lack and let his value grow if Markstrom succeeds.

Currently, Markstrom HAS to succeed for the Canuck's goalie future to look good beyond Miller's contract. That's just a dumb move.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

Willies response kills all optimism
It's amazing

"Willie says this is playoff Horvat. If it is, why wasn’t he centring the second line in April? My lord."

Such a valid point, it's remarkable. Horvat looks much more assertive in his game. Confident.

 

[JuniorNelson]

Benning says that McCann gets the last 2 games.

WD basically says McCann will get cut.

Benning last year said that he basically forced Horvat to be on the team and that WD was not very happy about it.

Benning is in charge of the roster/callups.


I actually expect Benning to make the right move here and keep McCann

That's interesting. Benning should just ram the Baertschi Horvat Vitanen line down Desjardins' throat, if that's what it takes.

 

[F A N]

He can, but for it to no longer be a relative weakness, I think it's about as unlikely as Horvat's speed going from being one of his biggest weaknesses to one of his biggest strengths. It's also not really something that only takes hard work and will power to do, so that makes me extra skeptical.

I'm certainly not too hopeful that it's not going to hold him back and continue to be at least somewhat of a weakness relative to the rest of his game. (I'm more hopeful that he'll be able to turn his defensive game around than this, personally)

Okay... what's your point here? There's a difference between an attribute being a relative weakness and in theory holding a player back and an attribute that prevents a player from reaching his projected potential. Take any small player who is a star in the NHL. Size is a relative weakness and in theory if they were bigger they would be even better. Virtanen's skillset is considered to be that of an elite level player. Had he had the hockey IQ of a Sam Reinhart, Virtanen would have been in contention for the #1 overall pick. But since he does not, Virtanen is not expected to be a great playmaker. What he projects to be is a multi-dimensional sniper who plays a physical brand of hockey. People automatically assume that Ehlers and Nylander would become more valuable players because they are more "skilled". But it doesn't always work that way. Would you take Kyle Turris or Max Pacioretty? Ryan Nugent Hopkins or Gabriel Landeskog? It's not always easy.

 

[Billy Kvcmu]

"Willie says this is playoff Horvat. If it is, why wasn’t he centring the second line in April? My lord."

Such a valid point, it's remarkable. Horvat looks much more assertive in his game. Confident.

According to what Willie said in that article.Seems like Hutton has a real chance at least.

 

[arsmaster*]

It's not about Markstrom -- It's about Miller.

Lack >> Miller

Take anything for Miller, keep Lack and let his value grow if Markstrom succeeds.

Currently, Markstrom HAS to succeed for the Canuck's goalie future to look good beyond Miller's contract. That's just a dumb move.

Eddie lack only let in one goal last preseason. He started one game over the next month. Preseason be damned this is Miller's crease for 60 games if he's healthy. Can't have a controversy.

Markstrom looks good. Eddie Lack last preseason looked like a starter. Hope Markstrom proves me wrong.

 

[CanaFan]

I think it's more fun to have a measured approach to expectations and actually be surprised when something genuinely unlikely happens. I don't find it reasonable to consider that "pessimism" simply because in some cases (usually not the norm), prospects can surprise you. It's not being close-minded to simply be skeptical of something and not expect more than you do.

If you sort of have an "anything can happen, so I'm going to be hopeful that the best thing will", can it really be considered a meaningful "surprise" in the rare case where it does?

So expecting a 9th overall pick to never develop into more than a face off specialist 3C is your idea of "measured" expectations?

I'm not saying run around expecting every prospect to turn into an NHL player or NHL star, but by the same turn this board has a habit of declaring with some confidence what a player's max upside is fairly early. I don't find that either measured or reasonable. It's fine if your initial feeling is that Horvat might look like a 3C - we all have opinions and that's fine to discuss - but also being mature and realistic enough to admit that we don't really know how any 18 yo kid is going to turn out and maybe dialling down the angry histrionics that come with "knowing" what this player's ceiling is.

I would agree that that is reasonable and measured. Talking about kids upside or ceilings with any degree of near certainty - positive or negative - is not.

 

[Shareefruck]

So expecting a 9th overall pick to never develop into more than a face off specialist 3C is your idea of "measured" expectations?

I'm not saying running around expecting every prospect to turn into an NHL player or NHL star, but by the same turn this board has a habit of proclaiming what a player's max upside is fairly early. I don't find that either measured or reasonable. It's fine if your initial feeling was that Horvat may not be more than a 3C but also acknowledging that we don't really know how an 18 yo kid is going to turn out and maybe dialling down the histrionics at the time.

I would agree that is reasonable and measured. Talking about kids upside or ceilings with any degree of near certainty - positive or negative - is not.

What the hell? I'm only defending my own opinions. I never once argued that Horvat only had 3rd line potential-- In fact, if you check my history, I've always criticized how ridiculous that view was. Why are you expecting me to defend every bad opinion that you for some reason choose to lump my opinion on Virtanen in with? (I thought that was a pretty unfair thing to do, btw)

I never subscribed to the ludicrous "Horvat will max out as a 3rd liner" theory, not because I had your "we don't know, and anything can happen to an 18 year old" attitude, but because nothing about his junior showing suggested that his potential was anything close to that limited. That's why I feel it was unreasonable (the same posters who thought that his potential was that limited for some reason did not have the same view of prospects who showed far less ability-- It's almost like they thought the fact that Horvat had a strong and well rounded/complete two-way game was somehow what limited his offensive upside, which is beyond stupid). But if, hypothetically, he really appeared to have a low ceiling based on what he showed in his current trajectory (in a similar manner to Virtanen showing that his hockey sense is somewhat limited), then I would have an expectation that aligns with that.

I don't think I did talk about prospects with a degree of certainty, I simply, in this case, don't see the overly-optimistic result happening-- It could, but I wouldn't bank on it, and would be very shocked if it happened. I'm shocked that Horvat's speed boost happened this quickly, and was shocked with Kesler became a 50 assist or 40 goal guy. But that shock wouldn't make me regret having the initial measured view that I did have, because I still think that it was reasonable at the time.

In any case, I don't understand why you're projecting your frustration of the fanbase's cynicism onto me now-- I have no stake in it, and I haven't consistently shown the same "pessimism" with all our other new prospects.

It's not "pessimism" to simply not have faith that someone has an ability that he hasn't shown promise of yet, and that is what I'm basing my opinion of Virtanen on. If I had the expectation that he would at some point improve to a degree that his hockey IQ was at all a relative weakness (the way it still appears to be for Kesler, despite being a great player), given what I've seen so far, I think I would be being overly optimistic (which I personally see as the same thing as being overly pessimistic), not measured, personally.

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Willies response kills all optimism
It's amazing

Botch on point again.

The way Willie talks, it's like he wouldn't know a special hockey player if he got run over by one. It's just so funny.

 

[CanaFan]

What the hell? I'm only defending my own opinions. I never argued that Horvat only had 3rd line potential. Why are you expecting me to defend every bad opinion that you choose to lump my opinion in with for some reason?

I never subscribed to the ludicrous "Horvat will max out as a 3rd liner" theory, not because I had your "we don't know, and anything can happen to an 18 year old" attitude, but because nothing about his junior showing suggested that his potential was that limited. That's why I feel it was unreasonable. But in a hypothetical world where he really appeared to have a low ceiling based on his current trajectory (in a similar manner to Virtanen showing that his hockey sense is somewhat limited), then I would have an expectation that aligns with that.

I don't think I did talk about prospects with a degree of certainty, I simply, in this case, don't see the optimistic result happening-- It could, but I wouldn't put money on it.

I don't understand why your projecting your frustration of the fanbase's cynicism onto me now-- I have no stake in it, and I haven't consistently shown the same "pessimism" with all our other prospects.

Well I don't know what each posters position on every player is and I'm not charging you personally with having done the above. But I'm saying that your "limiting" of Jake is just as unfounded as other posters limiting of Horvat. You have a right to your opinion of course and that is fine, I'm simply pointing out that in this case the opinion you have is quite hard for any of us to "know". Saying Jake had a good or bad game today is a very valid opinion to have. Saying his hockey sense will always be what you see today is less valid because history has shown that fans in general are very bad at projecting what 18 or 19 year old kids will become.

So if you think Jake has a hard limit on his hockey IQ, fine I guess. But honestly neither you nor I really have any idea whether that is true.

 

[GetFocht]

I think Horvat has proved his ceiling is unlimited. Hrs absolutely special and has the potential to be a 1C. What a great trade, rarely do you see a #1 goaltender traded for a player of this caliber

 

[tezgm99]

Vey, he's just not ready.

Nice hair though

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Shareefruck]

Okay... what's your point here? There's a difference between an attribute being a relative weakness and in theory holding a player back and an attribute that prevents a player from reaching his projected potential. Take any small player who is a star in the NHL. Size is a relative weakness and in theory if they were bigger they would be even better. Virtanen's skillset is considered to be that of an elite level player. Had he had the hockey IQ of a Sam Reinhart, Virtanen would have been in contention for the #1 overall pick. But since he does not, Virtanen is not expected to be a great playmaker. What he projects to be is a multi-dimensional sniper who plays a physical brand of hockey. People automatically assume that Ehlers and Nylander would become more valuable players because they are more "skilled". But it doesn't always work that way. Would you take Kyle Turris or Max Pacioretty? Ryan Nugent Hopkins or Gabriel Landeskog? It's not always easy.

My point is that I think the projected limitation exists, not that Virtanen is held back from becoming a great player (perhaps enough to prevent him from being a "the sky is the limit" type player, though). It's a point that I felt was worth defending because people were arguing otherwise and treating the suggestion like it was a fallacy.

It's not like I came into this thread with the agenda "everybody calm down about this game! Virtanen's IQ is very bad!" or something-- It was mentioned in passing, people challenged the suggestion of his hockey IQ being limited as being untrue, and that's why we're here.

 

[tantalum]

McCann had his weakest game but still he created a couple of chances and rang one off the post. He may not be ready but if his pre-season hasn't earned some regular season games for further evaluation then this management and coaching group are stupid. I don't see the worry with not physically ready or scared to burn a year off his elc. If he isn't physically ready that will come out in the games and sure send him down (his size is fine btw). If he isn't good enough then don't give him his 10th game so the contract thing isn't a concern. He is better than Vey now. If he can hold his own in the regular season he'll be much better in 40 games.

Vey wasn't terrible but outside of Prust was likely the worst Canuck. He just isn't a regular NHL player.

Prust...remember broken down knee braced Sturm? That's who Prust reminds me of laboring around the ice.

Burrows...excellent game. Very nice response to the vets need to show more challenge.

Sutter...better but still meh. He is what he is...an overpaid competent third liner.

I won't comment on the big line last night...their play speaks for itself.

Hutton...wow. But you know Willie will sit Weber or something if Hutton is kept up. He sent going to sit Sbisa or Bartkowski. Or tanev, Edler and Hamhuis. In that case I'd rather Hutton be in the AHL getting 20+ minutes a night until an injury hits. Give Biega the #7 spot.

Desjardins can **** off if McCann isn't in the opening day lineup and vey is.

All of a sudden that weak amateur scouting the Gillis regime had all of a sudden isn't looking weak. The changes made the back half of his tenure are paying off. The tanev and Lack signings look damn good as well.