Prospect Info: Who is Canucks #2 prospect?

[Iridescent*]

Shinkaruk wouldn't even have gone in the first round of this draft if he was eligible.

He's an undersized one-way forward who projects as a decent 2nd line winger, if he turns out. The extent to which he's over-rated by a large portion of this fanbase is nuts, and that so many people are rating him ahead of a #6 overall pick blows my mind.

Maybe, but it was in reference to Virtanen being "head and shoulders" above him. Which he isn't. I don't think you can justifiably project a guy to be a legit top 6 player in the NHL when they have as low of an IQ as Virtanen does. Definitely not top line anyways.

Virtanen is going to have to be an exception to the rule if he wants to be a top 6 staple.

 

[Southern_Canuck]

This poll is a joke - if the Jensen vote hadn't been split by two entry choices, he would only be behind by, like, 130 votes.

S_C

 

[btdvox]

Shinkaruk wouldn't even have gone in the first round of this draft if he was eligible.

He's an undersized one-way forward who projects as a decent 2nd line winger, if he turns out. The extent to which he's over-rated by a large portion of this fanbase is nuts, and that so many people are rating him ahead of a #6 overall pick blows my mind.

Wait, do you mean 2015 or 2014 draft?

Because you're crazy if you think Shinkaruk wouldn't have gone top 10. 2013 draft was way more talented this 2014. On top of that Shinkaruk isn't that small, ie: he's not Ehler's or Nylander small and he's better than both of them, not to mention we got him at a steal, he was projected to go top 10 last year.

Also by you're logic, Virtanen should be better than Pavel Bure, because he was taken at 6th OA. LOL.

 

[Ernie]

Voted for Cole Cassels because he looked lonely all on his own there.

 

[King Crimson]

Maybe, but it was in reference to Virtanen being "head and shoulders" above him. Which he isn't. I don't think you can justifiably project a guy to be a legit top 6 player in the NHL when they have as low of an IQ as Virtanen does. Definitely not top line anyways.

Virtanen is going to have to be an exception to the rule if he wants to be a top 6 staple.

You say this a lot. You say this everywhere. It's as if you want everybody to know that you think he's incredibly stupid, and that they should all jump aboard your anti-hype train. This is your claim, and yet I have never seen you give a single explanation as to why you think so. It's gotten to the point where I demand a justification for your opinion since you continue to insist upon it. Not liking the way he plays is fine, but this seems so apart from his on-ice conduct that I want to know what I--and supposedly everyone else--am missing. Was he practicing his slapshot against your car or something?

It's strange. Sometimes you make good posts on other topics, and sometimes I agree. And then you'll throw in this venomous jab against Virtanen's IQ out of nowhere. Whenever I see your username, I can't help but picture a heavily blinkered racehorse who shat himself massively while coming down the final straight. 'Cuz that's what I think of your opinion on this matter when you fail to validate it: utter horsecrap.

As for the larger topic at hand: I voted for Gaunce because he's my favourite prospect. There's just something about the way he carries himself on the ice that makes me think he's the future captain of the Canucks. He's not spectacular, but he's really damn solid. So solid that I feel he has 70-point, 1C potential.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

You say this a lot. You say this everywhere. It's as if you want everybody to know that you think he's incredibly stupid, and that they should all jump aboard your anti-hype train. This is your claim, and yet I have never seen you give a single explanation as to why you think so. It's gotten to the point where I demand a justification for your opinion since you continue to insist upon it. Not liking the way he plays is fine, but this seems so apart from his on-ice conduct that I want to know what I--and supposedly everyone else--am missing. Was he practicing his slapshot against your car or something?

It's strange. Sometimes you make good posts on other topics, and sometimes I agree. And then you'll throw in this venomous jab against Virtanen's IQ out of nowhere. Whenever I see your username, I can't help but picture a heavily blinkered racehorse who shat himself massively while coming down the final straight. 'Cuz that's what I think of your opinion on this matter when you fail to validate it: utter horsecrap.

As for the larger topic at hand: I voted for Gaunce because he's my favourite prospect. There's just something about the way he carries himself on the ice that makes me think he's the future captain of the Canucks. He's not spectacular, but he's really damn solid. So solid that I feel he has 70-point, 1C potential.

I also believe Virtanen has low hockey IQ, but am all for him proving me wrong.

And I also voted Gaunce because he's a badass Mofo.

 

[King Crimson]

I have no problem with the argument that Virtanen has low Hockey IQ; there's a reason he was part of "the rest" when it came to the draft despite scoring 45 goals as a 17-year-old with less than prime minutes. It's just that whenever Iridescent posts about Virtanen, he makes it sound like he believes the kid is incredibly stupid, full stop.

 

[just22]

I also believe Virtanen has low hockey IQ, but am all for him proving me wrong.

And I also voted Gaunce because he's a badass Mofo.

Low hockey IQ, sure. But dumb as bricks, like Iridescent has previously mentioned, is going too far. Unless he knows him personally... even then isn't there some sort of board rule for that.

 

[cc]

I voted Jensen because I see him as the most NHL ready at this point.
I'm more selecting how they are right now. Judging someone's upside is a tricky thing, even if they are picked high. Jensen and Shinkaruk may end up being on the top line and Virtanen and Horvat may end up on a lower line. It's not as if Horvat and JV didn't have question marks with their game.

 

[Sharpshooter]

You say this a lot. You say this everywhere. It's as if you want everybody to know that you think he's incredibly stupid, and that they should all jump aboard your anti-hype train. This is your claim, and yet I have never seen you give a single explanation as to why you think so. It's gotten to the point where I demand a justification for your opinion since you continue to insist upon it. Not liking the way he plays is fine, but this seems so apart from his on-ice conduct that I want to know what I--and supposedly everyone else--am missing. Was he practicing his slapshot against your car or something?

It's strange. Sometimes you make good posts on other topics, and sometimes I agree. And then you'll throw in this venomous jab against Virtanen's IQ out of nowhere. Whenever I see your username, I can't help but picture a heavily blinkered racehorse who shat himself massively while coming down the final straight. 'Cuz that's what I think of your opinion on this matter when you fail to validate it: utter horsecrap.

As for the larger topic at hand: I voted for Gaunce because he's my favourite prospect. There's just something about the way he carries himself on the ice that makes me think he's the future captain of the Canucks. He's not spectacular, but he's really damn solid. So solid that I feel he has 70-point, 1C potential.

 

[The Poacher]

Voted for Jensen because I see him having a really good chance of playing for the Canucks this year.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

Low hockey IQ, sure. But dumb as bricks, like Iridescent has previously mentioned, is going too far. Unless he knows him personally... even then isn't there some sort of board rule for that.

Ya not dumb as bricks, just seems to get tunnel vision in the O zone.

 

[Verviticus]

man i can get behind "shinkaruk is something something" in a bad way (not that i agree with it) but uh

Shinkaruk wouldn't even have gone in the first round of this draft if he was eligible.

this is twiddling your lips level of wrong

 

[Sharpshooter]

Ya not dumb as bricks, just seems to get tunnel vision in the O zone.

If you don't mind enlightening me, do you have an example of this that you've based your post on?

 

[Iridescent*]

I have no problem with the argument that Virtanen has low Hockey IQ; there's a reason he was part of "the rest" when it came to the draft despite scoring 45 goals as a 17-year-old with less than prime minutes. It's just that whenever Iridescent posts about Virtanen, he makes it sound like he believes the kid is incredibly stupid, full stop.

Unfortunately I'm not quite able to give what you're asking. I mean, even if in a hypothetical scenario I knew him and his peers enough to evaluate such a thing, intelligence is a heavily subjective topic. Different people will define it differently, have varying opinions on degrees of intelligence where they define it similarly, and it's really not quantifiable. What I will say is this.

I honestly believe the single most important factor which separates a legit top line player with all the tools from a bottom 6 player with all the tools is intelligence. Why does one guy with all the tools flourish, and another bust? Most times, in my opinion, it's due to intelligence.

I think the single most overlooked factor when drafting is intelligence. Look at Subban. Guy is easily a Mensa level intellect. He's brilliant. Overlooked because of physical/attitude deficiencies and nobody paid much attention to his strong mind. Look where he is now.

To me intelligence absolutely needs to be placed alongside physical tools when selecting prospects. Not as an end all be all, but if you got a guy coming in who clearly colors outside the lines despite having great tools, there should be some hesitation at drafting him early.

That's the best I can give ya on it unfortunately.

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

If you don't mind enlightening me, do you have an example of this that you've based your post on?

If you go through his goals a huge majority are primarily assisted by d-men.

Going back through game vids quite often Virtanen will get the puck from a d-man and just go through everyone.

If you contrast it to Gaunce, he is a guy that looks to make plays.

Some have said this is Virtanen having poor linemates he chose not to use.

Fair enough, that's why I hope he proves me wrong.

 

[Sharpshooter]

Unfortunately I'm not quite able to give what you're asking. I mean, even if in a hypothetical scenario I knew him and his peers enough to evaluate such a thing, intelligence is a heavily subjective topic. Different people will define it differently, have varying opinions on degrees of intelligence where they define it similarly, and it's really not quantifiable. What I will say is this.

I honestly believe the single most important factor which separates a legit top line player with all the tools from a bottom 6 player with all the tools is intelligence. Why does one guy with all the tools flourish, and another bust? Most times, in my opinion, it's due to intelligence.

I think the single most overlooked factor when drafting is intelligence. Look at Subban. Guy is easily a Mensa level intellect. He's brilliant. Overlooked because of physical/attitude deficiencies and nobody paid much attention to his strong mind. Look where he is now.

To me intelligence absolutely needs to be placed alongside physical tools when selecting prospects. Not as an end all be all, but if you got a guy coming in who clearly colors outside the lines despite having great tools, there should be some hesitation at drafting him early.

That's the best I can give ya on it unfortunately.

So basically you were talking out of your backside and can't evidence your claim through your own examples when it comes to Virtanen having low hockey IQ.

If you go through his goals a huge majority are primarily assisted by d-men.

Going back through game vids quite often Virtanen will get the puck from a d-man and just go through everyone.

If you contrast it to Gaunce, he is a guy that looks to make plays.

Some have said this is Virtanen having poor linemates he chose not to use.

Fair enough, that's why I hope he proves me wrong.

Those goals however are because he was simply the most talented forward on his line and had the ability to pick apart the opposing defense. Virtanen shows to be based on that a guy who has the ability and capability to take a pass and score. On the line that he predominantly played with he was the go-to guy yes? Why is it a surprise or a knock on him that when the the team or pass went to him he 'went-for-it'? That's his role and it's not defect.

I do hope however, to at least take your opinion into account, that when he matches up against better opposition alongside better linemates that he is not hesitant to use them in order to make a play in order to get the score without having to be the finisher. Even if he is excels as a finisher, then it's the coach's job to ensure that he's with playmakers, instead of trying to mould him into a playmaker or force him to change what allows him to be successful. Balance is good though, so your concerns I suppose are valid in that sense, but I don't think it's fair to make blanket statements about him or his game in the passing/playmaking dept just yet.

 

[cc]

If you go through his goals a huge majority are primarily assisted by d-men.

Going back through game vids quite often Virtanen will get the puck from a d-man and just go through everyone.

If you contrast it to Gaunce, he is a guy that looks to make plays.

Some have said this is Virtanen having poor linemates he chose not to use.

Fair enough, that's why I hope he proves me wrong.

I'm in the same boat. I can only judge JV on what I see and I didn't see many (any) passing plays. Maybe he was indeed being 'selfish' because he didn't have confidence in his linemates but I don't know if that's such a good thing either. Likewise, I'm hoping he'll prove me wrong next season.

 

[Sharpshooter]

I'm in the same boat. I can only judge JV on what I see and I didn't see many (any) passing plays. Maybe he was indeed being 'selfish' because he didn't have confidence in his linemates but I don't know if that's such a good thing either. Likewise, I'm hoping he'll prove me wrong next season.

Or maybe the highlights that you've watched focus more on his goals than his assists.

He did have 26 assists as well. If you saw 26 assists instead of goals on the youtube vids, would you say that he's a great playmaker?

Everything in context, right?

 

[Iridescent*]

So basically you were talking out of your backside and can't evidence your claim through your own examples when it comes to Virtanen having low hockey IQ.

Not sure whether or not you have poor reading comprehension or just don't like me. But if you'd like I could deconstruct what I wrote.

 

[CanaFan]

I'm in the same boat. I can only judge JV on what I see and I didn't see many (any) passing plays. Maybe he was indeed being 'selfish' because he didn't have confidence in his linemates but I don't know if that's such a good thing either. Likewise, I'm hoping he'll prove me wrong next season.

I think this is the case for many posters and I recall theFeebster (who created one the highlight vids that most of us have seen) lamenting that he didn't put more (any) of Jake's assists in the highlight package. While Virtanen's playstyle is likely more direct than someone like Ehlers who seems to really relish the give and go plays, it wouldn't be all that surprising if this was a result of a talent discrepancy with his linemates. Next year will be telling as he should get more time on the top line and PP.

 

[cc]

Or maybe the highlights that you've watched focus more on his goals than his assists.

He did have 26 assists as well. If you saw 26 assists instead of goals on the youtube vids, would you say that he's a great playmaker?

Everything in context, right?

If I was to rely only on the highlights, that could be the case. But I do read from other people that watch him on a regular basis and I did watch him a little in the U18 as well. The criticism that he doesn't use his linemates as often as he should and that he has been described as having "tunnel vision" is shared by others who have watched him closely. That's not to say he can't learn to use his linemates more effectively in the future, but it's something that he has to work on and it's still a question whether he can.

 

[CanaFan]

If I was to rely only on the highlights, that could be the case. But I do read from other people that watch him on a regular basis and I did watch him a little in the U18 as well. The criticism that he doesn't use his linemates as often as he should and that he has been described as having "tunnel vision" is shared by others who have watched him closely. That's not to say he can't learn to use his linemates more effectively in the future, but it's something that he has to work on and it's still a question whether he can.

Your concerns are fair (IMO) as that is certainly the area where Jake needs to progress his game. I think it was your comment that you haven't seen him "make many (any) passes" that smelled of reliance on his highlight vids which, by virtue of the plays the creator chose, only show his goals. To Sharpshooter's point, Jake did have 26 assists and they weren't all rebounds off of shots he took. He _can_ pass and I think it's unfair when posters make exaggerated claims that he never or almost never passes. It may not be his primary tendency but it's not like he's completely lacking in that area. Heck, he has more assists than Horvat or Lazar had in their draft year and no one ever accused them of being unable to make a pass.

 

[Sharpshooter]

Not sure whether or not you're illiterate, have poor reading comprehension, or just don't like me. But one is surely to blame.

Or you were talking out your backside when you said that Virtanen has low hockey IQ...for which you have no actual personal examples to make such a claim.

Please don't be defensive when you know you're just spouting crap based of other's opinions and not your own actual one.

Edit - By all means elaborate on what you meant or what you're trying to base your opinion off of. I have no problem with that.

 

[Sharpshooter]

If I was to rely only on the highlights, that could be the case. But I do read from other people that watch him on a regular basis and I did watch him a little in the U18 as well. The criticism that he doesn't use his linemates as often as he should and that he has been described as having "tunnel vision" is shared by others who have watched him closely. That's not to say he can't learn to use his linemates more effectively in the future, but it's something that he has to work on and it's still a question whether he can.

Well, aside from the highlights, and both our limited viewings from the U18 coverage, which person's opinion do you pin your opinion on?

Again, why should one use lesser linemates when one has the ability to make the play themselves? There will be a difference in the quality of linemates from the juniors to the pro's, so why shackle a guy with the 'low hockey IQ' label, when he simply gets the job done without assistance?? How many other scorers have also been through something like this that have excelled at the pro level? Are they of low hockey IQ too? Again, context matters.