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

[CanaFan]

I think prime Linden's hockey IQ was pretty similar to Shane Doan's hockey IQ-- they don't have eyes on the back of their head, and they play very straightforward games, obviously, but I would call both high IQ players, personally. I think both of them are a noticeable tier or two above Virtanen and Kesler's hockey IQ.

I think it's not really about directly making plays with passes that lead to scoring chances (Virtanen is actually not too bad at this), it's the whole package of recognizing who's on the ice and what places to put pucks in, and where to go to receive passes so that momentum keeps moving in your favor. Guys like Linden and Doan are damn solid at this. Despite never blowing the roof off with something unthinkable, they generally don't take a wrong step, whereas Virtanen/Kesler are always taking wrong steps, and rely alot myore on raw physical ability to work their way out of it.

Based on what you've described I would agree that "solid" is a fair description of Linden's hockey sense. Not high end, not fantastic. I mean the guy was 6'4, has tremendous wheels, a powerful shot and great release. Considering he played in the era where scoring literally 12-15 players a year would break the 40 goal / 90 point levels, how high can his offensive IQ have been to have all those high end tools yet never break 33 goals and only hit 80 points once? Something isn't adding up. If he had fantastic IQ and all those tools, there should have been a higher ceiling on Linden's production, especially considering his huge role in the offense and on some pretty good power plays over the 92-95 seasons.

His lack of real high offensive IQ and creativity are why he was always good but never (outside of 94 cup run) elite.

Ovie is an example of a player who I would say has a high offensive IQ but isn't tremendously "creative" as he tends to play in fairly direct lines and rarely makes those plays that are 2-3 steps ahead of everyone else.

Jake's IQ is hard to get a read on as he is still quite inconsistent in how he plays the game. He looked great with Horvat tonight and seemed to anticipate where he'd be quite well. I saw similar when he played with Brayden Point in the summer game against the Czechs and the previous summer vs in the WJC and warm up games.

He seems to adjust his play style a lot depending on who he is with. I think he is always capable of making those plays but sometimes chooses to be more individualistic than other times. Like I say, I think consistency is his challenge more than ability.

 

[biturbo19]

Pretty much how I see it too.

We don't need Prust at all. In fact we don't need a lot of these vets on our team.

Other than Fighting is Prust a better option for this team than Virtanen at this point?

A functional Prust, absolutely i think you can find room for on the team and adds something important. Even last season Prust, that's a very solid 4th liner.

But man, he's old and broken. I mean, last year it was pretty clear he was starting to break down...but he was still generally able to keep up with the play, get in on the forecheck, eat up some effective PK minutes, and contribute some "grit" to a team while playing actual minutes. Whatever he did this summer though, was very not helpful for him. His skating has just become a massive liability. Absolutely dropped off a cliff - hard to recall many players looking more labored getting around the ice than he has this preseason. And with that, through the preseason, it just doesn't look like he has the wheels to contribute in the ways he needs to anymore.

At this point, i'd be thrilled to see if they can flip him for something (before everyone confirms his wheels are blown out)...not even necessarily to get more "kids" in the lineup...even just to find a different vet who can still skate would be fine.

It's too bad...i think there definitely would've been a good, important role for him here with all the kids around and in taking some load off Dorsett, replacing some of the grit we lost with Bieksa moved out...if the wheels were still there. But that doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[Shareefruck]

The other thing about the Baertschi - Horvat - Virtanen that makes them a great fit is how the outlet/stretch pass seems to be Baertschi's most consistent skill, and nobody on the team is better at taking off from that pass than Horvat and Virtanen.

 

[Serac]

I think the whole "Virtanen has low hockey iq" is blown way out of proportion

People who have watched him play can usually see that he can, and does, make smart plays
And that it's not a rare feat for him to do so

He just had the misfortune of being in the same draft class as someone like Sam Reinhart who has been touted as a genius on the ice
And other, fancier junior-level players like Ehlers

It's so ridiculously overstated that Virtanen has a low hockey iq, when it's not really accurate to begin with

 

[VanillaCoke]

The other thing about the Baertschi - Horvat - Virtanen that makes them a great fit is how the outlet/stretch pass seems to be Baertschi's most consistent skill, and nobody on the team is better at taking off from that pass than Horvat and Virtanen.

Good point.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I realize this is obvious, but worth mentioning again, and again, and again..

Ben Hutton.



When was the last pre-season, we were this surprised, shocked, and happy, with a new guy?

According to Jeff Patterson on Team 1040, Hutton will get sent down to Utica.

Other than that, I completely agree with you. The kid looks absolutely solid.

I know it's still *way* too early to pass any kind of judgement/observation, but all successful cores have the following:

-Elite center
-Elite d-man
-Elite goalie
-One more solid d-man or one more solid center

Based on what we've seen in this pre-season, it's hard not get excited about a future core consisting of Horvat, Hutton, Markstrom, and McCann. That core, supported by the likes of Virtanen, Gaunce, and an older Tanev.

This might be a down year for the Canucks, but I don't see us missing the playoffs for 5-7 years in the manner that Calgary/Dallas, etc. did. The next core isn't too far off from arriving.....and thriving.

 

[WTG]

A functional Prust, absolutely i think you can find room for on the team and adds something important. Even last season Prust, that's a very solid 4th liner.

But man, he's old and broken. I mean, last year it was pretty clear he was starting to break down...but he was still generally able to keep up with the play, get in on the forecheck, eat up some effective PK minutes, and contribute some "grit" to a team while playing actual minutes. Whatever he did this summer though, was very not helpful for him. His skating has just become a massive liability. Absolutely dropped off a cliff - hard to recall many players looking more labored getting around the ice than he has this preseason. And with that, through the preseason, it just doesn't look like he has the wheels to contribute in the ways he needs to anymore.

At this point, i'd be thrilled to see if they can flip him for something (before everyone confirms his wheels are blown out)...not even necessarily to get more "kids" in the lineup...even just to find a different vet who can still skate would be fine.

It's too bad...i think there definitely would've been a good, important role for him here with all the kids around and in taking some load off Dorsett, replacing some of the grit we lost with Bieksa moved out...if the wheels were still there. But that doesn't appear to be the case.

It also forecasts what is going to happen to Dorsett IMO.

Dorsett turns 29 in december, how many years can he keep this up?

 

[Shareefruck]

Based on what you've described I would agree that "solid" is a fair description of Linden's hockey sense. Not high end, not fantastic. I mean the guy was 6'4, has tremendous wheels, a powerful shot and great release. Considering he played in the era where scoring literally 12-15 players a year would break the 40 goal / 90 point levels, how high can his offensive IQ have been to have all those high end tools yet never break 33 goals and only hit 80 points once? Something isn't adding up. If he had fantastic IQ and all those tools, there should have been a higher ceiling on Linden's production, especially considering his huge role in the offense and on some pretty good power plays over the 92-95 seasons.

His lack of real high offensive IQ and creativity are why he was always good but never (outside of 94 cup run) elite.

I think we're just using the terms "solid", "great", "fantastic", and "elite" differently.

I never meant to imply that Linden had elite caliber hockey sense. But I think he had high (or "great" or at least "damn good/solid") hockey sense in the sense that you could rarely reasonably complain about anything he did on the ice or the decisions that he made. He always makes a smart play given his options-- that to me is high hockey IQ.

I still think Kesler and Virtanen are in that "merely okay hockey sense" tier, where they'll regularly make somewhat questionable or lukewarm decisions but are able to get away with it (not that they aren't capable of making good decisions). I hope Virtanen can improve in that respect, but I'm not expecting anything too drastic, personally.

 

[quat]

Every player transitioning to the pro game and especially the NHL game needs to make adjustments, especially for a player like Virtanen who had the speed to blow by most players and the strength to overpower most players in juniors. A lot of times it's recognizing situations. Do you make the safe play or try to make a play? Do you try to beat a defender one on one or wait for help. And if a player doesn't get better can he increase his scoring production? A good example would be Mikkel Boedker. He's a player who has been able to increase his offensive production and still has offensive upside, but analytics suggests he's not that good of a player and he remains a one-dimensional scorer.

I agree. I'm not really on board with this narrative that Virtanen is somehow a fairly limited player. I do agree that he's been playing to his strengths, which would be speed, physicality and a hard, accurate shot... but it's very possible that he's been trying to play the way or the game the coaches want to see out of him. It's possible that he's got more finesse in his game than he's being given credit for.

I'm not saying it's a given it's there, but there are a lot of posters on this site being pretty definitive about what his upside is and that seems to be pretty risky, given the example of Horvat has most recently set. The guy is very young and he's still got a lot of time to improve his game. Do people really think Virtanen can't improve the thinking part of his game?

 

[Ozone]

I changed my mind.

Hey Connor, the regular season is just around the corner. I hope you're excited.

Dear Connor,

Regular season is just around the corner and I hope you're excited. Welcome to Alberta. Also, if you aren't doing anything later on, I was thinking that we could go grab a bite to eat and then head over to my place for a cup of coffee. Let me know what you think.

Sincerely,

Mess.

I changed my mind. I'm really busy helping someone come up with titles to his new book. I hear 'titles' are very important lately.

Sincerely,

Mess.

 

[jigsaw99]

it is me or burrows look pretty bad this preseason. i don't remember him doing anything at all.

 

[Ozone]

According to Jeff Patterson on Team 1040, Hutton will get sent down to Utica.

Other than that, I completely agree with you. The kid looks absolutely solid.

I know it's still *way* too early to pass any kind of judgement/observation, but all successful cores have the following:

-Elite center
-Elite d-man
-Elite goalie
-One more solid d-man or one more solid center

Based on what we've seen in this pre-season, it's hard not get excited about a future core consisting of Horvat, Hutton, Markstrom, and McCann. That core, supported by the likes of Virtanen, Gaunce, and an older Tanev.

This might be a down year for the Canucks, but I don't see us missing the playoffs for 5-7 years in the manner that Calgary/Dallas, etc. did. The next core isn't too far off from arriving.....and thriving.

Agreed, and sad (but not unexpected) if he is sent down.

The future does look a bit brighter though!

 

[CanaFan]

I think we're just using the terms "solid", "great", "fantastic", and "elite" differently.

I never meant to imply that Linden had elite caliber hockey sense. But I think he had high (or damn "good" or "great") hockey sense in the sense that you couldn't rarely reasonably complain about anything he did on the ice or the decisions that he made.

I still think Kesler and Virtanen are in that "merely okay hockey sense" tier, where they'll always make somewhat questionable or lukewarm decisions but are able to get away with it.

Maybe. Kesler is another guy who seemed to change his play style when paired with different quality line mates. Back in 2008-09 when he played with Sundin and Demitra he was much more "team oriented" in his play. Flash forward to 2011-on when he had much less talent on his wings and he started to become shoot-from-everywhere Kesler. To me he had the offensive IQ but changed how he played the game based on the talent (or lack of) around him.

Jake does seem similar to Kesler in that respect.

 

[Shareefruck]

Maybe. Kesler is another guy who seemed to change his play style when paired with different quality line mates. Back in 2008-09 when he played with Sundin and Demitra he was much more "team oriented" in his play. Flash forward to 2011-on when he had much less talent on his wings and he started to become shoot-from-everywhere Kesler. To me he had the offensive IQ but changed how he played the game based on the talent (or lack of) around him.

Jake does seem similar to Kesler in that respect.

That's true, but also felt like a bit of an anomaly with Kesler (I did FAR prefer that version of Kesler-- I feel like it only happened two seasons in his entire career though-- he's played with higher caliber skilled players in other instances and I didn't feel like that trend continued).

But I haven't seen any indication of that in Virtanen as well. I think that kind of ability suddenly popping up out of nowhere is pretty rare (and possibly unsustainable, like it appeared to be for Kesler).

 

[quat]

There was never a comparison with Horvat and Vey. Anyone that plays with Horvat looks good.

Today, Vey and Horvat had the same amount of chances to score. This has nothing to do with how good they are individually. Had Vey scored on his chances, he woulda made his line look good. Horvat did score, so his whole line looked good. That's to simplify it for you.

A lot of people don't seem to know what hockey IQ is. Virtanen has played the same way style in every game in the pre-season and in his whole career. Nothing changed for him. He's a north south, creates room, physical, puck retrieval type guy. We all knew this. The biggest difference was that he was playing with Bo Horvat. Horvat had as much chances as Linden Vey but the difference was that Horvat potted the goals while Vey didn't. Edmonton's crappy defense gets some credit too. It's nice that Virtanen had a good game, but it's one game. One game doesn't put him over the other kid that has been good all pre-season.

I just pointed out that there are more differences between Vey and Horvat than just that Horvat scored. I understand now that you were trying to make a different point, you actually did compare the players to one another and wrote the words "the only difference".

 

[Ozone]

For me it was Jannik Hansen when that Burrows - Kesler - Hansen line first formed in the preseason.

Although this does have more potential than that.

Good call. Forgot about that.

I don't remember being this surprised though. But that line was a great surprise...ah, the good old days...

"Good times, noodle salad"

 

[CanaFan]

That's true, but also felt like a bit of an anomaly with Kesler (I did FAR prefer that version of Kesler).

But I haven't seen any indication of that in Virtanen as well. I think that kind of ability suddenly popping up out of nowhere is pretty rare (and possibly unsustainable, like it wasn't for Kesler?).

Have we really seen enough of Jake to say what he is capable of? The funny thing about 19 year old kids is they usually aren't finished products. What Jake is capable of becoming and what is beyond him is kind of unknown at the moment. One of my great peeves with this board is the number of posters who immediately set hard caps on 18 year old kids and don't allow for growth and surprises. See that Horvat fellow who everyone is raving about these days? Would you believe 2 years ago he was a face off specialist who would never crack 40 points in the NHL? And that McCann kid who we are in uproar because he won't make the team this year? 12 months ago he was a bonehead mistake because we already had our future 3C and why would we go and draft another one already?

This board is badly jaded by years of draft futility (including myself) and often has blinders on regarding the ability of kids to become more than they appear to be when they are 17/18.

 

[quat]

I explained to you in my last response to you. CHANCES. How does chances, have anything to do with comparing the players.

Absolutely mindblow.

It's actually clear I read something other than what you were talking about. I posted how that happened. You can't understand that. Mystery solved.

 

[Shareefruck]

I agree. I'm not really on board with this narrative that Virtanen is somehow a fairly limited player. I do agree that he's been playing to his strengths, which would be speed, physicality and a hard, accurate shot... but it's very possible that he's been trying to play the way or the game the coaches want to see out of him. It's possible that he's got more finesse in his game than he's being given credit for.

I'm not saying it's a given it's there, but there are a lot of posters on this site being pretty definitive about what his upside is and that seems to be pretty risky, given the example of Horvat has most recently set. The guy is very young and he's still got a lot of time to improve his game. Do people really think Virtanen can't improve the thinking part of his game?

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)

 

[Shareefruck]

Have we really seen enough of Jake to say what he is capable of? The funny thing about 19 year old kids is they usually aren't finished products. What Jake is capable of becoming and what is beyond him is kind of unknown at the moment. One of my great peeves with this board is the number of posters who immediately set hard caps on 18 year old kids and don't allow for growth and surprises. See that Horvat fellow who everyone is raving about these days? Would you believe 2 years ago he was a face off specialist who would never crack 40 points in the NHL? And that McCann kid who we are in uproar because he won't make the team this year? 12 months ago he was a bonehead mistake because we already had our future 3C and why would we go and draft another one already?

This board is badly jaded by years of draft futility (including myself) and often has blinders on regarding the ability of kids to become more than they appear to be when they are 17/18.

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.

 

[Rey]

It's actually clear I read something other than what you were talking about. I posted how that happened. You can't understand that. Mystery solved.

You're not reading it wrong. It's the logic that is wrong here.

Say, Derrick Dorsett scores 1 goal, in a 1-0 Canucks win game. Is he suddenly the best player on the Canucks team? The simple answer is no.

This is the same scenario. I said Vey and Horvat had the same amount of chances and never implied Vey was anything close to Horvat. Yet, somehow you think i said Vey is a comparable player than Horvat? That makes no sense, dude.

Do you understand now?

 

[Ozone]

Trying to look at 'the big picture', Virtanen's hockey IQ will only become an issue if he is not put with the proper players.

Most of us have a pretty good idea what type of players he needs to be on a line with.

 

[WTG]

This is the same scenario. I said Vey and Horvat had the same amount of chances

It's how Vey got those chances.

He did not create the same amount of chances Horvat did.

Also, you can get all the chances in the world but if you shoot the puck like it's a wet noodle it's pretty irrelevant. The guy can't finish, doesn't create anything, defensive liability, and needs players to carry him.

Vey, he's just not ready.

 

[Ozone]

You're not reading it wrong. It's the logic that is wrong here.

Say, Derrick Dorsett scores 1 goal, in a 1-0 Canucks win game. Is he suddenly the best player on the Canucks team? The simple answer is no.

This is the same scenario. I said Vey and Horvat had the same amount of chances and never implied Vey was anything close to Horvat. Yet, somehow you think i said Vey is a comparable player than Horvat? That makes no sense, dude.

Do you understand now?

Are we done here?

 

[Shareefruck]

You're not reading it wrong. It's the logic that is wrong here.

Say, Derrick Dorsett scores 1 goal, in a 1-0 Canucks win game. Is he suddenly the best player on the Canucks team? The simple answer is no.

This is the same scenario. I said Vey and Horvat had the same amount of chances and never implied Vey was anything close to Horvat. Yet, somehow you think i said Vey is a comparable player than Horvat? That makes no sense, dude.

Do you understand now?

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."